CSD Committee Recommends Three K-3 Rezoning Options
Decatur Metro | November 8, 2013From CSD this morning. I’ve added links to the map options in the email below.
Dear Parents, Neighbors and Staff,
On behalf of the K-3 Attendance Zones Committee and the City Schools of Decatur, we would like to thank you for all of the input and feedback provided to the committee as we work through the process of developing draft map options for school attendance zones for the 2014-2015 school year. In preparation for the re-opening of Westchester, the K-3 Attendance Zones Committee selected three draft map options to present to the Board of Education for consideration for the upcoming school board meeting on Tuesday, November 12, 2013. No decision will be made by the Board of Education on November 12, 2013. The Superintendent has recommended that the Board tables their decision until the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on December 10, to give time for contemplation as well as another Public Community Meeting.
The Committee’s recommended maps, in order, are as follows:
#1 Draft Map 7-updated
#2 Draft Map 5
#3 Draft Map 6
We have launched a survey so that you can give feedback on your preference of the three draft maps the committee recommends. Please go to the K-3 Zoning webpage to view the maps and select your choice http://www.csdecatur.net/
zoning. The survey results will be shared with the Board on December 10. Please continue to provide your feedback and comments through . We continue to read each email sent to the contact_us comment box.
We hope that you will join us for our second Public Community Meeting that will be held in the next several weeks. You will have an opportunity to provide public comment and feedback during this meeting. We will publicize this event so please be looking out for this information. All comments and feedback are shared with the Board of Education. Thank you again for your continued input in this process.
Sincerely,
Dr. Kiawana Kennedy, Chief Operating Officer
Mary Mack, Elementary Curriculum Director
Tom Sayre, Sizemore Group
K-3 Attendance Zones Committee
I don’t think this pushes back anything — the timeline always said the reccomendation to the Board would be made at the November meeting, with the Board voting at the December meeting.
Reposting from FFAF because it’s on-topic here. Here’s my two cents from a very granular perspective. We’re on Lamont Drive, currently zoned for Clairemont, and in all three maps under review (5-7), we would stay in Clairemont. That said, in both maps 6 and 7, half of Lamont as well as Garden Lane are re-zoned to Westchester, while the rest of Lamont and Vidal remain in Clairemont. That bothers me.
There’s been a lot of talk about keeping communities together, particularly with regard to Oakhurst and Winona Park. Yet our street (and our neighborhood) is cut in half. We have a strong neighborhood community that I think, in part, draws from all our children going to the same school. Under the recommended map, if I walk just a few houses east on our street, I’ll enter a different school zone.
I don’t see a lot of other examples of streets being cut in half like that, so I’ve sent an email to the committee and school board members asking that our street be kept in the same school zone, whether it be Westchester or Clairemont.
To keep the record straight, Lamont was cut in half in the old pre-2004 districting too. But you are right that it is odd and it was odd then too. The difference was that there used to be fewer children on the Westchester side of Lamont so it mattered to fewer families. Now there’s more of a community of kids to be broken up.
One plus to being zoned to Westchester is that it truly is a much shorter walk for the students on the Scott-side of Lamont and the cross-walk at Coventry works well. They’ve fixed the curb at Lamont and Scott. But not sure how the sidewalk is on the Westchester side of Scott. If it hasn’t been fixed since the old days, it needs to be.
Thanks for that insight about the “old days,” that’s very interesting. My house is almost exactly equidistant between Clairemont and Westchester, my oldest won’t start Kindergarten until 2015, and I have confidence both schools would provide a great education. So I’m not really advocating to go one place or the other. I’d just like my kids to go to school with the kids down the street.
I’m curious about the “updated” map 7. It seems to move a significant portion of DHA students to from Glennwood to Clairemont. From what I heard at Monday’s committee work session, it seemed one of the advantages to map 7 was that it preserved continuity for DHA students. Although the lines look similar, this almost seems like a “map 8″ rather than a minor update.
I am not on the committee, so I’m not privy to a lot of info, but I’m wondering if someone who’s on the committee could speak to why this change was made.
(Full disclosure; we’re zoned for Glennwood in all the most recent maps and we’ll be happy to be there no matter how everything turns out.)
I noticed that too. If you look in the committee meeting comments (http://www.csdecatur.net/zoning/Leadership%20Meeting%20Comments%203.pdf), there is a note that makes it sounds like this is still in flux:
“In researching the current zoning maps and attendance with the Principals of Glennwood and Clairemont, we found that Gateway students have been assigned variously to Glennwood and to Clairemont. They currently attend Glennwood. And all Swanton Heights students are currently assigned to Glennwood. Our map showed a portion of the Swanton Height s students assigned to Clairemont. (The Swanton Heights students living on White Street were assigned to Clairemont, and the Swanton Heights students living on Commerce were assigned to Glennwood). If Option 7 is changed such that all of the DHA students are zoned to the school they are currently attending, Clairemont Free and Reduced Lunch students would number 46 and Glennwood F&R Lunch would number 99.”
