Superintendent Recommends K-3 Redistricting Map #9
Decatur Metro | December 3, 2010Paul sends along a note from Superintendent Phyllis Edwards that was sent home with parents of second graders yesterday, announcing that she was recommending to the Decatur School Board that they approve the newly created K-3 redistricting Map #9.
(The primary purpose of the note is to inform families with only one child in CSD who is currently in second grade, that the child may be able to stay at their current school for 3rd grade, even if their house has is redistricted. Parents must elect to do this, but even then it isn’t guaranteed.)
Anyway, back to Map 9. According to Assistant Superintendent Thomas Van Soelen, Map 9 was created in an effort to “keep neighborhoods whole as much as possible”, and because of that AND the fact that non-white and reduced/free lunch comps are better-weighted than in many of the other eight maps, reaction to this map has thus far been generally positive.
However, there has been some recently voiced discontent from Willow Lane residents about being rezoned from Clairemont to Glennwood due to its distance from the neighborhood (.6 miles vs. 1.2 miles).
The Decatur School Board is set to vote on the redistricting at its December 14th meeting.
This has been discussed a lot in response to your Nov. 29th post, but in brief: Moving the Willow/Eastland/Pensdale kids to Glennwood means we’d have to go right past our current school to get to a new one in another neighborhood, twice as far away. We’d be taken out of a school that’s just two streets away, and be sent to a new one on the other side of the park, in a neighborhood from which we’re otherwise entirely disconnected. Clairemont is our closest and most contiguous school.
And the move seems to be unnecessary: Based on the numbers listed on Map 9, all of the Willow/Eastland/Pensdale kids could stay at Clairemont without needing an additional classroom. There’s enough space in each grade to accommodate.
The way this was done is pretty disappointing, too. The only other map that proposed moving this neighborhood was Map 2, which was rejected early on. Then Map 9 resurrects the move, with no option for public comment. Nola summarized it best in a comment to the earlier post:
“Map 9 changes the boundaries of Clairemont in a significant manner that only occurred on Map 2, which was eliminated early on in the process. Maps 1-8 have been hanging on the walls of our schools for a couple of months. Maps 1-8 have been discussed at two public meetings and listening sessions and there have been several school board meetings during this time as well. Maps 4 and 8 and were recommended by Dr. Edwards a few weeks ago as the most viable alternatives. Map 9 was introduced this past Monday. Yesterday Dr. Edwards recommended Map 9 for adoption. Map 9 has not been hung in any of our schools and CSD told the schools it does not plan to produce large copies of Map 9 for the schools. There are no scheduled opportunities for public comment on Map 9 prior to the vote at the Dec. 14th board meeting. Does anyone else see a problem here?”
Finally, we have several second graders in the neighborhood. Not allowing them to even apply to stay at Clairemont just because they have a younger sibling seems doubly harsh. We could be content for our rising kindergartner to start fresh at Glennwood if his big brother could stay at Clairemont for third grade (most of his friends wouldn’t be moving). If the numbers allow (and as noted above, it seems like they do), then why not at least give parents that option?
A lot of sour grapes to vent, I know, but again – very disappointing.
Plenty of kids who are going to Oakhurst and Winona don’t live in those neighborhoods and live closer to other schools. At some point, the administration has to stop redrawing boundaries for everyone who doesn’t like where their zone sends them. If they move the boundaries for your streets, then the next group who wants to have their street rezoned would have to be accommodated and I bet they feel their arguments are just as valid.
I don’t doubt that this is a very difficult process with a lot of variables to juggle. But looking at the map, I don’t see any other area where kids would have to go right past their current school to get to new one, twice as far away. If I am missing someone in that boat, let me know, but I don’t think it makes sense for anyone, Willow/Pensdale/Eastland or otherwise.
The whole redistricting twice in 5 years doesn’t make sense to me but I am trying to be accepting!
This just in: a new listening session has been added for this week.
Great! This is exactly what should happen. Now folks who are concerned have to speak up. And be aware that every change may have an unintended consequence so think carefully about what you want and strategize with the rest of the Clairemont community. You don’t want to pit parents vs parents, e.g. those who want to stay at Clairemont instead of Glennwood vs those who were staying at Clairemont no matter what but are concerned about how big enrollment gets.
At some point people will look at the body of work of the CSD over the last 10 years and realize that they operate as a short-sighted oligarchy.
