Cuts, class sizes on Cobb school board's agenda
by Kathryn Dobies
kdobies@mdjonline.com
February 09, 2010 01:00 AM | 2411 views | 27 27 comments | 15 15 recommendations | email to a friend | print
MARIETTA - The Cobb school board on Wednesday will look at further ways to cope with a reduction in state funding, discuss potential class size increases and consider replacing all high school playing fields with artificial turf.

As of Jan. 15, Gov. Sonny Perdue reduced state funding for all of Georgia's school districts. The Cobb County School District is forced to cut its fiscal year 2010 budget, which is $907 million, by nearly $16.2 million, or about 1.8 percent. CCSD's FY10 budget was approved in June.

The board is expected to vote on several items Superintendent Fred Sanderson has recommended for budget cuts. Of those, the three furlough days the district announced it would be taking at its last meeting Jan. 28, will save the district an estimated $9.5 million. The district will also save nearly $5.2 million in adjustments of its State Health Benefit Plan because of those three days.

An additional estimated $1.16 million will be cut because of the elimination of a Key Team teacher program, an initiative that board Chairwoman Lynnda Crowder-Eagle said never got off the ground since the district couldn't afford it. Crowder-Eagle also said the central office's operating budget is proposed to be slashed by 3.1 percent, a cut that will save the district nearly $200,000.

"Basically, they're going to get tight on every penny they can squeeze - do with less on everything they can," Crowder-Eagle said of the central office cuts.

Several additional cuts will be made at $50,000 each on things such as professional learning, cell tower funds and remedial classes for students.

The budget will be a major topic, so much so that members will be conducting a separate budget workshop following its all-day meeting. Crowder-Eagle said that the budget workshop will give the board some extra time to give the budget a more in-depth review.

Also Wednesday, the board will vote whether to apply to the state board of education to waive its rule on maximum class size. This application would allow the district to increase the maximum class size by one to four students in regular glasses for grades Kindergarten through 8, and one to four students in gifted classes for grades Kindergarten through 12.

According to the agenda notes, the waiver is "due to steady decline in local and state revenues because of changing economic times."

The board is also scheduled to discuss authorizing an award to the low bidder to replace all of the district's high school athletic fields with artificial turf, something that Cobb County voters approved when they voted on the third Special Public Local Option Sales Tax in 2008.

According to the plan, the school system will spend $1 million at each of Cobb's 16 high schools to upgrade its athletic facilities. The schools that already have artificial turf on their playing field will use the money to upgrade the turf on their practice fields.

School district officials say this will greatly reduce the district's use of water and decrease the cost of maintaining the fields.

Crowder-Eagle said that because this upgrade was already approved by voters in SPLOST III, the district is not allowed spend the money elsewhere, say for instance on construction costs to rebuild Clarkdale Elementary, the school devastated by September flooding.

Crowder-Eagle also said that since construction costs are down, now is the right time to upgrade the fields.

"The reason being is because the market is somewhat deflated now, so we're going to get a better deal to do it now," Crowder-Eagle said.

The board will meet at 8:30 a.m. in the boardroom at Cobb County School District's central office on Glover Street.
similar stories

CobbWEB: MDJonline readers sound off on school fund cuts, turf plan | 1 month ago

Cuts could up class sizes, reduce teachers | 6 days ago

FY11 budget workshop to be televised | 20 days ago

School board mulls budget cuts | 19 days ago

Typical of board to rank sports over academics | 1 month ago

comments (27)
« To BigPicture: wrote on Saturday, Feb 13 at 12:13 AM »
Just because you voted for it based on the promise of turf doesn’t make it a legal expenditure or deserving of such high priority. SPLOST legislation clearly prohibits expenditures related to athletic venues…pools, stadiums, track fields. The intent of SPLOST was to provide a vehicle for building and renovating our schools because our state citizenry does not value education enough to provide adequate funding. Coach Sanderson thinks he can get by the intent of the statute by claiming the turf is for PE classes. Nice try! We all know football is king and academics barely rank, which explains why our legislators are so willing to increase class sizes. There is no commitment to real learning only to the short-sighted political sound bits needed for election season i.e. teacher pay tied to student performance.

As for the will of the voters, most people I know who voted for SPLOST III did so in hopes of getting rid of all the crummy trailers which are suppose to pass as classrooms for our children. The real kicker is that this superintendent and zombie board want to spend sales tax revenues on football turf before they replace all the recalled fire sprinklers in our schools or address the escalating maintenance costs associated with an ancient bus fleet. Scary…new football fields before fire sprinklers or safe buses. Yeah, it’s all about the children.

