Charlotte, August 26, 2003

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education held a Regular Board Meeting on August 26, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Education Center.

Present: Wilhelmenia I. Rembert, Chairperson; Arthur Griffin, Jr., Member At Large; Larry Gauvreau (District 1); Vilma D. Leake (District 2); Molly Griffin (District 5); and B. Lee Kindberg (District 6).

Absent: Louise Woods, Vice Chairperson; John Lassiter, Member At Large; and George Dunlap (District 3).

Also present at the request of the board were James L. Pughsley, Superintendent; Maurice Green, General Counsel; and Susan Hanks, Clerk to the Board.

Upon motion by Ms. Griffin, and seconded by Mr. Griffin, the Board voted unanimously of those present to go into Closed Session for the following purposes:

• To establish and instruct the Board’s staff and negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the Board in negotiating the price and other material terms of contracts or proposed contracts for the acquisition of real estate property by purchase, option or exchange, pursuant to Section 143-318.11(a)(5) of the North Carolina General Statutes. • To hear and discuss personnel matters, pursuant to Section 143-318.11(a)(5) and Section 143-318.11(a)(5) of the North Carolina General Statutes. • To consult with its attorneys regarding a matter in which it is necessary to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the Board of Education and its attorneys. This motion is made pursuant to Section 143-318.11(a)(3) of the North Carolina General Statutes.

Dr. Rembert reconvened the Regular Board Meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Education Center. CMS TV Channel 3 televised the meeting.

Page 1 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting

Present: Wilhelmenia I. Rembert, Chairperson; Louise Woods, Vice Chairperson; Arthur Griffin, Jr., Member At Large; John Lassiter, Member At Large; Larry Gauvreau (District 1); Vilma D. Leake (District 2); George Dunlap (District 3); Molly Griffin (District 5); and B. Lee Kindberg (District 6).

Absent: There were no absences.

Also present at the request of the Board were James L. Pughsley, Superintendent; Frances Haithcock, Associate Superintendent for Education Services; Greg Clemmer, Deputy Superintendent for Operations; other members of the Executive and Senior Staffs; Maurice Green, General Counsel to the Board; and Susan Hanks, Clerk to the Board.

Call to Order

Chairperson Rembert called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Dr. Rembert introduced Matthew Crawley, a senior at Garinger High School, who led the Board and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Matthew is president of the Garinger Student Council, an Advanced Placement student, and an honor roll student. He was voted “Mr. Garinger” by the student body in 2002 and plans to attend Wake Forest University in preparation for a career in law. Garinger High School has a strong character education program through the school’s Student Council. Dr. Rembert recognized his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Otey Crawley, and Ms. JoElla Ferrell, principal at Garinger High School. Matthew said it was an honor to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

Recognition/Information

Recognition of Recipient of the American Institute of Certified Planners

Dr. Rembert called on Mr. Lassiter to provide the recognition for Ms. Jacqueline McNeil, CMS Planning Specialist, as the recipient of the designation of certified planner from the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Mr. Lassiter reported AICP is the American Planning Association’s professional planning institute that provides national recognition of leaders of professional planning for their ethics, professional development, planning education, and the standards of planning practice. Ms. McNeil has been a planning specialist with CMS for nearly four years. In her role as specialist, she has made significant contributions to the success of the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Lassiter recognized Ms. McNeil’s significant contributions to the development of the student assignment plans, determining the impact of rezoning cases, and partnering with the University of North Carolina at Charlotte on specific projects. Ms. McNeil passed the American Institute of Certified Planners examination on her first try. The Board congratulated Ms. McNeil on this accomplishment.

Page 2 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting Action Items

Approval of Administrative Personnel

There were no administrative appointments.

