HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19900410 MINUTES
Special Meeting
Orange County Board of Commissioners
and
Orange County School Board
April 10, 1990
1 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Special Session on April 10, 1990 at
2 6:30 p.m. in the Public Works Conference Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina. The purpose
3 of the meeting was to hear presentations from the two school systems on Senate Bill 2 and
4 to discuss the impact of the implementation of this bill on the county budget.
5
6 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis,
7 John Hartwell, Shirley E. Marshall and Don Willhoit.
8
9 ATTORNEY PRESENT: None
10
11 CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOL BOARD: Vice-Chair Carolyn Horn, Ruth Royster, Mary
12 Bushnell, Sue Baker, and Douglas Breeden.
13
14 ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: Chairperson Kay Singer, Bob Bateman, Max Kennedy, and
15 Joseph Gatewood.
'6
17 STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Ellen Liston,
18 Budget Administrator Rod Visser, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, and Deputy Clerk to
19 the Board Kathy Baker.
20
21 SCHOOL STAFF: Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Superintendent Gerry House, Orange County
22 School Superintendent Dan Lunsford, Wayne Watts, and Neil Peterson.
23
24 Chairman Carey welcomed everyone present and mentioned that the purpose of this meeting
25 was to give County staff and the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to become more
26 familiar with Senate Bill II.
27
28 ., ._.._. Sue Baker mentioned that Senate Bill II is complicated and difficult to understand.
29 The bottom line is that the schools must now be accountable to measurable goals rather
30 than processes or opportunities being made available to students. This bill is a
31 measurement of whether or not the goals are achieved.
32
33 Superintendent House gave a brief overview of Senate Bill II. A complete copy of this
34 Bill, officially named the School Improvement and Accountability Act of 1989, is in the
35 Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office. The primary purpose of this bill is to
36 achieve better results for the children. A secondary purpose is greater employee
37 satisfaction. The purpose of this bill was not to raise the salaries of teachers. The
38 improved salaries are a byproduct of improved educational results for children. It was
39 of great importance to answer the question "how are we doing the job now?". That analysis
40 was needed to decide what needed to be changed. This bill will force schools to be
41 accountable for a "product". In this case the product is well educated students. The
2._
1 question is can a positive, corporate culture be created within the walls of the schools.
2 Achievement for all students is the goal of this bill. Normally the greater successes
3 in schools can be tracked along racial and/or economic lines. This bill attempts to
4 create a better, more professional work environment for those who try to educate children.
5 Flexible funding is another option in the bill. Local goals will be set by each system
6 and then by each school in the system. Student achievement is the criteria here and it
7 needs to be improved through the new goals set.
8
9 Each school system decided which options to use. If the differentiated pay plan was
10 chosen the instructional personnel, the instructional support staff and administrators
11 were included in the plan. This was voted upon by 411 affected schools. Each school
12 did not have to participate but each school had to vote on this option.
13
14 Ms. House indicated that there were several options for adopting Senate Bill II
15 including not using any portion of this Bill, using the Performance Based and Flexible
16 Pay portions only, or participating in everything but the Flexible Pay Plan. Chapel
17 Hill/Carrboro and Orange County chose to participate in Flexible Funding and the
18 Differentiated Pay Plan. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro and the Orange County School Systems
19 Improvement and Accountability Plans are on file in the permanent agenda file in the
20 Clerk's office.
21
22 The first part of the Bill dealt with Performance Based Student Accountability. Local
23 School District Improvement Plans were incorporated by each school into a personalized
24 Improvement Plan to help reach the goal of student accountability. The next part of the
25 Bill is the Differentiated Pay Plan which allows for instructional and support staff •°
26 receive additional compensation. This Bill allows for greater flexibility in performanc= `
27 of one's job in return for greater student performance accountability. Alternative
28 approaches are encouraged under this Bill and the state's mandate does not need to be
29 followed in all instances. Creativity in problem solving was encouraged.
30
31 Dr. Lunsford presented an overview of Orange County schools' Implementation Plan for
32 Senate Bill II. This plan has been submitted to the State but it has not yet been
33 approved. Orange County schools have 37 Student Performance goals. Those goals are listed
34 in this Plan which is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. He mentioned
35 that one goal they have been striving toward even before Senate Bill II is the attendance
36 averages in grades K-12 and they have been making significant progress. The issue of
37 dropouts is also of critical importance. Last year they reduced this dropout rate by
38 30%+. The overall goal is to have a dropout rate no higher than the state average. He
39 also mentioned that the competency testing goals for mathematics and writing
40 objective/essay are going to cause all school systems some difficulty. This difficulty
41 is that the State staff has established a standard but they have changed the way that the
42 competency is measured. This will throw the data collection off for the next three years.
43 He pointed out the importance of the statistical data which is listed in the plan as
44 Student Performance Goals Annual Benchmarks.
45
46 Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he had been told of a general trend toward moving
47 away from the California Achievement Tests and toward end-of-course testing. He asked
48 who would create the end-of-course test?