I’m curious since that was in italics if it was added in response to the question posed by the original comment, or if it was said at the meeting and I just missed it.
Before 2004, Gateway students attended Westchester for a long time. My son used to love playing over at Gateway with his friends there.
Well, it looks like I answered my own question upon further review of “updated” map 7. Looks like the open capacity is now balanced between Glennwood and Clairemont vs. Glennwood being almost full and Clairemont being half empty in the “old” map 7.
The updated map 7 cuts the excess capacity at Clairemont by half. Looking only at the capacity at each schools, this map achieves the best balance. None of the schools are full, and all have room for more students.
But there was a huge economic and racial imbalance at the two schools under other maps.
The biggest concern on all of these maps is the population growth in Oakhurst and Winnona. It would be a huge miss to have these schools immediately reach capacity while other schools have significant numbers of empty seats.
That’s right. The crowding is on the south where you only have 2 schools. But wait, you really have 3. Too bad though that 4-5 academy is a sacred cow. You’ll have to learn to love the overcrowded schools.
The crowding may be on the south side but, as AHID points out often, the rebirth of Westchester will amp up the desirability of north side homes in the same way redistricting years ago influenced purchase decisions in Oakhurst (and no, I’m not saying the redistricting caused the resurgence of the Oakhurst neighborhood; I’m saying it supercharged forces that were already in play, just as they are north of Scott Blvd.). Once that school is open, those homes will become even more desirable for families, and may provide better deals, which will have some impact on families settling in Oakhurst. Not sure how much, but there’ll be some.
Whoa, now! Sloooooooow down on that whole “better deals” thing. I’ve already mentally added 25% to our house’s already inflated value thanks to Westchester reopening across the street!
Mr. J_T, I am with the tax assessor’s office. Based on your undoubtedly accurate valuation, you owe us another $2,000.00. Thanks in advance your prompt payment.
Rest assured, that check is in the mail.
Liar. You still owe me alcohol from 2 years ago.
I have to call you on this one. I agree re-opening Westchester will have a marginal affect on school enrollment, but it is inconsequential compared to what happened/is happening in Oakhurst. Start by looking at density. Way greater density of housing in Oakhurst. Plus the situation is completely different. Before the 2003 reconfiguration there were as few as 5 students per GRADE at 5th Ave elementary. Why? Were they all in private school? The reality is there were very few school age kids in that neighborhood at that time. That has completely changed and will continue to change.
The 4/5 Academy is not set up for a K-5 population. There are special requirements that Kindergarten classrooms (in particular) must have. CSD Parents asked the Superintendent to include K-5 equipment in the 4/5 Academy when it was being built so that the school would have the flexibility to change to a K-5 school down the road. But that advice was rejected. The feeling was that Dr. Edwards was so wedded to the idea of the 4/5 Academy, that she would not entertain the idea of changing it later.
Whatever our long-term solution ends up being will cost lots of money. Some of that money can be spent, if necessary, to reconfigure F.AVE. This is a result of us tolerating an egocentric superintendent who made sure that no one can easily undo what she knows to be best, even if years down the road our needs are entirely different. For the life of me, I can’t think of a single good reason why anyone wouldn’t design a brand new school building in such a way to allow a little flexibility when the costs of doing so are minimal, especially compared to the costs of replacing a perfectly good building before it reaches the end of its useful life. She knew the K-5 discussion would come back up, and she did everything she could to prevent CSD from changing back, even after she is gone.
She couldn’t have done all that without Board approval. And she had advisers and consultants. Not trying to defend or criticize but just point out that there’s more than one moving part in CSD.
We have to stop drinking the kool-aide. Fifth Ave is a school building. They can modify it to handle kindergarten. They didn’t have any trouble turning a perfectly good school into a Central Office did they?
Agree that it is not hard to convert a school building to accomodate kindergarten. It costs, but we’ve been doing much bigger and more expensive renovations, add-ons, and complete rebuilds for years. Office and media center move upstairs and classrooms move downstairs. Lots of walls will have to come down and be put up. A bathroom or two will have to get lower sinks and toilets.
At least there’s playground equipment thanks to parent advocacy and PTA and parent fundraising! Thanks to those who lead the playground effort.
Isn’t the implied future plan, if south-side growth continues, to convert College Heights back to a K-3 and have three elementary schools on each sides?
I don’t think so.
