Deans' Council on Teacher Education
Introduction
Concerns of the Day
What We've Been Doing
What is Required Now?
Resources Required
Fair Expectations
References
Appendix A

Introduction

All North Carolinians want an educated, responsible, and productive citizenry, a safe society, and a sound economy. A responsible citizenry and a creative and productive workforce can be a reality, however, only in a society that expects and supports high quality public schools.

Central to quality education are well prepared and effective teachers, counselors, administrators, and other school professionals. Past efforts to improve the competencies of professional educators, as well as school improvement generally, have been largely piecemeal and without adequate collaboration between public schools and institutions of higher education. To be successful, the initial and continuing education of school-based professionals must be a joint responsibility of both the public schools that employ them and the colleges and universities that initially prepare them and then subsequently provide opportunities for their continuing professional development. ¹

What is needed are strong partnerships that will support the continuous improvement of both PK-12 schools (and their faculties) and university-based professional education programs (and their faculties) and, thereby, the enhancement of student success at every level. Public school practitioners and professional educators in universities throughout North Carolina recognize this joint responsibility and propose here a systemic approach for the future.

Central to this collaboratively developed proposal is the establishment of a series of university-school teacher education partnerships that expand upon and complement the very successful model clinical teaching programs that have been supported over the years by the General Assembly, the UNC Board of Governors, and the North Carolina State Board of Education. Faculty in each partnership will collaboratively (1) restructure and improve both initial preparation and continuing professional development programs for classroom teachers, teacher educators, school administrators, and other specialists, with particular emphasis on beginning teachers; (2) renew and improve public school curriculum; (3) conduct school-based research that improves classroom practice; and (4) share and disseminate best practices throughout the state.

This proposal to establish university-school teacher education partnerships in North Carolina aligns with the September 1996 Report of the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future entitled What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. It is especially relevant to the Commission's second recommendation, which calls for reinvention of teacher preparation and professional development. This Partnership proposal also aligns well with the new report of the North Carolina School Improvement Panel entitled Bringing it all together for Children in Public Schools. One of the key strategy recommendations in that report focuses on the need to provide better training and preparation of educators. Finally, President C. D. Spangler, Jr. and the UNC Board of Governors recently approved and submitted a budget request to the North Carolina General Assembly to provide funds to support university-school teacher education partnerships, and the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation has agreed to fund the planning phase of these partnerships beginning in January, 1997.

There are mounting concerns about the quality of education for all children in North Carolina. Despite the best efforts of everyone in PK-12 and higher education, and despite occasional signs of progress (e.g. higher NAEP test scores of educational achievement in some skill areas), student performance in many North Carolina schools continues to decline or, at best, fails to improve. While the preparation of teachers and other school professionals has significantly improved during the past decade, much remains to be done. Most important, in order to draw upon current best practices, improve preservice education, and conduct action research that will increase student learning, professional educators in universities need to work much more closely in partnership with their professional colleagues in public schools.

One of our greatest shared concerns in North Carolina is a dramatically increasing dropout rate among teachers. Nearly 8 percent leave teaching before completing their first year of work, from 16-20% leave after that first year, and as many as one-third leave after five years in the profession. Sadly, many of the best teachers leave first. A 1991 study indicates that North Carolina ranks lowest among all states in the percentage of teachers who intend to stay in their positions "as long as they are able," and a UNC Chapel Hill School of Education/Gallup Poll in 1993 found that North Carolina ranks highest among all states in the percentage of parents who say they do not want their children to become public school teachers.

Inadequate preparation, unusually difficult teaching assignments, multiple class preparations, and a general lack of support during their initial years of teaching are identified as major factors that cause beginning teachers to leave the profession. While several studies have found that most teachers enjoy teaching and interacting with children, these same studies also indicate that teachers often feel unappreciated, unsupported, and trapped in a bureaucratic maze of tests, plans, reports, and increasingly rigid and rapidly changing policies and procedures. They do not have enough time to teach, and, once on the job, they often teach in isolated classrooms with little opportunity for either collaboration with other teachers or continued professional development.

