Page 1 of 20

EXECUTIVE LIMITATION 1.1 –

TREATMENT OF STUDENTS, PARENTS, PUBLIC, AND COMMUNITY

To: Board of Education

From: Superintendent – DCSD

Re: Internal Monitoring Report – Treatment of Public

I hereby present my monitoring report on our Treatment of Public Executive Limitation 1.1 in

accordance with the monitoring schedule as set forth in Board policy. I certify the information in this

report is true.

Signed: ___________________________ Date: October 17, 2008

Superintendent – DCSD

Page 2 of 20

EXECUTIVE LIMITATION 1.1 TREATMENT OF STUDENTS, PARENTS, PUBLIC, AND

COMMUNITY

With respect to treatment of students or those applying to enroll as students, the

Superintendent shall not cause or allow conditions which are unfair, unsafe, undignified, or

fail to provide appropriate confidentiality and privacy.

Interpretations:

I interpret “

treatment”

to mean the procedures, actions and processes related to student

enrollment, school rules and student discipline, school safety and security measures, and

emergency response and crisis management measures. I interpret

“students or those applying

to be students”

to mean all children and young adults served by staff and programs of the

Douglas County School district, including preschool children, students enrolled in kindergarten

through twelfth grade programs, young adults ages 18 to 21 served in DCSD special

education programs, and students who are seeking enrollment in district programs. I interpret

“conditions”

to mean existing circumstances which could have been reasonably foreseen. I

interpret

“unfair”

as a violation of the due process provisions in the Student Rights and

Responsibilities: Code of Conduct and Discipline handbook and policies, inconsistent rates of

school discipline across schools of the same level, and perceptions of unfairness of rules and

discipline by students, and violations of State Law as it pertains to discriminatory practices

regarding enrollment. I interpret

“unsafe”

in two ways: how our students and parents believe

their school environment is free from both physical harm and emotional harm like bullying and

intimidation; and conditions that actually or potentially result in physical or emotional harm. I

interpret

“undignified

” as both students and adults not respecting our students. I interpret

“failing to provide appropriate confidentiality and privacy”

as the unauthorized release of

protected student information.

Report

Data:

Douglas County School District is in its second phase of data collection. The District has conducted

parent and student surveys at each school for the past two years. Survey responses reflect the

parents’ and students’ perspective of their school. 384 responses are necessary for a 95%

confidence level based on industry standards given our stakeholder population. The 2008 Surveys

met or exceeded this response benchmark. The margin of error for this survey is +/- 5%. Negative

ratings (disagree or strongly disagree) on the will not exceed 20%. The threshold of 20% is set as a

baseline data perceptual value. However, given the margin of error, issues exceeding 5% above the

threshold will be reviewed, while issues exceeding 15% above the threshold will be addressed.

Unfair:

•

Appeals for due process violations:

During the reporting period, there were no appeals of

student discipline to either the Board of Education or to state or federal court where District

administration was found to have violated the student’s due process rights.

•

Advisement of due process rights:

Standards of conduct and due process procedures are

contained in the Code of Conduct which is delivered annually to all student households and

is posted on the District’s website. Standard correspondence used in cases of referral for

expulsion also contains due process advisements. Copies of these forms are consolidated in

the District’s intranet under “Safety, Discipline and Emergency Preparedness.”

•

Rates of discipline among buildings of the same level:

Schools of the same level should have

similar rates of discipline. Control limits for student discipline per 1,000 students are defined

Page 3 of 20

as beyond two standard deviations from the mean. Not more than 10% of schools should be

out of control limits in any one year. During the reporting period 58 of 59, or 98% of the

District’s regular education schools exhibited rates of state reportable discipline per 1000

students within control limits. One elementary school continues to be outside of control limits,

although the school’s rate has decreased since last year. Learning Services is continuing to

work with this school, implementing corrective actions to bring this school into compliance.

Three Year Elementary Discipline Control Chart

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

School

Discipline per 1000 students

School 3 Yr Average

Dist 3 Year Average

+1 SD

-1 SD

+2 SD

+3 SD

Three Year Middle School Discipline Control Chart

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

School

Discipline per 1000 Students

3 yr School Avg

Dist 3 yr Avg

+1 SD

+2 SD

+3 SD

-1 SD

-2 SD

Page 4 of 20

Three Year High School Discipline Control Chart

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

School

Discipline per 1000 Students

3 yr. School Avg.

3 yr. Dist. Avg.

+1 SD

- 1 SD

+ 2 SD

-2 SD

+3 SD

•

Perceptions of fairness in schools:

The 2007-08 DCSD Student Survey found 14% of

students believed that school administrators inadequately communicated rules and

expectations, 2% were unclear about school rules, 10% believed school rules were unfair

and 12% felt teachers were unfair. The standard target is less than 20% strongly disagree or

disagreeing with these statements.

See table below (lower is better).

Question

(Strongly Disagree or Disagree)

2006

2007

2008

Administrators clearly communicate rules and expectations for students. 11% 13% 14%

I am clear about the rules at my school. NA 4% 2%

The rules at my school are fair. 10% 10% 10%

My teachers are fair. 14% 13% 12%

For survey demographics, see Appendix A.

Page 5 of 20

Unsafe:

•

Discipline for serious infractions:

Compared to the top ten most populous districts, Douglas

County, ranked third in student population, also ranks third in number of infractions per 1,000

students. Data is from 2006-07, the latest available on the CDE website. Note items in red.

Following the submission of data to CDE, it was discovered that a change in reporting

parameters instituted within the DCSD system inaccurately inflated discipline data. Staff was

reporting every contact with a student on discipline issues (whether or not those cases were

state reportable) in the “other action taken” category. These additional 12,000 “other actions”

as well as other inaccuracies in reporting methods for 06-07, which have since been

corrected, erroneously pushed DCSD’s ranking to third in number of infractions. If the

incorrect data is removed from the calculations, DCSD would rank as number 9 or 10 in

discipline as in previous years.

See table below.

District

2006-07

Membership

Ranking

Disciplinary

Infractions*

Discipline per

1,000 Students

Discipline

Ranking

Jefferson County 86,182 1 6,256 73 7

Denver 73,053 2 9,083 124 4

Douglas County

52,983

6,984

131

Cherry Creek 50,631 4 4,383 87 6

Adams 12 38,821 5 4,110 106 5

Aurora 33,573 6 5,074 151 2

Colorado Springs 29,518 7 4,516 153 1

Boulder Valley 28,696 8 1,137 40 10

Poudre 25,610 9 1,614 63 8

St. Vrain 24,582 10 1,129 46 9

* Includes incidents where students received in or out of school suspension, classroom removal, expulsion or referral to

law enforcement.

In a review of 2007-08 data, the error in reporting was corrected. Discipline data is back in the range

for DCSD.

