New Hanover County School Board
Pat Bradford, Republican incumbent
Career: Retired publisher and editor/co-founder of Wrightsville Beach Magazine and founder of Lumina News. Former active licensed NC real estate broker and firm owner, sworn in as Guardian ad Litem child advocate in 2006. Current freelance writer.
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: Because I have a proven track record; experience matters, and because for me it is all about the children. When I took office in 2022, the district had budget shortfalls, chaotic governance and unacceptable proficiency numbers. I made reading my first priority, and the results are in. Third-grade reading proficiency climbed from the mid-40s to the low-60s. Math 1 proficiency jumped from 32.4 to 47.1 percent this year. Our 89.4 percent graduation rate is the highest in a decade and above the state average. In 2022 we had 13 low-performing schools, last year 10. This year we have five, and nine schools moved up a letter grade.
As Chair of the Finance, Capital and Bond Committee, I helped build a balanced, transparent budget, put our finances through an independent review that called our structures "simply put, excellent," and helped develop the $320.5 million school bond on the November ballot. I spent 25 years running a local business, managing multi-million-dollar budgets and hiring staff. I trained as a K-12 educator, I served as a Guardian ad Litem for children in court, and I put in the time and research to be prepared for every meeting.
We began a much needed U-turn three years ago. I am asking voters to let me finish it.
Q: Name one top policy change you want to see and how you will get that passed.
A: Fix how the state funds our exceptional children. North Carolina caps Exceptional Children funding at 13 percent of a district's enrollment. New Hanover County serves 13.9 percent - more than 3,200 students with disabilities - and the state does not pay for the students above the cap. That gap is more than half a million dollars a year pulled from every other classroom, and our independent wellness review identified the strain on our EC program as the most urgent issue in the district.
Our board has already passed a resolution asking the General Assembly to lift the cap. Here is how I will get it done. First, keep our legislative delegation at the table. They have told us they are open to changing the special education funding model, and I intend to hold them to it. Second, build a coalition with the other districts over the cap so this is not one county asking for a favor. Third, bring real numbers, not slogans. Legislators respond to a clear, documented case, and as a former journalist and business owner, that is what I know how to build and have those relationships. Fourth, until the state acts, protect EC staffing in our own budget so the students do not feel the gap.
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: Start with the model itself. North Carolina still funds schools mostly by position - so many teachers per so many students - through dozens of separate allotments, which is why a district can lose students, lose positions and still be told it cannot move money to where the need is. The better approach is a carefully weighted student funding: fund the student, and weight the dollars for the children who cost more to educate - a child with a disability, a child learning English, a child in poverty. Senator Michael Lee put a work group on this in the 2026 budget. Our exceptional children cap is Exhibit A for why it matters. I will make sure New Hanover County's numbers are forefront on that table, and I will push for the state's proposed weighted EC model as the first step.
Closer to home, there are things we control. The state pays us per student, and we have lost more than 800 students in recent years - the equivalent of a larger middle school. The most powerful funding solution in our hands is to make New Hanover County Schools the first choice again, and this year's results, above the state average on 17 of 18 tests, give us something to sell. Right-size our overhead through the 10-year sustainability plan, because dollars spent heating and cooling empty space belong in classrooms. Capture the money we leave on the table: NC Pre-K certification, the $2.3 million in state supplemental teacher funds we just regained, grants and community use. And use The Endowment for what it was built for - its $116 million toward the bond’s debt service would cut the taxpayer cost by 71 percent.
Finally, keep living within our means. When we opened our books and cut our own overhead, the county responded with more per-pupil funding. Trust is a funding strategy.
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 voted for it, and I said at the time that we can sit in the dirt and cry about lost funding, or we can take the facts to the taxpayers and let them see what we see. The facts are these: enrollment is down about 10 percent since 2016-17, our buildings average 47 years old, nine of them are more than 70 years old, and we are paying to operate, heat, cool and staff space we no longer fill. Ignoring that is not an option for a board that is asking the public to approve a bond.
