Decatur Board of Ed to Discuss Reconfiguration Options Oct. 12th
Decatur Metro | October 4, 2010From CSD’s Communication Director Bruce Roaden…
The City Schools of Decatur Board of Education will have a work session Tuesday, October 12 at 5:30 PM to discuss the redrawing of its Kindergarten-3rd grade school attendance zones with the opening of Glennwood as a K-3 school for the 2011-12 school year.
Georgia State University and a CSD committee have been working together to develop a number of options (along with the data and rationale for each) for the board’s consideration. Public input sessions will be announced soon so that citizens may have the opportunity to offer input about these options with the board. Public input sessions will occur before the board votes on the attendance zone options.
I’ve been told that all the school zone reconfiguration options will be available to the general public on this day.
In anticipation and dread of the usual northside-southside comments, I’ve looked at a map of Decatur, colored in the schools, and tried to think of a way to create zones that aren’t polarized by the tracks. I thought about latitude lines but Glennwood is directly north of Winnona Park so that won’t work. So I suggest that the zones be divided into concentric rings instead of quadrants which can never be evenly distributed anyway because there’s no school anymore in the northwest quadrant. With concentric zones, every school has both northside and southside attendees. This scheme would work better if either Westchester or Fifth Avenue were still in the K-3 mix since they are are the two schools furthest from the center of town. However, this scheme could still work if one made E. Dougherty to be the center of the concentric rings. Clairemont could serve the outer ring, Oakhurst–the next ring in, Glennwood–the third ring in, and then Winnona Park would serve the innter ring. It would create some challenges for the walk and bikeability of the two outerzones but that’s already a problem for Fifth Avenue attendees from the northern tier of Decatur.
My only other idea to prevent northside-southside sensitivities is to line up all the kids in Decatur alphabetically, hoping that there’s no geographic clustering associated with their last names, and have them count off, “One! Two! Three! Four!” Then arrange the schools alphabetically: All the ones go to Clairemont, all the twos to Glennwood, all the threes to Oakhurst, and all the 4s to Winnona Park.
Uh… as a dreaded “southside” resident…. you’re joking, right?
As an equally dreaded “northside” resident who fervently hopes that reconfiguration doesn’t pit unwitting citizen against unwitting citizen this time, yes, I guess I am joking. Because even if everyone bought into my elegant concentric zones, then we’d argue about whether the buses should run clockwise or counterclockwise. And my counting off scheme, which I really love because it truly intersperses the kids from day one–one wouldn’t even need a 4/5 Academy to do that anymore, won’t work because of the annoying fact that not all Decatur families have an equal number of children. We’d need a complicated weighting scheme that took into account individual family size but, after the orginal enrollment projections and our explanation of falling SAT scores, I’m leary of methods using data. Or we could require siblings to stand together and count off families instead of children. But that would require my two children to stand next to each other peaceably for more than 3 minutes so that won’t work.
One serious thought: For families being rezoned, should there be an optional “grandfathered in” clause for second graders who have only one more year to go in their current school? Would that be too tough for CSD to factor in? It seems like a lot of change for an 8 year old to leave their school of three years, go to a new K-3 for just one year, and then move on again the next year to the 4/5 Academy which only lasts 2 years, especially when most of their peers don’t have to do that. Some children might do better to finish up in their current school and then move on to the 4/5 Academy. Other families might choose to do the series of moves anyway because they have younger children and want to keep the siblings together for as long as possible. I wouldn’t think it would involve that many children and it would only involve one year, so CSD ought to be able to accomodate the option.
No, they’re not going to entertain this idea. Think about the last reconfiguration. There were no exceptions for those kids who were going into 5th grade. They had to leave their elementary school to go over to Glennwood for 5th grade, then move on to Renfroe for 6th. So three schools in three years. The same will happen for those who are in 2nd grade now. And those who are in Kindergarten now. They are in a new school this year (having spent PK at CHECLC), and they’ll go to a new school next year. Three schools in three years. And those who are in 4th grade now. New school this year, new school next year, new school the year after that.
Actually, there were exceptions during the last reconfiguration for some second graders going up to third grade, but not for all of them. For example, Westchester families with third graders zoned to Clairemont were allowed to go to Oakhurst instead, just for that one year. And there were other exceptions for which I have never known the rationale. I’d rather that all second graders being moved have the same option to stay for their last year, rather than having lots of exceptions which never seems as fair of a process.
