Here Comes Westchester! Time to Rezone the Elementary Schools Again
Decatur Metro | October 22, 2013
It’s time to discuss redistricting!…again.
Just a couple of years since the last rezoning – which incorporated Glennwood back into the K-3 brick and mortar contingent – the awesome foursome (Oakhurst, Clairemont, Winnona Park and Glennwood), now need to make physical space inside the city limits for their mid-century styled old friend, Westchester Elementary, again.
The CSD zoning committee met on October 14th to develop rezoning options. One of the initial rezoning options (seen above) was shown in a presentation for that meeting, which can be found on CSD’s zoning website.
CSD has a Community Meeting scheduled for Monday October 28th at 6p to go over all the potential rezoning options. The meeting will aptly take place in the Board of Ed room at Westchester.
We’ll update you all once all the rezoning options are posted.
The final rezoning recommendation will be presented to the School Board on November 12th and then is scheduled for a final vote on December 10th.
Oh happy day! Cannot wait to see kids back at Westchester!
I’m worried about how they’ll assure us that the kids will get the same high-quality education that we’re receiving at Clairemont right now. This plan will mean that my son will go to a different school every two years until middle school. Surely there will be “bugs” to be worked out in the first year of a school, right? New teachers, principal, etc. We absolutely love Clairemont and feel competely at home there. I’m hoping someone will make me feel better about this.
I’ve been told that children who are in 2nd and up will not be required to start at Westchester– so, basically, they’ll start out as K-1 and add the grades in sort of like they do with charter schools. I don’t know how that works with families moving in to the system, so that may not be how it ends up, but that’s what several teachers in CSD have told me is the intent.
This is not going to happen. Westchester is going to open as a K-3.
All of the potential incoming Board members have said that they support giving families some flexibility to leave their third graders where they are or moving them to the school where their younger children are districted. If that happens, life will be a lot easier for the families that go through redistricting. Boy do I wish that had been an option back in 2004, phasing out Westchester, instead of closing it abruptly in the face of great community divisiveness.
Yes, but the current 2nd grade class is the largest across the system and needs the most relief at every school. So while grandfathering may be considered, it is not a guarantee. Just don’t want people to get their hopes up.
My guess is that most folks redistricted to Westchester won’t ask for a one-year waiver (my made-up term) because they’ll want to keep their children together, they’ll want to be with their neighbors, plus they’ll be excited about the reopening of Westchester. Those who live west of Scott have the most wonderful walking options through the woods, over cute bridges, in the back door, so that will be so much fun for the students living there.
But there’s other redistricting too plus students with special needs may not deal well with a move every year. Hope most reasonable needs can be accommodated.
New Scott – While your fears are not unfounded, the kids currently in the HS and middle school have been moved around quite a bit in their careers. Current 7th graders for example are in the same school for 2 years in a row this year for the first time since 3rd grade. (Elementary to Glennwood4/5 to FAVE4/5 to RMS). This is just one example. I know quite of few of these kids and they seem to have come out the other side pretty ok. (Some of them even spent a year or more of those in, gasp, trailers). It doesn’t sound like a great existence, but the staffs at all the schools are as good as it gets and the parents are obviously very involved, and therefore, the educational experience has lived up to the billing. It will be ok.
Scott, this is exactly what happened to us when we first moved to Decatur. After suffering through redistricting in Dekalb County for kindergarten and first grade, we moved to CSD for second grade. Unfortunately, we moved right before the redistricting here, so we were at Winnona Park for just one year before being redistricted to Glennwood, where our kiddo spent one year before heading to the 4/5 Academy. So this is essentially the first year that our poor kid has been in the same school/building for more than one year! We were obviously not excited about this, but we have loved our experiences at all three CSD schools and have been encouraged by our child’s resilience. (It seems like these kinds of things are somehow harder on the parents than on the kids! :o)
A good thing to remember is that the overlap in student body during one of these redistricting exercises ensures that your child will see many familiar faces — and not just students, but also teachers — at their “new” school. This helped our child a great deal with the transitions and will very likely serve as solid preparation for the upcoming middle school transition as well. I know our child will have fewer worries about moving into middle school given how smoothly all of the prior transitions have gone. I hope this will be somewhat reassuring to you.