Your description of an oligarchy–rule by the same few families or “elite” groups–is a good one. But take into account that most government entities operate like benevolent dictators. So CSD is no different and it certainly avoids open cheating and corruption which is evidently hard for other school systems to forego. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t push CSD to provide as much responsiveness to, and communication with, citizens as possible. The natural tension between the bureaucratic, defensive, non-forthcoming, but usually benevolent and population-oriented nature of government agencies vs the openness and choice of Jeffersonian participatory democracy is a good one. A term I don’t hear enough anymore coming from politicans and government is “service”. Government should exist to serve its people. I think many in City of Decatur and CSD are truly service-oriented, especially a lot of the front-line folks. Unfortunately, there’s a few who are more concerned with protecting their turf, points of view, and/or friends. But one finds that anywhere–work, church, social groups, schools, neighborhoods. It’s the job of the rank and file, in this case, the citizens, to keep shining a light on government actions and decisions. Everyone behaves a little bit better out in public, in the light of day.
Amen…. it’s time for folks to vote. … and not just because of the redistricting. Sorry, but the whole place is a hot mess.
Everyone cannot be pleased, but I think that CSD is trying really hard to be responsive and thoughtful during this process. Let’s look at the big picture…in 4th grade they will all be together. Lots of OTP kids ride hours to attend huge schools where they are lost in the crowd. What makes our schools great is our community. Don’t lose sight of that.
CSD doesn’t even have to ask for your opinions??
Are those question marks or mistyped exclamation points?
An oligarchy does not present the community with 9 options. We are fortunate and CSD is the reason many of us live here. If the worst consequence of the best map is to have a very small # of kids travel 1.2 miles to school, then we should again consider ourselves fortunate. Come on, 1.2 miles!
+1
The redistricting process has been very open to community input, and the reasons behind favoring certain options have been clearly spelled out. The additional redistricting options were added in order to address concerns residents had with earlier options.
If these kids were in the habit of traveling those .6 miles in a car, then I would agree that 1.2 miles is no big deal. However, there are 12 kids in this neighborhood who walk every single day to school. .6 miles is a little far for the kindergarteners, and I think 1.2 miles would be out of the question on a daily basis.
Queen B, I have had two kindergarteners at Oakhurst and we have walked 1.1 miles to school every day that the weather is decent with no problem at all. Trust me, they have enough energy to make the trip and then some. We were redistricted from Winnona to Oakhurst several years ago, and I was nervous about the seemingly long walk… but it was no big deal. It took us 20 to 25 minutes. I think the 1.2 miles is totally doable. They also had to walk along College Avenue a good part of the way – no easy task. Also, we were only .6 miles from Winnona during all of this so it was a little irritating, but we made it work fine.
Granted, now we will be back at Winnona so we will be back to the .6 mile walk. However, we will now have to cross Candler. So long as they have a crossing guard, I’m not worried about that.
I know it’s not ideal and not the very best scenario, but I really don’t think it’s something to get too worked up about. We lived it, and it worked out fine.
You must be a neighbor of mine, then. We’re a little bummed to now have to cross Candler, as we’re being moved from Oakhurst to Winnona. But, as stated previously, being moved from Great School A to Great School B is quite a nice position to be in.
I was replying to the charge that CSD is an oligarchy, and agreeing with Sug that the redistricting process hasn’t looked oligarchic. I’m not saying that the families moved from Clairemont to Glennwood in the latest redistricting don’t have a legitimate concern, or that on balance 9 is the best map (compared to 4 and 8). To know that, we’d have to know what problems that shift was supposed to solve. Glancing at the maps, the numbers between Clairemont and Glennwood are as follows:
Map #: Cl / Gl
4: 321 / 210
8: 318 / 210
9: 278 / 229
Perhaps the thought–just a guess, though–is that #9’s boundaries are better over the long-run to prevent overcrowding and the need for trailers at Clairemont, while using the capacity at Glennwood. We don’t want to mess around redrawing district lines every year to keep numbers OK. And, IIRC, one big drawback to #4 was that it required a trailer at Clairemont, and while #8 supposedly did away with that, I (for one) was pretty dubious about whether we could really be confident of that projection, especially past the 2011-12 school year, given that there was only a 3-student student difference in the projected enrollment.
I agree that your suggested reasoning for Map 9 is probably accurate. In this redistricting discussion (and in the location of pre-k classrooms debate), Clairemont parents have often voiced concerns about potential overcrowding of their facility, which I think I’ve heard has smaller classrooms than some of the other school facilities. They have also stated that trailers shouldn’t be used there because they take up too much of the relatively small playground area. Both are valid concerns. Map 9 seems to keep diversity fairly balanced among the schools while also trying to address these overcrowding concerns.
