CSD Advisory Committee Projects Future Enrollment Increases, Makes Recommendations to Board
Decatur Metro | | 9:08 amBack in late 2011, Decatur Superintendent Phyllis Edwards commissioned four committees to tackle some of the school system’s most pressing issues: Enrollment, Engagement, Transportation and Start/End times. Each committee is made up of both CSD staff and members of the community. (Disclosure: I’m currently serving on the engagement committee)
Last night, two of the committees, Enrollment and Engagement, presented to the School Board. The Enrollment committee’s findings – presented by Asst. Superintendent Thomas Van Soelen were extensive and, I’m guessing, will be quite interesting to many of you.
First off, Mr. Van Soelen’s entire presentation, which is full of information, is available to everyone HERE. I’ll try to hit most of the high-points.
First off, you’ll probably be interested in this historical enrollment graph above which shows you the extent of CSD’s highs and lows over the last 50 years. It shows quite clearly that the 12% jump this past year was indeed unprecedented as well the significant enrollment declines during the 1970s.
Among the other most interesting findings by the committee:
- Pre-K zoning is a good indicator to determine kindergarten enrollment levels at the K-3 schools
- All under-construction multi-home developments in the city of Decatur are currently in Winnona Park
- The City has requested birth-rate data at the Census block-level from the Dept. of Public Health
- According to City of Decatur realtors, Oakhurst is only 33% through it’s new resident “transition”
The committee’s projections, based on a “one-year cohort ratio” (which uses only last year’s enrollment growth to predict future years, instead of the previous “two-year cohort ratio”) shows the school system’s enrollment growing from 3,246 students this year, to 3,630 students next year with 4,599 students possible by the 2015-16 school year. (As Mr. Van Soelen noted during his presentation, the farther out you get, the fuzzier the estimates)
The committee was also tasked to provide the School Board with non-binding recommendations. The most timely was the recommendation not to rezone or open up additional buildings in the coming 2012-13 school year. The committee believed that the current approach of rezoning students between K-3s who cannot be managed by their zoned enrollments, along with keeping trailers at Oakhurst and Winnona Park, and holding off until July to determine space for tuition students would be enough to manage next year’s enrollment levels.
However, the committee also provided recommendations to account for continued growth in future years. All included reopening Westchester Elementary either as a standard K-3 with a small enrollment zone or as a preschool to grade 3 with a small enrollment zone. Two of the four scenarios also suggested opening Westchester as a “controlled choice” school, which could alleviate transportation at that school. Some scenarios also included turning part of College Heights into a K-3, since the committee verified the lopsided growth is concentrated on the southside of the city. The recommendations also included building additions to Oakhurst and Fifth Avenue to accommodate enrollment growth.
After Mr. Van Soelen’s presentation, Board members spoke about how grateful they were for all the hard work the committee had done and the obvious value of all the uncovered information. Many board members held their questions for a later date, but it was obvious that many were quite interested to ask many follow-ups. Board member Valarie Wilson did note that due to the many budgetary challenges CSD is facing, any future building and/or construction projects would likely be difficult to pull off, and Chair Marc Wisniewski suggested that over-building the school system’s infrastructure was just as great a challenge as providing too little space. Mr. Van Soelen likened it to building a church to accommodate the Christmas and Easter crowds.
If you’re disappointed that you missed this particular treasure-trove of CSD data, don’t fret. This certainly isn’t the last time you’ll hear about enrollment issues in the coming months and years. The committee also recommended multiple ways to engage the community on a regular basis to deal with and discuss enrollment issues.
Great article. Are there any indications that the volatility will even out in the future?
In that regard, I think the whole “Oakhurst is only 33% transitioned” thing is the most worrisome. That would potentially indicate that these 12% jumps in enrollment will be a common theme for years to come.