When they opened Glennwood, they got an excellent principal and excellent teachers. I don’t think there were any bugs to work out. We go there out of district (We live in Oakhurst and were originally assigned to Glennwood because of overcrowding at Oakhurst and opted to stay) and have been totally impressed by the teachers, the community and the overall running of the school. I am sure it will be the same at Westchester.
+1
My understanding is that current Glennwood families are ecstatically happy with how things turned out there. The key is the new principal. Hopefully, the School Leadership Teams from the schools that will redistrict to Westchester will be involved in the principal selection. You should contact them to see. Maybe a special committee of parents, teachers, and administrators will be formed. Ask if you can be on it! The decision is ultimately the Superintendent’s but input and transparency goes a long way to reassure families, teachers, and staff.
People who live across the street from Glenn would send their kids to Clairemont. That’s a lovely little school, but it seems like the boundaries need a little more thought.
I thought I was seeing things. They really need to use some common sense with the map. I know they want to ensure they have a balance of households, but some things are just common sense. How can you have the new Clairemont District extend to literally across the street from Glennwood. SMH.
It was just a few years ago (three I think) that they opened FAVE and converted Glennwood Elementary from the 4/5 Academy to a K-3. While I did not live through that transition personally, I have many friends who are parents at Glennwood and have been from the year it transitioned to a K-3. I believe they had a good experience that first year. There are many quality teachers and administrators there (as there are at all our schools). There are wonderfully involved and supportive parents and community members. I can only hope that what I perceive to have been a great success at Glennwood Elementary is repeated next year. Full disclosure – I am a parent of an OAK Kindergartener but have lots of friends on the North side.
Oh, lawdy. Here it comes!
This (proposed) zone districting doesn’t make any sense to me–Clairemont’s district/zone looks unnaturally spread out. Why send kids from the Sycamore Street & immediate surrounding neighborhoods to Clairemont, a school that they have to get to by passing…another elementary school (Glennwood)? Isn’t Clairemont the smallest of the CSD elementary schools?? What am I missing???
(Full disclosure: I’m not a parent, but I am a taxpayer, and am curious.)
I don’t have the full details, but you can view the information that was presented to the committee at the CSD zoning website above. There are considerations about keeping neighborhoods together and also about trying to balance each school in terms of socio-economic diversity. (I’m neither for nor against any proposal at this point because I don’t have all of the information.)
We live on Sycamore Street and were not happy when we saw this initial map. My understanding is that the consultant drew it as an example, but it is not one of the 3 options that was “officially” presented to the rezone committee. Those options had the Old Decatur neighborhood going to Glennwood. Regardless, you can be sure we’ll be at next week’s meeting.
Now change it back to K-5 and we’re done! This will greatly minimize the multiple school transitions and keep more siblings in one school (which in turn will result in less frazzled parents and more parent involvement). Just more stability in general. Should never have moved to the K-3 model, in my opinion.
I’ll put my two cents in for a K-4, 5/6, 7/8/9, 10/11/12 configuration.
This would probably still mean construction for Renfroe, but might alleviate any building at the
high school and not make the building at F.Ave obsolete.
I could buy into this configuration because it gives our prepubescent students one more year before they start hanging out with the older students with mustaches and credit cards. But I still prefer a longer grade span. It’s my opinion that the transition to Renfroe is working so well because it’s really become a great place, thanks to folks like Bruce Roaden, Cheryl Nahmias, Derrick Thomas, and others who helped transform it several years ago. I have several student-years of experience there and continue to be amazed at how different it is from what the middle schools you read about in the media, books on bullying, and elsewhere. I realize that some students are having a rocky time there but the overall culture is positive. I think Renfroe would have rocked for my children, with or without the old and new 4/5 Academies. Of course I cannot know for sure.
And I have to say, just like most 6th grade boys aren’t quite ready for middle school, still working on tying their athletic shoes, many 9th grade boys aren’t up to speed either. I hear that many colleges just lop off 9th grade grades when comparing GPAs knowing that many boys were still in outer space. So a high school that starts at 10th grade has its appeal. How would that work with IB?
I’m sorry but I have to ask: Is it just your son that had some kind of shoelace impairment or is that a thing now? Having grown up in a pre-Velcro world, I just can’t get my head around pre-teens that can’t tie their shoes. Even for kids coming out of anti-book learning households (I’m from the deep, deep rural South), being able to tie your shoes was something everybody wanted to do and could do long before they hit a double-digit birthday. I get your fundamental premise that adolescents’ brains aren’t finished. But is this a literal example?
