Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-26-2004- 8 Meeting Notes ReviewerUrrppr•oved Gy the Srrper•iuterufents Boards of Education for Chapel Hill Canboro City Schools and Orange County Schools March 3, 2004 6:00 p.m. Lincoln Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by the Chapel Hill Carrboro Board of Education (CHCCS) Chair Elizabeth Carter, Ms, Carter welcomed those in attendance stating she hopes the two school boards can become better partners. Keith Cook, Orange County Schools Board of Education (OCS) Chair thazxked CHCCS for the invitation to come to the Lincoln Center and for the meal provided stating he hopes the two boards will come out with a plan good for all students. The following persons were in attendance: Andy Sachs (Facilitator -Dispute Settlement Center), Lisa Stuckey (CHCCS), Brenda Stephens (OCS), Michael Kelley (CHCCS-arrived at 8:15 pm), Libbie Hough (OCS), Valerie Foushee (CHCCS), Betty Tom Davidson (OCS), Neil Pedersen (Superintendent-CHCCS), Keith Cook (Chair, OCS), Elizabeth Carter (Chair, CHCCS), Shirley Carraway (Superintendent, OCS), Jamezetta Bedford (CHCCS), Randy Copeland (OCS), Nick Didow (CHCCS), Delores Simpson (OCS), Dana Thompson (OCS-arrived at 6:55 pm). Member absent: Edward Sechrist (CHCCS). Also present was IGm Hoke (CHCCS-Assistant to the Superintendent), Amxe D'Amrunzio (OCS-Public Infornxation), Patricia Coleman (Recorder) and three media representatives, Board members briefly dialogued one-on-one with the person seated next to them in order to inh~oduee them to the group. Facilitator Audy Sachs introduced himself and clarified his three objectives for the evening: (1) to help reach the agreed upon objectives for the meeting, (2) to help the Boards use the time well and (3) to help those present work well together. The desired outcomes for the March .3 meeting are: (1) increased familiarity among members of the two school boards azid (2) to arrive at consensus on possible areas for collaboration. The desired outcome for the second meeting will be: (1) to arrive at consensus on priority areas for collaboration, (2) to plan for collaborating on one or more priorities and (.3) to arrive at consensus on preferred topics/outcomes for the Apri126 meeting with the Board of County Commissioners. All members were in agreement with the outcomes as listed above for the March .3 meeting. Facilitator Sachs reviewed the agenda as follows: 6:00 Dimxer 6:45 Convene 7:30 Meeting Overview.. Areas for Collaboration Test for Consensus 8:45 Wrap up 9:00 Adjourn All members were in agreement with the agenda to be followed. Facilitator Sachs reviewed the proposed ground rules as follows: One speaker at a time Stick to task and topic Listen attentively to the speaker Share the floor with other group members It is o,lc to disagree...please do so respectfully Strive for unanimous consent, but accept 75% approval by group members present at time of vote for final decision making All members were in agreement on the ground axles to be followed Facilitator Sachs stated be will not contribute his ideas to the discussion. He also asked that persons who maybe offended by anything he might say should feel free to say so and that he would likewise aslc for permission to point out if he thinks persons are not following the agenda rules/straying from the topic. All members were in agreement with the facilitator's requests. Facilitator Sachs refen-ed Board members to the grid entitled Suggested Areas of Collaboration outlining eighteen items as possible areas of collaboration. Board members discussed each item as follows: 1. Transportation operations. Superintendent Carraway (OCS) reviewed the item by stating that joint funding is received and that the two school systems do have,joint maintenance responsibilities. The two systems share in staffing and rating and communicate frequently, especially when it comes to weather. The efficiency rating combines both districts. Discussioi>/comments: some persons who do not know may not realize the two systems collaborate; it may be helpful to identify collaborative areas for public knowledge; two mechanics from OCS work at CHCCS garage; it is a monetary savings to have two physical plant locations in the county; is what we are doing making sense? Should/should not transportation operations be expanded?; the systems are currently working on efficiency rating and will continue to do so to boost the rating-this is significant as it generates funding; efficiency rating is based on multiple factors -number of buses, how they are run, etc; having two separate garages makes sense but we should still look at co-housing of a garage facility for any possible benefit; if both plants are in good shape, that maybe the simplest answer; it would be inefficient to route buses from one facility, even if it is located in the center of the County.. Facilitator notes: Identify areas already collaborating on Question co-housing garage, co-locating to a proximity is a concenx Floating staff? A model to build upon Retutn to this if moving students becomes relevant 2. Co-housing central office staff. -2- Superintendent Pedersen (CHCCS) reviewed the item by stating the Board of County Commissioners has discussed this area questioning if resources could be better used, Pedersen understands that between the two school boards there would be a central facility constructed from the CIP budget and all staff would be housed in the same facility, not particularly any change in staff, but with one side for each system.. What is central? Somewhere close to the line that divides our- districts. Discussion/conunents: the Board of County Commissioners feels that if there is an item that neither system is interested in discussing, with justification, that item could be considered satisfied; do not know how systems could continue to serve customers in a central building; would like to see what BOCC would like to have Boards of Education undertake further with the facility; can see a benefit but also have some concerns such as