Minutes 01/25/2002

JOINT MEETING
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Building D, Room D-152
Community College of Southern Nevada
6375 West Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas
Friday, January 25, 2002

Regents Present: 
Mrs. Thalia Dondero, Chair
Mr. Mark Alden
Dr. Jill Derby
Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher
Mr. Douglas Roman Hill
Mrs. Linda Howard
Dr. Tom Kirkpatrick
Mr. Howard Rosenberg
Mr. Doug Seastrand
Mr. Steve Sisolak

Regents Absent:
Mr. Tom Wiesner (Excused)

Members Present:
Mr. David C. Sheffield, President
Mrs. Jan Biggerstaff
Ms. Peggy Lear Bowen
Dr. John W. Gwaltney
Dr. John Hawk
Dr. Merv Iverson
Mrs. Theresa Malone
Mrs. Priscilla Rocha
Mrs. Marcia Washington
Mr. Gary Waters

Members Absent: 
Ms. Marjan Hajibandeh {student rep.}
Mrs. Barbara Myers

Others present: 
Chancellor Jane Nichols
Vice Chancellor, Finance & Administration Dan Miles
Vice Chancellor, Academic & Student Affairs Richard Curry
General Counsel Tom Ray
President Ron Remington, CCSN
President Stephen Wells, DRI
Interim President Carl Diekhans, GBC
President Richard Moore, NSCH
Interim President Rita Huneycutt, TMCC
President Carol Harter, UNLV
President John Lilley, UNR
Vice President Stan Aman, WNCC
Dr. Jack McLaughlin, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Chief Administrative Officer Suzanne Ernst


Also present were faculty senate chairs Mr. Ruell Fiant, CCSN; Mr. William Albright, DRI; Mr. John Patrick Rice, GBC; Dr. Eun-Woo Chang, TMCC; Dr. Arthur Broten, UCCSN; Dr. Stephen Carper, UNLV; Dr. Paul Neill, UNR; and Mr. Richard Kloes, WNCC. Student government leaders present included Mr. Calvin Hooks, CCSN; Ms. Deborah Faust, GBC; Mr. Paul Moradkhan, UNLV; Ms. Rana Koran, UNLV-GSA; Mr. Matthew Wolden, UNR; Mr. Carlos Ledon, UNR-GSA; and Ms. Leslie Carlen, WNCC.

Chair Thalia Dondero called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. on January 25, 2002 with all members present except Regent Wiesner, who was excused due to illness, and State Board of Education members Ms. Hajibandeh and Mrs. Myers.

1. Review of American Diploma Project - Chancellor Jane Nichols stated that the four principle partners would each describe the reasons for being involved in this national project. She introduced the following persons:

  • Ms. Sheila Byrd, Director, The American Diploma Project.
  • Ms. Debbie Smith, Chairperson of the Standards Council.
  • Dr. Jack McLaughlin, State Superintendent of Instruction.
  • Mr. Mike Hillerby, Governor's staff.
  • Mr. Ray Bacon, Business community.

Chancellor Nichols stated that Governor Guinn had expressed interest in this project because it was central to education. She felt the time was right to address the key issues that the American Diploma Project was designed to address: a seamless education system for all Nevadans and how well P-12 is connected to higher education.

Dr. McLaughlin reported it had been a real challenge to submit the necessary paperwork amid the September 11th crisis. He said the project met the State Board's vision, mission, and philosophy for student achievement, quality education, assessment, and new resources for Nevada. He related that it had been a competitive process with Nevada among the five states selected (Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Texas). He stated that K-12 education had long been criticized about the need for remedial education in college and that the business community complained about having to retrain college graduates to become useful and productive employees. He felt those two issues were key to this project and thanked the Chancellor's office for spearheading the project.

