Meet the four new administrative leaders for Pitt County Schools
Dr. Jennifer James has been hired as the new PCS Director of K-12 Curriculum and Instruction. This role has been redesigned to better ensure quality education. Dr. James was an award winning leader at Innovation Early College High School since the school opened in August of 2018. She was selected as the Pitt County Schools Principal of the Year in 2023 and has been an educator for 19 years, 12 of which she served as a principal.
'I am grateful for the opportunity to serve Pitt County Schools in this new role,' Dr. James said. 'I look forward to working with senior leadership, our curriculum specialist and instructional coaches on strengthening the academic programs in our district. A strong foundation has already been laid, and I am looking forward to collaborating with others to realize our shared vision of inspiring and motivating all learners. Leaving Innovation Early College High School is bittersweet. The journey with the IECHS team has been incredibly rewarding, and I am proud of all we have accomplished together over the past seven years.'
Dr. Kirby Maness will serve as the new principal of Ayden-Grifton High School. Dr. Maness has been Ridgewood Elementary School's principal since January of 2023 and started at the school as an assistant principal in 2020. He helped the elementary school become the first in Pitt County to receive a Model Professional Learning Communities at Work School prestigious designation.
'I am excited to join the Charger family and partner with students, staff, families, and the greater Ayden-Grifton community,' Dr. Maness said. 'This school has a rich tradition, and I look forward to working together to elevate every student's opportunity to lead, grow, and succeed. I want to thank Dr. Lassiter for the opportunity to serve in this role and to lead such a remarkable school community. I am also deeply grateful to the students, staff, and families of Ridgewood Elementary School for the incredible journey we shared.'
Casey Hyatt will be the new principal for Innovation Early College High School. Hyatt previously served as the principal for Ayden-Grifton High School where she started in January of 2023. She won the Pitt County Schools Assistant Principal of the Year award in 2022 and has worked as an educator for 12 years.
'I'm honored to join Innovation Early College High School as principal and excited to lead a community where academic excellence and innovation drive student success,' Hyatt said. 'I'm deeply grateful to Dr. James for her exceptional leadership and the strong foundation she leaves behind. Building on that legacy, I look forward to fostering innovation, accelerating achievement, and empowering every student to grow as a confident learner and future leader.
Alison Covington will be Farmville's Sugg-Bundy Elementary School's new principal. She spent the last eight years in leadership roles at Belvoir and South Greenville. Covington won the Pitt County Schools and Wells Fargo Northeast Region Principal of the Year in 2022. She has been an educator for 20 years and has also spent time working with Falkland Elementary as an assistant principal.
'While I will deeply miss the amazing team at South Greenville Elementary, I am excited to begin this new chapter at Sugg-Bundy,' Covington said. 'It's an honor to join a school community with such a strong sense of purpose and commitment to students. I'm looking forward to working alongside all students and staff, learning from what's already been accomplished, and growing together. I'm excited for all we'll achieve!'