49
50 Lunsford indicated that the Legislation calls for State Board's staff to create tb-
51 end-of-course and end-of-grade tests. The intent of the end-of-course test is to hay
52 a body of questions that will focus on the specific competency outlined in the state
3
1 standard course of study. He indicated that moving away fr m the national measures to
2 more localized measures will reduce pressure on an organizal ion to attempt to teach to
3 a specific nationalized test. It would create a very strong metch between what you choose
4 to teach students and the material on which they are tested.)
5
6 Superintendent House stated that the process used in Chapel Hill-Carrboro was similar
7 to the one explained by Superintendent Lunsford. They started with a large committee
8 comprised of a diverse group of people and eventually arrivedjat a School Improvement and
9 Accountability Plan. They looked at the accreditation standards that the state accepts
10 and concluded that they have met all of the State performance indicators. All but two
11 of those have been met at a high level. Because they had reached the remainder of the
12 State standards they were able to use SBII to look locally at what they wanted students
13 to know. The strategic planning from last year had answered many of those questions
14 already. The basic answer was that we want our students to be roblem
p solvers and
15 creative thinkers. That was
included in the plan as
Goal #2� The Chapel Hill-Carrboro
16 City Schools Improvement Accountability Plan is s a.n the permanent agenda file in the
17 Clerk's office.
18
19 Commissioner Willhoit asked for clarification of the (Chapel Hill dropout rate.
20 Superintendent House indicated that the average dropout rate', for Chapel Hill is 2.5%.
21
22 County Manager Link asked if the Superintendents thought th waivers of Basic Education
23 Plan (BEP) funds would be granted? They indicated that there as a reasonable chance that
24 they would be.
15
-6 Superintendent Lunsford distributed a document entitled they Basic Education Plan (BEP)
27 Overview. He indicated that this plan is a major effort on the part of the State of North
28 Carolina to equalize opportunities across 134 school systemsL The Basic Education Plan
29 is at the halfway mark now; however, unless some things chance in this plan it will not
30 be completed. The intent of this plan is to have a comprehens*ve curriculum in 134 school
31 system. The elementary grades have-been impacted by this plan,more than the other levels.
32 It has brought dance, language, and drama to these classes. T*e impact has also been much
33 more dramatic in the less affluent school systems. In Orange County the effect is that
34 they are continuing to move forward with initiatives started by the local Boards of
35 Education and Board of Commissioners. A complete copy of this plan is located in the
36 permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
37
38 Superintendent Lunsford indicated that this plan is not on ;itract. He referred to page
39 10 of the overview and indicated that during the 1989-1990 school year not as much money
40 as anticipated had reached Orange County due to the budgeter* problems of the state.
41
42 County Manager Link stated that Career Development fundingldecreases from 1.4 million
43 this year to $700,000 in 1993-1994. Also, the Orange County Schools going from 14% to
44 7% while the Chapel Hill Carrboro system going up from 0% to 7% affects the equity formula
45 that was worked on last year.
46
47 A consensus was previously reached that pure equity was not a realistic goal. The current
48 goal is to have funding within 4% of each other. Budget Administrator Rod Visser
49 distributed a graph which is in the permanent agenda file i the Clerk's office. This
50 graph indicated that equity would be reached in about the y ar 1996 when Orange County
1 School funding is about 96% of Chapel Hill-Carrboro School fu ding. In the new scenario
52 the Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools will begin to phase in with he SBII funding going from
4
1 0% of eligible payroll until they get to 7% in 1993-1994. lAt the same time the Chapel
2 Hill-Carrboro School will go down from 14% to 7% of eligible payroll. He stated that in
3 three or four years beyond the year 2000 the definition of equity will be reached. The
4 schools will be within 4% of each other on a per pupil basi$.
5
6 Link stated that as much local flexibility as possible i4 needed from the state. He
7 urged everyone to pursue this issue with the State Legislatur , particularly as it relates
8 to BEP. The two school systems have already reached the rquired level of service to
9 children. At the present time the funding can go for only certain positions or functions.
10 Hopefully, some flexibility can be gained so that what both systems are able to do locally
11 can be enhanced. 1
12
13 Superintendent Lunsford pointed out that they have nOt reached all of the BEP
14 standards. Some of the expected new dollars would need to belused to reach the standards
15 that have not yet been reached. I
16 1
17 Superintendent House presented a document entitled "Vision for the 90's" to the Board
18 of Commissioners. Community values and priorities for ur educational system are
19 reflected in this document. It also has definite budget implications.
20
21 There being no further business to come before the Boardl, Chairman Moses Carey, Jr.
22 adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held at 7:30 p.m.
23 on April 17, 1990 in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
24
25 Moses Carey, Jr. Chairmr""'••
26
27 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
28 -
II
II