At this time, Mr. Gauvreau called for a Point of Personal Privilege because he stated he did not believe the Board is enforcing its bylaws regarding requests to add agenda items. He reported he had requested to add agenda items on two previous occasions. Mr. Gauvreau stated the requested agenda item had not yet been on the agenda. When asked by Mr. Gauvreau whether Dr. Rembert was prepared to add the item he had requested, Dr. Rembert stated she had accepted General Counsel’s interpretation that there might be two interpretations to the bylaws regarding the addition of agenda items. She said the interpretation Mr. Gauvreau referred to states that if a Board member presents an agenda item by 9:00 a.m. on Friday morning prior to the Regular Board Meeting, the item would be placed on the agenda. Dr. Rembert stated that Mr. Maurice Green, General Counsel, had reported the bylaws might be interpreted as she had interpreted the bylaws that a Board member may present an item for the agenda by 9:00 a.m. the Friday prior to a Board meeting, and that the Board Chairperson and the Superintendent are empowered to determine what items what appear on the agenda. Dr. Rembert further stated that at any time, if the majority of the Board agrees to amend the agenda to add items, the agenda could be amended. She said she had recognized Mr. Gauvreau at the August 12, 2003 Regular Board Meeting to introduce a motion to have the agenda amended. Dr. Rembert stated she would grant that same privilege at this time. Dr. Rembert reported that based on her interpretation of the bylaws, which she understood is consistent with the way the bylaws have been interpreted many years before her tenure as Chair of the Board, this was the determination she had made. She said she would recognize the Board’s decision to do otherwise because the Board is a corporate body and she did not wish to make decisions that the majority of the body would otherwise prefer. When Dr. Rembert asked Mr. Gauvreau if he would like to offer a motion to amend the agenda, he responded that he did not. He said this is not a question of him or anyone having to amend the agenda because the Chairperson has decided not to place his item on the agenda for the last two meetings. Mr. Gauvreau said he would prefer that the item be placed on the agenda, but the Board Chairperson has chosen not to follow this procedure. Again, Mr. Gauvreau asked if the Board Chairperson would place the item on the agenda. Dr. Rembert recognized Mr. Dunlap who stated that other than Mr. Griffin and Mr. Lassiter, he had served on the Board of Education for the longest period of time. He said there had been times when he wanted to add an agenda item; however, he said he had come to understand the Board cannot always accommodate one Board member. Mr. Dunlap said the Board has followed this policy since 1995. He stated that he would be upset if the Board’s interpretation of the rules changed to accommodate one person. Mr. Dunlap said the Board had clearly stated its interpretation and that one person’s interpretation does not supercede the interpretation of the majority of the Board. Mr. Dunlap asked if the Board could continue with the Order of the Day. Dr. Rembert stated she would like to return to the agenda. Mr. Gauvreau asked for a Point of Personal Privilege. Dr. Rembert recognized Mr. Gauvreau who said if the Chairperson was going to just “roll over” the agenda, he would seek to challenge the Chairperson. He said he would like this item to go before a vote of this Board. Dr. Rembert asked Mr. Green to clarify Robert’s Rules of Order related to Mr. Gauvreau’s request. Mr. Green explained that Mr. Gauvreau was attempting to appeal the

Page 3 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting decision of the Board Chairperson as to the interpretation of the bylaw, and should there be a second, the appeal would then be put to a vote as to which interpretation to follow given that he believed there may be two interpretations. He said the Board would then make a decision regarding the appropriate interpretation of that bylaw. Mr. Green added that if five members of the Board of Education agree that the interpretation is that if a Board member submits an agenda item by time certain, then this Chairperson’s decision would be reversed. Mr. Gauvreau could then move forward with his agenda item as if it were in fact on the printed agenda. He said, conversely, if a majority of the Board decides that the second interpretation is the correct interpretation (i.e., that the Superintendent and the Board Chairperson set the agenda and not withstanding the fact that Board members can submit items), that the item that Mr. Gauvreau seeks to put forth would not be on the agenda unless two-thirds of the Board agrees to place the item on the agenda. Dr. Rembert said she would ask the Policy Committee, under the leadership of Dr. Kindberg, to take up the issue of the bylaws which will be discussed in September, and provide a recommendation to the Board regarding how the Board may wish to interpret the bylaws given that there are at least two interpretations at this point. Dr. Rembert said given that these questions remain unclear with the Board, she would entertain what is proper and relevant to the challenge to the Chairperson’s interpretation to the bylaws at this meeting. Mr. Green said there must be a second to the appeal. A discussion followed a motion by Mr. Gauvreau, and seconded by Mr. Lassiter, to appeal the Chairperson’s interpretation of the bylaws. Dr. Rembert opened the floor for discussion of the motion. Mr. Gauvreau thanked Mr. Lassiter for seconding the motion. He said it is time to bring the topic to the table because he has not been able to obtain a reply from Dr. Pughsley regarding a simple set of questions and requests. He said he would prefer not to bring this subject to the Board meeting; however, the reason he did was because he had not received a satisfactory answer earlier. Mr. Green recommended that Mr. Gauvreau stay focused on the motion. Mr. Gauvreau said his challenge to the Chairperson is simply that the rules for placing an item on the agenda are exceedingly clear. He said he knows of no other person in America who does not interpret the simple set of sentences in the bylaws to mean that he, as an elected member and a trustee of Mecklenburg County, should not be able to put an action item in front of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. Mr. Gauvreau stated he is shocked that anyone would go to these lengths to try to prevent him from adding an agenda item. He said the Board has interpreted the rules in a false manner. Mr. Gauvreau read the following: “Policy BEDB, Agenda, which states any member of the Board of Education may submit items for Regular Board Meetings at any time prior to 9:00 a.m. Friday preceding the Tuesday meeting. The items shall be sufficiently detailed to give adequate notice for discussion.” He read a subsequent paragraph as follows: “An agenda shall be jointly prepared by the Chairperson of the Board and the Superintendent who shall place items for consideration pursuant to the Bylaws BEA, Regular Meeting. Any business not reached by the time of adjournment shall be carried over to an adjourned session or to the next regularly scheduled meeting as the Board may decide.” Mr. Gauvreau said this clearly states that each one of the Board members has the opportunity (and should take advantage of this) to place action items in front of the Board for discussion, debate and movement. He stated that to say a Board majority is going to try to detract from any policy debate is wrong and un-American, especially since he had only tried to place two items on the agenda during his tenure. Mr. Gauvreau stated he is curious what the other Board members have tried to place on the agenda. He asked, “Who is running the agenda?” Mr. Gauvreau stated the last time he tried to place an item on the agenda, Mr. Griffin blocked it and it went into a committee for a year. Mr. Gauvreau said he simply wanted the