These educators will begin their new roles now and through the summer to prepare for the upcoming school year.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
9 hours ago
- Atlantic
Dear James: I Can't Keep My Mouth Shut at Work
Editor's Note: Is anything ailing, torturing, or nagging at you? Are you beset by existential worries? Every Tuesday, James Parker tackles readers' questions. Tell him about your lifelong or in-the-moment problems at [email protected]. Don't want to miss a single column? Sign up to get 'Dear James' in your inbox. Dear James, I can't seem to shut up at work, and I keep putting my foot in my mouth. I am a naturally brusque person—a get-to-the-point kinda gal—but I am not a complete boor. Over the years I have learned to temper my directness with watercooler niceties and 'please' and 'thank you' in my emails. But, sometimes, when faced with inadequate meeting agendas, disorganized communication, and paper-pushing bureaucracy, I can't help but speak up about our team-wide inadequacies. (My other colleagues are much more reserved.) I oscillate between wanting to shut up and act my wage, yet also wishing we would hold ourselves to higher standards. By God, can't we do better here? This is not a new feeling in the office for me, and I am starting to question whether I'm the common denominator. Is it time to throw in the towel? Or should I do more to restrain my critical instincts? Dear Reader, I think your questions answer themselves. In the workplace, you should never restrain your critical instincts, and, yup, it's always a good time to throw in the towel. (When it comes to family, interestingly, the opposite is true.) It does sound as if you are the common denominator, carting your high standards and your limited tolerance for banality and ineptitude from office to office. Then again, aren't we all the common denominators in our own lives? It's always us, in the middle of some situation, doing what we always seem to do, arriving at more or less the same outcomes, which for some reason bewilder us completely. Not you, though: You're un-bewildered. You know what you're doing. I've had only a couple of office jobs in my life. I'm a lucky bastard: I sit in coffee shops and type and fiddle around with my playlists on Apple Music. But I do know that watercooler niceties (to take a phrase from your letter) will kill you in the end, and that team-wide inadequacies (to take another one) are a condition of office life. And if you've had enough, you've had enough. Continually firing myself, Dear James, After more than 40 years of cognitive behavioral therapy, I thought I'd overcome my childhood demons. But, like my parents before me, I still became an alcoholic. Now I'm 66, and I'm torn: Should I give up on the world? (The state of affairs is grim.) Or should I strive to live without alcohol? Dear Reader, I deeply appreciate this letter. So many of us right now are contemplating, approaching, or have already passed the moment of abdication you present so clearly. The moment of: You know what? Fuck it. I hope you won't think I'm being flippant if I respond to your question with a couple of staves of soul doggerel. Here they are: TO A READER ON THE VERGE When the demons are upon you and the world is on its ass, why not sink in resignation to the bottom of a glass? I'll tell you why: You're here to try, and while you have volition, to quote my friend Jay Babcock: Don't be bummed into submission. Heroically, James By submitting a letter, you are agreeing to let The Atlantic use it in part or in full, and we may edit it for length and/or clarity.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Axing public notices will threaten local democracy, Cleverly tells Rayner
Rachel Reeves' proposal to axe rules that require businesses to share their licence bids in newspapers would threaten the future of local democracy, Sir James Cleverly has told the Government. In a letter to Angela Rayner, the shadow local government secretary said suggestions that statutory notices could be scrapped raised 'concerning questions' about the future of local journalism. He told the PA news agency Government changes had been proposed 'without any consideration' of the effect on local press and could have the 'perverse effect of making it harder for many pubs and clubs to operate.' Last month, the Chancellor said she would look at dropping the requirement for venues such as pubs and restaurants to advertise licensing applications in local newspapers, in a bid to cut red tape for the hospitality sector. Sir James demanded the Government share its assessments of how the move would affect the press amid industry fears that it could interfere with the public's right to know and lead to revenue losses for local journalism. He said that while there was scope to reform the statutory notice regime, 'rather than embracing innovation, it would appear that the Government intends to axe support entirely'. Sir James told PA: 'Labour don't have a clue about the pub and hospitality industry. 'Labour are tying them in red tape and higher taxes. Their proposed changes to licensing rules could have the perverse effect of making it harder for many pubs and clubs to operate. 'Labour's proposed changes to notification on licensing changes has been made without any consideration on the effect on local newspapers, or how to best ensure that the public know about matters which affect their lives. 'Local democracy needs an independent free press, so empowered local representatives are held to account, and local residents have their voice listened to.' In his letter to Ms Rayner, who is Deputy Prime Minister and also Local Government Secretary, Sir James said: 'If local newspapers close down this will be to the detriment of local democracy. 