•

Security staffing and training:

During the reporting period, all high schools had security staff

levels of not less that 1 per 500 students and all middle schools had security staff levels of

not less than 1 per 500 students. (A poll of the school security directors in the Denver Metro

area showed staffing ratios at secondary schools between 1:275 and 1:600). 100% of school

security staff was trained in nonviolent crisis intervention, first aid/automated external

defibrillator use, and search and seizure and domestic security measures.

•

Emergency preparedness:

During the reporting period, 100% of schools (both charter and

regular) had emergency response and crisis management (ERCM) plans on file with DCSD

Security. 100% of principals and assistant principals were trained in ERCM according to

federal and state standards of all-hazards emergency management. 100% of security staff

Douglas County

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

Teacher Removal from

Classroom

7 12 7

In-School Suspension

352 599 667

Out of School Suspension

1,527 1,562 1,984

Expulsion

118 61 95

Referred to Law Enforcement

77 117 191

Other Action Taken

368 15,680 240

Habitually Disruptive 1 0 0

Unduplicated Total

1,789 6,984 1,922

Duplicated Total

2,450 18,031

Page 6 of 20

was trained in ERCM and in

Emergency Preparedness

. New administrators were trained in

October 2007.

•

Playground safety:

Playground accident data are not reported in a consistent way from

district to district and national data reflects accidents occurring on school playgrounds as well

as public (non-supervised) playgrounds. Since industry standards are not applicable or

transferable, we report on annual rates of playground accidents per 1,000 students. The

control limit is a total accident rate under 7 per 1,000 students in any one year. This would

mean that an elementary school student would have less than 1% chance of being involved

in a reportable playground accident in any given year. During the reporting period there were

5.6 total accidents per 1,000 students, accidents requiring release from school were 1.7 per

1,000 students, and accidents requiring medical attention were 2.4 per 1,000 students, well

within the control limits described above.

•

School bus safety:

Compared to the other Front Range Districts in the 2006-07 Oehm

Transportation Study, Douglas County School District had the second lowest rate of bus

accidents during the reporting period. Ranked first in student miles driven, Douglas County

ranked second lowest in accidents per 100,000 student miles. In total accident reporting

incidents are also included which is damage less than $100.00. Accident/Incident is defined

with the NHTSA as contact with an object.

See table below.

School District

Student

Miles

Injury

Accidents

Preventable

Property

Damage

Accidents

Non-

Preventable

Property

Damage

Accidents

Total

Accidents

Accident

Rate per

100,000

miles

Accident

Rank

Student

Miles Rank

Adams 12 1,255,938 0 24 12 36 1.91 1 6

Boulder 2,017,049 0 31 16 47 1.47 3 4

Cherry Creek 2,522,589 2 38 14 52 1.5 2 3

Douglas

3,883,031

.61

Littleton 713,283 1 8 3 11 1.12 5 7

Denver 3,614,708 3 20 34 54 .55 7 2

St. Vrain 1,325,756 0 18 11 29 1.35 4 5

•

Perception of safe environments:

The 2007-08 DCSD Student Survey found 6% of students

did not feel safe at school, 7% did not feel safe going to and from school, 7% felt that their

administrators tolerated inappropriate behavior, and 7% did not know how to respond to

bullying or intimidation. The standard target is less than 20% strongly disagree or

disagreeing with these statements.

See table below (lower is better).

Question

(Strongly Disagree or Disagree)

2006

2007

2008

I feel safe at school. 7% 7% 6%

I feel safe going to and from school. 7%

7% 7%

Administrators at my school do not tolerate inappropriate behavior. 7%

6% 7%

I know how to respond to someone who tries to bully or intimidate me. 7%

7% 7%

Undignified:

•

The 2007-08 DCSD Student Survey found, 22% did not think others treated them with

respect, 6% did not think their teachers cared about them as a person, 18% did not think

administrators treated them with respect, and 10% did not think coaches and sponsors

promoted good character and ethical behavior. The standard target is less than 20% strongly

disagree or disagreeing with these statements.

See table below (lower is better).

Page 7 of 20

One survey question, “Others treat me with respect even when I look and think differently from

them” is trending in the wrong direction and is outside of the 20% threshold. Since this issue does

not exceed 5% above the threshold, the item will be investigated to see if this trend is localized

(school or feeder) or if other data points (discipline) show the same trend.

Failing to provide appropriate confidentiality and privacy:

Administrative procedures JRA-JRC have been adopted by the Board of Education, and define what

and when student information may be released. During the reporting period, no unauthorized

releases of protected student information were discovered.

Question

(Strongly Disagree or Disagree)

2006

2007

2008

Others treat me with respect even when I look and think differently from them. 16% 19%

22%

My teachers care about me as a person. 7% 8% 6%

Administrators at my school treat me with respect. 18% 16% 18%

In my experience, coaches and sponsors at my school promote good character

and ethical behavior.

10% 9% 10%

I report compliance.

Page 8 of 20

With respect to the District’s interactions with student, parents, public, and community

constituents or any of their organizations, the Superintendent shall not cause or allow

procedures or decisions that are unfair, undignified, or unresponsive.

Interpretations:

I interpret “

interactions”

as communications between the District and various stakeholder

groups identified above.

“Students”

are defined in the interpretation of 1.1 above.

“Parents

” are

parents or guardians of DCSD students.

“Community constituents or any of their

organizations”

are non-parent Douglas County residents. The

“Public”

are stakeholders who

interact with the District who are not otherwise represented in the above groups.

“Procedures or decisions”

are steps and practices that lead to determinations. I interpret

“unfair”

as not informing community constituents regarding procedures and decisions or not

following the procedures.

“Undignified”

is not valuing input from these stakeholders.

“Unresponsive”

is not considering feedback from these stakeholder groups.

Report

Data:

The District has established procedures regarding steps and practices that lead to determinations or

decisions. These procedures include:

1) Form a cross-functional team

2) Define scope and purpose of team

3) Solicit feedback from impacted stakeholders

4) Provide information, consider feedback and make recommendations

5) Communicate the decision

Parents and students continue to be Douglas County School District’s priority since they are our

primary “stakeholders.” We now have adequate monitoring of interactions with this group.

We have established a system for monitoring interactions with the community in the form of the

District’s Key Communicator Network. We are currently in the process of establishing systems to

more accurately monitor interactions with the public.

Unfair:

•

Interpreted as not informing students, parents, public, and community constituents regarding

procedures and decisions.

The District’s steps for informing student groups regarding procedures and decisions include

communicating via:

•

School-based student newspapers

•

Updates to District website

The District’s steps for informing parent groups regarding procedures and decisions include

communicating via:

•

District Newsletter (

Newsline

)

•

School-based newsletters

•

Updates to District website

•

Messaging via Parent Portal

Page 9 of 20

The District’s steps for informing public and community groups regarding procedures and decisions

include communicating via:

•

Key Communicator group to their contacts

District Newsletter (

Newsline

)

•

Updates to District website

•

News Releases to local media when appropriate

Parent and Student:

Community:

In an effort to further interact with non-parent community constituents and the public, DCSD revamped

its Key Communicator Network (KCN) in the 2007-08 school year. KCN includes parents, non-parents

of Douglas County, business owners and the general public. At this time, no members live outside of

Douglas County. The KCN receives ongoing (weekly to bi-monthly) communication regarding

procedures and decisions made by DCSD, its leaders and the Board of Education.

