The School Board of Escambia County, Florida, convened in Emergency Meeting at 8:02 a.m. in the Board Room at the Administrative Building, 215 West Garden Street, with the following present:

Chairman: Dr. Hal Mason Vice Chairman: Mrs. Cary Stidham

Members: Dr. John DeWitt

Mrs. Janice Gilley

Dr. Elmer Jenkins

School Board Attorney: Mrs. Maureen George

Superintendent of Schools: Mr. Jim May

I. ITEMS FROM THE BOARD

Dr. Mason introduced Mrs. Janice Gilley, newly appointed School Board Member, District 5, for a term beginning June 7, 1999, to serve during the suspension of Mrs. Vanette Webb who was removed from the Office of School Board Member, District 5, by the Governor on May 21, 1999. Dr. Mason also introduced Mrs. Maureen George, new School Board Attorney.

Dr. Mason stated that the purpose of the emergency meeting was to address the School Improvement Plans (related to Spencer Bibbs and A. A. Dixon Elementary Schools) for submission to the State Board of Education. He stated that Mr. Gene Pettis, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, had provided copies of the new proposal on Friday, June 18, 1999. Dr. Mason stated that the original proposal was approved at the May Board meeting, and he asked if there were significant changes reflected in the new proposal. Mr. May stated that it had not been significantly changed. Mr. Pettis stated that there were not changes so much, but rather some clarifications and additional input. He referred to the minutes of the May Board meeting and workshop presentation relative to the presentation by Ms. Andrea Willet, Director of School Improvement, Department of Education (DOE), and subsequent Board approval of the Collaborative School Improvement Plan developed by The State Department of Education and the School District related to Spencer Bibbs and A. A. Dixon Elementary Schools. Mr. Pettis clarified that the understanding was that the Board had approved the specific School Improvement Plans (SIPs) and the concept of adding any modifications requested by the State, and that the administrative staff would be willing to address and with the agreement of the Board, could move forward with that discussion. He added that once the plans were finalized and presented to the State Board, any modifications put in by the State Board of Education would be brought back to the Board for discussion. It was noted that the Cabinet, sitting as the State Board of Education, would convene June 22.

Ms. Andrea Willet, Director of School Improvement, Department of Education (DOE), shared that said plan (Collaborative School Improvement Plan developed by The

State Department of Education and the School District related to Spencer Bibbs and A. A. Dixon Elementary Schools) had also been collaboratively agreed to by the schools, Superintendent, and DOE. She advised that DOE recommendations made (since her presentation last month and in addition to the plans the Board previously approved on comprehensive reading, comprehensive writing, and comprehensive mathematics) involved a fourth piece which was to notify the parents in the event that the schools were not as far along as we had all hoped they would be. She noted that additional strategies, which were not changes in goals, were recommended to look at grade level for reading, writing, and mathematics. Those strategies and activities to be implemented were minor additions but not fundamental changes in direction. Ms. Willet added concerning several items that State Board staff had enumerated, that DOE had conferred with district staff, who advised that the district was already doing those things, so the package was reformatted such that DOE could show the district context in the flexibility that the principals had in making staff changes and the freedom and authority they had to run the schools, which the Board had already granted to those schools. That was put into a package and clearly listed as well as some of the other things the district had done and that was what was presented to the State Board of Education/Cabinet aides last week. The School Improvement Plans (SIPs) themselves had some additional strategies but the goals that the Board had approved for those schools were not changed. Mr. Pettis emphasized that the principals and teachers at these schools are diligently doing their jobs.

