DPS Board of Education Feb. 26, 2026: Afterschool Tuition Increased | Budget Worries | Dr. Lewis Responds to Meet-and-Confer Controversy
The Durham Public Schools Board of Education hears the superintendent link professional norms to race and dignity, Lyons Farm families and staff defend arts, STEM and pre-K against overcrowding fixes, and parents and students press for stronger protections from immigration enforcement on campus. The board also confronts audit warnings, a grim county budget outlook, and ultimately votes for a 50% increase in after-school tuition to keep the program financially afloat. 47mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Thursday, February 26th, 2026
21356.0
#DPSCommunity | DPS Board of Education Monthly Meeting | 2/26/26
Video Notes
#DPSCommunity | DPS Board of Education Monthly Meeting | 2/26/26
In This Video
-
-
A music educator from Lyons Farm Elementary questioned the district’s decision to dismantle the school’s arts program by converting arts spaces to classrooms despite empty rooms at nearby schools, arguing that this was inequitable and that arts education was vital to students’ academic and literacy development.
-
A Lyons Farm Elementary teacher and parent warned that plans to relocate the EC developmental pre-K program and move multiple specials onto carts would disrupt vulnerable students, diminish exploration and joy for all children, create equity concerns, and called for genuine collaboration with staff and families before decisions were finalized.
-
A STEM teacher and parent from Lyons Farm Elementary described how teaching from a cart had limited hands-on engineering and robotics opportunities and urged the board to work with the school on alternatives like modular classrooms or rezoning so overcrowding solutions would not undermine lab-based learning.
-
-
-
Parents and advocates urged revisions to Policy 5120 on relationships with law enforcement to close loopholes around immigration enforcement, including eliminating references to exigent circumstances for ICE access and requiring principals to demand a signed judicial warrant before allowing immigration agents onto school grounds.
-
A DPS student supported a stronger version of Policy 5120 by describing fears about immigration officers on campus, calling for clear procedures such as lockdowns and access to trusted adults during questioning, and urging the board to adopt protections that would let staff give students honest, reassuring guidance about their safety.
-
A speaker representing the discipline and suspension committee for Durham Advocates for Exceptional Children urged the board to keep the seclusion and restraint policy as a high priority in light of a recent incident, outlining concerns that the current policy allowed too many restraints, gave adults excessive discretion, and remained unclear and confusing.
-
Paul Carson reported that despite showing a small net income on paper, the child nutrition program actually ran a multi‑million‑dollar operating loss in 2024–25, continued a three‑year trend of deficits totaling $12.9 million, and relied on substantial cash loans from the district to sustain its operations.
-
-
Auditor Paul Carson reported multiple audit findings, including late bank reconciliations, expenditures made without prior purchase orders in violation of the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act, $183,891 in state and federal overpayments recorded as a liability, and school‑level internal control weaknesses, while noting management’s assertion that these issues had been resolved and would be rechecked in the 2026 audit.
-
Dr. Lewis welcomed Durham County Manager Claudia Hager, noted recent audit improvements, and introduced an upcoming budget presentation by outlining guiding principles, trends, and next steps while warning that policy shifts at the federal and state levels had made this one of the toughest budget years they had experienced.
-
County Manager Hager outlined Durham County’s $1 billion budget by explaining its heavy reliance on property and sales taxes, highlighting declining intergovernmental revenues, and emphasizing that education, along with personnel and benefits, remained top funding priorities, including strong support for Durham Public Schools, Durham Technical Community College facilities, and pre-K operations.
-
-
-
A county budget official highlighted that while Durham Public Schools’ enrollment had declined by roughly 3,900 students over 11 years as charter and private school enrollment grew, county current expense funding for DPS had increased by about $100 million, warning that this trend was unsustainable without property tax rate hikes given a growing overall population.
-
A county budget official explained that the county was already facing a $5 million shortfall before factoring in Durham Public Schools’ requests, departmental expansions, EMS and other service needs, or employee raises, stressing that DPS was one of many competing priorities in a tight fiscal environment.
-
-
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor explained that Durham Public Schools had to build its budget before knowing state funding, lacked a multi-year state budget blueprint, and urged state leaders to adopt multi-year budgeting as advocated by Chair Umstead so the district would not remain dependent on uncertain external decisions.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor described building the DPS budget amid major uncertainties, including possible General Assembly decisions on staff bonuses or raises, anticipated but uncontrollable utility and insurance cost increases such as potential Duke Energy rate hikes, and the need to pass an assumed 26% share of any funding increases to charter schools while still meeting district needs.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teeteo explained that DPS was easing its staffing freeze and finalizing allotments for next year while keeping the March purchasing deadline, and outlined a $5.5 million continuation request that would cover a potential 5% classified pay increase if the state did not mandate or fund those raises.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor reported that community and staff feedback had pushed the district to aim beyond a 5% raise, emphasized that the recommended budget was heavily focused on recruiting and retaining exemplary teachers and classified staff, and credited the meet‑and‑confer process for elevating a proposal to provide an additional $100 for bus safety assistants supporting students and drivers.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor explained that while the county had initially planned increased capital support for Durham Public Schools, it reduced that growth by shifting $1 million from capital outlay to the current expense fund this year, and the district might hold the line on its regular capital request given ongoing projects and uncertainty about a 2026 bond.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor explained that the draft budget request contemplated nearly $16 million in additional current expense funding and $3.7 million for capital outlay, and noted the district still needed to decide whether that total was acceptable to the county, should be reduced, or might even need to be higher.
-
-
Board Member Jessica Carda-Auten acknowledged the difficult budget context, supported exploring OT/PT assistant funding and a multi-year plan to align classified staff salaries with city and county levels, and questioned continuing to spend millions to maintain 1:1 Chromebooks without clearer evidence of academic benefit.
-
Assistant Superintendent Chanel Sidbury explained that rising operating costs were depleting the self‑supporting enterprise fund, and presented an option to raise tuition by 50% so the program could cover its $6.2 million in expenses, rebuild its fund balance, and move toward the recommended three months of operating reserves for long‑term stability.
-
Assistant Superintendent Sidbury explained how different projected pay rates would affect the program’s fund balance and outlined the benefits and challenges of adopting a sliding fee tuition scale for after‑school programs, including equity gains, revenue uncertainty, and added administrative costs.
-
Assistant Superintendent Sidbury detailed logistical and equity challenges of implementing a sliding‑fee tuition scale for after‑school programs, including the need for upfront income verification, added staffing, complications with the lottery timeline and seat assignments by income tier, and concerns about perceptions of income‑based selection.
-
Assistant Superintendent Sidbury reported that a family survey on the proposed 50% after-school tuition increase and a potential sliding fee scale showed significant concerns about affordability, explained that most respondents did not find the sliding scale more affordable, reviewed local HUD income thresholds, and clarified that families using DSS childcare vouchers would not be affected because current and proposed rates remained below market rates.
-
Dr. Danner presented two sliding-scale tuition options for elementary after-school care—one using local income bands and one tied to federal poverty level tiers—explaining how each structure aligned tuition to families’ ability to pay while aiming to protect access for lower- and moderate-income households and maintain predictable program revenue.
-
-
-
Dr. Lewis explained that the proposed 50% after-school tuition increase stemmed from pandemic-era budget challenges that depleted the fund balance and said the district would conduct annual financial and enrollment reviews to proactively adjust the program and avoid such drastic hikes in the future.
-
-
-
More from this government
Nearby governments