Page 4 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting Board to vote on the motion. He said he would like the Board to direct the Superintendent to prepare several simple reports for them. He ended his discussion by asking the Board’s Chairperson to reconsider the fact that she has not placed this item on the agenda and he said it is her responsibility to do so. Dr. Rembert called on Mr. Dunlap who said he believed Mr. Gauvreau had read the policy clearly. He said there is clearly a different interpretation of certain words such as “submit.” Mr. Dunlap said just because you submit an item for the agenda it does not mean it will become an agenda item. He reported he had benefited by looking at policies across this state as they relate to how the agenda is set at a Board meeting. Mr. Dunlap said there are many Boards of Education across this state and across this country that use the same policy and interpretation used by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education regarding agenda items. He stated that although he had initially been opposed to the policy, he has now begun to see the wisdom of following it in such a fashion. He said if any Board member could arbitrarily place any item they want on the agenda, the agenda could be extremely long and in many cases would have nothing to do with the primary responsibility of the Board is student achievement. He said parliamentary procedure has set forth a process whereby if Board members feel that their requests are not being properly addressed, there is a process in place to have requests addressed. The process is to have a certain percentage of the Board of Education agree with what you are trying to do. Mr. Dunlap said the entire discussion had taken time away that should be used relative to student achievement. He suggested that the process currently in place permits any Board member to appeal to his colleagues the right to have an item submitted and to allow the decision of their colleagues to stand rather than to make a show on behalf of certain media outlets. Mr. Dunlap said this has happened at Regular Board Meetings on an ongoing basis and effort has been made by one Board member to try to embarrass the Board Chairperson. Mr. Gauvreau attempted to interrupt Mr. Dunlap; however, Dr. Rembert called the meeting to order. She asked Mr. Dunlap to refrain from responding to Mr. Gauvreau. Dr. Rembert informed Mr. Gauvreau that he had not been recognized and she asked him to honor everyone’s right to speak just as he was allowed to speak uninterrupted. She respectfully requested that Mr. Gauvreau refrain from speaking until Mr. Dunlap had completed his remarks. Mr. Gauvreau then raised a Point of Question. Mr. Dunlap informed Mr. Gauvreau that he was out of order. He said his point is that it is an ongoing effort on behalf of some people to deter and distract the Board of Education from what its ultimate goals and objectives are which is to educate students. Mr. Dunlap said he had been around for some time and while he does not always agree with his colleagues, he has been respectful of what they had to stay whether he agreed with them or not. He asked for the same courtesy and respect. He said there is a process in place and asked the Board to continue to follow Robert’s Rules of Order as they previously agreed to do. Mr. Dunlap called for the Order of the Day. Mr. Gauvreau called for a Point of Personal Privilege. Dr. Rembert called on Mr. Green for clarification. Mr. Gauvreau then withdrew the request for a Point of Personal Privilege. Dr. Rembert recognized other Board members who wished to speak. She called on Mr. Griffin who said he hoped to add something meaningful to an otherwise regretful discussion. He said Walter Fauntroy was a Representative to the United States Congress from the District of Columbia. Mr. Griffin said Mr. Fauntroy often made speeches where he talked about how he disliked seniority in Congress because these were the people who chaired all the most powerful committees in Congress. Later in his life, Mr. Fauntroy said he came to like seniority when he achieved it. Mr. Griffin said this reminded him of this debate. He said he has served on the Board since 1985 and said he often asked what happened to African-American children as it relates to pupil assignment. In the past, Mr. Griffin said he had asked the Board

