DATE: December 6, 2004 PRESENT: Michael Dixon, Chair

DATE: December 6, 2004 PRESENT: Michael Dixon, Chair

Mary Grace Bright

Jill Camnitz

Betsy Leech

Ralph Love, Sr.

Barbara Owens

TIME: 7:30 P.M. Billy Peaden

Roy Peaden

Marcy Romary

Sidney Scott

Dick Tolmie

PLACE: Pitt County Office Building Delano Wilson

ABSENT:

Ms. Jill Camnitz, Chair, called to order the Pitt County Board of Education in regular session.

Judge Gwyn Hilburn issued the Oath of Office to the three new Board members – Ms. Marcy Wiggs Romary, Mr. Billy Peaden, and Mr. Roy Peaden, and they took their seats at the Board table. Each introduced family members who were present for the Swearing-In Ceremony.

Mr. Dick Tolmie led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Phil Dixon opened the floor for nominations for Chair. Ms. Barbara Owens nominated Mr. Michael Dixon. A second was offered by Ms. Mary Grace Bright. With there being no additional nominations, Mr. Michael Dixon was unanimously approved by acclamation.

Mr. Michael Dixon opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chair. Mr. Delano Wilson nominated Ms. Barbara Owens. Dr. Ralph Love seconded the nomination, and Ms. Barbara Owens was approved as Vice-Chair by acclamation.

Mr. Michael Dixon stated his appreciation to the Board members for their faith in him and said that it would be his pleasure to serve as Chair again. He then recognized the outgoing Chair, Ms. Jill Camnitz, by presenting her with a gavel mounted on a recognition plaque. Mr. Dixon stated that Ms. Camnitz had taken her role as Chair very seriously and had worked very hard in pushing forward with the Board’s goals. He said that she had worked with diligence and commitment, and he congratulated her on an outstanding job.

Ms. Deborah Long introduced the recognitions for the evening. She called upon Dr. Bob Dailey for the recognition of the Amy Carroll-Sherry Little Award winners. Dr. Dailey announced that this year there were co-winners: Ms. Jennifer Gillikin, Physical Education teacher at Wintergreen Intermediate and volleyball coach, and Mr. Jimmy Bowen, Physical Education teacher at Northwest Elementary School. Dr. Dailey provided background information on the award and introduced family members of Sherry Little who were present for the presentation. Principals, Pat Clark of Wintergreen Intermediate and Roscoe Locke of Northwest Elementary, described for the Board the characteristics of these two individuals that earned for them the recognition as this year’s co-winners. The Vice-Chair, Ms. Barbara Owens, presented Ms. Gillikin and Mr. Bowen each with a special Amy Carroll-Sherry Little Award plaque.

Ms. Deborah Long announced the recognition of Dr. Deborah Webb, Principal of Sam D. Bundy School, as the Healthy Schools Principal of the Year. She shared that the North Carolina Alliance of Athletics, Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance had awarded Dr. Webb the Distinguished Principal Award at their fall conference in November in Greensboro, in recognition of her outstanding advocacy for physical education. Ms. Long shared information on some of the special programs implemented at Sam D. Bundy School to “provide support for the total child” that earned for Dr. Webb this special recognition.

Ms. Long additionally announced that Maggie Mullis, a student at Sadie Saulter School, had collected signatures of 132 students and staff requesting that ice cream be brought back to the school cafeterias. As a result of her efforts, Ms. Long reported that Maggie and her classmates were chosen to taste-test four healthy ice creams that the Child Nutrition Department was willing to place on the menu and advised that Maggie and her classmates had chosen Push-Ups.

The Chair offered an opportunity for adjustments to the agenda. Upon motion by Dr. Ralph Love and second by Ms. Mary Grace Bright, the Board voted unanimously to approve the agenda as presented.

An opportunity for Public Expression was provided. However, no requests to address the Board were received.

