DATE: October 4, 2005 PRESENT: Michael Dixon, Chair
Mary Grace Bright
Jill Camnitz
Betsy Leech
Barbara Owens
TIME: 6:30 P.M. Billy Peaden
Roy Peaden
Marcy Romary
Sidney Scott
Delano Wilson
PLACE: Cornerstone Baptist Church ABSENT: Ralph Love, Sr.
Dick Tolmie
Mr. Michael Dixon, Chair, opened the work session of the Pitt County Board of Education and thanked everyone for his or her attendance at this workshop on redistricting. He expressed appreciation to Dr. Sidney Locks for use of the facility and offered the newly named Superintendent, Dr. Beverly Reep, an opportunity to speak to those assembled.
Dr. Reep stated that she was present on this occasion as a learning opportunity and that she had, over the past two days, had an outstanding visit with many individuals, mostly within the school system. She stated that on the next trip she hoped to get more into the communities and possibly have an opportunity to meet many of those in the audience. She shared that she was looking forward to becoming the new Superintendent and to working with everyone in Pitt County in meeting the challenges faced by the school system such as those being discussed this evening.
The Chair explained that the focus at this meeting would be to clarify those proposals to be brought forward for the Public Hearings on October 11 and 17.
Ms. Kay Weathington reviewed with the Board the number of students, the racial breakdown and the school capacity information for each school impacted by the Map ES6-Revision 1 and the corresponding middle school proposal that aligns with this map, MS6-Revision 1. She listed for the Board the elementary schools that would feed into the two middle schools under this proposal. In response to a question, Ms. Weathington described the areas encompassed by segments 344 and 348, which would join Elmhurst and Eastern at C. M. Eppes in this plan.
The Chairman noted that this plan was proposed to be brought forward as the “racially diverse” plan. He asked for consensus in bringing this plan forward for the Public Hearings. Consensus was received to move forward with ES6-Revision 1 and MS6-Revision 1.
Ms. Kay Weathington reviewed with the Board the number of students, the racial breakdown, and the school capacity information for each school impacted by Map ES6- Revision 3, in addition to reviewing and describing the area encompassed in segments 356 (Planter’s Walk) and 328 (Rock Spring and Brookgreen), which had been recommended at the last meeting to be adjusted. Under the adjustments, segment 356 students would go to Wahl-Coates and segment 328 students would be assigned to Eastern Elementary.
The Chairman indicated that this plan was proposed to be brought forward as the “proximity to school” plan. He asked for consensus on moving forward with ES6-Revision 3. Consensus was received.
Ms. Weathington then presented three middle school plans that would correspond with ES6-Revision 3 with those being MS6-Revision 3, MS6-Revision 3A and MS6-Revision 3B. For the three proposals, she listed the schools that would feed into the two middle schools and described the membership and racial balance that would result with each.
Based on a discussion that it would easier to schedule classes and sections at C. M. Eppes with more students rather than less, Ms. Jill Camnitz recommended that Plan MS6-Revision 3B be selected as the middle school plan to move forward with ES6-Revision 3. The Chair asked for consensus on this recommendation and consensus was received.
The next item discussed was a proposed plan for A. G. Cox to assume all 6-8 students for the South Central Attendance Area - MS4. Ms. Weathington reviewed the numbers for this plan. Given the fact that A. G. Cox would be 100 students over capacity, it was recommended by Ms. Camnitz that three segments, 155, 156, and 157 in the Tree Tops and Cedar Ridge areas follow their peers from Wintergreen to Hope Middle, rather than going to A. G. Cox. It was noted that 53 middle school students would be involved in these three segments. In discussion, there was consideration given to whether or not these segments would be closer to C. M. Eppes and/or E. B. Aycock. However, because of the assignment to South Central for high school and because of the capacity availability at Hope Middle, it was generally agreed that Hope Middle would be a better assignment. In clarification, it was reviewed that students in these three segments would attend Wintergreen for K-5, Hope Middle for 6-8, and South Central for 9-12, as proposed.