DM, without reading further into the details, do you have insight into what the “only 33% transitioned” statement means and how it was determined? I don’t doubt that folks will continue to find their way to Oakhurst (and that as a 9 year resident I am becoming a bit of an old-timer– ha!), but I am scratching my head a bit at the meaning of the statement and assumptions that appear to have come out of it.
I think the statement is a PC way of saying that the gentrification process in Oakhurst in only one-third complete. As the process nears completion, they committee expect more families to move in and the enrollment to continue to grow. Since “realtors” are cited as the source, I assume that the figure was based on a mixture of data and informed opinion.
Yeah, I guess that’s what I’m wondering about– are they implying that 66% of the folks currently living in Oakhurst will be “gentrified” out of the neighborhood? Like I said, I don’t dispute that lots of new folks are moving in; I’m just curious (frightened?) about what “they” would view as “100% gentrified.”
Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t really see any other explanation for the transition comment. They may not expect 100%, but they certainly expect a very different demographic in the years to come.
I don’t think that 66% of OAK residents will be gentrificated (yeah, I know) out of the area. Despite people’s concerns, there aren’t many empty lots still available, and only a set amount of remaining houses in a builders tear-down acquisition range (<$250K). The people with good condition or renovated, smaller 3/2s are here for the long haul.
Most builders/investors have a pretty good handle on how many of these properties are still around.
That is until the second level gentrification hits and $349K for a teardown is OK…
“All under-construction home building in the city of Decatur is currently in Winnona Park”
This isn’t correct. The Brownstones at Decatur are still under construction and there are definitely families with school-age kids moving in.
Sorry, forgot to add that the Brownstones are in the Clairemont Elementary area.
The idea that all new construction is in one neighborhood seems a little misleading to me anyway. Clearly in Oakhurst there are several houses which have been torn down and are being rebuilt, or are going through heavy renovations. Even assuming that these were once occupied by families and will be again, it’s obvious that some of these are going from two- or three-bedroom units to 5+ bedrooms. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the family size will be increasing, but I’d be curious about the stats.
Also, what about the tax basis for these properties? Enrollment will be a huge challenge, but there should be the silver lining of increased tax revenues to fund the school construction that seems all but inevitable in the future.
Decatur loses money on families. If I recall correctly, generally speaking, every home with 1 or more kids attending CSD is a net loss, tax-wise, meaning they take more out in services than they pay for. Not saying they don’t contribute in myriad other ways. Just speaking in terms of hard dollars.
It depends on the value of the home. But I think there are very few homes in Decatur worth enough to produce enough CSD property tax to cover 2 students.
I think this is the math:
Average cost per student = $12,000
Portion coming from property taxes (61%) = 7,300
Required Property Value to cover 1 student (without homestead exemptions)
$7,300 / .0209 (CSD millage rate) = 349,282 TIMES 2 (50% assessed value) = $698,564
So, I think that means if you’re house is assessed at over $700k you’re paying enough for 1 student.
Regarding whether we parents are just revenue negative sidewalk cloggers*, can we at least theoretically get credit for living here for several years before and after using our school system? I went from being a long time Decatur taxpayer w/o kids, to taxpayer with school aged spawn, and hope to go back to being a happy positive revenue source for years to come. Have changed houses along the way and pay more taxes now. I realize that not everyone will spend time paying taxes here before and after clogging the sidewalks but I think a lot of us will. I hope so.
*And oh, I’m forming a dance troupe — The Sidewalk Cloggers. We will greet everyone happily as we go down the street and throw wooden shoes at anyone who doesn’t at least smile back. Dig it.
Reopen Westchester! Nuff said.
+1. Convert Westchester back into a school and have the CSD lease (probably inexpensive) readily available office space/building in downtown Decatur.
+!