I think so… But, does anyone know how long until the loan is paid off? Five years? It’s not entirely clear, but that’s my assumption.
From Dr. Edwards:
“I’d like to also address the concept of turning College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center into an elementary school. The Board and I recognize that College Heights is an option for the future if we continue on this incredible growth trajectory. However, we are still paying the loan for the renovation to College Heights, and until the loan is paid off, we cannot make any adjustments to the building. We know that opening Westchester will give us a reprieve of five years until we need to make a decision about opening College Heights as an elementary school.”
Thanks Kat, that was the comment I remember.
It was originally a 10 year deal. Not a real loan as school systems can’t do that by Georgia constitution. Similar to how they paid for FAVE to be redone, the property is actually sold to a 3rd party and the school system pays the 3rd party annually for a set period of time (at a nice profit, of course). It is a loan without getting a loan to sidestep the law. And, all perfectly legal and done all the time by school systems around the state. Which begs the question of why we even have such a silly law… another thread at a later time. I was told by Dr. Edwards there was less than a $500 K left on the “agreement” at least 2 years ago for College Heights. I don’t think there is very much left on the original amount. The agreement at College Heights was also that CSD would develop an 0-3 program as well as the Pre-K School. I believe once the agreement is paid off that CSD could flip that school at any time to a K-3 or whatever is needed. If this is a real issue for parents in District 2, CSD should be pushed to pay off the balance to put CH into play.
College Heights is a nationally recognized pilot program for identifying children who may have special needs in an inclusive, mixed ability setting. Realistically, it is not going any where. And it shouldn’t. 60 or more low income and disabled kids are getting services there every year, and CSD has to provide services for special needs kids under federal law after their third birthday. A place like College Heights is the best, least costly way a small system can achieve compliance and children can get the services to which they are entitled in the most integrated setting possible. All of you who call for CHECLC to close really need to learn a little bit more about the intents and purposes of it before you call for closure. It is not just a daycare or preK by any means.
We have two kids at CH. I’m not calling for what it does to be eliminated by any stretch. But I also foresee the realities of the K-3 need south of the tracks in a few years and I grudgingly agree that returning CH to K-3 at that point makes a lot of sense. But ONLY if the invaluable services CH currently provides are transitioned to another location. The Beacon Hill complex when it is finished, perhaps?
The 0-3 pay rooms are actually important to the model because they allow for the right configuration for early headstart. Rules, state regulations, classrooms, even nutrition are different for pre-k and under. College Heights was retrofitted for the under 4 crowd. It cannot just be moved to Beacon Hill. And isn’t Beacon Hill part of the city government, not CSD?
Head start and early head start are federal programs, not school system programs, so they can be removed from the schools. I believe Partnership for Community Action runs those programs at college heights and they run many other Head Starts in the area as well. The school system is obligated to provide special education services for 3 and 4 year olds, but there is a continuum of possible services, including community based services. School systems are not obligated to provide 0-3 services.
I am a big supporter of early intervention, and it’s great to have the early childhood center, but if the space at College Heights is needed for the k-12 population, the school system may have no choice but to switch it to an elementary school.
CSD was complying with the law before CH was re-purposed and will be able to do so again if CH is re-purposed again. I’m not saying this should be done. One of ours had a great experience at CH and we enjoyed the school for the short time we were there. However, if what District 2 parents really want is another K-3, CH is their answer.
Actually, District 2 doesn’t get to decide if they “get” another K-3. That decision affects the entire school system, not just the south side of the tracts. This is why K-5 should be considered. I am not saying that CH shouldn’t also be in play 5 years from now when it is an option, but I don’t understand why some people think F.AVE is sacred. All options should be on the table.
You really think the parents over there get to decide what happens to CHECLC? I don’t think so.
And the system may have been in compliance before, but those rules changed under No Child Behind. The number of kids needing services is also huge. There is an early headstart and a regular headstart grant. It’s not just a preK and there is a lot more going on there than most prek only parents realize
or put F.AVE into play.
Unlikely. While CH was a 10 year deal for about $10 Million, FAVE was for much more $ over a longer period of time which the system is only 2 years into paying. CSD (and therefore, the taxpayers of ALL of Decatur) will be paying for FAVE for many years to come. In order to pay FAVE off CSD would have to come up with a much more substantial amount. However, I do not believe that there was any restrictions with the 3rd party in the case of FAVE to keep it being changed to a Pre-K to 5 or a Middle School Annex or anything else. In other words, it is technically in play anyway.
There are more K-3 students on the northside than on the southside. The population growth is everywhere in the city. It’s about the number of schools. But if no one is willing to cross the tracks, and it appears that is the case, then the southside schools will be crowded.
