DATE: October 24, 2005 PRESENT: Michael Dixon, Chair

DATE: October 24, 2005 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 (Via Telephone)

Marcy Romary

Sidney Scott

Dick Tolmie

PLACE: St. James United Methodist Church Delano Wilson

ABSENT:

Mr. Michael Dixon, Chair, called to order the Pitt County Board of Education in regular session. Ms. Jill Camnitz led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

A time for Public Expression was provided. Ms. Regina Bowen was the first speaker. She addressed the Board regarding the proposed Uniform Dress Code Policy for Bethel Elementary School. She questioned why the Board of Education would single them out and have a uniform policy just for Bethel School. Further, she asked why this was being done as there was no evidence to indicate gang violence at Bethel. Additionally, she said that if there was to be a uniform dress code for Bethel students, then staff should also wear uniforms.

The second speaker was Tracie Smirne, speaking on behalf of Wintergreen Primary and Wintergreen Intermediate. She requested that if a Board member sought to eliminate ES6 Revision 1 because of long bus rides and cross town busing, then the same member should apply that reasoning when placing children at Wintergreen Primary/Intermediate and Hope Middle School. If Board members vote, she said, for ES6 Revision 3 because of that neighborhood feeling, then that same reasoning should also be applied to Wintergreen Primary/Intermediate and Hope Middle School. She suggested that their schools did not want to be used for overload and that they wanted an equal opportunity to succeed.

Ms. Belinda Fagundus spoke with the Board specifically in regard to segments 355 and 334. She noted that a proposal with a petition had been provided to the Board members. She encouraged the Board to make a motion for these segments, so that her neighborhood’s kids did not have to move.

Mr. John Reisch was the last speaker to address the Board. He indicated he had been following all the meetings and that he and others were unclear as to what the long-term objectives of the Board are. He said that all he could see was a short-term fix.

The Chair offered the agenda for consideration. Upon motion by Dr. Ralph Love and second by Mr. Dick Tolmie, the Board unanimously voted to approve the agenda as prepared.

The Chair offered the Consent Agenda for consideration. Upon motion by Ms. Barbara Owens and second by Dr. Ralph Love, the Consent Agenda was approved. That item included minutes of the meetings held on September 12, September 13, and October 3, 2005 and consideration of the Personnel Report.

Ms. Betsy Leech, Chair of the Policy Review Committee, presented the Request to Approve Bethel School’s Uniform Dress Code. She explained the process outlined in Board of Education policy/procedure by which a school might request to be approved for a uniform dress code pilot, and she noted that Bethel School representatives had followed the procedure outlined. She noted that in addition to a parent survey that netted positive results and an endorsement by the school’s PTA, that the recommendation had been reviewed and approved by the Educational Programs and Services Committee prior to submitting the request for consideration to the Policy Review Committee. She advised that the Policy Review Committee was also recommending approval of the request.

As invited by the Chair, Ms. Jenny Nelson – Bethel School PTA President - and Ms. Julie Cary – Principal, addressed the Board with additional background information. Ms. Nelson stated that a lot of parents, for financial reasons, requested that Bethel students go to a uniform dress code. She said letters were sent home to parents and the school received an overwhelming response with parents saying they wanted this to occur. Additionally, she discussed the review this issue had received in PTA meetings. She and Ms. Cary discussed how uniforms would be obtained for students whose parents could not afford to buy them (PTA, churches, donations).

It was explained that from the initial survey posed to parents at a PTA meeting, there were 101 responses turned in with 88 votes in favor of the uniform policy and that in the second mailing, 270 surveys were sent home with 199 responses received and 81% in favor.

Ms. Leech stated that an annual evaluation was built into this procedure, so that there would be an automatic review of how well the new dress code was working.

A question was asked regarding what would happen to a student who did not wear the uniform when they were suppose to, and both Ms. Cary and Ms. Carol Moore responded to this question. It was noted that as this would become the school’s dress code, students who did not appropriately wear the uniform would be in violation of the code.

