DATE: March 21, 2005 PRESENT: Michael Dixon, Chair

DATE: March 21, 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

Marcy Romary

Sidney Scott

Dick Tolmie

PLACE: Pitt County Office Building Delano Wilson

ABSENT:

Mr. Michael Dixon, Chair, called to order the Pitt County Board of Education in regular session. He welcomed everyone to the meeting

Mr. Roy Peaden led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. Deborah Long introduced recognitions for the evening. Included were recognitions of Ms. Alice Keene, Director of Community Schools and Recreation, for having been selected as the 2005 Greenville-Pitt County Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year; Ms. Ella Harris, Assistant Principal at J. H. Rose High School, who was selected as one of four recipients of the 2005 Best-Irons Humanitarian Award; and members of the J. H. Rose High School Mock Trial Team. Team members recognized were Carolina Lawler, Adam Balance, Kara Fowler, Brian Farkas, Ginger Gooch, Kathryn Lewis, Kenneth Ward, and Clayton Wilson. Coaches recognized were Elizabeth Glasgow and Liza Knight along with attorney coaches, Jeff Miller and Kim Swank. Certificates of Recognition were presented to each individual recognized. It was noted that Hope Lu, 2005 State Junior Miss winner, was also scheduled to be honored but could not attend.

A time for Public Expression was provided. Addressing the Board in regard to the Academically Gifted Program at E. B. Aycock were Mr. Chris Cordes, Ms. Phyllis Gay, Ms. Kelly Hart, and Ms. Kathy Ray. In addition to testimonials from parents regarding how well their individual children were doing in this program and handouts they provided for the Board, the following points were made:

- The Academically Gifted Program, currently at E. B. Aycock, is working well and should not be dismantled. Children are challenged, engaged, and making growth.

- The current program is not illegal, as was indicated to parents.

- The administration is revamping the program put in place by the previous administrator without taking into consideration the input from parents.

- The commitment made to meet with parents as a group has not been kept. Parents desire the opportunity to share research and data collected prior to the Board dismantling this program without being made aware of this information.

- A Task Force, to include parents, should be organized to study this issue.

- As a result of this current program, more sixth grade students have been inducted into the Junior Honor Society this year; they were not all AG students, some were at-risk students and some were middle of the line students. With this program, the at-risk students make gains, the AG students make gains, and the children in the middle don’t lose anything. Additionally, the program is provided at a reduced cost as there is no pull-out program requiring an AG teacher.

- Growth is being experienced with a group of students that previously was not measuring increased growth.

- OCR does not say that you cannot provide a self-contained classroom for AG children. Other counties (as indicated in handouts) in North Carolina, as well as in other states, are serving AG children in this manner.

Addressing the Board in regard to the potential of changing the grade configuration at Mills Road School were Ms. Susan Todd, Ms. Wendy Dunbar, Ms. Linn Henson, Ms. Carolyn Mosley, Ms. Catherine Bradbury, Ms. Robin Leneave, Ms. Allison Harris, Ms. Pam Averill, Mr. Lenn Jackson, Ms. Danette Pugh, Ms. Michelle Perkins, Mr. Bill Beach. Comments and questions included the following:

- How will the proposed change in grades at Mills Road affect Chicod School?

- Would the same opportunities be offered to students at Mills Road as are currently offered at other elementary and middle schools?

- How is the financial cost different in making this a K-5 school as compared to making it a K-8?

- Will the construction completed thus far adapt itself to a K-5 school appropriately?

- How many students are we looking at that would be coming into this school from Wintergreen? How many from Chicod? What other areas will be included in this school’s assignments?

- How much has already been spent by the school system on the middle school component? Will the Board be able to get that money back?

- Would the change in grades change the completion date?

- When will the Board make a decision as to this school being a K-8 or K-5?

- Would Chicod remain a K-8 school?

- Parents were previously told that students would be pulled from Chicod and G. R. Whitfield to provide some relief for those schools. How would this change affect new attendance lines?

- Consistency is important for early elementary students; they should not be moved from one school to another. Eastern Pines area was changed about three years ago. Will it be moved again; where will these children go to school in the new changes?

- It has been stated that a K-8 school produces a more nurturing environment. What are the other advantages for students and teachers?

- Where would these students go to middle school if changed to a K-5?

- How is transportation, time on bus, and transportation costs going to be affected by this?

- In regard to racial balance at Chicod, will this change from K-8 to K-5 at Mills Road have any impact on racial balance?

- The Mills Road school should be a 6-8 facility; then the students would be able to compete (athletically) with other schools.

The Chair expressed appreciation for the comments offered and the interest expressed.

The Chair offered the agenda for consideration and noted that two adjustments should be made. Added were a Report from the Facilities Committee as New Business, Item C. and a Closed Session as Item XI. Upon motion by Mr. Sidney Scott and second by Mr. Roy Peaden, the Board unanimously voted to approve the agenda as amended.

He then offered for consideration the Consent Agenda items. Upon motion by Ms. Barbara Owens and second by Ms. Jill Camnitz, the Board unanimously approved the Consent Agenda items as submitted. Items presented and approved included the minutes of meetings held on February 7 and February 21, 2005 and the Personnel Report for the month of March.

Ms. Betsy Leech offered the report from the Policy Committee. She discussed the policies being resubmitted for Second Reading noting the changes, and she reviewed the policies being offered for First Reading, as well as changes in procedures being shared for informational purposes. She specifically addressed the issues raised by the Board at First Reading on several of the policies, and explained in each case how the Policy Committee had addressed those issues in the revisions that were now on the table.