'The devolution of responsibility and finance to local government needs stronger local accountability and transparency to go hand in hand with new powers, and an independent free press is essential to this.' Ministers last month announced a new licensing framework would aim to fast-track permissions for al fresco dining in dedicated areas and make it easier to open new venues. Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, Ms Reeves said she would also look at removing the 'outdated rule that means (a business) needs to advertise in locally printed press when applying for a licence'. The remarks prompted a backlash from industry figures, with the News Media Association warning the proposals would amount to a 'betrayal of local communities and the public's right to know'. 'Changing this would, at a stroke, disenfranchise local communities and deprive local journalism of a vital revenue stream,' News Media Association chief executive Owen Meredith said. 'Local pubs, like local papers, are at the heart of their communities and the Government should rightly support them. 'This proposal does nothing to help either. 'It is not a cut to bureaucratic red tape, as framed, but a damaging assault on democratic engagement.' The Government has been contacted for comment.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Democrats see weaponization blitz in moves from DOJ, intelligence leaders
Lawmakers and advocates are sounding the alarm over a series of actions taken by the Justice Department and intelligence community that they argue are both abuses of power and threats to the traditional independence held by both organizations. The FBI agreed to aid the Texas government last week in tracking down Democratic members of the state's legislature who fled in an effort to block a controversial redistricting plan. The commitment came as it fired a series of agents, including those who had worked on controversial matters related to President Trump, prompting complaints agents were facing retribution simply for taking on assigned cases. Meanwhile, the Justice Department subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) for documents related to court victories against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association. The same day, DOJ also tapped Ed Martin to investigate James as well as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on allegations of mortgage fraud. DOJ on Monday also launched a grand jury investigation into Obama-era officials they've accused of engaging in a 'treasonous conspiracy' in investigating Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election. Intelligence community leaders have since come under fire for releasing a number of documents related to the claim. Democrats say the documents expose sources and methods of intelligence gathering. James, through an attorney, said she was targeted as part of 'the president's political retribution campaign.' 'Weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration. If prosecutors carry out this improper tactic and are genuinely interested in the truth, we are ready and waiting with the facts and the law,' her attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement. The other moves are likewise coming under scrutiny. Democrats sent a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for the legal basis under which the bureau could be involved in tracking down the Texas lawmakers. 'These reports suggest that the FBI is diverting federal law enforcement away from fighting terrorism, drug trafficking, and other federal crimes to instead harass and target Texans' duly elected representatives, and thus raise urgent questions about the legal basis, scale, and appropriateness of federal law enforcement involvement in a state-level political matter,' Reps. Robert Garcia (Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrats on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, wrote in a letter also signed by Texas Democrats Reps. Greg Casar and Jasmine Crockett. The group pointed to a 2003 ruling from a state judge that reviewed another incident in which state lawmakers sought to prevent a legislative quorum, determining that the Texas Department of Public Safety was limited in pursuing residents in cases where there was no crime. 'The ruling made clear that the state cannot treat quorum-breaking as a criminal offense subject to law enforcement pursuit,' they wrote. The firing of numerous agents also sparked claims the bureau's leadership was abusing its power and running afoul of civil servant protections in dismissing several career agents. Brian Driscoll previously served as acting FBI director before Patel was confirmed, and during his brief tenure rebuffed an early request from the Trump administration to turn over the names of all agents who worked on the cases of Jan. 6 rioters – a group that includes thousands of people. Also fired was Scott Jensen, who Patel had recently promoted to director of the Washington, D.C. Field Office, and Walter Giardina, an agent who worked for special counsel Robert Mueller and aided in the prosecution of Peter Navarro. In a final note to staff, Driscoll said he was given no reason for his dismissal. The FBI Agent's Association criticized the firing as unlawful. 'The FBI Agents Association strongly condemns today's unlawful firing of FBI Special Agents. These Agents were carrying out the assignments given to them and did their jobs professionally and with integrity,' the group said in a Friday statement. 