Before the Cumberland County Board of Education’s Auxiliary Services Committee began working through its agenda Wednesday, board Vice Chair Jacquelyn Brown told the room how she planned to start the discussion.
The night before, she said, she checked her email—and found a wave of questions from parents and the public about E.E. Smith High School, proposed school closures, and whether the district has the funding to carry out plans to build new schools while closing and consolidating others.
“Because this is a public forum and people can’t talk here, I am their voice and I’m advocating for them,” Brown said.
Among the questions raised by parents and community members: Why is building a new E.E. Smith—long described by district officials as a priority—scheduled behind other projects? Who decides which schools are closed, and based on what criteria? And does the district actually have the funding to do any of it?
Those questions set the tone for a lengthy and, at times, tense discussion, as committee members pressed district leaders on construction timelines, school closure decisions, and funding realities.
The meeting was also expected to include a vote on a proposed schedule for the school closure process. It sets a timeline for review, public hearings, and a final board vote on closing Manchester and J.W. Coon elementary schools. The committee delayed that vote until a work session on Thursday.
The discussion comes as the board reversed several recent consolidation decisions following community backlash, and as state lawmakers continue to question district leaders about closure decisions and funding priorities.
‘We Have No Money’
As the committee moved into Brown’s questions, she began by pressing district leaders on the timeline for rebuilding E.E. Smith High. Brown pointed to language in the district’s proposed schedule tying the project to additional funding and questioned why it appears later in the timeline.
District planning documents show elementary school projects, including J.W. Coon and Ferguson-Easley, beginning design and construction as early as the 2026–27 school year, while E.E. Smith’s timeline places students in a temporary “swing space” at Reid Ross starting in 2027–28.
“If E.E. Smith is identified as a priority, why are other schools scheduled to begin their construction first?” Brown asked. “What criteria were used to determine the sequence of these projects?”
Kevin Coleman, associate superintendent of auxiliary services, responded that the sequencing of the projects—building three elementary schools, a new E.E. Smith, and an addition at Grays Creek High School—is tied to funding limitations and the district’s original construction plan.
“The reason we put Smith first to ask of the county was for additional funding,” Coleman said.
In June 2025, Cumberland County commissioners approved $160 million for school construction, though that funding has not been fully allocated to specific projects.
A year earlier, commissioners also voted to build a new E.E. Smith, signaling support for the project without fully addressing how it would be funded.
Coleman said the district initially requested about $160 million for new construction and $300 million for deferred maintenance—an amount he said would only cover a limited number of projects.
“When you come in, $160 million is enough to do three elementary schools or one high school,” Coleman said.
While the district later requested an additional $150 million from county commissioners for the construction of a new E.E. Smith, Coleman said that funding has not been secured—leaving the district with a potential tradeoff.
“If we do not receive that extra funding we have to make a choice,” he said. “We would have to make a choice to do one high school and no elementary schools or three elementary schools and no high school.”
Board member Greg West said the issue is as much financial as it is logistical, emphasizing that the district is still waiting on a response from county commissioners on the district’s request for additional funding for school construction.
“The money’s not sitting there,” West said. “It hasn’t been borrowed by the county, and they haven’t even responded officially to our request yet—so until we hear from them, this is just an outline of a plan.”
Board member Terra Jordan said she has heard similar confusion from constituents, particularly around whether funding has already been approved.
“I’ve been getting emails too about constituents thinking that county commissioners have already given up this money,” Jordan said, asking whether any funding has actually been received.
Jay Toland, associate superintendent of business operations, said no funding has been secured and explained that any large-scale construction would require the county to borrow money.
“They’re not paying cash for this,” Toland said. “They have to borrow the money, the state has to get involved.”
He added that no funds are currently set aside for the projects under discussion.
“There’s no money in an account,” Toland said. “I doubt that they have $500, $600 million in cash.”
Brown said that clarification is key, given what she described as a widespread misunderstanding among the public.
“So that alleviates people having the idea that we have this money,” she said. “We have no money.”
‘A High School Is a Herculean Effort’
Committee members then turned to questions about the timeline for rebuilding E.E. Smith—and how its historical significance is being considered in the process.
The high school, founded in 1927 and named for prominent Black educator and diplomat Ezekiel Ezra Smith, served Black students in Fayetteville during segregation and remains one of the city’s most historically significant schools.
