CSD Board of Education Calls Special Meeting Tomorrow
Decatur Metro | January 11, 2010Just in from CSD. Is this a newly scheduled meeting?
On January 12th from 5:30 – 6:15 p.m. the City Schools of Decatur Board of Education will hold a special meeting to address community questions and concerns in an informal setting. Due to the time constraints associated with this meeting, the number of individuals that the Board will be able to address may be limited. The meeting will take place at the Central Office at Westchester (758 Scott Boulevard, Decatur 30030).
I hope the school system will be more respectful of the questions and concerns of these parents than they have in the past. They’ve had a tendency to be snarky. We’re the folks who pay the taxes, support the teachers, run the bake sales, etc. etc. We’re the reason the school system is successful. We’re not just nuisances to be brushed aside.
Agreed! I hope this is the beginning of more dialogue between board and community. It is so morale-crushing to stand up there and talk about things that are really important to you, and to have one of two things happen: 1) be completely ignored, or 2) have Dr. Edwards snipe about your comment and completely dismiss your concerns. There’s no dialogue and no opportunity for a conversation. I am really excited about the meeting tomorrow night!
I hope a lot of people show up.
I apologize in advance if this is obvious to all but me but is there a particular focus of this meeting? Is there a group of people hoping to have this meeting about a particular topic, officially or unofficially? Is this meeting specifically about the 4/5 Academy and/or its playground and other features? I love the idea of more informal dialogue back and forth between the community and the Board and have some issues to bring up but I don’t want to waste precious time if there’s already a burning topic on the table that needs lots of attention.
I hope this kind of meeting happens regularly so all sorts of topics can enjoy this kind dialogue. Ironically, some of the best organized conversations around school issues, with lots of give and take, were during the election forums and other events. I think it would be more useful, and incur less stored bubbling fury, if these organized conversations (aka town hall meetings) took place continually instead of just every two years.
I’m also trying to figure out the same thing Karass.
In Dr. Edwards’ report at the BOE mtg on 12/8/09, she said this:
In January, if you agree, we will begin to meet at 5:30 so that if any members of the community would like to engage you and/or the staff in dialogue, they can do so before the meeting time at 6:30.
This early meeting is not for a specific group or a specific complaint.
THANK you.
In addition to what CSD Mom cited, there’s a sign hanging at Clairemont re the session beginning at 5:30p: “Agenda: Extending Communication.” Nothing else.
FYI — I started writing to the Board post-election about boosting communication, in large part, because the community forums seemed so well-received. (I especially liked the moderated questions, which helped to keep outbursts in check.) Another parent and I have been working on these issues — she met with Dr. Edwards, who was receptive. The other parent and I have offered to help CSD arrange a town-hall forum sometime in the spring. Details are still being worked out.
As a further explanation of my motives for co-authoring letters re the 4/5 at Fifth Avenue (other details are in the DM thread discussing the reply to Dr. Edwards’s Christmas Day letter), I got involved b/c I saw the endeavor as part of a larger effort to bridge communiction gaps between CSD and the community. My pet peeve is that we have many, many experts in the community who could be volunteering their knowledge and skills to help CSD directly. Many of the experts I’ve met, however, spend their time trying to discern, dissect and dispute CSD’s assertions b/c they feel excluded or unwanted by CSD. What a waste, IMO. (Note: I’m not casting blame here, just sizing up our present state of affairs.)
Maybe we should just increase the number of board members to exactly match the number of parents who have kids in the schools. They EVERYONE can CONSTANTLY COMMENT, suggest, praise, berate,etc. etc. TOTAL constant immersive dialogue.
Just sayin’!
It’s called community engagement, usually achievable with fewer than all of the target population, but that’s one approach.
I could be mistaken, but I think all the School Board meetings offer a time for public comments at end of sessions.
It is not always in the “best interest of the best outcome” to have everyone comment on every issue at hand. At some point you have to let those placed in charge via election, etc. make their decisions. Vote ‘em out later if you wish, but the process should be followed.
