Attached to the Superintendent’s note to the Decatur School Board for next week’s meeting is an enrollment update for the coming school year. Enrollment opened up in February and continues throughout the summer.
The enrollment committee, made up of CSD staff and residents, recommended earlier this year that the Board use a “one-year cohort ratio” to determine enrollment for coming years. If I recall correctly, this was because enrollment had been growing so rapidly in the last year or so that a three or five year average was thought to likely underestimate next year’s enrollment.
As noted in the attachment, “The aggressive one-‐year cohort ratio anticipated that up to 384 new students may enroll for the 2012-‐2013 school year. At the time of this writing, 250 students have enrolled.” Among the individual grades, Kindergarten, 1st and 12th grade have already met or surpassed their projections.
With all this in mind, I followed up with Asst. Superintendent Thomas Van Soelen to get the administration’s take on these enrollment levels to-date. Here’s his thoughtful reply in full…
Dr. Edwards commissioned an Enrollment Committee Fall 2011 (parents and staff) to engage in learning around the following two questions:
- How might we accurately predict the enrollment trends for the future?
- How might our buildings best be used to plan for that uncertain future?
The committee worked intensely for several months and offered a presentation and report to the Board 011012:
- enrollment committee presentation
- enrollment committee report
Recommendations begin on page 13 and include several actions that are relevant to some of the ideas that emerged in a previous post about the central office:
- Surveying the community for data regarding birth-age four children
- enrollment calculations
We used a one-year cohort ratio analysis to project 12-13 enrollment. Prior to the 12-13 school year, either two-year or three-year cohort ratios were used (see the report for the math about how these ratios work.) The committee noted that with the burgeoning enrollment of birth-age five children, a more aggressive formula was warranted. The Board has been considering 12-13 enrollment reports at each Board meeting. Here is a link to the most recent report.
Enrollment from 10-11 to 11-12 showed growth at almost every grade level. What we have seen thus far in enrollment trends for 12-13 is that the one-year cohort ratio rings true particularly for the youngest grade levels. The Enrollment Committee will be meeting again in September to examine the actual numbers of students that attend school in the first 20 days of school and compare to our projections. One idea we might examine for 1314 is a mixed cohort model where the youngest grade levels use the aggressive one-year formula and older grades use a more stable multi-year formula.
The good news considering the most recent enrollment report is that we have hired the right amount of staff. Pending a monsoon of registrations in July (our February-June 2012 have shown higher registrations than February-June 2011, probably due to urgency built through better formal and informal communication), we have the high-quality staff we need.
I followed up this explanation, asking whether there is any worry that these new enrollment levels – seen in the new Kindergarten and 1st grade classes – had the potential to overwhelm the current K-3, 4-5, middle or high school buildings. Mr. Van Soelen replied that with the planned expansion of FAVE and Renfroe, along with the reopening of Westchester, should allow CSD to accommodate these larger class sizes up until 9th grade. However, as he points out below, there is still time to plan for any potential expansion of Decatur High School.
That’s just a summary. If you’d like to delve into the details, there’s good info in his reply below…
We have done some enrollment modeling through 2018 (with the full knowledge that demographic predicting that far out with the growth we have experienced certainly is sketchy), and with the opening of Westchester slated for 2014-2015, our five K-3 schools (Clairemont, Glennwood, Oakhurst, Westchester, Winnona Park) can handle the large classes coming up. For instance, if we continued educating grade levels of 360 students (we predicted 353 Kinder for 1213), we would have 1,440 projected students in K-3 CSD schools. Our buildings contain 68 classrooms X 23 students in each room = 1,564 capacity.
The 4/5 Academy is adding four via SPLOST IV Projects. That will make 27 classrooms for 4th and 5th students. When grade levels of 360 move up to those grade levels, the highest anticipated school size would be 720 in 2016-2017 (27 classrooms X 28 students = 756 students).
Renfroe is planning on adding up to seven instructional spaces as part of SPLOST IV Projects as well. If the growth continues and these move-in families stay living in Decatur, RMS could reach 1,080 (360 X 3). RMS had a “crowded capacity” of 1036 before the addition of these rooms according to work from the previous Reconfiguration Committee: ( New Link ).
That leaves DHS which will take more long-range planning but the good news is that the grade level we are watching are first graders for 2012-2013. That grade level won’t be at DHS until 2020-2021.
I just do not want to see anymore trailers! They are not the best for learning or working. If they were all the administration & the superindent would be in trailers and the kids would be in Westchester
I don’t understand this argument. Predicting future enrollment isn’t an exact science, so if you’re school system is growing, and you don’t have unlimited funds to build more and more permanent structures, trailers seem to be a necessary piece of the infrastructure.
“No trailers” sounds like a recipe for expensive mistakes!