In North Carolina, two recent studies, "Something Must be Done" and "Keeping Talented Teachers," loudly sound the alarm. The first was conducted by the state's Professional Practices Commission; the second was conducted by an independent researcher for the North Carolina Teaching Fellows Commission. Both reports focus on the working conditions of teachers and on the need to continue to strengthen their preparation. Both reports call for more support for beginning teachers, especially during their early years of work in the classroom. And both reports call for new kinds of continuing professional development opportunities for all teachers.

The success of North Carolina's ABC accountability initiative will depend largely on the state's having an up-to-date workforce of strong teachers, counselors, administrators, and other school specialists. Yet, there is today no systemic plan for providing support and continuing professional development for all professional educators in the state in ways that will foster shared responsibilities among both university and public school faculties. A plan must be developed to achieve three goals: (1) Build stronger partnerships between schools and colleges, (2) bridge the research-practice gap, and (3) focus all of our collective resources on increasing students' learning.

Few states have made more concerted efforts than has North Carolina to address and solve the challenges of teacher and administrator preparation and the continuing professional development of all educators. During the past twenty years, there have been seven major statewide studies or reviews of professional education programs and policies, ranging from those related to certification and licensing revisions to those related to basic standards and academic programs. During the same period, individual institutions have worked hard to restructure and significantly improve their professional education programs. Academic program inventories have been pruned and streamlined. Admission and graduation requirements have become more rigorous. Clinical experiences in schools have been greatly expanded. And every professional education program in the University of North Carolina system has been accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and approved by the North Carolina State Board of Education and Department of Public Instruction. The last major review and restructuring took place in 1985­87 under the Board of Governors Task Force on the Preparation of Teachers, which carried out its work in collaboration with the State Board of Education.

In addition, during the past ten years, institutions in North Carolina have established statewide networks to serve mathematics and science teachers, and they have created model programs that will strengthen the clinical preparation of prospective teachers. There have been several major statewide initiatives to restructure school administration programs and comparable efforts to enhance the state's Principals Executive Program, which provides continuing education for principals throughout North Carolina. Significant gains have been made in the quality and diversity of students preparing to teach, particularly through North Carolina Teaching Fellows Programs that are coordinated by the Public School Forum and located on twelve UNC campuses and two private college campuses. And although still early in their development, the state's eight university­based Educational Consortia have been very beneficial in stimulating collaboration among universities, schools, and their business communities.

Two factors, however, have been missing in all these initiatives. First, while there have been many good ideas and a number of mandates for improving education in the state, there have been only limited state funds to strengthen professional education programs and enhance professional development opportunities for faculties in both public schools and universities. Second, there has been no framework for effectively linking universities and public schools so that they can provide a continuum of support for teachers and other school professionals from their entry into a preparation program, through their beginning years of work, and well into their professional careers.

In the past, public schools and universities have tended to operate on parallel tracks, interacting with each other only when there have been specific needs or special reasons to collaborate. There have been campuses where teachers are prepared, specific PK-12 schools where student teachers have been "placed," sporadic continuing services to schools, extension programs that have offered advanced degrees for teachers, and occasional sorties by university faculty members into schools to conduct research and identify best practices. Unfortunately, these linkages and interactions have been much more episodic than systemic and continuous.

Although disconnection has been the rule rather than the exception, and although both universities and public schools have suffered from this disconnection, the potential for developing new partnerships and new collaborative programs and activities among PK-12 and university faculties is almost limitless. As suggested earlier, very strong collaborative programs already exist in the University of North Carolina, and there are many, many faculty members in those UNC institutions who are ready, willing, and very able to develop seamless relationships with their colleagues in public schools. The time is right to build on the exemplary projects and networks of the past ten years, especially those statewide projects that have demonstrated the benefits of collaboration, and to develop new sustained partnerships among schools, colleges, and community agencies that will better educate children in North Carolina and address the concerns of the day.

