New Hanover County School Board
Brittnei LaRue, Democratic challenger
Career: Financial professional
Education: Bachelor’s Degree in Foreign Languages: Concentration in Spanish
Q: Why should voters support you to represent them on the New Hanover County Board of Education?
A: Voters should support me because I have approached this role with the seriousness I believe public service requires, and I would bring informed, independent judgment to the board of education. I began this campaign with a listening tour because I wanted to hear directly from educators, families and members of our community about their experiences, priorities and concerns, and I intend to continue governing that way. I have also attended and closely followed board of education meetings, visited schools, and spent time reading district policies and budgets. I have worked to understand not only what I want to accomplish, but also the authority and limitations of the board.
My professional background in financial planning has taught me to ask questions, evaluate tradeoffs, understand risk, and consider both immediate needs and long-term consequences. As a parent of children in New Hanover County Schools, including a child with an IEP, I also understand how important it is for families to be able to navigate our school system and trust that it is working for their children.
My platform is built around Smart Schools, Trust and Transparency and Shared Partnerships. I want us to look at data across different schools and student groups to understand what is happening, strengthen oversight and accountability, communicate clearly with the public, and work with community partners to improve outcomes for students. I will make decisions based on the law, board policy, available evidence and what I believe is in the best interest of the district as a whole.
Q: Name one top policy change you want to see and how you will get that passed.
A: One policy change I would like to see is establishing student achievement and progress toward the district's goals as a required standing agenda item at regular board of education meetings. The district already presents an aannual Accountability Report, but I believe student outcomes and progress toward district goals should have a consistent and protected place in the board's ongoing oversight rather than competing with other agenda priorities for time.
The focus could change throughout the year based on the district's goals, available data and what the board needs to monitor. We might look at student growth and proficiency, differences among schools and student populations, significant achievement gaps, strategies being used to address them and whether those strategies are working. I would want us to look at results by school and student group where appropriate so districtwide averages do not obscure important differences.
To get that passed, I would work through the board's policy process with the superintendent, district staff, legal counsel and my fellow board members to determine the structure, measures and reporting schedule. The goal is not to create unnecessary reporting requirements or expect the same information at every meeting. It is to make sure student achievement and progress toward district goals consistently have a place before the board.
If we are making progress, the board and the public should be able to see it and understand what is working. If we are not making the progress we expect, the board should understand what the district is doing in response and return to the issue to see whether the strategy is working or needs to be adjusted.
Accountability should make both the district's progress and the necessary adjustments it is making visible to the public. That is a fundamental part of oversight and building trust.
Q: The current school board and district staff have been clear about the shortcomings in the state’s funding model and the limitations of county funding. What new solution or approach would you bring to the table?
A: My approach would be to look at the collective investment being made toward major priorities rather than viewing district dollars, grants, philanthropic funding and community resources as completely separate efforts. There is no local solution that can replace adequate state funding, but we can be more strategic about the resources available in New Hanover County.
NHCS already has relationships with community organizations, nonprofits and philanthropic partners. If several organizations are investing in early literacy, mental health, workforce development or another priority, I want us to understand the total investment, what each partner is contributing, who is being served, where gaps or duplication may exist and what we are collectively trying to accomplish.
My financial planning background shapes how I think about this. One question I keep coming back to is: Can we follow a dollar through the system and understand what it produced? Not every investment will have an immediate or easily quantifiable result, but when significant resources are committed to an initiative, we should know what we expected to accomplish, what happened and whether the results support continuing, adjusting or expanding it.
If we know where resources are already concentrated, where progress is occurring and where needs remain unmet, we can make better decisions about where the next dollar should go.
Board members should also continue advocating for a state funding model that reflects the actual cost of educating students. Philanthropy and community partnerships can help us innovate, expand opportunities and address unmet needs, but they should not become a substitute for sustainable public funding of the recurring costs of educating students. We should understand the full picture of what is being invested in our students and use those resources wisely.
