DCSD FY 2027 Budget – Executive
Synthesis Brief
Purpose
This executive brief synthesizes stakeholder feedback from Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the FY 2027 Budget
Survey. It translates survey findings into actionable budget principles and provides a board-ready
narrative aligned with community voice. The core message is consistent across all sections: spend closer
to students, earlier in the learning process, and with discipline.
What We Heard – Unified Themes
Stakeholders across roles and regions consistently identified the same pressure points: classroom
teachers, paraprofessionals, special education staff, counselors, social workers, psychologists, and
essential school-based support staff. These roles are underpaid, overextended, and absorbing work
created by compliance-heavy district structures. Class size reduction—especially in K–3, inclusion, SPED,
ESOL, and high-poverty schools—was the most frequently cited and highest-consensus investment. Early
intervention, mental health supports, and special education staffing were repeatedly framed as both
equity imperatives and long-term cost containment strategies.
Equity and Student Support (Section 2)
Respondents strongly favored needs-based, weighted funding models over equal distribution.
Kindergarten paraprofessionals, early literacy and math intervention, and faster access to evaluations
and placements were repeatedly emphasized. Special education and mental health services were
described as under-resourced and legally vulnerable, with clear warnings that cuts would increase long-
term costs through burnout, litigation, and student disengagement. When asked about cuts, the
dominant response was no cuts to student-facing services, with any necessary reductions directed
instead toward district-level overhead.
Workforce and Compensation (Section 3)
Across responses, compensation was framed as a student outcome issue, not solely a workforce
concern. Respondents emphasized that competitive pay, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and retention
incentives are necessary to stabilize classrooms and reduce turnover. Classified staff—particularly
paraprofessionals, transportation, nutrition, custodial, and clerical staff—were cited as essential to
school operations yet among the most underpaid.
Mental Health, Safety, and Well-Being (Section 4)
Mental health supports were repeatedly described as prerequisites to learning. Respondents called for
more counselors, social workers, psychologists, and behavior specialists, along with safer facilities and
improved campus security. These supports were not viewed as optional add-ons but as foundational to
academic success, staff retention, and student well-being.
Open Feedback and System Trust (Section 5)
Section 5 responses reinforced earlier themes while highlighting trust and transparency gaps.
Stakeholders asked for clearer budget data, fewer false trade-offs, and evidence of impact before
program changes. Central office bloat was consistently identified as the most appropriate source for
reallocation, while classrooms were described as already stretched beyond capacity.
FY27 Budget Principles
1. Spend closest to students first: classrooms, early intervention, special education, mental health, then
district infrastructure.
2. Equity means weighted need, not equal distribution.
3. People before programs: invest in staffing before renewing software or consultants.
4. Early is cheaper than late: protect K–3 investments.
5. If cuts are required, start farthest from students.
6. Autonomy with guardrails: flexibility paired with transparency and accountability.
Board-Ready Narrative
Stakeholder feedback across all sections delivered a clear and consistent message. The challenge facing
DCSD is not ambition but alignment. Communities are not asking the district to do less for students—
they are asking the district to do less far away from them and more where learning actually happens.
The FY27 budget should prioritize smaller class sizes, early intervention, special education, mental
health, and competitive compensation for school-based staff. Where reductions are necessary, they
should be targeted toward overhead, duplication, and low-impact initiatives. This approach aligns fiscal
discipline with community voice and positions the district for improved outcomes and restored trust.
FY27 Budget Survey Questions
Section 1. Vision, Mission and Core Beliefs
1. MANDATORY Vision – To prepare students for success as lifelong learners and
responsible global citizens. To what extent do you agree that we are moving forward in
the direction towards DCSD’s stated vision?
a. MANDATORY Mission – To promote the academic, social, and emotional growth
of each student by fostering a safe, supportive, and engaging learning
environment. To what extent do you agree that we are moving forward in the
direction towards DCSD’s stated mission?
b. MANDATORY Core Beliefs – We believe in meeting each student’s academic,
social and emotional needs. We believe in supporting quality teaching and
learning. We believe in creating equitable educational opportunities for all
students. We believe in embracing cultural diversity. To what extent do you agree
that we are moving forward in the direction towards DCSD’s stated core beliefs?
VISION (N=2,518) 9% 12% 21% 33% 24%
MISSION (N=2,518) 9% 12% 21% 33% 25%
CORE BELIEFS (N=2,518) 10% 12% 22% 32% 24%
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
Section 2. Student Academic Success with Equity and Access
1. MANDATORY DCSD spends extra funds on non-mandated but successful programs
called Innovative Educational Opportunities (IEOs), such as:
Acceleration Academies: Helps students who have dropped out or struggle in traditional
school settings.
FLEX Academy: A virtual program for grades 9–12 offering online classes, credit
recovery, and extended learning to meet graduation requirements.
Question: How much should DCSD continue investing in these programs?
(N=2,518)
ALLOCATING THE SAME LEVEL OF FUNDING TO IEOS 62%
ALLOCATE MORE FUNDING TO IEOS 22%
ALLOCATE LESS FUNDING TO IEOS 15%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2. MANDATORY DCSD operates the state’s largest pre-K program, with 125 lottery-funded
classrooms for 4-year-olds and 25 locally funded classrooms for 3-year-olds (paid by
property taxes). Although these programs are not mandated and add costs to the
general fund and our taxpayers, DCSD should continue them because they provide
significant benefits to set up our youngest scholars and the community for long term
success.
(N=2,518)
STRONGLY AGREE 69%
SOMEWHAT AGREE 13%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 8%
NEUTRAL 7%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3. MANDATORY If DCSD can allocate additional staff to schools, how should we prioritize?
