Craven County Schools presents $25–26 budget draft amid debate over nurses, social workers and charter passthroughs

Acting Superintendent Miss Lee presented the Craven County Schools proposed local current expense and capital outlay budget for the 2025–26 school year and told the board the district faces an $8 million to $10 million shortfall tied to declining enrollment, rising retirement and health costs, and the end of federal ESSER funds. The proposal preserves classroom instructional positions where possible and prioritizes assistant principals and exceptional children services, but includes reductions in clerical support, some contract nurses and several positions funded previously by ESSER.

The board heard public comment from three parents and residents who urged the district and the county to increase funding. Nell Hudson, a parent and resident of 301 Fairway Drive, called the county’s per‑pupil local appropriation “not a gold standard” and asked the board to press county commissioners for additional support. Elena (Alainie) Hebert, a Brinson Memorial Elementary parent, asked board members to “put the money where we need it” and to avoid cuts to nurses, social workers and classroom supports. Paul Hill described the superintendent’s proposed budget as “incomplete and confusing” and said the document did not present all expected revenue streams or clear results.

Why it matters: the budget would affect staffing for school nurses, social workers, clerical support and other noninstructional positions that board members said are central to student safety and attendance. Interim finance director Mr. Stacy Lee said the district is planning on an average daily membership (ADM) of about 11,838, a decline of roughly 500 students from prior planning figures, and noted a surprising $1.8 million reduction in the state low wealth allotment. He said the district currently expects to use about $5.1 million of fund balance to balance the coming year’s budget unless revenues or reductions change.

Board discussion repeatedly returned to priorities. Board member Miss Stacy (identified in meetings as a trustee who frequently questions staffing impacts) said her first priority is keeping nurses and the four social workers she and other members favored. Miss Stacy said the “mix” of priorities in the draft was not one she could support and explicitly asked staff to identify the incremental cost to restore four social workers (estimated later in the meeting by board members at roughly $210,000). Vice Chair Patty Mason asked staff to provide a clearer list of which state‑allotted positions are funded by the state formula and which are currently locally funded so the board can properly ask the county for specific increases rather than a general appropriation.

On other revenue matters, the finance presentation noted a requested county appropriation increase of about $2.2 million. Finance staff said roughly $1.1 million of that increase would cover fixed costs (retirement, health, utilities) and the remainder was intended to cover charter school pass‑through payments that the district must pay to charter operators. Several board members said they would prefer the county to show charter pass‑throughs as a separate line item and said the pass‑through does not improve day‑to‑day instruction in district schools.

Staff said they can produce the detailed position list the board requested (which would show how many positions are funded by state allotment versus local funds), and noted that some positions historically funded with ESSER would not be available next year. Miss Lee said the district has worked with Cognia and recently received continued district accreditation through June 30, 2031. The presentation closed with staff suggesting the budget remain a working draft ahead of a public hearing and vote scheduled for Thursday; staff cautioned that large changes to the proposal on short notice may require postponing the hearing.

Board members and staff identified several immediate follow‑ups they want included before the public hearing: a one‑page position summary showing (a) positions by category, (b) whether positions are funded by state, local or restricted (grant/ESSER) funds, and (c) the incremental cost to add back four social workers and two local nurses. Several trustees asked staff to try to produce options that would fund at least those positions without further deep classroom cuts. Miss Stacy said she would not favor relying heavily on fund balance each year and asked staff to present a plan that shows what fund balance would be paying for in any scenario.

The board did not vote on the budget at the meeting and left the draft open for revision prior to the scheduled public hearing and vote later in the week.