Dr. Mason presented a proposal suggesting the following plan as a joint effort:

"1) Change the district policy on school zones to address the high mobility rate; allow students to continue to attend Bibbs and Dixon (no matter where their residence is) if they move within the specified boundaries and have the district transport them;

2) Propose after-school and SAT tutorial program for students with low scores;

3) Hold parent teacher conferences frequently (in the evening or at a time convenient tor parents to attend); send no report cards home but give them to the parents at the parent conference;

4) Quarterly progress reports to the local School Board and the State Board of Education;

5) Transfer complete control of the school budget to the principals and Student Advisory Council (any modification or departure by the district administration should happen only with the concurrence of the School Board);

6) Give principals complete authority to hire or remove within existing laws or existing protections of the law and to transfer staff;

7) If necessary, declare an emergency under the new law and negotiate special provisions to free these two schools from union contract restrictions that limit the schools' ability to implement programs and strategies needed to improve student performance (that language is taken directly from the A+ law). We have two similar schools in the F category. This is an ideal situation for using Bibbs as a control group, so I suggest leaving Bibbs to further develop the plan that they have put together. In the case of Dixon I propose:

a) We select a principal with a proven track record of turning around schools and there is such a principal in this district. I have not had an opportunity nor do I want to check with them. I would check with the Superintendent on this and ask that he give it consideration;

b) That the principal recruit the staff of her choice including any present staff members which she may wish to keep. They should agree to a two-year commitment after which time they could either stay or be guaranteed a return to the same school from whence they came, although not necessarily the same grade, until a vacancy occurs;

c) This would be a lateral transfer at the same salary schedule for the principal to prevent the principal from taking a salary cut in the event she goes from a larger, higher paying school to this smaller school;

d) Incentive pay of between $200 and $500 per year to the principal and to each teacher for the first two years;

e) A $500 bonus to the principal and each teacher if that school comes off the F list in one year or a $200 bonus to the principal and each teacher if that school comes off the F list in two years;

f) Pay a bonus of $25 per percentile point per child as a bonus each year to the teacher for each child in his or her class whose percentile ranking on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) improves over the previous FCAT; with a like amount decrease for each child whose percentile ranking on the FCAT declines; therein lies the accountability;

g) Pay a bonus of $50 per percentile point per class as a bonus each year to the teacher for each class whose percentile ranking on the FCAT improves over the previous FCAT with a like amount decrease for each class whose percentile ranking on the FCAT declines;

h) Pay a bonus of $100 per percentile point to the principal as a bonus each year for the school whose percentile ranking on the FCAT improves over the previous FCAT with a like amount decrease for each school whose percentile ranking on the FCAT declines;

i) Pay a bonus of $3 per percentile point per class as a bonus each year to the principal for each classroom in her school whose percentile ranking on the FCAT improves over the previous FCAT with a like amount decrease for each child whose percentile ranking on the FCAT declines;

j) Pay a bonus of $1 per percentile point per child as a bonus each year to the principal for each child in her school whose percentile ranking on the FCAT improves over the previous FCAT score with a like amount decrease for each child whose percentile ranking on the FCAT declines.

All measurements should be based upon the total battery score of the FCAT taken in the Spring of the Year 2000 and compared with the score taken in the Spring of 1999. Only those students with scores in 1999 will be counted; however, all students except ESE (which would not be counted at all). All students enrolled will be expected to be tested before the merit amount is determined. Any departure from this will require local Board approval. Finally, we know the business community is aware of the value of good schools which turn out students ready and willing to contribute to their community. The business community also values rewarding success with greater pay; therefore, I would ask the Superintendent and each Board Member to join me in going to all segments of the community to explain this exciting concept and give everyone an opportunity to become a school partner." After discussion, Dr. Mason recommended that the Board adopt this as the proposal (Supplementary Minute Book, Exhibit A) to submit to the State Board of Education tomorrow.

Mrs. Stidham discussed concerns relative to providing "bonuses" to teachers for doing their jobs. Dr. Jenkins expressed concern that many of the ideas fall within the purview of the Superintendent; i.e., principal's authority to hire and fire and that is an administrative right. He spoke in favor of following the plan presented by district staff. Dr. DeWitt spoke in support of the proposal submitted by the Superintendent which addressed parental involvement, staffing, and performance matters. He also noted that the schools have made significant gains over the last two years, and more NCE gains than any school in the district. Mrs. Gilley commented concerning the standards being raised again next year, and she asked about the impact of the proposal on kids.

