School 'regrouping plan' fails
By Phyllis Moore
Published in News on June 7, 2016 1:46 PM
After an hour-long debate and a vote failed to pass the superintendent's proposed "regrouping plan" to consolidate several inner city schools, the school board Monday night decided instead to hold a community meeting next week followed by a special called meeting of the board.
The Board of Education had already held a called meeting May 17, introducing a plan it said reflected the desire to address issues with some of the district's low-performing schools, specifically in the central attendance area.
The plan called for K-2 students to be moved from Carver Heights and School Street elementary schools to North Drive Elementary and all grades 3-5 students from North Drive, School Street and Dillard Middle to Carver Heights Elementary. School Street would then expand its pre-K services, realigning North Drive as a K-2 school and making Carver Heights home to students in grades 3-5.
During public comment, two people suggested the proposed regrouping was "problematic," with one producing a petition signed by more than 100 parents lobbying to keep School Street Elementary open for pre-kindergarten through second grade.
"They're not in agreement to send their children to Carver Heights," said Iris Robinson, a parent and grandparent. "We need to be more involved and stay involved."
The Rev. Keith Copeland said the hastily crafted plan has created confusion.
"There seems to be a lot of information that we don't know about," he said, suggesting that the same issues existed "five years ago," but because Seymour Johnson Air Force Base drew attention to them, they received more focus.
"Everybody's got concerns about students at the front gate," he said. "But what about students at the back gate who are having problems with their academics?"
The board does not typically respond to public comment, but when it came time to take action on the regrouping plan, board members also had questions.
Board member Pat Burden said she agreed with the intent to focus the younger grades on literacy and help schools meet their goals.
"I think it would be unfair to our students to have to wait another year," she said, admitting she believed meeting with parents might help them better understand the rationale for the plan. "I'm in favor of this reorganization. I'm in favor of doing it at this time."
Board member Dwight Cannon said there is a perception that the board "does what it wants to do," and did not feel the public had been included in this discussion.
"I did not know that I was coming to vote on this," he said.
"I did not know that I was coming to vote on this," echoed Ms. Burden.
Schools superintendent Dr. Michael Dunsmore said one reason behind the urgency was a proposed bill in the General Assembly that could shift control of low-performing schools to a third-party private entity, and he did not want to see the district lose any of its authority.
Board member Rick Pridgen said he was sensitive to that and would not want to see it happen in Wayne County. But he had some trepidation about the way the subject was introduced that night.
He said he had only received the board packet of information late Friday -- "the previous administration got the packet on Wednesday," he said.
"I cannot in good conscience vote on it until we have addressed the public's concerns because I feel like we're ramming it down their throats," he said.
Board member Jennifer Strickland had a different take, saying that while change can be "scary," she is "ecstatic" about the potential of the plan.
"I'm excited that we have got all that technology at Carver Heights and with your reassignment, we're going to allow every student to have access to this Apple technology," she said, referencing a recent grant that put an iPad in the hands of every student at that elementary school.
She made a motion to accept the plan, but before a second was offered, board member Eddie Radford spoke up, saying he hates to see the board divided and asking if it had to be decided at that meeting.
When board member Arnold Flowers ultimately seconded Mrs. Strickland's motion, Cannon questioned the legality of the motion.
Mrs. Strickland re-introduced the motion and Flowers again seconded it.
But it failed, 4-3, with Ms. Burden siding with Cannon, Pridgen and Radford in opposition.
"If we approve it right now, I want the plan, and I want it to start as quickly as possible, definitely by June 30, but I do think that because of everything that has been said, I do think we need to address it, and that we're in a better position to address and truly be able to answer their questions," she explained. "I believe we will get (public) support if we answer their questions, so that's the only reason I voted against it."
Ms. Burden made a motion to hold a community meeting for interested parents, addressing their concerns, followed by a special called meeting of the board. Pridgen seconded it.
Board Chairman Chris West suggested the district leadership team compile data explaining the rationale for the proposal, but also credited the staff for already devoting a lot of time and effort to recent community meetings, which were poorly attended by parents.
He also produced a two-page May 26 letter from the superintendent that had been sent to every parent in the central attendance area, explaining the school regrouping plan.
"I think this is ridiculous," Mrs. Strickland said, exasperated that the vote was prolonged to hold another "special meeting" because parents did not attend the six recent community sessions held for them to weigh in.
"It's kind of a situation that you don't vote, you can't complain. If you don't show up, you can't complain," she said. "I think this is a waste of time just to placate people who are mad because of misinformation."
Flowers and Mrs. Strickland cast the only dissenting votes to hold a community meeting.
It will be held Thursday night, June 16, at 7 p.m. at Goldsboro High School. The school board will then reconvene Friday morning, June 17, at 9 a.m. to vote on the plan.