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the explosion in the k-3 age group as well as younger in Oakhurst and surrounding areas
I am curious about the drops in enrollment in the late 90’s. I wonder if this was due to people pulling their kids after 5th grade to go to private school. I just don’t remember significant drops in enrollment in the elementary schools at that time, and would love to see the numbers by school.
yep, the pull-out in the 90’s was an issue. Oakhurst Elementary was primarily Black and the old 5th avenue as well. Almost 99%. Yep, it was the middle school where our children first “mixed” We never heard any hard data, but know that many kids just “disappeared” after 5th and reappeared for high school. The classes at high school always get more segregated and violla, the problem was resolved. Just another one of our “little secrets” we don’t like to talk about in the city to liberal for such things.
“All under-construction home building in the city of Decatur is currently in Winnona Park”
What? This makes zero sense. There are 8 houses under construction within a two block radius of my house in Oakhurst.
Maybe it was just new multi-home developments?
I am concerned to see a statement like that without clear context. Oakhurst elementary zoning has never made sense- at least since the consolidation if not before- and the last thing we need is yet another school zone problem. Space planning is not this administration’s strong point.
Good job blaming the administration right off the bat, without anything other than the summary delivered by DM.
If you look at the actual powerpoint, you’ll see on slide 9 that the information was depicting new multi-home developments:
Lenore Street Development – 9 houses
S. Candler Development – 9 houses
Midway Road Development – 26 houses
Nowhere in the actual presentation does it say that all new construction is occurring in Winnona Park.
Oh, and the report was put together by a committee of parents and CSD employees, not the administration.
what is the midway Road development? Who is doing that and what will they be building?
Blake
Long story. Take a drive down Midway, look for the moon-scaping. It’s been that way for about a couple of years. When will the 26 homes appear? Only the real estate gods know.
TeeRuss, we all know you moved here a few years ago from [edited] for the schools and you love the schools and the administration can do no wrong, blah, blah. But some of us don’t feel the same way and that is fine. No need to run around and try to put people on the defensive all the time. This administration often makes costly errors in term of space planning. Period. They are doing a fine job in terms of educational content and results and I do believe there is an excellent group people running the show, but they need to get their act together in terms of operations. It’s not blame; I merely pointing out that I don’t think that point is clear and it is an important fact to verify given CSD’s track record in this area. I think running a sound administration is extremely important and goes hand in glove with the educational outcomes – the money wasted on facilities errors is money out of the classrooms. You have stated the educational outcomes are more important to you. Your opinion; I disagree but I am not going to get all hostile on you.
I’m not sure what my background has to do with the fact that you blamed the administration for an error that was not theirs.
I’d go into detail about my actual views of the administration, rather than allow your imagination to define them, but it’s not worth anyone’s time.
nelliebelle1197,
“Space planning is not the administrations strong point.” Case in point:
Recommendation 2B: Begin addition to FAVE to accommodate system wide growth.
Fifth Avenue opened this year, August of 2011. After six months of use we are told the facility is too small and needs to be enlarged; how much money will this cost? During the architectural planning phase of Fifth Avenue many people expressed their concerns about the size of the proposed building and site chosen for the Academy. At that time Individuals clearly stated that FAVE would be at capacity this year or next.
The source of this statement is slide 9. I think the statement is incorrect, and should be adjusted to “multi-home developments”, rather just new construction.
Noted and changed. The statement about “only in Winnona Park” was made by the Asst. Superintendent, but he certainly may have classified it as “multi-home”.
I actually emailed him and he wrote back saying “single-family garage homes.” (He wrote more than that and was very nice, but that’st the gist of it.) He didn’t mention multi-home developments but I assumed that’s what he meant.
The distinction may be between those new homes and/or neighborhoods being constructed by a builder/developer vs. tear-downs and/or major renovations/additions by the individual homeowner (which may be deemed a wash in terms of number of people for the purposes of the report).
And we have made at least 6 tear downs and rebuilds in Melrose-Drexel-Lansdowne in past 9 months. Most of those were vacant rentals, but now they are occupied by young families.
New construction, I believe, refers to new developments where there were none previously. Whether is be condos, mini housing developments, etc.
