CHCCS leaders outline staffing allotment review as students, parents plead to save Latin and arts

The Chapel Hill‑Carrboro City Schools administration told the board March 27 that it has moved its annual staffing allotment review earlier than usual after a yearlong reduction‑in‑force, citing mounting uncertainty in state and federal funding.

Superintendent Dr. Hamlet told the board the district "did not eliminate world language and arts programming" and said administrators are "committed to ensuring that all students currently enrolled in a high school credit Latin course can continue their high school language pathway." He warned that the district faces financial risks including "the potential for significant cuts to federal funding, which for us could be upwards of $9,200,000." Dr. Hamlet said earlier employee notification was chosen to give affected staff more time to pursue other roles.

Why it matters: The allotment review and the recent reduction‑in‑force (RIF) affect who is assigned to schools, whether smaller electives run, and how the district schedules teachers next year. School leaders and families said earlier notice for employees is helpful, but dozens of students, parents and teacher‑union representatives urged the board to preserve language and arts programs and to prioritize classroom‑facing positions that support student learning and mental health.

District staff described the process. Dr. Ashana Harris, speaking for administration, defined an "allotment" as an annual, site‑by‑site review of funded positions and distinguished that from a "reduction in force," which she described as a district‑wide personnel cut. She said the district began the RIF last spring and expects that process to conclude at the end of the school year in June. Finance staff shared enrollment projections that drive allotments; Jonathan Scott, presenting the budget context, said the district projects 11,147 students for 2025‑26 and that a continuation budget for next year was “just over $3,800,000” above current appropriation to maintain services as‑is.

Harris gave examples of the scale of staffing adjustments the allotment review can produce. Using Colbert Middle School as an example, she said a state funding formula would fund roughly 25.5 teachers for that school while the district this year funded about 42; under the updated allotment the district expects to budget 35 teachers for the coming year. Harris and other administration members said the district historically "held schools harmless" to protect staffing during lean years but can no longer sustain that approach without deeper budget clarity.

Administration also outlined how the district handled employees potentially affected by the change: several employees who held positions above the formula had contracts that are ending (nine full‑time and three part‑time, Harris said); five positions have been reassigned already and 11 reassignments are pending. Administrators said the allotment review aims to redistribute staff across schools where appropriate and to give affected staff internal opportunities before positions are posted externally.

Public comment, public schools and program impacts: The public comment period drew a long line of students, parents and staff. Brian Lincoln, president of the Chapel Hill‑Carrboro Association of Educators, urged transparency and urged families to advocate at the county and state levels. Student speakers described the value of language and arts classes and the communities those classes create: multiple middle‑ and high‑school students testified that teachers such as “Magistra Meyer” at Colbert Middle School create inclusive classrooms and that cutting language offerings would erase pathways students have already started.

Students and parents presented a petition they said had 1,041 signatures ("over a thousand" during testimony) with more than 900 from current students, and student government member Andrew Dunn gave results from a teacher survey at Chapel Hill High that he said polled more than 60 teachers and found roughly an "82% disapproval rating" for the district's proposed semester block schedule. MSAN and other student groups also urged administrators to preserve elective pathways and to involve teachers more in scheduling decisions.

Board response and next steps: Board members pressed administration for clarification about timelines and pathways for students already enrolled in credit‑bearing language courses. Administrators reiterated their commitment to preserve high‑school credit pathways for students currently in those courses but said some non‑credit electives and grade‑level placements may look different while the district balances enrollment, staffing and funding. Jonathan Scott said the district will bring a revised board request to the county (continuation plus expansion items were under discussion) and that the board will revisit priorities at the next budget work session before adopting a formal request to Orange County.

The board did not take a substantive policy vote on program eliminations during the meeting; administration said program decisions that would permanently remove courses would require further steps and public review.

Ending: Administration said it will continue a site‑by‑site allotment review with principals, return to the board with a drafted board budget request for the county, and hold follow‑up scheduling and staffing meetings with principals next week. Several board members encouraged continued face‑to‑face listening sessions with parents and staff to gather input as the process continues.