Durham Schools Clash Over Right-Sizing Study
The Durham Public Schools Board of Education wrestles with whether to hire a consultant for a nearly $500,000 right-sizing and consolidation study as members weigh aging buildings, a 2028 bond deadline, community mistrust, and fears of school closures. After intense debate over vendor ties to charter schools and how to center students and public engagement, the board tables the contract to let attorneys reshape it into a phased, more tightly controlled agreement. 66mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Thursday, November 5th, 2026
18161.501
#DPSCommunity | DPS Board of Education Monthly Work Session | 11/5/26
Video Notes
#DPSCommunity | DPS Board of Education Monthly Work Session | 11/5/26
In This Video
-
-
-
-
-
Devan Mitchell, director of school planning for DPS, outlined the selection process for a right-sizing and consolidation study, highlighted nearly $965 million in infrastructure needs, and explained how facilities assessments and design standards would guide future modernization and bond planning to ensure parity across schools.
-
Director Mitchell explained that many of the district’s aging schools had needs so significant that replacement might be more cost‑effective than repair, described inequitable student experiences across facilities, and emphasized using right‑sizing over a 5‑ to 10‑year horizon to guide future building decisions.
-
Director Mitchell explained that county commissioners had asked DPS to incorporate consolidation and right-sizing into long-term planning, outlined state law requirements for a thorough study with public engagement, and highlighted a projected loss of 7,000–8,000 students over 10 years that would leave roughly half a million square feet of facility space unused.
-
-
-
Chair Harrell Goff outlined expectations for any consulting contract on right-sizing, emphasizing clear deliverables, credible data on enrollment trends, and robust community involvement, while noting the district’s aging facilities, major infrastructure needs, and the importance of aligning long-term strategies with community values.
-
-
Director Mitchell and Board member Gabby Rivero discussed using the right-sizing study to evaluate the rollout and impacts of the Growing Together assignment plan—including boundaries and magnet program placements—with a focus on understanding enrollment trends and winning families back before moving toward any consolidation decisions.
-
Chair Harrell Goff questioned whether consolidation and feasibility should remain in the study’s scope, asked what alternative next steps could keep the bond timeline on track if the current contract was not approved, and suggested seeking revised or competing proposals that prioritized strong, community‑first engagement aligned with district values.
-
Director Mitchell and Superintendent Lewis emphasized that the right-sizing study would be guided by community-developed principles, include transparent data analysis tailored to Durham Public Schools, and retain the board’s decision-making responsibility, while Chair Harrell Goff sought more detailed review of the community engagement strategy and guardrails before approving the consultant contract.
-
Director Mitchell explained that the district needed a consultant’s plan by November 1 to leave time for cost estimating and county review, emphasized that only a 10‑month timeline allowed for meaningful community engagement, and cautioned that issuing a new RFP would likely delay the process by about three months.
-
-
-
-
-
Chair Harrell Goff explained how framing the RFP around right-sizing and consolidation created community perceptions focused on school closures rather than broader district goals, acknowledged concerns that the recommended firm’s values might not align with the board and community, and nevertheless emphasized the need to invest in a consulting “container” given the lack of better alternatives.
-
Board Member Rogers emphasized that the right-sizing study should center historically underserved students, argued that examining inequities does not predetermine school closures, and pressed colleagues to either move forward with the study or clearly direct administration on how to gather the evidence needed to ensure every student has access to high-quality education.
-
Board member Natalie Bent Kitaif asked whether a capital improvement plan could be completed without a right‑sizing study, and Director Mitchell responded that while a plan could be developed, the study would provide an important check to align school rebuilds and capacity with enrollment projections and neighborhood trends.
-
Board member Natalie Bent Kitaif questioned assumptions behind the MGT consulting approach—raising concerns about who collects enrollment and facilities data, whether larger consolidated schools truly improve learning or save money, and whether DPS was prioritizing building repairs over strategies to draw students back—while Director Mitchell responded by highlighting the broad community input behind DPS’s learning environment guidelines and the planned cost analysis to test whether consolidation would be financially worthwhile.
-
Superintendent Dr. Anthony Lewis clarified that the district was not proposing school closures, emphasized that right-sizing was about responsibly aligning resources for current and future students, and urged the board to study the situation rather than delay decisions based on limited community emails.
-
Board member Natalie Bent Kitaif argued that DPS could evaluate the Growing Together plan, engage an independent demographer, and conduct robust community engagement without hiring a consulting firm known for school closures, questioning whether spending nearly $500,000 on such a contract was fiscally responsible given concerns about the firm’s privatization-focused leadership.
-
Board member Rivero proposed reopening the RFP to seek a different consultant focused on data rather than consolidation, while Superintendent Lewis cautioned against removing consolidation from the study, citing state oversight examples and warning that delayed decisions could jeopardize future bond approval and funding for students.
-
-
Board Member Rogers argued that the district needed a full facilities assessment before prioritizing bond projects, urged colleagues to respect the administration’s vendor recommendation and set community engagement guardrails only after selection, and warned that publicly criticizing specific firms could damage DPS’s reputation and deter future consultants.
-
Board member Rivero proposed reopening the RFP to consider other consultants, wrestled with whether to remove consolidation from the study, and emphasized the need for comprehensive data and a community conversation about all options while the board deliberated on whether the recommended vendor aligned with district values.
-
Board Member Tabb urged colleagues to separate their debate over right-sizing from their decision on the MGT contract, emphasizing that the board’s immediate responsibility was to either approve or reject the vendor based on the administration’s work and to clearly state any different expectations instead of prolonging discussion.
-
-
Superintendent Lewis urged the board to move forward with a right-sizing study as a proactive investment in students and staff, warning that past delays had led to fiscal challenges and emphasizing that while future decisions would be difficult, the community was owed a thorough examination of the issue.
-
-
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor described financial trade-offs made to keep full enhancement offerings at smaller schools, highlighted ongoing outreach to re-enroll students who left for other options, and acknowledged that Durham was behind peer districts in confronting difficult consolidation conversations that had been delayed by other fiscal pressures.
-
-
Board Member Rogers sought legal clarification on rejecting the consulting contract and reopening the RFP, and attorney Rod Malone advised that because bidding rules did not apply, the board could simply issue a new, revised RFP rather than formally rejecting the existing contract or reopening the closed process.
-
-
-
-
Chair Harrell Goff acknowledged community mistrust of MGT’s leadership and its charter school ties, emphasized that the board was elected to uphold community values even when decisions are difficult, and stressed that despite ongoing grappling they needed to secure data and make a timely decision given urgent facilities timelines.
-
-
Deputy Superintendent King explained that the district could clearly define expectations in the consultant’s contract, terminate the agreement if those terms were not met, and require the firm to periodically demonstrate how it was fulfilling the board’s and community’s requirements rather than relying on trust.
-
-
-
-
Board Member Tabb cautioned colleagues to stay in their governance role while attorney Malone outlined a phased approach to MGT’s data analysis, and Deputy Superintendent King explained that the consulting contract’s nearly half‑million‑dollar cost was driven by the extensive community engagement the board had requested and could be reduced by narrowing that scope.
-
-
Board member Rivero moved to table the consolidation contract discussion so attorneys could draft a phased agreement addressing board concerns for November review, while Board Member Bir emphasized that coalition emails reflected broad community unease with the vendor, and the motion ultimately passed 4–1.
More from this government
Nearby governments