Mr. Michael Hillerby with the Governor's office stated that Governor Guinn supports education and his office had been intrigued by the project. Part of the Governor's work includes the Initiative on Early Learning and Literacy. Mr. Hillerby stated that goals included the assurance that all students could read at grade level upon leaving third grade. He said that this project provided the opportunity to review the entire process, adding that they were looking for holes in the assessment process.

Mr. Ray Bacon stated that he was deeply involved in the education system and the standards process since he discovered that his employees could not do the job due to a lack of basic educational skills. He felt that the American Diploma Project appeared to have the potential to tie the pieces together. The standards are new, the assessments are new, and Nevada has a new Chancellor and State Superintendent. He felt the process of addressing issues would take a while. He noted that larger states could not assemble four separate groups quickly enough and that provided Nevada a viable opportunity. He indicated that many people expressed surprise that Nevada even applied.

Dr. McLaughlin thanked Vice Chancellor Richard Curry for his efforts and introduced Ms. Sheila Byrd, Director of The American Diploma Project. Ms. Byrd stated that she had been working with several organizations that sponsored the project. She reported that the American Diploma Project (ADP) was involved with aligning high school standards with higher education and new economy needs. Four different organizations came together to support standards-based reform efforts. Many felt that federal imposition of standards on states did not work. States began developing their own standards and were still wondering if they had gotten it right (i.e. the right standards, fair assessments of the standards). It was decided to concentrate on what happens next: higher education, work, or join the military. The goal is to determine the states' requirements and help them meet students' needs beyond 12th grade.

There are two main goals associated with the project:

  • Strengthen ongoing standards-based reform efforts at the state level; make standards matter by securing demand from higher education and employers.
  • Help states ensure that they have set the bar for high school graduation in reading, writing and mathematics at the right level.

Ms. Byrd reported that the project was a 2-year grant from the Hewlett Foundation. 
Redefining the American High School Diploma:

  • Start with the non-negotiable "nucleus" of reading, writing and mathematics.
  • Establish a "common currency" for signaling achievement to institutions of higher education and employers within states and, potentially, across states (including the military).
  • A non-governmental effort, grounded in state-level work.

A Unique Collaboration:

  • Achieve, Inc.
  • Education Trust
  • Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
  • National Alliance of Business

What states are asking:

  • How will we know if we have set the bar for high school graduation at the right level? Do our standards and assessments contain the "right stuff"?
  • How can we ensure that all students will take the standards and assessments seriously?

Answers lie in quantifying the demand:

  • Life after high school: What do employers, colleges, and the military need? 75.2% of current high school students are attending college; remediation and training costs; rates of attrition.

ADP Assumptions:

  • It's possible to define reading, writing and math expectations for success in college (i.e. ability to do credit-bearing work-without the need for remediation).
  • It's possible to define reading, writing and math expectations for success in a "high-performance" occupation (i.e., the ability to "move up the ladder").
  • These sets of expectations are converging.

Partner State Commitments:

  • Five state partnership: IN, KY, MA, NV, TX; 15 states applied.
  • Partner state leaders have agreed to rally behind current standards-based systems and to participate in review of current standards and assessments. Importance of K-16 and business coalitions.
  • Business and higher education leaders in partner states agree to use standards-based assessment data in admissions and hiring.

ADP Commitments:

  • Research.
  • Technical Assistance.
  • New Benchmarks - all states may use.

Methodology:

  • Research:
    • Gap analyses - examining partner states' high school exit, college admissions, and placement tests: vis-à-vis state standards.
    • Workplace Studies - making explicit connections between occupational demands and content standards; using real-world work samples.
    • Legal Review: assisting partner states with new frontiers; legal implications of a K-16 system.
  • Technical Assistance:
    • Strengthen K-16 partnerships.
    • Convene cross-sector state panels to review research, examine where their high school exit bar is currently set, and compare it to the needs of higher education, business and the military.
    • Assist state teams as they begin closing gaps and addressing mixed signals, as needed.
    • Communications assistance, white papers, model legislation, toolkits, etc.
  • Development of New Benchmarks:
    • Cross-state advisory process.
    • Establish a national panel that will review and finalize recommendations of cross-state advisory panels.
    • National campaign to encourage other states to use the benchmarks.