The Chair offered for consideration the Consent Agenda. A motion was made by Ms. Mary Grace Bright and seconded by Ms. Betsy Leech, to approve the Consent Agenda. Included on the Consent Agenda were minutes of the meeting held on November 1, 2004 and the Personnel Report for the month of December.

Mr. Michael Cowin presented the final in a series of three budget review sessions. He stated that three months ago the Board began a comprehensive review of the overall budget process in phases with the first phase being a summary of the 2004-05 operating budget. At the last meeting, he said, the Board had been provided with a document that broke down the operating budget in detail by program. He stated that the purpose of the first two phases had been to paint a picture of the operating budget so that the structure could be seen. He indicated that he was aware that a great deal of information had been provided and that the information might seem overwhelming. In an effort to simplify all that information somewhat, he explained that what had been distributed as a handout this evening was meant to be a quick reference that summarized the important points that had been provided throughout the budget review process. He suggested that 90% of the answers to questions they might have could be found in the summary information.

Mr. Cowin suggested that it was important to have looked at the information shared in the first two sessions in order to be ready for the next step, which was to break the information down to the school level in an effort to determine if the resources were being used in the most efficient and effective ways possible. Mr. Cowin pointed out that “change” is a constant in the budget, and he reviewed the chart reflecting how much the budget had changed in total dollars over the last seven years. He discussed the changes in student enrollments for that time period, the changes at the state level impacting the budget such as the discretionary budget cuts, the changes at the local level impacting the budget such as the loss of the Education Compact, and he reviewed the uncertainties with the State budget for this upcoming year. Because of this, he said, it was now more important than ever to evaluate the district’s successes and make determinations as to the best use of resources. To do this, he said, required looking at the individual schools, the resources that are going into those schools, the results coming back from those schools, and the rate of return the Board was receiving for the investments made.

He discussed the School Profile Report that had been distributed and walked the Board through the notebook, explaining the contents of each section. He commented on the statistical information provided, the demographics, the test results by school/by sub-group, the student/teacher ratios, etc. He also noted that the information was summarized side by side allowing for comparisons to be made of one school with the others. He shared that each school profile included a summary on student demographics and sub-groups, AYP proficiencies for the 2003-04 school year, student to teacher ratios and operational expenses, and he discussed each. Also provided, he explained, was a school history revealing information on the building, its location in the county, additions to the school added after its initial construction, a five-year projection of student growth, and mobile unit utilization for classroom space. He also discussed the school’s financial section explaining that a large component of this section was concentrated in salary and benefits with a high level of detail. All this, he said, was provided for the purpose of making comparisons against the demographics and the degree of success the school was experiencing as compared to other schools.

Mr. Cowin emphasized that the overriding purpose in providing this amount of information was so that the Board, the principals, and the administrative staff could all use this as a tool to look at how resources are being allocated, to look at instructional needs required to improve student achievement in the budget building process, to use for long-range facility planning, to use in evaluating the efficient use of operating resources, and finally, to use in comparing and evaluating school achievement.

Mr. Cowin stated this approach in developing the budget would be different from in the past and would see the budget being built from the school level up, rather than from the system level down. He emphasized that principals, if they are to be evaluated on their student’s achievement results and upon utilization of their resources, then deserve to at least have a full picture of their school budget and how their use of funds and their successes in using those funds compare with other schools. In looking at the efficient use of operating resources, Mr. Cowin explained that they would be reviewing such things as telephone expenses, bus routes and costs, the average years of experience of the staff, dollars per ADM, and best practices. He reiterated that to make the data worthwhile, it had to be used and not put on a shelf. He shared with Board members that the seed had been planted with them and that he would be planting the seed with school principals this week at the K-12 meeting. He concluded by saying that with everyone working together, and utilizing this information and this new process, the district would be providing what was needed to make the tree grow.