'This action sets a dangerous precedent. It increases our vulnerability to criminal and national security threats at home and abroad. It prioritizes division over unity, stokes anger instead of solidarity within our ranks, and threatens to chill the work of agents rather than support it.' The move was also blasted by Raskin and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'These are individuals [who] have dedicated their careers to protecting the American people, and their firings are part of a disturbing pattern of retaliation and politicization at an institution charged with safeguarding national security and the rule of law,' Warner said in a statement. The FBI and DOJ declined to comment on the firings, their involvement in Texas, the launch of the grand jury, or its probe into James. But the Trump administration has broadly defended such moves, consistently arguing the FBI and the Justice Department were political tools of previous administrations while arguing their own actions help confront those abuses. 'President Trump is restoring integrity to the Department of Justice after four years of weaponization, hoaxes, and attempts to imprison him. The DOJ is upholding Lady Justice and working to execute President Trump's Make America Safe Again agenda, which is lowering crime, holding criminals accountable, and empowering our law enforcement community,' White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement to The Hill. Trump has at various turns denied asking for Justice Department interventions, though he has not hid his approval of the actions. 'Pam is doing a great job,' Trump said on CNBC when asked about the grand jury investigation into Obama officials. 'I have nothing to do with it. I will tell you this, they deserve it. I was happy to hear it.' The mortgage investigation from Martin is one of the first public actions taken by the Justice Department's new Weaponization Working Group, a role he was given after senators signaled their opposition to him for a U.S. Attorney role. Schiff, through an attorney, said Martin has a conflict of interest in the matter as the lawmaker previously placed a hold on his nomination, in part due to Martin's vocal defense of Jan. 6 rioters. 'The allegations against Senator Schiff are transparently false, stale, and long debunked. Now Ed Martin, the most brazenly partisan and politically compromised person possible for the task, has been picked to investigate a political adversary. The bias here is glaring,' said Preet Bharara, a former U.S. Attorney fired by Trump who is now representing Schiff. 'Mr. Martin is a January 6-defending lawyer who has repeatedly pursued baseless and politically-motivated investigations to fulfill demands to investigate and prosecute perceived enemies. Any supposed investigation led by him would be the very definition of weaponization of the justice process.' Also sparking pushback is the decision to open a grand jury inquiry into referrals made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. A memo released by Gabbard last month accuses Obama-era officials of a 'treasonous conspiracy' she said was designed to undermine Trump. The documents she released, however, largely show officials discussing something that was never in dispute – that Russia was never able to alter vote totals. She later released a report from House Intelligence Committee Republicans casting doubt on whether Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed to help Trump win the election rather than just sow chaos in the U.S. election. Most other reviews, however, determined Russia wanted to help Trump win. The Justice Department later released a previously classified annex to special counsel John Durham's report on the 2016 election. Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said both the Durham annex and the Republican report were both 'considered so sensitive and revealing of sources and methods that, until last month, [the committee] was not even permitted to retain a copy of either document within a classified safe in our own secure facility.' 'The highly irregular declassification process you engaged in could imperil critical intelligence sources and methods—a destructive action taken in order to advance a patently false political narrative,' he wrote, adding that they failed to consider 'how foreign adversaries might use the information exposed.' 'When done in a cavalier manner for partisan ends, declassification can literally endanger lives and enable adversaries to discover and disrupt the means through which we collect intelligence.' Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, two of the officials involved in the claims, have called the accusations 'patently false' and rejected claims they attempted to smear Trump. 'Every serious review has substantiated the intelligence community's fundamental conclusion that the Russians conducted an influence campaign intended to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election,' the two wrote. 'Contrary to the Trump administration's wild and baseless claims, there was no mention of 'collusion' between the Trump campaign and the Russians in the assessment,' they added. The intelligence community under Trump has defended the release of the documents, calling it a transparency measure. 'This effort reflects Director Ratcliffe's continued commitment to elevating the truth and bringing transparency to the American people,' the CIA said in a statement when Gabbard released the documents. Gabbard during a White House press conference also brushed off questions about the release. 'I think it's a disservice to the American people that former President Obama's office and others who are criticizing the transparency that is being delivered by releasing these documents,' Gabbard said. 'They are doing a disservice to the American people in trying to deflect away from their culpability in what is a historic scandal.'