Timeline Year One:

  • June - October - Recruit and select states; develop research work plans.
  • October - November - Partner state visits and strategy meeting.
  • November - April - conduct research
    • December - legal research complete.
    • January - State teams meet for gap analysis.
    • March - Gap analyses and workplace studies complete
  • April - June - Statewide panels meet.

Timeline Year Two:

  • June - August - State work plans and case studies.
  • September - Announcement of state plans.
  • October - November - Cross-states advisory process.
  • November - December - Synthesis of cross-state records.
  • January - March - National Advisory Panel meets.
  • April - Circulation of new benchmarks.
  • May - June - Publication of new benchmarks.

Emerging Issues:

  • November Strategy Meeting
    • Increase college enrollment.
    • Diversify economy.
    • Establish a required "college prep" high school curriculum.
    • Ensure a significant role for K-16 councils.
    • Use data effectively: track performance of students in higher education v. standards-based assessments (research agendas).
    • Get the tests right.
    • Get the transcripts right.

Challenges:

  • Character of business expectations.
  • Identifying "best" jobs.
  • What about history, science, arts, etc.?
  • OTL and other civil rights issues.
  • Are new benchmarks for all kids - YES.
  • ESEA-new legislation.

Advantages:

  • Timing.
  • Streamlining costs and content.
  • "Common currency" of the high school diploma.
  • Focus on learning, not teaching.
  • Rewards not punishments.
  • ESEA-new legislation.

Ms. Byrd stated that establishing what they wanted students to know upon high school graduation would help determine what students should be expected to know in grades 3-8. She felt the project could help K-12 and higher education systems streamline costs and the content of their exams.

Regent Alden asked about ongoing review for changes required to the benchmarks. Ms. Byrd replied that they tried to encourage states to review again and establish strong K-16 partnerships. Regent Alden felt it should be revisited and possibly expanded to include other areas.

Regent Howard asked which grade the benchmarks were set for. Ms. Byrd replied that benchmarks were intended for high school exit. She related that some states test at different grades, but they wanted benchmarks to represent high school exit. Regent Howard asked her to elaborate on standards and assessments. Ms. Byrd replied that she was referring to K-12 content standards and assessments administered to test proficiency in those areas.

Ms. Malone asked about tracking college students from a legal perspective. Ms. Byrd replied that because standards-based tests were relatively new, there was not much data on how students perform in college relative to high school. States are encouraged to track those students in college over time so policy decisions can be based on those scores. Ms. Malone requested examples from other Nevada companies participating with the ADP. Ms. Byrd stated that they were encouraging participation from everyone (i.e. gaming, mining, manufacturing, etc.).

Chancellor Nichols asked Dr. John Filler to discuss the trip he took to Texas. Dr. Filler stated that nine people attended gap analysis training in Texas (four from K-12 and five from UCCSN). He reported they worked hard for 5 days and became familiar with the practical aspects of the project (what the tests measure; what current standards are; what tests are used). They reviewed the ACT and SAT tests as well as exams from other states. He said they learned to respect one another and now had insight to what the exam does, what it is good for and its future uses. He reported that the English part of the exam was scored in terms of grade level, content, kind of item, and cognitive challenge of each item. After training, the group reached nearly 100% agreement on all items. He said that he was prepared to continue the project with direction from the two boards.

Chancellor Nichols reported that the project called upon schools, colleges and their faculties to engage in a tremendous amount of work. She related that larger groups of faculty would be used on the project and for finding ways to use tests for placement. She noted that the most pressing need for higher education was remedial education, adding that Nevada does not have a common understanding of the expectations or testing. She related they had asked Nevada's group to concentrate on remedial education and tests for high school students that could indicate the likelihood of their need for remedial education in college.