location; is coexisting the way to go about collaborating?; we have operated under two school districts ever since existence. Coexistence would not be too difficult -travel would not be a problem; each district needs to have its own office. Two systems could agree to meet twice a year to stay inforned and work on collaboration in that way; need to look at transportation in terms of sensibility rather than proximity; public transportation does not go to Hillsborough. Transportation would be a hardship. Facilitator notes: Concern: what is central location Access to office by parents, customers, visitors, etc. Can't envision what this would look like -confusion-should be central Other than capital, what would be the benefit? Benefit: brainstorming, groundbreaking endeavors, cross expertise Need to see bow that would work More than a building Easier, travel not an enormous problem More convenient to have an office in the community Is travel the real problem? If boards stay informed, this will foster collaboration-not a building. A single building would make people angry because of travel Meet and share information Think: accessibility, not proximity. Even Lincoln is hard for some people to get to; E.g., kindergarten registration Hardship on citizens. Public transit doesn't serve both districts. Access. 3. The levels at which educational programs should be provided: set priorities.. Superintendent Carraway (OCS) reviewed the item by stating that this would require the two systems to set priorities for which level ofservices should be provided, E.g., coming together to determine when both systems would start Spanish. Decisions should be based on demands of populations and parents. -3- Discussion comments: this would be beneficial for both districts to define; funding could come from other sources to flee up school funding; this fits nicely under #7. Facilitator notes: Concern: needs of students within each district Redefine: look at extras, like nurses, resource officers, social workers, psychologists, any support services persomiel Separate funding stream 4, Joint opportunities for professional development. Superintendent Pedersen (CHCCS) reviewed the item by stating each system could invite the other system to participate by sharing of workshops and using some of our own resources. Discussionr/comments: this is self explanatory. Facilitator's notes: none. 5, Working relationship: ensure that communication is healthy, open and trusting. Superintendent Carraway (OCS) reviewed the item by stating the item is self-explanatory-look at the Preamble. Discussion/comments: a working relationship between the two boards?; should be all tluee boards; this meeting here shows that there bas never been any animosity or adversity between the two boards; this makes a case for continued meetings between these two boards because the two boards have shown that we do not have to be forced to meet nor do we have a difficult time talking; it is helpful to meet together face to face; we need to trust each other because we all have something to bring to the table. Facilitator notes: No animosity between the two boards -continue meeting We don't have to be forced, nor do we find it difficult to talk Face to face? What do you mean? The ]Hunan element,. Mutual respect across the tlu~ee Boards Trusting our opinions Who has the last say in educational matters 6. A shared definition of "mandate:" which budget items are required by state and federal authorities, which items are otherwise necessary to operations, which fall into neither category? Superintendent Pedersen (CHCCS) reviewed the item by stating sometimes the Boards of Education think mandates apply to different things than what the Board of County Conunissioners think, Discussioi>/comments: there needs to be consistency in the mandates. 4- Facilitator notes: Consistency 7. Guidelines for using any additional funds that would be generated if new revenues were created, for example tluough a cowrtywide district tax ("new paradigm?"). Superintendent Carraway (OCS) reviewed the item by stating the Boards could agree on areas to pursue in a collaborative mamier that the Board of County Commissioners could set aside a poi of money to support.. Discussioi>/conunents: as we discussed under #3, the Board of County Commissioners could set aside a pot of money for designated items; need to redefine the issue of nurses; does the inclusion of the plu-ase "countywide district tax" raise a red flag or does it help?; might be better to delete that phrase Facilitator notes: Also see #.3 - "redefine" issue re: nurses "New paradigm" -special pot of money "New paradigm" - provides a way to allocate funding but not per pupil basis hlcentives to collaborate Delete "For example , .." ? Coordinated implementation of middle college program and/or more extensive dual enrollment programs with local conmmnity college, taking advantage of Durham Tech's Orange County campus to the greatest extent possible. Superintendent Pedersen (CHCCS) reviewed the item by stating the middle college program is an excellent opportunity for collaboration -probably not something one system could do alone Discussion/comments: both systems are already working on this; Allied Health Program is already being worked on also. Facilitator notes: Already working on 9. Alternative school programming, other than a single alternative school for students in both districts. Superintendent Carraway (OCS) reviewed the item by stating it would be helpful to share programmatic information. There are lots of ways to collaborate here. We need to serve our students. Discussion/conunents: the Orange County Schools district goes all the way to Alamance County. Alamance, Person and Chatham also abuts our district. Would there be some benefit to a central location?; we could share administration; we need to grow; as wonderful as Phoenix Academy is here in CHCCS now, it was started in a mobile unit. Think through potential cost of the distance factor; one of the things that is important in looking at alternative