I would argue, however weakly, that the current 4th graders are in a different situation–yes, they are moving next year after just one year at Glennwood but the whole school is moving, hopefully with most of the teachers and staff intact, so it should feel to the kids more like moving to a new house as a whole family rather than like being a foster child sent to a new home.
Hadn’t thought about those kindergartners who will be moved as much as the second-graders. Because they have several years of K-3 left, there’s no way to make a one-year exception for them. At least they will have three years of the same (new) school ahead of them.
Karass, I think you are right about the “whole house” moves. As a kid, I went through a couple of “whole house” moves. I also was reconfigured between 3d and 4th grade.
The “whole house” moves did not create any social adjustments, just adjusting to a new building. In the instance that my elem got a brand new school and the move was presented with excitement, we were excited. The reconfig was an adjustment but there were reconfig’d kids moving with me, and I knew some of the other kids through church, scouts, etc. Still, I remember my disappointment in losing my school and many classmates despite my parents’ efforts to present it in the best light; I remember that it was difficult at first but not horrible; and I recognize it may have been horrible for other kids, especially ones whose parents were negative about it or ones who can’t or didn’t cope well with any change.
I think we are all disappointed that we are going through another reconfig and that we seem to be undergoing constant change on several levels. Trying to maintain good physical space for our kids does not bother me as much as the seemingly constant pace of the other changes. For instance, I think the stream of interruptions created by the new calendar are more disruptive to the quality of education than moving to a new building.
Amen sista.
My son was one of those kids who was a second grader when they closed Westchester, went to Oakhurst for a year, and then to Glennwood. Three schools in three years. He is a child who doesn’t like change. But he survived this. The school might be new, but all the students aren’t.
The difference is that all Westchester and all 4/5 kids moved when school started in 2004. No one stayed. Plus all their teachers and principals moved too. Now, a smaller proportion of kids are moving, only those rezoned, and a good proportion of their buddies and teachers are staying right where they are so the move has a different dynamic. It seems like a waste for a small group of second graders to do all that transtioning for just one year when I’ll bet CSD could handle giving them the option of finishing up where they are.
It’s just a thought. Can we make the transition as child-friendly as possible or is it imperative to get over with at once? Last time, the argument for a one-time drastic change, instead of incremental steps was, “otherwise the community resistance will go on and on”. This proposal won’t have any effect on community resistance, just give families a reasonable option for just one year.
I agree with allowing the 2nd graders to finish at the school they are currently attending. It seems simply cruel and unnecessary to do this. Many of these kids have been at their school since kindergarden and have formed strong friendships. My child for one simply loves his school and can’t wait to be the “big kid” next year as a 3rd grader at the school he has attended for three years. If the city won’t let us keep our children at their school for their LAST year, perhaps they can move out the people who do not live in the City of Decatur and pay tuition to attend our schools…this may allow space for our children at their school. We would even pay to allow our child to finish his last year at the school he attends, but we have been told that is not an option.
IS ANYONE WHO IS MAKING THESE CHANGES STOPPING TO THINK HOW IT WILL IMPACT THESE KIDS BEING SHIFTED TO ANOTHER SCHOOL FOR ONE YEAR!!!!!!!!
Who cares about northside-southside sensitivities? Certainly not 5-8 year olds.
Candidates for office love them! Rallies the troops!
“Northside” “Southside” is SO 2003. At least I think it is. If nothing else, Oakhurst Elementary proved that it doesn’t matter where physically the school is located for kids to excel.
We can all still argue that the school isn’t close enough to our individual houses, but I think much of the underlying worry that seemed to drive the old north v. south debate is pretty much dead.
I could certainly be wrong, but that’s my initial feeling on that part of the “debate”.
I don’t remember the focus of the debate as being north versus south, at least not the important debates. The debate that drew the greatest attention was the impact of longer grade spans on educational attainment and community development. The opening of Fifth Avenue presents a wonderful time to re-visit the discussion. However, that idea was characterized by administrative personnel and board members as a “step backwards,” so I don’t expect much in the way of receptiveness there.
Laying that issue aside, is there a careful traffic pattern study I can look at to see the expected loads on the rail crossings and approaching streets for Fifth Avenue?
The debate that drew the greatest attention …..