IMHO, it’s the Velcro shoes. Plus innate fine motor skills. I had the fine motor skill issue as a child but no choice but to learn early. (The bows on my tie shoes were not things of art.) I’ll bet there’s a correlation between handwriting quality and shoe tying.
My kids won’t move schools but this makes my heart hurt a bit…. Sure, sure it’s all fine, kids resilient, same faces etc. But I do think it’s important to acknowledge that something is lost by all the changes. It might be less about the kids than about the community commitment. Families feel a love for their school. Yes they can adapt, but we should not be dismissive about the bonds that people feel for their school and to jump around year after year has a cost.
I would just ask that the committee look at sensitivities on the projections and see if hi/lo estimates change scenarios drastically. Including implications for the 4/5. How close are we to outgrowing even new classrooms? If we are 2 years away from outgrowing FAVE we should consider that fact in looking at new k-3 re-districting.
I read the minutes and it appears that the consultants suggested any new grade spans are not worthwhile in considering as it would involve new construction at all schools. That might be true.
I appreciate the open process being outlined for this time around.
Our hearts have hurt for ten years. Our neighborhood will be so happy to have children at Westchester again.
Yes, hard to forget those painful days in Decatur. Westchester needs to be a school again plain and simple. I always thought it would happen again, but did not think it would take this long.
Yikes,
I live 6 houses from Glenwood and this map has us driving past Glenwood, 1.5 miles through the worst traffic in Decatur to Clairemont.
I am all for diversity, but our neighbors are Glendale and Sycamore not the Great lakes.
i hope you get to go to the closer school- but if not, I also hope that if the maps remain similar, that there can be some bussing from one elementary to another. i.e. the kids who live in the neighborhoods close to Glenwood but go to Clairmont can walk to Glenwood and hop on a bus that takes them to Clairmont. Much better for city traffic, the environment, and preserving at least a portion of the walk to school idea. That also may help some K-2 and 3 siblings who may end up at different schools walk together.
This is our fear/frustration, too. We are a half mile from Oakhurst and walk. But some indications are that we might end up at Westchester or Clairmont. I understand the vital importance of balancing headcount, but struggle with traveling 3 times as far by car (or bus) into the worst of Decatur traffic in the opposite direction. And while I know my son will get a good education regardless, these types of decisions absolutely impact community. We will be at the meeting on Monday as well.
Yeah, but are you crossing the tracks? There are lot of families right now who LIVE in Oakhurst and their next door neighbors go to Oakhurst and they have to deal with McDonough and Candler to get to Winona Park. Sorry, but I am for keeping neighborhoods and blocks together.
From a purely selfish perspective, this makes me really happy. I don’t have school-aged kids yet, but if I did they’d be in WP which is not convenient from a walking perspective. This proposed redistricting would put them in Oakhurst which ends up being a very a feasible walk.
This info is already outdated! The Zoning Committee met last night and reviewed 3 zoning options (meeting was open for public observation). The committee gave input on those 3 options which will be revised and then presented at the Community input session next Monday. The committee had staff and parent representatives from each school. They did an excellent job expressing both school and family/community concerns. Now it is up to the public and the Board. The maps presented last night will be on the website by sometime tomorrow. You can send comments directly through the website: http://Www.csdecatur.net/zoning
The committee voted unanimously (I think) to recommend to Board that Westchester open as a K-3 the first year. Stay tuned!
Thank you for the update!
I saw agenda and comments but not the maps…
Apparently the maps aren’t being released until the public meeting next Monday. So much for transparency and public input.
The maps were posted yesterday. Go to the CSD zoning page, then click on the “Draft Map Options” link from 10/21. You’ll also be able to see comments written by committee members posted on sticky notes.
I have many concerns; one map would move us away from our beloved Glennwood. But again, trying to reserve judgement until the meeting. I know the committee has been hard at work on this and nothing is being taken lightly.
Thanks. I guess I got some bad info from a Westchester Rezoning committee member.
Also, just FYI, all of the committee meetings are open to the public. You don’t have to be on the committee to go and watch. Maybe CSD could advertise those dates and times a little more broadly.
All three maps show us being moved out of Clairemont to Westchester. Not pleased at all. Rest assured, we will be at subsequent meetings.
