Don’t forget about Decatur edTV’s School Board Candidate Forum tonight from 6:30p-8:50p at Westchester! All the school board candidates will be there! David Hughes and Lew Lefton will moderate the event. Here’s the schedule from Decatur edTV’s website…
Program:
6:30 pm to 7:20 pm
Doors will open at 6:20 PM to allow those interested in attending the District 1, Post A Candidate Forum to be seated.
7:30 pm to 8:20 pm
Doors will reopen promptly at 7:20 PM to allow those interested in attending the At-Large Candidate Forum to be seated.
8:30 pm to 8:50 pm
Doors will reopen promptly at 8:20 PM to allow those interested in attending the District 2, Post A Q&A Session since there is only the incumbent on the slate.
Hey, why won’t Garrett or Rob really mention that they want to reconfigure our schools to a kindergarten through fourth grade and a fifth grade through eighth grade model? Forget working through the Superintendent; no, these boys want to manage day to day affairs. Guess they like that whole Clayton County vibe.
I didn’t hear either of them say they wanted to end run a superintendant. They may ask Central Office to run numbers for them, consider other options, reconsider options, or go ahead full steam, but isn’t that what checks and balances are all about? A superintendant isn’t appointed as royalty for life but is responsible to the School Board. A School Board that isn’t closely reviewing the major (not routine or minor) decisions of the superintendant, assistant superintendant, and others who have a major impact on the instructional or financial health of our schools, isn’t doing their job. That’s just good stewardship. In addition, the school leadership teams established almost a year and a half ago under the system charter are mandated to have decision-making roles. The School Board should be actively seeking their input and be up-to-date on what they are doing.
Do you seriously think that the current School Board “…isn’t closely reviewing the major (not routine or minor) decisions of the superintendant, assistant superintendant, and others who have a major impact on the instructional or financial health of our schools…”?
If you don’t then why bother typing that notion onto a screen? And If you do then why aren’t you in favor of an “end run (around the) superintendant”?
This Board has been diligent in their work and their review of the administrations actions. It’s slanderous of you to suggest that they have not acted responsibly.
Nugget,
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
What I’d like to do, is make sure that when we spend $10M on construction, and $7.5M financing the lease purchase agreement… That we do so with voter approval. We shouldn’t be doing an end run around the 70% of people in our community without kids in the system.
We need to solve more than today’s overcrowding problem in the primary grades. The reconfiguration committee was not told about the trailers coming to the preschools. CSD’s own projections forecast overcrowding at the middle and high schools within 5 years. The annexation enrollments issue will re-open in 2011. We need to put a solution into place which addresses all of these issues. -Or we will likely be sitting down to discuss another round of construction projects within 5 years time.
As a board member, I will request that our Superintendent find a solution that addresses all of these problems as a comprehensive whole. And I would recommend a voter referendum for any alternative funding mechanisms which entail large financial obligations.
If we find that the well has run dry, then yes… I would consider K-4/5-8. Is the 4/5 Academy worth $17.5M? Is an implementation of 2 years in the International Baccalaureate’s 5 year Primary Years Programme worth $17.5M? I think the voters deserve a choice.
This School Board election may be the only referendum they get.
Providing long term vision and oversight is part of the job description. Blindly approving everything put before you is not. I understand the division between governing a school system and operating one.
What do you personally favor as a less expensive alternative to the $17.5 M plan ?
Fifi,
Let me start by underscoring that I can live with 4/5 at 5th Avenue if there is a voter referendum to approve the $17.5M price tag. The process wasn’t perfect. No process ever is. However, it was a community involved process, and a consensus was build around 4/5 at 5th Avenue.
As an alternative to the $17.5M plan, my personal choices were not on the table. Note: in the “interest of time and moving forward”, none of the new options which came up in the reconvened reconfiguration meetings made it to the table.
If voters were willing to approve construction for long term savings, I would have combined Options #12 and #13. I.e. 3x K-3’s adding 5-6 classrooms to each and putting the 4/5 at one of our primary grade facilities. This solution made it possible to keep current enrollment boundaries and staff intact. By avoiding opening an additional facility it would save over $1M/y in administrative costs and operational efficiency. Depending on where you put the 4/5 and whether you preserved green space by going up or out… The overall cost on construction in the various possible scenarios were usually lower than the current 4/5 at 5th Avenue plan. More importantly, the savings from operational efficiency would more than pay for the construction over the long term.
If voters were not willing to foot the bill for construction, I would consider K-4/5-8. It would address today’s primary grade overcrowding without requiring any construction. If enrollments stay within numbers seen in the last 25 years, we would not need any additional construction. If/when the schools’ high enrollment forecasts happen, then Westchester would be brought back on line. Which would make us no worse off than the current plan, but would save us $1M/y in administrative costs and operational efficiency in the intervening years. It loses the 2 year Academy. But I’m in favor of fewer transitions and longer grade spans. K-4/5-8 really comes down to whether or not the sunken assets and time which have been invested in the 4/5 Academy are worth $17.5M in new construction and making the long term best interest of the system as a whole work around it.
Both of the options I mention above address overcrowding in the primary grades. But they don’t look at our capacity planning for 0-PreK, RMS, and DHS. And we also need to cover other plans which are afoot but which haven’t been widely disseminated. For instance, if the Career Academy grants come through at DHS, then there are plans to add roughly 10,000 sqft to the Frasier Center. What happens to the Early Childhood Learning Center? How would it affect total enrollment capacity at DHS. With trailers going in at College Heights, will Westchester be re-opened as a 0-PreK? What other plans and needs exist, but haven’t yet been widely shared with the community?