Agree that trailers are always a good option for transition points as enrollment ebbs and flows in school systems with a fixed number of buildings. I think the problem was seeing trailers within 1-2 years of contentious, maybe unwise, school closures and reconfigurations at the same time that the Central Office was spreading out in one of the closed schools. That’s what rankled and I think folks will be sensitive about trailers for a long time. If I were CSD, I would try to plan and implement in such a way that no trailers were needed for at least 3 years after a major reconfiguration or opening or closing of schools, UNLESS something unforeseen happens. E.g. NOLA flooding sending tons of refugee schoolchildren to us. Anyone can understand that you cannot plan for the unforeseen. The problem with trailers is that they showed up at the same time that CSD was still defending its declining enrollment projections. The enrollment boom was totally foreseen by those holding babies and toddlers in their arms in 2003.
Right. And we can all hold grudges ’til the cows come home, but ultimately if CSD is doing a better job of projecting enrollment now, trailers should be seen as a necessary element of growth, not a sign of a repeat of past miscalculations, no?
To do so is not unexpected to me, but it does hinder the process of moving forward together.
Trust have been increased a long time ago with a simple “We’re sorry. Our projections were not adequate. But we’ll try to fix what we can at this point……..”
I know, in my dreams…………….
Understood. I just wish we could all move past it, but I wasn’t a part of the slighted group…so I know it’s easier said than done.
And there’s that constant undercurrent of worry that it could happen agaiin. If it can happen once, and there’s never any admission of error, what’s to guarantee that it won’t happen again? How do you know that anything was learned?
That doesn’t negate all the great things done in CSD at many levels in many areas, nor does it ignore a very big improvement when it comes to enrollment projections–the formation of Superintendant’s Enrollment Committee. The more observant people and analytic brains working on enrollment, the better. It’s not a formulaic task in a place like Decatur.
“the slighted group” — Indicates you accept the premise that some people were “slighted” — in whatever ways, for whatever reasons… While it long ago became clear that AHID and others will continue to harp on this at every opportunity, forever and ever, I feel that every now and then, somebody who was here and paying attention and engaged at the time, needs to stand up and question that premise. Not to debate the whole thing again, just by way of making sure history doesn’t get rewritten with no challenge.
And while I’m at it, I may as well go on record contesting AHID’s recent assertion that the elementary school reconfig was driven partly by administration’s lust for better quarters. The office space they occupied at the time was pretty ghastly, but I really believe all of the decisions were motivated by what they believed was best for students. The extent to which they were correct about that can be debated (and will be), but I take offense on behalf of Supt. Edwards, her staff, and the Board members at the time, ,when somebody says they were angling for better office space.
Lazy wording. Meant to say “the group who felt slighted”.
And just for the record, I agree with you regarding the “better office space” argument. I think both sides have, at times, assumed the worst of each other and this particular statement is just another symptom of that. Unless anyone has hard proof. Heck, I’d even take a eyewitness account.
In all honesty, I was banking off your comment in order to avoid responding directly to AHID because I honestly don’t want to embark on a re-re-re-re-rehash of the central debate.
I never said lust! I know I have never accused CSD of lust! Other school systems, maybe, but never CSD! I object to lust accusations! CSD is definitely well within normal limits on the lust count!
With all respect due to you as an earnestly engaged member of this dialectic community, AHID, you are deflecting again. (Tomato, to-mah-toe — yes “lust” is not precisely the word you used. I indulge in hyperbole. You deflect. Let’s all own it all.)
RE the broader issue: I’m not trying to pick a fight, and I absolutely am not looking to rehash the CSD reconfig debate. But I do think that discussions about the present and the future of CSD would be more constructive if everybody would stop framing comments with reference to alleged motivations and perceived slights of the past. You claim to be interested in guarding against “it” happening again, which requires accepting the premise of what “it” actually represents — what happened, exactly? There was, is, and ever will be disagreement on that point.
There’s a lot of good, constructive middle ground between the extremes of blind complacency (which I don’t think will ever be an issue in the City of Decatur) and constantly qualifying any positive comments about CSD with, “but…”
Parents hate trailers, but they seem like they’re a cost-effective alternative to building a new building when enrollment is fluctuating. When I attended high school in the New Orleans area, the trailers were among the few classrooms that were air conditioned. So we loved ’em. Because, as you might have heard, New Orleans has a warm climate.
I’ve thought about it overnight and realized that your characterization of my making positive remarks about CSD but then qualifying them is apt. Problem is that it’s really my opinion. CSD is capable of some fantastic stuff and I am so grateful for the ways that it has positively impacted my family. Lately, I am particularly grateful that it is not DeKalb County which had some of the better public schools back when I bought a home in Decatur. CSD also has some issues that do not seem to get addressed without a fair amount of comment from families and/or the community. That is not dissimilar from any government agency, even the best. It’s ok for folks to point out issues on blogs, in conversation, at meetings, as long as they are not attacking individuals, even if not everyone agrees with them. It’s even ok to point out those issues repeatedly if the commenter thinks they are relevant because issues do repeat themselves, hence today’s post “…However, city residents Judd Owen and Pat Herold discovered errors in a CSD consultant’s data estimating enrollment counts for the potentially annexed areas, upending the cost/revenue estimates created by the city…” The problem is that a repeated comment with which you do not agree can be irritating when you are a frequent reader of this blog. I know I feel that way, sometimes even a little sick to my stomach after reading political comments that offend me. But our choices are to ignore them, post a rebuttal, or stop reading.