I know it’s been said there are just 14 students on these streets. But, if 3 students were enough to tip the balance on needing an entire extra classroom in map 4 vs. map 8, then these 14 students (probably 3 or 4 per grade level?) certainly have the potential to tip the balance on requiring a few extra classrooms down the road.
That said, if Clairemont parents as a whole are willing to take the trade-off of slightly higher enrollment (and thus a higher chance of trailers between now and the potential Westchester opening) in order to keep the historical school boundaries, I personally see no problem with it. I’m all for students going to their closest and easiest to get to school whenever possible.
For the administration’s sake, though, I hope the trade-off is remembered if it does come to pass that Clairemont needs trailers again sooner rather than later. I don’t envy their job!
When my son was 4 and my daughter 5 they were both able to easily hike up and down the trail to the top of Stone Mountain. It’s more than a mile each way over occassionally steep terrain. So I just can’t believe that a 6 or 7 year old can’t walk 1.2 miles through these neighborhoods. Kids often have a lot more ability than many adults give them credit for.
It’s not just a question of distance but of time. The shorter the legs, the longer it takes to walk and many two-career families and/or those with multiple children have tight schedules in the morning and doubling the walk/biking time may halve the chances of regularly using human-powered transportation instead of a car. Having said that, it seems to me that the most compelling argument for keeping Willow/Eastland/Pensdale to Clairemont isn’t absolute distance but the fact that no other neighborhood in Decatur has to travel PAST their closest open school to get to their assigned school. (Well, it’s not exactly PAST as I look at the map but pretty darn close). But as I’ve posted before, key questions are why CSD decided to propose putting this neighborhood in the Glennwood zone and what impact it would have to keep it in the Clairemont zone. If it doesn’t make too big a difference in terms of enrollments, class sizes, or diversity, why not keep that neighborhood in its long-standing zone? As far as I know, it was never anywhere else, like Westchester or Glennwood. But if modifying Map 9 to keep the neighborhood at Clairemont has negative impacts on other students, then it’s a different story.
Point taken. If the number of kids is only 14 or so, I wonder why they can’t just keep them where they are. That neighborhood is small and isn’t going to get much bigger, especially because major parts of it lie outside city limits. Good luck to all the kids and parents in ending up where they’d like to.
Those kids and parents on Willow/Pensdale/Eastland can walk to school without crossing a major road! I thought Decatur was promoting itself as a green community. Doesn’t make sense.
As someone without kids in the schools, can someone briefly explain the purpose of all these redistricting plans over the last decade?
The original reconfiguration was intended to deal with declining enrollment in CSD, the fact that three out of four of the elementary schools on the southside had mostly African-American students, and variations across the elementary schools in quality, resources, and programs. Unfortunately, enrollment did not decline as predicted by the professionals but burgeoned as predicted by the residents who were actually having the children. So now we need another reconfiguration. But the new reconfiguration is constrained by the choices made during the last reconfiguration.
But when in life is there ever an instance where your choices *aren’t* constrained in some way by previous choices? That’s nothing unique or specific to the reconfiguration.
Also, yes, of the three things CSD was trying to deal with in the last reconfiguration, they did botch the numbers. No argument there. But huge strides have been made towards the other two criteria (diversity and disparity of resources), and those are the ones that deal most with academic performance and social development.
That makes two out of three. It ain’t perfect, but it sure ain’t bad.
Agree that 2 out of 3 is good; that’s why we are still loyal CSD customers and volunteer and donate at every opportunity. We’ll never know how much of the improvement in schools and scores was due to the particular reconfiguration used vs the more systemic approach to the schools that could have happened with any number of configurations vs the gentrification of Decatur. So much was going on at the same time that it’s impossible to describe a direct cause and effect of any one factor. But, a good outcome is a good outcome, no matter what the reason.
Re diversity: Actually, African-American diversity has decreased across the system. Again, external factors were in play so we can’t blame the reconfiguration for that. Asian-American and Hispanic diversity has increased. Income diversity has decreased (well, that may be a temporary phenomenon, thanks to the economy, but I doubt we’ll quickly go back to having a robust blue collar community in the City of Decatur).