(N=2,518)
MORE TEACHERS (SMALLER CLASS SIZES) 58%
MORE PARAPROFESSIONALS AND RELATED CLASSROOM
20%
SUPPORT
MORE SCHOOL COUNSELORS, SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKERS,
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS, AND MENTAL HEALTH 16%
PROFESSIONALS
MORE SAFETY PERSONNEL 6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4. MANDATORY If DCSD can allocate additional resources to instructional programs /
priorities, what should be the top priority?
(N=2,518)
EXPAND EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAMS AT THE
37%
ELEMENTARY LEVEL TO CLOSE ACADEMIC GAPS SOONER
INCREASE RESOURCES FOR LEARNERS WHO ARE BEHIND
28%
OR CHALLENGED ACADEMICALLY
PROVIDE MORE RESOURCES TO SCHOOLS WITH HIGH
19%
POVERTY LEVELS
STRENGTHEN SUPPORT FOR GIFTED STUDENTS 12%
INCREASE RESOURCES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS 5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
5. MANDATORY DCSD uses the Resource Allocation Method/Plan (RAMP) to distribute
funds and ensure consistent staffing and class sizes across schools. DCSD should consider
revising its funding model to give school leaders more autonomy, even if it results in less
uniformity across the district.
(N=2,518)
SOMEWHAT AGREE 29%
STRONGLY AGREE 28%
NEUTRAL 21%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 12%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
6. OPTIONAL How can the budget allocation better support the needs of all students,
including those with special needs and those from low-income families? (Open ended).
Common Themes Across Responses (Section 2, Question 6)
1. Smaller Class Sizes Are Viewed as the Single Most Effective Equity
Strategy
By far the most frequently repeated recommendation is reducing class sizes, especially:
• K–3
• Inclusion and cotaught classes
• Schools with high poverty, SPED, ESOL, or Horizon populations
Respondents repeatedly stated that:
• Large classes make every intervention less effective
• Coteaching fails when class sizes remain high
• Teachers cannot differentiate, monitor behavior, or provide IEP/504 fidelity in classes of 30–
35 students
This theme cuts across general education, special education, gifted, and ESOL perspectives and is
framed as a foundational equity issue, not a preference.
2. Kindergarten and Early Grades Are the HighestLeverage Investment
A strikingly consistent recommendation is:
• Paraprofessionals in every kindergarten classroom (and often grades 1–2)
• Expanded early intervention (literacy, math, behavior, speech)
Respondents emphasized that:
• DCSD is unusual in not staffing K classrooms with paras
• Early gaps compound into SPED referrals, discipline issues, and dropout risk
• Investing early reduces the need for costly interventions later
Many explicitly connected early intervention to graduation rates and longterm cost
containment.
3. Special Education Is Understaffed, Overburdened, and Legally Vulnerable
Feedback related to special education was extensive and urgent. Core issues raised include:
• Excessive caseloads for SPED teachers and related service providers
• Inadequate numbers of paraprofessionals
• Delays in evaluations and placement
• Overreliance on coteaching where selfcontained or specialized settings are needed
Respondents frequently warned that:
• High caseloads risk IEP noncompliance
• Burnout is driving shortages in SPED, SLP, OT, PT, and psychology roles
• Underfunding leads to lawsuits and corrective action—raising costs longterm
Many called for serviceintensitybased funding, not flat allocations.
4. Weighted, NeedsBased Funding Is Strongly Preferred Over Equal
Distribution
A major conceptual theme is the distinction between equity vs. equality.
Respondents overwhelmingly supported:
• Weighted student funding models
• Additional funding for:
o Students with disabilities (by service level)
o Lowincome students
o English learners
o Homeless/foster youth
• Concentrationbased funding for highneed schools
Many explicitly stated that equal funding across schools perpetuates inequity, especially where
PTA/foundation support varies dramatically.
5. More People, Fewer Programs
Respondents repeatedly criticized spending on:
• Districtmandated software and platforms
• Frequent curriculum changes
• Redundant testing systems
• Thirdparty contracts with limited classroom impact
In contrast, they consistently requested investment in:
• Teachers
• Paraprofessionals
• Reading/math interventionists
• Counselors, social workers, psychologists
• Speech, OT, PT, and behavior specialists
A recurring sentiment:
“People change outcomes. Programs don’t—unless there are enough trained people to implement
them.”
6. Facilities and Basic Resources Matter for Equity
Many respondents highlighted that:
• Older buildings (especially in South DeKalb) are unsafe, outdated, or unhealthy
• HVAC, plumbing, mold, and accessibility issues directly affect learning
• Teachers and families are subsidizing basic supplies outofpocket
Facilities are framed as learning conditions, not optional upgrades—and inequitable conditions
were repeatedly cited.
7. Mental Health and Wraparound Supports Are Essential for Access to
Learning
Respondents emphasized that students from lowincome households often face:
• Food insecurity
• Housing instability
• Trauma and chronic stress
• Limited access to healthcare and therapy
Budget recommendations included:
• More schoolbased counselors, social workers, psychologists
• Food pantries, clothing closets, and free meals
• Afterschool tutoring with transportation
• Family engagement and parent education programs
These supports are seen as prerequisites to academic success, not addons.
8. Local School Autonomy With Guardrails Is Strongly Supported
Many respondents argued that:
• Schools have different needs
• Principals and teachers best understand their populations
• Centralized, onesizefitsall spending reduces effectiveness
At the same time, respondents called for:
• Transparency
• Clear guardrails
• Accountability for outcomes
The desired model is sitebased decisionmaking within an equitydriven framework.
9. Gifted Students Are Repeatedly Identified as an Overlooked “Special
Need”
A notable subset of responses stressed that:
• Gifted students often receive little or no actual service
• State funds for gifted programming are not translating into delivery
• Mixedability classrooms dilute gifted instruction
Many explicitly asked that gifted be recognized alongside SPED and ESOL as a population
requiring targeted support—not assumed to “be fine.”