Maybe, but only by a small margin. Based on the enrollment numbers on map 7, I calculate 710 at Westchester, Clairemont, and Glennwood compared to 702 at Oakhurst and WInnona. I was surprised at how equal they were.
Yes, the numbers are close, but they debunk the notion that the northside is a “ghost town” for K-3 students, and that most of the students are on the southside, which has been thrown around a lot in these discussions. We need that 3rd school on the northside just as much as we do on the southside, and we too have strollers all over the place.
Am I wrong or aren’t the schools smaller physically over there?
CL and WP have the same number of classrooms. Glenwood is smaller (although it was the biggest elementary before the reconfiguration 10 years ago and the additions were made to the K-3s, hence why it became the 4/5). OAK is obviously the biggest as it had a whole new building added. WE is the smallest as it was not added to 10 years ago when it was converted to office space.
Of all the CSD elementary schools, Glennwood Kindergarten is the only one that was at capacity (and sending kids to other elementary schools) at the beginning of this school year. I’m not sure where enrollment is now or if enrollment has risen since the beginning of the year.
@Squirreled Map 7 achieves the balance by moving all of Lenox Place to Westchester and Rosewalk to Glenwood. Although on the northern side of Dekalb and College both neighborhoods are in the middle/southern half of the city
Just a plug for the CSD webpage that puts together a bunch of the relevant documents and meeting notes about the rezoning: csdecatur.net/Zoning/. It’s worth the time to go there. Especially useful are the public comments. It really helps to become familiar with the perspective of many different families from many different neighborhoods. Inter-neighborhood strife should be avoided at all costs. Not only is it non-productive and nasty, but it diverts the community discussion from the fundamental problems at hand, distracts everyone, decreases the chances that the community can develop creative solutions and consensus, and convinces the Board and Administration that there’s no point in getting family and community input because those folks just bicker amongst themselves anyway.
I agree, the website is very helpful.
+1. I learned quite a lot from the public comments about the Lenox Place, Oakhurst, and Winnona Park perspectives that would otherwise have been largely opaque to me.
When will the new school board members take office? It seems terribly shortsighted not to get their input and voting preferences for the rezoning decision that they will have to “live with” during their tenure on the board, especially since the issue was rather an important one during the election.
I agree that the vote should wait the short two months until the new Board comes on. The counterargument is that two months is too long to delay if CSD is going to get ready, e.g. reassign teachers and staff and let them know before their contracts are distributed, send out notices to families, make bus plans. On the other hand, some things have to happen no matter what plan is chosen–select a new principal (which which SLT or SLTs?), renovate Westchester, e.g. convert the superintendent’s office back to an art room, fix up the playground, get rid of the prickly weeds, find and install furniture and cafeteria equipment since most was redistributed when Westchester closed, update the marquee, get computers, whiteboards, sound system, polish up the auditorium floor and fix the stage, etc. Those things could be started while waiting for the zoning to fall into place.
I’ll bet the new Board members secretly hope that the decision is made before they take office. Then they can always say “This wasn’t my decision but….”!
+ 1 million – the two outgoing board members have no kids in the system, never experienced a K-3 or a 4/5, based most of their early decisions on a declining school population (which stopped about the time they took office 12 YEARS AGO), hired Dr. Edwards (who is likely “retiring” in a couple of years), and are so wedded to the decisions they made they can’t envision the way the Decatur school population has changed. They should not make this decision. It should be put off to the new board.
After attending the 11/4 meeting it became clear that option 7 is the overwhelming favorite. While I do like map 7 I have serious concerns about the imbalance of diversity created by this option:
1) The map updated as of 11/4/13 shows 10.1% of the Clairemont body as ESOL students. This is double the next highest school at Glennwood which has 5.2%. The ESOL populations at the remaining three schools is even less.
2) The map also shows that Free & Reduced lunch students will be 37.7% of the Clairemont student body. The next highest school is Oakhurst at 18.7%, or less than half of the Clairemont percentage.
I am all for diversity but I feel that the diversity is not being spread equitably amongst the five elementary schools. Clustering at least double the percentage of ESOL and Free & Reduced lunch students at one school (Clairemont in this case) will present a crisis of resources and lead to an unfair distribution of services for the student body as a whole. Given the relatively stability of housing in this district, I don’t see an influx of new students that could help this imbalance.
“I feel that the diversity is not being spread equitably…” lol. can that be chiseled on the monument to decatur?
Ha! Joke, feels good, don’t it?
My (limited) understanding from comparing the maps is that much of this has to due with how the DHA students are zoned; unless/until you split those properties up and disburse those students to various schools, one school is going to have a higher concentration. Compare Clairemont in Map 7 to Westchester in Maps 5 and 6.