Really glad I found this comment with the link to the maps, because two of the three now show us being moved from Clairemont to Westchester and the others I have seen did not. I am not particularly happy with this, since my daughter is just now completing 1st grade (her second year) at Clairemont, we have all the Bulldog memorabilia, been active in the annual events, fundraisers, that we hoped would be a tradition, etc.
But I am confident that Westchester will be a great school, too. I am sure we will adjust. I do think CSD should make more of an effort to publicize the potential rezonings. It was very surprising to me to learn this after seeing maps that showed variations of zoning, but not one that moved us to seeing these.
thanks much Kate- I hadn’t seen the map link at the very top of the page/ahead of the 10/14 meeting.
There’s kind of some maps in the presentation.
My youngest did one year at Clairemont before moving to Glennwood in it’s first year. I was sad and didn’t want to leave Clairemont. I was blown away by Glennwood. It went above and beyond my expectations. So many incredible teachers and staff transfered over from other CSD schools. It was like it had been operating for years. Diana Watson had a great deal to do with that. It will depend on who the principal is, I think but it’s entirely possible you could like it more than your current school.
I’m happy that Westchester is reopening. It’s nice when more kids can walk to their school and have a sense of community so close to their homes. We are securely in Oakhurst and are really happy that in a couple years our daughter will be going to Oakhurst.
Has Decatur ever had two high schools? Two middle schools? I can’t see how you push five quasi-elementary schools into one, or why you’d want to. Seems like a Herbie to me.
It did in the days of segregation, not since then. I believe that, even earlier, there may have been a Boy’s High and Girl’s High, so that would make 3 high schools but none of that is really relevant now. Two middle schools and/or two high schools (plus wouldn’t we also need two 4/5s) would be a radical change, way beyond what anyone is thinking now. Not only would it divide the community, but it would double a lot of operating costs. Usually middle and high schools are comprised of several elementary feeder schools—I’m not sure that five feeders is excessive. Our middle and high schools are still way smaller than most so adding on to the ones we have is probably the better option. We could reduce the size of the middle school by making it a junior high school (7/8) and putting 6th grade in the elementary schools or 4/5, assuming that there’s room there.
OK stick with one high school, but miss out on a great annual football game. Ultimately my bias is against the 4-5 concept, which I realize is not the topic of this thread. However, the whole reactive planning thing just means that we’ll be doing this again in 18 months.
BINGO!!! When you know you have a job-for-life (the Decatur-Way), you don’t have to worry about efficiencies and planning. Just kick the can down the road, smile and everyone loves you.
Why don’t we just re-segregate? But this time, instead of basing it on race, we can base it on whether the kids live in a teardown McMansion or not!
If nothing else, it would make it easier to know which school’s parents would be most concerned with class size. Every child deserves his or her own classroom!
The reason to put all the students in one 4/5 and one middle school is economic . With the small size of CSD, the best way to maximize state funding for classrooms is to have all the students at each grade level in one school. This is also the case with small K-3 schools vs K-5 schools.
Explain because this is an argument for the 4/5 that I haven’t heard. If it was purely the size of the school that got us more funding, wouldn’t a K-5 be better off than a K-3?
A different but major argument for the 4/5 is the collaboration, co-teaching, looping, subject-specific pullouts, that can go on in a city-wide 4/5. And some of that occurred early on with the 4/5 Academy but died out. Students stay mostly in their classrooms with little social or academic mixing, no more than goes on in the traditional K-5 model. All of the Board candidates are cautious about decisions about the 4/5 because they want system stability rather than constant major changes, as they should be. But they all seem to be also saying that FAVE has to be examined to see whether the potential of a 4/5 is being truly realized. Implementation is as important as the concept.
I attended the school board candidate forum yesterday evening, and left with the same impression re: the 4/5. Each candidate’s reasoning for keeping the 4/5 “at this point” was “stability”. For every pro they cited, they named a corresponding con, and it seemed that none of them were wholeheartedly convinced the 4/5 model was the best long term solution. I also got the feeling that a couple of them would be open to switching back to K-5, but they didn’t want to come right out and say it for fear of losing votes.
What?!?! You were there and didn’t come give me a hug?!?
… or did you?