Bottom Line (Section 2, Question 6)
Across hundreds of responses, stakeholders are remarkably aligned:
• Reduce class sizes—especially early grades and highneed schools
• Fund paraprofessionals, interventionists, and special education staff
• Adopt a weighted, needsbased funding model
• Invest in early intervention to reduce longterm costs
• Shift dollars from districtlevel overhead and lowimpact programs to people
• Ensure equitable facilities and basic classroom resources
• Support the whole child through mental health and wraparound services
• Give schools flexibility within a transparent equity framework
When viewed alongside Sections 3–5, Section 2 provides the instructional equity foundation of
the survey:
If DCSD wants better outcomes for students with special needs and from lowincome families, the
budget must move closer to classrooms, earlier in the learning timeline, and more precisely toward
student need.
7. OPTIONAL Do you disagree with (and would like to see cut) anything within this goal
area? (Open ended).
Common Themes Across Responses (Section 2, Question 7)
1. The Dominant Response: “No—Do Not Cut StudentFacing Supports”
The single most common answer was an explicit “No cuts,” “None,” or “Do not cut anything.”
Key characteristics of these responses:
• Strong resistance to cutting special education, Title I, mental health, gifted, ESOL, PreK,
or intervention services
• Concern that cuts would disproportionately harm highneed students
• Frustration with being asked to choose cuts without seeing cost or outcome data
This indicates that respondents generally do not view this goal area as overfunded and see it as
already stretched thin.
2. If Cuts Are Needed, Respondents Want Them Outside the Classroom
When respondents did suggest cuts, they overwhelmingly targeted districtlevel overhead, not
student services.
Most frequently named areas for reduction:
• Central office administrators
• “Topheavy” leadership layers (chiefs, deputy chiefs, coordinators)
• Positions created under prior leadership with unclear impact
• Districtmandated roles perceived as compliancedriven rather than instructional
A consistent framing emerged:
“If cuts must happen, cut farthest from students.”
This mirrors themes from Sections 3, 5, and earlier Section 2 questions, reinforcing a systemwide
perception of administrative bloat vs. classroom scarcity.
3. Strong Opposition to Cutting Special Education and Title I
Respondents were especially clear that:
• Special education should not be cut
• Reductions risk legal noncompliance, burnout, and harm to vulnerable students
• Title I funding is often misunderstood and already insufficient at the school level
Several responses explicitly warned that cutting SPED or lowincome supports would increase
costs later through litigation, dropout rates, and staff turnover.
4. Acceleration Academy and FLEX Academy Are the Most Questioned
Programs
Among specific programs, Acceleration Academy and FLEX Academy drew the most criticism.
Concerns raised included:
• Questionable academic rigor
• Cheating and low accountability
• Focus on graduation numbers rather than mastery
• Safety and supervision issues
Importantly, many respondents did not call for outright elimination—but instead asked for:
• Evidence of effectiveness
• Clear success metrics
• Program redesign or tighter eligibility criteria
This suggests a “review and reform” sentiment, not a blanket rejection.
5. Testing and Assessment Are Widely Viewed as Overfunded
A recurring and crosscutting theme was opposition to:
• Excessive benchmark testing
• Redundant assessments layered on top of MAP/Milestones
• Spending on platforms (e.g., benchmark systems) with limited instructional value
Respondents repeatedly argued that:
• Testing consumes time and money
• Overtesting reduces instructional minutes
• Funds could instead support teachers, paras, or class size reduction
Testing is framed as a lowROI expenditure in this goal area.
6. Mixed Views on PreK (Especially PreK 3YearOld Programs)
PreK elicited divergent views:
• Many strongly support PreK as early intervention
• Others argue that PreK 3 should be:
o Meanstested
o Provided through external partners
o Deferred until K–12 foundational needs are met
Notably, even critics often emphasized protecting K and early elementary supports first, rather
than framing PreK cuts as costsavings alone.
7. Technology and Software Spending Is Viewed as a Cut Candidate
Respondents frequently pointed to:
• Large software licenses
• Frequent curriculum/platform changes
• Devices replacing human instruction
Common sentiments:
• “Less tech, more teachers”
• Technology should support instruction—not replace it
• Ask teachers what tools are actually used before renewing contracts
Technology is often cited as misaligned with classroom reality and a candidate for reallocation.
8. Gifted Programming Should Be Improved—Not Cut
While a small minority suggested reallocating funds away from gifted programs, the dominant
theme was:
• Gifted students are underserved, not overfunded
• State funds do not consistently translate into services
• Cutting gifted programs would accelerate student exits from DCSD
Several respondents explicitly warned against closing or reducing highperforming magnets and
instead advocated for replication or improved neighborhood services.
9. Lack of Transparency Undermines Confidence in “Cuts” Conversations
A significant number of respondents stated they could not answer meaningfully because:
• Budget line items were not provided
• Program costs and outcomes were unclear
• Survey questions implied tradeoffs without data
This reinforces a broader theme seen elsewhere:
Stakeholders are willing to engage—but want facts, not forced choices.
Bottom Line (Section 2, Question 7)
Across responses, the message is clear and consistent:
• Do not cut studentfacing supports in this goal area
• If reductions are required, start with central office overhead
• Review—not blindly cut—alternative programs like FLEX and Acceleration
• Reduce spending on excessive testing and lowimpact software
• Protect special education, Title I, early intervention, and gifted services
• Provide transparency before asking stakeholders to endorse cuts
In combination with Section 2 Question 6, this question clarifies an important distinction:
Stakeholders are not asking DCSD to spend less on students—they are asking DCSD to spend
differently.
