Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Southampton County School Board voted Oct. 14 to extend the contract of Southampton County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Gwendolyn P. Shannon through June 30, 2027.

Board Chair Dr. Deborah Goodwyn stated that like other SCPS employees, Shannon received a 3% raise for the 2024-25 school year, and the new contract does not increase the amount of this raise.

The superintendent’s salary for 2024-25 is $206,694.

The vote for Shannon’s contract extension was not unanimous, with at least two of the dissenting voters expressing concerns that included declining student test scores and elevated teacher vacancy rates.

Of the nine members of the School Board, only Donna Rountree was absent at the board’s Oct. 14 meeting.

The Tidewater News reached out Friday morning, Oct. 18, via email to all eight board members who voted on the superintendent’s contract, requesting that they share by 10 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 22, how they voted and their rationale for their vote. The board members were later contacted via text to alert them of the email.

Four responses were received by press time Tuesday afternoon. One response was received late Tuesday evening.

Goodwyn expressed support for Shannon, and said, “I find Dr. Shannon to be an experienced educator and a servant-leader who has a tenacious work ethic. I am confident that she will continue to be an effective leader for Southampton County Public Schools.”

Board Member Greg Scott also expressed support.

“I believe Dr. Shannon is an effective superintendent with the ability to lead Southampton County Public Schools into the future,” he stated.

Board Member Orris Lane shared a similar perspective.

“I feel that Dr. Shannon is an effective superintendent, and I believe that she can continue to lead Southampton County Public Schools,” Lane said.

Board Member Brandon Rodgers did not vote in favor of extending the superintendent’s contract.

“My decision was based on the district’s performance on several Key Performance Indicators: Declining SOL test scores in comparison to other districts, high teacher vacancy rates, and decreasing enrollment,” he stated.

Board Member Dr. Jennifer Tindle stated that she voted not to renew Shannon’s contract for several reasons, first citing communication and community relations.

“I believe that it is vital that the superintendent ensures regular communication and sharing of information with parents, staff, the School Board and community stakeholders,” Tindle stated. “All citizens of the community need to know what is going on with the students and programs in the division. There are a variety of different methods of communication, and few are being utilized in the best way possible.”

She stated that one example is the school division’s website.

“This is a tool that has the potential to reach the most people and not only share exciting information about the division but attract new staff and families by being welcoming and full of information,” she wrote. “Unfortunately, the website is severely lacking, and I brought that to the attention of the superintendent and the School Board as early as March, and yet no changes have been made.”

Tindle noted that the print newsletter that is sent out periodically from the school division could be a positive form of communication, but she said it is costly and, in her opinion, an outdated format. 

“Lastly, the school division currently uses the program Remind to send messages and alerts to students, staff and families,” she stated. “This is also outdated technology with a great number of limitations, and there are several other programs that have free apps associated and that link to our student management system to provide real-time seamless integration and are user-friendly.”

The second reason Tindle cited for her vote was trust.

“As the division leader and individual in charge of all the day-to-day decisions, it is imperative that Dr. Shannon has the trust of the staff and community,” Tindle wrote. “I have received many messages from constituents expressing their distrust about decisions made concerning the best interest of the school division. 

“It especially bothers me that there is not, and seems to be no desire, to establish a positive relationship with the Southampton County Board of Supervisors,” she added. “As the other governing body in the county and the source of the school division’s funding, I would think a working relationship with them would be a priority for the superintendent. I do not believe that the damage done to the relationships with stakeholders is something that can be repaired at this point.”

The third and final reason Tindle listed for her vote was student academic achievement.

“Data doesn’t lie,” she wrote. “It is evident by analyzing the accreditation data, which includes SOL scores, academic growth, attendance, graduation rate and career programs, that we as a division are not improving or making the positive strides that we need to be. This failure is directly related to choices made about programs offered to students and the recruitment/retention of highly qualified staff. 

“There are currently many vacancies in the division and a number of classes being taught online, which is not in the best interest of students,” she continued. “We need to address the issues of the deficits that we currently have in instructional staff. Not only do students generally not learn as well virtually as in person, but other staff then often work without having a planning period to cover classes, or students are working with a staff member who is not qualified to teach.”

Tindle stated that it is difficult to assess the actual situation the school division is in because the School Board has not received a comprehensive briefing about human resources, though she noted that she requested one at the October meeting. 

Tindle said her biggest issue is with the lack of programs that are offered for SCPS students, especially in the area of career and technical education.

“Several times Southampton was offered the opportunity to partner with Franklin City Public Schools and (that division’s) new CTE Center that was created starting this year,” she stated. “This would have provided greater opportunities for students from both school divisions and would have addressed the lack of qualified teachers in that department in Southampton. Unfortunately, that opportunity was never brought to the School Board to discuss, and I brought it to their attention in July when it was again dismissed.”

In summary, Tindle wrote, “Ultimately, for these reasons and many more, I do not believe that Dr. Shannon is the best choice to move Southampton County Public Schools into the future.”

During the Public Comment period at the School Board’s Oct. 14 meeting, three members of the public spoke in opposition to the renewal of the superintendent’s contract.