——
Tom, I challenge the notion that you or anybody else can legitimately declare which of the many aspects of the 2004 reconfiguration debate “drew the greatest attention.” The grade span issue was paramount to some; simple distance from their doorstep was most upsetting to others. A lot of people felt they’d bought into a bait-and-switch re their “neighborhood school.” And certainly, anybody paying attention at the time was aware of the north-south issue–more often than not present as a subtext in the debates.
Re. traffic: We are a small town with limited physical space, and it’s not inconceivable that periodic shuffling of school facilities will happen again in our lifetimes. I’d like to see us, as a community, look at such changes as opportunities to tighten up the way we manage traffic–continuing to find ways to calm (and reduce) vehicular traffic and encourage walking and biking by making those modes safer. Really, it’s not that far from one corner of Decatur to the opposite corner. Able-bodied children should be able to get back and forth to school under their own steam–if we make it safe. (No, I’m not advocating kindergarteners walk across Decatur. But I don’t think 4th and 5th graders–and maybe even 3rd graders–should have to ride a bus or be driven in a car to school less than a mile through residential streets. Parents who think I’m nuts, please take a number and don’t all pile on at once.)
In any case, I believe north-south concerns have died a natural death by now, thanks in no small part to the K-3 reconfig and the 4-5 academy, which have compelled more cross-town traffic and interaction and promoted a different kind of unity.
Smalltowngal makes some excellent points. For many, the focus was elsewhere other than the grade span. For those whose school was closed, or whose child would have to attend 3 schools in 3 years, that was understandably the immediate focus. Some folks probably did have a north-south focus, stated or unstated. Many focused on the administration’s projections of declining enrollment, pointing to extensive evidence that they were incorrect and how the slightest variance from their projections would result in trailers and/or capacity problems at Glennwood. You are exactly correct that there were lots of angles addressed during that discussion, and I was wrong to declare grade span as the principal focus.
That being said, I would and will take issue with anyone who attributes any advance in our city — educational or societal — due to the reconfiguration. It is a configuration supported nowhere in the educational literature, if anything running contrary to the arrangement most helpful to parent involvement and at risk kids who benefit by long connections and fewer transitions. It would have been interesting to see the results of investing half of the energy and resources we’ve used to justify the 4-5 school into reading and writing for our at risk kids in the K-5 schools. Certainly, the oft repeated claim that our reconfiguration drew the increased number of students is bogus. Evidence was shown of the growing bubble of babies back during the debate in 2003. As to the diminished north-south angst: (a) no one can really quantify what it was “before” (and I think it was overstated) and what it is “now;” and (b) more importantly, no one can untangle the effect of the reconfiguration from the continuing gentrification of Oakhurst. The continuing upward trend in average income in Decatur and, especially, the south side easily could absorb all of the credit. That trend was well underway before any reconfiguration. Moreover, the reconfiguration created divisions and disengagement that continues through today.
Whatever the configuration, we need to address transportation issues and, again, Smalltowngal makes good points. It does present a wonderful opportunity to emphasize alternative transportation solutions. I just want to see what studies we’ve done, though. At least to this untrained eye, it appears that the roads approaching Fifth Avenue are not in the nature of Clairemont and Ponce and Commerce, the roads near Glennwood. The railroad crossings are also choke points. With the 4-5 at Glennwood, students from the southside — who comprise the minority of kids at the school — cross the grade crossings. With the 4-5 at Fifth Avenue, the reverse will be true, with kids comprising the majority of students making it across the tracks. Those crossings are already overloaded and the traffic is likely to increase with the shift in the 4-5 school. It may all work just fine, but I would like to see what studies we’ve done, if any.
My daughter walked and took the bus and was driven to Glennwood. I admit that I was not wild about her standing alone in the dark to catch the bus before 7 am. Turned out she wasn’t either and she stopped taking the bus when she and the boy she liked to sit with on the bus “broke up.” If we’ve learned anything, it’s that you may be on shaky ground if we premise our transit plans on folks not using their cars. Those of us who live near Winnona endure a huge increase in traffic morning and afternoons after the reconfiguration as folks drive their kids from near DeKalb Medical Center. That’s been going on for several years now without abatement. So, on the off chance that the future looks a lot like the past with folks using their cars, I was hoping to see what analysis had been done of the transportation issues. What I had seen was not impressive.
