Eliminating 125 Bulloch County Schools teachers’ jobs, laying off instructional coaches and certain other district personnel and closing the Transitions Learning Center – these are things that aren’t happening in the school year now beginning, but which Superintendent Charles Wilson said could need to happen for the 2026-2027 school year – if the Board of Education rolls back its property tax rate as originally planned and keeps it down.

But after the suggested cuts drew expressions of concern from some people in the community, including some Board of Education members, Wilson on Thursday suggested a tax increase totaling 3 mills for this year or next. The board now has a special called meeting set for 4 p.m. Wednesday, July 30. The one “new business” item on the agenda is tentative adoption of the fiscal 2026 tax digest and millage rate.

The suggestion of spending cuts followed from discussions in April, when Wilson told the board members the school system could make up for an approximately $9 million reduction in expected state funding and continued rising costs by spending $13.2 million this fiscal year of an otherwise $37 million general fund balance, or informal reserve. Already at that time, he said the administration and board would need to look at a “reduction in force” for the following school year so as to plan effectively and inform employees well in advance.

More recently, Wilson and staff predicted that further contraction between Bulloch County’s lower expected state funding and increased costs could result in a $15 million “deficit” for fiscal year 2027. (The school system wouldn’t be spending money it doesn’t have, but further deplete its reserve.)

After Wilson presented the specifics during a July 11 Board of Education meeting, 10 full-time and one half-time “district support” personnel, such as central office-based instructional coaches, were informed that, although they have jobs for the 2025-2026 school year, they would not for the following year. Meanwhile, principals were notified that school allocations for staffing would be cut approximately 25%, also for 2026-2027 (not 25% of all teachers, but 25% of those that principals and their “leadership teams” have a choice in hiring).

These  notifications, and word  of the other proposed cuts, such as closing the Transitions Learning Center, or TLC, alternative school program a year from now, and also of the LIFE program that provides virtual instruction to high school students in hardship cases, got the attention of school employees and other people in the community.

So, when the board met again at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, July 24, the chairs in its chamber were filled and some people were standing in back.

During their opening remarks, two or three of the board members, including Chairman Elizabeth “Liz” Williams, indicated they wanted alternatives to these cuts.

“After much reflection from the last meeting and learning that we need to cut $15 million, resulting in the loss of 125 teaching positions, plus other cuts, I’ve concluded that this decision would be devasting to our children…,” Williams said. “Our sole purpose as an educational organization is to educate our children, period, and we can’t do it without our teachers.

“That being said, I as a board member – I’m speaking for Liz and Liz only – I support decisions that we can make that will save our teachers who are needed to ensure the best educational experience for our children,” she continued. “I do not support getting rid of TLC, because if we get rid of TLC, what are we going to do with our children that violate our code of conduct? We can’t put them in the street. … I do not support keeping our millage rate low at the expense of our children and their teachers.”

District 4 board member Donna Clifton, who like Williams is a retired school principal, had spoken first.

“I want the reduction in focus not to affect our children,” Clifton said. “If we need to reduce non-instructional staff …, if every department needs to go back and look at their budget and cut their spending …, if we need to raise the millage rate one or two mills, then that’s what we’re going to have to do, but I do not want to affect the daily instruction of our children.”

Millage not set yet

To be clear, the board in May adopted its fiscal year 2026 budget, which has now been in effect since July 1 and guides spending through the new school year to June 30, 2026. That budget “assumed” a property tax rate of 7.446 mills, as a rollback from the previous 7.932 mills sufficient to offset inflation in assessed real  estate values. At the rollback rate, no tax increase hearings would have been required, and the board was slated to set its millage rate during a regular meeting in August.

But to even hold the rate at 7.932, or to increase it by any amount, the board will need to hold a series of three tax increase hearings, with a certain amount of public notice, before taking a final vote to approve. Now the board faces a short timeframe to do that, needing to provide the rate to the county government around Aug. 20, Wilson said.

During the “superintendent’s report,” he reviewed the factors in this year’s increased gap between the school system’s state funding and expenditures. Bulloch County’s state equalization grant decreased by $5.9 million because of the county’s increased wealth as seen in rising property values, which also contributed to a $2 million increase in the district’s required 5-mill “fair share” as the value of a mill rose. Meanwhile, the school district staff projected a $1 million loss to the House Bill 581 tax relief legislation.

So, this produced an expected decline in state funding in the $7.9 million to $8.9 million range. Meanwhile, on the expense side the staff expects a $300,000 increase this year and up to $800,000 next year for adding school resource officers to cover all of the schools. An increase in athletic coaching supplements was projected to cost $500,000, and health insurance and Teacher Retirement System costs continue to increase.