I am definitely against the displacement of DHA kids from their current schools. If anything they need to be the priority in terms of community support and encouragement. That said, look back to the comment you posted above which is an excerpt from the 11/4 meeting comments from CSD:
“If Option 7 is changed such that all of the DHA students are zoned to the school they are currently attending, Clairemont Free and Reduced Lunch students would number 46 and Glennwood F&R Lunch would number 99.”
To me this says that under the current map 7, a large number of DHA students are being shifted to Clairemont since the map shows 104 Free & Reduced Lunch students rather than the 46 represented in the current zoning.
I understand how my comments come across. I also know the statistical reality that ESOL and F&R Lunch students will require more resources per capita than the average student. If that is not taken into account, ALL students will be at a disadvantage within the school. If CSD wants to stick with map 7, fine my me. I’m just suggesting that they will need to do some intensive resource planning to assure that the disadvantaged population will receive all of the support they deserve. Staffing plans will need to differ from the other schools with much lower at-risk populations.
Why do ESL students need to be dispersed evenly as part of a diversity plan? Personally, in a small system like Decatur I would rather have certain schools concentrate resources in one place to serve the kids best rather than have resources dispersed so each each school is “even”. That is taking the diversity argument passed a reasonable point to me. I feel the same way about special ed- and I say this as the mother of child with a disability who may need an IEP as she ages. I want the configuration that lends the highest and best concentration of resources and I value that above her becoming a diversity statistic. I also find it a little bit insulting that you assume lower income kids need more school resources. You are assuming they don’t have great parents who are as involved with their kids as parents with more money so the school has to make up for it. As someone who has worked with low-income populations for 15 years through a deconstruction of the social safety net and poverty “deconcentration” plans that were nothing more than thinly veiled excuses for breaking up communities, I find it sad that people feel DHA kids should just be moved around like chess pieces and communities broken up just to achieve a false “diversity” with the end goal really nothing more than a paternalism that holds that these children need the influence of richer kids to be worth anything.
I believe the plan is to have ESOL students at Westchester. (That was mentioned at Monday’s meeting by the rep from Sizemore.) The maps reflect ESOL students attending their “zoned” schools, but it did not appear to be the district’s plan to have ESOL classes at each school.
So, are you saying that you’re all for diversity, just not THIS MUCH diversity? Is it poor kids or African-American kids that you don’t want too many of? What is a good number? Everyone is talking about keeping neighborhoods together but apparently this does not include the folks who live in pubic housing. Do they not have a neighborhood too? Don’t they want to go to school with their friends who live down the street?
One of the main reasons we moved to Decatur was to allow our son the benefits of going to school with kids from families that don’t look like ours or have different economic status or whatever the case may be. I thought everyone was welcome here. The 4/5 School, Renfroe and DHS are all fantastic schools and they have kids from the entire city, even public housing. I don’t mean to be confrontational, I’m just feeling somewhat disillusioned.
“I am all for diversity but I feel that the diversity is not being spread equitably amongst the five elementary schools. ”
“much of this has to due with how the DHA students are zoned;”
Deja vu !!! Same things were said during reorganization fight and before.
New Scott, welcome to Decatur reality. We love diversity as long as it doesn’t upset the balance. We love neighborhood schools but not all neighborhoods are equal.
Come over here with me, NewScott. I am with you. And I rarely say that to New People
What I can’t figure out is why Gateway Homes isn’t zoned to Westchester like it used to be? That could move some of the overall student load and free/reduced lunch students from Clairemont to Westchester. Aren’t there children there anymore? Sure used to be. Why is there only one dot on the map for Gateway? Or is Gateway being renovated and families have been moved out? Haven’t heard that from friends living there but I could be behind on the news.
There are tons of kids in Gateway. As many or more than when they used to go to Westchester.
From what I’ve heard from school officials the folks at the Housing Authority have politely asked that their k-3 student population only be split between two schools, not three. Due to aftercare, tutoring and other various programs, I guess it was going to cause some problems or just be a hassle.
That seems pretty reasonable.
Glad their wishes are being considered. Gateway is its own neighborhood, separate from, not contiguous with, Allen Wilson Terrace and Swanton Hill, which is probably why it went to a different school in the past. It’s also different financially and legally, less subsidized, I think. But don’t know about after care/tutoring issue.
By the way, there’s at least 3 different groups whose wishes could be considered–the residents of DHA homes, those who run the programs at the Community Center, and the Decatur Housing Authority itself. They don’t necessarily all have the same preferences but they might.
So zoning to Gateway could balance both overall numbers and income diversity a bit. Perhaps Gateway families could be given the pluses (more space, new principal excitement, great playground without the Clairemont post-rain-mudbaths, whatever) and the minuses (transition, untested, whatever) and then surveyed for what they prefer–being bused to Clairemont (.9 mi or 4 min by googlemaps) or being bused to Westchester (1.1 mi or 4 mins).