schooling -5- challenges is that small, unique classes are best; need to look at other districts who have programs in place such as Guilford County; need to consider the sense of comnrrmity that is desired for students; kids in Phoenix like the small size. Facilitator notes: Proximity and accessibility Share administration? Growth Urgency Central office staff see challenges Small class size helps children along L,oolc at what others are doing Consider sense of conununity Teacher turnover 10. A plan to institute regular° meetings between the superintendents and their respective staffs to examine areas of mutual educatimral interest and potential cooperation, including an amoral report to the public on their progress at working together. Superintendent Pedersen (CHCCS) reviewed the item by stating the item is self explanatory. Discussion/connnents: none. Facilitator's notes: None 11. Early childhood prograzns. Superintendent Carraway (OCS) reviewed the item by stating both districts realize the need For mare. Both districts feel the need to maintain current prograzns in place. There are children not being served,. We need to add to what is in place. Discussioir/cornments: need to keep what we have; need to start a new conversation with the Board of County Commissioners about keeping early childhood programs, We need to talk about capacity and how to plan. Facilitator notes: To BOCC: Keep early childhood programs in schools and plan for better capacity Already collaborating on this 12. Awareness by parents in the City schools to the features of the County year round schools at Hillsborough Elementary and Stanback Middle School. Superintendent Pedersen (CHCCS) reviewed the item by stating that CHCCS has considered year-round schools for several years and bas not pursued due to lack of interest, Discussior>/comments: CHCCS has learned from OCS, We are not resistant to conversations but do not see a need to do anything differently at this time; OCS has a waiting list at -6- Hillsborough Elementary for the year round program. At Stanbaclc Middle School, we need the number°s to generate the program desired, At A.L. Stanbaclc Middle, space is an issue; CHCCS has without exception approved transfers to OCS for students who wish to attend the year round school; we may need to put a question in the survey that is going out in Orange County Schools to determine interest in middle school year round; it may not be feasible due to space but is worth investigating with the building of new school(s). Consider changing the language from "seeking to raising awareness of parents" to "working together as we consider the development of year round schools" or "communicating about the development of year round schools"; additional seats will be available when Hillsborough Elementary is expanded. Facilitator's notes: CHCCS has talked about this for years. No enthusiasm for it in the community (customers) We can learn fiom OCS on this, but don't currently see the need OCS-year round elementary very successful Middle school? CHCCS can learn from this Physical capacity gone in kindergarten Space is an issue for OCS Cowity in process of surveying elementary students regarding interest in year round Would that open options for CHCCS? Worth pursuing? Working together as we communicate about year round schools Potential benefit: OCS generates numbers needed for stand alone with CHCCS students 13. A strategy for promoting contacts between children in the respective school systems on an ongoing basis beyond athletics. Superintendent Carraway (OCS) reviewed the item by stating this could be in the area of clubs, projects, ,joint classes (Health Academy, Middle College, College and Career Night, Project Graduation), Discussion/comments: Project Graduation is totally separate from the school district, This event would not Ue azi appropriate one for this item; this is an item worth pursuing. Nothing should be crossed out as a possibility; one example for thought is the Walk for Education. Facilitator's notes: College and Career Nights meaningful contacts [Project Graduation] [Walk For Eduaation] 14, Measurable opportunities for students in each district to participate in programs in the other district that are not now currently available to them; e.g. CHCCS AP courses, OCS vocational courses, OCS IB program. Superintendent Pedersen (CHCCS) reviewed the item by stating this could identify programs specific to each system that could be made available to other system. Discussion comments: it is worth noting that students cross district lines to attend both ways. Facilitator notes: -7- During summer Orange County students attend summer school in Chapel Hilh Move back and forth 15. Next steps based on feedback received from a new joint educational opportunities survey. Superintendent Carraway (OCS) reviewed the item by stating the Boards would need to come to consensus on a survey to used in both districts. Discussion/corrunent: when having conversations about #12, the year round school needs to be a part of that survey; with regard to #14 as it relates to the IB Program, the program calls for students to be a student at that school in order to participate. Facilitator notes: Include in the year round survey Note: LB Program requires student to be a part of the school 1 C. Proposals from independent parties to conduct an analysis of opportunities for increased efficiency afforded by joint operations of services such as transportation, child nutrition, purchasing, and maintenance. Seek financial support from BOC_C to complete the study once a consultant is selected. Superintendent Pederson (CHCCS) reviewed the item by stating the item is self explanatory. Discussioi>/comments: none Facilitator's notes: None 17, A structure to address issues related to the siting and planning of facilities. Superintendent Carraway (OCS) reviewed the item by stating that if the state proceeds to reduce class size, this will directly affect facility. Discussioir/conmlents: the Schools and Land Use Conunittee (SL,UC) was