Amen!!
One-way public comments which may or may not receive a response are not a dialogue. They may be the best format for an official School Board meeting but it’s not the same kind of information exchange as occurs in a town hall meeting. No one is obligated to attend this special meeting or others if they do not feel the need to comment.
School board members, Dr. Edwards, staffers are obligated to attend. Where do we draw the line between open dialogue opportunities and over-indulging micro-managers?
It’s a line for sure. The disagreement may be where it is drawn. The last election suggests that more dialogue is needed but that doesn’t mean infinite dialogue. Probably less would be needed now if more had happened in the past few years. This isn’t an indictment of anyone; just the natural balance that has to be kept in democratic government. Things change, families change, schools change, the student needs change, issues change. If officials are too insular, they lose touch. But they have to be decisive too. But decisiveness has to be balanced with the need for careful thought, study, and conservation of resources. And responsiveness to the voters who ultimately pay but who do not all agree on what they paid for! It’s a balance. I definitely appreciate the difficulty of that balance and respect those working hard to maintain it under conditions of less and less resources and support. But that doesn’t negate the necessity for community engagement. Unengaged communities deteriorate.
Re time of Board members and CSD officials: We know that others are willing to serve as Board members and put in that time. I empathize with staffers. They are being squeezed by less resources, more work, less time. Some have commented that CSD may have bit off more than it can chew with a major reorganization 5 years ago, IB, system Charter, and now another major reorg and building project, etc.
Since many posters here think the 5th Avenue site is too small, where else do you (reasonably) propose to house the 4/5 Academy, given the minimum square footage and acreage requirements that would make you happy?
I’m serious – I would love to know your response, and it could influence my position on this issue. As a taxpayer and parent of a future CSD student, I obviously don’t want to see CSD waste money on inadequate structures.
(However, please assume that Glennwood would either not be an available choice, or, if you choose Glennwood, that all the current K-3′s would remain overcrowded (unless an alternative is provided). Also, please assume that it is basically impossible to create or acquire large [i.e. 5-6+ acres] tracts of land in Decatur like suburban school systems sometimes can. Also, if you choose Beacon Hill, please provide some sort of rebuttal to the analysis attached to Dr. Edward’s letter.)
Thank you for your series of thoughtful questions… I have to work today, but I will try to provide a brief response this evening.
In my opinion, it would make the most sense to build a PK-5 at Fifth Avenue, open Westchester as a PK-5, and open the other three schools as PK-5s. This would relieve the overcrowding at all schools including CHECLC, which is putting in trailer[s] next year. Different zoning lines would have to be drawn, but this configuration would be the most flexible for expanding and contracting enrollments. If in the future our enrollments dropped significantly and we had to close a school again, we could just close it and leave it dormant until the next time we needed it, which is far less expensive than reconfiguring every 5 years.
But this isn’t the educational model the school has adopted. So how is that a solution?
I think Harpua is 100% right on. I have seen a lot of complaining, a lot of calls for open dialogue, but no actual workable alternatives. It’s not CSD’s job to come up with a solution that pleases a small group after they have already come up with an answer after allowing residents a long comment period. I want to see actual answers and I want to be convinced before I criticize what the school is doing.
If you attended last night’s School Board meeting, Nellie, you would learn that all of the complaining is being doine by, maybe, 4-5 people. 90% of the people at the meeting last night supported Fifth Avenue.
Let them continue to complain. The Board and the City are moving on, and moving forward, with or without them.
Harry, you were there? Can you tell us the gist of what was discussed, and if any of the folks who had concerns about 5th Ave. had alternatives to offer? I’m just curious. I know there are more than “4 or 5″ people who’re not for the 5th Ave. option, but I’m sure not all of them either attended the meeting or necessarily got the chance to be vocal about it.