Still worried about why there’s either one or no dots for Gateway on the maps, depending on how you read them, especially if there’s even more children than there used to be. Are these enrollment data any good?
Completely off-topic and perhaps naive Clairemont question prompted by the ongoing complaints I’ve seen about the dirt playground: If its such a glaring issue, is there a reason they don’t put down some sort of rubberized play surface or wood chips or SOMETHING? Seems like parents would be willing to raise funds independently if it was just a money issue.
IMHO, everything under the sun has been tried. Wood chips have helped but they aren’t everywhere. Trailers taking up the yard solved the problem for a while!
How do you balance an “unbalanced diversity?” Is this a Freudian Slip or are you just in desperate need of a thesaurus?
I claimed “imbalanced diveristy.”
“im·bal·ance
imˈbaləns/
noun
noun: imbalance; plural noun: imbalances
1. lack of proportion or relation between corresponding things.”
I.e. the diversity at Clairemont under map 7 shoes a lack of proportion between the diversity of the corresponding elementary schools.
” I claimed “imbalanced diveristy.”
Ok, how do you balance “imbalanced diveristy?” Moreover, how do you pronounce it?
I apologize for my rudeness-your expressed position just really rubbed me the wrong way.
This is why: The concept of imbalance relates to quantities. Diversity can not be quantified. An imbalance of resources employed may be less than ideal, but to address such a situation in terms of the people involved hints of bigotry. As a card-carrying white guy who was raised in privilege (but not now), I would be cheating myself out of many wonderful people if I thought equality required someone to share my race or background, ect. . Diversity is needed too much for there to be too much diversity.
Apparently, per the CSDParent listserv, parents at the housing community in central Decatur are requesting that their community not be split as well for the sake of someone else’s definition of “diversity”. They want their community kept together just as much as those of us in more traditional housing circumstances. I think it is best to let communities speak for themselves rather than outsiders deciding that “diversity” is more important than a neighborhood.
After working at Atlanta Housing Authority during the very worst of Renee Glover’s massacre of low-income housing and working closely with families who were powerless to stop the destruction of their homes and communities, I tend to land on the side that offers people with less money a little dignity and agency and choice.
” I think it is best to let communities speak for themselves rather than outsiders deciding that “diversity” is more important than a neighborhood.”
Agreed. I, for one, did not mean to suggest that the P.C.-desperate views of an outsider should FORCE communities to diversify. I was thinking about the question of letting the “different” in when they are asking to be let in. I am afraid that I overstated my point. I clearly need to diversify my latte with some decaff.
I was just making a general statement. All of this talk about where the kids in the housing community need to be to satisfy white liberal guilt never seems to involve the people in the communities. It bugs me cause the desires of the people who are affected never seem to be in the equation. Nothing personal about you!!
No worries at all. I was somewhat taken aback by the forcefulness of my own statement: and I think we agree about what you are saying even if i did not come across as such.
This is the correct answer. If Lenox Park, etc. can raise eight shades of stink about keeping their neighborhoods together, then why shouldn’t the DHA neighborhoods be afforded the same amount of respect w/r/t their neighborhoods’ integrity? Why shouldn’t we be concerned with their walkability, etc?
By your reasoning Bento, the system should also be balancing the number of kids needing speech therapy and all the kids with dyslexia or ADHD in each school. Oh and don’t forget the gifted kids – they take up additional resources, too.
Some Free Lunch students don’t get any services beyond Free Lunch. Some children outside of DHA get many extra services. As far as ESOL students – are you implying that they all live in one area ? If not , How would a map balance their attendance?
I know you mean well but seriously, your comments do come across as concern about something beyond the distribution of CSD resources. After all, it is hard to imagine anyone saying it is unfair distribution to have the most gifted students in their school.
Gifted kids don’t take up additional resources; they draw down additional resources from the state to provide their additional services.
ESOL gets federal and state funding based on the number of students needing the services .
If anyone cared to look at the diversity numbers as they currently are they would see that until this year all ESOL students went to Winnona, but Winnona is at capacity for ESOL, so new kids started going to Clairemont this year. The unfair thing is that all this time these students were being bused to a different school than their neighborhood friends (the reality is that many of the ESOL kids live in DHA which is not zoned to Winnona Park). Nobody stood up for them, then.
Also consider the special ed numbers – how fair is it for one school to have a much higher percentage of special needs students and low income students these past few years? The general ed kids may feel like they are falling through the cracks, because so much attention must be placed on several students in each class that have high needs. The teachers and staff are to be commended for the hard work they do to educate our children – while we bicker about a petty boundary issues.