Page 5 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting build a school like McAlpine Elementary School. Mr. Griffin said he tried numerous times to try to get this item on the agenda in 1985 and was not allowed to do this because he was told to follow the same policy that Mr. Gauvreau read which remains the same policy that currently governs the Board of Education. He said he was also chastised by the Charlotte Observer in 1985 and 1986 for trying to be disruptive and trying to raise these issues as it relates to fairness for African-American children. Mr. Griffin reported during Dr. John Murphy’s tenure as Superintendent, he was chastised again. He said he was not the darling of the local media during that time. Mr. Griffin said he was sort of like Walter Fauntroy because God had given him the stamina to hang around long enough and he became Chairman of the Board of Education for five years. During that period of time, Mr. Griffin said he was not a perfect Chairman, but he tried his best to follow protocol and rules established by the Boards of Education before him. He said it was ironic and disingenuous at this point to talk about the policy and how the Board of Education has been run in the past. Mr. Griffin stated the key objective remains student achievement and that the Board should work together in terms of trying to get at least a majority of the Board members to see things in a similar way. He said that is what leadership is about. Mr. Griffin said he hoped the Board would uphold the practice they have always had so that they can move on and focus on student achievement. Dr. Rembert recognized Ms. Woods who said that most of the Board members had similar experiences such as Mr. Gauvreau’s. She said she had come to realize the current practice is the only way to have an efficient and effective meeting. Ms. Woods said in some cases, items may be worked out more effectively through other channels. She said there are many ways to deal with agenda items such as a discussion in the Policy Committee. Mr. Gauvreau raised a Point of Question. Mr. Gauvreau said there should be an opportunity somewhere in Robert’s Rules of Order to ask a question. He said he would like the Board to have a meaningful discussion. Mr. Green stated he thought Mr. Gauvreau asked whether someone was in breach of Robert’s Rules of Order or any sort of bylaw if they interrupted a discussion to try and get an item on the floor. Mr. Gauvreau said, “Let’s just bag this.” Dr. Rembert said she intended to continue recognizing the other Board members who had raised their hands to speak. Dr. Rembert then recognized Mr. Lassiter who said he disagreed with the ultimate issue that Mr. Gauvreau wants to deal with because it is inappropriate. Mr. Lassiter said he did agree it should be on the agenda and the Board should deal with the issue as the Board is only making a caricature of itself. Mr. Lassiter said if it is this important to a Board member, he would not suggest a continuation of these parliamentary theatrics. He said he would like to move on and deal with much more important issues. Dr. Rembert agreed, but said she would continue to recognize each and every Board member who wished to be recognized. Ms. Griffin supported Mr. Gauvreau’s appeal and explained her reasons for doing so. She said she agreed with his interpretation of the written words of the Policy BEDB, Agenda. Ms. Griffin stated she also agreed with Dr. Rembert’s interpretation of the way the policy has been handled over the years. She said she believed the actual wording of the policy does give each Board member the right to submit an item for the agenda. She said she hopes the Policy Committee will discuss this issue in their September Policy Committee Meeting. Dr. Rembert called the question. The Board voted 4 to 5 against the motion to appeal the Chair’s decision to refrain from placing Mr. Gauvreau’s item on the agenda. The motion failed by a vote of 4 to 5. Dr. Leake, Mr. Dunlap, Mr. Griffin, Dr. Rembert and Ms. Woods voted against the motion.

Page 6 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting Consent Items

Upon motion by Mr. Lassiter, and seconded by Ms. Griffin, the Board voted unanimously to approve the following consent agenda:

Approval of Minutes

• June 24, 2003 Regular Board Meeting • June 10, 2003 Regular Board Meeting • May 27, 2003 Closed Session

Approval of Construction Items

The following construction items were approved:

• Approval of a construction contract for electrical upgrade to correct existing computer problems at Davidson IB Middle School. The total use of funds is $16,523 and the source of funds is 2002 Bonds. • Approval of additional construction services related to unsuitable soils on site at Harding University High School. The use of funds is $5,904,747 and the source of funds is 1996, 1997 and 2002 Bonds. • Approval of a special warranty deed between Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools and Mecklenburg County to correct land boundary line issues for land adjacent to the new Lambeth Drive Middle School. There are no fiscal implications. • Approval of an easement agreement between Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools and the City of Charlotte to install a transit shelter at Midwood High School. There are no fiscal implications.