Brown asked district leaders whether the school’s legacy is being formally evaluated as part of decision-making.
“E.E. Smith High School has deep historical significance and played a critical role in its community,” Brown said. “How are these factors being weighed in decisions about its future?”
West said the board has already taken steps to ensure those factors would be considered as part of the design and review process of building the new school.
“We did ask to respect the history and legacy of any of the named schools,” West said.
Matthew Johnson, the district’s executive director of operations, said that process begins early—particularly for older or historically significant schools—and includes both technical analysis and community input.
“If it’s an historic school, part of what they have to do is what’s called a cost and feasibility study,” Johnson said, explaining that architects are required to assess the building’s history, condition, and potential future use.
He added that community engagement is built into that process from the start.
“You have all those engagements up front before you even start a real design,” Johnson said. “Especially a high school, it’s not a fast process to do it right.”
Even with that explanation, board members said concerns remain about how the timeline is being perceived by the public.
Design work for a new E.E. Smith campus is not expected to begin until the 2028–29 school year, with construction projected to start in 2029–30 and completion several years later, all contingent on additional funding, according to the school district’s current plan.
“I don’t think the community has an issue with how long it’s going to take,” board member Deanna Jones said. “They have an issue with when the process will start, because it seems like it’s an afterthought, like we’re last again.”
West acknowledged those concerns but said the sequencing reflects the complexity of building a new high school and the district’s limited experience with large-scale construction.
“We haven’t built a new school in 20 years,” West said. “There’s nobody in this room that’s been through the process.”
He described the project as significantly more complex than building elementary schools.
“A high school is a Herculean effort,” West said. “It’s a 75-year deal—you don’t want to get this wrong.”
West said the district’s approach—starting with smaller projects while planning for E.E. Smith—is intended to build capacity and avoid costly mistakes.
“You don’t want to rush Smith,” he said, adding that planning for a high school can take significantly longer than other projects.
Board member Terra Jordan said she understands that perspective but said the language in the plan continues to raise concerns about whether the project will happen at all.
“When you say ‘if additional funds are available,’ that means if we don’t get the funding, then that school won’t be built,” Jordan said. “And right now we don’t have any money.”
‘Beaver Dam Doesn’t Have Neighborhoods’
The conversation then shifted to concerns about transparency and equity in the school closure process, as Brown raised a new set of questions she said she has struggled to answer for constituents.
“I want to talk a little bit about transparency,” Brown said. “There are serious concerns regarding equity, transparency, and consistency in the school closure process.”
She pointed to the removal of Massey Hill Classical High and Beaver Dam Elementary from an earlier list of schools identified for potential closure or consolidation in initial recommendations from MGT, questioning how those decisions were made.
Brown noted that Massey Hill is comparable in age and condition to Anne Chesnutt Middle School, which remains under consideration for closure, and raised concerns about how student populations factored into those decisions.
“The demographics also raised concern that the school removed from consideration served a predominantly white student population, while the schools still being considered for closure serve predominantly Black communities,” Brown said.
She also questioned whether historical significance is being properly weighed in those decisions.
“Anne Chesnutt Middle holds significance within the community,” Brown said. “It should be evaluated not only on facility metrics, but also on cultural and historical importance.”
Brown then pressed district leaders for clarity on the decision-making process.
“What specific criteria were used to remove Massey Hill Classical and Beaver Dam from the closure list?” she asked. “How is the district ensuring transparency and consistency in these decisions, and has a formal equity impact analysis been conducted?”
Coleman said the location of Beaver Dam and transportation challenges were the primary reasons the school was removed from the district’s campus closure list.
“Beaver Dam is located in the corner of our county,” Coleman said. “If we were to take Beaver Dam and bring them back into Stedman or into town, we would have small children standing on the side of a busy highway before the sun comes up waiting on a school bus.”
He said the decision was based on safety, not demographics.
“That’s nothing to do with the color or the makeup of the students,” Coleman said, explaining that transportation planning prioritizes centralized, safe bus stops—something difficult to achieve in rural areas.
“Beaver Dam doesn’t have neighborhoods,” he said. “They have houses on roads.”
Coleman said removing Massey Hill from the closure list is tied to the district’s broader construction plan and the need for temporary student placement during major projects.
