Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Renaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
James Blair Middle School committee recommends renaming process continue after 11‑0 committee vote; community survey split
Summary
A school committee recommended pursuing a renaming process after an internal 11‑0‑1 poll, even though a 1,724‑respondent community survey showed 53% opposed to renaming. The committee cited James Blair’s historical ties to slavery and recommended next steps including soliciting non‑person place names.
A committee convened to consider whether to rename James Blair Middle School recommended that the school board pursue a renaming pathway after an internal anonymous poll showed 11 members in favor with one abstention, the committee reported April 1.
The committee’s report summarized historical research and a community survey conducted as part of the process. The research noted that James Blair (founder and first president of the College of William & Mary) purchased the Nottoway plantation in 1718 and used enslaved labor; the committee concluded that a school bearing his name “does not engender the inspirational or aspirational qualities to support all learners.”
The committee invited five audiences to take an online survey; the division reported 1,724 total respondents across groups. Aggregated results showed 53 percent of respondents (910 of 1,724) said the school should not be renamed, a decline from 68 percent who preferred retaining the James Blair name in a 2017 survey. The committee interpreted the shift in public perception over time, the student comments it heard and the historical material it reviewed as a basis to continue a renaming process.
The committee estimated a one‑time implementation cost of $92,334.50 to change the name on signage and materials; the committee noted remaining FY25 funds could be used for a one‑time expense. The report also noted that many current James Blair students expressed pride in their school and that younger students were more likely to favor a change than older students.
The committee proposed reconvening to solicit alternate school names and to prioritize non‑person names and place‑based options. If the board directs the committee to continue, the committee said it would gather name submissions, evaluate them and return a recommendation to the board on a schedule that could meet the board’s May meeting calendar.
At the meeting board members debated next steps. Some members said the community survey numbers argued for pausing or broadening outreach; others said the committee’s research and unanimous committee view warranted continuing the renaming process and soliciting suggested replacement names (the board agreed that future name suggestions should exclude personal names). Several trustees asked for a community education component on the local history and the 1950s context that produced the original naming.
No final board vote to rename the school took place at the meeting. The board directed staff to reconvene the committee to develop a community engagement plan and, if the board affirms the path, to collect alternative non‑person name proposals for the board’s consideration on the previously discussed timeline.
