W-S/Forsyth school leaders present flat FY2027 budget; board tables local‑budget request after public outcry over staffing cuts

Superintendent Don Phipps on Tuesday laid out a proposed FY2027 budget for Winston‑Salem/Forsyth County Schools based on a flat‑funding assumption and a series of contingency choices that reflect enrollment declines and reduced federal carryover.

Phipps told the board that about 61% of the district’s revenue comes from the state, with the county and federal grants comprising the rest, and said district leaders assembled an “ask” for additional local and state funds that would total about $30,456,416 if fully funded. The ask includes a proposed $8 million line for a curriculum adoption; Phipps said a one‑year, lower‑cost approach could be executed for roughly $800,000 to $1 million.

The superintendent described core pressures driving the plan: rising salary, health and retirement costs; a roughly $3.5 million drop in federal carryover reserves; debt obligations; and a roughly 9% budget impact from charter school enrollment growth. He projected that state funding changes could yield between $1.8 million and $2.2 million under optimistic assumptions, but cautioned that would not cover many priorities.

Phipps proposed a set of modest, targeted additions in a flat budget scenario: nine additional assistant principals, nine EC teacher assistants, and a limited number of operational restorations funded from identified sources. He also recommended a $250,000 placeholder for a central‑office study and an $850,000 facility assessment in preparation for future capital planning.

The presentation followed a lengthy public‑comment period in which teachers and other speakers repeatedly urged the board to restore staffing the community identified as essential. Multiple public commenters and FCAE representatives pressed the board to include the previously discussed 242 Exceptional Children (EC) positions and 30 bilingual staff in the FY27 ask, saying cuts to those roles would harm student safety, inclusion and compliance with students’ Individualized Education Programs.

Board members pressed staff on options to shrink the $8 million curriculum request, whether funds could be made flexible to accommodate future pay increases, and the timing required to submit a budget request to the county. Several directors urged balancing curriculum investment with personnel priorities; Phipps said the district has used teacher‑led unit development to bridge an expired adoption but that some investment will ultimately be needed.

After discussion and requests for more time and corrected documents, the board voted unanimously to table approval of the FY27 local budget request and bring the item back after additional review and a scheduled workshop. The board agreed to coordinate with the county manager’s timeline for the county budget process while reserving the ability to refine the request before final submission.

What’s next: Board members said they would continue discussions in a workshop scheduled for April 21 and a likely regular meeting on April 28 to finalize the district’s request to the county manager.