Section 3. Recruit, Develop and Retain Talent
1. MANDATORY Salary and benefits comprise 80-85% of our general fund budget annually.
In recent years, the cost for DCSD to provide health insurance through the State Health
Benefit Plan (SHBP) has increased significantly and is projected to reach $2,000 per
month per covered employee. Given this information, DCSD should investigate
alternative health insurance options outside of SHBP for non-teaching staff.
(N=2,518)
NEUTRAL 29%
STRONGLY AGREE 23%
SOMEWHAT AGREE 23%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 17%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2. MANDATORY If DCSD can allocate resources to provide a cost-of-living increase, COLA,
how should the increases be distributed?
(N=2,518)
GIVE ALL EMPLOYEES THE SAME COST-OF-LIVING
42%
ADJUSTMENT (COLA), E.G., EVERYONE GETS 2%
FOCUS ON INCREASING TEACHER SALARIES MORE, E.G.,
23%
TEACHERS GET 3%, OTHERS GET 1%
USE A COMPENSATION STUDY TO IDENTIFY POSITIONS
BELOW MARKET RATE AND GIVE THEM LARGER 20%
INCREASES
FOCUS ON INCREASING PAY FOR CLASSIFIED STAFF
(CUSTODIANS, PARAPROFESSIONALS, TRANSPORTATION 10%
STAFF AND OTHER OPERATIONS EMPLOYEES)
FOCUS ON INCREASING PAY FOR SUPPORT SERVICES
(SCHOOL COUNSELORS, SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS, 4%
SCHOOL NURSES, SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKERS)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3. MANDATORY If DCSD can invest more in retirement benefits, which option is most
important to you?
(N=2,518)
INCREASE THE MATCH FROM 2% TO 3%, BUT REQUIRE
EMPLOYEES TO BE VESTED FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS BEFORE
51%
RECEIVING THE BENEFIT. THIS REWARDS LONG-TERM
EMPLOYEES.
AUTOMATICALLY ENROLL NEW EMPLOYEES IN A 403(B)
PLAN WITH A 2% DISTRICT MATCH STARTING FROM THEIR
27%
FIRST PAYCHECK. THIS HELPS EMPLOYEES BEGIN SAVING
EARLY AND GROW THEIR RETIREMENT FUNDS OVER TIME.
INCREASE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES NOT
COVERED BY THE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM (TRS)—
SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION STAFF, CUSTODIANS, AND 22%
FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANTS—WHILE KEEPING THE
CURRENT MATCH FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4. MANDATORY DCSD has launched “Grow Your Own” programs like Ignite Residency and
Para-to-Teacher pipelines to build internal talent for key positions. These non-mandated
programs have successfully reduced teacher shortages and kept classrooms staffed. How
much future funding should be dedicated to these valuable programs?
(N=2,518)
ALLOCATE THE SAME LEVEL OF FUNDING TO THESE
62%
PROGRAMS
ALLOCATE MORE FUNDING TO THESE PROGRAMS 25%
ALLOCATE LESS FUNDING TO THESE PROGRAMS 14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
5. OPTIONAL How can the budget allocation process better support attracting and
maintaining a diverse, highly qualified workforce? (Open ended)
Common Themes Across Responses (Section 3, Question 5)
1. Competitive Compensation Is the NonNegotiable Foundation
The single, overwhelming theme—more dominant here than in any prior question—is pay.
Respondents across roles repeatedly stated that attracting and retaining a highly qualified workforce
is fundamentally impossible without:
• Teacher salaries competitive with APS, Cobb, Fulton, and Gwinnett
• Meaningful COLA increases that keep pace with inflation (not symbolic 1–2%)
• Restoration or expansion of retention bonuses, particularly for returning staff
• Fair salary progression, especially in early and midcareer years (years 3–10)
Many respondents explicitly referenced APS as the benchmark, noting that DCSD is losing
experienced teachers and specialized staff simply because pay gaps are too large to ignore.
2. Retention Matters More Than Recruitment
A clear throughline in the feedback is that retention is the best recruitment strategy. Respondents
emphasized that:
• New hires will not stay if veteran staff are demoralized
• Losing experienced teachers undermines mentorship, culture, and stability
• Paying new hires the same as longserving employees damages morale
Several responses noted that DCSD already trains talent—but fails to keep it—making retention
bonuses, longevity incentives (5, 10, 20year markers), and improved step structures critical.
3. Classified and Support Staff Are Severely Undervalued
While teacher pay dominated, respondents were equally forceful about classified staff:
• Paraprofessionals
• Bus drivers
• Custodians
• Cafeteria workers
• School nurses
• Therapists (SLPs, OTs, PTs)
• Counselors and psychologists
Many described these roles as underpaid to the point of instability, noting that retail wages often
exceed paraprofessional pay. Respondents linked staffing shortages, IEP compliance risks, and
burnout directly to low compensation in these roles.
4. GrowYourOwn Pipelines Are Valued—but Must Be High Quality
There was broad support for:
• GrowYourOwn
• ParatoTeacher
• Residency and alternative certification pipelines
However, respondents consistently warned that these programs must:
• Be selective and wellsupported
• Include tuition assistance and paid pathways
• Provide ongoing mentoring, not just entry access
• Avoid becoming a workaround for chronic understaffing
Several respondents explicitly noted that pipelines without support increase turnover rather than
reduce it.
5. Working Conditions Drive Workforce Stability
Respondents repeatedly emphasized that pay alone is not sufficient if working conditions remain
unsustainable. Key factors included:
• Smaller class sizes
• Protected planning time
• Reduced paperwork and compliance burden
• Behavioral and safety support
• Administrative trust and autonomy
A common sentiment was that teachers are not leaving education—they are leaving DCSDspecific
conditions.
6. Central Office Overhead Is Viewed as a Direct TradeOff
Many respondents explicitly connected workforce investment to reducing districtlevel
administrative bloat. Common framing included:
• “Cut topheavy positions and redirect funds to schools”
• “One central office salary could fund multiple classroom positions”
• “Too many coordinators, not enough teachers”
Respondents viewed this not as punitive, but as a reallocation toward missioncritical roles.