Personally, I totally agree with Harpua’s statement above. Other than the one suggestion proffered by CSD Mom (which, as Nellie pointed out, simply isn’t an available option), I haven’t seen any workable/superior alternatives from those opposed (other than Beacon Hill, which is also apparently not a feasible choice due to its already being in use and owned by the City). I’d like to see some answers to her questions as well.
That is pretty much what I figured, Harry.
Another way to state this idea is – go back to the way it was before the reconfig that created the 4/5. Why would that model work better now than it did 6 years ago ?
The PK-5 configuration does not maximize state funding for teachers. There are educational drawbacks to having only one or 2 classes of each grade in each school. Having all PKs together helps with efficient delivery of special services to at risk and/or learning disabled pre schoolers and their parents. The process of closing a school and leaving it “dormant” is not a simple easy thing. There is a legal process to deal with when a school is closed not mention the emotional turmoil put in motion by parents and students. There will always be disagreement over when enrollment is low enough to warrant closing a school and then the battle over which school(s) should close. As we know from the Westchester debate this can be a very painful process.
It seems every time I speak with someone questioning the 5th Ave plan there is mention of returning to a PK-5 configuration and re opening Westchester. It is hard to shake the feeling that this controversy is largely about lingering frustration over losing the reconfiguration fight 6 years ago.
The DNO has a little blurb about the public forum in its report from last night’s meeting…
Intended to run until 6:15, the Community Conversation extended 30 minutes beyond, with citizens mostly sharing praise for the CSD’s plans for Fifth Avenue. A few detractors did speak, mostly voicing worries about site acreage and projected classroom capacities not meeting state school size specifications.
In response, Rhame noted that “we are a four-square mile city…it is not realistic to expect we would find a site that is 11 acres,” and that the state is aware of the CSD plans and not likely to hold up the progress toward moving the 4th and 5th grades to 5th Avenue.”
Also from that meeting, InDecatur notes that the school bond to build 5th Ave (and do some Renfroe renovations) is scheduled to be paid off by 2037.
So it wasn’t a catastrophe to have a special meeting to get more input! And a lot less nerve-wracking than a close election. I hope there’s more of these because I believe the mantra that open, transparent, frequent, and straightforward communication is an investment that saves time and energy in the long run. Unfortunately for DM, frequent town hall meetings and forums might make for less interesting debates on the local listservs and blogs….. but that would be a sign of success.
I guess it depends on what you find “interesting”.
For me, I’d much rather the relationship and communication between CSD and jilted parents improve so when we have a CSD conversation, we minimize the condescension and grudges and get talking about what’s actually working and what’s not.
But you’re right. That might be less interesting to some.
I thought the public forum went well. Community members were civil, speaking up generally to either say 5th Avenue can’t happen too soon, or airing concerns that current conception plans have issues which need to be addressed in order to make the new 4/5 a success. Speakers yielded time to each other.
Patti Garrett and Kyle Williams were there. There was pretty good turn out. And many of the people who showed up at the forum left before the board meeting. -Which may indicate that forums which facilitate community communication without requiring attending most of the board meeting are a good thing.
Mr. Ahmann took a moment early on to assure the community that the 4/5 Academy process would not be steamrolled to completion without taking into consideration the attention the details deserve.
The size of the 5th Avenue site continued to be a topic. I think everyone recognizes that the city is land-locked. The size issue was described vividly by one speaker as putting our largest elementary school on our smallest site. And put into stark contrast when they pointed out that the 3.6 acre site would have more students than are currently housed at Renfroe’s 6+ acres.
Everyone seemed to be quoting different lot sizes. I believe some people are including neighboring parks, and others are not. Gene Ponder described his numbers as estimates. -It would be nice to get some agreement on authoritative numbers.
I was encouraged to hear Dr. Edwards air the question on the possible need to acquire additional land. She was very receptive to the suggestion to acquire neighboring Pocket Park.