“In order to build E.E. Smith, we have to have swing space,” Coleman said.
He explained that during the multi-year construction process, students need to be relocated to a “swing space”—a temporary school site used while a new building is constructed—and that requirement shapes multiple decisions across the district.
“It’s all a puzzle that fits in with each other,” Coleman said, pointing to Reid Ross as a potential swing space and Massey Hill as part of maintaining options for students within the district’s classical education program, a specialized academic model offered at select schools.
“If we are dedicated and want to build E.E. Smith, we need to be able to use Reid Ross as a swing space,” he said. “And that’s why Massey Hill was pulled off.”
‘This Is a Setup’: What Will Happen to Staff?
As the discussion moved to potential school closures, board member Deanna Jones raised concerns about the timeline and impact on staff.
The proposed timeline includes a review and study period of each school through May 11 and a public comment period from April 15 to April 29, with public hearings scheduled for May 12—from 4–5 p.m. for Manchester Elementary and 5–6 p.m. for J.W. Coon Elementary—before a final board vote on whether to close the two schools.
“We have the timeline for the shutting down of Manchester and J.W. Coon, which I think is rushed,” Jones said.
Jones said the timing could limit participation from working families.
“You’re not giving the parents enough time to get off work to state their case on why Manchester and J.W. Coon needs to be open,” she said.
She added that the pace of the process—and lack of additional discussion—raises broader concerns.
“I don’t know why we’re rushing through this,” Jones said. “We’ve never had another work session on this.”
Jones also questioned what would happen to employees if the schools are closed, noting the issue has been raised repeatedly.
“The question was asked over and over about what will happen to the teachers,” she said. “So I’d like to know what will happen with administrators, cafeteria workers, custodial staff.”
She summed up her concern bluntly: “So I’m feeling like this is a setup.”
Ruben Reyes, associate superintendent for human resources, said the district plans to reassign all affected employees across the system based on available positions.
“All staff will be relocated,” Reyes said.
He explained that teachers would move through the district’s internal transfer process, while other staff—including child nutrition workers, social services staff, and clerical employees—could be placed in existing vacancies.
“We have vacancies to absorb all of the staff within a couple of schools,” Reyes said, adding that placement will depend in part on the timing of the board’s decision.
‘Haste Makes Waste’
As the conversation continued, board members raised broader concerns about the pace of the process and whether the public has been given enough time to understand—and respond to—the proposed changes.
Board member Mary Hales pushed back on moving forward too quickly, arguing that the board is not bound by any set timeline for discussion.
“There is nothing in our school board policies that says we have X, Y, Z amount of time to discuss pertinent issues,” Hales said. “That’s part of the problem… the public is concerned about transparency.”
She said decisions are being made before the public fully understands what is being proposed.
“At this point, I do feel that we are making all sorts of decisions even before the public hears exactly what it is we’re trying to do,” Hales said.
Hales urged the board to focus on rebuilding E.E. Smith before moving forward with closures.
“Build E.E. Smith High School,” she said. “Leave these other schools alone, for right now.”
She warned that moving too quickly could have lasting consequences.
“We are rushing,” Hales said. “Haste makes waste.”
Board member Terra Jordan echoed concerns about the broader impact of closure decisions, particularly in communities like Manchester.
“If you close… Manchester, then you’re actually destroying that community,” Jordan said.
Jordan said she reviewed district data and believes alternative options were not fully considered, including building a new school in the area rather than closing existing ones.
“We could have kept Manchester or built a new Manchester,” she said, arguing that long-term investment could encourage growth in the area.
“I’m thinking long term,” Jordan said. “The people will come. They will start building in that area.”
She also questioned whether the board fully explored other consolidation options, pointing to different schools and available land that could have been considered.
“These are things that we never came to the table and actually talked about,” Jordan said.
Jordan added that board members will ultimately be held accountable for the decisions made.
“They’re going to look at each one of us on this board,” she said.
Board Seeks More Discussion
As the discussion continued, several board members said they wanted more time to review data and consider alternative proposals before moving forward.
“We need to come together again and talk about this as a whole,” Jordan said.
After debate over scheduling—and concerns about aligning decisions with the district’s budget timeline—the committee agreed to hold a work session on Thursday. District staff are expected to present additional data and alternative proposals.