Agree that the enrollment predictions were the biggest problem with the last reconfiguration plan. I don’t see it to be so much a matter of “botched numbers”–the modelling by the professionals was probably scientifically sound–but a problem with not listening enough to the community. It wasn’t just parents on the northside saying that there strollers everywhere, but Oakhurst parents too. A former Board member said on record that he didn’t care how many strollers were on the street, many of the kids would end up going to private school, just like in the past. He was using his former experience with the schools rather than hearing what the current community was saying. It wasn’t the projection methods that were at fault but the assumptions fed into the model. So that’s why it’s important for each new Map to be vetted with the community. The modellers and deciders don’t know what they don’t know until they get feedback. I looked at Map 9 and thought it looked like the best possible fit, never noticing what was happening to the Willow/Pensdale/Eastland corner of the Clairemont zone. It took the residents of that neighborhood to point out that they would be the only families in Decatur that have to go past a neighborhood school to attend another elementary school before I recognized the inequity.
Given that this reconfiguration is ending up to be mostly about enrollment numbers, class sizes, and neighborhood lines, and not so much about politics, posturing, and neighborhood battles, the community should examine and discuss the relevant data and choices carefully. It should be possible to end up with a decision that doesn’t leave anyone reasonable feeling that their needs were completely disregarded.
Re diversity: Actually, African-American diversity has decreased across the system. Again, external factors were in play so we can’t blame the reconfiguration for that. Asian-American and Hispanic diversity has increased. Income diversity has decreased (well, that may be a temporary phenomenon, thanks to the economy, but I doubt we’ll quickly go back to having a robust blue collar community in the City of Decatur).
Well… with the gentrification of Decatur, the proportion of black and of poor students in the CSD overall has gone down. But when you look at the current socio-economic and racial breakdown of students at each school, things are far more diverse than they were before the last redistricting, when Oakhurst and Fifth Ave. elementaries weren’t diverse because they were almost entirely black (I moved into Oakhurst right before the new districting happened, and I remember looking over demographic and test scores for the schools around here), whereas, I would guess, many of the elementary schools on the north side of tracks were almost entirely white. This story from 2003 (which mentions Decatur partway down) is interesting on the phenomenon of “resegregation.”
Westchester and Clairemont were not even close to entirely white or middle to high income!–they were the schools for the Decatur Housing Authority homes! I can’t remember Glennwood’s proportions but it was fairly diverse too, maybe more so because it was in what was then more of a low to middle vs high income area. Not sure re Winnona Park’s demographics then. The logistical problem was that gentrification hit the northside first. Ms. Kuebler, the Westchester principal, could remember a time when Westchester was only 30% white. White families must have lived on the northside I guess they were sending their kids to private school. I have always thought that the biggest problem at the time of the last reconfiguration was the lack of equity across the schools in resources, teacher quality, and other systemic issues. Those should have been fixed way earlier, regardless of how neighborhoods were constituted and evolving.
OK, I’ll accept the correction on the Northside schools, since didn’t look at their information then.
But I do remember, when I looked at the Oakhurst and Fifth Ave. information, being really surprised at the demographics. At the time, the neighborhood was already pretty well along in its gentrification (it’s gone further since), but Oakhurst Elementary was still something like 95-97% black–obviously, a bunch of the new residents were sending their kids to private schools or moving out when their kids hit school age. I also read about serious efforts by residents (Julie Rhame was one of them, I believe) to get more people in Oakhurst to stick around and send their kids to the local public schools. I think that those efforts were starting to bear fruit, but once the number of elementary schools went down from 7 to 3, then–voila!–the demographics of Oakhurst Elementary instantly became way more diverse. I think that one of the reasons for going with the 4/5 academy and fewer elementary schools model was to solve the lack of diversity at the SW Decatur elementary schools.
As a long-term Oakhurst resident with a kid, this mirrors my recollection. After our child was born in 1999, it was a generally, perhaps reluctantly, accepted fact that we may need to explore private school at some future point if we wanted to stay in the neighborhood.
You’re correct that Julie Rhame was one of the driving forces (almost revolutionary, at the time) to take the time to ask, “Is our neighborhood school really inferior or undesirable or are a lot of newcomers perhaps drawing that conclusion subconsciously due to the fact that Oakhurst is essentially a totally black school?” What she and a handful of parents representing (if I recall correctly) eight white kids found was that the school had much going for it in some key areas — especially leadership — and that it was worth their while to take the first step: enrolling those eight white, middle class kids in an essentially black school. In doing so, they hoped to set a new precedent that would make subsequent white parents more comfortable and willing to do the same.
It was a classic, grass-roots effort to generate momentum and it’s why I’m grateful to this day to have Julie on the school board.
