DPS Work Session Feb. 9: Mold, Student Safety, and a $4.6M Tech Debate
The Durham Public Schools Board of Education hears stark testimony on mold, freezing classrooms, and unanswered questions about a reported child-restraint incident before turning to summer learning plans, one-to-one student devices, and whether a $4.6 million annual tech refresh is sustainable. Board members and staff also wrestle with shrinking enrollment, rising costs, charter growth, and how to boost classified pay while keeping schools repaired and students equipped to learn. 49mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Monday, February 9th, 2026
12365.0
#DPSCommunity | DPS Board of Education Monthly Work Session | 2/9/26
Video Notes
#DPSCommunity | DPS Board of Education Monthly Work Session | 2/9/26
Wes Platt
Durham, NC
In This Video
-
-
-
Mr. Harris and a CTE student highlighted February’s CTE Month, local efforts like the Accelerate Career event and middle school career labs, and the health science pathways that led to industry certifications, which the Board chair praised as a strong example of the district’s career‑focused programs.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nicholas King clarified that detailed data could only be provided for DPS‑funded summer programs, while Director of School Innovation Ashley Stevens explained which camps were covered by parent fees or scholarships, and Vice Chair Rogers requested information on how many students participated, which programs DPS financed, and the demographics of those students to assess the district’s investment.
-
Executive Director of Information Technology Paul Mijumbi introduced a student device program update, linking the initiative to district academic and operational priorities and emphasizing that technology use should be driven by learning goals to prepare students for a future workforce shaped by data, AI, and problem solving.
-
Executive Director of Information Technology Paul Mijumbi reviewed how the district’s pandemic-era one-to-one take-home device model evolved into a long-term sustainability challenge, detailing ongoing issues like large-scale repairs, lost equipment, and tech fees that failed to cover rising repair costs, and calling for intentional, system-level planning.
-
Assistant Superintendent Sidbury emphasized that true one-to-one learning went beyond student laptops to include classroom technology and environments, stressed developmentally appropriate, active, and teacher-mediated use of devices—especially in lower grades—and underscored that technology should support rather than replace quality instruction, with future guardrails to clarify expectations.
-
Executive Director of Information Technology Paul Mijumbi reported family and school leader feedback showing support for purposeful, age‑appropriate device use but concerns about screen time, safety, costs, and sustainability, and recommended a tiered one‑to‑one model that limited take‑home devices in lower grades while keeping full take‑home access in high school with added accountability measures.
-
Executive Director of Information Technology Paul Mijumbi detailed a shift from reactive, ad hoc technology purchases toward a planned $4.6 million annual investment that reorganized existing spending, relied on warranties and standardization to reduce unpredictable repair and charger costs, and aimed to protect instructional time after the Board had already invested about $60 million since 2020.
-
Assistant Superintendent Sidbury outlined plans to review the return on investment for key digital learning tools, anchor future curriculum work around a new ELA adoption and later math, and use a continuous improvement cycle with data, fidelity, equity, and budget checks to guide which tools and initiatives the district should continue, adjust, or discontinue.
-
Executive Director of Information Technology Mijumbi recommended that the Board commit to a five‑year, $4.6 million annual technology refresh for student, teacher, and classroom devices to reflect true ownership costs and avoid emergency spending, prompting Chair Umstead to invite Board questions about the funding request.
-
Assistant Superintendent Sidbury responded to questions about student screen time by acknowledging the district lacked clear definitions and guidance for device use, citing pediatric research that emphasizes the quality of technology use and adult mediation over minutes, and indicating that leaders and teachers would help tighten expectations and feedback for the community.
-
Board Member Chavez raised the idea of tech‑free school days, prompting Assistant Superintendent Sidbury and another speaker to express openness to exploring it while cautioning that any change must account for teachers’ workloads, students’ daily need for devices in some courses, and the risk of limiting intentional instructional use of technology.
-
Board Member Carda-Auten questioned how the district ensured best-practice, instructionally focused use of technology before committing ongoing millions in spending, and Assistant Superintendent Sidbury acknowledged inconsistent practices and limited professional learning across schools while agreeing to return in the summer with a plan and expectations for classroom use.
-
-
Assistant Superintendent Sidbury described an 18‑month curriculum adoption process in which teachers and leaders defined non‑negotiable criteria for an RFP, reviewed vendor proposals through a committee, engaged families through information nights, gave teachers and departments a vote, and aimed to bring forward a single K–5 literacy curriculum recommendation based on what had worked in the past.
-
Nicholas King and Chief Finance Officer Teetor described the statewide challenge of sustaining one-to-one technology after ESSER funds expired, noted tentative discussion of new state support, and explained that Durham would have to submit the initiative as a local expansion request given the state’s historically minimal technology funding.
-
Board members questioned how the district would adjust its one-to-one technology plan if it could not afford the proposed $4.6 million annual model, with the superintendent describing how priorities would be scaled back within the budget and Chair Umstead voicing discomfort about the long-term cost while asking what a reduced $2 million refresh focused on the highest‑priority devices might look like.
-
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor explained that state funding would be reduced next year to reflect declined enrollment—with any overperformance later refunded—and noted that the district strategically charges higher-paid veteran and advanced-degree teachers to state-funded position allotments since the state assumes their full base pay cost.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor explained that while lower enrollment would automatically reduce state-funded teaching positions, some fixed non-instructional support roles like school treasurers and clerical staff did not shrink with student counts, forcing the district to decide how to absorb funding cuts in those areas during the budget process.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor explained that rising costs for commercial insurance and anticipated utility rate hikes, including a proposed 15% Duke Energy increase, required the district to plan for roughly $737,000 in insurance expenses and nearly $1.2 million to cover potential increases in utilities and waste services.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetolr explained that district and statewide finance staff were budgeting for a possible 5% state salary increase and higher retirement contribution rates, estimating about $6.1 million in added costs and noting that such a move would raise Durham Public Schools’ minimum wage from $17.51 to $18.39 per hour.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor reviewed IT expansion requests, including a potential $900,000 lease to replace interactive panel technology and an annual $2.8 million lease to refresh 25,000 student devices, and clarified that these figures covered student—not staff—devices, which could be maintained as-is for another year.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor reported surveying classified staff about interest in biweekly pay, noted plans to analyze demand among specific groups like bus drivers and before‑ and after‑care employees, and explained that the budget request reflected the maximum cost to offer biweekly pay to all classified staff but would likely decrease based on actual interest and staffing needs.
-
-
-
-
-
Board Member Natalie Beyer raised concerns about having enough funding to keep up with HVAC and other capital repairs, and Chief Finance Officer Teetor explained that county capital outlay support had reverted from $6 million to $5 million after ARPA assistance and that district leaders planned to keep advocating for an $8 million recurring capital outlay allocation.
-
Beyer urged the district to propose more aggressive starting wage increases for classified staff, contrasted those ideas with a costly $29.5 million two‑year DAE pay proposal, and cautioned about both the feasibility of large raises and the need to keep salaries aligned with state‑mandated increases and local living costs.
-
Chief Finance Officer Teetor confirmed that any state-approved raises would create additional local costs the district must fund for locally paid employees and explained that leaders were already planning for scenarios with no new revenue by identifying either new funding sources or existing expenses that could be reduced or eliminated.
More from this government
Nearby governments