Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Enrollment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rock Hill board debates high‑school open‑enrollment pilot; transportation and equity raise concerns
Summary
Board members received a first read of a proposed open‑enrollment policy to pilot student transfers among the district’s three high schools for 2025–26, capped at roughly 5% of each school's enrollment. Board members and community speakers raised questions about timing, transportation, equity and community input.
Rock Hill School Board members on May 13 heard a first reading of a proposed open‑enrollment policy to allow students in grades 9–12 to transfer to another district high school under a pilot for the 2025–26 year.
The policy as presented would permit transfers to designated “open enrollment” high schools on a first‑come, first‑accepted basis, limit transfers initially to about 5% of each school’s enrollment, require families to provide transportation, and reserve review and capacity checks by district staff.
“...we will start out with a very small number of open enrollment seats. That capacity is about 5% of the current enrollment of each school,” said Dr. Marty Connor, who led the presentation with District Athletic Director Jimmy Duncan.
Officials proposed specific seat counts for the three high schools in the pilot: about 60 seats at South Pointe High School, about 94 at Northwestern High School and about 95 at Rock Hill High School. The district proposed a compressed timeline: a public information Zoom session in early June, an application portal opening in June, a brief district review and parent acceptance deadlines mid‑June, and enrollment confirmations by July 1 to allow schedule and activity placement before school starts. The second reading is scheduled for May 28.
Board members and several speakers urged a slower rollout. “This is a quantum shift,” said Board Member Dr. Beldrow, who said the proposal deserved more community input, a standing committee and a fuller review of transportation and equity implications. Dr. Beldrow noted that House Bill 3199 cited in the presentation remained in subcommittee at the State House and that the South Carolina High School League had changed a transfer bylaw in March.
Other concerns cited during the discussion included:
- Transportation: the presentation recommended no district transportation for transfers because of cost; several board members warned that requiring families to provide transportation would disproportionately affect lower‑income students. - Equity and demographics: board members asked whether transfers could shift school demographics and Title I designations and whether caps and annual reviews would prevent unintended segregation. - Athletics and extracurriculars: the South Carolina High School League bylaw change (Article 3, Section 10) permitting a one‑time transfer without penalty was a factor in timing and eligibility questions for student athletes.
Jimmy Duncan said the district had consulted other districts and had iterated the policy in multiple drafts, and emphasized a phased approach: “We took a slow walk to this and not open it up to have a misstep,” he said. District staff emphasized that special‑education program compatibility would be checked before accepting applications.
Board members asked staff to solicit community feedback before the second reading on May 28. Several members recommended creation of a board committee with community stakeholders to vet transportation, implementation capacity and equity impacts before final approval.
Next steps: the board will consider public feedback, and staff will return with any revisions at the May 28 meeting. The district said it can delay broader rollout for middle and elementary grades until a later phase and would provide a post‑implementation report to the board in August if the pilot proceeds.