Ms. Lear Bowen suggested that a more comprehensive definition for college preparatory curriculum was necessary. She felt the overall education of Nevada students seemed to be diminished with the introduction of college preparatory curriculum, since the money followed the demand and application courses (i.e. vocational and business) were diminished because more teachers were required in the core curriculum areas at the expense of teachers in other areas. She stated that students knew theory but not how to apply it. She felt that a college preparatory curriculum should be more comprehensive than reading, writing, and mathematics. Ms. Byrd replied that Ms. Lear Bowen's comments applied to content standards. She felt that determining the contents/ingredients of what kids need to know was a separate issue from delivery, which should be very flexible. Many states feel that now that standards are in place, there should be more time for internships and better methods of learning for students.

Regent Sisolak stated that many parents express concern that students are passing the proficiency tests, receiving Millennium Scholarships, yet were required to attend remedial education at the college level. He asked whether there was a way to coordinate the curriculum between the high school and college level faculty. Many students think they can walk into a university and make it, but are shocked when they arrive. He asked whether an easier transition could be developed by putting the two faculties together. Ms. Lear Bowen stated that the State Board communicates and works with the colleges of education to ensure that curriculum is aligned with the standards they are trying to meet. She felt it could be accomplished. Regent Sisolak suggested having English and Math high school faculty discuss the problems with college level English and Math instructors.

Dr. Hawk stated that many high school students did not take college math initially because they were not strong in that area. He felt it important to close that gap, adding that it also occurred with English courses as well.

Mrs. Rocha felt that it was the counselors' job to guide high school students toward the necessary classes, adding that she felt they were not doing their job. Regent Sisolak asked what could be done to help the situation.

Dr. Gwaltney acknowledged there were many similar stories. He felt the answers might be found in the accumulation of quality data. He was unsure about crossing the boundaries between the two boards. He said that the State Board of Education would soon be able to accumulate "smart data" that would provide information about Nevada's students. He indicated that the deans of the colleges of education at UNR and UNLV had expressed a desire to assist with sorting that information. He acknowledged there was some risk taking with this type of operation. He commended Chancellor Nichols and Superintendent McLaughlin for trying to get the two boards to work together on this important issue, noting unsuccessful efforts from the past.

Regent Rosenberg observed that the attitude of "getting classes out of the way" was contributing to the problem. He felt that students should take Math and English in their first semester or, at least, in their first year of college work. He stated that faculty and students needed to realize that those courses were relevant and necessary. He felt that Chancellor Nichols and State Superintendent McLaughlin would keep a close eye on this issue.

Dr. Merv Iverson felt that the conversation had been elevated to a higher level of significance. He observed the lack of district people present to hear the presentation. He suggested getting the message to key district people. He felt there was a need for common agreement for continuity and collaboration.

Ms. Malone suggested a quick fix proposal of putting the matter in the hands of higher education. She recommended the use of pre-requisite courses while they wait for the data to come in.

Mrs. Washington commended the staff for putting the meeting together. She asked whether the students that Regent Sisolak was concerned about had taken college preparatory courses and were still not prepared. Regent Sisolak replied that they were students who received Millennium Scholarships and had intentions of attending the university or community college. They passed the proficiency tests, but were shocked (parents and students) at how unprepared they were for college level work. He agreed with Dr. Hawk that the gap in time between taking math in high school and then in college could be the answer. He felt there should be a way to inform students where they are prior to moving to the next level.

Regent Hill observed there were a number of issues the two boards could discuss together. He suggested that Chancellor Nichols and Superintendent McLaughlin develop a joint proposal for consideration of the two boards. He proposed making a commitment to working towards resolution of some of the issues. Chancellor Nichols expressed her gratitude for the suggestion.