addressing this acid has now been cancelled; a new group has been talked about. Facilitator's notes: Surprised that earlier efforts were ended by $OCC 18. Identification of the "excess capacity" in the two districts, with input from school governance committees, parents and students concerning their interest in students attending schools in the other school district and in the possibility of merging the two school districts. Superintendent Pedersen (CHCCS) reviewed the item by stating there is a need to identify school capacity in both districts and whether or not capacity could be used by students in the other district. Discussion could include the topic of merger. -8- Discussion/comments: does it muddy the water when talking about collaboration to also talk about merger?; others have different reasons for students moving back and forth between the systems -efficient use of capacity, not programming; we have talked about students crossing lines both ways -this is a win-win; could take away the merger word is the Boards desire. Facilitator notes: Muddies waters by including merger? Focus is more efficient use of capacity Take out "merger" Following discussion on all 18 items, a poll was taken of Board members on consensus of each item as a possible area for collaboration. Facilitator Sachs announced that there are 13 Board members present. Superintendents will not be voting. A total of 10 votes on any one item constitutes the 75% rule agreed upon for consensus. The vote was taken as follows with some items being reworded as noted (the * indicates the item was agreed upon based on the 75% rule): L Transportation operations. Vote: 13 2. Co-housing central office staff. Vote: 5 3. The levels at which educational programs should be provided: set priorities.. Vote: 0 4. .loint opportunities for professional development, Vote: 1.3 5. Working relationship: ensure that communication is healthy, open and trusting. Vote: 1.3 "` 6. A shared definition of "mandate:" which budget items are required by state and federal authorities, which items are otherwise necessary to operations, which fall into neither category? Vote: 11 * 7, Guidelines for using any additional funds that would be generated if new revenues were created for example tlu-ough a countywide district tax ("new paradigm?"). Vote: 13 8. Coordinated implementation of middle college program and/or more extensive dual emolhnent programs with local commm~ity colleges, taking advantage of Durham Tech's Orange County campus to the greatest extent possible. Vote: 13 9. Alternative school programring, other than a single alternative school for students in both districts. Vote: 12 10. A plan to institute regular meetings between the superintendents and their respective staffs to examine areas of mutual educational interest and potential cooperation, including an annual report to the public on their progress at working together. Vote: 13 11. Create more early childhood programs. Vote: 12 -9- 12, Awareness by parents in the City schools to the features of the County year round schools at Hillsborough Elementary and Stanback Middle School. Explore inter district magnet Year Round school programs (include in survey). Vote: 1.3 13. A strategy for promoting meaningful contacts between children in the respective school systems on an ongoing basis beyond athletics. Vote: 12 14, Measurable opportunities for students in each district to participate in programs in the other district that are not now currently available to them; e.g. CHCCS AP courses, OCS vocational courses, OCS IB program. Vote: 1.3 * 15. Next steps based on feedback received from a new joint educational opportunities survey. Vote: 13* 16. Proposals from independent parties to conduct an analysis of opportunities for increased efficiency afforded by,joint operations of services such as transportation, child nutrition, purchasing, and maintenance. Seek financial support from BOCC to complete the study once a consultant is selected Vote: 10 17. Participate in developing an inclusive A structure to address issues related to the siting and planning of facilities. Vote: 10 18. Identification of the "excess capacity" in the two districts, with input from school governance committees, parents and students concerning their interest in students attending schools in the other school district and in the possibility of merging the two school districts , Vote: 2 Facilitator Sachs moved on to the next item on the agenda which was for second meeting planning. The second meeting will beheld on March 22 in Hillsborough (location: TBD) from 6:00-9:00 p.m. It was requested that additional items of interest for collaboration be placed early in the meeting on the agenda for March 22 so that the two Boards can then move on to set priorities, OCS Board Chair Keith Cook requested staff be allowed to begin putting together a countywide Educational Opportunities Survey. Following discussion it was agreed that staff will secure copies of the last survey conducted in order to become familiar with the survey. A draft survey will be compiled and sent to the Boards of Education in the mail. However, due to the short notice, the draft survey may not be completed prior to the next meeting. However, copies of the previous survey conducted, with results, will be distributed but not discussed (due to the already full agenda) at the next meeting. Facilitator Sachs reviewed the meeting with Board members giving feedback about what items went well and what items needed improvement. Board members said that what worked well was: participants obeyed the ground rules, the grid was distributed to Board members in advance, the food, the City School's hospitality, mixed seating, introductions, the facilitator (including cutting us off when time was short), relaxed participants, and the meeting dispelled rumor of tension. One participant said that he did not feel constrained by time and would have liked the facilitator to allow discussions to go longer.. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m -10-