As a side note, I think an interesting future topic for the Blog Master’s consideration would be why so few posters use their names. I guess it makes folks more comfortable voicing their opinions. I wonder, though, if folks might disagree more agreeably — and maybe even listen a little bit — if they used their names. My experience has been that people are almost always nice and respectful when they disagree with me, something I provide ample opportunity to do. Smalltowngal’s response is an example of a good, gracious and substantive response that does not reveal who’s talking. Still, the use of “handles” is an interesting phenomenon to me.
I think that parents of kids in CSD worry that what they say publicly, here or at a Board meeting or elsewhere, will affect how their children are treated–of course, any bias would probably be unintended, unconscious, undocumented, but still could be real. Children are picked all the time for awards, for teams, for chances to speak, for leadership positions, etc. Would this really happen? Many parents aren’t willing to test it. School staff are human like anyone else.
I agree with karass on why CSD parents do not use their real names – I don’t post much here or use my real name for those very reasons.
Happens all the time Karass. It’s disgusting.
Thanks Tom. You articulate perfectly why the current configuration is stupid, without using words like “stupid.”
There’d be a lot less traffic in Decatur if most of us could walk or ride bikes to neighborhood schools, like we used to do. Like we moved into our house to do.
Plenty of people drove their kids to schools in the K-5 configuration. Winnona and Clairemont neighborhoods were ( and still are ) very congested during school drop off and pick up times. Westchester traffic often backed up on to Scott.
I walk past Clairemont and Glennwood nearly every morning. There are many more bikes in the bike racks now than I ever saw when these were K-5 schools .
It is your right to dislike the current configuration but I just don’t agree that there would be “a lot less traffic” if we switched back to K-5.
I am sorry that you moved into your house with a specific idea of how life would be for your family and now things have changed. Decatur has seen many changes in recent years. Changes are positive for some residents , less positive for others. The last school board elections were largely about whether or not voters liked the changes in CSD . Both of the candidates who were involved in the reconfiguration decision were re elected. I ‘d say that shows more than 50% of voters did not consider the current configuration to be “stupid.”
Not being a parent, I don’t pay very close attention to the particulars of classroom instructional facilities, so I can’t remember the details, but….I clearly remember that one of the cited benefits of the 2004 reconfiguration was some expansion of grade size in each school which resulted in attaining the critical mass required in some cases to qualify for certain kinds of state and/or federal support for certain things. That is, for instance, with Decatur’s 3rd graders scattered about into five tiny schools, none had critical mass–consolidating them into three less-tiny schools meant there were enough in each school to get what they needed. Or maybe it was 1st graders, or 5th graders. I wish I could remember enough to say what I’m trying to say, but the point is that academic benefits accrued, making the collective trade-offs seem far from “stupid.”
Tom, the oft repeated claim that our reconfiguration drew the increased number of students is NOT bogus. I can personally attest to that, as we moved our 3 children into the Oakhurst district in 2005, and would never have considered doing so without reconfig.
Sure, there were some families already moving into the district at that time. I believe there was a meta-trend, a secondary wave of sorts, of people who had been part of the Atlanta intown resurgence in the 90′s, who were having children, outgrowing homes, and starting to evaluate other intown options. Decatur was winning a lot of these people.
But among this group there were some who would not have considered Oakhurst, just as they wouldn’t consider Grant Park or Edgewood, due to the school situation. That changed, and more people moved here than otherwise would have.
I guess I just don’t understand the insistence by some people that the increased school enrollments were either 0% or %100 due to reconfiguration. Can we agree that it was somewhere in the middle? A little of this and a little of that?
You are absolutely correct that it is not all or nothing. Some people doubtlessly came to Oakhurst for the reasons you cite. I am really happy things have worked well for you. Oakhurst was already doing great before the reconfiguration, providing the greatest increase in test scores for its students of any elementary school here. What I dispute, is the notion that the school age population was going to decline before the change and it is due to the change that that trend reversed. During the debate in 2003, extensive evidence was shown of a bulge of infants and preschool age kids who already lived in Decatur. This extant group of folks was here before the reconfiguration and account for the bulk of our increased enrollment now.
As to any election being a referendum on what the school board did in 2003, I am not sure. First, few folks vote. Second, we are getting to the point, a the Biblical promised land, that fewer and fewer people experienced Decatur’s K-5 schools. The board has “outlived” its opponents, for good or ill. They won and I do not expect them to re-visit the issue meaningfully.
