DPS Work Session - June 9, 2026: Living Wages, Right-Sizing Schools, and Discipline Reforms
The Durham Public Schools Board of Education weighs how to fund raises for its lowest-paid staff, match new county dollars, and plan billions in building needs while right-sizing a shrinking district. The board also tightens rules on restraint, seclusion, and suspensions for young students and students with disabilities, adding new safeguards and reporting requirements. 59mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Tuesday, June 9th, 2026
19732.0
#DPSCommunity | DPS Board of Education Monthly Work Session | 6/9/26
Video Notes
#DPSCommunity | DPS Board of Education Monthly Work Session | 6/9/26
In This Video
-
-
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor reported that county commissioners funded ongoing costs, increased the property tax rate to provide additional operating dollars with an expectation that the district would match those savings internally, and committed an extra $1 million in capital outlay for technology refreshes.
-
-
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor explained that available resources allowed the district to relieve salary compression for health providers, fund a new $100 monthly supplement for safety assistants, make partial progress toward the classified minimum wage goal, and secure $1 million in capital outlay for technology refreshes.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor reported that commissioners positively reviewed new transparency on local dollar use, and explained that improved financial stability and higher interest income—including a proposed $400,000 allocation—positioned the district to support its required funding match without cutting existing budgets.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor highlighted that the district had completed a major software conversion more efficiently than other districts while outlining a $2.65 million internal funding match, plans to gather board feedback and monitor fast-moving state budget decisions, and the need for future board authorization on any significant salary schedule or budget assumption changes.
-
Vice Chair Millicent Rogers thanked the finance team and asked for an explanation of how new funding reallocations were identified since the original county budget request, as well as how much more could be found to raise the lowest hourly wage to $19.22 and how many employees currently earned between $16.65 and $19.22.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor and Superintendent Dr. Anthony Lewis explained that, in response to a challenge from county partners, staff reprioritized away from “nice to haves” to focus resources where they mattered most, while Vice Chair Rogers sought clarity on aligning future budget reprioritizations with board priorities rather than simply matching county actions.
-
-
Board Member Natalie Beyer acknowledged Durham County’s significant recent investments amid inadequate state support, highlighted the tension between raising starting wages and staying competitive in higher-paid roles, expressed skepticism about projected legal savings, and requested clarification on the $175,000 in child nutrition spending.
-
Board Member Natalie Beyer stressed the need for clearer, published pay information and more HR support, voiced concern that many budget savings were one-time and not sustainable, and warned that past cuts to school allotments could intensify difficult enrollment and staffing decisions, while Chief Finance Officer Teetor clarified that a cited HR reduction reflected a temporary, one-time investment rather than a base budget cut.
-
-
Chair Bettina Umstead requested clearer information on how shifting budget decisions would affect schools and students, urged faster correction of confusing salary schedules, and asked staff to identify additional areas to tighten—potentially including funds to address chronic absenteeism and other district challenges.
-
-
Cassandra Mitchell, DPS school planning program administrator, explained that slowing county revenues meant a hoped-for 2026 school bond would likely be delayed until 2028 with Durham Public Schools’ share still unknown, while noting the county might allow early project prioritization and limited ‘priority one’ funds to get designs shovel-ready and reporting that a 336,000-square-foot model school project was 43% complete, budgeted at about $263.3 million, and scheduled for full occupancy in fall 2028.
-
Cassandra Mitchell summarized a 2025 facility condition assessment showing about $965 million in basic infrastructure and systems needs, describing extensive community engagement with over 3,000 participants and an objective, districtwide list of renovation and construction projects with cost estimates for every school.
-
Cassandra Mitchell outlined the capital planning priorities, emphasizing safety and resilience, replacing aging buildings, adjusting for enrollment shifts, making equity-minded investments, resolving closed sites, and ensuring that any facility upgrades would provide at least 20 years of useful life in line with county expectations.
-
Cassandra Mitchell defined “right sizing” as strategically aligning school facilities and enrollment—potentially through consolidations, closures, and boundary changes—to fully utilize buildings, reduce costs, and free funds for academics, while seeking community and leadership input so any decisions could be incorporated into the 2028 bond plan.
-
-
Mitchell explained that the draft capital improvement plan assigned every school and support facility to a specific construction category while emphasizing nearly $965 million in identified infrastructure needs—$559 million of them immediate—and the district’s goal of shifting from reactive, “Band-Aid” repairs to more proactive, long-term solutions.
-
Mitchell explained that every project under consideration involved facilities with critical or failing condition ratings—often campuses repeatedly upgraded yet still deficient or facing enrollment and capacity issues—so the plan prioritized those with the highest and multiple overlapping needs first.