7. Diversity Is Framed Through Access, Fairness, and Support
While some respondents challenged the framing of “diverse” versus “qualified,” many others framed
diversity more constructively as:
• Equitable access to pipelines
• Recruitment from HBCUs and regional universities
• Support for bilingual, special education, and hardtostaff roles
• Pay equity across race, gender, experience, and role
Notably, even critical responses often converged on the idea that fair, transparent compensation
and supportive conditions naturally produce a more diverse workforce.
Particularly Insightful Responses
Several patterns stood out as especially strategic:
• Retention over replacement: Respondents noted that continually replacing teachers is
more expensive than paying existing staff competitively—especially given training,
onboarding, and lost instructional continuity.
• Midcareer salary compression: Multiple respondents highlighted that DCSD loses strong
teachers around years 5–8 because salary growth stalls just as expertise peaks. Addressing
this could have outsized retention impact.
• Specialized staff economics: Responses from nurses, SLPs, OTs, and psychologists were
especially clear that DCSD’s pay scales are noncompetitive to the point of being
unsustainable, directly causing shortages and reliance on contractors.
Bottom Line (Section 3, Question 5)
Across hundreds of responses, the message is remarkably consistent:
To attract and maintain a diverse, highly qualified workforce, the budget must:
• Pay competitively and predictably
• Prioritize retention over churn
• Lift classified and specialized staff to livable wages
• Stabilize working conditions
• Reallocate from overhead to classrooms
• Invest in people, not just programs
6. OPTIONAL Do you disagree with (and would like to see cut) anything within this goal
area? (Open ended)
Common Themes Across Responses (Section 3, Question 6)
1. Overwhelming Opposition to Cuts That Affect Workforce Pay or Stability
The dominant response to this question is “No cuts.” A large majority of respondents explicitly
stated:
• “No”
• “No cuts”
• “Nothing should be cut”
• “Do not cut this area”
This sentiment is particularly strong when cuts are perceived to impact:
• Teacher salaries or step increases
• Retention bonuses
• Health insurance and retirement benefits
• Classified staff compensation
Respondents consistently framed this goal area as already under strain, arguing that further
reductions would worsen attrition and morale.
2. If Anything Is Cut, Central Office and “TopHeavy” Administration Is the
Clear Target
Among respondents who did identify areas for cuts, the most consistent and forceful theme was
reducing:
• Central office staffing
• Districtlevel coordinators, executives, and cabinet roles
• Highsalary administrative positions perceived as disconnected from classrooms
Many respondents explicitly contrasted sixfigure district roles with:
• Overcrowded classrooms
• Underpaid teachers and paraprofessionals
• Staffing shortages in transportation, special education, and related services
The framing was not antiadministration in principle, but rather antibloat—with repeated calls to
reallocate funds closer to students.
3. Strong Skepticism Toward Alternative Pipelines (Ignite, ParatoTeacher,
GrowYourOwn)
While pipeline programs were praised in prior responses, Question 6 reveals deep concern about
execution and outcomes:
• Ignite Residency
• ParatoTeacher
• Some GrowYourOwn initiatives
Critiques centered on:
• Insufficient preparation and mentoring
• Placement of underprepared candidates in highneed classrooms
• Perception that pipelines “fill seats” but not quality gaps
Importantly, many respondents did not argue against pipelines entirely, but rather for:
• Tighter admission standards
• Better supervision and support
• Independent evaluation of outcomes before continued funding
This represents one of the few areas where cuts or restructuring received notable support.
4. Workforce Supports Should Be Expanded, Not Reduced
Across responses, respondents emphasized that this goal area should focus on:
• Increasing pay, not cutting benefits
• Expanding retirement and insurance options
• Restoring retention and attendance bonuses
• Improving working conditions (class size, safety, planning time)
Several respondents explicitly warned that cutting benefits—especially health insurance or
retirement—would accelerate exits, particularly among veteran staff and classified employees.
5. Perceived Misalignment Between Spending and Impact
A recurring concern was not the existence of spending, but where the money goes:
• “Too many people watching teachers, not enough helping them”
• “New positions but no improvement in outcomes”
• “Money spent farthest from students”
Respondents repeatedly asked for:
• Audits of highlevel positions
• Evidence of ROI for noninstructional roles
• Clear linkage between expenditures and improved recruitment/retention
This reflects a desire for strategic pruning, not acrosstheboard cuts.
6. Health Insurance and Retirement: Caution, Not Cuts
Health insurance and retirement benefits generated nuanced feedback:
• Some respondents questioned rising premiums or limited provider options
• Others explicitly warned against changing providers or reducing benefits
• Many advocated for improvements, not reductions (e.g., higher match, earlier vesting,
broader coverage)
The clear takeaway: benefits are viewed as a retention anchor, and changes here must be handled
carefully.
Particularly Insightful Patterns
Several responses stood out for reframing the question constructively:
• “Cuts aren’t the solution—reallocation is.”
Respondents repeatedly argued that the problem is not spending too much on workforce,
but spending inefficiently and too far from classrooms.
• Quality vs. quantity in pipelines.
The strongest critiques of Ignite and ParatoTeacher programs focused on protecting students
and veteran staff from burnout caused by insufficiently prepared colleagues.
• Retention as risk management.
Many respondents framed retention spending as cost avoidance—preventing expensive
churn, recruitment, onboarding, and loss of institutional knowledge.