« Louise from cobb wrote on Thursday, Feb 11 at 09:06 AM »
Cobb County Schools should look at the wasteful ways the money gets spent...as a substitute teacher in cobb I hear teachers talk about the waste all the time. For example, one family I heard of with two "special needs " children have had two different fences put up at two different elementary schools their kids attended because they were "liable to run away". Now the kids don't even attend those schools due to some health reason, yet the teachers have to make "home visits" to teach them. CCSD is afraid of lawsuits I guess, so they cater to parents every whim. Let's look at the cost involved in some of these "special" situations, and make some cuts there.
« JQP wrote on Wednesday, Feb 10 at 10:49 AM »
To bigpicture: Show me in the resolution voted on that specifically spells out it will be used for astro turf. Not on a district site, but in the actual resolution. When you show me that, then I will sit on my hands.
« bigpicture wrote on Wednesday, Feb 10 at 09:03 AM »
1. The voters approved this money for the exact use that is being considered. If you didn't vote then don't complain.

2. 16 million dollars worth of construction work in the county is a positive impact. Families in north Georgia will have jobs manufacturing this turf, truck drivers will have jobs hauling it, motels will house workers, restaurants will feed them, along with equipment rental, concrete, excavation and on and on. The economic impact will be a positive thing in this down economy. Stop looking down your nose long enough to realize that real people who need jobs will build these fields and pay taxes. You can discuss teacher pay, and classroom size all you want this money wasn't allocated for that purpose and can't be used for it. I wonder how many of the other posters actually voted? NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN IF YOU DIDN'T!!
« Beau's Mom wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 07:11 PM »
Teachers have lost income and lost credit for their retirement accounts.

Principals are being told to conserve...copy paper, toilet paper, paper towels...basic supplies.

The students of Cobb County are "under the gun"...as morale is so low you can feel it as you walk the hallways. Who can live on a "salary" that is subject to "cuts"...and someone else's will? Students will pay. Is this cost one that parents can abide?

There are so many "non-student serving " people on the payroll that those salaries, alone would probably make the difference! Schools do not need all the "Coaches"...from "Sports" through "Academic Coaches"...nor do schools need all the "Area Support Personnel". Schools simply need teachers who have the drive and interest in working with children and those people simply need to be allowed to teach.Put people in classrooms and not in offices!

All the new fangled "stuff" and remedial systems and programs will never override plain old, good teachers, teaching.

The tax dollars are being abused by this school board. The teachers are being abused and beyond that, and most importantly, the students are being cheated!

I am glad I do not have a child to educate in a Public School, if this is as good as it gets.
« Frustrated Citizen wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 06:25 PM »
Wow....where do I begin? As a teacher in Cobb, I am definitely willing to take a pay cut, furlough days, etc. IF it will save jobs and not decrease the value of education I give to my students. AND IF the Central Office and administrators take a pay cut also. I would rather for us all to hurt a "little" than put extra students in each class for an entire year. Don't punish the students for our poor economy. Pushing the start day of school back would also save operating costs as we won't have to run the air conditioning full blast in the hottest time of the year.
« Teacher saddened wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 05:59 PM »
Cobb County continues to participate in textbook adoptions, even though teachers will be cut. How many textbooks do you really need? Raising class sizes will just throw a wrench into the county making AYP. The board and Mr.Sadnerson do not realize the negative effects their decisions are causing for students. The county office needs to cut more than $ 200,000. Teachers have already been hit hard with 3 furlough days, and increase in insurance benefits, a decrease in salary, and now possibly losing their jobs? I thought teachers were the most important aspect to schools. Apparently Mr.Sanderson and the board feel the top executives are most important. Get rid of Jay Dillon who is an embarrassment and stop adpoting textbooks. Don't make the kids suffer please! In addition, maybe you should have figured out how to work collaboratively as a team instead of paying someone $ 4,500 to tell you that!
« Turf Truth wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 05:48 PM »
It is not accurate to say that artificial turf fields are maintenance free. Synthetic fields require additional infill, irrigation because of unacceptably high temperatures on warm days, chemical disinfectants, drainage repair and maintenance, erasing and repainting temporary lines, and removing organic matter accumulation. I, too, would like to see a full cost comparison.
« SCobbParent wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 03:08 PM »
Who else will be allowed to use the turf practice/football fields? Will they be available to all extra-curricular activity groups? Tax payer money should not be spent solely to benefit the football programs. All school programs must be allowed to use it, i.e. lacrosse, soccer, marching band, etc.
« Hey, LCE wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 02:38 PM »
Can y'all say "parity"? No, didn't think so.
« looktothefuture wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 01:40 PM »
The splost fund was approved by the voters of cobb with a highlighted point of providing artificial surface to each of the high school stadiums. It does not just serve football but soccer, lacross, band, youth leagues, high school PE classes and community events. The up keep on these fields carries an astouonding cost yearly to the county and booster clubs. Field paint alone can run upwards of 5 plus thousand dollars a year. The natural turf can not support the amount of use it gets daily and as a result is often resurfaced in some way each year. Seed fertilizer are large cost and not to mention the water bill. Lets not forget that the bermuda that these fields have must be cut atleast twice a week, the man hours and cost their get significant. When the total bill is added up and multiplied by the number of years that the sprint turf will last it will be a cost cutting measure for the county. This is why the fields are being redone, not because the superintintent is a football fan.
« ecsahm wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 01:25 PM »
It's a tough decision but reading this only helps make that decision (to homeschool). I currently have one child at home because his three years in CCSD were in classes of greater than 20 kids. So he made it to 2nd grade. Now I have a child in K and he is in a class of 24 kids and the lead teacher is swamped and the kids are not getting the attention they need. My youngest son has even started stuttering this year and I think it has to do with a teacher that is always in a rush to move to the next child. Cuts need to be made at the top!! (So I'm paying school taxes and will soon not be using the school; but my local school gets the 9k/child less since mine are not there. Where will my money be going?)