Q: Superintendent Chris Barnes has been authorized to put together a 10-year sustainability plan in March, which could highlight where the district can close school facilities and reduce costs associated with its current overhead. Do you support this effort and if so, how would you like the district to proceed with this study and its implementation?
A: Yes. I support developing a 10-year sustainability plan, but I would not begin with the assumption that particular schools should close. The study should give the board the information necessary to understand our options and make responsible long-term decisions.
I would want to see enrollment projections, building utilization, facility condition, deferred maintenance, operating costs, transportation implications, population growth and development patterns, academic programming and the effect different scenarios could have on students and neighborhoods. We also need to consider investments we have already made or are preparing to make, including projects in the 2026 school bond if approved by voters, as well as the historical and community impact of any proposed consolidation or closure.
The criteria should be established and communicated before individual schools are discussed, and community input should be meaningful. If consolidation or closure is ultimately recommended, families and the public should be able to understand why one option was selected over another, what alternatives were considered and how community input factored into the recommendation.
The purpose of a 10-year plan should be to make sure the district's physical footprint and operating expenses are sustainable while preserving strong educational opportunities for students.
Q: The district is also looking to obtain grant funding for a study on how much time students spend with screens in class. Where do you stand on student technology use, particularly screen time and AI in classrooms?
A: I support a balanced, age-appropriate approach to technology in classrooms. Technology should be a tool for learning, not the default method of learning. Students should have meaningful portions of their day that include direct instruction, discussion, collaboration, handwriting, reading from physical materials and hands-on learning rather than spending most of the instructional day on a screen.
I support the district studying how much instructional time students are actually spending on screens so we can establish a baseline. But I would want us to look beyond the number of minutes. What are students doing on those screens? Is it improving learning? Is it appropriate for their age? Is it replacing an instructional approach that might be more effective?
AI should be approached thoughtfully rather than ignored, but it should not replace students' own thinking. AI is going to be part of higher education and the workplace, so students need to understand it. Schools also need clear expectations around academic integrity, student privacy and appropriate use while protecting the critical-thinking skills students need to develop independently.
Educators should be involved in determining when technology adds educational value and when another approach is more effective. Technology should support good teaching, not replace it.
Q: Is there a capital need that you would have liked to see make it onto the school bond? How would you work to fund that project in the future?
A: I would have liked to see the longstanding questions surrounding a permanent facility for Isaac Bear Early College resolved in time for a viable project to be included in the bond. Isaac Bear has operated in temporary facilities for many years, and a permanent facility was considered during the bond planning process. However, the proposal raised legitimate questions about ownership, location and responsibility for funding a district facility on UNCW property. I understand why those questions needed to be resolved before committing tens of millions of dollars in public funding.
Going forward, I would want NHCS, New Hanover County, UNCW and other appropriate partners to work toward a long-term solution. That means examining the proposed site and ownership structure, what each entity should contribute, potential state or other funding sources, and whether there are other viable options that would preserve Isaac Bear's educational partnership with UNCW while providing a permanent home for the school.
This need has been unresolved for a long time, and I do not think we should simply wait for another bond cycle. First, we need agreement on what the long-term solution should be and who should be responsible for funding it. Then we can determine the appropriate funding strategy.
Q: The state recently mandated a specific process for handling book challenges. It requires the school board to weigh in on all challenges, supplanting the district’s multi-layered challenge and appeal process. However, the state doesn’t specify if the board has to remove the book from all schools or grade levels, versus just the school where the book was challenged. Should a parent challenge at one school trigger a district-wide review, or should the concerns stay local? Why?
A: I believe the scope of the review should follow the scope of the concern. A challenge at one school should not automatically trigger a districtwide response. If the concern is specific to a particular school, age group or grade level, I would generally keep the response focused there. If the concern is relevant to the material's availability across multiple schools or grade levels, then a broader review may be appropriate.