Newsline

, the District’s weekly newsletter, is shared electronically via email with a database of 3,500

external email addresses. Additionally, media outlets (from on-line YourHub.com to daily regional

papers and TV stations), Key Communicators, and all staff receive the weekly newsletter. News and

information on procedures and decisions is also shared on the front page of the District’s website on a

weekly basis. ITS data shows from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008 www.dcsdk12.org had:

•

4,904,049 visits from 155 countries/territories

On average, 13,399 visits per day

This number is up 50.50% from the previous year's traffic

•

12,059,113 page views

This number is 36.21% from the previous year's traffic

13.58% of the visits(662,788) were new visitors to the site

Peak traffic day was April 10, 2008 with 19,299 visits

Public:

Monitoring interactions with the public is in progress. The process has started with monitoring of

media stories. DCSD is responsive to local, regional and national media outlets by providing official

statements, news releases, event advisories and providing opportunities for media interviews. Of the

total number of stories covered during the reporting period, 60% were labeled “positive” exposure for

DCSD, 16% “negative,” and 24% were labeled “neutral.” Neutral stories were primarily statements of

facts regarding situations that neither paint DCSD in a negative nor positive light. Additionally,

“negative” stories did not reflect DCSD’s ability or willingness to provide information or be responsive;

in fact, it typified stories about bad news (student accidents or death, student or staff impropriety, etc.)

Source

Question

(Strongly Disagree or Disagree)

2006

2007

2008

Parent

The district communicates important decisions about new schools and

district initiatives prior to implementation.

NA 9% 14%

Parent I know what my student’s teacher expects of him/her. 9% 9% 9%

Student I know what my teacher expects of me. 4% 5% 6%

Parent I am informed about my student’s progress in school. 9% 9% 8%

Student I know how I am doing in my classes. 10% 8% 6%

Parent I am satisfied with the communication I receive from this school. NA 12% 13%

Page 10 of 20

Media Coverage

60%

24%

16%

Neutral

Positive

Negative

Undignified:

•

Interpreted as not valuing input from students, parents, public, and community constituents

regarding procedures and decisions.

Parent and Student:

In the 2007-08 school year, the Board of Education’s Student Advisory Group was tasked with

developing DCSD’s Community Service Graduation Requirement policy (

Superintendent file IKF-R-3)

25 students met 16 times. The students developed an action plan that considered student survey

results relative to the community service requirement, reviewed current implementation, forms,

processes; surveyed current students and counselors to gather feedback; researched other

community service programs across the country; studied the topic of “service learning;” analyzed

information and made a recommendation regarding the regulation for Community Service to the

Board of Education.

As a result of feedback, the Board adopted a regulation regarding Community Service. Students

recommended a uniform way to document the service graduation requirement for every school in

DCSD which included the same form, and guidelines. The new regulation also set a minimum number

of hours (2) for service activities and a maximum (5 hours) completed for a school organization or

from a faculty member.

Parent, Student and Community:

In the 2007-08 school year, DCSD surveyed parents, students, community constituents and the public

regarding issues impacting the organization. Stakeholders were notified about the availability of the

survey via email, District

Newsline

, school-based newsletters, and the District website. There were

more than 4,550 respondents (2,740 Parent; 258 Student; 101 Community; 62 Other). Stakeholders

were asked to provide feedback on issues including school day start/end times, four-track calendars,

school year start date, educational options, cyclical bond/budget elections, and staff development

which impacts instructional time.

Public:

Douglas County School District (DCSD) continues to seek community and public input on processes.

DCSD is currently examining opportunities to improve and enhance the design of their current

elementary school prototype. For example, DCSD partnered with the Colorado State Department of

Construction Management, architect and design firms and the Governor’s Energy Office to generate

Source

Question

(Strongly Disagree or Disagree)

2006

2007

2008

Parent The school’s administrators listen to my ideas and suggestions. 11% 11% 15%

Parent School administrators treat parents with respect. 6% 6% 8%

Student Administrators at my school treat me with respect. 18% 16% 18%

Page 11 of 20

overall goals for the future DCSD elementary schools. The group of 21 began their collaborative work

in July 2008. The Governor’s Energy Office (GEO) will be allocating a $20,000 grant to DCSD to help

drive energy efficiency strategies, including funding the initial design Charrette. Participants were able

to brainstorm overall goals, break down into smaller groups to develop more specific targets and

tactics for those goals in the areas of energy use, construction site use and materials, indoor

environmental quality, water consumption, and overall design. (See Appendix B)

DCSD’s current elementary prototype will be eligible to receive incentives through the Energy Design

Assistance (EDA) program once built inside XCEL Energy territory, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.

This program provides free energy modeling and rebates based on modeled peak demand (kW)

reduction.

According to the document released, “many of the ideas generated in the brainstorming session will

prove valuable and ultimately be incorporated into the design of the buildings. It is important to note

that due to the generative nature of the brainstorming session, some ideas may not be feasible. The

design team will work together to consider and evaluate which strategies are most appropriate for a

given project.”

Integrated building designs will be based on input from construction, design, landscaping, engineering

and civil experts as well as the building users.

Unresponsive:

•

Interpreted as not considering feedback from Douglas County parents, residents and

taxpayers.

•

During the reporting period, there were 8 significant issues requiring staff to address parents

and staff and their concerns on multiple occasions. However, none of these contacts were the

result of unresponsiveness.

•

The District continues to utilize a tool called Feedback Central which provides stakeholders

with direct links to operational department emails with requests for information or complaints.

These links are based on the subject matter of the feedback. Between August 2007 and June

2008 the District received almost 553 unique comments, pieces of feedback, or complaints

from stakeholders. There were no comments, pieces of feedback, or complaints received

regarding responsiveness.

Source

Question

(Strongly Disagree or Disagree)

2006

2007

2008

Parent The district is responsive to my questions, comments, and concerns. NA 11% 13%

I report compliance.

Page 12 of 20

2.85

3.16

3.4

3.57

4.03

4.47

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Mean Value

Cyclical budget and bond elections

Staff develop impacting instructional time

Opportunities for educational options

School year start date

School start time

School calendars

"Key Issue" items ranked by importance (1=lowest,

5=highest)

Accordingly, the Superintendent shall not:

1.1.1 Neglect community opinion on relevant issues including new choice/options and

facilities.

Interpretation:

I interpret “n

eglect community opinion”

as not considering stakeholder (Douglas County

students, parents, public, community constituents and their organizations) feedback regarding

District decisions. I interpret “r

elevant issues”

as topics during the monitoring period (school

year 2007-2008) that have significant public interest, require public funding or public support,

or damage the District’s public image. I interpret “n

ew choice/options and facilities,”

as new

programming for housing students.