……….unless of course DM institutes a self-plagiarism rule! There’s software for that!
DM – the trailers in Oakhurst have been there for 3 years and they are adding more.
My point is that class sizes are increasing (25 kids in K last year) while the adminstration sits in big offices at a school built for children.
Less than 1 year after being built 4/5 academy is being expanded.
I just don’t think our school board and more importantly our superindendent have done a good job of keeping up with the trends. And ignoring young parents who warned them why they shouldn’t close Westchester & Glenwwod 4 years ago.
+1
Re” At the time of this writing, 250 students have enrolled.” : Now the CSD website says 336 new students have enrolled so registrations must be skyrocketing. The high end of the estimation (384) may be surpassed since enrollment usually continues to increase until a few days after the start of school.
Where?
Thank you for that catch:
250 erroneously stayed from the previous month’s enrollment report. The correct number is 336 listed on our homepage thermometer. The rest of the statistics are correct and current.
We have updated the attachment on the Board meeting.
Best,
Thomas
Do these numbers take into consideration the plan to annex new areas north of the city?
No, to which plan are you referring? The mayor’s idea?
The last time annexation was seriously discussed one of the arguments against it was the supposedly large group of students that would be added to the COD schools. Since the mayor has brought up annexation again, I wonder if adding these students has been considered. Most would attend Westchester (I assume).
Well, it’s only been brought up casually at this point. During the last election cycle, I specifically asked the City Manager about annexation – because it was said back in 2009 (I think) that it would be considered again in 2011 – and she said nothing was being considered in the near future. It didn’t even sound like anything was on the table.
The mayor’s comments regarding Walmart and annexation were interesting, but I don’t know what will come of it. I can ask him if he plans to push it in the coming year, but I think the first step that someone needs to tackle – read City Hall staff – is at what % residential do you start losing money. And the type of residential matters as well, so that’s another variable. Once we have that info at hand, only then can anyone start talking about what area would actually be financially feasible to annex.
Then once that area was determined, conversations would need to happen with CSD about accommodating the projected number of students. So as I see it, that’s a ways off…but certainly a concern for CSD IF it actually comes to any point of fruition.
Good question.
Scratch this. Hold for an update.
Both of my children have been in trailers at ECLC and they really are a bummer. I think many of us who walked in the daily “stroller brigade” several years ago found it difficult that a massive population boom wasn’t predicted. HOWEVER, to DM’s point, that is water under the bridge. I’m still so incredibly grateful to be part of this school system. I have loved Oakhurst Elem, dearly but if (when) we get moved to Westchester I really do trust that my children’s experiences will be just as amazing.
Truly not trying to pile on and it does seem like now CSD based on Dr. Edwards comments about moving offices to Beacon and the above are all positive steps, however I sat in a meeting less than a year ago with the new principal at FAVE who said they had “plenty of room” ….trailers are a necessary evil for this type of “bridge” expansion time period, my new kindergartener will be in one at Oakhurst..I too am extremely fortunate and happy that my kids are part of CSD…
Wow. This new school year my youngest will be a senior at DHS. After raising 3 children in Decatur schools, beginning at Westchester 25 years ago, for the first time I feel like these debates and discussions really don’t concern me (too much). Sorry, but I just realized what this means to me.
I thought the Pied Piper Parade was supposed to solve these problems.
😀
You are SO wrong, in so many ways…please don’t ever change!
+1 >:-)
“We have done some enrollment modeling through 2018 (with the full knowledge that demographic predicting that far out with the growth we have experienced certainly is sketchy), and with the opening of Westchester slated for 2014-2015, our five K-3 schools (Clairemont, Glennwood, Oakhurst, Westchester, Winnona Park) can handle the large classes coming up. For instance, if we continued educating grade levels of 360 students (we predicted 353 Kinder for 1213), we would have 1,440 projected students in K-3 CSD schools. Our buildings contain 68 classrooms X 23 students in each room = 1,564 capacity.”
Will the opening of Westchester prevent Oakhurst Elem from growing beyond 25 students per classroom?
After attending the school expansion planning meeting, I got the impression that as long homebuyers with school aged children keep moving into the “Oakhurst” district, trailers would remain and class sizes could potentially grow beyond 25.
I’ll take trailers over the large class sizes but hope we can avoid both. I don’t want my child in a trailer in a class size of 28.
Also, I would like the school board to carefully analyze if the planned expansion of Oakhurst Elem and 4/5 will really be enough. If you are going to expand, it’s better to do it right rather than having to go back and add-on in a few years.
Isn’t it misleading to look at the high school in terms of avg students/classroom? Can you assume that demand for every class is the same or that it’s always possible to add/remove sections of the same class to meet that demand?
I am not a fan of just-in-time school capacity managed with trailers. With what we pay in taxes it would be nice to have some excess capacity built in.
My understanding was that there was a board meeting on the 10th and the proposal for Beacon was put to the board.
So, does anyone know how the board viewed the $6million tab for Beacon the supt recommended? How Is the process moving forward?
I did not see a vote on the minutes section from the meeting.