What is required now is a concerted effort to build on the strengths of existing programs, address pressing problems in public schools, and create new arrangements that will simultaneously improve the preparation of entry-level school professionals, the continuing development of practicing professionals, and the performance of students in North Carolina schools. The way to begin this improvement is to establish a series of university­school teacher education partnerships throughout the state. Each partnership will include one or more local schools (an elementary, middle, or high school) that have committed, in partnership with a university, to simultaneous renewal of the university's professional education programs, development of the public school programs, and improvement of student learning. As indicated in Figure 1, both the university and the public school faculties in these partnerships will have shared involvement and responsibility in four important domains of activity:

1. Professional staff development, including initial preservice preparation, careful induction, and continuing professional education carried out in carefully selected school sites sponsored by each partnership. These activities will include earlier and more sustained clinical experiences (such as student teaching and internships) that extend over longer periods of time and involve more careful mentoring by accomplished classroom teachers. These partnership sites will not only be centers for training cohorts of prospective teachers, counselors, and administrators, but they will also become "hubs" for both the induction of beginning professionals and the continuing career development of school professionals and university teacher educators. They will sponsor teacher-professor exchange programs, develop model clinical teaching activities, provide opportunities for teachers to pursue certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and offer training opportunities for all professionals in schools and in university professional education programs, including teachers, administrators, counselors, reading specialists, technology specialists, and others.
2. Simultaneous improvement of both PK-12 programs and teacher education programs in the partnership sites, including development of innovative curricula, new approaches to teacher performance and student assessment, and improved methods of instruction and evaluation that can be modeled for other schools and universities in North Carolina.
3. School-based research designed to generate new knowledge and improve practice by narrowing the gap between what is known to be effective practice and how it is applied. This activity will also include research on improved forms of program and school evaluation, thereby helping to implement the state's ABC initiative and its accountability program. It will also provide increased training and research opportunities for university students who are pursuing careers in educational research. These efforts will be characterized by professional collaboration between school and university faculties for the purposes of examining, re-examining, and modifying curriculum and instruction at every level of schooling.
4. Sharing and disseminating best practices to two audiences: (a) school and university professional educators throughout the state who are involved in these university­school partnerships and (b) others involved in schools and colleges throughout North Carolina. Each partnership will develop and test new ways of doing business in the preservice preparation of beginning professionals, in the career development of experienced school and university faculties, and in the design and implementation of improved curriculum for both PK-12 schools and teacher education programs. A major responsibility of each partnership will be to share its successes and its lessons learned with each other and with other educators throughout the state.
   

To develop and implement these university-school teacher education partnerships, both local school systems and colleges of education will need new and continuing state funds throughout the three-year period 1997­2000. To some extent, each partnership program should be able to identify resources to support the partnership by reallocating existing budgets for program and staff development, but at least half the funding required to establish these university-school teacher education partnerships throughout the state will need to be provided by additional state funds like those that have been provided by the General Assembly to support several recent pilot partnerships. For example, with new state funds, North Carolina State University is currently coordinating a school-based research program, and both East Carolina University and its seventeen partner school systems and UNC Wilmington/UNC Pembroke and their ten partner school systems have begun to develop regional university-school teacher education partnerships in the eastern part of the state.

Further study and planning will identify the specific amounts of money required to initiate and sustain these university-school teacher education partnerships, but the pilot programs already begun at several institutions in the University of North Carolina provide a clear indication of at least four categories of support that are required to develop and operate successful university-school partnerships:

• Part-time and full-time clinical faculty in both the schools of education and their partnership PK-12 schools: Clinical faculty who are "master teachers" and who will work directly with prospective teachers, beginning teachers during their first three years of employment, career teachers, and teacher trainers. University and school faculties will collaboratively serve as resources for beginning teachers, provide instructional demonstrations, conduct school-based research and development, and implement the findings of new research. Funds for clinical faculty will also enable "master teachers" from PK-12 schools to teach in schools of education for portions or all of a semester or academic year. These funds will also enable school of education faculty to teach in PK-12 schools for portions or all of a semester or academic year.
• Partnership teachers in both PK­12 schools and universities: These individuals will mentor beginning professionals, work with career teachers, counselors, and administrators, and coordinate professional development activities for both school and university faculties.
• University student support: These funds for scholarships and assistantships will enable university faculty and advanced graduate students, including current school faculty members, to plan, conduct, and evaluate professional training activities, plan and carry out school-based research activities, and coordinate the professional development partnership programs.
• Planning and development funds: These operating funds will support professional development programs in both schools and universities by covering the costs of technical assistance, travel, technology, communications, supplies, equipment, and other day-to-day operating costs.

