Board approves redesigned Ashley Elementary after debate over size, costs and enrollment

The Winston‑Salem/Forsyth County Schools Board of Education voted 7–1 on March 17 to approve a redesigned plan for Ashley Elementary that reduces building square footage to lower construction costs while preserving instructional spaces.

Daryl Walker, the district’s chief of construction and planning, told the board the recommended changes reduce the building footprint from about 133,713 square feet to about 113,200 square feet while adding roughly 10,000 square feet for a mechanical mezzanine. "We are not impacting the instructional space," Walker said, adding that the cuts are focused on breakout and service areas and that "corridors and classrooms" and the building’s safety features remain unchanged.

Board members pressed several concerns before the vote, including declining enrollment in the Ashley attendance zone — the transcript records Ashley’s average daily membership at about 355 students now, down from about 516 in 2016 — and whether the district should build a new school that would open far under capacity. Walker said the redesigned school would be built for a capacity of 600 students (down from a previously discussed 800) but noted a study had identified roughly 550 elementary‑age children in the zone.

Several board members and public commenters urged faster action. Public commenter Rhonda Mays, a former Ashley Elementary social worker, said the community has waited and that "it is time to break ground" because staff and children have experienced illnesses in the existing building. Board discussion also included questions about wraparound services such as medical and daycare access; Walker said grant and city partners would be revisited and that bond funds cannot directly pay for wraparound services but the district can be a partner at the table.

During debate, trustee questions focused on the project’s fiscal justification and proximity to nearby schools (Brunson is about 1.2 miles away). Walker said county commissioners showed split support for funding the project, characterizing the commission’s posture as about "5‑2" in favor in prior conversations.

The board approved both the redesign and a related pre‑construction agreement later in the meeting; the pre‑construction agreement passed 7–1. District officials said the redesign aims to lower total project cost and that more detailed cost estimates and funding steps will follow. The board also discussed long‑term questions about consolidation and enrollment trends as part of broader capital planning.

The project now advances to pre‑construction planning; district staff said they will return with additional cost and funding details as designs are finalized and partner commitments are confirmed.