Bottom Line (Section 3, Question 6)
Across Section 3, Question 6, stakeholders are clearly saying:
• Do not cut workforce compensation, benefits, or schoolbased staffing
• If cuts are unavoidable, start with central office and duplicative roles
• Evaluate and redesign pipeline programs rather than funding them blindly
• Protect health insurance, retirement, and retention incentives
• Shift dollars closer to students, classrooms, and frontline staff
When combined with Section 3 Questions 5 and 6, the message is internally consistent and
powerful:
Attracting and retaining a highly qualified workforce requires investment, not austerity—
paired with discipline about where dollars actually make a difference.
Section 4. Culture and Climate / Mental Health and Wellness
1. MANDATORY DCSD has made significant investments in public safety over the past few
years. These efforts include building secure vestibules, installing intruder alarm systems,
implementing panic button alert systems, providing safety associates at every
elementary school, increasing the number of sworn officers at middle and high schools,
installing weapons detection and conveyor belt systems, and acquiring mapping
software, among other initiatives. Given this level of investment, which statement do
you agree with most?
(N=2,518)
MAINTAIN CURRENT APPROACH: CONTINUE INVESTING IN
PUBLIC SAFETY AT THE CURRENT LEVEL TO KEEP 43%
STUDENTS AND STAFF SAFE
INCREASE SAFETY INVESTMENT: EXPAND RESOURCES FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY TO FURTHER PROTECT STUDENTS AND 30%
STAFF
FOCUS ON SUPPORT AND WELLNESS: REDUCE EMPHASIS
ON SECURITY MEASURES AND PRIORITIZE DE-ESCALATION 28%
STRATEGIES, MENTAL HEALTH, AND STUDENT SUPPORT
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2. OPTIONAL How can the budget allocation process better support our culture and
climate or mental health and wellness? (Open ended)
Common Themes Across Responses (Section 4, Question 2)
1. Mental Health Support Is Viewed as Core Infrastructure, Not an AddOn
The most consistent message is that mental health and wellness are foundational to safety,
learning, and retention, not discretionary programs. Respondents repeatedly emphasized:
• Schoolbased counselors, psychologists, social workers, and therapists
• Lower caseloads so staff can provide preventative—not just crisis—support
• Mental health services for both students and staff
Many respondents explicitly stated that underfunding mental health leads to:
• Escalating behavior issues
• Teacher burnout and attrition
• Increased reliance on security measures that do not address root causes
2. Strong Desire to Shift from “Security Theater” to People Centered Safety
One of the clearest fault lines in the responses is how safety dollars are spent.
A large portion of respondents expressed skepticism toward:
• Weapon detectors and conveyor belt systems
• Highly visible but inconsistently operated security technology
• Measures perceived as “performative,” “prisonlike,” or easily circumvented
In contrast, respondents repeatedly advocated for reallocating funds toward:
• Trained mental health professionals
• Deescalation training for staff and security
• Early identification and intervention
• Adequate staffing to operate any safety equipment already purchased
This does not reflect opposition to safety—rather, a call for evidencebased, humancentered
approaches.
3. Equity Gaps in Facilities and Access Are Undermining Climate
Many respondents highlighted uneven implementation of basic safety and wellness infrastructure:
• Schools without secure vestibules or functioning door locks
• Schools relying on trailers with multiple unsecured entry points
• Wellness offerings centralized at AIC and inaccessible to schoolbased staff
This inconsistency was frequently framed as:
“Some schools are protected and supported—others are not.”
Respondents clearly want districtwide minimum standards for:
• Physical security (vestibules, locks, alarms)
• Counselor and social worker access
• Mental health programming availability
4. Counselors and Social Workers Are Overextended and Misused
A recurring theme was frustration that counselors and psychologists:
• Are consumed by scheduling, testing, and administrative tasks
• Have insufficient time for actual counseling
• Carry unsustainable student ratios, especially in middle and high schools
Respondents strongly supported:
• Dedicated 504 coordinators
• Additional clerical or advisory staff
• Reprioritizing counselors’ roles back to mental health, SEL, and crisis support
5. Staff Mental Health and Working Conditions Are Central to School
Climate
Teachers and staff repeatedly tied their own mental health to:
• Class size
• Workload and paperwork
• Loss of planning time
• Constant initiatives layered on without support
• Mandatory wellness activities scheduled during instructional hours
Common suggestions included:
• Paid mental health days
• Protected planning time
• Fewer meetings and compliance tasks
• Wellness offerings outside the school day or embedded into work time
Many respondents explicitly stated:
“You cannot fix student wellness while staff are burnt out.”
6. Early Intervention and Family Centered Supports Are Critical
Respondents emphasized that schools are often dealing with symptoms of deeper issues:
• Trauma
• Poverty
• Housing instability
• Substance use
• Family stress
As a result, many advocated for:
• Schoolbased therapy and smallgroup counseling
• Partnerships with community mental health agencies
• Parent education, family liaisons, and bilingual outreach
• Wraparound services that reduce pressure on teachers to “do everything”
7. Balance—Not Either/Or—Between Safety and Wellness
Despite polarized language in some responses, the dominant synthesis is balanced:
• Safety is nonnegotiable
• Mental health is preventative safety
Many respondents explicitly stated:
“This is not an either/or. We need both.”
They supported:
• Maintaining current safety investments where effective
• Redirecting ineffective security spending toward counseling, deescalation, and staff training
• Using data and outcomes—not optics—to guide decisions
Particularly Insightful Patterns
Several ideas stood out as especially strategic:
• People before hardware: Respondents repeatedly noted that technology without trained
staff, followthrough, and trust creates a false sense of security.
• Mental health as cost avoidance: Many framed counseling and early intervention as
preventing downstream costs—discipline removals, alternative placements, lawsuits, and
turnover.
• Working conditions as wellness policy: Smaller class sizes, fewer initiatives, and protected
time were repeatedly identified as the most effective mental health intervention available
to the district.