2. K-16 Collaboration Agreement - Chancellor Nichols reported that the two boards came together in 1997 and developed an agreement to solve problems together. She acknowledged that the two boards had worked together on the standards and teacher preparation issues, accomplishing quite a bit. She related that it had been 5 years ago and did not address remediation. She asked the two boards to review a new agreement for collaboration and to identify the areas of preferred concentration. She referenced the UCCSN's "How to Get into College" draft brochure (June 2002), noting that it had been envisioned five years ago and was finally a reality. The draft brochure provided a step-by-step guide for Nevada middle, junior, and high school levels. Chancellor Nichols stated that the brochure was being distributed to schools in Nevada. Once the final draft is approved, UCCSN would like to distribute the brochure to every student and parent with annual updates. Various grants helped pay for the brochure. She then introduced Mr. Keith Row, Deputy Superintendent with the Department of Education, and Dr. Richard Curry, adding that they worked very hard on the latest collaborative opportunity.

Mr. Row stated that passage of the Nevada Education Reform Act in 1997 provided a great opportunity for the two boards to begin working together. He referenced Ref. BB (on file in the Board office) adding that he would point out some of the changes between the previous collaborative agreement and the new one.

  • "P"-16 has replaced "K"-16. The Department of Education is doing a lot more work with early childhood education. The "P" indicates pre-kindergarten.
  • Seven key issues to be concentrated upon over the next five years:
    • The need for all students to achieve higher levels of academic success.
    • Lower academic success rates and standardized test scores of African American, Latino, and Native American students.
    • The lower academic success rates and standardized test scores of children from families with low socio-economic status.
    • The high dropout rate for high school students.
    • The low college-going rate of high school graduates.
    • The high number of students placed in remedial course work upon entry to postsecondary education.
    • The low rate of persistence through to graduation.

Mr. Row related that they were just reaching the implementation phase, and those seven items (from the previous agreement) needed to be concentrated upon. New issues included:

    • The need for graduates from both P-12 and higher education systems that meet the expectations of employers of the state in all business sectors.
    • The need to use UCCSN and State data systems to evaluate Nevada data for research-based reforms.
    • The need for professional development of teachers that will support the success of students.

Mr. Row related that the State Board of Education was responsible for setting the standards for colleges of education programs within the state. New standards were adopted in March 2000 that have been implemented, but are not yet field-tested. He said that the new standards were performance-based standards. They would now look for internships, externships, student teaching, and performance to determine whether the student can teach when they leave the System. He reported that UNLV would be evaluated with the new standards within a year or two. Mr. Row stated that standards had been developed for each discipline (English, Math, Social Studies, Science, Arts, Technology) with help from representatives from UCCSN institutions. He reviewed the following strategies:

  • Strategy I - Need to implement standards developed with help from UCCSN representatives. Establish timeline to review and update standards on a regular systematic basis.
  • Strategy II - Work to implement policies that tie professional development content for license renewal to standards and work with State Board of Education to align the program approval process for all teacher preparation programs to academic standards. Report cards being developed.
  • Strategy III - Utilize existing systems to track data on students. Occupational Reporting System is working with UCCSN to see if graduates are successful and whether they remain in Nevada.
  • Strategy IV - all new. Mentor teachers, programs to support new teachers, leadership programs that focus on standards, assessment of effectiveness of standards for P-16, business mentors for school, teachers, and students, and other initiatives.
    Mr. Row indicated that the American Diploma Project actually addressed all of these strategies. He advocated the use of a statewide P-16 council to accomplish the tasks. He was hopeful the two boards could work together in applying for federal funds.

Regent Sisolak left the meeting.

Regent Howard asked about Board involvement with pre-kindergarten. Mr. Row replied that UCCSN offers programs that train teachers in the colleges of education. He indicated that the earlier students were able to meet the new standards it would benefit everyone, which was the intent of the early childhood movement. He explained that the Board's main connection was the training of enough qualified teachers to fill the need within the state. Regent Howard asked how it would be accomplished, with Mr. Row replying that comprised the next steps.