Approval of the adoption of a Resolution authorizing the Director of Storage and Distribution to dispose of surplus school property at a public auction on October 4, 2003

The Board of Education approved the adoption of a Resolution authorizing the Director of Storage and Distribution to dispose of surplus school property at a public auction on October 4, 2003. The action was necessary pursuant to N.C.G.S. 160A-226-270, in order to dispose of surplus school property.

Approval of employment of a relative of a member of Senior Staff in accordance with Policy GBEA

The Board of Education approved the recommendation of the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources to employ Ms. Stephanie Hoyle, niece of Mr. Terry Middleton, for the position of speech language pathologist at North Mecklenburg High School with Charlotte- Mecklenburg Schools. This action was taken in accordance with Policy GBEA.

Reports and Information Items

Page 7 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting Report on Bright Beginnings Program First and Second Cohort Analysis

Dr. Pughsley called on Dr. Susan Agruso, Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Accountability, to provide a report on Bright Beginnings Program First and Second Cohort Analysis. Dr. Agruso reported the Bright Beginnings Program was developed in 1997 to provide an early literacy program for four-year-old children with identified educational needs. Eligibility is based on a formal screening process and the utilization of ranked scores. The goal of the program is to have participants begin kindergarten performing at a level of readiness comparable to other beginning kindergarten students, and to help those students who traditionally would not be successful in school performance at or above grade level at grade three. Since the first group of students began the program in 1997-98, CMS has tracked three groups of students including those who participated in Bright Beginnings, a group of students who were screened and eligible to participate in the Program but did not participate, and all other students who started kindergarten with the group of Bright Beginnings children and eligible non-participants. Dr. Agruso reported currently CMS has two groups that have taken End-of-Grade tests and were part of the Bright Beginnings Program including Cohort 1 who completed Bright Beginnings in 1998 and are currently in the fourth grade, and Cohort 2 who completed Bright Beginnings in 1999 and are currently in third grade. The results for Cohort 2 indicate these students performed better than Cohort 1 on End-of-Grade tests. In addition, students who participated in Bright Beginnings were less likely to be retained than similar students who did not participate in Bright Beginnings.

The following is an outline of the test results for Bright Beginning students:

• The percent of Bright Beginnings students remaining at the end of grade three was seventy-six percent as compared to seventy percent for Eligible Non-Participants and sixty-six percent for all other students who started kindergarten with the group of Bright Beginnings children and Eligible Non-Participants. The percent increased for African- American students who were in the Bright Beginnings Program. • Seventy-four percent of students in the Bright Beginnings Program scored at or above grade level in reading (Cohort 2) as compared to seventy percent last year. End-of-Grade reading scores were higher than Eligible Non-Participant students with seventy-one percent scoring at or above grade level. • African-American third grade students who participated in Bright Beginnings outscored Eligible Non-Participants and all CMS students on End-of-Grade reading tests. Seventy- one percent of African-American Bright Beginning students scored at or above grade level as compared to sixty-four percent of Eligible Non-Participants and seventy percent district-wide. • The same was true for Free/Reduced Price Lunch students with sixty-nine percent performing at or above grade level as compared to sixty-one percent Eligible Non- Participants and sixty-eight percent district-wide. • In math, eighty-four percent of third grade students who participated in Bright Beginnings scored at or above grade level as compared to eighty-two percent of Eligible Non-Participants and eighty-eight percent district-wide. In addition, African-American and Free/Reduced Price Lunch students who participated in Bright Beginnings outperformed Eligible Non-Participants and all third graders in the district.

