Superintendent Provides Two Start/End Time Options to School Board
Decatur Metro | March 12, 2012 | 10:25 amFrom Superintendent Phyllis Edwards’ letter to the Decatur school board prior to next week’s meeting…
Please reread the Start and End Time official report again. Any option on start and end time changes still require the ability to use existing buses complete turnarounds from one timeframe to another. When this issue was reviewed last spring, it was clear to me that the elementary parents, teachers and Principals were happy with their 8:00 AM start time and did not want to lengthen the school day. If possible, I do not want to cause a change at the K-3 level as I think all the conversation relative to the research is directed at middle and high school children.
Our current transportation actions have included the following:
- possibly combining HS and MS routes for the 2012-2013 school year;
- examining the effect a 6-12 start/end time may have on other grade levels;
- determining possibilities for combining K-5 routes; and
- reducing bus stops.
Choices here will include 1) changing start and end times for the MS and HS, possibly affecting the other students in the system in some way, or 2) consider holding this information– keeping times the same, waiting until another school building is opened when more changes to the bus schedule and times may need to be made. Please know that I am happy to make any changes that you request. I also note that no consensus appears within and among teachers, students and parents.
If a change is desired, these would be the two options:
Option one (keep current) | Option Two | |
pre-K | 8:00-2:30 | 8:00-2:30 |
K-3 | 8:00-2:30 | OA and WP: 8:00-2:30; CL and GL 8:10-2:40 |
4/5 | 8:45-3:45 | 7:45-2:30 |
6-8 | 8:45-3:45 | 8:40-3:40 |
9-12 | 8:00-3:00 | 8:30-3:30 |
Option two, option two, option two, option two, option two…………….have I mentioned Option Two?
Re “……waiting until another school building is opened when more changes to the bus schedule and times may need to be made.” This is Westchester, right? The only other building that could be repurposed is College Heights, right? The ECLC isn’t at risk, is it? That’s been about the only element of the system configuration that has had near unanimous and consistent support throughout the painful and not so painful reconfigurations. Only negative I’ve heard is that perhaps it needs to serve more at risk kids and the preK funding has been cut. Cannot wait to see little faces at Westchester again; hope it’s as successful as the new repurposed Glennwood Elementary is said to be in the rave reviews coming out from there.
Back to my singsong: Option two, options two, option two, option two…………
I am at a loss for words.
Without facts and data to support changing the current schedule the administration appears to be capitulating to the more vocal “squeaky wheel” parents in the community.
What new information is available? What has been learned?
If decisions get made this way it will continue to promote bad behavior – notably that if you complain enough you can bully the administration and board to get your way.
We as a community of concerned parents need to grow up and move beyond fighting to the death about our own personal preferences and demand transparency and fact based decision making.
We need the best solution for our community, not just what’s best for the activist minority.
Booooo!
I have to agree. And now we are talking about having the fourth and fifth graders (that is, 8- and 9-year-olds) start at 7:45, an hour earlier, so the high school can start at 8:30? Am I reading Option Two wrong? IMHO, that’s ridiculous.
Unless the current schedule is not working for large numbers of parents and/or children across the system, I don’t support changing it. And I will be vocally unhappy if a change is made without some evidence that the decision was made based on consideration of all students and educators in the system.
Still amazed that we plan school start times around busses in a district that is only 4 square miles.
+1,000
I thought one of the guiding factors last year was no start times before 8am. I would like us to stick to that. For some 8am is plenty early enough.
Uh oh, I did not notice that one school was starting before 8 AM. I completely agree that there was community, school, and Board consensus that it would be preferable for no schools to start before 8:00 AM. That part of Option 2 should be changed.
Otherwise, facts and data were gathered and presented in a report to the Board, see eBoard for either the last Board meeting or the one before. More research, input, and discussion occurred than ever before. Not sure though whether a survey of families about this year’s schedule occurred. If so, it was a sample and we were not part of it. I could see the utility of obtaining feedback on how folks liked this past year’s schedule, if it hasn’t happened already. A good survey gets away from the “squeaky wheel” phenomenon.
Given that facts and data were presented to the Board and I cannot help it if a more general survey was not conducted, my squeak is for Option 2, nsb8 = Option 2 with the modification that no school starts before 8 AM.
Actually, now that I think about it….maybe there was a survey, through Parent Portal? Short and it didn’t cover everything I thought should be covered but I think a general survey of parents did occur. I’ll have to check sometime if showed up in the report to the Board. Or was that just my hopeful expectation………? Don’t know about sureying teachers, staff, principals either.
There was a short poll through parent portal. I can remember exactly when.
You are right. You can see the results in great detail in either the report or slide presentation at: https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/ViewMeetingOrder.aspx?S=4052&MID=23271. Students, teachers, and parents were surveyed at DHS and RMS, but not at FAVE or the K-3s. Sounds like some FAVE parents above would have liked to have been surveyed since a fairly drastic change to the FAVE schedule is proposed in Option 2.
Fourth and fifth graders went through a drastic change *last* year. Option two would create a better “stagger” for parents with kids in more than one school. It also might mean 30 kids aren’t standing outside waiting for FAVE to open at 7:59.
Yeah, I don’t feel good about that huddle of kids waiting until they are allowed inside at 8 AM. I know that the school cannot let them in any earlier because then they’d have to pay staff to monitor them. But I wish there was at least benches for them to sit on. And I wish before care was available in Decatur like it is in some communities. Working parents can prevent latch key kids with after care but they cannot do much if they have to go in early to work. And in this economy, one cannot demand to telework or have flexible hours.
We may *live* in a small town, but thanks to “traffic controls”, it takes 20+ minutes to drive through it! From experience, it is faster (not necessarily safer) to walk!
+!
