DATE: August 6, 2007 PRESENT: Barbara Owens, Chair

DATE: August 6, 2007 PRESENT: Barbara Owens, Chair

Mary Grace Bright

Jill Camnitz

Michael Dixon

Betsy Leech

Ralph Love, Sr.

TIME: 7:30 P.M. Billy Peaden

Marcy Romary

Sidney Scott Dick Tolmie

Delano Wilson

PLACE: Pitt County Office Building ABSENT: Roy Peaden

The Chair, Ms. Barbara D. Owens, called to order the Board of Education in regular session and welcomed everyone. Mr. Billy Peaden led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. Heather Mayo, Public Information Officer, introduced the President of the PTA Council – Ms. Mary Williams – to make recognition presentations. Ms. Williams presented Lifetime PTA Memberships to Ms. Alice Keene, Mr. Russell Williams, and Mr. Michael Dixon. She read a letter from the State President and explained that associated with these Lifetime Awards were $1,000 scholarships which would be presented at the State level to deserving seniors. In concluding her comments, Ms. Williams expressed appreciation for the support everyone had given her as Pitt County PTA Council President over the past two years.

The Superintendent, Dr. Beverly Reep, introduced new administrators to the Board. Included were: Mr. Mike Lutz, Principal at D. H. Conley; Ms. Victoria Hamill, Assistant Principal at E. B. Aycock; Ms. Nicole Smith, Principal at Eastern; Ms. Shamma Barrett, Assistant Principal at Falkland; Mr. Thomas Feller, Assistant Principal at Farmville Middle; Ms. Stephanie Alston, Assistant Principal at H. B. Sugg; Ms. Hilda Connell, Assistant Principal at Northwest, Ms. Ferdonia Stewart, Principal at Sadie Saulter; Mr. M. B. Jenkins, Principal at Sam D. Bundy; and Mr. Chris Setser, Assistant Principal at Wintergreen. Introduced in new positions at the Central Office were Mr. Jeremiah Jackson, Drop-Out Prevention Coordinator; Ms. Cathy Keeter, Exceptional Children’s Director, and Ms. Sylvia Mizzell, Title I Director. Dr. Reep additionally recognized that this was Mr. Worth Forbes’ first Board meeting in his new position as Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Services.

The Chair offered an opportunity for adjustments to the agenda. Upon motion by Mr. Michael Dixon and second by Dr. Ralph Love, the Board voted unanimously to approve the agenda as prepared.

An opportunity for Public Expression was provided. Ms. Tina Singleton addressed the Board regarding the request she and her husband had made to an appeal panel of the Board asking that their child(ren) be allowed to attend G. R. Whitfield School. She provided a letter for all Board members stating her request and her reasons.

The Chair offered the Consent Agenda for consideration. Upon motion by Ms. Betsy Leech and second by Mr. Michael Dixon, the Board unanimously approved the Consent Agenda. Included were minutes of meetings held on May 7, May 14, May 21, June 4, June 18 and July 19, 2007 and the Personnel Report for the month of August.

As Chair of the Policy Committee, Ms. Betsy Leech offered the report from that committee’s work with policies. She advised that three policies were being offered this evening for Second Reading. The first, she said, was the Employee Drug and Alcohol Screening Policy – Policy 7.026 – and she discussed the revisions to this policy, noting they were listed in the Board Agenda packet in bold lettering. Upon motion by Ms. Betsy Leech and second by Mr. Dick Tolmie, the Board unanimously voted to approve the revised Employee Drug and Alcohol Screening Policy (7.026) as presented.

The second policy discussed was the Work Week Policy, which Ms. Leech indicated was a new policy recommended by the Human Resources Committee. She reviewed the policy language, which specified that newly hired teacher assistants would work five less workdays and all teacher assistants would work a forty-hour work week, which is the number of hours for which they are paid. Several questions were addressed from Board members regarding the fact that existing employees were grandfathered in the language on the five less work days and why this decision was made. Upon motion by Ms. Betsy Leech and second by Ms. Mary Grace Bright, the Board voted unanimously to approve the new Work Week Policy.

The third policy discussed was an updated draft of the School Attendance Areas Policy – Policy 10.107. Walking the Board through each section of the proposed draft, Ms. Leech provided the rationale for deleting, adding, and revising statements (as indicated with the strikethroughs and bold lettering). Ms. Leech motioned that the policy as presented be approved and a second was received from Ms. Mary Grace Bright.

Following Ms. Leech’s review of the policy, Board members asked questions and made suggestions as follows:

- Is the school district not still under a court order? The old language that addresses racial balance is important to keep and should not be deleted.

- It would seem those parts of the policy that are organizational – such as grandfathering - should be moved to be a separate section with an added roman numeral.

- Would suggest that we consider this a First Reading on the revised draft and do some additional work on the policy’s organization. Where before the policy had some very clear and guiding statements, it seems that we have now added some feel good language but the real guidelines have gotten blurry. Believe the policy needs to be cleaned up more and would like to see the procedures that are referenced in the policy provided for review along with the policy.

- How will we know if we are in compliance with this language. Do we believe that we are covered.

- When we reference a change in organizational pattern, what does that mean? Do we reference demographics? Do we really mean grade patterns? We should be more specific.

- If the 70/30 language is removed, how is that going to affect us? Is it legal?

- If we are still under court order and we believe we are, then the 70/30 language needs to stay.

- Does the court order reference racial balance in policy or in the schools?

