The Cumberland County Board of Education voted Thursday to reject the district’s proposed consolidation and construction timeline before approving a revised version that moves up construction of a new E.E. Smith High School by two years.
The vote follows a March 25 committee meeting in which board members reviewed the district’s proposed timeline but chose to continue the discussion. They also requested additional data, including how potential closures could affect different student populations.
That earlier meeting also included concerns from board members and community members about whether plans to rebuild E.E. Smith had been pushed too far down the timeline. Thursday’s work session brought the proposal back with updated information and a revised timeline.
In two back-to-back votes during the work session on Thursday, board members rejected Option 1 in a 5–3 vote, then approved Option 2 by the same margin.
Option 1 kept the district’s original sequencing for consolidation, including closing Manchester and J.W. Coon elementary schools and continued consolidation discussions involving Sherwood Park and Brentwood. Under that version, construction of E.E. Smith started in the 2028-29 school year..
Board members Susan Williams, Greg West, and Jackie Warner supported Option 1, while Jacquelyn Brown, Deanna Jones, Mary Hales, Delores Bell, and Terra Jordan opposed it.
On Option 2, Williams, West, Warner, Brown and Bell voted in favor, while Jordan, Hales and Jones opposed.
The board also unanimously approved a timeline for closing Manchester and J.W. Coon elementary schools, formally moving those schools into the closure process that includes public hearings in late April and a final board vote scheduled for May 12.
What Option 2 Changes
The decision centers on when the district will begin rebuilding E.E. Smith.
Both options presented to the board included the same long-term projects—construction of three new elementary schools, a new E.E. Smith and an addition at Gray’s Creek High School—but differed on when the projects would take place.
Kevin Coleman, associate superintendent of business operations, said the district used multiple factors to guide its recommendations.
“MGT looked at multiple factors, not just one—building condition, repair needs, utilization, operating efficiency and available receiving school space,” Coleman said.
Coleman said those factors were evaluated together.
“This is not based on one single point, it was based on a full evaluation framework,” Coleman said.
Under Option 1, design work for E.E. Smith would start in 2028–29 and construction in 2029–30.
Option 2, the version approved by the board, moves that timeline forward.
Under the revised plan, design work for E.E. Smith begins in 2026–27, with construction projected to start in early 2028—roughly two years earlier than under the original plan.
Option 2 does not change which schools are included in the plan but adjusts the timeline.
The plan still spans several years and requires multiple student reassignments across the district before new buildings are completed.
The discussions are part of a broader district effort to address declining enrollment, aging facilities, and underutilized school buildings.
Future of Manchester Elementary Debated
Manchester Elementary remained a focal point of discussion, with district leaders outlining why it was identified for closure.
Manchester has about 295 students in a building designed for 407, operating at roughly 72.5% capacity, according to district data. The school has nearly $6 million in total repair needs, including about $2.19 million in the district’s seven-year maintenance plan. Its facility condition index score is 49.25, classified as “unsatisfactory.”
Coleman said the building’s condition is a key concern.
“That means the building and or major systems are at a point where replacement is recommended due to risk, inefficiency and maintenance,” Coleman said.
Coleman said continued investment in the building raises long-term questions.
“That level of investment would be going into a building already unsatisfactory,” Coleman said.
Board members debated whether closure is the best option.
“If we close Manchester down then you’re actually destroying that community,” Jordan said.
Jones raised concerns about long-term community impact, particularly for military families in the area, noting that the presence of neighborhood schools plays a role in whether families choose to live in Spring Lake.
“If people don’t have an elementary school, why would they move there?” Jones said.
Residents in Spring Lake have recently organized rallies and public meetings opposing the potential closure of Manchester Elementary, arguing that losing neighborhood schools could hinder the town’s growth and disrupt families.
West said nearby schools, including W.T. Brown Elementary, could absorb students if Manchester closes, pointing to proximity and available capacity.
“Manchester is at 70% capacity,” West said. “W.T. Brown is four minutes away, and by this plan no child has a longer bus route.”
Coleman then walked board members through conditions at other schools included in the consolidation plan, pointing to declining enrollment and aging facilities.
“J.W. Coon is especially low in utilization, and Sherwood Park and Brentwood are both rated ‘unsatisfactory’ in their condition,” Coleman said. “Taken together, the data supports consolidating those three schools into one modern building.”
J.W. Coon Elementary has about 188 students in a building designed for 333, operating at roughly 56.5% capacity, with a facility condition score of 65.55, labeled “poor.”
Sherwood Park and Brentwood elementary schools—both more than 50 years old—also fall into the district’s “unsatisfactory” range, with millions in deferred maintenance needs and utilization rates below capacity.
District data shows consolidating J.W. Coon, Sherwood Park and Brentwood could result in about $8.56 million in deferred maintenance savings over seven years and more than $20 million in total long-term maintenance cost avoidance.
District officials also said consolidation could increase access to Title I funding—federal funding for schools with higher concentrations of low-income students, expand student support services, and allow for full-time staffing in areas like art, music and physical education.
Demographic Concerns Raised
Board members also raised concerns about how closings could affect different student populations.
Hales pointed to demographic data presented during the meeting and noted a pattern in the schools under discussion.
“Has anyone noticed that all of the schools that we are talking about—the highest number of enrollment are African American students?” Hales said. “I just want to point that out.”
West responded, asking whether those same students deserve improved facilities.
“To that point, do you think they deserve better buildings?” West said.
Hales said she agreed students deserve better facilities but questioned whether closures alone address that need.
“I do,” Hales said. “But that doesn’t mean a building is going to make them better.”
District planning documents show that several schools involved in consolidation discussions serve majority-Black student populations.
Manchester Elementary’s student population is about 52% Black, while it’s 61% at W.T. Brown Elementary and about 55% at Ponderosa Elementary.
The same data shows smaller shares of white students—about 17% at Manchester, 9% at W.T. Brown and 7% at Ponderosa—alongside Hispanic student populations ranging from about 19% to 24%.
Hales said those factors should be considered alongside facility conditions and cost.
Closure Timeline And Public Engagement
The board’s approval of the school closure timeline begins the formal process required under state law.
The district will conduct a study of Manchester Elementary and J.W. Coon Elementary through May 11, followed by a public comment period from April 15 through April 29.
Public hearings are scheduled for April 27 for Manchester Elementary at the school from 6–7 p.m., and April 29 for J.W. Coon Elementary at the school from 6–7 p.m.
A final board vote on the closure of both schools is scheduled for May 12—just days before the district must submit its proposed budget to the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners, which will ultimately determine funding for its plans.