+1
I have skimmed through the report that is linked if you go through Eboard. I see the summary and recommendations but they don’t go to actual system wide options.
What I don’t see is how these two options from Dr. Edwards build off the report made by the committee.
The status quo option doesn’t take into consideration their thoughts that even a little shift later could be beneficial or to start RMS and DHS closer together.
The second option takes those into consideration but with such a drastic shift in the 4/5. THat drastic shift seems below the even basic principles of nothing before 8am that were established. It also does so when the committee did nothing to evaluate start times at the 4/5 or key stakeholders at the 4/5.
Most here will surely say that it is too early..that it puts pressure on getting the k-3 kids to school..you can’t leave them at home to run the 4/5 kids to school. Bussing to the 4/5 would surely be at a way too early hour, and driving much more complicated when it’s the furtherest, most commute required location. It’s almost as if this idea was put out there to just make the status quo option look better? It isn’t clear to me why this shift in the 4/5 is required? A whole hour? Is that what is necessary to get the RMS/DHS schedules. If so, then really the committee needed to review the whole system which they didn’t do. I know there were some comments here earlier with frustration that the whole system wasn’t being considered for input on start/end times. If RMS and DHS stakeholders were surveyed and the implications assessed only on those schools we can’t be making radical changes like that.
I would also like to say again…that with a system that splits k-3 and 4/5 in a way that is demanding on many families (I’d love to know what % have kids in both schools at any one time) all decisions about logistics need to think of the k-3 and 4/5 together.
I for one do think that holding times in the face of further changes might make sense. I don’t have kids at RMS and DHS and if I did I’d like those schools to be closer together in start/end (but not the same). But really I am not sure if we can handle the wrangling over a new schedule for next year and then do it al again. As imperfect as it is maybe we should spare ourselves the agony.
I would say though that if a 10 min shift in the K-3 schools helps with $$ and transportation that seems like good low hanging fruit.
I’m assuming that the 7:45 AM FAVE start time is somehow needed in order for the logistics of the rest of the schools’ start/stop times to work in Option 2. But I sure don’t understand why. An explanation would be helpful. If there isn’t a good one, then perhaps the Board could ask for an Option with a better start time for FAVE. I also agree that it isn’t yet clear how the two Options mentioned build off of the report. Hopefully the Board will ask those questions. Perhaps the Transportation Committee could look at routes and see whether more options are logistically feasible.
I am reading through everything and also came to your conclusion. But I fear I will be called an “activist minority” or “squeaky wheel”! Or worse, if I ask a question AGAIN that has gone unanswered, I will be told my comments are calling the CSD a “dark overlord”. But this interloper will just say, yeah. It’s almost as if the 7:45 start time for FAVE was put out there to make the status quo (which has existed for less than a year) look better.
It is as if there is a blind spot around this school. Prior to this year, kids could be dropped off at 4/5 at 7:20 (that’s when the school opened.) So the adjustment has already been by 40 minutes. The 4/5 parents and teachers were not surveyed, but again, this age group gets the most dramatic shift. And if the K – 5 staff and teachers had been included in the survey (anonymously), I think the satisfaction rate would be way lower.
Plus, I have learned of parents NOT enrolling in Decatur’s aftercare at 4/5 because the day ends so late. Why do 4/5 graders get the short shrift? And with so many new parents in the system, I am sure community standards have changed from “consensus” about not starting before 8:00.
Re “activist” and “squeaky wheel”–labels like that are just attempts to discredit messages that do not agree with the poster’s point of view. Experienced DM readers are used to them and don’t pay much attention. It’s the actual content of the post statements that count. Blog postings are not a substitute for a real survey, vote, or other forms of democratic input into state, local, or school government. IMHO, the value of DM is to be a forum to raise issues, keep the transparency of government high, encourage civil discussion, and be a community bulletin board and network. With the decline of print media and the superficiality of commercial TV and electronic media, the average citizen needs blogs like DM to get local information they would not otherwise get.
I still think there should be a time difference (even if by a few minutes) of start/end times at PreK and K-3. How is a parent/caregiver supposed to be in 2 places at one time? I would imagine that PreK and K-3 are most likely to have kids enrolled in both of those places and those students are most reliant on parent and/or bus to get there and home……I put this same preference/concern in the parent survey but was told that the parent survey was really assessing the middle and high school times.
+1
A whole bunch of people complained about this since it is the one portion of the time change that genuinely caused issues, but obviously that means we are all happy per the report?
A little surprised that noone has commented on the fact that one of her proposed options for “change” is to make no change at all. Isn’t there only one proposed change?
Maybe I am reading too much between the lines, but based on her comments, it appears that CSD has already decided to open a new school (or re-open Westchester), and that it will happen sooner rather than later. If they thought they would be opening a new school in 2018, I don’t think this would a justification for waiting. But, if it will happen in 2013 or 2014, it definitely makes a lot more sense to wait as there is little point in unsettling everyone’s daily routines 2 or 3 years in a row.
As much as I want to see little faces there at Westchester again, I’ll believe it when I see it. Potential PTA parents–start saving up for the playground. The old ones have deteriorated.
Or why not go back to the tradition K-5 model?
So to me all of this ties in with some other big questions the board had Committee’s working on. You’ll see in the same board letter where they talked about start times discussion of expanding fifth avenue and hiring folks pronto to do preliminary construction work before bidding out to start expansion in january 2013. There is A LOT going on in our district right now….westchester opening? changing College heights age range? major construction at fifth avenue? K-5 has to get back on the table again? Still feels more tactical than strategic to me…..
Wow, I missed this. The school which just opened brand new this year already needs expanding before the PTA has even had a chance to raise enough money for a playground? This wasn’t predictable? Kindergarten and preK enrollments take skill to predict because many of those students are not in the system yet. But 4/5 enrollment is more predictable, no? I’m with Rach below–the 4/5 model has been good to us but it drives way too many of the decisions and costs.
