"Over the past decade, the number of students enrolled in Charlottesville city schools has fallen by 10 percent, yet the school division’s budget has grown by 48 percent.

According to Ed Gillaspie, the Charlottes-ville school division’s finance director, budget growth in recent years can be largely attributed to the increasing costs of salaries and benefits, including retirement.

Since fiscal 2000, the amount spent on salaries has risen 44.8 percent to $32.8 million. Health insurance costs have risen 115 percent and retirement and life insurance costs have jumped 60.1 percent.In fiscal 2000, the Charlottesville school division spent $8,946 on each of its 4,411 students. This year, the division is spending $14,036 on each of its 3,977 students.

These per pupil figures are based on the overall budget divided by the number of enrolled students. They include funding from local, state and federal sources.
The number of staff employed by the division has dropped by 30 during that time frame.

The School Board’s proposed $58.2 million general fund budget for fiscal 2009, which takes effect July 1, would mark a 4.3 percent increase from this year’s adopted $55.8 million budget.

The proposed 2009 budget includes new initiatives to raise teacher salaries by an average of 4.48 percent, expand the world languages program and enhance the alternative education program.

“We have to keep up with our neighbors in terms of salaries to be able to attract good teachers,” said School Board Chairman Ned Michie. “Good teachers drive student achievement.”

The school division’s contractual obligations for transportation, maintenance, the Piedmont Regional Education Program and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center have also increased in cost, Gillaspie said.
The school division annually receives 40 percent of new city revenues. Some have criticized this arrangement, suggesting that it provides the school division with more than it needs.

Michie counters that the budget process is guided by the School Board’s strategic plan and that the board could always use more money.

Some also suggest that several million dollars could be saved if the school division were to close down one of its schools and consolidate those students into other schools.

Such a move would result in larger class sizes and larger elementary schools. Gillaspie questioned whether the Charlottesville community would be willing to accept that tradeoff.

Karl Ackerman, vice-president of the Charlottesville High School PTO and the father of two city students, thinks that decreasing the size of the school division’s central administration could bring about cost savings.

Ackerman looked through the current budget and estimated the total number of central office employees at 92.

“We are too small of a school system to have this many people in central administration,” Ackerman said. “They are nice people and it might be great to have them but we can’t afford them.”

The school division does not have a definition for “central administrator” so school officials were not able to provide a specific number on the size of the division’s central office.The last four principals of Charlottesville High School have moved into positions in central administration. Current CHS Principal Kenneth Leatherwood is becoming a human resources coordinator in July.

“This leaves the impression of a revolving door,” Ackerman said. “There should not be automatic movement from a principal’s position to central office.”

In the proposed 2009 budget, about $25,000 has been allocated for a new central administration position - a halftime volunteer coordinator.

Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris, the father of two city students, thinks the school division has made significant improvements in recent years. At the same time, he supports taking a critical look at the central administration to determine whether cuts should be made.

“I’m a cheerleader for the schools and I think Superintendent Rosa Atkins has done a tremendous job,” Norris said. “It is frustrating, though, that when enrollment declines, the first thing to decrease is funding for teachers while the size and scope of the central office is not touched.”

Gillaspie disputes the notion that declining enrollment means that cuts should be made in central administration.“I have seen no data that strikes me as meaningful that shows that our central administration is too large,” he said.

Gillaspie added that central administration costs make up less than 5 percent of the total budget.

Michie said that central administration staff is responsible for the improvements made by the school division in recent years.

“Central office is not the problem in the school system,” Michie said. “Central office is the answer to many educational issues.”

Michie added that the central administration plays the main role in standardizing the curriculum and providing teachers with resources.

According to Norris, the City Council asked last year for a report from the School Board on the function and size of central administration. That report has not been received.

Michie said that he does not remember a formal request from the City Council for such a report.

The division is planning to bring in an outside group this year to conduct an efficiency study of the central administration. This study would be similar to the Resource Utilization Study carried out in the Albemarle County school division last fall.

“This will help us see if there are ways for the central office to be more efficient,” Michie said.

Gillaspie also believes that the efficiency study will benefit the school division.
“Absolutely, let's do it,” he said. “I think it would be good for an objective person to come in and let us know if there are things we could do better.”” (Barney Breen-Portnoy, The Daily Progress, March 9, 2008)