Page 8 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting Dr. Rembert opened the floor for questions and/or comments from Board members. Ms. Woods stated she was amazed that the number of retentions of Bright Beginning students was almost the same as for the general population. Mr. Dunlap stated he would like to see a cost/benefit analysis to determine the true benefit of the Bright Beginnings Program. He asked what factors led to the retention of some Bright Beginnings students. Dr. Agruso reported it would be important to identify why these students may have been retained; however, she said a one-year program might not have been significant enough to turn these educationally needy children around. She said the district is currently trying to identify these children who need the most help. When asked by Mr. Lassiter how a child is accepted into the Bright Beginning’s Program, Dr. Agruso replied that a screening instrument is used to identify students who would benefit from the Program. She said children have educational needs for many reasons. When asked by Mr. Lassiter how the Bright Beginning’s Program is marketed, Dr. Frances Haithcock, Associate Superintendent for Education Services, replied that a plan to reach out to families in the community had been developed several years ago to identify needy children. Mr. Gauvreau stated the Bright Beginnings results seemed insignificant and said the program should be directed at the neediest students. He suggested that staff complete an exhaustive analysis of the Bright Beginnings Program to narrow the number of Bright Beginning students to two thousand in order to reduce the cost. Dr. Leake stated her belief that the educational direction for these Bright Beginning students is much more positive as a result of the Program. Dr. Agruso commented the real benchmark for these children is whether they will become even more successful. Dr. Kindberg commented that it is evident that district staff is becoming more adept at assessing this group of children. When asked by Dr. Rembert whether the Bright Beginnings curriculum has been strengthened by the research, Dr. Agruso replied the Program has been strengthened for the last two groups of Bright Beginning students.

Reports on 2002-03 AP Testing and SAT Testing Results

Dr. Pughsley called on Dr. Susan Agruso, Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Accountability, to provide a report on the 2002-03 AP Testing and SAT results. Dr. Agruso reported that SAT scores have increased in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools and that the top ten percent of students in the district outperformed the top ten percent in the state and nation. Across the district there was an eight point increase in SAT scores with CMS students scoring 1,004 in 2003 as compared to 996 in 2002. Seventy percent of CMS graduating seniors took the SAT. Dr. Pughsley stated the scores reflect the overall vision in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools for access for all students to rigorous and challenging courses. He said almost three-fourth of our graduating seniors took the exam, and CMS scores rose eight points. In addition, the top ten percent of our students outperformed the state and the nation.

The following outlines how CMS students performed in various categories:

• The top ten percent of CMS students scored higher (1,228) on the SAT than the top ten percent of students in North Carolina (1,185) and in the nation (1,192). The comparison over last year shows a significant increase with the top ten percent in CMS in 2002 scoring 1,208, while the top ten percent in North Carolina scored 1,182 and the nation scored 1,192 last year.

Page 9 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting • The average score for CMS was 1,004 as compared to 1,001 for North Carolina and 1,026 for the nation. • The average SAT score for 2002-03 was eight points higher than the average SAT score in 2001-2002. Verbal and math scores each increased by four points. • Seventy percent of CMS graduating seniors took the SAT compared to seventy-three percent in 2002; however, CMS had four percent more seniors in 2003 than in 2002. In 2003, we had more than 5,500 graduating seniors as compared to 5,300 in 2002. • Eleven percent fewer African-American students took the SAT in 2003 than in 2002; however, fifty-eight percent more students did not identify themselves by race or ethnicity. The average score for African-American and Hispanic/Latino students was lower than their scores in 2002.

Dr. Pughsley said although a large percentage of CMS students taking the SAT and the scores are up this year, CMS recognizes that there is still much work to do. A decrease in scores of African-American and Hispanic/Latino students on the SAT indicates that we must continue to focus on academic achievement for all students. CMS’ goal is for every child to be successful and for our students to receive the education they need to be competitive in today’s world. Dr. Agruso stated SAT scores for each school can be viewed on the CMS Website.

Dr. Rembert recognized Board members for questions or comments. When asked by Ms. Griffin, how SAT scores are counted, Dr. Agruso replied the senior SAT scores were counted; however, should a student take the SAT in his/her junior year, this is the score that would be counted. Mr. Griffin asked what CMS is doing to improve Advanced Placement scores and Dr. Pughsley replied he would provide this information at a later date. Mr. Griffin observed that CMS scored higher than Atlanta, Georgia on Advanced Placement scores. Dr. Pughsley stated that Advanced Placement courses are offered in all high schools and the International Baccalaureate Program is offered in five high schools. Dr. Leake expressed delight that the Northwest School of the Arts had performed so well on the SAT. She reported the SAT scores had risen seventy-five points over the course of one year. Dr. Leake said Northwest School of the Arts now ranks third behind Providence and Myers Park high schools. Regarding the Student Assignment Plan, Ms. Woods questioned whether it was possible for students, specifically African-American students, to be successful with SAT scores at some schools and not others. Mr. Gauvreau said he would like to have a better understanding of the significance that eleven percent fewer African-American students took the SAT. Dr. Agruso said the difference was relatively minor and indicated perhaps a difference of one point. Dr. Agruso stated there are fifty-eight percent of students who did not indicate race when taking the SAT making the drop in eleven percent of African-Americans taking the SAT rather small compared to the district overall. Dr. Rembert said she would like to know more about the preparation offered to students who take the SAT. She said some parents have a better understanding of SAT preparation and have access to computer technology and other parents do not. Dr. Agruso stated staff is trying to obtain a higher level of participation for lower level students to ensure they are as effectively engaged as they should be. She added that plans have been made to provide the opportunity for students to take algebra in middle school and to take more advanced courses at the high school level. Dr. Rembert stated she would like to go on record to support the initiative for students to have the opportunity to take more advanced courses to better prepare them to take the SAT. Dr. Rembert reported it is important to note that