Not only was expansion predictable, it was included in the school building plans.
http://www.decaturmetro.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Fifth-ave-site-plan.png
It says “Future expansion”, not “Immediate expansion”! Interesting though; it explains the odd 1/2 gym aka “multipurpose room” size. I always wondered why not build a full gym and theater space. Now I see that the other half is saved for expansion. Not sure how 2 stories of classrooms get added on to the other side of the multipurpose room but that’s the job of architects and builders. I’m all for creating space if it is needed and not against the 4/5 model if it’s the one that serves all of CSD best. Hopefully CSD, the FAVE SLT, the Board, and advisory groups will consider the pluses and minuses of different models, including impacts on transportation costs, administration costs, etc., not to mention get good systematic input from families and community. No matter what, FAVE is likely to stay a CSD school for a long time, even if it were repurposed as an elementary school. I’ve seen us close down schools within a few years of renovation but never a brand new one.
My vote is option 1!!!! Reason: Align FAVE and Renfroe start times.
Many parents have a FAVE student and a Renfroe.
FaVE ann Renfore schools are in relatively close proximity.
FAVE is one of the farthest distances from some Decatur neighborhoods there is for a school commute – requiring more logistical planning than a neighborhood K-3.
For these 3 reasons, you’d want the timing to be similar for those two but in option 2 they are an hour apart.
The closer those start times are, the better logistics for the family, for making work arrangements around the school schedule and carpooling, etc.
As working parents, we would not need after care if both the FAVE and Renfore student got out at 3;30 – but the 2:30 release for the FAVE is an hour earlier than the Renfroe. Seems crazy for my family and the FAVE student who has to get to the farthest point in Decatur from our home at 7:45a.
But the same argument can be made for K-3 and 4/5 right? Same age spans. Your FAVE and RMS students at one time were equally straddled at K-3 and 4/5?
I’m in favor of K-5, ultimately. But until then, I’m in favor of K-3 and 4/5 having closer start times. As I pointed out in another post, it’s important for RMS and DHS to have similar schedules for many reasons, and they should also share buses.
Having a child at a k-3, 4-5, and Renfroe I prefer option one.
I like option one too. It’s working out ok for us, with kids a 3 different schools and 2 working parents.
Why is 8:00 considered early for high school. The high school I attended started before 7:30–I would have loved an 8:00 start!
See the Committee Report to the Board: https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4052&AID=354781&MID=23271
Short history as I remember it:
- For many years, start time at DHS was around 8:30 AM with the rationale that there’s some evidence-based recommendations for later starts for teens because of their biologically unique sleep patterns. (See recent Natl. Georgraphic article on the teen brain for a lay person-friendly version of why you wish your children never had to age past 10 years old.)
- Last year, various options on the table had a start time of before 8:00 AM for one school or another. K-3 families objected because of how hard it is to walk and roll their kids that early to school. High school parents objected because their children are biologically wired to be comatose early in the morning.
- In the end, there was a Board consensus that schools should generally not start before 8:00 AM.
- Superintendent called a Committee meeting to advise (NOT decide for!) CSD and Board
IMHO, given our ok but not great academic performance at the high school, achievement gap, the high stakes for high schoolers, and other reasons that we need to improve DHS student academic performance overall, I would prefer a later start for the high school if everything else were equal and not at the expense of FAVE or any other age group. To me, the drivers for the decision should be how the teen brain learns and performs, not starting any school before 8 AM, logistics (which changed when FAVE opened), and cost of transportation (which changed when FAVE opened even though DeKalb didn’t change the mileage rate). Teaching a life lesson about getting up early, while important, should not carry more weight in the decision than the quality of learning for DHS students. If our students don’t learn and perform well, they are not going to get the higher education and jobs that require them to get up early.
I have recently heard that CSD is budgeting over 1.0 million American dollars for busing in our four square mile town.
I’d like to confirm this info by posting the 2012-2013 budget link, but that’s easier said than done since it’s still a work in progress. I’m sure it’s somewhere on the CSD eboard. Under CSD Finance department I find the following:
For all Financial presentations to the Board of education, click here…..ERROR
Can someone else find the budget? if my info is correct, and I am fairly certain it is, then I offer the following:
Increase the busing radius to 1.5 miles instead of 1 mile, combine 4th-8th riders, they’re both relatively close and on the same side of the tracks and only allow hardship or pay to ride busing for high school students.
Does anyone remember being outraged when the post reconfiguration transportation budget increased to $700,000.00? It’s time to make some choices.
You can find projected costs for transportation next year in the Transportation Committee Report which is attached to the agenda for tomorrow night’s Board meeting–item IX. Approximately 1.16 million dollars.
I actually like the 4/5 concept but the money spent each year to keep it afloat – busing, new reconfigurations and construction costs – is disturbing.
I’m with ya Rach. It was a great solution several years ago, but with our current population levels, it seems to be causing more trouble and expense than it is worth.
I think I can be fairly objective in this b/c I have kids at three different levels this year (RMS/WP/DHS). I will very soon have three in a different configuration (FAVE/RMS/DHS). So, no matter what CSD does… I have one kid at least who is pretty much screwed… and we are getting up quite early.
That being said, and with the understanding that I have big kids and little kids, getting the start time right at DHS should be first priority over the lower school start times. The stakes are highest at DHS and kids that age benefit from a schedule that synchs with their internal clocks. You can make a high schooler get in bed whenever you want them to, but they can’t fall asleep until 11:00. Apparently, feelings are mixed at DHS, but our experience with our high schooler and her friends is that the 8:00 start time is very difficult and the kids we know are exhausted.