Bottom Line (Section 4, Question 2)
Across Section 4, Question 2, stakeholders are clearly saying:
• Fund people before platforms
• Mental health is safety
• Equity in facilities and access matters
• Counselors need time to counsel
• Staff wellness is a prerequisite for student wellness
• Reallocate from performative measures to preventative supports
When aligned with Sections 3 (Workforce) and earlier Goal Areas, this completes a coherent
narrative:
Culture, climate, and mental health improve when adults are supported, students are known,
and schools are resourced to intervene early—not just react late.
3. OPTIONAL Do you disagree with (and would like to see cut) any budgeted initiatives
under these goal areas? (Open ended)
Common Themes Across Responses (Section 4, Question 3)
1. A Clear Majority Do Not Support Cuts to Mental Health & Safety Overall
The dominant response to this question—by volume and consistency—is “No cuts.”
Many respondents explicitly stated:
• “No”
• “Nothing should be cut”
• “Do not cut this area”
• “No cuts—more support is needed”
This reflects a broad belief that culture, climate, safety, and mental health are already
underresourced, and that cutting further would worsen staff burnout, student behavior, and safety
concerns.
2. If Cuts Occur, Respondents Want Them to Be Targeted—Not Across the
Board
Among respondents who did identify areas to cut or reduce, the feedback was highly specific. The
message was not “cut the goal area,” but rather:
“Stop funding things that don’t work or are purely performative.”
This distinction is important: respondents largely support the goal, but question the methods.
3. Strong Opposition to “Security Theater”
The most frequently cited area for reduction was highcost, highvisibility security technology
perceived as ineffective or misaligned with real school conditions, including:
• Weapon detectors and conveyor belt systems
• Panic button badges
• Excessive surveillance technology
• Clear or mesh backpack proposals
Critiques focused on:
• Ease of circumvention
• Inconsistent staffing to operate systems
• Instructional time lost
• “Prisonlike” atmosphere that harms school climate
• False sense of security without addressing root causes
Many respondents explicitly said they would reallocate—not eliminate—these dollars toward
peoplebased supports.
4. Culture & Climate Positions at the District Level Are Heavily Questioned
A recurring theme—mirroring Section 3—is skepticism about district level culture and climate
roles. Respondents described these positions as:
• Too far removed from schools
• Reactive rather than proactive
• Duplicative of schoolbased leadership
• Heavy on meetings, light on direct impact
Several respondents recommended:
• Cutting or reducing district level culture/climate coordinators
• Reassigning those funds to school based counselors, social workers, and behavior
specialists
• Requiring any remaining roles to spend meaningful time in schools
This was one of the clearest and most consistent “cut” recommendations.
5. Mixed Views on Safety Associates and Officers—Training & Effectiveness
Matter
Respondents were divided on safety personnel:
• Some strongly supported maintaining or increasing officers
• Others questioned the effectiveness of safety associates, especially in elementary schools
However, both sides converged on one point:
If these roles are funded, they must be well trained, actively engaged, and held accountable.
Suggestions included:
• Cutting positions that are poorly trained or underutilized
• Investing instead in fewer, better trained personnel
• Providing deescalation, restraint, and child development training
This reflects concern about quality, not quantity.
6. Mental Health Services Should Be Protected—If Anything, Expanded
Very few respondents supported cutting:
• Counselors
• Social workers
• Psychologists
• Therapists
• Schoolbased mental health services
In fact, many respondents explicitly warned against:
• Cutting mental health funding
• Reducing counseling capacity
• Treating mental health as secondary to safety
Several respondents stated that cutting mental health while increasing security is backwards,
arguing that early intervention reduces safety incidents over time.
7. Demand for Evidence, Metrics, and Accountability
Across the responses, there was a strong call for:
• Data on whether security investments are working
• Evaluation of program outcomes
• ROI analysis before continuing or expanding initiatives
Respondents were not opposed to spending—but wanted proof that dollars improve safety,
climate, or wellness, not just optics.
Particularly Insightful Patterns
Several strategic reframings emerged:
• “Reallocate, don’t retreat.”
Stakeholders want ineffective spending redirected—not eliminated.
• Mental health as prevention.
Many framed counseling, SEL, and deescalation as preventative safety infrastructure, not soft
addons.
• Atmosphere matters.
Respondents repeatedly noted that environments that feel punitive or carceral undermine
trust, learning, and emotional safety—especially for younger students.
Bottom Line (Section 4, Question 3)
Across Section 4, Question 3, the message is consistent and nuanced:
• Do not cut mental health, wellness, or core safety supports
• Cut or reduce ineffective, highcost, lowimpact security technology
• Reevaluate districtlevel culture & climate staffing
• Invest in people, training, and accountability—not optics
• Use data to guide decisions, not fear or PR pressure
When combined with Section 4 Question 2, the narrative is clear:
Stakeholders want schools that are safe and humane—protected without being punitive, and
supported without being performative.
Section 5. Organizational Excellence
1. MANDATORY Over the past decade, property taxes in Georgia have increased
significantly, prompting strong advocacy at both the state and local levels to address this
issue. In response, House Bill 581 was introduced during the 2024 legislative session and
successfully passed. This legislation established a floating homestead exemption, which
limits property tax increases on homesteaded properties to no more than the rate of
inflation.
Although the DCSD Board of Education chose to opt out of House Bill 581, the district
still reduced the overall school tax rate for 2025, effectively keeping the resulting tax
increase below the rate of inflation. However, DCSD employees did not receive a cost-of-
living adjustment.
Considering this context, which statement do you agree with most?
(N=2,518)
KEEP PROPERTY TAX INCREASES BELOW INFLATION, BUT
REDUCE NON-MANDATED SERVICES TO PROVIDE LARGER 54%
COST-OF-LIVING RAISES FOR EMPLOYEES.
DO NOT CUT NON-MANDATED SERVICES AND PROVIDE
LARGER COST-OF-LIVING RAISES, EVEN IF IT REQUIRES 34%
HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES.
