During the Monday Board of Education meeting, the board and public speakers alike made their opinions heard on the proposed relocation of Carthage Elementary School to a new site outside the town limits. Speakers on both sides were divided, with strong voices both in support and opposition.

According to the board, Carthage Elementary, currently situated on a limited 7.6-acre site, has been deemed inadequate for future growth. Assistant Superintendent Jenny Purvis, presenting on behalf of the district, outlined a plan to build a new 600-seat Carthage Elementary School.

“Instead of just looking solely at Carthage, we wanted to make sure we were taking the totality of the elementary population for area one into consideration,” said Purvis. “As you know, we are experiencing an astronomical growth.”

This facility would not only serve current Carthage students, but also help alleviate overcrowding at neighboring schools through a “cascading enrollment” strategy. This approach would shift students from Vass Lakeview to Sandhills Farm Life, and then to Carthage Elementary, potentially avoiding costly expansions at Vass Lakeview, estimated at $10–12 million.

The board is currently considering a parcel located approximately 2.8 miles from the existing school. The property is located in the 1300 block of Vass-Carthage Road, near the intersection of Joel Road. 

While under contract, the site is still undergoing due diligence. 

“This parcel that the board is currently considering was only found after we did a search and looked at lots of others, and couldn’t really find one that had topography and road frontage [that] was great,” said Purvis. 

She went on to summarize the plan and address commonly asked questions. According to Purvis, the site has 721 feet of road frontage, and plans include placing the school deep within the 30-acre parcel to allow for internal traffic queuing and minimize road congestion, which she says is a problem at any school site. Efforts will be made to preserve natural buffers and avoid clear-cutting. The site is 2.8 miles from the current school, adding about seven minutes to some bus routes. Sewer access will require a $3 million extension to a recently upgraded lift station, which she says is a worthwhile and comparatively small investment as opposed to other plans. 

Public Input

Many speakers, including teachers, parents, and even students, voiced strong opinions regarding relocating the school to a more rural site outside the Carthage town limits, which has been an ongoing community discussion.

Supporters cited:

• Safety concerns at the current location (near a jail and courthouse, open campus).
• The rural setting of the new site being safer and more peaceful.
• Traffic improvements and better bus routes.
• A belief that the new school is an investment in the future of Carthage and its children.

Opponents raised concerns about:

• Environmental risks.
• Traffic and infrastructure limitations on Vass-Carthage Road.
• Loss of farmland and rural character, with fears of overdevelopment.
• Conflict with the county’s land use plan and long-term planning.
• Lack of communication between the school board and the town of Carthage.

One notable speaker was a student named Eli—a nine year old affected by changes (and lack thereof) within the school system.

“Six years ago, I was at a meeting like this with my sister and my mom. I was in my pajamas because I was only three and it was past my bedtime,” said Eli. “I had a sign that said, ‘I need a new school.’ I was in preschool at Carthage Elementary. I am now a third grader and still no new school. Now people finally want to build a school, but they are arguing about where it is. This year in social studies, I learned about my county. We are one community. I thought that we were all part of the same team. All the teachers even have matching shirts. I don’t care if I am right next to Carthage instead of in Carthage. I care that my friends and teachers have a school that is safe and that they can be proud of.”

Throughout the meeting, audience members continued to speak out to try and make their opinions heard even after the public speaking period had ended. Several times, chair Dr. Robin Calcutt deemed audience and board members alike out of order.

“We have so much division in our nation and our country, the last thing that we should be arguing about right now is where we are going to build this school for our children,” said board vice chair Shannon Davis to the audience. “And it just disturbs me so much that we have 20 people, maybe a few hundred, that you went and you rallied your troops, and you talk trash about the Moore County Board of Education and our lack of being able to make proper decisions, and it’s just unnecessary. It’s rude. It’s unkind. And I’m excited to build this school in the future.”

Board Deliberation

While staff presented a detailed rationale for the selected site that cited topography, road access, and long-term capacity planning, board and community members questioned whether the location was ideal or fiscally responsible.

Board member David Hensley was particularly vocal, challenging the logic behind the site’s selection and the $3 million cost to run a sewer line to the property. He argued that a school reassignment plan could resolve capacity issues without the need for expensive infrastructure, and suggested alternative parcels, including town-owned land, might offer better value.

Hensley and others criticized the process, claiming that elected officials had delegated too much authority to staff and that community input had been insufficient. He advocated for a more structured, transparent planning model and lamented the lack of community voices being heard.

The meeting grew tense as board members clashed over speaking time and decorum. Several emotional appeals were made in the name of children’s needs.

Davis turned to scripture from the Bible to justify her rationale, saying that Jesus “would be ashamed” of the school’s opponents.

“And Jesus said, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me,’ and I think he would be ashamed of anybody who would be against children, against the school being built,” said Davis. “No matter where we decide to put a school, the neighbors are going to be upset. That’s what it’s going to be, and we need to recognize when we’re fighting the wrong battles.”

Hensley condemned that a board member had taken to “insulting the audience.”

Board member Dr. Amy Dahl attempted to placate the crowd by reaffirming that the board had not yet fully committed to the plan, and that there is no penalty for withdrawing from the contract if the site proves unsuitable. The school system has only paid $5,000 in due diligence so far.

“Nobody has to panic,” she told the audience. “We’re committed to the tune of $5,000, apparently. We have this opportunity to get some of the details out before the public and to [hear] from the public. This all seems to be part of a meaningful process to me.”

Despite the disagreements, many board members reiterated that the ultimate goal is to serve students and provide a safe, modern learning environment.

“I would suggest we go back and start from step one,” suggested board member Kenneth Benway. “Let’s get our heads together. We’ve got tremendous talent here. We’ve got tremendous interest, engagement, people who know what they want. Let’s pull that together in a disciplined way and move on and get this done.”

No vote was taken on the proposed site. The parcel remains under contract pending environmental testing and further review.

“Change is hard, but I can say that we have done our due diligence,” said Calcutt. “We’re doing what’s best for our communities and Moore County.”

Board members acknowledged the need for continued dialogue and community engagement before moving forward.

For Moore news delivered straight to your inbox, please click here to sign up for the free Sandhills Sentinel e-newsletter.

~ Written by Sandhills Sentinel Assistant Editor Abegail Murphy. Abegail has been writing for Sandhills Sentinel since 2021. Photo by Curtis Self/Sandhills Sentinel.