Mr. May commented concerning the proposal submitted by staff, that this is a cooperative agreement with the State Department, and the School Improvement Plans (SIPs) were addressed at last month's Board meeting. He discussed various aspects including parent teacher conference every six weeks; progress reports quarterly; latitude given in use of Title I and grant dollars; authority to principals to hire or transfer someone at any time (that is part of the strategies in place). He commented as far as suspending, it would be preferable to work cooperatively. Mr. May discussed concerns regarding the Chairman's proposal relative to keeping one school intact and firing the principal and staff at another school. He acknowledged the commitment on the behalf of the principals and staff and that they have made substantial progress.

After discussion, motion was made by Dr. DeWitt and seconded by Dr. Jenkins, to adopt the

Superintendent's recommendation for the School Improvement Plans for the two schools (Spencer Bibbs and A. A. Dixon Elementary Schools).

The Board recognized the following speaker:

Mr. Bob Husbands, Escambia NEA UniServ, requested that the Board support the Superintendent's recommendation.

Dr. Mason relinquished the gavel and made a motion to modify Dr. DeWitt's motion to include a merit pay provision to be determined by a group put together by the Superintendent and the School Board to study this and make a recommendation to the full Board. Mrs. Gilley seconded the motion. Upon inquiry from Mrs. Stidham, Dr. Douglas Garber, Director, Employee Services, advised that based on current law, it will be required to have a plan established by the Year 2002 which deals with testing of students and performance and it will call for either a five percent increase or decrease in salary based on acceptable performance. That performance has not been established by the state nor the test that will be used.

The Board recognized the following speaker:

Mr. Bob Husbands, Escambia NEA UniServ, expressed concern that merit programs have failed everywhere they have been tried.

Mrs. Stidham called for the vote on the amendment and the motion failed 3-2 with Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Jenkins, and Mrs. Stidham voting NO. Mrs. Stidham returned the gavel to Dr. Mason. Dr. Mason inquired concerning the District Team leaders. Mr. May advised that district level administrators will address progress strategies and what has been developed. Ms. Annette McArthur, Director of Elementary Education, added that each school currently has a facilitator and that facilitator puts together a team. At Bibbs and Dixon, the team consists of the reading specialist, math specialist, language arts specialist, and Title I personnel who meet with staff to look at test data, determine where they may need to go as far as programs, make recommendations, and do workshops in the schools

Mrs. Gilley asked if the plan could be modified throughout the year (after presentation to the State Board of Education). Ms. Willet stated that the local School Board has the option of directing the schools as it sees fit. The State Board of Education also has the option, should the legislation become law, to direct the School Board to do certain things and those directions would probably not be modifiable without going through the State Board again; however, minor changes such as dropping those things that are not working or adding those things that are could be addressed. She stated that as the School Board would expect schools to bring any major changes to them, the State Board of Education would also expect that type of information to be reported to them. Mr. May noted that strategies could be added at any time as far as good strategies that would bring about improvements. Ms. Willet added that the School Improvement Plans (SIPs) do not include all of the activities, every strategy, but address the major ones.

After discussion, Dr. Mason called for the vote on the original motion to adopt the Superintendent's proposal as written and the motion was approved 4-1 with Dr. Mason voting NO. (Supplementary Minute Book, Exhibit B)

Mrs. George asked for direction from the Board as provided under Florida Statute 286.011 to hold Executive Session on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, at 7:30 a.m. to discuss pending litigation. Motion by Mrs. Stidham, second by Dr. Jenkins, to hold an Executive Session on Wednesday, July 14, 1999, at 7:30 a.m. to discuss pending litigation, was unanimously approved.

II. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 9:26 a.m. (Official recordings of this meeting are filed in the Information Services Department.)

Attest: Approved:

____________________________ _____________________________

Superintendent Chairman