Caswell County Board hears midyear finances, recommends ATSI funding and teacher‑support plan; calendar debate raises legal caution

The Caswell County Board of Education on Jan. 27 received a midyear financial review that raised concern about available local reserves, reviewed an application for an Additional Targeted Support and Improvement (ATSI) designation for Dillard Elementary with a proposed spending plan, discussed a redesigned summer learning program, and reviewed a newly revised beginning‑teacher support plan. Board members also debated two 2025–26 school calendar options; the district attorney warned that choosing an early‑start calendar could expose the board to legal challenge.

The finance presentation, led in the meeting by Brooke (district finance staff), covered the district’s 50% quarterly reports across local, state and federal accounts. Brooke said the district’s state allocations were “only spent 45%,” and noted several line‑item accounting differences between state PRC codes and the district’s four‑digit purpose codes that make some percentages look misleading. On local funds, Brooke and other staff said the budget currently appropriates more than $600,000 from fund balance and that the district’s remaining balance could be roughly $1.4 million by year‑end — “that’s not even enough to carry one month of payroll,” one official warned in the meeting.

Board members discussed several capital items during the finance review. The district reported it has an electric school bus under award but not yet on the books because the paperwork and delivery are pending; a district staff member said, “that is the electric bus because we have not received that yet. I haven't got the paperwork to even put that in our books yet.” Staff said auditors will carry a purchase order across fiscal years if delivery occurs after June 30. Capital outlay spending planned in an upcoming budget amendment will add about $35,000 to the capital outlay budget once one late bid for Civic Center repairs is removed from the amendment.

Before‑and‑after‑school programs drew scrutiny from board members who said low paid‑enrollment and unpaid fees make operations difficult at some schools. Staff reported three elementary schools currently participate in the district program but that a few sites have one or two regularly enrolled students. Board members and staff discussed tougher collection practices and the operational reality that programs with very low enrollment are hard to sustain; staff said the only practical option when fees go unpaid is to remove students from the program and return them to bus transportation.

The board also considered an ATSI designation application for Dillard Elementary. A district presenter described ATSI — Additional Targeted Support and Improvement — as a state designation tied to performance of a specified subgroup (in Dillard’s case, students with disabilities) and noted the district had a FY24 carryover allotment of $56,508 and a FY25 annual allotment of $12,936. The presenter recommended allocating funds across three areas: instructional professional development (including travel/reimbursement for training), targeted tutoring support for the identified subgroup, and instructional supplies and materials requested by Dillard teachers. The staff plan included a $5,000 allotment for teacher‑requested materials and a contingency for tutoring if personnel can be recruited; the presenter said the district would advertise tutor positions only if the board approved the allotment. A board member moved to recommend approval of the ATSI application; the transcript records the recommendation being made but does not include a roll‑call vote tally in the record.

On summer learning, district staff proposed a scaled‑back program that focuses on required literacy camps (72 hours minimum) for students in grades 1–3 who did not demonstrate reading proficiency. Staff said past multi‑grade programs had low attendance and mixed results; the proposed plan narrows offerings to meet the state’s “reach to achieve” requirements and recommended South Elementary (and discussed Miller Middle or Dillard as options) as a host site to reduce custodial burdens on Oakwood. Board members expressed concern about travel time and bus ride length for students from northern parts of the county if South is used. A motion to approve the summer‑learning proposal (with the final site to be determined by district staff) was made and the board signaled support; the record indicates the board approved the proposal and asked staff to finalize logistics.

District staff presented a revised beginning‑teacher support plan required by the state. The district recently added two instructional coaches (including Angela Martin, a beginning‑teacher support coach who worked previously as a beginning‑teacher coordinator in Rockingham County) and is partnering with the state teacher‑support program. The presenters emphasized layered support — school mentors, lead mentors, instructional coaches, principals, and the newly added professional coaches — and noted the district currently serves 33 beginning teachers. The presenter said the state template TCEP‑016 was used for the plan and that, once signed by the board, the plan will be sent to the regional NCDPI representative and then to the State Board of Education for approval. Board members asked clarifying questions about caseloads and how coaching will be coordinated; staff said some teachers will receive more frequent visits based on need and that coaches will coordinate with building mentors.

The board discussed two draft calendars for the 2025–26 school year: a traditional calendar and an “early‑start” option (Option B). The board attorney cautioned members that adopting a calendar contrary to the state’s statutory guidance has produced letters from the State Board of Education’s attorney demanding revision and could expose boards to legal challenges; the attorney noted that several districts have adopted early starts to press the legislature for change but that risk of legal challenges remains. The transcript records a vote process on Option B; the public record in the meeting transcript does not include a roll‑call tally or a complete written outcome in the minutes excerpt.

Other items: the maintenance director asked to procure service truck toolboxes for traveling maintenance crews; staff explained the boxes would be fitted to existing trucks and that single‑unit purchases under $10,000 are within budget authority while multiple boxes or larger procurements would be brought back for board action. The board also approved several budget transfers and a budget amendment tied to capital and repair work; staff said the final amendment would be revised to remove one bid and increase capital outlay by about $35,000.

The meeting included several staff and community recognitions (including the Dillard boys basketball team) and resolutions honoring recently deceased employees; those ceremonial items were presented but do not affect policy or budget decisions.

Board members asked staff to provide more detailed follow‑up information where needed — including school‑level breakdowns of interim assessment (check‑in) participation and results, clarifications on state and federal fund coding used in quarterly reports, and a bus‑route analysis before finalizing a summer‑learning site — so the board can weigh operational impacts before finalizing logistics or major calendar changes.

Ending: Staff said they would send the revised beginning‑teacher support plan and the ATSI application packet to the appropriate state representatives after board action; staff also said they would return with the finalized budget amendment and any purchase orders affected by the maintenance toolbox request. The board set no specific date in the public transcript for final decisions on some items but asked for follow‑up information at future meetings.