Parents and staff urge Rock Hill School Board to reinstate two principals after April 29 nonrenewals

Dozens of parents, teachers and community members urged the Rock Hill School Board on May 13 to reinstate two principals whose contracts the board declined to renew at its April 29 meeting.

The appeals focused on Dutchman Creek Middle School principal Clayton Moten and the principal of Rock Hill High School, whom several speakers named in public comment. Speakers said the principals had demonstrable achievements, called for transparent, data‑driven evaluations and described a lack of prior warning or corrective plans before the April 29 votes.

Supporters said the nonrenewal decision matters because it affects continuity for students and staff at schools the speakers described as improving. “I have here paperwork of 1,000 — excuse me — 1,226 signed signatures to support him,” said Deah Gray, who identified himself as “Coach Gray” and a support‑staff finalist, asking that Moten be reinstated. “This man is a great leader… he has put his life into this school.”

Several other speakers gave first‑hand accounts of working with Moten and Rock Hill High’s principal. “When he started, Saluda Trail rose up… he brought that culture of family,” said Andrew Kiespecki, who said he had worked with Clayton Moten for 15 years. Jason Hunsinger, who identified himself as a teacher, pressed the board to base personnel decisions on measurable, objective data rather than “a conglomeration of subjective complaints.”

Sally Young, who identified herself as a parent and longtime community member, called on the board to follow customary administrative steps — communicate concerns, set a performance plan and monitor progress — rather than effect immediate termination. “If there was a problem, go to the principal, address the concerns, establish a performance plan, give goals, and monitor progress over the next year,” she said.

Other speakers underscored the community response: “1,250 people have spoken out,” said Julia Collette, who said she serves on the school improvement council. Several commenters said they had signed petitions and described broad support from teachers, students and parents.

Board procedure and the limits of public comment were also noted during the meeting. The board reiterated policy BEDH — public comment is heard but the board does not respond during citizen participation — and Vice Chair Hutchinson read a prepared statement about ethics filings and civility in board conduct.

No motion to reinstate either principal was made during the May 13 meeting. The transcript and speakers referenced the April 29 vote not to renew the contracts; the May 13 session provided a public forum for comment. The record from this meeting shows public appeals and discussion but no board action reversing the April 29 decisions.

What happens next: community members and multiple speakers asked the board to rescind the April 29 votes or to place the principals on improvement plans so a new superintendent can evaluate performance with full information. Board members said they would consider public feedback and administrative reports at future meetings.

Context and immediate impact: Several speakers warned that abrupt leadership changes can destabilize school programs and impede recruitment and retention of teachers. Commenters also raised practical concerns about timing: the district is between superintendents and begins personnel transitions at the end of the school year, which speakers said complicates replacement and oversight.

The board received the public comments during its May 13 meeting; no further personnel action was recorded in open session on May 13.