If we want to be operationally efficient, preserve green space, and make the best possible use of our facilities, then we need a comprehensive long term plan.
We also need a voter referendum before making a $17.5M 25-30 year financial obligation without voter approval.
Nugget, reconfiguring schools is not a day to day affair. School board members are supposed to look at things like budgets, strategic plans, school calendars, etc. Day to day affairs involves things like course offerings, class schedules, sports, etc.
BTW, speaking of calendars, was there any discussion of that last night? Sick kids and husband kept me home. As a working parent of a kid with a learning disability, the new calendar is a nightmare for our family. I have yet to find a family who doesn’t dread it. Well, I do know one family with a ski condo out west that is thrilled. Good for them.
Sweettea,
On the Calendar issue…
Hopefully the incumbents will chime in with their own positions and flush out the details which we didn’t have time to go into in our responses. But in general, they talked about how the new calendar will provide opportunities for enrichment programs over breaks to help kids who need it. And they talked about how it helped with teacher fatigue, moral, and retention. Marc talked about it being a larger trend across the state. He also mentioned how he would assess the new calendar’s success by looking at whether or not it works for the children receiving enrichment.
I mentioned how the Calendar Survey for parents overwhelmingly disapproved of the new calendar. How it was up on the website for perhaps a day before it was pulled down. And the recommendation to move forward went ahead anyway. I referenced in passing that perhaps this was a reason why the schools didn’t survey parents on reconfiguration. If you aren’t listening, why ask?
I expressed concern that working families and single parents are going to have a hard time under the new calendar. While the new calendar may or may not be a trend across the state, it has not been adopted by Dekalb. So parents working outside of Decatur are going to struggle. Not everyone can afford to send their kids to camp. What has happened elsewhere is that older kids stay home unsupervised. The younger kids’ parents end up hiring the high school students to babysit.
I recognized that there was at least one person from the Calendar Committee in the room. And that according to their report the only reasons that withstood fact checking were morale and teacher retention. I acknowledged that morale and teacher retention are important. But the promise of enrichment programs that other schools have used when pitching this calendar have turned out to be empty promises.
On assessment, I said I would listen to the School Leadership Teams. That I trust our community leaders. I will always listen. And I will always be their voice.
In hindsight, I wish I’d asked who was going to provide the enrichment. After all, the teachers can’t both work their breaks and have them too. Also, week long breaks won’t save the schools any money. But starting school a week earlier and ending it a week later will certainly increase the cost of air conditioning our facilities.
BTW, Garrett, why is there a crowding problem at College Heights? They don’t legally have to accept every kid in the district like the K-5 schools. They should just limit their enrollment, making sure to keep spaces for our financially challenged families and families with kids who have disabilities and then be done with it. There should never be a crowding problem at College Heights. Childcare for families with the means to afford it can be provided at least partially by the private sector.
Sweetea, College Heights recently received grant funding to provide more 0-3 seats in their program. This means they need to put in trailers. The pre-K enrollments there haven’t changed (although there is now a pre-k class over at Oakhurst!)
Yes, the calendar issue was beat to death last night at the forum. I’m waiting on a post for forum follow-up!
I’ve been knee-deep in Brahms this week, so I haven’t been able to attend any evening election-related functions. So anyone should feel free to follow-up in this post.
Why would CSD apply for a grant that would require them to put in trailers though? I’m all for early childhood education, especially for disadvantaged children. It’s hugely important. I just don’t understand why CSD would voluntarily position themselves so that they need even more trailers, and presumably even more construction… which will cost even more money. At some point, they are going to have to live within their means, or the statement that people keep attributing to Commissioner Boykin are going to end up being true.
I haven’t had a child at College Heights in a couple of years, but my recollection is that there really isn’t a good place there to expand the building, so what do they plan to do long term?
Sweettea,
Accredited Early Childhood Learning Centers (ECLCs) are great. What this underscores is the importance of comprehensive long term planning and vision.
I’ve heard unilaterally good things about College Heights and the Frasier Center. People keep talking about the great things they’re doing for children with special needs. At Clairemont, parents are talking about how we can learn from the way College Heights handles the congestion and problems at drop off and pick up times. I’d like to see us identify what is working at our ECLCs and see how we can spread that success across all schools.
I am a strong proponent of the Early Childhood Learning Centers (ECLCs) and Head Start. People need to understand that ECLC’s aren’t daycare. Science supports that earlier we can get children into these educationally rich environments, the better results we will have in raising academics across the board and closing the achievement gap. If you have time, I would invite you to read about the Perry Preschool and Abecadarian studies, and Harvard’s Neuron’s to Neighborhoods report.
My wife is a Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrician who works at the CDC on the Learn the Signs Act Early campaign. I have been heavily influenced by the research which shows that the earlier we identify needs and bring services and support to bear, the greater impact those services will have. It is less expensive over the long run to bring services to bear even when a child doesn’t meet state guidelines. Because the costs of intervening grow as a child matures, and the rate and extent of success in interventions lessens.
So you can put me down firmly in support of increasing our capacity at the 0-PreK level. Even if that means putting trailers in temporarily.