If a substantial number of university-school teacher education partnerships can be established in North Carolina by the year 2000, it is fair to expect that there will be a substantial number of important achievements that will more than merit the reallocations and new investments that universities, school systems, and the legislature will have made.

• For PK-12 school professionals in their first few years of employment, these partnerships will provide better integrated support systems and continuing professional education programs, thereby increasing the probability of successful teaching, counseling, and administration, fewer teacher drop-outs, and decreased costs of faculty turnover and recruitment within local schools. For faculties in both schools and universities, there will be a renewed sense of professionalism, greater feelings of collegiality, more inquiry, reflection, and systemic experimentation, and improved teaching, counseling, and administration in both PK-12 schools and university professional education programs.
• Specifically with respect to teacher preparation, these partnerships will better integrate school and university resources. Entry-level classroom teachers prepared in partnership programs will be better prepared and more effective than their colleagues prepared in traditional programs. There will be greater alignment between teacher education programs and the "real" world of school classrooms. New teachers will be better prepared to motivate students, manage classrooms, work with diverse students, relate to parents, and participate with teacher-colleagues in school improvement and school reform efforts. As a result, new teachers will remain in the profession longer, because they will be more satisfied, less frustrated, and better prepared for the role of teacher and teacher-leader. Most important, they will be better teachers and therefore better able to increase student achievement.
• For students in PK­12 schools, these university­school partnerships will mean higher achievement, reduced drop­out rates, higher graduation rates, easier transitions to the world of work, and more opportunities for continuing education.
• For some university faculty, these partnerships will provide a system for updating and sharpening teaching and mentoring skills through regular assignments teaching children in PK-12 schools; closer working relationships with elementary, middle, and secondary school students, teachers, and administrators; and more regular and frequent engagement in school-based research and improvement. The result will be more effective professional education faculty members, improvements in mentoring and support, and easier movement of school faculty into universities and university faculty into PK-12 schools. The expectations and norms of both faculty in schools and faculty in universities will gradually change as these partnerships strengthen.
• For educational research, these partnerships will increase emphasis on collaboration and applied research and evaluation in schools and classrooms to improve teaching and teacher performance. They will also increase access of teachers, administrators, counselors, and others in both schools and universities to the current knowledge base on teaching and learning, thereby narrowing the "research-practice gap" and contributing to more effective school programs.
• For educational reform efforts, these partnerships will significantly increase accountability and ensure that greater local control and independence is correlated with improvements in student achievement. If strategies like the state's ABC accountability plan and its technology initiative are to work, there must be regular and informed contributions and involvement of dedicated and effective faculties in both PK-12 schools and university professional education programs.
• For the profession of education, these partnerships will create seamless relationships between universities and local schools, increased opportunities for collaborative professional development, and a greater sense of shared responsibility, decision making, and accountability for student learning.

Finally, these university-school teacher education partnerships will model for the nation how one state has significantly and simultaneously improved the preparation, induction, and continuing professional development of both its PK-12 teachers, counselors, administrators, and other school professionals and its university-based professional education faculty members. It will demonstrate how investment in professional development can be a major strategy for simultaneously addressing educational issues and empowering faculties in local schools and universities to work together for the benefit of all children.

Board of Governors. (1986). The education of North Carolina's teachers: A report to the 1987 North Carolina General Assembly. Chapel Hill: Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina, Task Force on the Preparation of Teachers.

Coble, C. (1994). A proposal to establish the North Carolina professional development school network: Submitted to Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. East Carolina University, School of Education, Greenville.

Erickson, F. (1977). Some approaches to inquiry in school-community ethnography. In W. J. Tikunoff and B. A. Ward (Eds). Exploring qualitative/quantitative research methodologies in education (Special Issue). Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 8(2), 58-69.

General Assembly of North Carolina. (Session 1995). House Bill 641: Model Clinical Teaching Network Funds. Raleigh: General Assembly of North Carolina.

Gross, N. Giancquinta, J. B., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing Organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New York: Basic Books.

