NEW HANOVER COUNTY — The New Hanover County Board of Education met Tuesday to address several recurring items, including call to the audience rules and its suspension policy, along with two potential ad-hoc committees.
READ MORE: GOP chair stirs political drama over NHC schools committees, members say no quid-pro-quo
Following the last month of controversy over committee appointees, the board discussed the addition of an ad-hoc committee on student cellphone use along with a committee to review employee bonus plans.
Board member David Perry said he believed the district should provide bonuses for its employees (it already offers some for teachers) but ensure it was being done in an equitable fashion.
“It is a huge job in order to determine how to judge that performance fairly across whole different spectrums of employees within a school district,” Perry said. “How do you judge performance for a special needs teacher versus teacher versus a custodian or a principal or a teacher? It all differs.”
Both board members Pete Wildeboer and Tim Merrick supported the idea but said funding would be the first priority.
“I bet your committee could do a lot of work in the public sphere and go out and find corporate sponsorships for your bonuses,” Merrick said.
Board member Judy Justice disagreed because she worried about the fairness of the criteria used to determine bonuses and surmised there would not be sufficient funding to make the committee a reality.
“Educating kids is not a business,” Justice said. “These aren’t widgets, and teachers working together — really they’re teams — and competing is something they don’t do comfortably,” she said.
With questions still remaining, including the legality of board members essentially fundraising for the district, the board postponed discussion to an upcoming but unscheduled board retreat.
Cellphone committee
Justice did have a committee idea of her own though, bringing forth a potential cellphone committee. She pointed to the growing research that shows student cellphone use on campus negatively impacts test scores and acts as a disruptor to the school environment.
“It’s an addiction,” Justice said.
Many school districts across the country have opted to make their campuses phone-free, with some seeing increases in student engagement. North Carolina could also soon join a number of states that ban phone use during instructional time with a bipartisan bill introduced in the General Assembly this week.
NHCS has been grappling with how to respond in the last several months, making cellphone use a topic at its employee town hall, though there wasn’t one clear answer gleaned.
Some parents have pushed back on taking away students’ phones or operating a phone-free campus due to safety concerns.
The board has also solicited a presentation from Yondr, a company that offers pouches to lock away student phones during instruction and indicated Yondr as an option it’s considering (a pilot program in Brunswick County is underway with Yondr); however, recent TikTok videos show students have figured out a way to break-in to the pouches.
Justice’s committee would have 12 members, all allowed to vote. The member makeup would include two from the school board, two secondary education teachers, two parents of students, one school administrator involved in school discipline access, one school guidance counselor from secondary education, one school resource officer and one school social worker.
The idea would be for the committee to meet five times before the July policy committee meeting, where it would then present its findings and suggestions.
Vice Chair Josie Barnhart and board member Pete Wildeboer agreed Justice’s committee is a good idea, but noted the current safety committee does have the ability to address cellphone use. Justice replied she would like to see a more tailored approach to addressing the issue.
“There was a time we needed that technology,” Wildeboer said. “We don’t need the technology in the classroom anymore.”
Ultimately, the board voted 5-2, Justice and Merrick dissenting, to discuss forming the committee and its objectives at a board retreat, per board member Pat Bradford’s suggestion. The retreat date has not yet been scheduled.
PowerSchool breach
Speaking to another problem with technology, Barnhart addressed the district’s recent data breach of its PowerSchool system by asking North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson to pursue legal action against Powerschool. It was announced Thursday that Jackson would open an investigation.
“I did not think that it was most prudent for us to use our attorney dollars to try to sue and take legal action,” Barnhart said. “However, since this affects the mass populace of North Carolinians, I think it is absolutely necessary.”
As mandated by the state, all 100 counties use PowerSchool in tabulating grades and tallying attendance for teachers to display to families and students.
On Jan. 11, Interim Superintendent Christopher Barnes announced NHCS data had been compromised by a hacker that gained access to the company’s system in December 2024. The hack affected more than 60 million people across the United States and 4 million in North Carolina, potentially exposing Social Security numbers, addresses, names of minors, and medical and disciplinary information.
In his message to the community, Barnes reported PowerSchool assured NHCS leadership the breach had been contained and the compromised data not shared.
“They have also confirmed that this incident was beyond the control of New Hanover County Schools or DPI, and no local preventative measures could have avoided it,” Barnes said.
Nevertheless, PowerSchool is required to investigate the breach itself, though the New Hanover County school board said Tuesday that was not enough.