Be grateful for your school district, and look at this objectively: If you were an outsider you would consider keeping natural neighborhoods together as much as possible, and the reality is that major roads are natural breaks to neighborhoods. So, Oakhurst and WP stay south of the tracks and Glennwood above. Oakhurst takes up the smallest footprint because it has the densest housing. These things are not worth arguing about. As small as our town is, consider that certain boundary edges might have to be considered “soft” – which means they can change from year to year. A large district in FL had school zones and only streets within a 1/4 mile of a school were guaranteed attendance to that school, the rest was “up for grabs” with parents having the freedom to apply for attendance for as many as 10 elementary schools in their zone. Maybe Decatur should just do that for the next few years and teach us to appreciate the community that is our whole town.
“Also consider the special ed numbers – how fair is it for one school to have a much higher percentage of special needs students and low income students these past few years? ”
Seriously? Did you really just say this? Fair? Please don’t speak for other people about the impact of inclusion classrooms or socioeconomic mix on average children. Some of us want that mix. It is unfair your speshul snowflake had to sit next to a poor kid or a kid with an IEP? Someone told me today they really feel this whole bruhaha is about a whole lot of entitled white people who don’t want too many poor or disabled kids in “their” schools. I feel silly now for arguing with her. Thanks for proving her point. How embarrassing for you.
These schools BELONG to poor kids and IEP kids JUST as much as they belong to your children. If you don’t think it is fair for them to be in the same classroom as your child, private school is always an option for you.
“Also consider the special ed numbers – how fair is it for one school to have a much higher percentage of special needs students and low income students these past few years? The general ed kids may feel like they are falling through the cracks, because so much attention must be placed on several students in each class that have high needs.”
Have you spoken to any students who feel this way? Or are you trying to imply the following, but aren’t doing it quite straightforwardly:
“It is unfair for one school to have a much higher percentage of special needs students. The general ed kids fall through the cracks, because so much attention must be placed on several students in each class that have high needs.”
You may wish to educate yourself about what goes on with the inclusion of children with special needs in regular classrooms. Here is a good place to start: Implementing Inclusion. An excerpt:
“Literature documenting successful inclusion practices is significant and growing. An analysis by Baker, Wang and Walberg in 1994 concluded that “special-needs students educated in regular classes do better academically and socially than comparable students in non-inclusive settings.” Research also found inclusion was not detrimental to students without disabilities. In fact, a national study of inclusive education conducted in 1995 by the National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI) reported academic, behavioral and social benefits for students with and without disabilities. [...] A number of other studies confirming the educational and social benefits of inclusion for students with and without disabilities can be found in the reference list at the end of this publication.
[...]
This and other research has highlighted improved academic skills, social skills, communication skills and peer relationships as four of the most important benefits of inclusion. Nondisabled students can serve as positive speech and behavior role models for those with disabilities and students with disabilities offer their nondisabled peers acceptance, tolerance, patience and friendship. As allies and friends, peers can offer support both in and out of the classroom. These findings show that everyone involved in inclusive schooling can benefit from the experience.”
This is from a site with a definite agenda (the National Down Syndrome Society), but the research is real, and it jibes with my own experience. You don’t just dump several children with special needs into a regular classroom. They’ll have IEPs, plans for how they’ll work together with the rest of the class (with perhaps occasional pullout sessions for one-on-one or small-group work outside of the classroom), and quite often the classroom will have additional staffing (an intervention paraprofessional) to make sure that it’s a great experience for everyone.
And some families REQUEST inclusion for their typical kids. Not only do they learn lots from kids with different abilities, the law mandates extra teachers in those rooms. The same amount of kids get more paras and certified teachers.More teachers.
….and more parapros is GOOD stuff. I’m convinced that good parapros are the most cost effective way to improve elementary classrooms. A good parapro keeps the classroom teacher sane, helps him/her be more effective, and gives care and attention to all the students. Parapros may be assigned to a classroom because of children with IEPs or 504 Plans but don’t spend every second at their sides. They help the children needing assistance by making the whole classroom work smoother.
Parents in the first few years of elementary school sometimes mistakenly think that the kids with IEPs and 504 plans are the problem students that disrupt classrooms. Not so. In fact, I bet those plans don’t even correlate well with income level anymore in CSD. The parents who are on the ball figure out quickly that, if their child has a learning disability or medical issue, an IEP or 504 Plan is a life-saver and gets their children the extra help and accommodations they need. It’s the parents not engaged in their children’s learning for whatever reason–financial, family, mental health, other problems–who may not know to advocate for proper services for their children. The problem disruptive students (some of whom are “gifted”) often don’t have the IEPs they need. The parents who think students with IEPs/504 plans are the problem eventually learn otherwise; in fact, some of their own children will end up with IEPs/504 Plans. You don’t know in preK, kindergarten or first grade how things are going to turn out for the rest of your child’s development.
