Winston‑Salem/Forsyth BOE votes to ask Forsyth County for $32.1 million to cover this year’s shortfall

The Winston‑Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education voted 8–1 on May 27 to make a formal request to the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners for a one‑time allocation of $32,100,000 to cover the district’s current fiscal‑year shortfall.

Superintendent Tricia McManus briefed the board on consultant findings and district accounting before the vote, saying overspends include substitute costs, transportation and special‑education contract spending and that the $32.1 million request represents a combination of recoverable revenues and one‑time local support to stabilize operations. “We have 11 million that would need to be in substitute costs that were not budgeted,” McManus said, listing transportation and EC (exceptional children) overages among the contributors.

The request follows work by outside consultants to quantify what board members described as an escalating gap. Board members and public commenters traced the problem to a mix of year‑to‑year additions to spending, unfilled positions that later were filled, and insufficient position/budget controls. In public comment, teachers and local association leaders urged transparency and protections for student‑facing positions; union and teacher representatives repeatedly warned that proposed cuts would fall hardest on classrooms.

Board discussion reviewed a package of immediate and near‑term savings the superintendent presented, including nonpersonnel reductions already adopted, possible reductions in some supplemental instructional subscriptions, and other administrative savings. McManus outlined additional options that would affect personnel or service levels — including altering transportation for school choice, consolidating underenrolled pre‑K classrooms, and adjusting some employee benefits — and said the district would continue to pursue multiple savings avenues while requesting county assistance.

Before the final vote, board members debated timing and the need for a formal, auditable plan. Board member Wood, who made the motion, said the district needed the money “to be good this year” and to buy time to implement structural fixes. Board member Karen explained she was not ready to approve the request without more detail; other members said the request should be made promptly because the county budget calendar is already underway.

The board also directed continued weekly financial updates to the state and community as the district works down the deficit and negotiates any repayment terms with the county. McManus and staff emphasized that several of the cost‑reduction items (for 2025–26) could take additional board votes if they alter terms of employment.

The request approved on May 27 is for current‑year stabilization; it does not change the board’s ongoing work to reconfigure expenses for 2025–26. The district said it will provide regular budget updates and more detailed proposals for any changes that would affect staffing or school operations.

Ending: District leaders said they view the county request as a short‑term measure to prevent immediate program and service disruptions while administrators and the board implement longer‑term structural changes to budgeting and position controls.