Report

Data:

During the 2007-2008 school year, the relevant issues included:

Significant public interest:

Implementation of DCSD World Language program

The District conducted a survey of Douglas County Voters through Frederick Polls in June 2006. There

were 400 respondents at a 95% confidence level.

Survey Data showed:

•

71% support World Language instruction in Elementary schools

The successful budget election provided funding support to introduce world language instruction at the

elementary level.

In the 2007-08 school year, approximately 4,000 students at 9 schools (Buffalo Ridge, South, Cougar

Run, Northridge, Rock Ridge, Legacy Point, Lone Tree, Mammoth Heights, Pine Grove) and the

Discovery Program at 5 schools implemented a World Language (Spanish and Mandarin Chinese).

Implementation continues in the 2008-09 school year with the addition of 12 schools serving 6,000 more

students. 2006 voter approved funds provided for the launch of the program into the elementary school

level. Additional funding will be necessary to accomplish full implementation across the School District.

Key Issues Survey

As DCSD prepared to celebrate its 50

Anniversary as a reorganized school district in

the 2008-09 school year, stakeholders were

invited to take part in a survey to provide

feedback on issues impacting the

organization. The survey addressed the

following topics:

•

School day start times

•

School calendars

•

School year starting date

•

Cyclical Budget and Bond elections

•

Opportunities for educational options

•

Staff development that impacts

classroom instruction

Stakeholders were notified about the availability of the survey via email, District

Newsline

, school-based

newsletters, and the District website. There were more than 4,550 respondents (2,740 Parent; 258

Student; 101 Community; 62 Other). For details about survey demographics, see Appendix A. The top

Page 13 of 20

72.5%

80.2%

22.9%

12.1%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly support/support Strongly oppose/oppose

Comparison of support for operating all schools on

conventional calendar

Follow 4-track (N=1,079)

Follow Conventional (N=1,886)

three issues identified were:

School Calendars (4-track year round schools); School day start times; and

school year starting date. The most significant issue was elimination of the 4-track, year-round calendar.

•

76%

of all respondents support or strongly support eliminating 4-track.

•

79%

of the 477 respondents

who identified themselves as

following both the

4-track and

conventional calendar

support

or strongly support this option,

while

15%

oppose or strongly

oppose.

•

Of the

who strongly

oppose eliminating 4-track,

52%

were parents and

19%

were staff.

57%

were elementary

level

56%

live in Highlands

Ranch

45%

follow 4-track calendars

39%

follow conventional calendars

•

The most common comment for those strongly opposing eliminating 4-track is their perspective

that their children retain more with year round and are less bored. Other comments included

better flexibility for parent’s schedule, frequency of breaks, concern for the amount of money it

would cost to change, and future school closures due to overbuilding.

•

4-Track respondents who strongly oppose or oppose eliminating 4-track (

17%

) were evenly

distributed throughout the geographic regions served by the District.

As a result of findings, the Board of Education is including funds to “strategically begin to build out of 4-

track” in the 2008 bond package.

Require public funding or support:

Bond/Budget Election

The District conducted a survey of Douglas County Voters through Harstad Strategic Research, Inc. in

April and May 2008 to inform November 2008 bond/budget planning. There were 402 respondents at a

95% confidence level. For details about survey demographics, see Appendix A. April Survey Data

showed:

•

58% of respondents supported a $17 million mil levy override for the purpose of financing the

expenses of the District not paid for by the state school finance act – including funding

competitive salaries to attract and retain high quality teachers, pay for security and technology in

the district, and maintaining course options and rigorous graduation requirements.

•

55% of respondents would support a $395 million bond to build new schools, phase out the 4-

track year-round calendar in elementary schools, and keep up with rising student enrollment

through the District. ”

May Survey Data showed:

•

67% of respondents said school property taxes were “too low” or “about right.”

•

68% of respondents gave Douglas County Schools a grade of A or B.

•

69% believed the quality of education has “stayed the same” or “gotten better” in the past three years.

•

53% believe funding for Douglas County public schools should be “increased.”

•

36% believe funding for Douglas County public schools should be “kept the same.”

•

56% supported at $17 million mil levy override (a slight decrease from the April survey).

•

56% supported a $395 million bond (an increase from the April survey).

Page 14 of 20

•

23% supported “no increase” for charter school funding from the mil levy override dollars.

•

31% supported a “partial increase” for charter school funding from the mil levy override dollars.

The budget question was set at $17 million. The bond question was set at $395 million.

Charter schools will receive proportionate increases to their funding from override dollars if voters

approve the measures.

Additionally, data showed persuasive

“reasons to vote for referendum to raise property taxes to fund

salaries and operations in DCSD”

were:

•

65% - Students deserve a high quality education that prepares them for the high tech jobs of the

future.

•

62% - Current resources aren’t sufficient to hire the teachers we need to offset the large class sizes.

•

57% - DCSD adds 2,200 students/year. New funding will ensure enough teachers & supplies.

•

57% - Need to pay our teachers more to keep best teachers from leaving schools to earn much more.

The budget question included funding to maintain and improve student achievement, recruit and hire the

best teachers, maintain and improve technology across the School District.

Persuasive “r

easons to vote for referendum on issuing new bonds to pay for building new schools,

renovating schools, and keeping up with student enrollment in DCSD”

include:

•

62% - DCSD has 2,200 new students/year. New funding will ensure District has enough classrooms

for all students without sacrificing quality.

•

62% - District doesn’t have enough space for all students. Need to build more schools, or larger class

sizes – which harms student performance.

•

58% - Students deserve high quality education that prepares them for high tech jobs of the future.

•

60% - Public schools need funds for more resources like computers, lab equipment, new technology,

etc. to prepare students for jobs of tomorrow.

Douglas County parents and taxpayers provided input on construction of new facilities, level of taxation,

and new programming funded by the bond/budget. Input was considered in all three areas.

Public image:

Perception of the District

Positive perception of the school district is critical for continued support of school operations. The

threshold is to remain significantly above national and state averages for perception of public schools.

For details about survey demographics, see Appendix A.

In an effort to draw a comparison between the District’s public perception and that of public school

systems nationwide, a national Gallup poll serves as a benchmark. The national survey conducted in

September 2007 found:

•

A Douglas County 2008 Voter Opinion Survey was conducted by Hill Research Consultants for the

County. 82% of respondents answered

“very accurately or somewhat accurately”

to the statement,

“Has good schools and educational opportunities for all ages.”

The same Harstad Strategic Research, Inc. in April 2008 and May 2008 also provided the following

information regarding public perception. In April:

•

70% of all respondents gave Douglas County Schools a grade of A or B.

•

83% of parents who responded gave Douglas County Schools a grade of A or B.

The threshold is to remain above national and state averages for perception of public schools.

