On behalf of the Glenwood PTA, we are writing to request that the NC State ITRE presentation on 7/16/26 be corrected or retracted from the public record, so that the Chapel Hill school board's decision rests on accurate information rather than erroneous data.
The presentation applies two different capacity figures for the Mandarin program depending on the option being evaluated:
- Under Option 1, the report uses the Mandarin program's theoretical maximum capacity of 492 students (288 Dual Language and 204 World Language).
- Under Option 2, it uses the Mandarin program's actual enrollment of 375 students (226 Dual Language and 149 World Language).
The internal figures confirm this inconsistency. Under Option 1, all 5 schools have program capacity greater than 375, yet "Remaining capacity after Language Program Placement" is shown as 0 for each, indicating that ITRE applied the theoretical maximum of 492 when calculating how many students would need to be redistricted.
Under Option 2, the difference between "Program Capacity" and "Remaining Capacity" is 226 at every school, indicating that actual Dual Language enrollment was used instead. Applying the higher figure to Option 1 and the lower figure to Option 2 tilts the comparison between the two options and cannot be reconciled.
Beyond this inconsistency, we have identified the following issues in the presentation:
Options are not defined with enough specificity to reproduce or evaluate the analysis. The Option 2 recommendation states that Rashkis and Scroggs would each receive "a Mandarin language program," but it does not specify which school would receive Dual Language and which would receive World Language. That distinction materially affects enrollment, staffing, and transportation, and its absence makes the recommendation impossible to verify.
The presentation relies on a "program (school) capacity" measure substantially lower than the Woolpert, SAPFO, and other publicly available capacity figures. It neither explains why this measure is the appropriate basis for the decision, nor tests whether the recommendation holds under other reasonable capacity estimates. Because lower capacity figures make co-location appear more disruptive, this choice directly affects the comparison between Options 1 and 2.
The reported student impacts are not based on complete redistricting scenarios, and by design, they cannot be. The full redistricting analysis will not be conducted until after the decision about the Mandarin program's placement. Yet the Board is being asked to decide the housing of the Mandarin program now, before that analysis exists, which is not inseparable from that broader decision. This is the core defect: the gated, decision-by-decision structure of this process places a decision before the Board while withholding the very analysis needed to evaluate it. This process has consistently biased outcomes against keeping the Mandarin program intact, by never presenting the full impact of the decision to the Board or the community. Therefore, neither the Board nor any parents in CHCCS can presently assess the true community impact or weigh the alternatives against one another. The presentation frames Option 2 as producing minimal overall redistricting, yet it omits the 375 Glenwood children being redistricted, and it cannot account for the broader community impact, which will not be revealed until the full redistricting stage. There are multiple plausible redistricting scenarios in which keeping the Mandarin program together would produce little or no difference in the total number of children required to move because, as stated during the presentation, children in satellite areas of a current school will be redistricted to closer schools. It is also possible that the impact of redistricting on Rashkis and Scroggs may be higher than presented. We therefore ask that no decision be made on the housing of the Glenwood program, until the comprehensive, district-wide redistricting analysis is complete. Deciding the program's placement in advance of that analysis, and without full and valid community engagement informed by it, deprives the community of a proper voice in the outcome and renders any such decision arbitrary and capricious.
Several other material consequences are not compared across the two options. Transportation, staffing, equity, application demand, geographic accessibility, implementation cost, and the educational and operational effects of separating the Dual Language and World Language pathways are either listed as relevant considerations or are plainly material to the decision, yet none are evaluated in the presentation. If they have been evaluated, then we request that these analyses be shared with us for full transparency. The recommendation currently rests almost entirely on classroom capacity and estimated immediate displacement, which is too narrow a basis to support the broad conclusion that splitting the pathways is the better overall option.
For these reasons, we ask that the report be corrected or withdrawn before the Board takes any action, so that its decision rests on a complete and accurate record.
Appendix: Here are the accurate tables for each option if you apply consistent logic and numbers across the 2 options:
Option One – Assumes Both Tracks of Mandarin Program Move as a Whole
Thank you for your attention and response to these concerns. We would like to request a meeting within the next week to discuss them further.
School
Program Capacity
Remaining Capacity With Maximum Theoretical Enrollment
Remaining Capacity with Actual Enrollment
Students Requiring Redistricting With Maximum Theoretical Enrollment
Students Requiring Redistricting With Actual Enrollment
Northside
484
0
109
313
204
Mary Scroggs
496
0
121
333
212
Rashkis
462
0
87
321
234
Morris Grove
484
0
109
357
248
Estes Hills
464
0
89
362
273
Option Two – Assumes Dual Language Track Moves
Option 2
Program Capacity
Remaining Capacity With Maximum Theoretical Enrollment
Remaining Capacity with Actual Enrollment
Students Requiring Redistricting With Maximum Theoretical Enrollment
Students Requiring Redistricting With Actual Enrollment
Northside
484
196
258
117
55
Mary Scroggs
496
208
270
125
63
Rashkis
462
174
236
147
85
Morris Grove
484
196
268
171
99
Estes Hills
464
176
238