However, I think this underscores the need for a long term comprehensive plan. If we keep reacting to problems like this in isolation, we are going to end up spending more on construction over the long term. If we keep addressing these issues one at a time, the solutions will not make the most efficient use of our facilities and our green space. And you’re right, we can’t keep spending on construction at the current pace.
For children in first grade and younger, there are issues with facility planning and usage where classrooms must be on a ground level exit. If I recall correctly, 2nd and 3rd grades have to be on the 1st or 2nd floor. So when the central office floats the possibility of bringing Westchester online as a PreK or 0-PreK school… We need to understand the implications and constraints this will place on the remaining facilities available for K-3. I don’t know how much room for expansion exists at College Heights, but my understanding is that there isn’t much.
Over the long run, I will favor configurations which have longer grade spans at facilities and fewer transitions. In the past Decatur has experienced total enrollments of over 4,000 students. Demographics have changed. Families don’t have as many children per household. But this is counter balanced by the fact that city development tends toward greater population density.
When we are rebuilding our low income housing with the guarantee of replacing units 1 for 1 while adding mixed use development… We’re going to increase enrollments. When we look at the annexation of Devry for mixed use development, we’re going to increase enrollments. Even if that mixed use development is only townhouses and condos, we’re going to see increasing enrollments. Because our seniors and empty nesters will move into those developments, and young families with children will move into the single family homes as they become available.
Based on historical enrollments, current enrollment trends, and the possibility of future annexations, I think over the long term we need to be prepared to deal with at least 4,000 K-12 enrollments. This comes out to a little over 300 students per grade on average. Though it is worth noting that in recent history, Decatur enrollments have tended to be highest in the primary grades.
We also need to recognize and plan for the need to provide capacity for more 0-PreK enrollments than can be housed at College Heights and the Frasier Center. ECLC capacity planning requires significantly more space. Maximum classroom sizes are very small. The classifications for PreK, Preschool, Toddlers, and Infants isn’t always implemented as four “grades”. Depending on the number of students on a site and their ages, the grouping in classes can be more fine grained by where children are at developmentally.
The hard part is going to be finding the right balance between the small neighborhood schools model that attracts families to Decatur and the financial efficiencies inherent in having the “one big school” on a single large campus. I support our central campuses for Renfroe and DHS. I’m not completely sold on the Academy. To the extent that we can be operationally efficient and maintain the long-term viability of our small neighborhood schools I would like to see at least 3 or 4 year grade spans at our schools.
Here’s the information on it: http://www.decaturmetro.com/2009/09/24/college-heights-receives-grant-to-expand-trailer-needed/
I, for one, was very pleased that the forum seemed to go in favor of the challengers. Rob and Garrett were well-prepared, composed, and confident. Both incumbents were visibly rattled. It seemed all of the questions submitted were challenges to (indictments of?) the current Board and state of the system; therefore, they were all issues that Rob and Garrett have been discussing with supporters for many weeks.
However, the turnout was disappointing. I can’t wait for Decatur edTV to make it available on their website.
I still haven’t decided about my vote yet – but I have to comment on this thread.
Our incumbents have a done an amazing job over the last several years. We so easily forget how much work had to be done to get us to this point. Our schools are often the envy of the entire region. Yes, there are things to fix. No, it’s not perfect.
The danger in rash, emotional decisions is what we’ve seen in our last national elections — it is very easy to complain, criticize and curse – and very hard to actually affect changes, to find consensus and be responsible for something large and complex.
Contenders are always more vocal, more angry and often more organized. And incumbents need to be challenged lest inertia make them careless or lazy.
But as we make our decisions, let’s not only consider what’s wrong with the schools – let’s remember all of the amazing things that are right. (And how they got that way.)
It’s not an indictment of incumbents to prefer the positions of the challengers. Our schools will stay strong either way, mostly because of the strength of the teachers and staff who are with the kids all day and the families who support their kids and schools. But you should vote based on your evaluation of the instructional and financial direction and emphasis of the candidates.
I disagree with almost all aspects of CSD Mom’s assessment. I came away feeling stronger about both incumbents. In fact, both incumbents were quite composed. The questions did seem very biased in favor of the challengers — it looked like the selection of questions was one-sided.
I don’t think the questions reflect a bias among the folks running the forum. The moderators picked from the questions submitted before and during the forum. Everyone had an opportunity to submit. So, if there was a bias in questions in favor of the challengers, there must be more support for the challengers among the questionners.
Also, note that Valarie and Mark are two completely different candidates, with very different styles, running for two different positons and are not running on a single platform. One can vote for one and not the other. Or for both. Or for neither.
My guess is that the audience was small enough that it was mostly composed of folks whose minds were already made up. The influence of this forum will depend on how widely it is viewed on Decatur EdTV and In Decatur. If you want to promulgate your point of view, get out the word about watching the forum.
I stayed until the bitter end of the Thursday night forum. Very informative.
I wish there had been more discussion of the most recent reconfiguration process. While it was happening I was impressed with the time taken and the degree of community input solicited for the decision. (For the record, this is the sort of process the parents on the calendar committee tried to push for, but were refused.)
Recently, however, I have heard from people who served on the reconfiguration committee that, in no uncertain terms, doing away with the 4/5 structure was off the table. It was clearly included in some of the options posted, but I’m told the committee was instructed that it really was not an option.