I’ve had kids at the Academy, and 8:00 – 3:00 worked very well. 7:45 is pretty early, but 9-11 year old kids can tolerate an early start time much easier than their teenage counterparts. I know this b/c I have both types in my house. 3:45 also seems pretty darned late to dismiss for kids who are still young enough to want to play after school.
I’m all for combining buses for 6-12 and K-5. Not so sure about 4-8 sharing buses. 8th graders are just as corrupt as 18-year-olds….. but just stupider.
In my utopia we’d have sth like this. 8:00-2:30 for K-3rd (Maybe 7:50 for northside)………. 8:15-3:15 for 4th-5th. 8:40-3:40 for 6th-8th, and 8:30-3:30 for 9th-12th.
Well… in my real… utopia… if I was empress of the world… we’d have 8:00-2:30 K-5th (get rid of this academy all together b/c it’s starting to muck things up)…. and 8:40-3:40 for 6th-8th… and 8:30-3:30 for 9th-12th.
Good point about the stakes being highest in DHS. Ideally, we maximize the potential of all of our students all of the time but the reality is that sometimes your children get a teacher who’s having an off year, sometimes your children are having an off year developmentally, and sometimes it’s your family or the economy or the school or the world that’s having an off year. Most of the time, students are resilient in the real world of public education. But at the high school level, anything that impacts grades has a lasting effect on a student’s permanent record which affects their options going forward. And it affects the standing of our school system as a whole. There’s a pretty big gap between our opinion of ourselves in Decatur and how our high school graduates actually do. Yes, there’s some superstars but there’s a lot of earnest but struggling students too and they are by no means limited to the economically disadvantaged. We need to be thinking of how to maximize students’ potential just as much in high school as we worry about it at the ECLC level.
As the mother of two teeangers, I think we’re making way too much over teens’ sleeping habits. My oldest teen daughter could never wake up to get to school. A noon start time wouldn’t have helped her. My younger son always wakes up on time. Some kids will be late no matter what time school starts, and some won’t.
Isn’t school supposed to prepare kids for the real world, where college classes start at 8 a.m. sometimes, and jobs start at 6 a.m.?
Earlier start times allow after-school activities more room. Few, if any, DHS students ride a bus to school, methinks, so as a DHS parent, I’m against letting the high school schedule dictate the rest of the start times.
Only science classes with labs ever started before 10 AM at the colleges/universities/grad schools that I attended!
You were lucky. I had 7:45 classes in grad school . . .
People keep saying that, but doesn’t the research show that our circadian rhythms change again by the time we’re college-age? So that argument doesn’t really apply to the conversation.
I don’t really know how I did high school: I got up at 5:30, had a 20-minute bus ride, and the last bell rang at 7:15. I was out by 2:15, worked a part-time job, did several extracurricular activities, and still managed to make As and Bs. So yes, it can be done, regardless of your start time. But if it’s up in the air for our students, why not seize the opportunity to take [lots of] research into account and set a later start time for our high schoolers? Especially since, in my opinion, the stakes are even higher now than when we were young (job market shrinking, college almost impossible to pay for, etc.).
4th and 5th graders have after school activities too. 3:45 is way too late for them to get out of school. They get home, and it’s already getting close to dinner time.
Also, as a parent of younger kids. I disagree with the idea that high school needs should not come first, within reason. The stakes are highest for them, and if you look at AP pass rates, there is definitely room for improvement at DHS.
Someone needs to start late… why shouldn’t it be the kids that benefit most from it (grades 6 through 12). Someone needs to start early, why shouldn’t it be the kids whose parents need to get to work on time but are not comfortable with leaving their kids home alone to get off to a late starting school (grades K-5). .. why shouldn’t it also be the kids who naturally tend to get up earlier and are able to go to bed earlier (grades K-5).
This is really very simple. I’m not sure why everyone feels the need to complicate it. We all will have kids at all of the various grade levels at some point. There is no sense in trying to muck up the works just so 2012-2013 is to your personal iking schedule wise. It’s important to think of the big picture.
+1
Please consider reading the recent committee reports on
Enrollments:
https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4052&AID=351747&MID=22747
Start Times:
https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4052&AID=354781&MID=23271
Transportation:
https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4052&AID=363776&MID=23721
The middle school and high school times MUST be closer together…an example of why: I know that practices for drill team tryouts are going on now at the high school, but they start right after school (3:15?). Rising 9th graders cannot get there until at least 4, and practice is over at 4:45. I don’t know how tryouts will go for sports teams but it seems there will be a problem for rising 9th graders.
There is a problem. One of the arguments for starting the high school at 8:00 and ending at 3:00 was that the students needed an earlier release time so that athletic teams could get to away events earlier, or get home earlier after practice every day (or to after school jobs). Problem is that the junior varsity teams have eighth grade students participating. So the team bus has to wait for the eighth graders to be released at 3:45. Sports practices create the same problem. The JV (with eighth graders) and varsity practice together, so the high school participants have to wait around until the eighth graders are released at 3:45. It defeats the purpose. The start and end times for the high school and middle school should be as similar as possible if this argument is to have any merit.
Or… the 8th graders could play for their middle school teams… because they are… after all… middle schoolers. I don’t really get why 8th graders play for high school teams. Are there not enough kids to field a JV and Varsity team at DHS?
No. And budget cuts eliminated some of the middle school teams, so if they are to play and gain experience, they need to play up. They age out of the Rec teams, and it is expensive to play on club teams.
9th grade teams cut too.
Whack whack whack whack whack… helicopter parents!
Why cater to the kids now? Nobody is going to cater to them later in life.
The issue isn’t really about helicoptering or not, it’s about WHO we’re going to helicopter–the 4/5s, 6-8s, and/or 9-12s! Not to mention the parents with their special interests whether it be those who want their children off early, starting later, or whatever!