Source

Question

(Strongly agree or agree)

2006

2007

2008

Parent I believe this district is headed in the right direction. NA 68% 67%

Source

Question

2006

2007

2008

Gallup What grade would you give your community schools? (A + B) 48% 49% 45%

Gallup What grade would you give the school your oldest child attends? (A + B) 69% 64% 67%

Page 15 of 20

Perception of the District

68%

67%

49%

45%

70%

83%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2007 2008

DCSD Parent - I believe this

district is headed in the right

direction (Strongly Agree or

Agree).

National Gallup - What grade

would you give your community

schools? (A+B)

Harstad ALL - What grade

would you give your community

schools? (A+B)

Harstad PARENTS- What grade

would you give your community

schools? (A+B)

New Choice/Options and facilities:

DCSD – K-12 online education

In August 2005, the District held six community meetings and surveyed community constituents through

Hill Research consultants regarding options and charter schools. 302 respondents at a 94.4% confidence

level. Data showed:

•

57% preferred options schools over charter schools as a vehicle for choice

With support from the public, the District continues to pursue options schools. In the 2007-08 school

year, DCSD conducted a pilot of online courses in grades 9-12. In the 2008-09 school year, DCSD

launched its first on-line school.

DCSD is a fully approved school through the Colorado Department of

Education (CDE) and offers online courses for grades K-12. Students can choose from a range of

options, from limited teacher contact, to virtual classrooms with ongoing direct instruction, to a hybrid

model with instruction split between the online school and their local brick and mortar school.

International Baccalaureate at ThunderRidge High School

In the Fall 2005, parent groups approached DCSD to discuss advanced learning options for students – in

particular International Baccalaureate at TRHS. Since that time, approximately 9 meetings with parent

groups have been held and DCSD began the process of approval to expand the International

Baccalaureate program to include TRHS.

In the 2008-09 school year, TRHS became an International Baccalaureate “candidate school.” A

determination from the International Baccalaureate organization is expected by Spring 2009.

Tech Lab at Legend High School

In the survey of Douglas County Voters through Frederick Polls in June 2006, with 400 respondents and

a 95% confidence level, the data showed:

•

85% supported new career and technical programs

The Tech Lab at Legend High School (both built thanks to voter support of the 2006 bond and budget

measures) provides Douglas County students an opportunity to attain certifications in technical programs

while still in high school. The Tech Lab houses the Expert Technician Academy, a collaborative effort

between DCSD, the Douglas County Educational Foundation, Arapahoe Community College and

Page 16 of 20

Arapahoe/Douglas Works! The training center will teach the technical skills required by the Aerospace,

Energy, Information Technology (IT) and Bioscience industries. The ETA addresses the growing demand

for a workforce equipped with STEM skills – science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The

ETA will open in August, 2008 with an Information Technology Program and an Electronics Program. An

Oracle program will begin in January, 2009. The Information Technology Program prepares students for

entry level positions, for industry certifications in A+, Net+ and Security+, and may be applied for up to 17

credits towards an Associate Degree at ACC. The program exposes students to skills that can be applied

to a wide range of technology careers, including the computer construction, upgrading and repair, and

maintaining, upgrading and troubleshooting Local Area Networks and Wide Area Networks. The

Electronic Program prepares students for entry level positions, for certification in Radio Frequency

Identification (RFID), Digital Home Technology Integration (DHTI), and Residential Security, Access

Control and Surveillance. The program can be applied for up to 11 credits towards an Associate Degree

at ACC.

I report compliance.

Page 17 of 20

1.1.2 Fail to communicate relevant decisions to the community in a timely manner.

Interpretation:

I interpret

“relevant decisions”

as decisions made on topics that require legal compliance,

public funding or public support. I interpret

“timely manner”

to mean communicating to Douglas

County taxpayers and residents about District decisions regarding new schools, initiatives and

use of the District’s owned or leased buildings, prior to implementation.

Report

Data:

The communication method is based on the type of information being shared with community

constituents. Decisions regarding 2007-08 relevant issues were communicated as follows:

Significant public interest:

World Language implementation

Following the successful passage of the 2006 bond and mil levy override measures, communication

began regarding components of the measures prior to implementation.

•

World Language Rolling Out in NL May 24, 2007, July 19, 2007

Key Issues Survey

The District communicated with constituents regarding a survey to collect feedback on key issues

impacting the School District in the following ways:

•

Information on availability of on-line survey shared on Parent Portal – December 20, 2007, January

14, 2008, January 27, 2007, March 8, 2008

•

Information on availability of on-line survey in District

Newsline

– January 3, 2008, March 6, 2008,

March 27, 2008

•

Information on availability of on-line survey on front page of District website – January 3, 2008

•

Information on availability of on-line survey shared with marketing/communications departments of

local area governments – January 3, 2008

•

Info about Superintendent Jim Christensen hosting three parent sessions regarding key issues in

Newsline

– February 7, 2008, February 19, 2008, March 1, 2008, April 3, 2008

Require public funding or public support:

Bond/Budget Election

The District communicated with constituents regarding the potential for a Bond/Budget Election in

November 2008 the following ways:

•

DCSD conducted two community surveys through research groups to gather reliable data in order to

gauge public support for both a bond and mil levy override measure

•

More than 140 meetings with community groups and staff groups were scheduled at the end of the

reporting period to communicate decisions made regarding components of the bond. Additional

meetings with civic organizations and community groups were being planned.

•

The information was also included in all external District publications (including the District newsletter,

Newsline,

with a distribution of more than 10,000 stakeholders), and on the District website

•

Information about availability of District publication,

Foundations

, which communicates details of

construction projects funded by 2006 bond communicated via Parent Portal and District website –

July 18, 2007

•

Information about availability of District publication,

Foundations

, which communicates details of

construction projects funded by 2006 bond communicated via Parent Portal and District website –

December 4, 2007

Communication regarding the Board’s decision-making process surrounding placing a measure on the

November 2008 ballot is ongoing. Details about the bond/budget measure are also shared when

information is available.

Page 18 of 20

Communication regarding progress in each component funded by the 2003 and 2006 bond/budget

elections continues and occurs prior to implementation. DCSD publishes

Foundations

, which

communicates details of construction projects funded by the successful passage of the bond.

Public image:

Perception of the District

The District continuously communicates to community constituents about the positive support it receives.