Dr. Richard Curry reported that the Board's Academic, Research, and Student Affairs Committee had discussed the subject of remediation or developmental education. This will continue to be the focus of that committee for some time. He said the committee also explored possible policy questions relating to the 4th year with no math. The committee also discussed the possibility of using the proficiency test (or some other form) for early diagnostics for students in 10th and 11th grade. He related that, if students knew they were falling short, they would probably take math in their senior year. He suggested designing joint studies to see how the two entities were working together (i.e. learning experiences/patterns of students not requiring remediation). Dr. Curry related they had started a serious and continued commitment to study and review policy and action, which would be greatly enhanced by working together with the State Board of Education.

Regent Derby stated that she was very committed to determining patterns for remediation and whether remedial students performed better than non-remedial students. She felt it would provide a rich source of data from which policy could be developed.

Mr. Sheffield observed the need to understand some of the differences between early and postsecondary education. He felt there were issues on the undergraduate side. The proficiency exams serve different purposes than the SAT or ACT (diagnostic tools). As Nevada is less diversified in its economy one sees P-12 coming together with the University System. He observed the need for advice on what to do with students who fall below the 50th percentile, adding that even if they did not go on to college, the public school system still had to do something with them to make them productive. He observed that most Nevada industries do not require higher education.

Mrs. Rocha complimented the brochure but expressed concern for the non-English speaking community and how they would encourage their children when they did not have an education themselves. She said that minority families did not realize how important a higher education is. Chancellor Nichols stated that the brochure would also be published in Spanish, but acknowledged that this concern was a deeper issue.

Regent Kirkpatrick stated that educational systems were resistant to change. He asked about strategies/policies that could be developed to effect change. Dr. Gwaltney replied that a number of UCCSN professors had already reached out to the public school system. One science teacher grades his students on their ability to teach younger students about science. Dr. Gwaltney felt that quality data would provide the answers. He felt it important to encourage faculty to reach across the schism as well as to ensure that proper goals were established and could be defended.

Dr. Merv Iverson was impressed that the two boards were collaborating and had the capacity to improve education in the state. He acknowledged that some things were just restated resolutions. He felt the structure should be clearly identified, adding that the next step was to define that structure. He suggested relying upon the State Superintendent to exercise control over district superintendents.

Dr. Jim Coleman, Vice President for Research and Business Development-DRI, spoke on behalf of the EPSCoR program. He related that EPSCoR was about to launch a $13 million program, with approximately $2 million dedicated to the effort of getting underrepresented groups in K-12 into science majors. He related that the Eisenhower Panel and DRI's NSTEP (Nevada Science Teachers Enhancement Project) program were examples of programs working together and suggested that the two boards could work together to notify others about those programs and what they were accomplishing.

Regent Rosenberg felt that a lot of resistance to change was part of the system itself. He suggested that, once an idea had been through the proper committee, it could be incorporated into the schedule, rather than wait for it to be printed in the catalog, which would accelerate the process (i.e. implementing prerequisites).

Regent Dondero suggested including the county school boards in the process as well.

Regent Howard drew attention to the achievement data included for the next agenda item (CASA-Center for Accelerating Student Achievement). She was disturbed by the data, noting that the gap between white and minority students was widening in math. She hoped that the collaboration would incorporate efforts for closing those gaps. She stated that it also involved students on the lower end of the socio-economic scale.

Mr. Sheffield stated that the State Board would direct State Superintendent McLaughlin to work together with the Chancellor on this project.

Mrs. Biggerstaff thanked the Board, adding that she felt it was a great effort. She suggested that faculty teaching potential teachers should shadow an elementary school teacher to see what a classroom environment is like.

3. Center for Accelerating Student Achievement - Dr. McLaughlin introduced Dr. Gene Hall, Dean, College of Education-UNLV, and Dr. Karlene McCormick-Lee, representing Clark County. He stated that he spent many years studying the achievement gap, adding that it was a national challenge that is not addressed very well. He stated there was currently no partnering in the nation to work on solutions. He felt they should start with a collaborative effort to forecast the necessary funding. He stated that CASA was a collaborative project between the Nevada State Department of Education, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the Clark County School District.