The good question is where to go now. The issue I want to see addressed relates to traffic, regardless of the configuration. While people drove before the reconfiguration, I do take issue that the traffic was as bad then as it is now around Winnona or Glennwood. We have had to devise special routes around the school and other parking and driving arrangements since the reconfiguration that were not required beforehand. Whether it’s an organized drop off on Oakview at 5th Avenue or shuttles from the high school or whatever, I would just like to see some analysis of this issue.
Tom–
Regarding your contention that the school board has outlived opposition to the current elementary school configuration because relatively few people still here/still engaged actually experienced the pre-2004 K-5 configuration: you can’t have it both ways. You have consistently argued that longer grade spans are better. If that is the case, then why aren’t people clamoring for a change–they should buy into the argument on empirical grounds, regardless of their own experiences. That does not seem to be happening. Of course, there is always the possibility that you and a few others know best and the rest of us are oblivious, obtuse, obfuscatory, or all of the above. If so, it’s unfortunate because our votes count the same. (:o
As to school board elections not representing a referendum on what incumbents are doing and have done, it’s inarguable that relatively few people put on their shoes and go to the polls, especially in an off year. But it’s the system we have, one in which the opinions of people who don’t vote, don’t count. ):o
I read the last election different than others. The usual in Decatur is for there to be no opposition to incumbents who still want the position. Usually potential candidates call the incumbents and then decline to run if the former aren’t ready to leave. We are real polite in Decatur about stuff like that–after you, no after you, no after you. And if non-incumbents do run, they usually get few votes. The fact that there was any opposition at all and that a first time candidate only lost by some paltry 26 votes or so and the other challenger drew a decent number of votes despite being fairly new in town, was huge, in my opinion. I think it reflected some real concerns in the community, not the concerns of 2003 but current concerns. In my opinion, the Board woke up and started looking at some of these concerns and there’s been a greater recognition among the Board and CSD Admin that it’s important to be responsive to concerns among the parents, many of whom weren’t even in Decatur in 2003. That’s the way the electoral process is supposed to work.
I don’t use my name here because of past experiences–at other blogs and listserves and in face-to-face interactions–being personally attacked because of opinions I’ve espoused. Such attacks are easier to endure, somehow, when they are directed at my fake name. That said, I don’t take particular pains to conceal my identity, either–I’m pretty sure some people know who I am (and that others don’t particularly care). I don’t know who most posters here are (even among those who use their names); sometimes I wonder, and I have a few theories, but it also feels like good exercise to focus on what is said instead of who is saying it.
The school bus schedule in the school system does not seem to be designed well. It seems to be planned with an eye towards delivering all children to the schools in time for school breakfast, even though many of them eat breakfast at home. I guess I don’t want kids to miss breakfast, but I don’t understand why we’re paying big money for buses that are almost empty because the schedule does not accommodate most of the students in the system.
I have wondered about this too but never come up with a solution. The buses are way too early for elementary school children who should be getting 10-12 hours of sleep at the preK and K level. You can’t put them to sleep before they eat dinner! They are even early for older children. Not until middle school and high school does the pickup time get more reasonable. At the same time, a nutritional free breakfast for children who might otherwise not receive one is critical to their being able to learn (and not distract their classmates) plus legally mandated It makes sense to think about a bus schedule for transportation to the early breakfast that is separate from the bus schedule for those who can eat at home and get to school when it starts, not a half hour to 45 minutes earlier. However, this is logistically difficult because, while a good proportion of the students eligible for a free or subsidized breakfast live in certain clustered areas, not all do. Eligible children can live anywhere in Decatur, including high-priced streets, e.g. in a basement apartment in a house, with a grandparent who has owned the home for years, with parents who have lost their jobs, etc. I have known examples of all of those.
In addition, I can’t figure out how to provide busing by free lunch status in a way that doesn’t label the kids as being “free lunch bus riders”. There’s already some labelling by bus that the kids do, often innocently, without making bus assignment be about family income.
In the recent dust-up over adding a second trailer at Clairemont, there was quite a bit of north-south sniping on this blog, so I would not say the issue was put completely to rest in 2003. The 2003 reconfig did help put a stake in the heart of it by making so that, wherever you live in the CSD district, you were in an excellent elementary school district. That’s been good for the City as a whole and CSD as whole and boon for Oakhurst especially.
