March 5, 2026 School Board Meeting

TL; DR

The board

• directed CHCCS administration to study three elementary schools - Glenwood, Ephesus, and Seawell – for possible closure.

• approved the criteria that define the scope of the closure study.

Note: Included below are my responses to two questions frequently asked by readers. The first addressed, “Why all the board confusion over which schools to close?” and the second one addressed, “What’s going to happen next?”

*******************************************************************************************

The only Discussion and Action agenda item was titled, Recommendation for Authorizing School Closure Study and Defining Scope of Study.

This was a continuation of deliberation regarding future planning considerations for elementary schools. The board considered action to authorize a school closure study, identified the schools to be included in the study, and established the criteria defining the scope of information to be developed and presented by district staff.

• In a 4-3 vote (YES – Ballew, Fedders, Griffin, Jenkins; NO – Dasi, Fornville, Manning) the board directed CHCCS administration to study three elementary schools - Glenwood, Ephesus, and Seawell – for possible closure in order to address our district’s decline in student enrollment and resultant projected budget shortfalls.

• In a unanimous vote, the board amended and approved the criteria that define the scope of the study. These criteria identify the data and information that will be collected and analyzed to support the board’s review and deliberations over the next two to three months.

*****************************************************************************************

Note: most of the content of my typical Board Update Newsletter focuses on describing school board meeting actions and votes. Occasionally I will insert a personal observation, or note, and sometimes add a Q&A section if anyone sends me a question. The topic of school closure has resulted in several frequently asked questions.

Q: The board has sent out confusing messages about which elementary schools to consider for possible closure. It seems as if, “One week it’s this, and one week it’s that.” Why all the confusion from the board?

A: Not trying to be flippant here, but it’s complicated. On January 15, 2026, the board clarified that only three schools (Ephesus, Glenwood, Seawell) were to be considered for possible closure. On February 5, 2026, the board added Estes Hills and FPGB to the list. On February 19, 2026, the Chair clarified that the list remained at three schools, however the board directed the administration to review criteria for all five schools. At this point I was totally confused by the board’s actions and said so. On March 5, 2026, the board voted to include just three schools in the school closure review process.

Details are as follows:

BACKGROUND: When we unanimously approved our bond plan (August 2024), we agreed on replacing three elementary schools: Carrboro ES, Estes Hills ES, and FPGB. That left us with three elementary schools (Ephesus ES, Glenwood ES, and Seawell ES) and two middle schools (Culbreth and Phillips) having been identified as needing significant renovation or replacement.

It was clear then from the Woolpert Report data that we had a significant surplus of vacant seats in our 11 elementary schools. The report suggested consideration of “consolidating two schools into one.”

Prior to that time, our board Finance, Facilities, and Operations Committee had begun noting in budget discussions (2022) the likely need to close a school.

• Did we explicitly connect closing any specific schools with the bond proposal? NO.

• Was it understood that three schools (Carrboro ES, Estes Hills, FPGB) were to be replaced, and that any future school closure(s) would likely come from the list of the remaining three (Ephesus, Glenwood, Seawell)? YES.

I highlighted the two questions above only to clarify that the issue of school closures did not just arise in the past several months. At the same time, I completely understand that most community members viewed school closure as more abstract than real. And I also understand that many, many folks only heard about school closure possibilities within the past 45-60 days.

In August 2025, at the request of the board, the staff presented an overview on the financial cost savings in closing a hypothetical elementary school. This presentation included discussion that the district’s 2025-26 student enrollment and 10-year projections would be further reviewed at its December 11, 2025, retreat.

At the December 11, 2025, board retreat, a local demographer (Carolina Demography), retained by Orange County and CHCCS, presented an analysis on the 2025-26 student enrollment and provided a preliminary overview on a 10-year projection.

Based upon the presentation and discussion, the Board of Education asked district staff to apprise them of any statutory requirements and procedures with the closing of a public school in the state of North Carolina.

CURRENT SITUATION: At the January 15, 2026, school board meeting an overview of the North Carolina school closure statutory procedures was presented. After the presentation, the board asked administration, “What’s next? What’s the next step?” Three elementary schools (Ephesus, Glenwood, Seawell) were identified for further study. A board member suggested expanding the school list to include Estes Hills and FPGB (slated for replacement under the approved bond plan). After some back and forth discussion, the Chair conducted an informal “temperature check” of the board regarding making any changes in the list of three schools and then directed the administration to focus on just the three schools originally named.

At the February 5, 2026, school board meeting Dr. Trice opened with some remarks “…to set the context for tonight’s discussion and connect it to the broader conversation we have been engaging in as a community.”

He noted that, “…we face ongoing and emerging risks; uncertainty at the federal level, the absence of a state budget, the potential revision of the county’s school funding model, and enrollment projections that suggest continued decline over the next decade. Together, these realities require us to think differently about our long-term infrastructure, staffing, and operational model.”

He also said, “In our community conversations, we have been clear: CHCCS will need to become a smaller district, both in terms of facilities and staffing. Our goal as an administrative team is to manage this in a way that preserves the high academic standards, programs, and services our community has long valued. Achieving that will require difficult trade-offs – choices that may not feel good today, but that are necessary to secure a stable and promising future. Simply put, we need newer schools, which our most recent bond helps us achieve, and we need fewer schools, which centers the advancement of the conversation we began this fall.”

The agenda item, Update on Future Planning Considerations for Elementary Schools, included information on the Woolpert Report, enrollment trend data, and a summation of the unanimously board approved (April 17, 2025) 2025-2035 Capital investment Plan identifying Carrboro ES, Estes Hills, and FPGB as scheduled for replacement.

During the ensuing discussion, a board member again suggested that the schools approved for replacement in the bond plan be included in the list of schools for possible closure. Another board “temp check” revealed a change in thinking that resulted in four board members now wanting to consider the bond plan schools as well. The main result here was that more schools were possibly being considered for closure, even though no formal vote had been taken by the board to do that.

At the February 19, 2026, board meeting, more questions than answers were raised. The Chair clarified that there had been no official vote to modify the original unanimously approved bond plan, nor the unanimously approved Capital Investment Plan, therefore schools under consideration for closure were Ephesus, Glenwood, and Seawell. At the same time, the list of criteria for closing which was discussed included two bond plan schools (Estes Hills and FPGB). I was confused and asked why we were considering five schools on the criteria list, when earlier it was stated that officially no changes had been made to the bond plan and there there was no official vote to modify the bond plan? I did not receive a clear answer.

At the March 5, 2026, board meeting (as noted above), in a 4-3 vote, the board directed CHCCS administration to study just three elementary schools - Glenwood, Ephesus, and Seawell – for possible closure in order to address our district’s decline in student enrollment and resultant projected budget shortfalls.

*****************************************************************************************

Q: Obviously some people are satisfied that the board limited the closure study to just three schools. Others are upset and concerned (putting it mildly). What’s going to happen next?

A: The board narrowed the list of criteria to be used by the administration to review the status of the three schools under consideration. The board declined to assign weights to the criteria. My understanding is that this criteria report will be ready for board review in May. The administration has established a number of public information meetings to occur in the latter half of March. The board has yet to decide whether to close one school, or two schools. So, there’s a lot left to determine, before a vote(s) on any specific school closure(s).

-END-