Harris, L. & Associates, Inc. (1995). The Metropolitan Life survey of the American teacher, 1984-95. New York: Louis Harris & Associates, Inc.

Hayes, H. & Wetherill, K. (April 1996). A new vision for schools, supervision, and teacher education: The professional development system/model clinical teaching project. Paper presented at AERA in 1996.

The Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. E. Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.

The Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. E. Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.

The Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow's schools of education. E. Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.

Jackson, J. A. (1966) Conceptual and measurement model for norms and roles. Pacific Sociological Review, 9(1), 35-47.

Johnston, B. & Wetherill, K. (spring 1996). Increasing the relevance of foundations study: The case for case analysis. Educational Foundations, 9(3), 33-49.

Levine, M. & Wise, A. (Fall 1995). Professional development school standards. PDS Network News, 2(3), 1-3, 7. New York: The National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, & Teaching.

Little, J. W. (1981). School success and staff development: The role of staff development in urban desegregated schools (Final Report. Prepared for the National Institution of Education under contract no. 400-79-0049). Boulder, CO: Center for Action Research.

Maniloff, H. & Clark, D. L. (Updated). The 1993 North Carolina education poll: A state adaptation of the 1993 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Education Policy Research Center.

Mesibov, L. L. (Fall 1995). 1955 North Carolina legislation pertaining to elementary and secondary education. School Law Bulletin, 26(4), 1-12. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Education Policy Research Center.

Model Clinical Teaching Network. (1992). Learning to teach in North Carolina. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Model Clinical Teaching Network.

National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, & Teaching. (Winter 1996). Resources for restructuring. New York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, & Teaching.

National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. New York: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (Undated). Schools, students, and staffing in North Carolina: Data highlights, issues and analysis. Raleigh: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Office of Accountability Services in cooperation with Human Resource Management Division.

North Carolina Professional Practices Commission. (1995). Something must be done: Attracting and retaining a quality and diverse teaching force in North Carolina, A report of the North Carolina State Board of Education. Raleigh: North Carolina Professional Practices Commissions.

North Carolina School Improvement Panel. (to be published in 1997). Bringing it all Together for Children in Public Schools (draft). Raleigh: North Carolina School Improvement Panel.

North Carolina Teacher Training Task Force. (April 1995). Preparing teachers for today and tomorrow: Report to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee of the General Assembly of North Carolina. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Teacher Training Task Force.

North Carolina Teaching Fellows Commission. (1995). Keeping talented teachers: Lessons learned from the North Carolina Teaching Fellows. Raleigh: North Carolina Teaching Fellows Commission.

Public Schools of North Carolina. (September 1995). The new ABCs of public education: Report to Education Oversight Committee. Raleigh: Public Schools of North Carolina.

The School Partnership Program. (Summer 1995). Changing relationships: Professional Development Schools shatter the old education paradigm as they explore mutual renewal of schools and teacher preparation programs. PDSC Journal, Summer 1995, 1-7. St. Louis: The School Partnership Program, St. Louis Public Schools.

Stedman, D. J. (1989). Teacher education: A history of reform in North Carolina. School Law Bulletin, 20(2), 1-4. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Institute of Government.

Stedman, D. J. (1994). The need for responsible and responsive inclusion: Dealing with the impending collision between accountability and inclusion in the public schools. Speech, October, 1994.

Stedman, D. J. (1995. Remarks to the State Board of Education. February 23, 1995.

Sykes, G. (in press). Worthy of the name: Standards for the Professional Development School. In M. Levine & R. Trachtman (eds.), Building Professional Practice Schools: Politics, practice and policy. New York: Teachers College Press.

Thompson, C. & Sykes, G. (1995). Collaboration in research: The Professional Development School. Manuscript submitted for publication; used in this paper by permission of author, Dr. Gary Sykes.

Tyndall, R. (1993). A systems approach to the reform of public schools and teacher education. Keynote paper presented to Education and Business Forum, Charlotte, NC.

Wetherill, K. & Hayes, H. (Spring 1996). Professional development system: Collaboration for quality education. Manuscript submitted for ATE Distinguished Program in Teacher Education review, Nov. 1996. Awarded Finalist (1 of 3) status, January 1996.