Dr. Hall stated that the CASA concept was developed as a vision of shared goals, common responsibilities, and coordinated efforts on a single focus. Four major initiatives will be addressed: literacy, science, mathematics, and accountability. He was pleased with the collaboration.

Dr. McLaughlin stated that Dr. McCormick-Lee had been the state facilitator through Clark County and had been a tremendous help. Dr. McCormick-Lee reported that she volunteered to help on this project. The three organizations are focused on shared goals of improving and accelerating students' achievement and also have common responsibilities to the teachers, community and the students. She reported that Project A+ was intended to develop, implement, and evaluate best instructional practices for empowering all students to become architects of their own future. She noted that Nevada ranks 32nd out of 39 states with standardized test scores. 47% of the students cannot read well enough to learn fourth grade reading assignments. She acknowledged that children from lower socio-economic class families, and from minority and linguistically different groups, are achieving at a much lower rate. She related that the statistics were similar for math and science. She reported that the purpose of CASA was to build capacity by interpreting and using data, building teacher knowledge and skills, targeting intervention on low-performing students and schools, and leveraging resources. Goals include:

  • Identify weaknesses and strengths.
  • Determine best practices.
  • Improve instruction.
  • Eliminate the achievement gap.
  • Directed services.

She felt it was an extraordinary possibility to have all three organizations focusing their goals on one area. She felt it could provide enhanced accountability, student targeted efforts, and would allow common use of resources. CASA is focusing on outreach programs, identifying programs of instruction, professional development for teachers and administrators, disseminating the information to assist teachers, parents and schools. CASA hopes to serve as a research base for the region. CASA is currently seeking funding, clarifying goals, establishing priorities, and strengthening relationships between the three organizations.

Regent Alden suggested that the school superintendents of each district would need to buy into this concept quickly, as would their boards and superintendents. He also felt that an oversight group should be formed to review the progress of the project comprised of members from both boards. He volunteered to be part of that group.

Chancellor Nichols related that she and Dr. McLaughlin would return with recommendations for the implementation strategy.

Regent Gallagher was encouraged by the recent turn of events. She acknowledged that joint meetings had been held in the past, with little being accomplished. She felt that something might actually be accomplished this time because of the leadership from both boards.

Ms. Lear Bowen suggested naming the CASA project NEW - Nevada Education Works to symbolize the two boards working collaboratively. She noted that teachers were in the business of educating students and teaching them how to learn. She suggested the UCCSN could offer courses now and the public school system would send teachers. She felt that public school students should be welcomed on campus and that college students should be aware of the needs in the public school system, adding that it was a two-way street.

Dr. Hawk felt the need for seamless assessment. He too volunteered his services for any subcommittees. He felt a proposal should be developed showing how to achieve high school programs offered for college credit. He felt that a seamless transition from high school to college should improve the number of enrollments.

Regent Seastrand observed the need for the proper leadership to make things happen. He was pleased that the Chancellor and State Superintendent were working together. He affirmed his belief in seamless transition, adding that it was all education.

Regent Hill left the meeting.

4. Public Comment - Ms. Kathleen Frosini, Director of Career and Technical Education, Clark County School District, commended the two boards working together. She commented about a long-time collaboration called Tech Prep. They work with each community college and the school districts in trying to derive a seamless transition for students. Students receive college credit for course work completed in high school for competency-based programs in various career and technical programs. She noted that many issues discussed relative to collaboration was already ongoing in their career and technical programs between teachers. She expressed hope that the two boards would consider this program when they met again.

5. New Business - State Board President Sheffield formally directed Dr. McLaughlin to work with Chancellor Nichols on this issue. Chair Dondero stated that the Board would do the same.

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.


Suzanne Ernst
Chief Administrative Officer to the Board