Osborne High upset over turf installation schedule ...
Not a fan wrote - I live in south Cobb and I oppose this wasteful spending and ridiculous push by OHS. My children attend private school, in no small part because schools like OHS consistently prove they don't know how to prioritize what's important from what's "nice" but not essential. Why don't the parents there donate their own time and effort to fixing up their school rather than relying on the county to do it for them? The children are worth your time!
Excuse Me? wrote - I'm sick to my stomach reading comments on some here that all somehow equate football turf with educational quality. They're not the same!
Doug K. wrote - I think the issue is that Osborne's scores rank dead last in the entire county. Many schools have to deal with students from similar socioeconomic situations and yet manage to outscore OHS consistently. As a county, we really should be asking why this is and whether OHS would really be best served with a new football turf. If the classrooms are so worn out, why is new football turf even a priority?
"Raider Dad 71" wrote - I believe in academics, but I also believe in athletics, and having school pride in both of these categories can help schools such as Osborne become more successful. I am a white male who resides in Cobb, but many of these comments about Osborne are unwarranted and comes off as being prejudiced. Maybe it's just me, but I hope that is not the case.
Harrison Mom wrote - If your classrooms are really in such bad shape, why is there this fervor to add artificial turf to the football field of all things? I think a public education means students should all have the opportunity to learn inside the classroom, NOT that all students should have access to football turf. Unless you want this to be a socialist society, life is going to be inherently unfair (some people are always going to have more than others). So, that's why we focus on what's important (education) and shouldn't harp on trivial things (football turf).
Dallas Hwy Commuter wrote - Since when did we base decisions involving taxpayer money on a "need for football"?
OK wrote - Osborne, of all schools, can most definitely afford a shorter football season and a longer season for academics.
Accountability No. 1 wrote - I hope Osborne football boosters realize that until the academic performance there improves, athletics will simply have to take a back seat. Taxpayers deserve no less.
Brookstone Resident wrote - I'm not against the turf so much as I worry what message we send when we let schools that have much room to improve academically have football turf first. Also, I would also like an answer to who is going to be responsible for replacing the turf if the need should arise. Vandalism, floods, heat, excessive use can also wear out artificial turf and if Osborne is so short on money, will the county have to bail them out if anything happens to the field?
McEachern Parent wrote -When a school cannot make AYP, it does not deserve turf installation, much less the right to have it installed first. As is, Osborne is already fortunate that the county is balancing the order geographically because most people would probably say the school should have turf installed last.
Cobb Conservative wrote - Somebody please tell me that if these new turf fields get vandalized, who is going to pay for the replacement.
Post a Comment
Follow us on Twitter!