Their slow process of change proved unnecessary, however, because the following year was the year of the reconfiguration, radically correcting Oakhurst’s racial imbalance and eliminating any lingering or subconscious hesitation on the part of many white parents, myself included. That year, my child entered an Oakhurst Elementary that was, if I recall, roughly 50/50 in terms of black/white.
There is much discussion and debate over how many white kid strollers were toolin’ around the Oakhurst neighborhood before reconfiguration, and that the school’s racial balance would have shifted anyways, without the reconfiguration. It’s my perspective, as someone who lived through it, that those kids may have existed but it’s an unreasonable leap to assume they were destined for public schools. Ask anyone who sells real estate for a living: existence of kids does not automatically equal enrollment. Schools — or more specifically, the perception of schools — is everything.
By themselves, the efforts of Julie and the other parents may have grown over time and become increasingly successful but ultimately the reconfiguration 1) led to the subsequent enrollment of many existing neighborhood kids who would have otherwise gone elsewhere and 2) served as an inducement that rapidly accelerated the pace of gentrification in Oakhurst.
Neighborhood schools have a lot of benefits and, in theory, I consider them the optimum scenario. However, we’re coming off a point in history where we radically self-segregated along neighborhood lines which, despite desegregation, led to de facto segregated schools. The reconfiguration corrected this, without a doubt in my mind. Yes, like any wholesale change, it had its missteps and not every decision proved the wisest. But it was the right thing to do, and I’m proud of our city for getting it done.
I never had a problem with figuring out a way to attract Oakhurst residents to their neighborhood school. That seemed like a logical, necessary, and inevitable goal. According to Ms. Kuebler at Westchester, it had happened years before at Westchester as a few families started to defect from private school, pioneered using their local elementary school, and then started positive momentum in the neighborhood that, in the long run, created desirable schools that attracted young families and improved real estate values. This was all before my time but I DO remember a time when the northside had a lot less beautiful renovations and a lot more quaint bungalows, not-so-quaint brick ranches, and downright ugly asbestos siding (the latter would be mine).
I think you can laud some of the outcomes of the 2004 reconfiguration and still regret others–e.g. the enrollment projections that could have had much better assumptions if neighborhood feedback had been used, the divisiveness that resulted from northside neighborhoods pitted against one another, the perception of behind-the-scenes discussions and decisions. It seems like we are very close to having a new reconfiguration that doesn’t repeat those unfortunate process issues. There’s been extremely little blaming or overgeneralizing about neighborhoods. That’s why it’s so important to go the extra mile and vet Map 9 thoroughly and allow Willow/Pensdale/Eastland residents their fair share of feedback. I think this reconfiguration has already shown that a little bit of flexibility can go a long way to a better process.
Almost all of the Clairemont kids in the Willow/Pensdale/Eastland area do walk to school daily. If redistricted to Glennwood, none will be walking.
But why will “no one walk”?
They have good, strong kid legs, right? My kids walk and have walked 1.1 miles along a busy street for their entire existence at Oakhurst… starting at age five. They did it with no problem at all. The older ones walked on their own that distance starting in 3rd grade. It took my kindergartners about 20-25 minutes to make the walk… if I rushed it could have been shorter, but we enjoyed looking at stuff. Sometimes, if I had to be at work early or it was really cold, we’d drive about half of the way and walk the rest.
Some days, my son pretty much runs the whole distance.
My first grader and I even made the trek this morning. It was too brisk for my taste, but my kid didn’t care at all. 1.2 miles is totally doable. Stop stressing!!!! Our kids are more physically capable than we give them credit for! We adults can use the 2.5 mile walk (up and back) every day too!
If you don’t like map 9 because you just don’t want to go to GW, that’s one thing, but I’m just not buying the “my kid can’t walk a mile or so” argument.
We are moving to Winnona next year.. which is about half the distance that we walked to Oakhurst. I’m actually a little irritated about that b/c my exercise routine now has to be tweaked.
Hi Mr. Fixit,
I don’t think this is entirely a question of whether little legs can make it to school. I think it is another issue of whether all neighborhoods are afforded an equitable experience within our school system. ( To the best degree possible.)
