Parents and advocates urge board to expand suspension protections for youngest students

During the call to audience on May 5, several community members urged the New Hanover County Board of Education to revise discipline policy 4351 to protect younger students from short-term suspensions and to adopt more proactive behavior supports.

Speakers representing advocacy groups and parents cited district data presented earlier in the year showing that 13 elementary schools reported zero K–2 out‑of‑school suspensions in the first half of the 2025–26 school year and asked the board to extend the policy so "no child under age 9 or under grade 4 would be suspended for minor offenses starting in 2026," one speaker said. EJ Hanley and others with the Love Our Children advocacy group argued that reduced suspensions have increased instructional time and contributed to better reading outcomes.

Alicia Ogendelli and Veronica McLaren Brown asked the board to incorporate findings from the American Academy of Pediatrics and similar research into the district’s behavior policies, highlighting research on the harms of exclusionary discipline such as academic disengagement and increased juvenile-justice contact. "The data is clear," one caller said, urging the board to start a policy committee review and consider expanding age protections.

Several public speakers also raised concerns about proposed language in policy 23.10 on public participation, arguing that undefined standards of "relevance" could chill speech or exclude valuable lived experiences. Board members debated that policy later in the meeting and ultimately adopted an amended version that changed one required wording from "must" to "should."

Board members and staff acknowledged the tension between keeping meetings focused and preserving constitutional protections for public comment. The board referred some policy questions to the policy committee and directed continued attention to discipline outcomes and the committee process; no formal change to policy 4351 was adopted at the May 5 meeting.

Next steps noted at the meeting: public commenters asked that policy 4351 be referred to the policy committee for review; board members acknowledged the request and the policy committee will consider further action in its scheduled meetings.