But with salaries and benefits making up over 88% of general fund expenditures, the school system has little room to cut except through a reduction in force, or “RIF” of personnel, Wilson said.

A 13-year lookback

When he became superintendent, 13 years ago, the salary of a certified teacher with no experience was $34,000. It has risen to $50,000, while the salary of a teacher with 15 years experience and a typical level of certification has risen from $54,000 to $72,000. Wilson noted similar increases in Teacher Retirement System contribution rates and health insurance costs since fiscal year 2012 and said that the cumulative inflation rate since 2020, “mainly due to COVID” amounts to 24%.

But for fiscal 2012, the school system’s property tax rate was 10.4 mills, and this year’s rollback rate would be 7.446 mills.

3-mill suggestion

After Williams asked what the millage rate would need to be, perhaps by next year, to relieve the situation without so great a reduction in staffing, Wilson suggested a 3-mill increase.

“When I walked in as superintendent, it was 10.4 mills,” he said. “We’re getting ready to roll it back to … 7.44. Mrs. Williams, I’ll answer you’re question, if you’re asking Charles Wilson as superintendent, I’m telling you right now that three mills is not going to get us to $15 million. … Take it back to 10.4 mills. That is what Charles Wilson says that this district should do. It doesn’t get us to the $15 million. We’re still going to have to probably cut $4 million.”

Some millage increase this year would reduce the drawdown of the fund balance and could allow staff reductions to occur by “natural attrition” instead of layoffs, he said.

With one mill of tax currently worth about $3.8 million to the school system, three mills would bring in about $11.4 million. A mill is 1/1000th the assessed value of property, with most in Georgia assessed at 40% of market value. So a 3-mill hike would be $300 added tax on $250,000 worth of non-exempt property.

Three people spoke during public comments time Tuesday, all urging the board not to make the proposed personnel cuts. Two were school system employees, at least one of them a district instructional coach.

Another of the instructional coaches who were informed their jobs were slated for elimination next year,  Shelley Stokes, did not speak during the meeting but had written a letter to board members.

“I am confident in my own future,” she wrote.  “I am a trained and capable educator, and I will find another position—likely in a neighboring district. But my concern is not for me. My concern is for our students. My children. Your children. Our children.”

The full text  of Stokes’ letter can be seen with the webpage version of this story.

Letter to the Board of Education Regarding Reduction of Force Consideration

Dear Members of the Board of Education,

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the Board’s recent consideration of a Reduction in Force (RIF) within our district. I recognize the gravity of this decision and understand the fiscal pressures brought about by changes to the state funding formula and our local tax digest. However, I believe this decision has far-reaching implications for the quality of education in Bulloch County, and I urge you to reconsider the path we are on.

As a tax-paying resident, a parent, and a dedicated educator who has spent her entire career serving this community, I fully understand the burden that rests on our local government and citizens. My own family feels it—between paying county, city, and school taxes, and supporting an elderly parent with farmland, I see both sides. Still, I implore you to weigh the long-term consequences of these reductions on the children of our community.

I have served as a classroom teacher, and for the past four years, as a district instructional coach. I took this position because I believed in our mission and wanted to extend my impact beyond the walls of a single classroom. I have worked to build teacher capacity, support academic achievement, and help our schools recover from the setbacks of the COVID-19 pandemic. I can say with confidence that the support we provide at the district level is essential to sustaining meaningful progress.

Classrooms I assist in today are not the classrooms I grew up in—nor are they the ones I taught in seven years ago. Somewhere around 2018 and definitely post COVID, the landscape changed. The needs became greater. The challenges are deeper. The support required is more urgent than ever. Yet, it appears the very positions designed to help our schools navigate this new reality are the first to be eliminated.

I am confident in my own future. I am a trained and capable educator, and I will find another position—likely in a neighboring district. But my concern is not for me. My concern is for our students. My children. Your children. Our children.

If this RIF is enacted, then perhaps this letter is not best addressed to you, but to them:

To our students,
I am sorry. I am sorry that your classrooms may become overcrowded. I am sorry that your teachers may be left without the support they need to help you succeed. I am sorry if you sit in class, needing extra help, but there is no one left to pull you for intervention. I am sorry that some of you will fall through the cracks. I am sorry for those who will not graduate. I am sorry for the emotional toll this will take on your teachers, and in turn, on you.

I am sorry that the system you trusted to prepare you for the future may no longer have the resources or personnel to do so. You deserve better.

To the Board,
Please remember that while balancing budgets is critical, investing in students is non-negotiable. These are not just line items—these are lives. These are futures. These are our kids.

Sincerely,
Shelley Stokes
Concerned Community Member | Educator | Instructional Coach
On behalf of my children and all the students and teachers I support—for as long as I have the honor of doing so.