NHCS’s letter to Jackson calls for the attorney general to seek legal ramifications for the company’s “negligence” and mandate improved security. The motion to send the letter to Jackson passed unanimously.
Jackson said in Thursday’s release:
“I’m a parent who uses PowerSchool, so I know what millions of North Carolina families are concerned about with this data breach,” Jackson said in a press release. “I’m investigating PowerSchool to determine if they broke any laws in this process, and I’ll take additional legal action if necessary. We’ll continue working to guard our state from data breaches and hold those who fail to properly protect information accountable.”
Fate of public comment
The board’s agenda included several items pertaining to call to the audience, the public comment period that takes place after the introductory portions and before any action is taken at board meetings. The board recently floated the idea of moving the segment to the end of the night.
“To be honest, I was one of those that was definitely, 100% against moving it, changing it, doing anything like that,” board member Pete Wildeboer said.
By this week’s meeting he had a change of opinion; he said he was notified that people were not able to make it to the meeting in time, parents and NHCS employees included, due to other responsibilities.
He also added that splitting the segment, half early in the meeting and the other half at the end, had been tried before to limited success. However, Perry liked the idea of having a public comment for those speaking to agenda items and a separate public comment for those discussing general topics, mirroring how the New Hanover County commissioners conduct public comment.
Wildeboer suggested the call to audience be moved to 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. Because NHCS policy mandates board meetings be kept to four hours, starting at 5 p.m., call to audience would be relegated to the end of the meeting.
Though some board members were wary of the change, Tim Merrick said he felt strongly about it.
“All six candidates for the board this time around ran on accountability and transparency,” Merrick said. “We publish the agenda 48 hours before this meeting, and so our public stakeholders only have 48 hours, and then they get to come here and talk about it and give us their opinions and give us their concerns about the vote. If we put them at the end of the meeting that we’ve already voted, we’ve told our public what? ‘No thanks?’”
Bradford pointed out the board members start to have problems from meeting fatigue toward the end of the meeting, and also noted everyone has the ability to email the board at any time. To shorten the time spent on call to audience and to allow more speakers, Bradford suggested the board could designate a spokesperson for members of a group speaking on the same topic, as allowed per policy.
The board’s attorney Norwood Blanchard weighed in, noting the board should be careful not to practice viewpoint discrimination, which would happen if the board allocated different amounts of time to groups with varying views, an issue and against the First Amendment.
“But when it comes to the designation of a spokesperson, again, the statute seems to allow that, and it’s not so much viewpoint discrimination as it is a time-management issue,” Blanchard said.
Though not pushing for the segment to get moved, Barnhart said she thought it was the board’s primary responsibility to conduct business.
“I have zero desire to shorten the call to audience of a one-hour timeframe, but I would say, with respect to if it does get moved in the agenda: I think it should be before closed session because I know that was a big frustration in the previous administration, that called audiences after closed session,” Barnhart said.
Per the policy, Melissa Mason as the board chair alone has the authority to rearrange the agenda as she sees fit, but Mason indicated Tuesday she would like to get more feedback before action was taken. No changes were made.
Student Voice pushes back
Student Voice, a collective of student ambassadors advising the district on policy decisions, also presented results of its survey of students and teachers regarding policy 7300. The policy dictates displays in classrooms, school grounds, ball fields and buses.
Last spring, the school board, with different membership, went back and forth on the policy, as proposed by Bradford.
The original policy only allowed displayed content on the United States, North Carolina and New Hanover County flags, curriculum, school-related material and post-secondary information. The policy was criticized for seemingly targeting Pride flags or other symbols of identity; Bradford said the policy was important in the wake of the pro-Palestinian protests at UNC-Chapel Hill.
The board deliberated on allowing student artwork and family photos, which were being displayed in classrooms but became violations when policy 7300 passed, though Bradford contended she didn’t think of those items as “displays.” The latest iteration adds back in student artwork and family photos.
Student Voice representatives said Tuesday most surveyed students disapproved of the policy and thought it violated the First Amendment. The survey included responses from 108 students and teachers from across the district.
According to their survey, 79.6% of students believe flag restrictions should be revised to allow displays of a larger variety of flags. In a summary of collected comments, the team reported the majority surveyed believe flag representation should be balanced, allowing students and teachers to have the freedom to express their identity as long as it’s respectful, nondisruptive and free from harmful intent. They also suggested a reporting system be implemented to field any inappropriate content displayed.
Merrick and Justice praised the students for their involvement and feedback regarding policy decisions, but the board did not discuss policy 7300 further.
Reach journalist Brenna Flanagan at brenna@localdailymedia.com.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
