After tense discussion, board backs 'keep open' K–2 strategy for 2026–27 and directs community committees to study options
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The board agreed with administration recommendations to avoid consolidating K–2 schools for FY26–27 and to launch public committees (facilities & finance; student experience; safety & operations; culture & communications) using a single data hub to evaluate long‑term options including rezoning, expanded pre‑K, tuition and capital outlay eligibility.
After an extended, at times heated, public discussion about enrollment projections and capital outlay thresholds, the board signaled agreement with the administration’s recommendation to adopt a "keep open" strategy for the 2026–27 school year and to pursue a public, committee‑driven co‑creation process for longer‑term K–2 utilization decisions.
Chief Operations Officer Jones Adams and cabinet staff described “Option B,” a proposal to convene four community‑led committees (facilities & finance; student experience; safety & operations; culture & communications) that will work in public, use one shared data hub and post methods, versioning and "you said / we did" updates. Staff emphasized that a single authoritative dataset (Georgia DOE counts + district data + Census ACS + Wofford/Wolford projections) will be published and that committees will use uniform definitions and projection methods.
Trustees pressed staff to produce a very simple public table that shows, for each K–2 school, the projected student count including pre‑K and the shortfall to the state capital‑outlay threshold (200 pupils for K–2 eligibility is the number discussed). Several board members said that figure — how many students each school is short of the capital threshold — is the single most useful number for the public and for committee work. Members also asked for side‑by‑side fiscal scenarios: cost to maintain buildings, capital shortfalls, estimated operating cost per pupil, and savings from potential consolidations or rezoning.
Consultant James Wilson (Education Planners) said his firm will provide technical work (enrollment forecasting, facilities condition, capital outlay eligibility, transportation analyses) and will participate in committee meetings. After the discussion the board acknowledged the administration’s request that no implementation step affect the 2026‑27 school year; the board’s consensus was to pursue the committee process rather than adopt immediate consolidations or closures.
Trustees and staff agreed on next steps: staff will (1) post a single source‑of‑truth data hub with methods, pre‑K inclusive head counts and projections, (2) produce the requested shortfall table for every elementary campus, and (3) return to the board with draft committee charters and timelines at the December work session. The board emphasized they want transparent public reporting and fiscal scenarios that weigh both the cultural value of smaller, local schools and the fiscal stewardship obligations of the district.