Robeson County board delays adoption of 2025–26 school calendar, schedules special work session

The Robeson County Board of Education on Monday tabled adoption of a proposed 2025–26 school calendar and directed staff to convene a special board work session to rework calendar options.

Board members argued about whether end-of-year testing should occur before or after the Christmas break and whether adopting the proposed calendar would create unequal instructional time between semesters. Bobby Locklear, who presented the draft calendar, told the board that state law constrains calendar construction: “students must start school Monday the closest to August 26 and [be] dismissed by Friday closest to June 11,” and that the district must meet minimum instructional-hour and student-day requirements.

The dispute drew sharp questions from several board members over consultation and equity. Board Attorney Schwartz cited policy and statute that place adoption authority with the local board: both the state statute and board policy “require that the board shall adopt” a calendar that complies with statutory start- and end-date rules, he said. Board member Trey Britt urged patience for statewide action, saying, “my personal opinion is wait and see what happens with the general assembly and then move forward.”

After public and member debate over lost instructional days, inclement-weather risk and impacts on support staff schedules, the board voted to table the proposed calendar and hold a focused work session with central staff and board members to resolve outstanding issues. John Simmons moved to table and call a special meeting; Trey Britt seconded the substitute motion, which the board approved. During the follow-up discussion the board directed that the special meeting be run as a work session and include cabinet members for technical review. At the end of the meeting the board scheduled the work session for Monday the 17th at 5:00 p.m.

The impasse centered on two tensions: teachers and some parents seeking exams and semester breaks before Christmas, and other members warning that the proposed calendar would create unequal semester lengths (roughly 70–80 days versus about 100 days) and risk instructional loss if weather forces makeup days in the first semester. Staff also warned that teacher workdays and contracted employee pay (cafeteria, transportation) would be affected if workday distribution changed.

Next steps: staff will prepare calendar comparisons, show teacher-workday, holiday and instructional-hour implications, and present options at the special work session so the board can adopt a calendar in time to meet its policy deadline in April.