From you posts I assume that you live somewhere behind Renfroe. Mapquest show that your child will walk approximately the following distances during their kindergarten thru 8th grade years Distances are taken from just behind Renfroe/ Aysnley area. Please remember, mapquest doesn’t give distances for some of our walking short cuts!:
K-3 ( Oakhurst) .80 miles
K-3 ( Winnona) 1.0 miles
4-5 (Fifth Ave.) 1.0 miles
6-8 (Renfroe) .20 miles
Now let’s do the same for the families living on Eastland/ Pensdale/ Willow:
K-3
How far is it from West Hill across McDonough to Winona and from Adair across the tracks to Oakhurst? Shouldn’t we do the same for those families, too? It’s all the same argument….
Darn it! I hate it when I push the tab button by mistake.
Hi Mr. Fixit,
I don’t think this is entirely a question of whether little legs can make it to school. I think it is another issue of whether all neighborhoods are afforded an equitable experience within our school system. ( To the best degree possible.)
From you posts I assume that you live somewhere behind Renfroe. Mapquest show that your child will walk approximately the following distances during their kindergarten thru 8th grade years Distances are taken from just behind Renfroe/ Aysnley area. Please remember, mapquest doesn’t give distances for some of our walking short cuts!:
K-3 ( Oakhurst) .80 miles
K-3 ( Winnona) 1.0 miles
4-5 (Fifth Ave.) 1.0 miles
6-8 (Renfroe) .20 miles
Now let’s do the same for the Pensdale/ Eastland/ Willow families:
K-3 ( Clairemont) .76 milies
K-3 ( Glenwood) 1.20 miles
4-5 (Fifth Avenue) 3.30 miles
6-8 (Renfroe ) 2.20 miles
It is Very Reasonable for the Willow, Pensdale , Eastland families to want to stay in the one school district that allows them to have an experience equitable to the one that your child and many others on the south side of Decatur will experience during their entire K-8 years.
This, combined with the fact that W/P/E is the only neighborhood being asked to walk past their old school to reach their new school are compelling reasons for allowing them to stay at Clairemont.
When is the next CSD listening session? I looked on the CSD website and cannot find the letter sent last Thursday by Dr. Edwards recommending map 9 or information about the upcoming listening session.
There is a special session on Wednesday the 8th at 5:30. See the red type on the middle right of the home page.
Scott and TOK make some very good points (although 5th Avenue had been closed for at least a couple of years by 2003). That being said, it is hurtful and, at best, unprovable and likely wrong to lay any particular developments, especially improvements by any metric, at the feet of the 2003 reconfiguration. The only reconfiguration effects that are beyond dispute are: the badly wrong student population predictions led to a configuration that could not accommodate the students (please don’t swallow the kool aide about the reconfiguration caused this supposed new influx of kids); new transitions were imposed on students that have a disproportionately bad impact on at-risk kids (at least to the extent that the studies are correct that show — as almost all do– that transitions between schools set at-risk kids back academically much more than other kids); and congestion, pollution and parental-stretch syndrome worsened as students and parents became scattered over more and more distant schools and parents could not devote as much time to each school. Beyond that, nothing has been proven and probably never will in a statistically reliable way, and for every contention made by folks who like the reconfiguration, there are plenty of equally supported contentions going the other way. The focus has to be forward and within the confines of what we have, which includes a two-grade school. With that in mind, it would seem best to fix attention on at-risk kids, transportation issues and parent involvement. We should jump at any chance to support parents such as those in the Willow/Pensdale/Eastland area who ask for adjustments that should ease congestion (and probably help parental involvement). We should press the administration to tell us what extra support it will be providing at Winnona if it will house the ESL kids. We should ask how many extra para-pros we can hire at the two-grade school to coordinate with the at-risk kids’ former teachers and administrators so that we minimize their slippage due to the extra transition. We should continue to try to figure out how Oakview and the surrounding streets, as well as the already overtaxed railroad crossings, are going to handle the increased traffic flows in the mornings as every kid in the school system heads to Fifth Avenue. Finally, we might want to keep an eye on the next horizon. If gentrification continues on its current trend, the political forces that led to the creation of the two-grade school may become moot. At that point, we may decide to have more fundamental changes in the configuration of our schools, and we should work today to keep as much flexibility as possible for those future contingencies. For example, should we try to build a good facility for our administration in downtown Decatur such as on the property where the buses park next to the Chik-fil-A, or on the Callaway Building property? That would kill two birds with one stone: give stability and respect to our administrators, and make Westchester a more readily usable resource for kids.
That’s a factor I keep forgetting about–the pressure on the CSD administration to find decent space back in 2003 when decisions were being made. I love the idea of building an appropriate facility for Central Office, complete with non-lawn parking, and freeing up a building that is better suited for community (e.g. rec center) or student use. But do the mechanisms for construction funding that we seem to easily get for additions to schools or new school buildings also cover administrative space?