Now that I see the enrollment data displayed so nicely, I don’t understand why we were told that enrollment was declining at the time of the 2004 reconfiguration. It had already stabilized.
Really interesting information, and I’m very happy to see CSD trying to have some forethought about these issues. I looked over the ppt slides, and the following census information popped out at me from slide ten:
SW quadrant of city:
% change 2000-2010, overall population: 8.65%
% change 2000-2010, under 5 YO: 83.13%
NE quadrant of city:
% change 2000-2010, overall population: 14.03%
% change 2000-2010, 5-9 YO: 117.58%
I knew Oakhurst had become stroller central recently, but da-yum. There is going to be a humungous cohort moving into Oakhurst elementary…
Regarding traffic for Westchester, I never considered it a problem with the help of school buses in the 14 years my three children were there. Of course, Scott International Speedway made it impossible for them to walk to or rom school!
Some of us actually did walk the Speedway! (Carefully and only by using designated crosswalks! I still would love to see a walking bridge over Scott connecting the school’s sidewalk with the sidewalk at Westchester Apts.)
Perhaps there are other alternatives. How big is the culvert for the creek under Scott?
For boating? I love it! Walk, roll, and row!
Indeedy. That idea is part of my much-mentioned (by me) Peavine Creek master plan.
With all the various construction these days, I wonder, if you just went ahead and implemented your plan, would anyone notice?
Remember MrFixIt’s treehouse? Oh yes, the city would notice.
I understand why Tee Russ gets heated up. He has explained it on here for years, and he does have valid points. He is quite used to every little CSD decision being met with a knee-jerk blame Phyllis Edwards for 9/11 reaction from some folks (who, by the way, also have valid points), and he is happy with the schools for the most part. Some of us are less happy, some of us are in the middle, etc. I just think we all need to be able to talk about this issue without putting each other on the defensive.
This was a reply to a comment that has disappeared. Nevermind.
I guess DM is trying out a new strategy for editing comments. He deleted one of his own posts in its entirety earlier.
I’m very tough on myself.
Or maybe you just don’t like what you say.
City of Atlanta is dealing with its own enrollment/redistricting issues right now, and one comment I have heard is that many families that would have put their kids in private schools no longer have the financial means to do so. Wonder if anything like that is in play here.
I moved from the suburbs to here because of the commute and the schools. I had considered some close in suburbs (smyrna/vinings) and did the cost analysis for private schools vs taxes/cost of homes here and this area came out ahead. I am feeling pinched because of the economy and was another factor of why I moved here so I could save money by not sending my kids to private schools
I am very happy to see CSD organizing these committees. A win-win for both CSD and the community. And it seems that some of these committees will continue or reconvene on an ongoing basis.
This enrollment picture means some real challenges and important, hard decisions ahead. Stay tuned.
Oh, and welcome to the Board, Mr Goebel.
Yes, welcome Garrett and re-welcome Julie! Some hard times, hard questions, hard decisions, hard work ahead. Thank you for taking on the job, listening to your constituents, and communicating with all!
Thank you. I appreciate that the enrollments committee has looked at the data in new ways. And found new data (live birth data by census block). Understanding the distribution of children by age, location and how that changes over time will help with long term facility and capacity planning decisions. I also appreciate the collaborative nature of the work which was done. Good work
Live birth data by census block should be a lot more useful than hospital birth data. I wonder why the consultants who projected enrollment in the past never used those data. The birth data didn’t used to be available? The consultants didn’t know about it? I’d like to see the temporal trend in live births for Decatur’s census blocks in the late 1980s and early 1990s and see whether it correlates roughly with the spike and then decline in enrollment later in the 1990s.
Of course, the stability of Decatur’s residential population will affect the value of those data in predicting future enrollment. And families whose children are all younger than school age tend to be more mobile that families enrolled in elementary school or above. It would be useful to see whether the temporal trend in birth data correlates well with kindergarten enrollment 5 years later, both retrospectively and prospectively.