Ms. Leech shared that polices being presented for First Reading included Policy 9.604 (and Procedure 9.604-P). It was explained that this proposed change originated with the Educational Programs and Services Committee, which recommended that Pitt County Schools eliminate exam exemptions for all high school level courses. She stated that the proposal was that language be added to Policy 9.604 (Examinations) to clarify that the policy affects high school level courses, and that language related to exam exemptions be stricken from Procedure 9.604-P (Procedure for Examinations).

She shared that Policy 10.117 – College Visits – was being revised to strike the language that referred to exam exemptions from Policy 10.117.

Ms. Leech noted that Procedure 9.002-P – Guidelines for Religious Clubs (new) and Policy 10.703-P – Procedures for Regulating Clubs and Organizations (updated) were both being presented for informational purposes, and she briefly reviewed the substance of each.

Ms. Moore clarified that as related to Procedure 9.002-P, that the Guidelines for Religious Clubs were not new or different, but rather was a procedure that would make it more clear as to what the legal procedures already are. She also noted that school religious clubs refer to high schools only.

In regard to policies for consideration, Ms. Leech explained that Policy 10.107 had been revised to modify the introductory language related to the Board’s primary considerations for establishing attendance areas, indicating that the Board would balance those criteria listed to the degree possible.

In regard to Policies 7.019 and 10.200, Ms. Leech advised that the State Board of Education had required all local Boards to adopt an Anti-Discrimination, Harassment and Bullying Policy with those policies and procedures to implement it designed to prevent, intervene, investigate, document and report all acts of harassment, bullying or discrimination. It was noted that the policy and procedure was also required to: (1) contain a notice requirement; (2) prohibit acts of retaliation; and (3) designate an individual to provide leadership and training to the school district. She indicated that the policies would ensure more monitoring of such situations than perhaps had occurred in the past.

Ms. Moore clarified that based on Board comments at the time of First Reading, the Committee had added statements indicating that the policies should be effective immediately, and that initial training for all employees should take place within 18 months of the Board’s adoption of the policy.

It was also noted that the words “As funds are available” had been removed from the administrative procedures that accompanied the new policies and that procedures 7.019-P and 10.201-P were being presented for informational purposes, not for vote.

Ms. Leech discussed that Policy 10.201 – Due Process for Search and Seizure – and Policy 10.203 – Use of Metal Detectors – had been reorganized into Policy 10.201, now requiring due process for all searches and seizures as well as the accompanying Procedure 10.201-P which now outlines the procedures for specific types of searches. She explained that because Procedure 10.201-P incorporates former Policy 10.203, both were being presented for Second Reading and a vote.

And finally, she explained that Procedure 9.616-P – Procedure for Promotion Standards – reflected a change that originated with the Educational Programs and Services Committee, which recommended that the number of credits that high school students needed in order to be promoted from grade to grade be reduced by one. The change, she stated, was intended to encourage students who were one credit shy of current promotion standards to remain in school allowing those students to be promoted with the opportunity to make up the credit in a subsequent grade. It was noted that while this was a procedure, it was being brought forward for the Board’s vote because of its importance and impact.

Upon motion by Ms. Jill Camnitz and second by Ms. Marcy Romary, the Board voted unanimously to approve all policies offered for Second Reading as presented. One question was asked regarding random searches of individuals at events such as basketball games, and it was explained that individual searches are only performed where probable cause is found.

Ms. Barbara Owens introduced the Report from the Educational Programs and Services Committee. She reported that Ms. Dawn Singleton, Director of K-8 Instruction, provided information for the committee on the upcoming changes in the North Carolina Standard Course of Study in science and the instructional guides being prepared for Pitt County teachers. She asked Dr. Williamson and Ms. Singleton to come forward and provide a summary of those changes.

Dr. Williamson reminded Board members that a brief review of the changes in science had been discussed at the last Board meeting and she explained that those changes were discussed further at the last meeting of the EPS Committee. Dr. Williamson introduced Ms. Singleton who indicated that a copy of the changes being referred to had been shared with all members of the Board. She explained that the State had revised the Standard Course of Study in science to be effective for next year and in doing so the physical science objectives were now spread over sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. In order to align with that, she said, the instructional guides for teachers must be revised to include physical science at each of those grade levels rather than being a separate course. We shared that this was also important in order to be able to keep up with the testing that was coming for End-of-Grade in those grade levels. She stated that there would be Pilot Testing in 2006 with regular testing in grades five and eight and would include the physical science objectives covered by each grade.

Mr. Sidney Scott stated that for the record he wanted to report that he had a meeting with Ms. Singleton and Dr. Williamson and had determined that academic classes would be grouped according to ability in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades; emphasizing that the top students would be put, as much as possible, together.

Ms. Singleton clarified that students would be “cluster grouped,” not “homogeneously grouped” in that classroom, as is written in the TAG Plan.

Mr. Scott stated that was not his understanding from the conversation; that he understood that the top students (at Wellcome) would be kept together within the separate classrooms.

Dr. Williamson clarified that what had been discussed was to put those top students all together in the classroom. She stated for example, there might be some other students of a different ability level; i.e., some who would be just under those at the top, who would be combined with those students at the very top in order to have enough students in the class which would provide an appropriate mix in terms of the diversity.