Tom, once again I’ve got to completely disagree with you.
Decatur was not an option for us in 2003, because homes on the northside were outrageously expensive, and Oakhurst’s affordable homes were in an 80% reduced lunch elementary school district. No one with better options (like we had with Mary Lin Elementary in Candler Park, which had taken over a decade to turn around organically) was going to move there.
The reconfig reshuffled the deck, and upgraded Oakhurst’s desirability overnight. Coupled with the affordability of the housing, it was a bargain move. That’s why we bought a house here in 2004. The calculus was obvious, and we have many friends with similar stories and timelines.
The problem with the enrollment projections was that they were too humble in their estimation of the success of the reconfig. They attracted a lot of people into affordable Oakhurst who wouldn’t have otherwise come. Sure, there were strollers everywhere back then, but that’s the same story in East Atlanta, Grant Park, and other affordable intown neighborhoods with subpar schools. In subpar school districts, once the kids outgrow the strollers, the families move to the burbs or explore private schools. And existing families generally don’t move in. The reconfig changed all that here.
And I’d appreciate it if my personal experience is not labeled as “drinking the kool aid”. Talk about being hurtful, unprovable, and likely wrong.
Ah, but “drink the Kool-Aid” is such an easy way to discredit something without actually having to go to the trouble of doing so!
TeeRuss, allow us to raise our glasses of Kool-Aid together in support of our shared experiences. I was in Oakhurst long before the reconfiguration and witnessed the arrival of quite a few of the “limited options” folks you refer to (that’s our story, too). We knew them as we all had kids and, with notable exceptions here and there, we heard them fret over what they’d have to do once their kids hit school age. Many said move, some said private. It wasn’t until Julie Rhame and a small collection of other families emerged that the possibility of attending Oakhurst Elementary was ever explored in a meaningful way.
The organic changes they launched, I’m sure, would have grown over time but it would have been slow. When the reconfig happened a year later, the tenor of the real estate market changed immediately. Where once folks of limited options came here in spite of the school, now people were coming here because of the school, which expanded the homebuyer pool considerably.
Tom, I know you disagree but I watched it with my own eyes. I won’t be so bold as to call it a fact but it’s clear as day as far as I’m concerned.
TeeRuss, a toast: L’chayim!
I helped with the buildout of the Phoenix School in the heart of Oakhurst in the early 1990s. I served as its president and worked to build scholarships for neighborhood kids and to attract more active young families to the neighborhood. I read to 1st graders in kindergarten at Oakhurst and coached kids from all over Decatur in soccer and basketball. I could not be more ecstatic with the continuing growth of great, committed parents and their wonderful kids in Oakhurst.
Your note brings up an interesting point. Did the reconfiguration bring new kids, or just shuffle them around Decatur? It certainly made the area behind Westchester — a previous prime spot for families with kids — less attractive. Parents paid dearly to be nestled right behind a school where their kids could walk through the woods to class for six years. Their school was booming and well integrated, but was closed by fiat. I don’t think I know of anyone with young children moving there now. Conversely, the same government act made it relatively easier for folks in Oakhurst to walk to school from Oakhurst, so more families with kids look there. Net gain or just shuffling? I don’t know, but I do know that real estate agents saw that kind of shift.
The term “drink the kool aide” is used when someone’s statement speaks more about what they want to believe, than the hard data to support their contention. Your experience is not what I was talking about. I am certain you see more folks around Oakhurst with buggies and school aged kids today than five years ago. What I was talking about is making policy based pronouncements on skimpy anecdotal data, such as “the reconfiguration led to more students coming to Decatur,” is not very carefully premised. The fact that more folks with buggies are running around Oakhurst could be due to many factors, absolutely including the (perceived increased) strength of Oakhurst. But other huge factors include the general trend of moving inside the beltway and the specific trend of Oakhurst’s gentrification that was well underway before the two-grade school came into existence. As I said above, it also includes folks who might have located behind Westchester, but chose Oakhurst to be closer to their school. That’s a lot of currents in the river and untangling their effect seems a bit bold in the absence of clear data.