Page 10 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting CMS Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate students are spending more time on their courses than some college students.

Report on Future Capital Funding

Dr. Pughsley called on Mr. Guy Chamberlain, Assistant Superintendent for Building Services, to present to the Board a report on future capital funding needs. Since 1996, CMS has been authorized a cumulative $1.084 billion for capital construction in the form of state bonds, county bonds and Certificates of Participation (COPs). To date, nearly $683 million of these bonds and certificates have been sold, leaving $400 million in available authorization. Mr. Chamberlain reported that last January, the Board approved a ten-year Capital Needs Assessment which calls for $1.263 billion in growth, equity and critical facility operational needs. Added together, the current unsold authorized funds and the ten-year capital needs will require that $1.663 billion in bonds or COPs be sold over the next ten years.

Mr. Chamberlain reported the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners is considering a proposal to limit bond sales to $150 million per year. For Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, the Board of County Commissioners has proposed $165 million in 2004 and $90 million thereafter. Under this plan, the cumulative amount of school bonds to be sold over the next ten years would be $971 million. He shared with Board members that under the County’s plan, CMS would have $692 million in unfunded construction needs at the end of the ten-year period. Under this proposal, the shortfall would take an additional eight years to be funded turning CMS’ ten-year plan into an eighteen-year plan.

Mr. Gauvreau stated the bond program is like a house of cards. He contended the suburban students in District 1 had been ignored since 1985. Mr. Gauvreau suggested that funds be reprioritized to fund districts outside the inner city. Dr. Leake commented that CMS has not built schools in the inner city for thirty years. Mr. Dunlap voiced concern regarding the cost for turning the CMS ten-year plan into an eighteen-year plan and he said delaying these projects could cost the district even more. He said the community will continue to lose trust in CMS if the projects that were promised are delayed. Ms. Woods stated she was not in favor of any delay for the projects as outlined in the ten-year plan. She cited projects such as those at Albemarle Road and Hickory Grove elementary schools and said these projects could not be delayed. Mr. Lassiter reported it is time for Board members to enter into a serious dialogue with the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners to solve this problem. Mr. Griffin agreed the Board members need a face-to-face meeting with the County Commissioners. He said he would like to make a point that his colleague from District 1 had voted against new schools. Mr. Griffin said the Board of Education had not changed; however, the rules have changed. He reported the Board of County Commissioners had never indicated they would reduce selling bonds in 2003. Mr. Griffin expressed disappointment that the Board of County Commissioners had changed the rules and compromised the community’s trust. Dr. Rembert suggested a formal meeting between the Board of Education and the Board of County Commissioners to let them know their actions will mean a crisis for CMS. Dr. Kindberg stated that delaying these projects for eighteen years is incomprehensible. She said if changes are to be made, perhaps it should be at the decision of the voters. Dr. Rembert said that budget is the most significant policy statement CMS has. She said CMS has a commitment to children across the district and she would not attempt to change what

Page 11 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting the voters had cast their votes for. Dr. Rembert thanked Mr. Chamberlain for the report. Mr. Gauvreau reported he had opposed the 2002 Bonds because he believed the funds CMS has are often misallocated.

Report from Superintendent

Dr. Pughsley shared information on the smooth opening of school and commended staff on the hard work throughout the summer to make it successful. He commented that even on the first day of school, teachers were teaching and students were engaged in learning. He also referenced the new awards program that launched on Monday, the Leaders in Learning and Liberty Awards Program. This program, which is supported by TIAA-CREF, recognizes seven levels of leadership achievement in the field of education for CMS faculty, staff, students, parents and volunteers. Each winner receives a $2,000 cash prize, $1,000 for the school of their choice and a plaque. Nomination forms have been sent to all schools and the deadline for nominations is October 24, 2003.