I’m sorry, but stability is not a good reason to keep the 4-5 concept. We had stability up until 2004 with seven PK-5 elementary schools. In 2004 we made radical changes including closing schools and changing the configuration – it was the antithesis of stability. The notion that we shouldn’t go back to the old configuration to maintain stability is ridiculous. The environmental/quality of life considerations (which affect us all – not just those of us with kids in the system) are huge:
1. Traffic – having every 4th and 5th grader trek across town to 5th Ave school is crazy. Somebody tell me how long it takes to get from the NE corner of town – my bet is 30 min +
2. Transportation – more grades at each elementary school means smaller attendance zone which means more students are within walking distance. We can achieve significant savings in transportation by eliminating 4/5 and combining bus routes for RMS and DHS. These savings are on the operations side of the ledger which others have pointed out is the one to be really worried about.
While I am in complete agreement with others who have said the students will adjust to whatever configuration is chosen, I do not have as much confidence in us parents. Parental involvement is directly proportional to the length of time their kids spend at the school. Add to that an increase for every sibling at the same school.
There was a lot of figurative bloodshed in 2004. That is all water that passed under the bridge a long time ago. All I ask is that this new Board – which has no holdovers from the 2004 Board – take an objective look at the configuration and do what is best in the interest of the city; regardless of the affect on “stability”.
The state funding issue has to do with having a minimum number of students per grade level in the same school. I don’t know what that minimum head count is, but I clearly recall that with five or more K-5 schools (Westchester, Clairemont, Glenwood, Winnona Park, Oakhurst, and prior to their closings, Fifth Ave. and College Heights), we were leaving some state funding on the table because there often such small grades at particular schools. Not for nothing, but I also remember hearing parents comment that those schools were much too small socially by the time kids hit 5th grade. (And talk about difficult transitions…from one of those tiny schools to Renfroe was, for many kids, the very definition of a difficult transition. Or so I heard.)
I thought that had to do with Title 1 eligible student numbers not total student numbers. None of our schools are close to eligible anymore, in any configuration. (I think.)
What STG said is the way I remember it. The size of the school had to do with funding some administrative things like asst principals but the number of students at each grade level was the factor for funding of individual classrooms. That is why K-3 brought more funding than K-5 and the 4/5 allowed us to get all possible state funding for classrooms in grades 4 and 5.
The only Title 1 issue I remember in the mix was the fact that the reorganization might take away the Title 1 funding. Really was a moot point . After reorganization, Oakhurst gentrified at lightning speed and more Glenwood families chose CSD over private. System demographics shifted away from any chance for Title 1 qualification in just a year or 2 .
State funding formulas favor large consolidated systems. I don’t know if this is still the case . If it is , though, even with the predicted increase in enrollment, I don’t think our schools will be large enough to qualify for maximum funding unless all students at a given grade level are in the same school building.
Much has changed since those days. It used to be that the elementary schools would have only one or two classes per grade. The elementary school population is bigger now so that should no longer be the case.
I do think the transition to RMS was easier for my 2 oldest because of the 4/5 Academy but they both had a bit of a rough time in 4th grade. They had good 5th grade years. But ease of transition is such a child-specific thing…
Iif a switch to k-5 is honestly and truly going to be considered by the school board in the future why not consider it in conjunction with the current redistricting?
I completely understand the concerns of parents whose children will be moving around. However, having been around through the initial Westchester closing and redistricting, to the transition of Glennwood from 4/5 back to K-3 and subsequent redistricting, the anxiety that precedes the change is usually worse than the change itself. I know that many families were upset and are still hurting about the closing of Westchester, but the most recent redistricting was, as far as I know from many families that were shifted, pretty seamless.
A year to us as adults is practically the blink of an eye, but to a child it is FOR-EV-ER. Remember how long it used to seem to wait until your next birthday, and how far away Christmas seemed in the summer? Kids not only are resilient, but the transitions don’t seem as close together to them as they do to us. There may be a few exceptions with kids who have a difficult time, but for the most part the kids are fine with it. The transitions are probably more challenging for adults. I know I still miss seeing my friends who were rezoned to Winnona Park from Oakhurst a few years ago around the school!
The great thing about Decatur now is that you really can’t go wrong with whichever elementary school your child attends. They are all fabulous. I am sure the new Westchester will be just as fabulous as our other four K-3 schools. My hope is that there is a balance achieved between the needs of keeping our neighborhoods intact and keeping socioeconomic diversity. I wouldn’t want kids to walk (or have to drive) past their neighborhood school in order to attend another school in order to achieve SES balance. On the flip side, I wouldn’t want all the higher SES kids at one school and all the lower SES kids at another. I’m hopeful!