Why on earth would ANYTHING be taken off the table if truly the best outcome for the scholastic success of our children and the financial soundness of our school district was being sought? Refusal to consider an option that would undo an earlier decision when the decision was made under different circumstances and the costs are unrecoverable is referred to by economists as the sunk cost fallacy. An accessible description of sunk costs can be found at .
The point is that rational individuals should not let past, unrecoverable expenditures/decisions guide their evaluation of the current optimal decision. Mmmm, what perhaps would this say about the rationality of whoever told the reconfiguration committee to take an option off the table?
Apparently the way I entered the web link to an explanation of sunk costs did not come through. For those interested, the web site is: http://messymatters.com/2009/06/23/sunk/
Valarie Wilson’s campaign literature states that she will continue working to address the transition of Fifth Ave to the new 4-5 academy “…to further invigorate the Oakhurst area.” Is anyone troubled by that? Was that the intent of the reconfiguration, and is it appropriate to use school funds that way?
I think these decisions should be made on an educational and financial basis. The effects on a community are too varied and unpredictable. What helps one part of Decatur might hurt another. The Fifth Avenue area probably suffered from the original closing of Fifth Avenue (what the original reconfiguration did) but so was the Westchester area. And “helping an area” somtimes hurts subgroups. The gentrification of Oakhurst is great for business and those who have invested in homes there and can afford high mortgages and taxes but it has also made the property values and taxes so high that we’ve driven out some of the original community and lost diversity there. Just sticking to educational and financial aspects of decisions is hard enough for the Board to do well without trying to do community re-engineering.
I think these decisions should be made on an educational and financial basis. The effects on a community are too varied and unpredictable. What helps one part of Decatur might hurt another. The Fifth Avenue area probably suffered from the original closing of Fifth Avenue (what the original reconfiguration did) but so did the Westchester/Chelsea Heights area. And “helping an area” somtimes hurts subgroups. The gentrification of Oakhurst is great for business and those who have invested in homes there and can afford high mortgages and taxes but it has also made the property values and taxes so high that we’ve driven out some of the original community and lost diversity there. Just sticking to educational and financial aspects of decisions is hard enough for the Board to do well without trying to do community re-engineering.
Several good comments here about the Candidates forum. I like what Valarie said when she thanked Rob for running and for “elevating the discussion.” We do need challengers and for people to introduce new ideas; otherwise, we become stagnant.
At the same time, I think George hits at something important in his comment. In Marc and Valarie, I don’t hear “business as usual, more of the same” Quite the opposite. Both have a message of momentum — we’ve worked hard, come a long way, but we have miles to go.
And I think if either or both are re-elected, the larger themes of their opponents will not be ignored. We’re one year into a charter system that is designed to turn up the volume on input from parents and community and facilitate their involvement. Supporters of the incumbents want to see that happen, too.
George, Mickey,
My candidacy is not rash or emotional. I’m analytical, more of a numbers person than a public face, and frankly bookish. Unlike my opponent, I have kids in the system. I’m in the schools almost every day tutoring. And I’m involved in the Math, Science, and Chess clubs at Clairemont and Renfroe. There is simply no substitute for being in the schools and in the classroom.
We do have good schools. We have great teachers, good principals, tremendous community involvement, and strong administration. We have good schools, but we can do better.
There has certainly been a lot of change over the last 5-6 years. We’ve certainly moved the proverbial rug around the room. However we’ve failed to put measures in place which would have allowed us to determine whether or not the changes are making a difference. When you change state curriculum, system curriculum, grade spans, grade sizes, calendars, block schedules, and advanced, college and AP class offerings, nationally normed assessments, and have gaps in your state assessment records… it becomes awfully difficult to determine which changes have done what.
It also puts a lot of stress on teachers. I hear from teachers who are so busy jumping through hoops that they feel they don’t have the time to help students who need it. And I hear from parents who complain that they can’t get teachers to return calls, because they are always in meetings.
There are highlights. Like being in the top 10 in Georgia for 2nd grade Reading scores at Oakhurst and 8th grade Science at Renfroe. But we need to figure out how to reproduce this success across the board. We have a system wide problem with Science and Math. Georgia CRCT scores may be doing great at Oakhurst, but we have real problems at Clairemont and Winnona.
And for a system that sets the goal of becoming one of the top 10 schools in the Nation, why are we always comparing ourselves to other Georgia schools? If we look at the trend in our scores on the nationally normed standardized test by which colleges judge our performance… If we look at our 5 year trend on SAT scores… The trend is downward. Our trend is moving down toward being an average system when compared to the national scores. Worse yet, the students we claim to be helping the most are the ones whose SAT scores are dropping the fastest: the scores of girls and African Americans. By this measure we aren’t closing the Achievement Gap… it is growing wider.
Why aren’t we hearing and talking about the problem with girls scores? If you look at the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (http://www.gaosa.org/report.aspx) you will find that for the last year on record… girls scores on the SAT fell _below_ the national average. At the forum, my opponent referenced more recent results which aren’t publicly available to assert that girls scores are have moved back up above the national average. But he also admitted that scores for African Americans have continued to drop.
We’ve been so busy ticking off the list of things we’re changing that we’ve lost our focus on core academics. We have momentum. But judging academic performance, the last 5 years have been momentum in the wrong direction.
