Running head: AUGUST 28TH 2014 CCSD BOARD MEETING 1

August 28th 2014 CCSD Board Meeting

Jonathan B. Wood

College of Southern Nevada

AUGUST 28th 2014 CCSD BOARD MEETING 2

August 28th 2014 CCSD Board Meeting

On August 28, 2014 CCSD (Clark County School District) held a board meeting in which

pertinent subjects such as procedural information and Educational Law were addressed. The

majority of the board meeting covered topics such as student panels and issues being addressed

by community members. Information pertaining to Educational Law didn’t occur until

approximately 120 minutes into the meeting.

The first topic related to educational law was item 7.02 – 4320, which was defined as a

notice of intent to change the language in the teacher evaluations. The change being suggested

asked that a “1” be considered unsatisfactory and a “2” be considered satisfactory in these

teacher evaluations. This was only to pertain to the 2014-2015 school year. Trustee member

Patrice Tew appeared to be held up on the use of the word “deficiency”. Trustee Tew had

concerns as to the relevance of this word as there are other forms of remediation such as giving

extra assistance or giving constructive help to teachers. It was determined that it did not have any

relevance on the discussion at hand due to the fact that “deficiency” was not a word that could be

voted on for a change as it was already a part of the NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) and

therefore could not be altered. Following this concern the board voted on the change regarding

“One” and “Two” and the motion was carried.

The next item on the agenda 7.03-5152 was pertaining to notice of intent on child abuse

language. Trustee Edwards attempted to clarify wording in the statute pertaining to making a
AUGUST 28th 2014 CCSD BOARD MEETING 3

report of suspected child abuse or neglect. The current statute stated that reports of abuse or

neglect needed to be reported as soon as possible and within 24 hours after. Trustee Edwards felt

that clarification was needed with regards to the last statement. She felt that it needed to be

clarified that the suspected abuse should be reported no later than 24 hours after the abuse had

occurred and that the specific wording be included in the statute. Trustee Edwards required

clarification regarding a policy in which the school district is required to notify CPS (Child

Protective Services) to notify law enforcement in the event of sex trafficking. Trustee Edwards

felt that the school district should not be able to dictate how other agencies conduct their

procedures and the school district should not be required to make this notice to CPS. After

careful review board members agreed to change the wording so that it would not appear to

“order” CPS to complete an action given by the school district. The wording “In Good Faith”

was also considered for change, however it was determined that it could not be changed again,

due to the fact that the wording is part of the NRS document. The motion carried for the

language to be rewritten.

The two items pertinent to Educational Law took approximately 1 ½ hours to complete. It

was interesting observing debates between the trustees and understanding how they came to a

consensus in properly wording documents in a collected effort to not impose on any other

agencies rights. The public comments seemed to be very heated and emotional rather than

logical. These two issues are prime examples of how important it is that the correct and proper

language is upheld in Nevada education law.