I appreciate all the effort to think through enrollment patterns and share the information. I wonder if the K-5 idea came up at all. I also see a focus on impacts at the K-3 level but I’d like to make sure the higher grease implications are understood. Yes expand Fifth Avenue was recommended but I’d like to see the numbers on how long an expansion would work. Would we be expanding to accommodate only a couple more years and in the end still have to come up with a new plan. Seems unwise to invest in construction that helps out for only a couple of years. And if we have to have 2 4/5, shouldn’t the k-5 model be back on the table? Or if we eliminate the idea of 2 4/5 do we end up with a 4/5 that is larger than anyone wants? We just added Glennwood back as a K-3, adding Westchester as a K-3 is clearly on the table. As we add all this K-3 capacity we need to make sure we understand the implications 4th grade and above. I worry that the k-5 idea won’t be brought back up because it’s just too painful to undo what was done several years ago.
You are right that the 4/5 is a sacred cow. And I say that as a satisfied 4/5 customer. There’s areas of improvement for our 4/5 concept, a lot of the potential has never been reached, and it’s frustrating that the brand new school opened without playground equipement and with limited capacity to handle expanding enrollment. It’s hard for parents, the community, the PTO, or SLT members to put forward issues without being treated like heretics. (By the way, my favorite idea is to make the 4/5 into a 4/5/6 Academy, not that I think the idea is going anywhere soon, but I love mentioning it whenever possible.)
Re “equipement”: that was either a typo on my part or a subconcious desire for continental style playground equipment.
I agree with Judd that it is a great step forward to have CSD organize the committees and get real recommendations from them. I hope the school board actually listens to them and does not hire some outside consultant that gives them a different viewpoint! On another note, I was talking to a colleague in the Mary Lin Elementary area (Candler Park). They are very frustrated with what APS is dithering about for re-districting and are going to try and be tuition students in CSD next year. I know there are larger numbers of tuition students in RMS and DHS than in the K-5 schools. I wonder how long that will last if these enrollment numbers continue to rise.
Pretty sure the board is pushing tuition students out if they follow through with the July notification. They have always notified us with a confirmation of a space the first week of April. With private school hold dates the end of April and the money involved to hold a spot, waiting until July to hear from CSD is too risky. Not to mention school starts the first week of August. Give me a break. Will be interesting to see how CSD operates without the $1 million in revenue they pull each year from tuition students. It is what it is.
Sorry about that, but what does the City of Decatur Board of Education owe to non residents? I think nothing.
Perhaps a middle ground would be more appropriate, such as attrition. Maybe we should let kids finish out the school they are in, but not let them advance to the next school (and this position would probably cause many of the parents to go ahead and make other arrangements now). Or maybe we should let any rising juniors or seniors who have paid thus far finish out their careers. Haven’t seen the numbers, so it may not be possible or practical, but just a thought.
Dawgfan I agree with you. Our plan was to do exactly that if it worked out. We have one more year to finish out our school, then we would move on to private as our other child has. Then it isn’t so disruptive or the student, but then again, CSD doesn’t owe us anything.
They don’t owe us anything, but they should either have the program or not have it. After talking to the Director, we’ll see if they go with July or not!
After being around awhile and getting to know a lot of tuition families, I think a balanced approach is in order. Of course, CSD’s first duty is to Decatur residents. It cannot offer slots to tuition students if the education of resident students would be negatively impacted. However, RMS and DHS have traditionally had lots of room for tuition students, many of whom have been incredibly productive and high-scoring (which helps AYP status) with involved families that contribute a ton to the schools, sports, and other activities. Tuition has helped CSD financially. So we want to treat our tuition families like valued customers and stakeholders, even if we cannot always include them in schools that are high capacity. We do not know when, if ever, the current spike in enrollment will flatten or reverse. The spike and decline in the 1960-1990 time period is understandable. But I still do not understand the spike and decline in the 1990s, never mind what will happen in the future.