Completely agree with you. The kids will handle this far better than the adults will. (Exceptions exist: for example, those with IEPs.)
As a rezoning committee member, I can tell you that the decision is momentous and extremely difficult. Balancing socioeconomic diversity is important, but at the end of the day, they all end up in the same school by grade 4. Walkability is important, but only to those who walk, which is a surprisingly low number these days. For me the most important issue has become leaving enough of a buffer at each school to accommodate future growth, which is a given for at least the next few years, based on the number of teardowns going on around town, and any annexation discussions (though I believe we will naturally reach a peak in the next few years–and then we’ll have a new problem). So if balancing the populations at each school has a negative impact on walkability or diversity, then we just have to live with that.
However, the committee also strongly feels that preserving neighborhoods is very important, and we hope the consultant will listen to our suggestions (redrawing lines here and there) on the map that seemed to get the most attention Monday night.
Free Westchester! Retribution for an awful decision.
+1
And because I’m OCD about grammar, I have to call out the error in the headline:
“Here’s Comes Westchester!”
DM, can you ease a grammarian’s mind and fix that? Much appreciated.
P.S. Anyone ever notice that OCD and COD have the same letters? Hmmm.
Lol. Wow, that’s terrible.
Yeah, I couldn’t tell if it was a play on “He–re’s Johnny!” or “Here Comes the Bride”.
I just came on here with the sole purpose of playfully mocking both DM and the fact that after 50+ comments, no one had snarked him out. (If that isn’t a real phrase, I just made it up.) Happily, y’all didn’t let me down.
I hate correcting people’s grammar (though I’m not always able to stop myself), but this one just kept nagging me.
Plus, DM is such a good sport about it that I knew his ego could handle a gentle nudge. And I was right.
I’m in Westchester no matter what! Doesn’t matter anymore but I’m happy on principle! Speaking of principals, how can we get Ms. Kuebler back? We still “do our personal best” and collect a dime for every “S” word (that would be “stupid” for the elementary crowd) and study word origins.
Westchester: A Community Learning for Life! Thank you to the Westchester Strategic Planning Committee of 2003 for coming up with that tagline. Thank you CSD for never taking that beautiful (then new) electric marquis down!
Wait, maybe the marquis is lighted, but not electric text. Whatever–it’s a beacon on Scott!
I guess the flashing yellow school light will have to be reinstalled or reactivated. The PTA-funded underground sprinkler system may be shot after all the lawn parking but maybe not.
As someone who is clearly excited to be moving to Westchester (from where?), can I ask you tp please articulate your reasoning for someone who is feeling a bit crestfallen that our kids will not be going to Clairemont as we had expected when we bought our house last year?
Your kids are babies, right Lump? Assuming so, fear not. There’ll be at least 3 more redistrictings before they’re ready to enroll.
S’true, Scott (see below). So yeah, will not be disruptive for the kids. And I’m sure our mindset will adjust given time to accept the new reality. We already made a similar mental adjustment when we moved from right next to Glenwood over to the Clairemont district.
Honestly, I’m sorry to say the architecture snob in me is focusing way too much on aesthetics. Clairemont and Glenwood are very “pretty” schools. Westchester is, well, at least from the outside, kinda homely. It’s the same low-slung, bunker-like, mid-century cinderblock structure that my wife and I grew up going to school in, and I’d be lying if I didn’t say part of my sadness stems from abandoning the thought of my kids going to a more “classic” looking school. I know this is ridiculous on its face. Plus we’ve been in Clairemont several times for Christmas fairs and such and have never set foot inside Westchester, so that doesn’t help the bias. But all of this is superficial. I realize it’s about what happens inside the building, not what said building looks like.
A more practical concern is Westchester’s proximity to your namesake thoroughfare. It really does make us nervous to have small kids going to a school that fronts such a busy road. I’m hoping that now that there will be children there again, some steps can be taken to help address this potential safety issue.
We’ve always lived on the south side, so Westchester’s closing or opening doesn’t directly impact my family, but I remember when Westchester closed how sad many Westchester families were. I know several families who ended up moving out of a Decatur after Westchester was closed. One of the the reasons it was selected over Clairmont to close was that there were fewer walkers and Iremember the Westchester marquis that said “25 walkers, 250 broken hearts”. (Ok, I don’t remember the sign perfectly– am sure my numbers are off in that quote).