Upon motion by Ms. Betsy Leech and second by Mr. Sidney Scott, the Board voted to approve the Bethel School Uniform Dress Code. One nay vote was cast by Dr. Ralph Love.

Concluding her presentation, Ms. Leech offered the following policies for First Reading: Policy 3.005 Insurance – Vehicle, Policy 3.006 Bonded Employees, Policy 3.501 Expenditures of Funds, Policy 5.101 Safety, Policy 7.027 Bloodborne Pathogens, Policy 9.207 Work Experience, Policy 9.607 Minimum Failing Grades, Policy 9.608 Grading by Students Forbidden, and Policy 9.802 State Accreditation and Accountability.

Mr. Delano Wilson provided the report for the Human Resources Committee meeting held on September 27th. He advised that the committee had discussed the process for evaluating principals and was recommending approval of the schedule outlined for principal evaluation meetings as follows:

a)  Each evaluator must schedule the first individual evaluation meeting with the school administrator no later than October 31 each school year.

b)  Each evaluator must schedule an individual mid-cycle meeting with the school administrator.

c)  Each evaluator must prepare summative evaluations no later than July 15 each school year.

(This schedule represents the minimum requirement. Additional meetings may be scheduled as determined by the evaluator.)

In response to a question, it was noted that the Principals and Assistant Principals Association representatives were aware of the recommendation being made. Upon motion by Mr. Wilson and second by Ms. Betsy Leech, the recommendation was unanimously approved.

Ms. Barbara Owens reported from the Educational Programs and Services (EPS) Committee meeting held on September 27th. She advised that Mr. Worth Forbes had provided the results of the block schedule review that had been conducted with focus groups. She explained there was a common belief that the most effective teachers were those who avoided lectures and used group work and hands-on techniques. She advised that a review of required pre-requisites for certain advanced placement courses was highly recommended by all the groups. Overall, she said, participants found the block schedule to be positive and they appreciated the opportunity for students to take more courses. Ms. Owens noted there was not a measurable difference in student achievement on or off the block schedule.

Ms. Owens advised that the EPS Committee reviewed a request from Bethel School recommending implementation of a mandatory uniform policy. She stated Principal Julie Cary had provided an overview of the process the school had used to determine parent interest, and Ms. Cary shared that a majority of parents supported the concept. Ms. Owens reported that the recommendation from Bethel School was approved by EPS and was sent to the Policy Review Committee as required in the Board’s policy.

Ms. Owens shared that Board Chairman Michael Dixon had announced at that meeting the Board’s intent to invite an external audit of our technology/e-rate program. She said that Mr. Dixon had indicated that a number of our applications had been denied recently and that he had spoken to Ms. Rejeanor Scott about the proposal, and she was supportive of the review. Concluding the report, Ms. Owens shared that Dr. Mary Williamson had described the process for parents to be informed of supplementary tutoring services available to certain students at Bethel and Pactolus because of No Child Left Behind sanctions, as well as the progress of the technology committee toward finalizing the technology plan.

Chairman Dixon emphasized that the Technology Audit was not just to be focused on the e-rate application and process, but rather the entire Technology Department.

Ms. Owens stated that the Technology Plan was being brought forward at this time as a recommendation from EPS for consideration and approval.

Questions regarding the Technology Plan were addressed. They included:

- Why the Technology Plan was being considered for approval prior to the Board receiving the report on the audit.

- Why the Technology Plan had not been submitted to the Finance Committee for review prior to coming to the full Board, given the noted expenditures and particularly those carrying a substantial cost?

- What the deadline was for submitting the technology plan to the State?

- Who the committee members were who serve on the Technology Committee?

It was explained that in order to ensure the school system’s technology allotment, the plan had to be submitted by the deadline date, but that there would be an opportunity for the Board to make changes and/or adjustments to the plan if it so desired. One additional comment was offered that in the future, it would be preferable for the staff member who had reviewed a document and/or who had been involved in the discussions, to sign off on a recommendation first prior to submitting it to the Board for approval.