It is a mistake to make future decisions based on sunken assets in a strategic plan which has failed to deliver. We need less and more gradual change. We need to put measures in place to assess whether changes have the intended consequences. And we need to follow through and evaluate those assessments.
I believe the incumbents were surprised the first time I mentioned the gap in SAT scores for girls and African Americans. They certainly weren’t as well prepared for the forums as I would have expected. I expected the School Board races to get them more engaged.
At a Board Meeting last year, my opponent thanked our auditors for their years of service and the work that they had done. He also talked about the need to bring new people in from time to time to get a new perspective. I think it is time for a new voice and a new perspective. If you think our good schools can be better, I encourage your to come out on Tuesday and vote.
@Garrett,
I’m sure you understood that my terms “rash” and “emotional” were modifying “decisions”, not you or any of the candidates.
Since you addressed your note to me (in part), I just wanted to make sure you understood this was a call for reflection, not a specific criticism of any individual or candidate.
Actually, I thought I’d get more grumbling about implying that Obama’s election was rash and emotional. Guess the Conservative movement is growing in Decatur after all!
😉 just kidding folks, don’t get out your pitchforks just yet ….
Can anyone from the reconfiguration committee confirm that any configuration without a 4/5 was off the table?
No more third hand discussions! Go to the “In Decatur” blog (http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/in_decatur/) to get the opening and closing statements of all four School Board candidates. Hopefully, the full EdTV coverage will be up soon because the question and answer period was real interesting.
Looks like Decatur edTV is working on getting the videos up. http://www.elifemagazine.net/forum.htm
Thanks to all for the great feedback on the forum last Thursday! We’ve started posting the Q&A and will continue to have them available past Election day. Hopefully we can continnue the conversations that began last Thursday on some many, many important CSD topics.
OK, everyone, it’s time for a time out. Everyone off the playground.
Over the past few days, I’ve heard some discussions and seen some emails that are just taking this thing way too far… both in the City Commission race and in the school board race. I’ve heard/seen it coming from supporters on both sides in both races so no one is really innocent. All of our candidates and all or our current school board members and City Commission members are good folks and care a great deal about our city. They have no evil intent. The sitting members have worked their butts off trying to do what it best and get very little thanks for the hundreds of hours that they are away from their families to work for our city and our schools.
The current people running for office have more courage than I would ever consider having because, frankly, I couldn’t take the abuse that comes with the job. Also, I know that I neither have the skills nor the dedication to be effective in top leadership here. I am so thankful that we have talented and motivated people who are willing to do the job so I don’t have to.
If you disagree about policies, fine…. debate vigorously. But let’s stop the personal attacks and unfounded accusations, OK? It doesn’t do any good.
I’ve been peripherally observing this debate and feel compelled to comment since I spent my career in education and am a longtime Decatur resident.
There seems to be an effort on the part of the two school board challengers to throw out a bunch of negatives, many with no substance – to try to blow things out of proportion and scare people into voting for them. I’ve seen the debates, and it seems like the challengers are just contradicting themselves. For instance, they criticize the board for having to use trailers, and then criticize them for spending money on construction to build 5th Ave. to relieve the overcrowding. They criticize the SAT scores and then on the other hand say CSD shouldn’t teach to the test and there’s too much testing, etc. etc.The list goes on and on.
They obviously didn’t live here under the Ida Love era when there was NO dialogue with the community, and the board used a few million each year from the operational budget to do piecemeal, ineffective renovations to several schools. Talk about high taxes and no long-term plan!
The Westchester forum definitely seemed slanted in the negative towards the incumbents, and it seemed that most of the questions were submitted by the challengers. Regardless, I thought the incumbents did well. In fact, they actually gave solutions in their answers whereas Garrett and Rob mainly just criticized things without offering many concrete answers to problems.
IMHO these challengers seem quite fear-based, especially Garrett. You can’t become a top ten school district nationally if you’re not willing to have the courage to take risks, get out of your comfort zone and challenge the norm. The current board has definitely taken some risks to improve CSD and it is paying off dividends. Is it perfect – heck no. But I remember well eight years ago when Marc and Valerie got on the board, CSD was losing students and funding a lot of empty seats, and now people are clamoring to get into CSD. That wasn’t by accident.
When you have a school board and a superintendent working together to implement a strategic plan, moving in the same direction, a lot can get accomplished. I for one want to see the momentum continue to go forward. My worry is that wouldn’t happen if these incumbents get elected.
And for the record, my son was on the reconfiguration committee and he said he never once felt like any option was off the table.
I agree that’s it’s time to get back to a civil discussion. The forums can be viewed on-line and anyone can see that they were civil, if hard-hitting. There’s now emails going around accusing the challengers of racism when anyone can view the forums and see that the challengers have worked through tutoring and the Clairemont Math Academy to reduce the achievement gap. The incumbents have clearly been concerned about the achievement gap during their tenure.
All of the School Board candidates are pretty darn accessible. Anyone who is wondering what is true or not true in the escalating heat of this election should just contact the candidates directly. Otherwise we are in danger of causing some deep hurt within this community that none of the candidates are likely to have intended.
Please judge the candidates by their words here or in the forums or by contacting them. Who knows what the true intent and authorship of divisive emails are.
Link to Candidate forum: http://www.elifemagazine.net/forum.htm. Everyone can judge for themselves what was said or not said.
Just found out that Garrett Goebel may not be able to respond directly to the comments above because he is currently rebuilding houses in the New Orleans Ninth Ward after the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina.