Finally, as to being “hurtful,” imagine if they decided to close Oakhurst now. After all of the work and investment of energy of so many parents, teachers and kids, it would hard. Westchester was just as vibrant and as integral a part of its neighborhood. Before folks stand and crow about the wonders of the reconfiguration, I’d be more careful about the data to support the claims and more respectful of those who lost much. No doubt there were benefits. They came at a cost, though. Just be a little respectful of those who bore the costs and everyone can celebrate the wonders that you are building every day with your kids in the schools. We can also find common ground on ways to make the system even better for those that come next.
Hey, I represent that remark as a member of a relatively new young family in that neighborhood! And as we’re all sharing personal experiences, I’d like to throw in that there are quite a few young fams here. I’m probably on a first-name basis with about a dozen of ‘em. I always thought that the main reason there were more young families in Oakhurst than up here, is because almost all the houses are built out up here – thanks to forward thinking builders from the late ’30s who put in those huge, expandable attics – and lots of ‘em go on the market starting at $500,000.
I recall looking at the schools when we bought here, and thought it sorta weird that my hypothetical kid would go to Oakhurst. But only because it seemed sorta far away. Once I saw that it performed on par or better than the other K-3s, I was perfectly satisfied. Would I have been more satisfied with Westchester as my elementary school? Eh…perhaps. I admit that I didn’t experience all the solid and deep relationships that seem to have developed at Westchester before it was broken up, but at first glance – that’s what we’re talking about here right? – Westchester kinda stinks because it’s on Scott Boulevard. I know Karass says it’s not bad walking down Scott, but I do it frequently and I don’t enjoy it. So for me, Westchester is nearly as inaccessible as Oakhurst.
Beyond all that, I think you have a valid point about people recognizing what was lost for what was gained. Unfortunately most conversations about this topic don’t get to this point. They usually orbit in the “personal experiences” realm and how Oakhurst was a booming toddler-town before the reconfig or how great life was post-reconfig and how people were pulling “For Sale” signs outta lawns to get their kids into the school.
That’s why we all get a vote.
Nicely put. Stay warm.
Re: “….imagine if they decided to close Oakhurst now. After all of the work and investment of energy of so many parents, teachers and kids, it would (be) hard. Westchester was just as vibrant and as integral a part of its neighborhood.”:
Thank you for saying that, especially as someone from another neighborhood. Westchester was truly vibrant, so much so that many of us were naive and sure that rational people could work out a solution that would achieve CSD’s goals for the southside without destroying what was working so well (and not just for Westchester-area families, but also for Gateway Homes families, some of whom came to meetings about the closing of Westchester and signed the petition to keep it open.) That’s why I think it’s worth the extra time to tweak this reconfiguration plan and/or the accomodations to it (e.g. what happens to third graders). Evidently the tweakings of the options have made those Oakhurst families assigned to Winnona Park satisfied, if not ecstatic, if the postings on this blog are representative. Now, let’s see if that can be done for Willow/Eastland/Pensdale or any other area that has big concerns, without negatively impacting another area.
?
Let’s make one thing clear: the ESOL kids are all at Winnona Park now. That will not be a “new” thing for WP.
I may be wrong, but if I’m not mistaken the ESOL kids are spread across each of the three K-3 schools. The school that they attend is determined by their needs though, not where they live.
No ESOL kids are definetely all at Winnona Park right now – I believe Mr Wiseman confirmed that recently.
All K-3 students in Decatur that qualify for ESOL services attend Winnona Park regardless of where in the city they live. This has been the case for the last 4-5 years.
Greg Wiseman
Principal, Winnona Park
I suspect there may be some acronym confusion here, so I’ll throw this out in case it helps: ESOL stands for something like English for Speakers of Other Languages, which could easily be confused with ESS (Exceptional Student Services). ESOL is all at Winnona Park, while ESS is at each of the K-3 schools.
Correction: there will not be a listening session this week prior to next week’s vote.
Huh? CSD’s site still lists a Board “special session” this Weds, 12/8, at 5:30 p.m. Does the (unspecified) agenda not include Map #9?
Just confirmed with Bruce Roaden: the Board’s special session tomorrow night,12/8, will address plans for the City’s and CSD’s joint maintenance facility.
I’m not sure how/why news circulated before now that the special session was intended to address Map #9. Other avenues remain for voicing opinions, however: (1) click Map #9 at CSD’s site and submit comments as indicated; and (2) use the public-comment period at the regular board meeting next Tues, 12/14, which will precede any vote re attendance zones.
That’s a real shame. This fee’s like a game of musical chairs and Willow/Pensdale/Eastland are the ones who didn’t find a chair before the music stopped. I’m real sorry.
Oops! So many typos, so little time for editing…..