Upon motion by Mr. Sidney Scott and second by Mr. Billy Peaden, the Board unanimously approved the Technology Plan.

Mr. Dick Tolmie presented the report from the Facilities Committee meetings held on September 20th and October 13th. He advised that the committee was beginning a review of the classroom needs across the county, but indicated that the committee was in the very early stages of this review. Additionally, he shared that the Committee had looked at some of the system’s energy conservation efforts. Although he stated there were no items being submitted for action at this time, he said there were two issues of substance that came up with those being: (1) a request that staff contact ORED to get cost and timing on updating the attendance area information by segment, and (2) the Ayden-Grifton Press Box in that the committee asked staff to contact an engineer and get an estimate of design and construction costs. Questions were asked as to whether or not bids would be required in the work on the Press Box and if it would be possible to construct this item without the elevator.

Introducing the discussion on the redistricting plans for the J. H. Rose, South Central, D. H. Conley, and North Pitt Attendance Areas, Dr. Michael Priddy provided background information. He shared that the Board of Education had spent several years and had given considerable time and thought to this effort. He said it had been a difficult process and indicated that there was an interconnectedness between the proposals for one attendance area with another. He commended Ms. Weathington on her work and indicated that there were four specific areas that he wished for the Board to remember in keeping with the guiding principles established. The first, he said, was the idea of K-12 alignment within the attendance zones. He noted this criteria was not essential but was advantageous to students, parents, counselors, transportation, principals and that the Board had embraced that ideal at the time it was added to the policy. The second, he said, was related to the area referred to as Clark’s Neck and the association those parents and students have with G. R. Whitfield School. He stated that he felt it would be prudent for the Board to look at Clark’s Neck being a part of the G. R. Whitfield attendance zone. The third, he said, was related to Hope Middle School. He noted that today it might not mean a lot to folks, but that in a few years, there would be houses surrounding the school. He encouraged the Board to think about Hope Middle School and the value of it physically being located within its own attendance area. The final point, he said, was related to A. G. Cox. He encouraged the Board’s consideration of leaving A. G. Cox in tact in its feeder pattern, as opposed to sending the segments around Tree Tops to Hope Middle.

In terms of a recommendation and referring to page 38 in the Board Agenda Book, he said that he had attempted to formulate his recommendations based on what he thought were the best decisions for the school system. He offered the following:

(1) In regard to the D. H. Conley Attendance Area, he stated that a choice of 3.B.(1) would better serve the purposes of the school district, leaving the Clark’s Neck area at G. R. Whitfield.

(2) In regard to 3.A., he said that Plan ES8 works for the school district because it allows the children in Greenville to be assigned to schools in Greenville.

(3) In regard to 2., he recommended against reassigning segments 155, 156, and 157 to Hope Middle School, thereby leaving A. G. Cox fully aligned in the South Central Attendance Area.

(4) In regard to the J. H. Rose Attendance Area and the two choices offered, he suggested that it would be advantageous for the City of Greenville and the County of Pitt in the long run to adopt ES6 Revision 1. He said that within that plan the composition of students would be within 3 percentage points of the minority goal (among the five elementary schools) and the travel time would be within the City of Greenville in such a way that it was not going to have a negative effect upon the children’s time on buses. Dr. Priddy added that he had given considerable thought to the other plan, but that as it required the district to find and provide on a long term basis additional funds for schools that exceed some designated level of poverty (6 to 8 schools next year), he said he was not sure it was fair to say that was a likely possibility, and he discussed the funding shortfalls facing the district this school year. He stated that if Board members wished to further pursue possible areas of redirection of resources, that staff members were prepared to address that issue. Additionally, he suggested that should the Board wish to look at additional resources for only two schools based on minority representation, rather than poverty which implicated 6, 7, or 8 schools, then it would be a little easier to provide.