As far as the astro turf - I thought - CRAZY idea. But with the other comment. How much expense is in Astro vs real? How many of you pay to have your yard mowed. I got an estimate one year and was shocked at $300/month for my small yard. Can you imagine a football field? But I'm sure Astro has maintance requirements too. Why do we put sports over studies? Colleges do it too! It needs to stop.
« FRYTHESCHOOLBOARD wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 12:46 PM »
How about we just lower the salary of each of the school board members! Since they don't listen to the public anyway and make decisions without consultation, let's lower their pay. Maybe then they will listen! We are going to have to pay more in air conditioniong bills at the end of July and the beginning of August, where is that money going to come from?
« East Cobb Mom wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 12:40 PM »
I just want to point out that more students does not necessarily equal more taxpayers to support public schools. It depends entirely on whether the parents of those students are buying homes or renting. If they are renters, they aren't paying property taxes, which are the primary source of revenue for school systems in Georgia.

Also, because Georgia has an equalization process under the Quality Basic Education Act where some revenue raised in property rich counties is shifted to the poorest counties, the increase in students of homeowning parents to revenue for the county would not be 1:1.
« Turf Costs wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 12:24 PM »
How many years will it take to earn back the cost of the turf in maintenance savings? Let's not forget that artificial turf has its own maintenance costs. Let's see a full analysis, please.
« anonymous wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 12:13 PM »
After the laptop fiasco they are sticking directly to what SPLOST said and that is their story for the fields. You voted for it, so we "have" to do it. No need to prioritize for revenue shortfalls. The sports will get what they want because that is what the Sup supports.
« remedial teacher wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 12:04 PM »
If class size goes up and remedial classes are done away with, then you better expect scores to go down. It is really that simple. So, in effect, the board is voting on lower test scores. Really, do I need to come over there and teach them the reality of our classrooms????
« Curious ? wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 10:41 AM »
There are many high priority items that we voters approved on the last SPLOST and it appears that the total SPLOST funds will experience a shortfall so why are the "leaders" even considering artificial turf on football fields this early in the SPLOST agenda - I suggest that the artificial turf should be about the last SPLOST project contracted.
« Mom of 2 boys wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 10:38 AM »
The artificial turf isn't to make the fields look pretty, it is to cut the cost of maintaining those fields. No one will have to be hired to take care of the grounds if the grass isn't real... think Brady Bunch backyard.

My bigger concern is telling teachers they will be paid based on student performance, then cutting remedial classes. By adding more students and cutting remedial classes, they will have to lower the standards in non-honors classes.

Did these board members ever have children? Do they truly think they are doing what is best for our children?
« appalled & disgusted wrote on Tuesday, Feb 09 at 09:57 AM »
Let's start cutting more at the administrative offices. These people are not needed. They exist in their cushy little bureacratic cocoons, always safe from the real issues going on. Let's start with a few of Sanderson's secretaries...excuse me, the community relations, PR and other extraneous positions that are doing such a poor job of things. I'm sorry people, but you get an F for your pitiful work of the past few years.