Members of the 1995-96 University Council on Teacher Education

Dr. David Boger, Dean, School of Education, North Carolina A&T State University
Dr. Gurney E. Chambers, Dean, College of Education and Allied Professions, Western Carolina University
Dr. Charles R. Coble, Dean, School of Education, East Carolina University
Dr. Charles R. Duke, Dean, College of Education, Appalachian State University
Dr. James E. Hedgebeth, Chairperson, Division of Education, Elizabeth City State University
Dr. Gwendolyn W. Henderson, Chairperson, Department of Education, UNC-Asheville
Dr. Joan J. Michael, Dean, College of Education & Psychology, North Carolina State University
Dr. John M. Nagle, Dean, College of Education, UNC-Charlotte
Dr. Mary W. Olson, Interim Dean, School of Education, UNC-Greensboro
Dr. Sammie Campbell Parrish, Dean, School of Education, North Carolina Central University
Dr. Saundra Shorter, Acting Dean, School of Education, Fayetteville State University
Dr. Donald J. Stedman, Dean, School of Education, UNC-Chapel Hill
Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, Director of Teacher Education, Department of Education, Pembroke State University
Dr. Robert Tyndall, Dean, School of Education, UNC-Wilmington
Dr. Lelia L. Vickers, Director, Division of Education, Winston-Salem State University

University Faculty

Dr. Robert Audette, Asst. Professor, UNC-Charlotte
Dr. Betty Beacham, Director of Model Clinical Teaching Program, East Carolina University
Dr. Ruby Burgess, Chairperson, Education Department, Winston-Salem State University
Dr. William Burke, Director, Professional Development Schools, UNC-Chapel Hill
Dr. Barbara Edwards, Asst. Professor, UNC-Charlotte
Dr. Lois W. Green, Professor/Director of Model Clinical Summer Student Teaching, Project, Elizabeth City State University
Dr. Wynton Hadley, Department Chair, Fayetteville State University
Dr. Fay Head, PDS Coordinator, UNC-Wilmington
Dr. Lester Laminac, Dept. of Elementary and Middle Grades Education, Western Carolina University
Dr. Ken McWein, Professor, Appalachian State University
Dr. Henry Peel, Associate Dean, East Carolina University
Dr. Mitch Tyler, Director, School and Program Services, UNC-Pembroke
Dr. Larry Watson, Associate Professor/ Coordinator, Centennial Campus Magnet Middle School, North Carolina State University
Dr. Karen Wetherill, Lecturer, UNC-Wilmington
Dr. Fred Wood, Assistant Professor, NC A&T State University

Public School Partners

Ms. Jo Baker, Acting Area Assistant Superintendent for Middle School Education, Wake County Public Schools
Dr. Jan Calhoun, Asst. Superintendent, Brunswick County Schools
Mr. Duff Coburn, Teacher, Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools
Ms. Loistine DeFreece, Director, Staff Development, Robeson County Public Schools
Dr. Nancy Farmer, Associate Superintendent, Orange County Schools
Ms. Delores Fogg, Elementary School Principal, Wake County Schools
Dr. Jack Freeman, Associate Superintendent, Cumberland County Schools
Dr. John Griffin, Superintendent, Cumberland County Schools
Ms. Sherry Hoyle, TQE Coordinator, Lincoln County Schools
Ms. Diane Jaynes, Assistant Principal, Avery County Middle School, Avery County Schools
Dr. Elsie Leak, Assistant Superintendent, Durham Public Schools
Ms. Mary Martin, Exec. Director, Elementary Education, Guilford County Schools
Dr. C. E. McCary III, Asst. Superintendent, Elizabeth City/Pasquotank County Schools
Ms. Rachel McClellon, Principal, W. T. Brown Elementary School, Cumberland County Schools
Mr. James Murchison, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools
Mr. Mac Murray, Superintendent, Pender County Schools
Dr. Sue Nations, Principal, Fairview Elementary School, Jackson County Schools
Mrs. Rose Stowe, Principal, Hall-Woodward Elementary School, Winston-Salem/Forsyth Schools
Ms. Beth Ward, Principal, Wintergreen Elementary School, Pitt County Schools

---