We learned that the current classroom count and classroom sizes in the conceptual plans are 24 and 660 sqft respectively. -Which is adequate for 4th-5th grade, but less than the 750 sqft which would enable the future flexibility to use the facility for K-3. It wasn’t clear whether or not the 24 classroom count includes the reconfiguration committee’s requirement to reserve 2 classrooms for special needs and other instructional use.
There was some discussion of what would happen if combined 4/5 enrollments exceeded 600 due to annexation or other causes. It was disclosed without going into too many details, that 5th Avenue will be constructed for flexible spaces and future construction concerns. The possibility was acknowledged however, that the site could become built-out and require rethinking things in the future.
Mr. Wisniewski mentioned that the Devry Campus would be a possible option worth exploring if needed. There were even some nods to the suggestion that while Ebster/Beacon Hill may not play into the current solution, it would be worth working with the City to open the dialogue on it. I.e., That it would be good to enter into long term planning which might make that or another centrally located site available for use at a future date.
I asked what would happen to the Frazier Center when the vocational school addition was built. And I was encouraged to hear that there is a long term commitment to keeping some pre-school classes at DHS. The topic of what will be done for pre-school classes during construction will be discussed in a central office committee soon. An emphasis was put on providing a temporary solution which would last for the duration of the construction. -So that the childrens’ environment would not be disrupted more than necessary.
I also asked about the current logistic issues at Glennwood concerning how frequently students are able to go outside for recess or P.E., and how it might be addressed at 5th Avenue. Dr. Lee discussed some of the details relating to moving teachers and students, conflicts between P.E. and recess, and other concerns. I was very happy to hear Dr. Edwards, Dr. Lee, and Mrs. Seals affirm that students need recess. And I was encouraged to hear that they would incorporate the recess topic into the planning process for 5th Avenue.
All in all… it was a polite, respectful, healthy dialog.
Thanks for the meeting report Garrett.
Glad to hear that the session addressed some important issues and allowed the community members and the BOE to understand more about each other’s point of view. Discussion of additional land acquisition near 5th Ave sounds promising. The Devry Campus would provide lots of space but it is hard to imagine a way the City can get that land at an affordable price.
While I was happy to hear Dr. Edwards suggest moving the Frasier Center students to Westchester during construction, that arrangement would impede DHS students’ involvement in the Frasier center classes. I’m not sure how that would work in the early childhood learning classes at DHS. (The students in the classroom were usually my kid’s favorite people! And still remember him and shower him with attention when we see them off-campus or at high school events.)
So while I would love to see children at Westchester again, I think the Frasier Center kids need to remain at the high school and I hope they’ll work out a way for that to happen.
I have one question. Why are administrative offices located in a perfectly good school facility while our students are forced to learn in trailers? Given the state of commercial real estate right now, it seems like leased space for administrative offices could be easily found at an inexpensive lease rate and our students could utilize the permanent school facilities. I think new construction, land purchases and costly measures should only be used once current facilities are fully utilized.
You are about the 5 hundredth person to say this over the last few months. This sort of idea falls on deaf ears where the board is concerned.
You can find a video summary of the public forum at the new Decatur CityNet site:
http://decaturcitynet.ning.com/group/csdboardofeducation
There’s no need to add to Garrett’s fine summary or the CityNet video.
I wrote above, though, about my encouraging CSD post-election to engage in a more reflexive dialogue with the community. I drew Jack’s (facetious?) comment about total immersion in all CSD business, and couldn’t reply in-kind b/c I have no idea how to use emoticons to signal/soften a snarky tone. There, of course, is a reasonable middle ground where CSD and the community can move toward mutual understanding. Tuesday’s forum was a solid step in the right direction, IMO.
I thought Dr. Edwards and the Board were generous with their time (extending the forum by 30 minutes to make room for all speakers), they seemed genuinely engaged in the event, and they responded to concerns sincerely and earnestly. The speakers were polite and respectful, and the large turnout was very encouraging. Bravo!