How we proceed matters as much as whether. First, data before decisions: real capacity, real enrollment projections, real building condition and real cost per school, published for everyone to see. Second, community input before any vote, held at the schools that would be affected, not just at the board table. Third, phase it. The bond already answers part of this question - the new Riverlights elementary replaces Mary C. Williams and the Pine Valley rebuild replaces a worn-out building. Both builds increase capacity. As does the new Trask Middle School for
Trask and Laney High School. Where consolidation makes sense, transition students by grade level rather than uprooting a whole school at once. Fourth, no decisions before the next budget cycle, and every dollar saved goes to classrooms, not central office.
And I will say this: when Mary Howe Pre-K was on the block, I drove the neighborhoods, visited the school, read the data and fought to keep it open. As I did for our alternative Career Readiness Academy (high school) at Mosely. I am not a reflexive closer. If the numbers say a small school is working for children, it stays.
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: Less screen, more paper and more people. I said it at our back-to-school town hall and I will say it here: parents want more books back in our schools, and they want their children learning from a teacher, not just from a piece of software. I support the screen-time study as long as it is grant-funded, as planned, and not paid for out of the operating budget. We need a real baseline of how much time our students spend on a device during the school day before we can set a standard, and I want that baseline published to parents.
We have already moved in the right direction. Middle schoolers no longer take home district-issued devices. Under state law and our board policy, phones and smartwatches are off during instructional time. High school students keep devices because AP and college courses require them, and that is appropriate.
On AI, it is a tool, not a teacher. I want our students to graduate knowing how to use it responsibly and how to spot when it is wrong, and I want firm guardrails: no student personal data entered into AI systems, no deepfakes, disclosure when it is used, and teachers trained before students are. Fundamentals come first. A child who cannot read cannot fact-check a chatbot. If our reading, writing and math results keep climbing, technology is helping. If they slip, we pull back.
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: New Hanover High School. The full master plan to bring that campus up to standard is about $230 million. The bond funds Phase 1 at roughly $60 million, which addresses the most urgent safety and building-system needs, but it leaves roughly $170 million of work unfunded. Williston Middle, at more than 70 years old, is the other building I worry about, although this bond will deal with the the HVAC equipment on the roof. The mold that closed the cafeteria and classrooms at Hoggard in August is a reminder that our facility needs are not theoretical. That repair alone is costing close to half a million dollars from our emergency savings.
The bottom line, twenty years of deferred maintenance cannot be fixed in one bond, and I would rather pass a responsible $320.5 million bond that voters can afford than a larger one that fails. Isaac Bear’s facility needs a solution not yet formulated. Here is how I would fund what is left. First, a dedicated annual maintenance line in the county capital plan, so we stop borrowing for roofs and HVAC. Second, sequence the remaining New Hanover High phases into the next bond cycle as the 2014 bond debt rolls off. Third, answer The Endowment's invitations for technology and safety proposals, so those needs are met without competing with buildings the next time around. Fourth, keep our state lottery capital dollars pointed at the oldest buildings. And fifth, keep the finances transparent, because the county and The Endowment have both proven they will invest when they can see where the money goes.
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: A challenge should be settled once, for the district, and I think that is the right call for three reasons. First, consistency. A book that is obscene or not age-appropriate for a third grader at one elementary school is not somehow appropriate for a third grader across town. One standard, applied the same way everywhere, is fairer to students, parents and staff. Second, it protects our educators. Under the old system, the same book could be challenged school by school, over and over. Under the new one, the question is answered one time, in public. Third, accountability. Board members are elected by and answerable to the parents of this county, and decisions about what is on our shelves should rest with people parents can vote out.
Districtwide does not mean one-size-fits-all across grade levels, and that is the part I will watch closely. The new review committee includes principals, teachers and media coordinators from elementary, middle and high school for a reason. A decision about an elementary library should not automatically empty a high school shelf, and I will make sure our policy and our votes are specific about grade level.
I have said since 2022 that I do not support banning or burning books. Our board has ruled on just one case in four years. I support parents knowing what their children are reading and having a clear, fast, public process when they have a concern. This law gives them that.
Q: If you had to redistrict as a board member, how would you go about that process?