The information is included in external District publications and website. For example:

•

Results from District surveys were shared June 22, 2006

•

Special recognition from Governor Ritter was reported in District publications on July 26, 2007

•

Positive recruiting numbers for teacher hiring information was shared July 26, 2007

•

Student achievement recognition and accolades reported in every District publication and weekly

newsletter

•

Recognition in

5280 Magazine

of Rock Canyon High School named as one of Denver’s top schools

was shared August 2, 2007

•

Various awards and distinctions bestowed upon DCSD or its staff, August 9, 2007, August 23, 2007,

September 13, 2007, November 8, 2007, November 15, 2007,

•

News regarding external organizations and their positive partnership with DCSD reported September

20, 2007, September 27, 2007, October 4, 2007, October 11, 2007, October 18, 2007, October 25,

2007, November 1, 2007

New Choice/Options and facilities:

eDCSD Online Education School

The School District communicated with constituents regarding a new learning option called

DCSD in the

following ways:

•

Virtual learning expansion in DCSD in NL – April 26, 2007

•

Announcement of hire of planning principals for on-line program NL – July 19, 2007

•

DCSD Online Education rolling out in NL – September 27, 2007

•

DCSD begins enrollment for 2008-09 in NL – February 21, 2008

•

DCSD enrollment information on Parent Portal – March 3, 2008

•

DCSD Online Education in NL – June 5, 2008

•

DCSD enrolling now in NL – June 19, 2008

•

DCSD held 14 public information sessions from March 2008 – August 2008 at various Public

Libraries throughout the Metro area (Littleton, Aurora, Englewood, Colorado Springs, Highlands

Ranch, Parker, Lone Tree, and Castle Rock).

International Baccalaureate at ThunderRidge High School

The School District communicated with constituents regarding the consideration of a second IB program

Newsline

– August 23, 2007, November 1, 2007, November 8, 2007. The International Baccalaureate

team has made a site visit to ThunderRidge High School. TRHS is now considered a “candidate school.”

This second program is awaiting IB final approval and has not yet been communicated.

Legend High School Certified Technician Programs

DCSD communicated with constituents regarding the Tech Lab at Legend High School in the following

ways:

•

Announcement regarding expansion of DCSD’s Career and Technical Education in

Newsline

– April

5, 2007

•

Demands of business community for more highly qualified workforce - June 19, 2008

•

Implementation plans for Career and Tech at Legend High School – October 4, 2007, November 29,

2008

•

DCSD receives grants for Expert Technician Academy in

Newsline

– April 17, 2008

•

Current state of Science, Technology, Engineering – June 19, 2008

I report compliance.

Page 19 of 20

2007-08 SAC Membership

Parents

46%

Administrators

16%

School Staff

17%

Students

PTA/PTO

Community

11%

1.1.3 Be disorganized or unclear with respect to interactions with the District Advisory

Committee and School Accountability Councils.

Interpretation:

I interpret

“disorganized”

as not having a process to ensure compliance with Colorado State

Statute

C.R.S. § 22-7-205

concerning the District Advisory Committee and School

Accountability Councils. I interpret

“unclear”

as not providing communication and guidance

concerning the District Advisory Committee and School Advisory Council requirements.

Report

Data:

The District Advisory Committee (DAC) adopted Bylaws this year that connected the Committee’s

responsibilities with Colorado Statute

C.R.S. § 22-7-104

(See Appendix C)

The District provides

oversight of the School Advisory Councils while the Board provides oversight of the District Advisory

Committee.

•

During this reporting period the Board adopted DAC Bylaws during a regularly scheduled meeting

in May 2008 which more clearly aligned their responsibilities with the state statute.

The Bylaws identified the DAC Steering Committee membership as four parents

(Castle Rock, Parker, Highlands Ranch, and Charter School), one teacher, one

community member, and one administrator appointed by the Superintendent.

•

During this reporting period, the DAC Steering Committee met monthly, while the larger

membership (which included one member from each school’s SAC) met for 3 DAC Forums during

the reporting period.

Disorganized:

The District monitors the formation and operation of each school’s SAC through the School

Improvement Plan (SIP) completed by each school each year. In addition, each school adopted

common bylaws for SACs in alignment with state statute

C.R.S. § 22-7-106.

The entire School

Improvement Plan for each school, including documentation of SAC membership and meetings, is

located online under “SIP Central”. School’s are required to complete an “School Advisory Council

Membership” template naming the voting members of the Council, identifying regular meeting times,

describing the process for review of the SIP, and identifying the current DAC Liaison.

•

During the reporting period, schools were allocated $60 per student (Override dollars) if their

SAC was in compliance with District guidelines. Compliance was reviewed by the DAC

Steering Committee. 100% of District schools were compliant and received the per student

allocation.

Required membership in School Advisory

Councils includes at least: 1 Administrator,

1 Teacher, 3 Parents, 1

Parent/Teacher/Student Organization

member, and 1 Community member.

•

During the reporting period, 100%

of District schools were compliant

with the Membership requirements.

As a District this equated to SAC

participation by 111 Administrators,

122 School Staff, 335 Parents, 62

PTA/PTO members, 10 Students,

and 76 Community members.

Schools also complete a self-evaluation of

their SAC on a 4-point rubric. The rubric includes descriptions of Membership elections, setting of

school goals, budget prioritization, safety issues, and completion of the SAC annual report to the

Page 20 of 20

community.

•

During this reporting period the District aggregate of all schools on this 4-point scale was 3.8,

up from 3.6 in 2006-07.

Unclear:

The Directors of Schools are responsible for training new school administrators in the School

Improvement Plan process.

•

During this reporting period, 15 new administrators were trained in the completion of the SAC

templates contained in SIP Central.

The District provided multiple training opportunities at the beginning of the school year for all new

SAC members, including parents, students, and community members.

•

During the reporting period the District trained 75 new SAC members.

I report compliance.

Appendix A

–

Perception Data

District Parent Survey

, Spring 2008

Douglas County School District conducts parent surveys at all schools on a three year cycle, with one

third of

the schools participating each year. Parent survey responses reflect the parent

s’ perspective of their student’s

school.

Sample size:

2,968

respondents

Margin of error:

Target audience:

DCSD parents

Demographics:

1,727 E

lementary parents

1,241 Secondary

parents

District

Student

Survey

, Spring 2008

Douglas County School

District conducts student surveys at all schools on a three year cycle, with one

third of

the schools participating each year. Student survey responses reflect the student’s perspective of their school.

Sample size:

8,034 respondents

Margin of error:

Target audience:

DCSD students

Demographics:

4,290 E

lementary students

3,744 S

econdary students

Superintendent “Key Issues” Survey, Spring 2008

Sample size:

4,550 respondents

Margin of error:

Target audience:

DCSD Community

Demographics:

61% DCSD Parents

16% DCSD Parents & Staff

14% DCSD Staff

6% DCSD Student

3% DCSD Community

Harstad Strategic Research, Inc., April and May 2008

Sample size:

Respondents

Margin of error:

Target audience:

November 200

voters

Demog

raphics:

48% Male

52% Female

46% Parent

56% Non

Parent

Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll, September 2007

Sample size:

1,005 Respondents

Margin of error:

3% Non

Parent; +/

5% Parent

Target audience:

Adults (18 years of age or older

emographics:

47% Male

53% Female

73% No Children in School

24% Public School Parents

3% Non

Public School Parents

Hill Research Consultants, June 2008

Sample size:

397 Respondents

Margin of error:

Target audience:

Douglas County V

oters

Demographics:

48% Male

52% Female

51% Republican

21% Demographic

28% Unaffiliated; Other Party

Green Building

Charrette

Report

Douglas County School

District

With assistance from the

Gvic

July 14, 2009

Highlands Ranch, Colorado

Prepared by:

nstitute

for the

uilt

nvironment

COLLEGE OF

APPLIED HUMAN SCIENCES

Department of

Construction Management

Table of Contents

Tabl

History

Executi

Charret

Group Go

Break

History and Background

Douglas County School District (DCSD) maintains its position as a leader in public education in Colorado, with

many innovative programs and educational approaches. Support and coordination can be found Parents can

find many different choices through the District such as open enrollment, charter schools, instruction for gifted

and talented students, magnet schools, an International Baccalaureate program, Advanced Placement courses

and other special programs. DCSD vision is to "create responsible citizens who contribute to society, " and

they strive to maintain a well-researched, integrated and standards-based curriculum, a rich array of

extracurricular offerings and strong community involvement.