I am in agreement that the changes are harder on the parents. The big redistricting/closing happened when my oldest started kindergarten and it upset me because it was not what I had envisioned, but my child had no such baggage and all was well for him. But things change–I remember reading about DHS’s graduating class of 80 back when my son was a baby. I remember thinking, having gone to a huge high school, how nice it would be for him in such a small school–so much individual attention. Now he’s in high school and it’s getting overcrowded–so much for my preconceived notions. ..
I am so sorry that it was not clear from my post that I’m a former Westchester parent who was sad to leave it when it was closed. It is nostalgic for me to be districted back to Westchester even though my kids are now beyond the K-3 level and will not benefit.
I can tell you however that the halls and playground store many happy memories. A little bit of the former art, history, and signage also remain. And the huge field and playground, backing up on Hidden Cove Park with its trails, creeks, and bridges, are quite the asset. What the new Westchester Elementary will be like depends greatly on who is selected as the new principal. But given the fantastic experience that everyone has had with the new Glennwood Elementary, I’m hopeful. You might inquire on what opportunities there are for incoming parents to be part of that process, e.g. through a current School Leadership Team or a special committee. And you will know many of the families who are also moving from Clairemont to Westchester–looks like a large chunk.
My favorite part of CSD has always been the high quality teachers. It’s a conundrum figuring out which came first: the teachers attracted to CSD because it has great students, families, and community? Or the families who come to CSD because of the great teaching? Whenever a new school has opened or reconfigured in CSD, good teachers have been selected from throughout the current schools. If that model continues, Westchester should get some of the best and brightest from throughout the four current elementary schools.
Having said all that, I do feel your pain. Moving schools is a real transition for students and families. The fact that it usually happens successfully doesn’t mean that it isn’t hard or challenging, just that the students, families, teachers, and staff do a good job of making the transition go well.
Yeah. To be clear, our kids are just 19 mos. old (in second year at College Heights), so the good news is they will start at Westchester rather than having to move (assuming, as Scott says, we don’t see another redistricting in the intervening 2-3 years). We have also heard that once Westchester opens, it will be used to house overflow Pre-K that currently inhabits the trailers at CH, but I cannot confirm that. There was also some intimation that babies who started at CH would be given preference to finish out Pre-K there. Again, may be pure speculation. Comes from a solid source but was some time ago so plans may have changed.
Awww. I envy you. Enjoy! They will love preK and K wherever they go. Those are great years!
So are the map options dated 10-21 –with the sticky notes–the ones being considered, not the map above? The other options are pretty different…for instance, it looks like all options have chunks of the Winnona Park neighborhood going to Glenwood …
I think I am suddenly glad this is my last year as a k-3 parent…
…and chunks of Glenwood Estates going to Clairemont
And the third option has the MAK going to Glennwood. I know there are probably no easy answers, and some tough choices to make, but the MAK always seems to be on the trading block during these redistricting efforts.
Don’t look at the map at the top of this post. It was an example in the presentation, not an actual proposal.
I actually think the ones posted on 10-21 are already outdated because according to PsyMom’s comment above, “The Zoning Committee met last night and reviewed 3 zoning options (meeting was open for public observation). The committee gave input on those 3 options which will be revised and then presented at the Community input session next Monday.”
So it sounds like the maps from 10-21 will be revised based on those comments and may very well look quite different by Monday’s meeting. (Or maybe I’m reading this all wrong, I guess we’ll see.)
All 3 the options listed here http://www.csdecatur.net/Zoning/10-21-13%20Draft%20Map%20Options%20with%20Committee%20Feedback.pdf have half of Winnona Drive going to Glennwood. I have a hard believing that whoever put this together has any understanding of the natural neighborhood boundaries.
I don’t get this map at all – It makes absolutely no sense for houses on the same street and around the corner from Winnona Park to have to trek across the tracks to Glennwood. That would be a terrible long walk for a little kid who otherwise would just be a few doors down from school on a neighborhood street. It also cleaves the Winnona Park neighborhood in half, and that makes no sense from a neighborhood continuity point.
uhhh – thought my house was so close to WP that there was no way I’d ever go anywhere else but looking at those draft maps I guess I better plan to go to those meetings.
I absolutely don’t envy the committee, what difficult work that must be. That said, scenarios that have 1/2 of Winnona Drive heading to Glenwood seem quirky to me………