So I think it’s safe to say that all of the School Board candidates are good folks who care deeply about their community, both disadvantaged and advantaged, and we can ignore ugly emails that suggest otherwise. Just watch the forums, draw upon your own experience with the schools, email the candidates as necessary, and vote sincerely tomorrow.
I agree with Retired Prof and Mr. FixIt. I feel like there has been quite a bit of negative, personal attacks on the incumbents. For the record, Marc has had his two sons go through every grade CSD, and both are recent graduates. After they graduate, he does not suddenly become distant from the needs of the schools or lose passion for raising the standards of education and strengthening the sense community. He continued to work with the DBABC and the high school lacrose team even though neither son was in the system.
I live just down the way from Marc, and he has listened to my concerns over many of the issues over the past eight years. From the school reconfiguration to the new calendars to the master plan, he has listened and given thoughtful answers.
On the topic of the master plan, I have been inside the old stadium and gym before they were demolished, and I cannot express how happy I am that all of our kids can use facilities that are state-of-the-art. They can use a stadium that’s not falling down and a basketball court that is actually regulation size. Our drama and band students can actually hold plays and concerts in the fine arts facility instead of Renfroe’s cafeteria or a theatre five miles away. The science wing with bunsen burners that actually work allows our students to experience science themselves instead of watching their teacher do it or reading it out of a textbook.
The master plan is just one of the many things that Marc has helped do as a member of the school board for the students, teachers, and faculty. The fact that neither of his sons could take advantage of the master plan before they graduated shows the dedication Marc has as a member of the school board, and more importantly as a member of the community.
I did not vote in the elections the past eight years because I did not feel stongly about the candidates. However, this year I cannot wait to cast a vote for Marc Wisniewski because I have seen the progress the board has made and am excited for my kids to benefit from the hard work the board has down.
Marc’s kids did not go through the system as it is now, in the current reconfiguration. Others of us are in trenches now dealing with the aftermath of the first reconfiguration and soon to deal with the aftermath of a second. It’s a very different ballgame now and a completely different system.
That’s true, but I’d like to balance this tone by noting that the “aftermath” being dealt with in my case is a vastly improved neighborhood school and a system overall that’s proven skillful and effective at both inspiring and educating my child.
I respect that different people have different experiences, and support continued work to ensure that needs are met across the board, but I’m also confident there’s more than a few folks around whose experience mirrors mine. Just sayin’…
I feel sorry for Marc’s kids that they didn’t get the benefits of the reconfiguration that my younger kids are getting now and my high schooler missed out on, so I echo Scott’s assessment. I have a senior, a sixth grader and a third grader, and I can tell a big difference between the quality that my youngest is getting compared my oldest. Each year the teachers get so much better it seems at teaching IB and ELOB, and the middle school IS SO MUCH BETTER than when my oldest went through.
For that reason, I have to give my support to the incumbents. Why punish results?
Meanwhile, the quality at Clairemont has gone down to the point that at least two big supporters of ELOB removed their kids from there and put them in private school. And the decrease in paraprofessionals at Clairemont and Glennwood has been disappointing. Never see the incumbents in either school except for the occasional ceremonial function.
The middle school is wonderful because Mr. Roaden and his teachers are wonderful. In the previous 5 years of the incumbents’ tenure, it wasn’t so wonderful. If the powers that be don’t mess with it too much, it will stay wonderful. Otherwise we’ll have the constant turnover of leadership we used to have.
The school system is strong because of so many strong individuals inside and outside of the buildings support it. I see advantages to fresh voices that will trust the parents and community as much as they trust the Central Office but that doesn’t take away from respecting what has been achieved.
I wonder if part of the reason for such a diverse array of opinions on a school system has a lot to do with intangibility of the results.
People can argue ’til they’re blue in the face about why Decatur has experienced revitalization over the past 20-25 years, but few would argue that things haven’t improved. However, when it comes to a school system, you’re talking about an experience – often times second-hand (since students don’t chime in at a Board meeting all that frequently). Test scores provide some insight but they’re much more abstract than a nice, new building in place of a weedy parking lot or functioning garbage pick-up.
When evaluating a city, at least there’s some sort of shared experience. When it comes to a school system, each participant must base their judgment on a different, individual, second-hand experience. No wonder there is such a tremendous diversity of opinion!
CSD Snowflake – My kids have gone through Clairemont and my youngest is still there. I’m referencing that the quality of instruction at Clairemont has definitely gotten better in my experience. I know everyone has different experiences, but the staff has certainly elevated the educational experience for my kids. My youngest was in ESS and needed a lot of extra help to get him on grade level, and they have worked miracles to make that happen. He now exceeds state standards – and let me tell you, it hasn’t been easy.
As for the middle school, yes, I would attribute most of the success to Mr. Roaden, but I think my daughter’s experiences at the 4/5 made things MUCH easier because she already knew so many kids there compared to when my senior went to sixth grade. Talk about clique -ville! It was a nightmare. Yes, there was principal turnover at RMS when my oldest was there, so we lived through all of that first hand. But the first two years of that turnover was under Dr. Love’s term, and Marc and Valerie were new to the board. Don’t forget that the board can’t make hiring decisions except to hire the superintendent, so they had nothing to do with any of the hiring decisions, including Mr. Roaden.