Good point. We can’t helicopter them all!
How much do we spend on busses? Maybe we should get every kid a bike? What’s the furthest someone could live from school? 2 miles?
And 7:45 start time is too early for my 4th grader and our family. Why not get home at dinner time? I vote school to be 830-430 and 9-5. And that would give them more time for more recess.
Russell
So, did the board vote on it? What was the outcome?
There was no action item about it on eBoard. So maybe Central Office can decide without Board input and the letter was just an FYI?
The link in the article goes to an agenda – not a letter. Is this being discussed at tonight’s meeting or “next week’s meeting”? And if next week, what meeting?
I think tonight. And the letter is in there somewhere. You keep flipping through the agenda and clicking on links and you’ll find it. EBoard is not the most transparent or user-friendly system.
I have a child at FAVE this year. The start and end times are HARD on a working parent. It is also too big of a time gap between our 3rd graders end time. They need to move K-3 and 4/5 closer together. I vote for 8:15-3:15 or even 8-3. Please don’t start at 7:45!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t know if my last comment got edited out, but I had to go pick up my kids anyway, so here I am again! Lucky ducks! My point is this. There are a number of you with something you prefer, or with no preference at all, when it comes to start times. And any parent is going to encounter various start times with one or more kids throughout a school career.
I ask that you take your heads out of the sand and look at what is ACTUALLY going on. Working parents are dropping their kids off at FAVE and leaving them outside. These people have to get to work . Some may even work at a K-3 school where they are REQUIRED to be at work at 7:30. It is unrealistic to expect most children age 9 – 12 to get themselves to school (and lock the door behind them). In fact, it flies in the face of what is recommended by DFACS and what qualifies for a tax credit by the IRS.
I would estimate that 70% of the kids waiting for the door to open at FAVE on any given day are minority students. I do not think that is the composition of our school district. I am not actually advocating for me or my kids anymore. I am simply perplexed by the attitude of “it doesn’t affect me”. It affects the community around you. It affects the kids around you. Why would we not take into consideration the welfare of some of the most vulnerable people around us?
What is the DFACS standard? I’ve always heard that it’s that children must be age 12 before being left alone. Well, that’s seventh grade.
The “guidelines” that I have seen in the past are these; I don’t know if they’ve changed.
I can’t get a simple URL, but search on ‘ “Lack of Supervision Reference Guide” Georgia ‘ to find the “Division of Family and Children Services Child Welfare Manual, Chapter 2: Lack of Supervision Reference Guide” which states:
<>
Well, like everything else in life, the concept of whether children can be left alone, and at what age, is not simple. Here’s guidance that DFACS uses. It certainly points out, that when it comes to supervision, it’s not so simple as free range vs helicoptering:
“The following questions should be asked when assessing lack of supervision for children living with a parent/guardian/custodian or children in DFCS custody placed in foster care:
1. Does the child know the emergency plan for the family?
2. Does the child know the parent’s phone numbers (work and home)?
3. Does the child have access to the phone numbers of nearby relatives, neighbors or friends?
4. Can the child demonstrate the plan and recite the numbers?
5. What is the availability of the parent during this time?
6. Are there environmental factors that add risk to the situation (firearm safety, water safety, any other potential hazards, etc.).
7. Are there factors that reduce risk (i.e. supportive/available neighbors)?
8. Does the child demonstrate dependability, responsibility and trustworthiness?
9. Does the child have any physical, developmental, genetic, behavioral, emotional, cognitive, or psychiatric disabilities?
10. The length of time and the time of day that the child will be left unsupervised.
11. Identified environmental danger(s) (e.g. unattended in a car or bathtub, or with unrestricted access to a swimming pool).
12. The child’s level of discomfort of being left without adult supervision.
13. The specific nature of the child’s activities while he or she is left unsupervised (e.g. age-appropriate play activities versus accessing pornography on the Internet, vandalism, or shoplifting);
14. The child’s knowledge and use of protocols for safely answering the telephone and/or door when he or she has been left unsupervised;
15. The child’s accessibility to his or her parent or to another, specific, informed individual designated to be his or her caregiver;
16. The physical, emotional, and mental capabilities of the designated caregiver (e.g. a young baby-sitter or an elderly grandmother asked to care for too many children simultaneously);
17. The number, ages, and maturity of the other children under the caregiver’s supervision; and
18. The age-appropriateness of the responsibilities given to the child.
Some child injury risks are unpredictable or unavoidable; caregivers may underestimate the supervisory requirements for some children, and even the most careful caregiver may experience a brief lapse of supervisory attention, proximity, and/or continuity that leads to childhood injury. In these circumstances, counseling regarding child supervision may be an appropriate initial intervention. Be mindful of the emotional burden a caregiver endures when a child in his or her care suffers a preventable injury. When a reasonable suspicion exists that a pattern of caregiver decisions or behaviors have placed a child at significant ongoing risk for physical, emotional, or psychological harm, lack of supervision may be substantiated.
Children in the Custody of a Parent/Guardian/Custodian
Use the following guidelines for determining if lack of supervision exists when children are alone without adult supervision.
1. Children eight years or younger should not be left alone;
2. Children between the ages of nine years and twelve years, based on level of maturity, may be left alone for brief (less than two hours) periods of time; and,
3. Children thirteen years and older, who are at an adequate level of maturity, may be left alone and may perform the role of babysitter, as authorized by the parent, for up to twelve hours.
These guidelines pertain only to children who are not in the department’s custody.