Douglas County spans much of the distance

—

nearly 900 square miles

—

between Denver and Colorado Springs.

Its northern boundary is County Line Road; its southern boundary extends past the Town of Larkspur.

Douglas County School District began the 2007-2008 school year with 44 elementary schools, eight high

schools, seven middle schools, six charter schools, an alternative high school, an expeditionary

learning/outward bound magnet school, an integrated thematic instruction magnet school, a night high school

and 33 preschool sites. The University Center at Chaparral in Parker also offers students the opportunity to

participate in college-level courses while attending high school.

History and Background

Four new elementary schools opened their doors for the 2007-2008 school year

–

Mammoth Heights in Parker,

Stone Mountain in Highlands Ranch, Lone Tree Magnet in Lone Tree, and Roxborough Intermediate in

Littleton. In addition, Middle School #8 in Castle Rock, and High School #9 in Parker will open in August, 2008

while Elementary #44 in Parker and Elementary #45 in Castle Rock

’

The District is also gearing up for a bond issue in November, and

if successful, will build 3 more schools scheduled to open in 2010.

As a policy governance district, the Board of Education is responsible for setting the over-arching vision for the

district. Following a year of development and feedback, the Board of Education approved and adopted a key

"End Statement" that lays the foundation for what the district is expected to accomplish. The Board has

developed the following:

Douglas County School District students acquire the knowledge and abilities to be responsible citizens who contribute to

our society.

Students are able to think critically, using reason and logic when facing decisions about what to believe or do.

Students embrace universal ethical principles such as honesty, integrity and justice.

Students demonstrate the self-motivation and resourcefulness to continue their learning.

Students apply what they have learned. They go beyond merely knowing to using their knowledge and skills

productively.

Students develop and demonstrate leadership skills. They are influential in creating a vision of what the future can be.

Students take ownership and accept responsibility for their wellbeing. Students have the knowledge, skills and ability to

make educated choices concerning their social, emotional and physical health.

Executive Summary

In 1995, the Board of Education unanimously adopted academic standards in the subjects of language arts,

math, science, geography and history.

Eleven standards

—

health, music, physical education, art, civics, economics, foreign language and cross-

content standards, which include information processing, thinking and reasoning, and careers

—

were adopted

by the Board in 1997.

Douglas County School District (DCSD) is currently examining opportunities to improve and enhance the

design of their current elementary school prototype. This prototype has been opened and operated at three

sites, is being constructed at two more sites, and is planned for three more openings in Fall 2010. The future

sites for this building will place it inside XCEL territory, which means that they are eligible to receive

incentives through the Energy Design Assistance (EDA) program. This program provides free energy

modeling and rebates based on modeled peak demand (kW) reduction.

’EEK

-12 High Performance Design Program has been invited into this

process to help DCSD establish high performance goals for the revised prototype, particularly regarding

energy use. The GEO will be allocating a $20,000 grant to DCSD to help drive energy efficiency strategies,

including funding the initial design charrette.

During the charrette participants were able to brainstorm overall goals, break down into smaller groups to

develop more specific targets and tactics for those goals and also develop next steps the team will look

forward to as they progress through the design and construction process for this project.

Charrette Participants

Name

Company

Contact

Tim Guit

man

GEO

tim.guiterman@state.co.us

Sue Reilly

Enermodal

sreilly@enermodal.com

Rich Cosgrove

DCSD Construction

richard.cosgrove@dcsdk12.org

Corky Bradley

RB+B

cbradley@rbba

rchitects.com

William Moffitt

DCSD

william.moffitt@dcsdk12.org

Bill Chambers

DCSD

bill.chambers@dcsdk12.org

Wayne Blazek

DCSD

wayne.blazek@dcsdk12.org

Paul Hutton

HAS

phutton@huttonarch.com

Margaret Pauls

HAS

mpauls@huttonarch.com

Heather Bock

HAS

hbock@huttonarch.com

Lee Smit

DCSD

lee.smit@dcsdk12.org

Bill Fordyce

DCSD

Bill.fordyce@dcsdk12.org

Carol Henry

Design Concepts

carol@dcla.net

Sarah Cieciek

Design Concepts

sarah@dcla.net

Melanie Gavin

Xcel Energy

melanie.gavin@xcelenergy.com

John Caligaris

DCSD Constructi

john.caligaris@dcsdk12.org

Barry Stamp

SBEC

bstamp@sbengr.com

Virgil Fleeman

CEI

vfleeman@cei

cs.com

Josie P

laut

IBE

jmplaut@cahs.colostate.edu

Joshua Marceau

IBE

joshua.marceau@colostate.edu

Shelley Kawamura

IBE

Shelley@Frii.com

Group Goal Setting

The entire group participated in generating overall goals for the future DCSD elementary schools. The

following is an inclusive list narrowed down into several topics:

Energy

Achieve >30kBtu/sf/yr

Expand displacement ventilation

Efficient and functional controls

Use of city water for cooling



Heat exchange system

Design building for future (renewable) energy

technologies

Site

Blend building with its community

Community garden space



Residents not allowed to have personal

gardens

Site adaptation with more flexibility

Increase use of porous pavement

Reduce detention ponds

Increase driveways for drop-off

Utilize bioswales and rain gardens

Use roof to slow stormwater rate and runoff



Reduce exterior lighting without

compromising security

Materials

Reduce construction waste

Comprehensive recycling program

Increase vegetation options to lower footprint

Ensuring contractors and subs can meet

project sustainability goals

Indoor Environmental Quality

Improve acoustics

Improve daylighting

Reduce/eliminate VOCs in finishes

Water

40% reduction from EPAC for low flow

fixtures

No garbage disposals

Evaluate process water given tray washing

implementation

Evaluate solar water heating

On demand hot water

Greywater



Lessons learned from Denver?

Overall Design

Timeless appearance

Maximize Flexibility

After the large group goal setting, smaller focus groups were formed to discuss specific goals and strategies.

Four groups were formed:

Site, Humans, Energy-1, and Energy-2.