- Does the current wording of section “D.” take care of what we would need if the federal government came back and said we are still under court order and we do need to have racial balance or do we need something that addresses the 70/30 issue?

- How can we refer to something we don’t have in existence. We need to see what the procedure is going to say. I think we should table this until we have written procedures.

Following discussion, Ms. Leech withdrew her motion to approve and Ms. Bright withdrew her second.

Upon motion by Mr. Michael Dixon and second by Mr. Dick Tolmie, the Board unanimously voted to table consideration of this policy until the procedures were written and provided.

Dr. Reep pointed out that the Board was asking very important questions that needed to be answered by OCR. She said that the ongoing debate relative to this subject was still debating whether or not court orders as old as ours still had any standing. She added that until someone told us otherwise, she felt that we needed to honor the court order. She indicated that the Board had moved slowly with this hoping that a Supreme Court decision and a directive from OCR would converge to give us direction but that the fall timeline for making decisions was fast approaching. Dr. Reep stated that staff work had begun on this but bringing forward a plan for student assignment without a policy would defeat the purpose. She indicated that at the latest, a policy decision would be needed by the first of September. She added that Mr. Sonnenberg had been in touch with OCR trying to determine when a decision from that office might be forthcoming, but the only guidance they had been willing to provide so far was that the Wake County model worked.

Dr. Reep suggested that the Board continue to work toward finalizing a policy with the understanding that if OCR came back later with a directive that was contrary to the policy, then the policy could be changed at that time.

Under Superintendent comments, Dr. Reep expressed appreciation to the Board and district for the two and a half days spent the previous week with administrators undergoing Teachscape Training. She stated that the district had high hopes that the strategies being promoted in the classroom walkthrough process would result in improved teaching and learning in our schools. She indicated that all principals and assistant principals had now been trained in this process and that there would be an additional day of training in the fall. The strategies being taught here, she said, would have a direct correlation to student achievement.

Dr. Reep advised that Friday, August 10th, would be Tech Fest day in the district. She added that Tim Decresie, who had done much of the work preparing for this was in the audience with copies of the agenda, if Board members should want to attend.

Dr. Reep shared that September 10th had been proposed initially as a possible date for a Retreat workshop with district principals to discuss non-negotiable, measurable goals, but that it had been determined that date was not going to work. She suggested that September 6th had been scheduled as a back-up date, with Board involvement from 1:00 – 4:00 p.m.

Dr. Reep indicated that a handout had been placed on the table reflecting preliminary AYP information for schools. She pointed out the good news that the number of schools meeting AYP was higher than last year and advised that both Bethel and Sam Bundy did meet AYP this year.

She shared that Thursday, August 9th from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m., the culminating event for the Summer Significance Academy would be held at the Boys and Girls Club.

She also advised that the Back to School Rallies had been scheduled and that this year Board members were going to be asked to judge the school spirit competition. The criteria, she said, would be visual effects, creativity and noise levels.

It was noted that also provided for Board members was a copy of the new brochure advertising the Early College Program that would begin in the fall of 2008.

Dr. Reep discussed the State Legislative action to allow counties the opportunity to put a ¼-cent sales tax on a referendum before the voters and advised that Pitt County’s Commissioners had already taken action to put this issue on the ballot for November. The ¼-cent sales tax combined with lottery proceeds and Medicaid relief, she said, should help the district.

The Chair, Ms. Barbara Owens, asked for agreement on the October meeting dates of October 8th and October 22nd. By consensus, the Board agreed on these dates. She advised that she and staff were still working on revised September Board meeting dates.

Mr. Dick Tolmie expressed appreciation to Dr. Reep for the reception prior to the Board meeting, allowing Board members the opportunity to meet new administrators. He said he thought this was a very good idea.

Ms. Mary Grace Bright indicated that in response to recent public comments, she would like to have a report on bus routes, time spent on buses, and arrival time at schools. She stated that it was important to be sure that the Board and staff were doing the best we possibly could in regard to student time on busses. She said that as she recalled looking at the information previously, the greater concern was with Exceptional Children bus routes.

Mr. Billy Peaden asked how it was that Stokes was placed on the CHOICE list for other schools, if it was true that the sewer system was in danger of failing. Mr. Worth Forbes and Mr. Aaron Beaulieu responded to this question. It was confirmed that Stokes was listed as a CHOICE school because it was one that did meet AYP regulations. Mr. Beaulieu acknowledged that work should be completed by 2008 to rectify the situation with the sewer system. It was additionally explained that the school system could neither consider capacity nor transportation in allowing CHOICE to students.

Ms. Betsy Leech questioned the ability of the school district to set a policy that would cap enrollments at schools significantly over their capacities, and suggested that perhaps the Board should lobby federal legislators to get them to recognize that need for setting a limit on students for instructional purposes.

Upon motion by Ms. Mary Grace Bright and second by Mr. Dick Tolmie, the Board unanimously voted to enter Closed Session at 8:10 p.m. to: consider the qualifications, competence, performance, condition of appointment of a public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; or hear or investigate a complaint, charge, or grievance by or against a public officer or employee. [N.C.G.S.§143-318.11(a)(6)]

Upon returning to Open Session and upon motion by Mr. Dick Tolmie and second by Mr. Delano Wilson, the Board voted unanimously to establish a base salary for high school principals at $80,000.

Upon motion by Ms. Mary Grace Bright and second by Mr. Dick Tolmie, the Board voted to adjourn.

Respectfully submitted,

______

Ms. Barbara D. Owens, Chair

______

Beverly B. Reep, Superintendent