EXCEPTIONS
There are circumstances where children due to mental or emotional limitation or maturity level cannot be evaluated based on the guidelines outlined above. These situations should be staffed on a case by case basis with a supervisor in making an investigative decision. For example:
1. An older child with a special condition or disability who is left alone or as a caregiver for younger children.
2. A child younger than 13 years, who exhibits exceptional maturity and has participated in a course on babysitting may be left alone or to care for other children. The investigative case manager must verify that the child participated in the skills class.”
Oh, and age 13 is 8th grade so these considerations involve most of the children at Renfroe.
Sorry, yes, the part I quoted got cut away, but you posted the bit I tried to quote (and more). In many cases kids under twelve can be left on their own. I absolutely agree it isn’t B&W. Each kid and situation is different…
Regarding the earlier comment about not using after care at 4/5 Academy – we are a dual- working household and were lucky enough not to have to use after care this year for our 4/5 child due to the late dismissal of 3:45 (bus home around 4:20) –which we liked!
But for next year as our K-3 child heads to the Academy, we also did not sign up for the onsite after care (Whiz Kids) and now it is too late. We assumed the times for the Academy weren’t changing or under consideration.
So if the school dismissal changes from the current 3:45 to the one of the proposed options of 2:30, we will be struggling, as will many working parents, with finding adequate, affordable after -care late in the process.
We always liked the comfort level of the on-site after care option…
Is it really too late to sign up for Whiz Kids? It usually doesn’t have a waiting list, does it? It’s got the whole “Multipurpose Room” (aka 1/2 gym). In my experience over the years, Whiz Kids and Project Real usually have room.
After reading some of the comments, I can’t help but think that the problems regarding the FAVE start times are compounded by its location. There are only 3 schools in CSD which all students attend: DHS, RMS and FAVE, but the first two are centrally located. Who had the bright idea of putting a school which all must attend at the furthest corner and least accessible part of of Decatur? I realize there are other considerations (i.e. availability of affordable land), but did anyone even think about the logistical problems with FAVE? No point in crying over spilt milk I guess, but maybe a lesson can be learned. Or maybe going back to a K-5 model would help alleviate the problem (and the teeny problem that FAVE is going to be way too small in a few years). I will leave the bus logistics to the experts, but maybe having 6 K-5 schools (I am assuming Westchester or another school will be opened) will shrink the radius for each elem. school and shorten the times the buses need to complete their routes.
Before anyone jumps all over me, I am not necessarily advocating any of the above. These are just a couple of thoughts that popped into my head and I thought I would throw them out there as they seem relevant to the conversation (and the neverending conversation about how to improve our schools).
The “bright idea” as you termed it came from the community.
Background:
- There is a vocal contingent of chronic complainers in every community in America.
- In our particular community, this group badgered the administration to be more “open” and “transparent” about our expansion and realignment decisions – largely because of sour grapes from some folks due to the Westchester closing
- So the administration set up an open process in which 12 different expansion and realignment scenarios were submitted to the community for discussion. The community reviewed them all, and a consensus was formed around creating a 13th option – build the new 4/5 Academy at 5th Avenue.
- The administration took the community’s idea and put it into place.
Now here we are, and people are questioning why we still have a 4/5 school, why it’s so inconvenient, why the school isn’t like Burger King and they can’t have it exactly their way, etc.
This is the part where the usual suspects rip me for being a lackey of the school board and administration. Whatever. I agree with you though, Dawgfan – maybe a lesson can be learned. Maybe the folks on our school board and in our central office are elected and paid to make these kinds of decisions – the tough ones, with financial and logistical and educational tradeoffs. Running the system by mob rule is not the way to go.
+1 or 1+, whatever.
Enough with the K-5 talk, again, for the hundredth time.
The 4-5 academy is a good thing – the kids like it, and it helps with the transition to Renfroe.
Tee Russ, you’ve got parts of it right and parts of it wrong. Building a new school at Fifth Avenue was Valarie Wilson’s goal and dream and her baby, and she got it. There were plenty of people who objected to the school not being in a central location. There were plenty of threads on here about it too. And there were alternative sites suggested…but those arguments fell on deaf ears. Valarie even said it herself during the 2010 school board election at the ONA community forum…that she worked really hard to get that school built to revitalize the neighborhood, and she was happy that her goal had been achieved.
Also, I distinctly remember Garrett Goebel stating in no uncertain terms (before FAVE was built) that it would need to be renovated to provide additional space within a year of opening.
You’re right that there was plenty of discussion around putting the school in a more central location but I think it’s misleading to suggest those opinions “fell on deaf ears.” That kind of rhetoric allows people to paint themselves as victims as a tool towards empowerment but I don’t think it captures what really happened. From where I sit, the ears were open to the extent that anyone could reasonably expect them to be. There was a process, there was discussion out the wazoo in every conceivable format and media and, at the end of the day, those pushing for a centralized location simply lost. It’s not that they weren’t heard. It’s that they lost.
For what it’s worth, I was one of the losers. My position was always that Renfroe was the best alternative, which I made clear to the powers that be. But I don’t run things or speak for everyone else and, in this case, I simply didn’t get what I wanted. Win some, lose some. That’s life.
What do folks think of this?
IF CSD has the time to do so, I think it might be a valuable that in the future the pros/cons lists are evolved to be a bit more detailed. First off, where applicable, cost should be estimated – in terms of transportation, construction, etc.
But also, perhaps different individual pro/com items should have different weights. I’m not sure this is possible, since one man’s trash is another man’s treasure and all that – but if there were an independent work session beforehand that was solely responsible for determining the weighting of the pros/cons before the lists were developed, that might help provide a more accurate tabulation at the end. It would be a tough conversation no doubt (is diversity more important than location?), but it seems like it may be a missing piece of the puzzle.
Thoughts?