KEEP PROPERTY TAX INCREASES BELOW INFLATION, EVEN
IF EMPLOYEE COST-OF-LIVING RAISES ARE LESS THAN 12%
INFLATION.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2. MANDATORY DCSD currently offers transportation for school choice and specialty
programs, which most other school systems in Georgia do not. With rising health
insurance and other costs, DCSD should reduce non-mandated transportation services to
help balance the budget and limit property tax increases.
(N=2,518)
STRONGLY AGREE 25%
SOMEWHAT AGREE 24%
NEUTRAL 23%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 16%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3. Optional: Share any additional feedback you think is important for DCSD as we plan the
FY2027 budget. (open ended)
Common Themes Across Responses (Section 5, Question 3)
1. Compensation Is the Overwhelming Priority—Across All Employee
Groups
The most dominant, unmistakable theme is pay. Respondents repeatedly emphasized that current
compensation is not livable, especially given inflation and regional competition.
Key points raised:
• CostofLiving Adjustments (COLA) must be annual and meaningful
• Teacher salaries must be competitive with APS, Cobb, Gwinnett, Fulton
• Paraprofessionals, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, clerks, nurses, and
substitutes are severely underpaid
• Many staff report living paychecktopaycheck, holding second jobs, or facing housing
insecurity
There is strong resentment toward:
• Step increases without COLA
• Missed or eliminated bonuses
• Perceived raises for upper administration while frontline staff received none
Bottom line: Respondents see pay as a retention, equity, and moral issue, not just a budget line item.
2. Central Office “TopHeaviness” Is Viewed as the Primary Source of Waste
Across hundreds of responses, respondents repeatedly identified districtlevel administration as the
first place to cut or restructure.
Common language included:
• “Top heavy”
• “Bloated”
• “Too many coordinators/chiefs/directors”
• “Positions created under previous leadership”
• “People farthest from students make the most”
Stakeholders consistently proposed:
• Reducing central office headcount
• Freezing or capping executive salaries
• Reassigning district staff back into schools
• Using savings to fund classroom positions, raises, and class size reduction
This theme is remarkably consistent across teachers, parents, and classified staff.
3. Smaller Class Sizes Are Seen as the HighestImpact Investment
Respondents repeatedly linked class size to:
• Teacher burnout
• Student behavior
• Learning loss
• Retention failures
Specific calls included:
• Eliminating class size waivers
• Adding paraprofessionals (especially K–2 and special education)
• Hiring more teachers instead of creating new programs or administrative roles
Many respondents explicitly stated:
“If you fix class size, many other problems improve automatically.”
Class size reduction is framed as foundational infrastructure, not a luxury.
4. Support Staff Are Critical—and Chronically Undervalued
A strong equity theme runs through feedback regarding classified and support employees:
• Paraprofessionals
• Bus drivers
• Cafeteria workers
• Custodians
• Nurses
• Clerks and registrars
• Transportation and operations staff
Key concerns:
• Pay levels that are not livable
• Lack of retirement parity
• Disproportionate workload compared to compensation
• High turnover disrupting school operations
Many respondents explicitly stated that schools cannot function without these roles, and
budgeting that ignores them undermines everything else.
5. Facilities and Infrastructure Are Failing—and Affect Morale
Facilities emerged as a major concern:
• Aging buildings
• HVAC, plumbing, mold, and safety issues
• Trailers and overcrowded classrooms
• Unequal conditions across schools
Respondents urged DCSD to:
• Prioritize repair and maintenance over new administrative buildings
• Address inequities between highperforming and underresourced schools
• Use consolidation savings transparently to reinvest in classrooms
Facilities are viewed as working conditions, directly tied to staff retention and student dignity.
6. Transportation and School Choice Are Deeply Polarizing—but
EquityFramed
Transportation—especially for magnet and school choice programs—generated strong, opposing
views:
• Some argue transportation is essential for equitable access
• Others believe parents should assume responsibility for choice transportation
• Many noted confusion and lack of clarity about current policy
What is consistent:
• Transportation is expensive
• Any cuts would have equity implications
• Decisions must be transparent, datadriven, and clearly communicated
Respondents repeatedly asked DCSD to stop framing choices as false tradeoffs (e.g.,
transportation vs. pay).
7. Mental Health, Special Education, and Early Intervention Must Be
Protected
While compensation dominated, respondents strongly emphasized:
• More counselors, social workers, psychologists
• Better staffing ratios
• Early intervention in elementary grades
• Improved special education structures and placements
Several noted that underfunding these areas leads to lawsuits, burnout, and student harm,
costing more longterm.
8. Trust, Transparency, and Accountability Are Broken—and Must Be Rebuilt
A striking metatheme is lack of trust:
• Confusion about where money goes
• Frustration with surveys lacking budget context
• Calls for independent audits
• Concerns about nepotism, promotions, and ineffective leadership
• Desire for clearer metrics and outcomes
Respondents repeatedly asked DCSD to:
• Show how savings are reinvested
• Tie leadership accountability to staff retention and outcomes
• Communicate honestly—even when decisions are hard
This is not just about money—it’s about credibility.
Bottom Line (Section 5, Question 3)
Across thousands of openended comments, stakeholders are delivering a cohesive, systemwide
message:
• Pay people a livable, competitive wage—across all roles
• Reduce central office bloat and redirect funds to schools
• Lower class sizes and add schoolbased staff
• Fix buildings before expanding bureaucracy
• Protect mental health, special education, and early intervention
• Be transparent, datadriven, and honest with the community
When combined with Sections 3 (Workforce) and 4 (Mental Health & Safety), Section 5 serves as
a capstone:
DCSD’s FY27 budget will succeed or fail based on whether it clearly prioritizes people closest
to students and restores trust that resources are being used wisely.