Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Event topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board finalizes format, rubric and logistics for May 27 student STEM competition
Summary
The board agreed to a three-criteria rubric (accuracy, completeness, presentation), silent scoring via a shared spreadsheet, two-minute presentations for up to 17 students, and prize certificates and a $500 first-place award; winners must be present to claim awards.
After approving the committee budget, members spent the bulk of the meeting finalizing logistics for an inaugural student STEM competition scheduled for May 27.
Organizers said 17 students submitted projects. The board settled on a scoring rubric that uses three criteria — accuracy, completeness and presentation/delivery — each rated one to five for a maximum score of 15. Members agreed to perform silent scoring on printed/double-sided score sheets and to enter their numbers into a shared Google spreadsheet (each member will use a color-coded section) so staff can automatically tabulate totals and identify the top five nominees ahead of the event.
The board decided that all nominated students should be invited to the event and that the top five will present again onstage (two minutes each, with a one-minute extension allowed). The board also required that a student be present to accept an award; if a ranked student cannot attend, the prize will move to the next ranked entrant.
On awards and publicity, members agreed to prepare three certificates and three blank signed checks (the transcript records an intention to leave names blank until winners are confirmed), and to produce a ceremonial oversized check for photo purposes. A small printed program/flyer will list sponsors, the committee contact and the event agenda; design and printing tasks were assigned to committee volunteers and staff. Staff (Noah) was assigned to circulate the Google scoring sheet and to coordinate printing and IT checks; members agreed to arrive an hour early on event day for final setup and to verify video and sound.
The discussion included practical logistics (where to place TVs, USB/HDMI compatibility, how to run slides or web links for dynamic student demonstrations) and a brief debate about whether presentation style should weigh more heavily than technical accuracy; the group decided accuracy, completeness and presentation should all factor into the score but that presentation on event day would focus primarily on whether students understood their projects.
Next steps: staff to send the scoring spreadsheet and rubric to all judges immediately; members to submit scores by the agreed deadline so staff can compile the top five and prepare certificates, blank checks and printed programs ahead of May 27.