*All* tuition applications will be processed immediately for acceptance, denial, or potential. The potential group will be notified in July and only will be 1st grade and Kindergarten. All other grade levels will know in the spring. Sorry if that was not clear. https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4052&AID=348787&MID=22747
slide 14.
Best,
Thomas in CSD
I’m from Candler Park originally and know a lot of families there. I know of at least five families who have their houses in Candler Park/Lake Claire/Inman Park on the market and are planning to move to City of Decatur this school year because of the craziness with redistricting going on over there. They have a total of 12 school age or nearly school age kids…. and that’s just people whom I happen to know.
The problem, according to them, is that even if they can get through the K-5 redistricting unscathed, it looks like Inman Middle and Grady are going to be very different places after redistricting.
sarahph: What does “very different places” mean?
Don’t know b/c I don’t know the details. That’s just the words that one of my CP friends used.
As a lifelong Southerner, I think I have a pretty good idea what that means, Warren.
One of my good friends just did the same thing, Sarah!
Details of APS redistricting are here: http://www.atlanta.k12.ga.us/Page/413
Basically, Inman and Grady will have slightly different catchment areas, including adding Old 4th ward and Sweet Auburn neighborhoods, but deleting Morningside/ Lenox Park.
In addition to concerns over the proposals as currently drawn, there are concerns that once all of the feedback is received, that the proposals will be modified in ways even less acceptable to Inman Park/Candler Park/Lake Claire. I believe that many of the Morningside folks are,understandably, not real excited about the possibility of being taken out of Inman Middle School and Grady High School. I think a subset of them think it makes more sense to change Mary Lin (Inman Park/Candler Park/Lake Claire) from feeding into in Inman Middle and have them feed into to Coan Middle, and then take Coan out of Grady and have them feed into Jackson. I think there are also some East Lake neighbors who favor such a plan as they see it as a way to help the schools nearer to them such as Coan.
We made the move this summer and are very happy with our choice. While redistricting concerns were not the only reason we made a move, it certainly tilted the scale. The way we looked at it, we were moving from one great neighborhood to another, one that is less than 2 miles away. The big difference was the high school. We feel much, much better about Decatur High than Grady. Once we got our head around the taxes in Decatur, it was an easy choice.
wow I did not hear that. Certainly somewhat unsettling to not know where your kids would go to school.
Is there any chance that APS will bow to pressure and keep things the way they are currently (relatively speaking, at least)?
Is there any place where taxes of one dwelling covers the education costs? Any town or community? My guess is not, and so really this idea that an individual’s taxes don’t cover all the costs of their own children’s education is universal and not a Decatur spends so much on schools and taxes us so high sort of issue. One could think about taxes over the life of residence as has been indicated but really thinking in this way is fruitless unless our societal approach to education as something paid for by property taxes changes. My guess is also that if you look at communities with excellent schools they are places that are more desirable to live whether you have kids or not.
If we don’ t manage growth, increasing enrollments and the impact on class sizes (too big now I believe) and buildings then we end up inadvertently solving the problem but undermining quality and then having a resulting decline in enrollment. We don’t want to solve our problems by making our schools undesirable.
“We don’t want to solve our problems by making our schools undesirable.” I wish CSD would do exit surveys of families who leave the school system, especially those who leave for private school or move specifically for a different school system. The most important information would be temporal trends because there’s always going to be a certain proportion of families who decide to switch to private school from public school. But an increase or decrease in percentage would be useful information that should be explored. Actually, even if the percentage was steady, the school system would get useful information about customer satisfaction, student needs, gifted services, special needs services, art and music opportunities, athletics, etc.. It might also be useful to have a survey of folks who enter the school system after having used private schools. I can think of several families doing that lately and I think finances played a minor role in most of their decisions.