Site

issues can included items that are directly related to the location of the building, orientation,

landscaping, alternative transportation, stormwater, heat island effect and light pollution. The

Human

category will included indoor air quality, acoustics, healthy materials selections, thermal comfort,

controllability of lighting and temperature, and daylighting.

Energy-1

focused on the overall building

envelope, energy efficiency, windows, daylighting and construction waste management.

Energy-2

focused on mechanical and electrical systems efficiency.

Below is a summary recap of the goals, tactics and targets that each break-out group discussed regarding

their specific project areas. Many of the ideas generated in the brainstorming session will prove valuable

and ultimately be incorporated into the design of the buildings. It is important to note that due to the

generative nature of the brainstorming session, some ideas may not be feasible. The design team will work

together to consider and evaluate the which strategies are most appropriate for a given project.

Site:

Rich Cosgrove, Sara Cieciek, Carol Henry, Bill F., and Margaret Pauls

Goals, strategies and tactics

Different grass blends in ornamental turf

areas

Drip irrigation in shrub beds

Reduce site drainage and retention

requirements

Bioswales

PV panels for shade

More concrete, less asphalt

Locate building as close to the street as

possible, create berms , only sod the street

side and the backside of the berms will consist

only of native species.

Porous paving

Reduce heat gain on site

Better integrated school curriculum with site

information and technologies

Site as benefit to the classes

Better connection between students

and the environment

Community use

Community garden with composting

area

Outdoor seating and shelter units

Construction waste recycling

Enough room for sorting recyclables

Parking improvements

Reduced parking

Humans:

Josh Marceau, Heather Bock, Melanie Gavin, John Caligaris

Indoor Air Quality

Goals:

Acoustics

Comfort and health

Safety

Well-being of students and employees

Operable windows

Finishes for walls and floors

Targets:

Reduced absenteeism

Particle/constituent testing

Tactics:

Reduce or eliminate VOCs, toxic

materials including vinyl

Involve students in the educational

process

Control IAQ in construction process

Control moisture (specify)

Control HVAC system (flush outs)

More appropriate specifying of

materials for classrooms

Strategic ventilation

Add mechanical boots

Acoustics

Targets:

Reduce complaints

Meet or exceed ANSI Standards

Utilize LEED for Schools as a guide

Increased sound insulation

Tackable surface on 1 wall

Wall to deck sound insulation at beams

Sound baffles

Audio amplification for teachers

Education

Goals:

Students will champion sustainability

Parents and community involvement

Targets:

Recycle waste

Tactics:

Truth wall

Show all sustainable features

Energy 1 - Envelope:

Wayne Blazek, Virgil Fleeman, Tim Guiterman, Corky

Bradley

Envelope

Energy efficiency

Decrease heat loss by 20%



ne spray

foam on exterior

Decrease mold potential

Decrease window thermal loss by 10-15%

Review other exterior materials for longevity,

locality, etc.

Appropriate roof material for Colorado

Windows & Daylighting

Additional daylight in occupied spaces



Tubular daylight devices (Solatubes)



Daylight lower levels

20% reduction in electric lighting energy use

Review controls and methods

Audit actual use

Survey users

Dimming controls versus step down process

Measure versus existing prototypes

Educate users

Construction Waste Management

Reduce waste footprint

Diversion rate of 70%

Hit or exceed LEED benchmarks

Building materials and sources

Utilize LEED for Schools as a tool

Extract locally manufactured materials

Reduce packaging

Specify mandatory construction waste diversion

Energy 2 - Mechanical:

Bill Moffitt, Bill Chambers, Lee Smith, Sue Reilly, Barry

Stamp, Paul Hutton

Overarching Goal:

Reduce current energy consumption from current model of 46 kBtu/sf per year to achieve 30 kBtu/sf/ yr

Tactics:

Electrical

Reduce electrical plug loads



½ watt/sf

Refrigerators

Toe space heaters

Beverage heater

Switch plugs

User education

Improved electrical sub-metering



Kitchen (gas and electric)



Base program for billing purposes

Dimming controls



Reduce occupant concerns



9 am to 3 pm, no lights with significant

or sufficient daylight

Mechanical

Explore indirect evaporative cooling

Explore ground source heat pump system



Horizontal verses vertical field?

Explore thermal energy storage system

Eliminate ethylene glycol from current ice

Improving HVAC zoning

EXH air heat recovery

On demand hot water

Building monitoring and display

Classroom HVAC occupancy sensors

Build in capacity for future renewable energy

systems

10 month commissioning check up

Next Steps

Review charrette ideas based on cost and feasibility



Incorporate appropriate charrette concepts into design, drawings and specs

Develop energy model



Schaffer Bauchaum (Berry) will share existing energy analysis with Enermodal (Sue)



Enermodal (Sue) will supply energy rates to DCSD (monthly kwh and kw)



Enermodal (Sue) preliminary energy model for follow-up meetings

Follow-up to charrette with preliminary energy model, follow up on action items and user input

Find a geoexchange consultant

Contractor feedback on feasibility - contractor & vendor open house (?) better, not cheaper.

Get DCSD on the map as a green school district

Involve the school occupants in design process

Occupant survey after two-three months following building occupancy to promote continual

improvement

Conclusion

Design charrettes are used to develop an integrated building desing that is based on input from

construction, design, landscaping, engineering and civil experts as well as the building users.

The charrette held for the Douglas County School District on July 14,

2008 was an important step in helping the district to further their

green building initiatives. Not only will this process create a better

building, but it will help to create a better community and a better

learning environment.

Appendix C

–

DAC/SAC Compliance

District Advisory Committee

Allocation of School Improvement Dollars

(aka Override Dollars; $60/per student)

Funding for 2007

–

2008

All Schools Funded

Funding for 2008

2009

SAC Compliance Criter

ia, based on:



SAC Adopts Bylaws



Three parent reps are

elected

by a vote of the parents of students enrolled in the school.



One teacher rep is

elected

by a vote of all licensed professionals.



Appointment

of a business person from the community, the school

administrator, and representative from

the parent organization.



No more than three members on the seven

member Council are employees of the school district.



Meeting calendar is established at the first meeting of the school year.



The meeting ca

lendar reflects at least four meetings for the year.

Funding for 2009

2010

SAC Compliance Criteria, based on:



Adoption of Bylaws



SAC Membership/Election



SAC Quarterly Meeting Sche

dule

AND



SAC shall adopt high but achievable goals and objectives for the improvement of education in its

building.



SAC shall discuss safety issues related to the school environment

Funding for 2010

2011

SAC Compliance Criteria, based on:



Adoption of

Bylaws



SAC Membership/Election



SAC Quarterly Meeting Schedule



SAC shall adopt high but achievable goals and objectives for the improvement of education in its

building.



SAC shall discuss safety issues related to the school environment

AND



SAC shall make

recommendations to the principal regarding the prioritization of expenditures of school

moneys



SAC shall report to the students and parents on the educational performance of the school

Funding is to align with the accomplishment of the School Improvemen

t Plan, which,

in turn, must address the Board of Education’s Vision for the Future