Dr. Pughsley provided information on student enrollment. Projected enrollment for the twentieth day is 112,845. As of August 25, 2003, CMS had 112,443 students (99.6 percent of the twentieth day projections).

Dr. Pughsley shared that the State Superintendent, Dr. Mike Ward, and the North Carolina State Chairperson, Mr. Howard Lee, would visit Charlotte on September 3 and 4, 2003 to recognize the outstanding achievement of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

Reports from Board Members

Mr. Griffin reported that the CUBE conference was scheduled to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina on October 2-5, 2003, with former Governor Jim Hunt and U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige in attendance.

Mr. Lassiter reported that he, along with Dr. Pughsley, attended the National League of Cities breakfast to learn more about after school initiatives for middle school students.

Ms. Woods commended bus drivers, staff members, teachers, administrators and others for their hard work in getting the new school year off to a great start. She asked that CMS provide voter registration cards in all schools for new staff members and families. She also referenced the overcrowded conditions in some schools.

Dr. Leake reported that she had visited Vance High School, Plaza Road Pre-K, Bruns/Oaklawn Elementary School, Northwest School of the Arts and other schools in her district. She also attended the dedication/open house of the new public library at Phillip O. Berry Academy of Technology.

Dr. Rembert congratulated Ms. Sheila Shirley, Chief Finance Officer, and her staff for receiving recognition for the district’s comprehensive annual budgeting process and excellence in financial reporting. She reported this award would be presented at an upcoming board meeting.

Page 12 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting

Adjournment

Upon motion by Ms. Woods, and seconded by Mr. Dunlap, the Board voted unanimously to return to Closed Session for the following purposes: • To hear and discuss a personnel matter, pursuant to Sections 143-318(a)(5) of the North Carolina General Statutes. • To consult with its attorneys regarding a matter in which it is necessary to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the Board of Education and its attorneys. This motion is made pursuant to Section 143-318.11(a)(3) of the North Carolina General Statutes.

The Regular School Board Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

The Open Session reconvened at 11:01 p.m. All Board members were present as was Mr. Maurice Green, General Counsel, who served as Clerk.

By general consensus, the Board agreed to amend the agenda to consider and approve amendments to Dr. Pughsley’s employment contract and related compensation issues.

Thereafter, Dr. Rembert said that she would entertain the following proposed motion:

1. Extend the term of the employment contract between The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (the “Board”) and Dr. James L. Pughsley, dated June 11, 2002 (the “Contract”), for one year. The extension shall run through June 30, 2005.

2. Raise Dr. Pughsley’s base salary by 1.81 percent to $203,620.00, effective July 1, 2003.

3. Provide a performance bonus of $24,600.00, in accordance with Section 4.b of the Contract.

4. Amend the Contract to include appropriate language to allow that all retirement payments not already paid to Dr. Pughsley pursuant to Section 4.c of the Contract, which payment amount shall be $40,000 annually, shall be paid as a contribution for the benefit of Dr. Pughsley to a retirement plan sponsored by the Board and qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

5. Amend the Contract to include appropriate language to extend the same retirement benefits contemplated in Section 4.c of the Contract and this motion to include the new term of the Contract, so long as Dr. Pughsley is entitled to those benefits as contemplated in that Section.

6. The Board further authorizes and approves any amendment to the retirement plan sponsored by the Board and qualified under Section 401(a), as may be necessary, to permit contributions to be paid for the benefit of Dr. Pughsley as outlined in this motion

Page 13 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting or any other changes which, upon the advise of Counsel, are needed to effectuate the intent of the Board.

7. Board Counsel is authorized to work out the details of the language amending the Contract and is to seek further guidance from the Board if he, the Chair, and Vice-Chair deem additional Board involvement is advisable.

8. Amend the Contract to delete all references to the Board conducting a search for the Superintendent, including the second paragraph of Section 3 of the Contract.

9. Amend paragraph 10 of the Contract to change the word “may” to “will.”

Mr. Lassiter moved that the Board approve the proposed motion as stated by Dr. Rembert. Ms. Woods seconded the motion. The motion passed by an 8 to 1 vote, with Mr. Gauvreau voting against the motion.

By general consensus, the meeting adjourned at 11:08 p.m.

______Chairperson

______Clerk to the Board

Approved by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education February 10, 2004 – Regular Board Meeting

Page 14 of 14 – 082603 – Regular Board Meeting