The Winston‑Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education enacted a reduction in force to balance the 2025–26 budget, a move that parents, students and school staff said will disproportionately harm Exceptional Children (EC) programs.

At public comment, students, parents and teachers said the layoffs and reassignments already announced are creating immediate harm in classrooms. “When you cut 160 EC teachers, you take away the opportunity for a decent education,” student Mackenzie O'Connor told the board. Several other speakers said the total number of positions affected exceeded 300, and many described EC staff as among those targeted for cuts.

Board and district staff said the decision to implement the RIF followed a budget shortfall. Interim Superintendent Kathy Moore told the board the district enacted RIF policy 04/2003 for financial exigency after reductions in state allotments, lower federal carryover and the appropriation of fund balance occurred after the budget was set. Moore said the board voted to implement the reduction in force on Aug. 19 (as reported in the meeting) and that staff have begun notifying affected employees and providing transition support.

Why it matters: speakers said cutting EC positions would shift services to families, increase risks of unmet Individualized Education Program obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and harm students who depend on specialized instruction. “This program is the only thing that is allowing him and his friends in that program to just have a normal school experience,” said Atkins High School student Julia Lopez of her brother's EC supports.

What happened next: district staff described supports for impacted employees, including up to 12 counseling sessions through a partner organization, employer‑paid COBRA for up to one year, a reverse job fair scheduled for Sept. 4 and reassignment where possible. Principals asked for a teacher transition day on Sept. 15 to allow time to revise schedules, IEP coverage and co‑teaching plans.

Discussion vs. decision: the formal action was the earlier board vote to implement the RIF; at this meeting the board and staff discussed implementation details and supports rather than reversing the RIF. Several speakers urged the board to pursue alternate budget options and to hold accountable those who oversaw past finances.

Numbers and limits: speakers provided differing counts in public comment (examples: “160 EC teachers” and “over 300 positions”); the district described the fiscal drivers for the RIF but said exact final counts and reassignments would be confirmed as notifications and reassignment processes complete.

What remains unresolved: parents and staff asked the board for transparency about the budget choices that led to the RIF and for avenues to restore positions if additional funds or legislative relief are secured.