-
Mitchell explained that with facilities needs likely totaling $1.5–$2 billion, bond dollars must support a diverse mix of projects rather than only new construction, and emphasized that final project scopes—and whether major new builds or modernizations can be included—depended on how much funding the county ultimately allocated.
-
Mitchell explained that the nearly finalized capital improvement plan was on hold pending county funding direction, with hopes to finish it by late 2024 including right-sizing overlays, then use county-approved shovel-ready preparation from 2027–2028 so top-priority projects could move straight into construction after a planned 2028 bond election and 2029 bids.
-
Mitchell outlined steps to make priority projects shovel‑ready before a future bond vote, described a working group’s summer plans to model student assignment and boundary scenarios, and requested engaging a third‑party consultant to develop a district right‑sizing plan to integrate into the capital improvement plan.
-
Board Member Natalie Beyer emphasized that urgent HVAC, roof, and other facility needs could not wait for a new bond, urged continued progress on critical projects and preservation of small elementary schools and learning environment goals, and expressed hope for an earlier bond to address aging campuses serving students now.
-
Chair Bettina Umstead asked how to balance hiring a right-sizing consultant with addressing immediate facility needs before 2029, and a planner responded that while they could identify critical near-term projects, decisions must be guided by long-term plans so major repairs are not made to buildings likely slated for replacement in the first phase of the bond program.
-
Chair Bettina Umstead asked whether the right-sizing consultant’s work would extend beyond facilities to programs and enrollment, and Superintendent Dr. Anthony Lewis explained that the draft RFP already included demographic and enrollment analysis, boundary and building utilization work, and plans for the consultant to receive board guidance before engaging the community.
-
Chair Bettina Umstead questioned why now was the right time to launch a right-sizing process, and Superintendent Dr. Anthony Lewis responded that declining enrollment, a growing inventory of buildings, and the need to sustain quality programs and staff investments made it necessary to confront difficult, fiscally responsible decisions about facilities.
-
-
-
-
-
School district attorney Carolyn Murchison explained that federal reporting rules define restraint broadly enough to include brief comforting contact, such as hugging an injured student, and urged the board to decide whether to allow flexible language like “briefly” so routine, non‑harmful interactions would not trigger formal restraint notifications to families.
-
The board considered a motion to approve the amended seclusion and restraint policy, while attorney Murchison clarified that staff may use restraint when reasonably needed to calm or comfort a student, but notification to the principal and families would be required only when such restraint was more than brief.
-
A board member explained a dissenting vote over the vagueness of the term “briefly” in the restraint reporting standard, while Board Member Carda-Auten clarified that staff could still calm students as needed and that “briefly” only governed when incidents must be reported, before Board Member Joy Harrell Goff announced the seclusion and restraint policy passed 6–1.
-
Board Member Carda-Auten questioned allowing out-of-school suspensions for pre-K–5 students over subjective Level 1B infractions and proposed expanding principal supervisor review for suspensions of students with disabilities, while a speaker clarified that policy only permitted such suspensions if students refused in-school interventions or repeatedly violated Level 1B rules.
-
-
Board Member Chávez argued for removing the option of 1–2 day out-of-school suspensions for repeated Level 1B infractions in favor of restorative practices, while Dr. Nicholas King acknowledged the lack of evidence that suspensions help students but maintained that brief exclusions are sometimes needed to protect the learning environment if paired with strong reentry supports.
-
Attorney Murchison cautioned that vague policy language about ensuring IEP compliance during suspensions could be misread to bar any removal for even minor IEP violations, and emphasized that under MDR standards only violations directly and substantially related to a student’s disability should limit disciplinary removals.
-
Board Member Carda-Auten and an attorney discussed concerns that vague language about considering disability status and IEP or 504 compliance in discipline decisions could be misinterpreted as barring suspensions for any procedural violation, with the attorney recommending removal of the sentence and relying instead on the existing MDR process for protections.
-
Board Member Chávez expressed concern about late-stage changes to the discipline policy as Superintendent Dr. Anthony Lewis clarified that principals already had to consult supervisors before K–2 suspensions, and Board Member Carda-Auten proposed extending that supervisor review to any suspension of pre-K–5 students with disabilities.
-
Board Member Carda-Auten advocated adding an upfront review process and guiding questions for supervisors and principals before suspending pre-K–5 students with disabilities, along with periodic data reviews, emphasizing that any policy changes needed early planning, procedures, and budget support so schools could implement them effectively next year.
-
-
Member Joy Harrell Goff read a motion to soften discipline policy language from “must” to “may” and delete a clause about ensuring compliance with disability laws, while Board Member Carda-Auten also flagged inconsistent maximum suspension lengths for Level 1B offenses and requested aligning the limit to two days throughout the policy.
-
-
More from this government
Nearby governments