And I don’t need my board members to be in the schools everyday. I want them setting policy and doing other big picture things – not putting themselves in a position to potentially micromanage staff.
Personally, I’m ok with the 4/5 Academy too. It’s been fine but not the end all and be all. If it fits into a good reconfiguration plan with reasonable costs and reasonable flexibility that CSD figures out how to finance without depending on future SPLOSTS 4-7 which may or may not occur in this economy, ok by me. My bigger issues are with the Board and CSD Admin not trusting their parents and community, not empowering the SLTs (until the last minute when they realized belatedly that it was a big issue), and cutting cost-effective, hard-working staff in the classroom (viz. paraprofessionals) to balance the budget.
No question that there’s no one candidate who’s going to do it all for us. You’ve got to pick on the issues that are most important to you.
…from the hard work the board has *done*.
Rob and Garrett have been consistently fair, level-headed and honest in their campaigns. I don’t know where they get the fortitude to do this but it’s not something I could do. I wish them both the best and can’t wait to vote for them. They are both inspirations to me. They are very close to the school system both in “the trenches” but also at more administrative/political levels. I have every confidence that both of them will make excellent board members.
I have not seen any negative, personal attacks on the incumbents. The only negativity I have seen has been manufactured by someone on Marc’s campaign, and I don’t think Marc had anything to do with it. The questions at the candidate forum were obviously submitted by people who are distrustful of the board. It is no one’s fault that there were no questions submitted by the other camps. I think all four candidates handled the questions very well, but in my opinion Marc and Valarie were more flustered. This is because Rob and Garrett have had lots of discussions over the last few weeks with their supporters about the issues that were raised, so they were well-prepared to answer those types of questions.
Wonder who asked the question about nepotism. Valarie took that as an attack on her, and said she expected it.
Anybody know the official CSD rules on nepotism?
I certainly don’t know but rumor has it that Valarie misunderstood the question. It wasn’t about her but either about the Superintendent’s daughter working in CSD (in what position, I have no idea.) or about all the spouse pairs who have worked or do work in CSD admin and other non-teaching positions. My guess is that CSD has the usual vanilla anti-nepotism policy and that no one is violating it. The important point is probably whether the best candidate is being selected for positions, regardless of who is applying.
This wouldn’t be my personal big issue but I don’t know what’s behind the question.
I agree wholeheartedly with CSD Mom. From my perspective, Garrett and Rob have worked very diligently to be honest and respecful. They did not want their candidacies construed as personal attacks on Marc and Valarie. At the same time, of course, they had to explain why they decided to step up and offer change. It should be possible to do so without triggering the harsh animosity of those who are personally loyal to Marc and Valarie. (It sickens me to hear a charge of racism being thrown around casually for cheap political points.) Our community must be willing to work together when this is over.
I encourage everyone to listen to the candidates, in their own words. Go to their sites. Watch the forums online. I’ve been humbled by the time and energy our candidates have given to CSD.
Now, here’s where I find myself: I’ll vote for the challengers. The forums sealed the deal. IMHO (we’ve all got one in Decatur, right?), the incumbents came up short — if you’re running on the status quo and its current trajectory, you should have some hard data to show why that’s a good idea. If you’re dissatisfied with either, you should explain precisely what bothers you and how you’re working to fix it. It’s not enough to simply assert we must finish what we started. Fealty to a 5-year-old strategic plan and its goal of becoming a Top-10 national school seems questionable, at best, when you can’t explain what ranking/scale is being used, where we are now, how we’ll move up and/or why the plan and its goals are a useful lens for assessing downward trends in the CRCT and SAT. What I heard from the incumbents sounded (to me) like platitudes and boosterism.
Happy voting!
Found this interesting post on inDecatur:
DHS SAT scores put in perspective
Hope asked that this be posted for her. This is apparently in response to considerable discussion during the forum about the five-year downward trend in DHS SAT scores through the ’07-’08 school year (see spreadsheet prepared by Garrett G in this earlier inDECATUR post.)
Let’s step back and take a look at the big picture where DHS SAT scores are concerned.
First, we need to look at the long-term trend and not just the last five years.
Second, we should include the most recent or 2009 scores which have been available since at least August 27. See the “Bloggin’ Bulldog” site (http://decaturhighprincipal.blogspot.com/) provided by Laurie McKain-Fernandez, DHS Principal. In her blog Ms. McKain-Fernandez gives an excellent summary of SAT scores since 1996 and where DHS ranks relative to other schools in Georgia. Note that the average score for the class of 2009 was 1064. As she points out, our school is so small that all it takes is a few high scores or a few low scores in any given year to skew the average. Even large schools will show more fluctuation in average scores than is evident in the national average.
There is another KEY point that one does not realize when just observing the raw data from the past year. The percentage of students to take the SAT at DHS has increased significantly over the years meaning more students are applying to colleges (a very good thing.) As students who would not previously have applied to college begin to take the SAT, the average score for the school is expected to decrease. BUT, the 13-year trend for DHS shows that while increasing the percentage of students taking the test, average scores have been edging up, not down.
A concern expressed is that the average score for black students has dropped. Given that the large majority of the increase in the percentage of students taking the test comes from the black student population, this would not be surprising BUT the decrease over the last 5 years has been minimal. It is far more important to consider the increase in the number of individual students who are applying to college than minimal fluctuations in an average test score.