A: Carefully, with data, in public, and only when there is a reason. Redistricting is one of the most disruptive things a board can do to families, and I would not do it for its own sake or in response to public pressure. But the reasons that could justify it are in front of us. The bond will open a new middle school off Sidbury Road to relieve Laney High School, a new elementary in Riverlights, a rebuilt Pine Valley and an expansion at Porters Neck, improved New Hanover High and the 10-year sustainability plan may change how we use other buildings. New seats have to be filled, and some lines will have to move.
My process would be this. Start with the numbers - capacity, enrollment projections, building condition and bus routes - and publish them before any map is drawn. Move as few students as possible; I favor the micro approach of adjusting boundaries at the edges over redrawing the whole county. Hold input sessions at every affected school, with the maps on the wall, before the board votes, not after. Protect families with grandfathering for rising seniors and sibling considerations. Keep bus rides short, because transportation is both a cost and a safety issue. And tie it to the sustainability plan and the bond so families face one change, not three.
Redistricting is a tool for filling seats and shortening bus rides. It is not a substitute for improving a school. The way to lift a struggling school is to put our best principals and teachers in it and hold ourselves accountable for growth, and that is what we are doing and it is working.
Q: What do you think The Endowment should fund for schools?
A: The Endowment should fund what government cannot or should not, and it should never become the district's operating budget. Core needs - teachers, buses, buildings, the lights - belong to the state and county, because that is where accountability to voters lives. The Endowment is at its best funding investments with a beginning, a middle and an end that leave the district stronger when the grant is over.
They have already shown how to do it right. The $116 million commitment toward the school bond debt service covers interest payments the county would otherwise have to raise taxes for, and it will, if passed, cut the taxpayer cost of the bond by 71 percent. The early literacy grant put reading facilitators in our elementary schools, and reading scores have climbed. So here is my list. First, pre-K. High-quality pre-K is written into The Endowment's founding agreement, it is the best return on investment in all of education, and the county commissioners cut pre-K classrooms in a shortfall year and then restored them. Second, safety and technology. The Endowment has invited proposals of up to $10 million each, and we should answer with real ones. Third, the screen-time study, so the operating budget never pays for it. Fourth, targeted support for our five low-performing schools: extended learning, tutoring and incentives to keep our strongest teachers there. Fifth, capital leverage that makes the next bond smaller.
What I would not ask for is recurring salaries with no end date. That creates a cliff, and students fall off it when the grant ends. I have also asked for a joint workshop with Endowment staff so our board understands their decision process, because a good partner is one you can plan with.
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: Start with what just happened. 2022 we had 13 low-performing schools. Last year we had 10. This year we have five, and nine schools moved up a letter grade. That did not happen by accident. The superintendent and the board picked three priorities - Math 1, third-grade reading and graduation rate - set a number for each, and put resources where the data said students were behind. Preferential staffing in high-need schools, strong principals, regular progress monitoring and federal school improvement dollars for Freeman, Forest Hills and Williston all played a part.
The plan for the remaining five - Williston Middle, Rachel Freeman, College Park, Alderman and Snipes - is more of what worked, faster. Keep our best principals and teachers in those buildings, with incentives to stay. (This year Williston has a third vice principal. This year we have 30 middle school 30 teachers trained to teach reading.) We need to keep the early literacy facilitators in place. Attack chronic absenteeism, because a child who is not in the seat cannot be taught. Expand pre-K in those neighborhoods so children arrive ready. And hold ourselves to growth every single year.
Why the split? Two honest answers. First, poverty. All five of those schools serve our highest concentrations of low-income families, and our superintendent is right that poverty is a far stronger predictor of struggle than anything else. New Hanover County has some of the wealthiest and some of the poorest neighborhoods in North Carolina within a few miles of each other, and our schools reflect that. Second, the grading system. The state's letter grade is 80 percent proficiency and only 20 percent growth. A school where children arrive two years behind and gain a year and a half is doing heroic work and still gets an F. What matters to me is whether every child improves from where they were when they came to us. Growth is where our five schools are moving, and I intend to keep them moving until the letter grades catch up.