I think it is a great idea. I’m of the opinion that the more iterative, incremental, and rigorous the planning and decisions, the less mistakes are made. IMHO, the challenge is in which elements are included in the decision making model and what assumptions and data are used. You can have all the electronic number crunching in the world and the wisest heads interpreting the output, but you can still come to the wrong decisions if your inputs aren’t appropriate.
I think we can safely assume that the school board and administration make decisions using processes that include the obvious task of assigning appropriate weights to specific variables. We don’t need to require them to do that in a work session where everybody with time on their hands can show up and interfere. We can all keep coming up with more ways for every single thing they do to be vetted by “the community” ad infinitum, and IMO that’s a bunch of hooey. Every time we do that, we introduce another opportunity for screeching wheels to bully CSD into doing what they (the loudmouth wheels) want, and I can’t help but believe that it slows down and encumbers everything.
I also thought putting the 4th and 5th graders at Renfroe made the most sense. On the other hand, I’m glad to see the 5th Ave corner reoccupied and revitalized (although I agree the lights seem way brighter than necessary, left on all night).
As a taxpayer, I’ll also say this: It is my fervent hope that bell schedules are and will continue to be driven by two primary factors, quality of instruction and cost-efficiency. Everything else should take a back seat. Way in the back.
We agree that quality of instruction and cost-efficiency should be the drivers for the bell schedule. But because of logistics, bus transportation has become a major driver.
Question: are we operating more bus routes than would otherwise be required, in order to keep students segregated by age?
STG, I think the point is that we would like an answer to that question (maybe not the number of routes, but the total mileage, time, etc. as compared to the alternative). Clearly it wouldn’t be the determining factor, but it is certainly important. I get the feeling that most people like the 4/5 acamedy, but those students make up only 2 of 13 grades. If FAVE (b/c of location, logistics, or whatever reason) is disproportionately burdening the students in the other 11 grades, it may be time to reconsider the model. It may not. I, for one, have not made any decision, nor am I advocating any particular course of action. But, the start time problem doesn’t exist in a vacuum and may need to be included in a more comprehensive evaluation, especially if CSD intends to open another school in the near future.
But, if you were to assign all kids K-5 to a school based on location, my instinct tell me that it would greatly reduce the burden on the buses to get those kids to school. Plus, a lot of 4/5 students undoubtedly live close enough to their “local” school to walk or there parents would be able to drop them off, so there would be less time for boarding, unloading, etc. at each stop.
No, Dawgfan, my question is a very simple one, which I (and others) have posed before, but I’ve never seen a definitive answer. Setting aside issues to do with grade configuration, school site locations, etc.: Is one of the factors driving bus routes and schedules the segregation of students by age? That’s all I’m asking.
Here I go again, but as a long time parent in Decatur Schools, I love the current configuration and I think the current excellence in our public school system owes much to the decision to change to the current configuration.
The answer to that question depends on which schools and which time period we’re talking about. When the 4/5 was at Glennwood, which was more centrally located but not dead center by any means, busing could use the hub and spoke system so K-3 and 4/5 both rode the same buses for at least part of the trip. FAVE didn’t work as a hub plus opening the new K-3 allowed more kids to walk to school so there’s no mixing of age groups this year. Another type of mixing of age groups is putting high schoolers and middle schoolers on the same buses. Because those two schools are so close together, that works logistically, but only if the two schools have very close start and end times.
OK, I’m going to try one more time. Is there a policy in place that certain ages/grades will not be put together on the same bus?
STG, third time’s a charm! I understand your question now, but, alas, I don’t know the answer. I thought you were referring to the separation by age at the schools, not on the bus.
Re policy in place that certain ages/grades will not be put together on the same bus?: Not that I know of. I don’t think that aspect of bus routing is decided by state, school system, or Board policy. As far as I know, bus routing by age group is an administrative decision.
Great points, STG, to which I’ll add one more: Sometimes, once all the counting and tabulating and pro-ing and con-ing and weighing and analyzing and watchdogging are done, a decision gets made on the basis of things we don’t quantify, in a process generally referred to as “politics.”
Sometimes, for example, someone on a board (and the particular voters they represent) may have wound up on the short end of the stick in some previous decisions and, in the presence of a decision that “could go either way,” it’s decided to throw them a bone.
It happens. I’m not saying it’s right. Just that it’s naive to participate in a system without fully acknowledging the way the system works and the reality that not everything can be measured and assessed. People working together to get things done just don’t operate with that level of analytics. They make judgement calls based on both the things you can count *and* what their gut is telling them.
Besides, at the end of the day, we still have a pretty significant say in the process. On voting day.
Kinda surprised you guys are knee-jerking me. Guess it goes both ways, huh?
You may or may not remember that there were noted inconsistencies with the pro/con lists for the 4/5 academy location. (i.e. items on one option that applied to another didn’t always tickle down/over) I’m not necessarily suggesting that the community MUST participate in these initial discussions, but there were admitted hiccups in that list, which were avoidable. Would you be as vocal if I AGAIN suggested that the city cost-benefit items of the strategic plan and asked the community to prioritize? How do people feel about a tunnel under College ave after they learn it’ll cost $10 million vs. ???
You may be sick of hearing criticism of CSD overall, but I think you may be to such a point of frustration that you’re willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater just for the opportunity not to hear it anymore. Luckily, the administration hasn’t resorted to this, and I believe the four committees recently created by the CSD admin to address the hottest topics have shown the strength of a CSD guided processes that harnesses the abilities of its residents.
I don’t feel either one of my knees jerking, and I’m sitting in the same chair with me.
(1) IMO running the City and running the school system are two entirely different things. What’s good for one is not necessarily good for the other.
(2) If the CSD administration and decision-making processes are experiencing hiccups, I would suggest first of all, stop making them share and submit for critique every darned tiny thing they do and say. I’m all for transparency, but I also believe in letting people do the jobs they were hired for, without inviting everybody in town — who may or may not be qualified to do so — to look over their shoulders every minute of every day.