But it didn’t come without a cost. The northside lost one of its excellent schools, feelings are still sore over that, and this round of reconfig won’t remove that thorn. The one remaining northside K-3, Clairemont, was on property that was really too small to take the extra burden of consolidation. An already meagre playground got smaller due to reconfig contruction, smaller still with one trailer and would have vanished with a second. So hopefully, opening a second northside K-3 will help relieve some of that pressure.
Amen, if northside-southside has become a dead issue! It was never straightforward, always an overgeneralization, with all sorts of hidden political and business agendas, and always painful. In my experience, most Decaturites are crossing the tracks constantly, for friends, for church, for Renfroe, for Glennwood and DHS, for coffee, for music, for downtown shopping, for Scouts, for sports, etc.etc.etc.
you left off my favorite reason to cross.. Taco Nazis!
Our school board chair ran last fall on a platform of continuing the gentrification of Oakhurst (it was in her literature left in our mailbox). If that doesn’t show that the northside- southside issue is still alive, I don’t know what does.
I just want the chance to send my son to the new Dollar General.
Is this meeting open to the community?
I think it has to be unless there’s a legally permitted reason to make it an executive session. But I think allowing public comment at a work session is optional.
I just checked with Mr. Roaden. It is open to the public.
Where does the School Board meet? I definitely want to attend the meeting.
In the Westchester Auditorium. 758 Scott Blvd. Decatur, GA 30030
Admittedly underinformed question for this stage of the debate:
IS the option of returning Westchester to its neighborhood even remotely viable? Or has that been completely taken off the table? (Not as another k-3 but instead of glenwood?) I have a feeling I’ve missed something.
Is Glenwood just a better facility?
Is the cost of reverting back to a school too much, along with moving the offices again?
The Superintendent said recently that she was willing to begin discussions about reopening Westchester, but not as a 4/5, as a K-3.
5th Ave is the new Glenwood. That much we know.
Thanks. That is what I meant. Question was poorly worded. I meant that W would be used instead of rather than in addition to Glenwood as the K-3.
I don’t think Westchester instead of Glennwood as a K-3 was ever on anyone’s agenda although I may be mistaken. Westchester has been allowed to go downhill as an educational facility whereas Glennwood is in excellent shape with several upgrades although it’s playground is again at the wrong age level after having to replace the fairly new kiddie playground that was there in 2004. If there’s only two K-3 schools on the northside, it would have been more logical to have one on the westside (Westchester) and one on the eastside (Glennwood); Clairemont smack dab in the middle ruins the symmetry. However, it’s several million dollars of financial investment and several years of emotional investment in Clairemont too late for doing anything about that.
Did someone say Westchester?
Yawn.
To those hoping to be heard re new K-3 attendance zones: get ready to act fast. I’ve pasted below an excerpt from the superintendent’s report for the board work-session and meeting set for Tues, Oct 12. It appears CSD will move quickly to release options for attendance zones, host community forums, and secure a final board decision in November.
From the superintendent’s report:
After hearing from the Board, we will plan two information sessions and public comment opportunities prior to asking for the Board to vote on the attendance zones for the upcoming school year. I am also hopeful that we can ask the Board to vote in November so that the parents will have more than six months before school begins to know where their K-3 child(ren) will be attending school in 2011.
Dang Don. You’re faster than me! Thanks.
This is inline with what Mr. Roaden told me a couple weeks back, though I believed he said “November or December”.
I can’t imagine this process being nearly as contentious as 2003. Why? Because this now HAS to happen. There’s no, huge, fundamental shift from K-5 to K-3, along with all the other underlying issues. If any of those other underlying issues are still hanging around, they’ll have to fight their own battle without the assistance of the general concern about change.
I agree with you, DM, and appreciate Dr. Edwards’s expressed desire to resolve this sooner rather than later. Lingering uncertainty breeds anxiety (and its effects). That said, the timetable also must allow folks a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The month-long span between board meetings doesn’t strike me as unreasonable per se. I would imagine CSD already is working to set up and publish notice of the community forums. They just need a go-ahead from the Board.
I’ll hope for the best, and look forward to seeing (?) proposed attendance zones next Tuesday.