Mr. Aaron Beaulieu thanked Michael Cowin for his work in preparing and presenting this information and suggested that he had put together about six months worth of work in two months. Mr. Beaulieu said he was excited about this foundation and the possibilities the data offered as a tool to thoroughly review the budget at the school level and to make some decisions for program improvement. He noted that each year we look at new money requests for new programs, but he asked how often we look at programs or systems that are not working and make decisions to eliminate them. He said that in certain situations we need to rethink why we are not being any more successful than we are and look to see what changes need to be made to make improvements. He emphasized it would be important for all of us to use this approach because it was at a time when the school system needed to be able to prove to its citizens that the public was getting a good return on its investment in education and in the public school system. He closed by emphasizing this would mean customizing the budgets to fit each school and not trying to do so with a one-size fits all approach. He thanked the Board for their attention and their support.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the principals would receive copies of this information on Wednesday of this week and would be planning times for the associates and Michael Cowin to meet with them to review their data.

Dr. Michael Priddy offered the report on School Construction and Expansion (at Sadie Saulter and New School Site). Dr. Priddy reminded Board member that this past Spring the Board of Education and Greenville City Council had both approved and signed Resolutions allowing for the investigation of the possibility of expanding the Sadie Saulter campus and finding land in the intercity on which to put a new school, as a part of the city’s uptown revitalization efforts. He explained that over the past six months an investigation had been completed and that the two staffs had worked together to prepare the information that had been provided for the Board. He indicated that the members of the City Council would also be receiving this report at their meeting tonight.

Dr. Priddy noted the timeliness of this review in light of the work the Board would be conducting in February through September on the K-8 piece for student assignment in the J. H. Rose and D. H. Conley attendance areas. He added that this reasoning was based on the fact that this particular construction would address and eliminate the number of mobile units currently being utilized at the five elementary schools in the City of Greenville.

At Sadie Saulter, Dr. Priddy explained that the construction would result in the reorientation of the front of the school to face the new 10th Street connector and could perhaps bring assistance in getting children involved in an inner city school program that did not live in that area. He added that Sadie Saulter is currently located on a site of less than six acres and should this project be completed, it would be possible to nearly double that acreage, as land was acquired by the City of Greenville. He referred Board members to the color-coded map explaining the area that would be encompassed by Sadie Saulter and to the page reflecting the rendition of the school, as prepared by Jimmy Hite. The next step, he said, was for the two Boards to put into writing what would have to be acquired, how that could happen, whether or not there were funds to be provided by the City, whether or not the Board of Education would want to assist with funds for the acquisition of that property, and then determine how whatever might be acquired by the City would ultimately pass to the Board.

He explained the second project by referring Board members back to the color-coded maps and reviewed the property currently owned by the city and that anticipated to be acquired. He also pointed out where warehouses and water tanks currently exists that would need to be removed. The cost of acquiring the land, he said, would be approximately $5 million, and he noted that the Board of Education does not currently have the means to purchase that amount of property. He said that if the City believed that placing a school in this area was valuable to its revitalization efforts and if the Board of Education believed that placing a new school in an area where a large number of its children live, then something could be worked out wherein the City Council members could purchase the property within their means and later transfer it to the Board of Education. He also called attention to the site plan for this second project as prepared by Mr. Jimmy Hite and explained where the property was located. He reviewed the next steps as listed in the document, but explained that he and the City Manager had subsequently discussed these and recommended reordering the next steps to follow the three, two and one sequence; i.e. (3) Begin an analysis of the Imperial Tobacco Warehouse site, (2) Assemble a group to meet with the owner of the Imperial Tobacco to discuss a sale favorable to Pitt County Schools, and (1) Develop a memorandum between the City of Greenville and Pitt County Schools on acquisition proceedings, methods and funding sources, including how the property will be transferred from the City of Greenville to Pitt County Schools. He concluded by saying more work was required to ensure that the land identified was indeed a viable piece of property and added that if the Board agreed, then a written document could be worked up to itemize what would have to occur if the Board wanted to move ahead with the Sadie Saulter project and the investigation on this project.