The board must follow state law, but the decision should consider the specific material, its educational context, the ages and grade levels for which it is available and the reason for the challenge. I would also want to hear from educators and appropriate staff who can provide professional expertise about educational context and age appropriateness. A book that may be appropriate for a high school library, for example, should not automatically be evaluated as though the same question applies to an elementary school.
There is also an important distinction between a parent's ability to decide what their own child reads and one parent's ability to determine what is available to every other family. Any broader action should be explainable based on state law and applicable state guidance, professional expertise, consistent standards and the circumstances of the challenge rather than political pressure from either direction.
Q: If you had to redistrict as a board member, how would you go about that process?
A: I would establish the criteria before looking at individual maps and consider redistricting alongside the district's broader facility and long-term planning.
Those criteria should include school capacity and utilization, projected enrollment and growth, proximity to schools, transportation efficiency, family stability, educational opportunities and concentrations of student need. The district's previous facility utilization study found that redistricting alone would not resolve our capacity challenges, so I would want potential boundary changes analyzed alongside projects in the 2026 school bond if approved by voters and the 10-year sustainability plan. Attendance boundaries, facility investments and the district's long-term physical footprint should not be considered in isolation.
I would also want multiple scenarios presented rather than asking the community to react to one predetermined map. Redistricting can be disruptive to families, and they may have information the district cannot see in its data. They should have meaningful opportunities to provide input, and that feedback should be summarized for the board.
Before a final decision, the public should be able to understand the criteria, the tradeoffs among the options and how the proposed changes fit into the district's larger long-term plan.
Q: What do you think The Endowment should fund for schools?
A: I think The Endowment should fund strategic investments that address identifiable gaps in student opportunity and support, particularly in areas that would be difficult to address through the district's operating budget alone.
Early literacy is a good example. The current investment in early literacy facilitators provides targeted support early, when intervention can have a significant long-term impact. I want to see the outcomes from that work and understand what we can learn from it.
I would also look at areas such as workforce and career pathways, access to mental health and student support services, and efforts that connect families with resources outside the school system.
Whatever is funded should start with a clear question: What problem are we trying to solve? From there, we should know who is being served, how success will be measured and what happens when the grant period ends. Endowment funding can give us an opportunity to test, build or scale effective solutions, but we should be careful about creating recurring obligations the district cannot sustain.
Q: What should be done to improve the district’s five low-performing schools? Why does New Hanover County have some of the highest performing schools in the state – and then some of the lowest performing ones in North Carolina?
A: We should understand what is driving the outcomes at each of our five low-performing schools and match resources and interventions to those specific needs. I do not think there is one explanation for why New Hanover County has both very high-performing and low-performing schools. Identifying a disparity is not the same as understanding its cause. We have to ask: Where does the evidence lead?
We should look at student growth and proficiency, early literacy, attendance, discipline, behavior supports, staffing and retention, school climate, leadership stability and the interventions already underway. But data is only part of understanding a school. This is one reason I believe visiting schools and building relationships with educators and school leaders is important. Students change. Staff and leadership change. Programs and communities change. A school's history and community context matter, but we also need to understand what is happening in a school now rather than assume a narrative that developed years ago still fully explains its current outcomes.
That also means we should not assume all five schools need the same solution. One may need stronger literacy or attendance interventions while another may need additional behavior support, staffing support, professional development, stronger family engagement or a different community partnership. If school climate, discipline practices or relationship-building are contributing to outcomes, those issues should be addressed as well.
Our schools also serve different student populations and operate under different models. Some of our highest-performing schools are specialized programs that students apply to attend, while traditional neighborhood schools serve the students who live within their attendance areas. But we also have traditional neighborhood schools performing at high levels and schools serving higher-need populations that are showing meaningful academic growth. That is another reason we should look carefully at what is happening within individual schools rather than assume one factor explains their results.
The board's job is to understand what is driving the outcomes, make sure the response fits the problem and then ask whether it is working.