In addition to improving SAT scores at DHS, there are numerous other measures of success that need to be highlighted. In Newsweek rankings, DHS has been in the top 500 – 600 high schools across the nation. These ratings take into consideration academic and socio-economic factors including the breadth of the curriculum, number of students taking AP and IB courses, number of students passing AP and IB courses, # of students receiving low and reduced lunch rates, etc. Also, check out the February 2009 “Bloggin’ Bulldog” post about DHS being named an AP Honor School. These are examples of more robust measures of success that use a variety of metrics and account for relevant demographic factors.
So, the next time you see Ms. McKain-Fernandez or a DHS teacher, ask them about the extraordinary number of National Merit Semi-Finalists in the class of 2009 and where all of those graduates are today.
As I said on “In Decatur” where this was first posted, our SAT scores don’t seem high at all given that supposedly 1/3 of Decatur kids are gifted. Nor does the number of National Merit Scholars or Ivy League college acceptances. What happens to all those Links and Bridges kids? I don’t place a lot of faith in any of the standardized testing being done. I know it has to be done but I’m not sure it’s really measuring who are children are and what they will become.
Folks, I am not in New Orleans rebuilding houses damaged in Katrina. I’m in Waveland, Mississippi. Waveland received more damage, but has not received the same attention. The folks down here are still recovering from the last major hurricane before Katrina.
We’re just about to head out the door for another day of mending hearts and homes. -So I don’t have time to respond to all the personal attacks and the last minute arguments which seek to splice hairs or interpret issues in the extreme instead of seeking balance and moving forward.
I do want people to know that we have great schools. We moved here for the small neighborhood schools, the strong academics, and the diversity. I am running because I want to help make our schools better.
I told Marc when I put my name on the ballot, that I wasn’t running against him. I’m running for the schools and the issues. It is unfortunate that a political campaign forces the contender to focus on how they are different. Marc’s story and mine are similar. We both love our schools and want them to improve. I hope that I have drawn attention to issues that need to be addressed. I have tried not just to identify problems, but also the solutions which will allow us to respond effectively and move on to the next thing, and the next.
Which ever way things go today… Tomorrow we need sit back down and focus on the things we have in common: our great schools, community, and civic pride. We need to find ways to keep moving forward together.
I had time this morning to follow up on that SAT post on InDecatur. I’m going to go ahead and post it below:
We have good schools. I want to see them get better. It isn’t disparaging our schools to recognize and point out a recent downward trend in SAT scores for girls and African Americans. That is how we recognize where we need to focus our attention and resources.
Yes, the sample sizes are small. This is a problem we face as a small school system. But not one that stops us from drawing attention to recognizing our successes. This is the argument we only seem to bring it out when scores go down.
There is a joke about statisticians. Two statisticians are at an archery range. One shoots an arrow 10 feet above the target, the other 10 feet beneath. -They look to one another and say… “we hit!”
Numbers can be spun. It is interesting that you go back 13 years to find your upward trend. We are not the same schools system that we were 13 years ago. The 10 year trend (since 2000) is downward. I’m sure you’ve done the numbers. It is interesting that your numbers do not dis-aggregate the data based on the race, sex, or economic factors which you refer to as being robust.
It may be important to consider the number of students taking the test and applying to college. But you do not provide numbers, so I can not gauge how important those factors are.
Neither of those factors take away from the fact that recent trend in average SAT scores for girls and African Americans is dropping. Which means that those students who are applying for college are less likely to be accepted on the basis of their scores.
I too would like to see percentile rankings. When I have examined our past CRCT scores, I have recalculated them based on percentile rankings. And I have looked at them using co-hort groupings. That is, I have looked not just at the year-on performance of a particular grade, but also at that group of students as they progress through the grades.
I would also like to see us use scores which are broken out not just on race, but also on whether a student is economically disadvantaged or advantaged. We don’t do all that we should to break out and use the robust demographics to which you refer.
Numbers may or may not be statistically significant. Every child is. Let us not shy away from our problems, but look at them head on. That is how we will make our schools better.
Just for clarity, the comment on inDECATUR about wanting to see percentiles was mine, not Hope’s. I neglected to put it in green italics (my convention for my opinions). I also deleted my other comments, as they were distracting from what Hope had to say.
My opinion: The SAT was designed to measure how well a student was prepared for college. I’m not sure how well it does that, but most colleges (Agnes Scott no longer being one) feel they need some indication of whether a student will succeed at their institution. It was not designed to measure how well they are prepared to succeed in life in a global economy, which seems to be the focus of the IB program.
Right now, I’d say the US still leads the world in science and engineering, and the best brains from around the world tend to come here to work in those areas. To prepare our kids to contribute in these areas, we need to teach them what is required to do well on the SAT, and we need those who are strong in math and science to be in the AP program.
I’d like to think CSD has different tracks which will contribute to our students’ success whether they go on to college (to prepare for whatever discipline), go to trade school, or go straight to work. It’s sad that 12% don’t even graduate. I can only recall a few of my classmates from decades ago who did not graduate.
I don’t think there’s a bad penny in the bunch of school board incumbents and candidates. They all want to work hard to help Decatur’s kids prepare for life. They differ only in how they’d do it.
Just my 2 cents, probably not worth a plug nickel in the minds of many DM readers.
Agree with no bad pennies, just different choices. I’m glad that the blogs have stayed away from character assassination. A good public forum has to have a higher standard than private emails circulating.