(3) I’m not sure whether or not we’re seeing “the strength of a CSD guided process that harnesses the abilities of its residents.” I think we may be seeing continuing encroachment on our professional educators and elected officials by self-appointed micro-managers from the populace who may be managing to have a louder voice than they are actually qualified to exercise.
I could be wrong about #3. I’m absolutely convinced of #1 and #2.
I really don’t read this thread as a criticism of CSD and I just looked through it again. I don’t love the tone of all the posts but the real theme is Option 1 vs. Option 2 vs.Other for start and end times which then lead to thoughts about how the Options are affected by the logistics of FAVE. If DM had not posted Dr. Edwards’ letter to the Board recommending that they review Option 1 vs Option 2, people probably would not have commented at all.
I agree that not every decisions needs to go to public analysis. That said it seems that some time the decisions seem so completely NOT grounded in any principled, thoughtful analysis. And are often presented without articulating a main driver. In these cases it can’t help but incite conversation. If I had more faith in sound decision making I’d be more likely to say..well ok I’ll go with what they want.
In this case a committee surveyed the research, surveyed the stakeholders and made recommendations. A focus was made on DHS and RMS.
Then a proposal is made that doesn’t seem to fully connect with those recommendations and makes dramatic shifts (1 hour earlier for 4/5) without explaining or supporting it at all. And is also just really one option.
It just seems sloppy to me. I think if there was agreement with the principles – which I think should be….
- no school before 8am
- minimize bussing costs
With these in mind consider
- stage by years (youngest first)
- DHS and RMS together
Then the resulting options, people could niggle and complain or celebrate different choices but they’d know what the decisions were grounded in.
Excellent leaders don’t ensure everyone inputs on every decision but they do get the guiding principles of their decision right based on good input. They don’t need to be transparent with everything but making clear your objectives helps.
(1) Can you explain this a bit further?
(2) OK, so you believe that extra time used engaging the populous is taking up time that could be used to more intensely analyze potential options. I guess I can’t really argue with that, since I don’t know if that’s true or not.
(3) As one of the micromanagers who participated in the sub-committees to address issues, I believe the universal reaction among admin, board and resident participants was that it was a worthwhile process and that there are a number of residents out there who are willing to dedicate their expertise to help a cash-strapped school district. I don’t believe that a “just get over it” approach will work, because there are bitter feelings on both sides based on past events and these sessions are helpful and necessary, not just to solve thorny issues, but also begin to bridge the trust divide that has existed for far too long.
I’m just enough of a do-gooder to be ok with the idea of building a school to revitalize a neighborhood as long as the student seats are necessary. But we’ve got to recognize that there were impacts from that decision that go beyond construction costs, e.g. a substantial increase in the cost of transportation (see Transportation Committee report–per mile rate did not go up but number of buses, mileage, and costs did), e.g. bell schedule changes including a much larger crowd of kids standing outside the door in the morning waiting for school to open, e.g. perhaps a need for further expansion, etc. Would a repurposing FAVE to a K-5 change the equation? I don’t know. I suspect that it would decrease transportation costs to the tune of $200,000 to $300,000 or more which buys a few teachers or tons of paraprofessionals. And it would still benefit the neighborhood (not all of whom love the school, by the way, talk to the neighbors blocking off their part of the street. I got a grateful earful at a school event while trying to direct parking away from the neighbors.) But that should be something examined by CSD Admin, the Board, FAVE SLT, advisory committees like the Bell Schedule, Enrollment, and Transportation Committees before jumping to expansion of FAVE.
This is a great example of my point – no matter how open and transparent the process is, no matter that the ultimate plan was developed by the community and not the powers that be, no matter the facts, some people will still believe it was all a vast conspiracy.
I don’t think anyone but you has said that. Don’t say it and the conspiracy will go away!
Well said Dawgfan on the issue of the distance and location of FAVE as a real compounding issue here. People suggested: “get kids on bikes and off of buses” and there’s no way I’d have a 4th grader bike from my neighborhood, all the way across the center of town and the railroad tracks, etc, etc. to FAVE. Both parents working (one who travels weekdays), 3 kids/3 schools and a huge drive across town dictates our FAVE child riding a bus and the need for school start times that don’t make our lives a Microsoft Project spreadsheet.
Yuk, yuk re Microsoft Project spreadsheet. I DO have a spreadsheet for our sports, music, tutoring, school, extracurricular, and social activities and three child care providers (depending on the day), although only an ordinary Excel one. One for the school year, and one for summer. Over the years, the spreadsheet has evolved and become color-coded for several variables. I’ve wondered if I could ever sell my system………
FAVE’s location is a done deal. It was a compromise solution suggested by the Reconfiguration Committee when CSD Central Office wanted to build a 4/5 onto Renfroe but others wanted to repurpose Westchester and/or go back to K-5s. After the plans to build at FAVE were announced, some folks raised the possibility of building at Ebster or some other central location instead but the word was that no feasible location was available. Plus some characterized the suggestions as being anti-Southside.
However, FAVE could be repurposed as a K-5 school, I suppose, if necessary. Our family has had a good experience with the 4/5 academies, Glennwood and FAVE style, but we probably would have had a good experience with a K-5. Both have merits and disadvantages. If the 4/5 is becoming the cost and logistics driver of our system, it might be time to take another look at it.
My gosh. Are we really still arguing over the location of FAVE? To say that ship has sailed would qualify as the world’s largest understatement.
Not the location but the future, and what the future means in terms of cost and logistics—bell schedule? Expand facility? Repurpose? Leave alone?
OK, good.
My prediction… within 5 years we are back to K-5.