Board reviews pre‑K MOU that formalizes $975,000 reduction and adds site flexibility

New Hanover County Schools administrators told the board the 2025–26 pre‑K memorandum of understanding incorporates a $975,000 reduction that was already agreed during the budget process and clarifies operational flexibility for the program. The MOU, staff said, covers the six pre‑K classrooms the district had before the COVID pandemic and removes prior language that required the district to use only pre‑specified centers for those seats; under the new MOU the district may locate sites “where the highest need is,” staff said.

Why it matters: The change preserves the district's existing pre‑K allocation but narrows the funding available compared with earlier years. The added site flexibility could allow managers to place seats where demand and need are greatest, while the funding reduction will constrain how many seats can be offered overall.

Details: Staff explained the MOU incorporates the previously discussed $975,000 reduction and that the county and school district negotiated language changes before the item could be added to the agenda. The MOU also adjusts a classroom cap: the prior limit of 18 children in a class was raised to a not‑to‑exceed 20, which staff said provides modest additional placement flexibility if a classroom can safely accommodate more students.

Board members asked whether the changes meant the district had regained funding it previously lost or whether the item simply formalized the funding level adopted in the budget. Staff clarified the latter: the dollar reduction had been approved in the budget, and the MOU records that settled amount plus the operational changes discussed during negotiations.

Process and next steps: Board members pressed for clarity about how many seats the district will promise when applications open for next year, and staff said they will finalize seat counts once procedures for money flow and enrollment are confirmed. Members also discussed long‑term pre‑K planning beyond the 2025–26 year and were told options will be presented through the budget process.

Board takeaways: Discussion focused on operational flexibility (site selection) and the fixed funding level for the upcoming year; there was no board vote on the MOU during this agenda‑review session. The board asked staff to provide more concrete seat and application timing information before enrollment opens.

Sources: Staff presentation to the board during agenda review (board transcript, discussion starting at 08:47 of the session).