The Chair asked for consensus on moving forward with Plan MS4 with segments 155, 156 and 157 being assigned to Hope Middle School. Consensus was received.
The next item on the agenda was to finalize plans for the D. H. Conley Attendance Area. The Board was asked to affirm plan ES8 to populate the reorganized Wintergreen School. Consensus to move forward with ES8, as described, was received.
The Board was asked to choose between two proposals remaining on the table to populate the D. H. Conley K-8 schools. Ms. Weathington reviewed the numbers for these two plans, indicating there would be a slight change in the Hope Middle numbers given the adjustment just approved by the Board. She discussed the difference in the two plans as related specifically to the proposal to move students from the Clark’s Neck area to Pactolus School in the K8-1 (Revision 3).
A discussion was held as to whether or not Clark’s Neck students were closer to G. R. Whitfield than Pactolus and when this group of students had last been moved by the Board. Additionally, the resulting impact of K8-1 (Revision 3) on the other schools was discussed, including the fact that Hope Middle School would not sit in its attendance area, if this adjustment was made. It was also noted that 60 students had already been reassigned to G. R. Whitfield from Pactolus under No Child Left Behind.
A recommendation was offered to leave both proposals – K8-1(Revision 2) and K8-1 (Revision 3) on the table for the Public Hearings in order to hear from the parents in those areas impacted. The Chair asked for consensus on this recommendation. Following additional discussion, it was agreed by consensus to move forward with K8-1 (Revision 2) and K8-1 (Revision 3) remaining on the table for the Public Hearings.
In regard to the North Pitt Attendance Area, the first issue was a recommendation to move segment 231 from Northwest School to Belvoir School. Ms. Weathington reviewed the numbers for this and advised that the move would involve approximately 55 students. By consensus, the Board agreed to move forward with this recommendation.
The next two issues involved recommendations to move segment 246 from Stokes to Bethel and segment 255 from Pactolus to Stokes. A discussion was held regarding the potential impact on the schools involved.
By consensus, the Board agreed to remove these two recommendations from further consideration.
The final attendance area recommendation for consideration was a recommendation to move segments 207 and 208 from Ayden Elementary and Ayden Middle to Grifton. The impact was discussed and the area encompassed was described. Ms. Mary Grace Bright requested that this recommendation be tabled with no further consideration at this time. Mr. Delano Wilson agreed. By consensus, the remainder of the Board agreed.
Ms. Weathington reviewed the plans and proposals to be brought forward for the Public Hearings. The Chair invited all members of the audience to come and let their thoughts be known.
The Chair advised that specific information as requested at the last meeting had been placed at the Board member’s places at the table. Those included (1) The total number of students moved, (2) Projected growth at Belvoir, (3) Current location of mobile units, and (4) that the process to determine revenue streams to support schools with 70% or more poverty be referred to the Finance Committee.
Finance Committee Chair, Mr. Sidney Scott, emphasized that there really is no extra money and that to accomplish what the Board has said it wants to do for the schools economically disadvantaged will mean that other schools will have to sacrifice and give up, for example, teacher positions. He emphasized also that the Board will be required to make a serious commitment to see this through and ensure that ten years down the road, the Board remains committed to these schools.
Mr. Roy Peaden expressed a desire that the work on the revenue stream be done hand and hand with the work on redistricting. He asked that Dr. Williamson or Dr. Priddy go ahead and prepare the items that the Board would need to approve.
The Superintendent reminded Board members of the strategies Dr. Mary Williamson had discussed for providing additional resources and support for schools in Pitt County determined to be economically disadvantaged. He offered that within the next two weeks, those strategies could be “costed out” in order to bring that back to the Board by October 24th.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
______
A. Michael Dixon, Chairman
______
Michael D. Priddy, Ed.D., Superintendent