College Heights is one reason CSD has early intervention success for kids who need a little help
Glad to hear that. When I had a preKer there and a friend had 2-3 year old with speech difficulties there, I felt that the opportunities for early intervention were underutilized and parents had to recognize their child’s needs and speak up or the needs wouldn’t be addressed. I’ve heard that it’s a totally different story now and I’m glad of it.
Was this back when the Y ran the 0-3?
Yes and I’m sure that was part of the problem. I never figured out why they were chosen as the initial providers. The Y does not have a good rep with child care. But live and learn…
I am sorry you all mis-interpreted my statement. I am all for inclusion services and will now out myself as a school OT who has worked in this system for more than 5 years. But there is a case for when the inclusion ratio is too high for it to be beneficial. Every child who has an IEP, has a specialized plan, which is generally relatively easy to implement in a general education classroom. When you have 2 or 3 children in a single class with IEPs, it is still doable, but gets trickier based on each child’s specific needs. Now picture one in 4 or 5 children in a single class with an IEP and each child with his or her specific set of abilities and academic, behavioral and sensory needs. Then add the children who are at-risk, but not yet served, or monitored through the early intervention or rti process, and you are looking at nearly half the class considered “high needs”. There is still only one additional teacher in the class to support students with IEPs whether is is for one child or 6. And that is what I meant. I see increased teacher stress and burnout because they have so many extra responsibilities. When one K-3 school has more than 10% of it’s population considered ESS and the other 3 schools have only 3-5% that is not fair on the resources of the one school, period. All I meant was that one needs to consider having those high needs numbers be spread more evenly across the schools. And that way all students in the district can gain from the experiences of being in an inclusion classroom.
SIDENOTE: If you work for CSD, you need to be careful about posting in your capacity as an employee.FAVE Colleague’s post was a blatant violation of CSD and state policy and the HR and community affairs people at CSD are on the lookout for this stuff. It sounds like you are speaking more from experience than anything, though.
I am really glad I missed your point. I reread the post 5 or 6 times over the last couple days hoping you meant something different than what I was reading; the middle of the post was contradicting the beginning and end – something seemed off in the way I was reading and it seems to be the case that intention was lost in passion, which makes me happy
Anyway, what is the answer? Self-contained doesn’t work for kids with mild issues. Funding is best when the groups of IEP kids are concentrated. Parents want their IEP kids in inclusion. But I do have to say you are right about the distraction issues. A friend of mine who works with special ed kids in another district has a son with an IEP at CSD. He is young, so he has basically undiagnosed learning disabilities. He is in a class with typical kids, autistic kids, kids with physical disabilities but fairly typical intellectual abilities. She wants inclusion for her son, but he works best in a small group settings- the large mixed classroom distracts him. In her work life, she has some of the same issues you have (note that she works in a very poor district with limited resources) and sees problems with inclusion.
I have a daughter who because of mild hearing loss may or may not need an IEP. So what is the solution? Do you think it really boils down to more funding for everyone to provide more classroom professionals? Some idiot running for Atlanta school board was shrieking on the news the other day about how schools don’t need more money, but that of course is a Republican meme and not a reality. (Until every child in this country has a chance for an EQUAL education and we never utter the words “poor district” again, we need more funding). What is the most equitable solution?
Part of the problem is that the solution needs to be individualized for each child. The law recognizes that by calling the plans Individual Educational Plan aka IEP. But, in reality, that is hard to do in any school system because the law has to be implemented through policies, procedures, budgets, bureaucracies, real human beings. It’s especially hard for small school systems to offer lots of options.
The underfunding of public education in Georgia is a complete embarrassment. I’ll stop there because I have to go to church and don’t have all day.
Having FOUGHT HARD to get my daughter the education she is entitled to under federal and state law (requesting both an IEP and a 504 plan and being denied despite evaluation results to the contrary), I do applaud the many teachers who have made their own accomodations for her. After speaking at length with the DOE and two different attorneys who specialize in this area of the law, I was told time and time again the CSD fights these designations greatly given the additional time, energy and resources required to address the issues of children who *should* be protected by these laws. We moved here, and enrolled our daughter here, because we liked the diversity. In reading the comments, it is hard to come to a decision as to whether I would prefer my daughter to attend school with her neighbors, or if it would be better for her to have more specialized instruction at a different location. I understand the inclusion argument, but I also know that my daughter has cried more than once because she feels “stupid” and and “embarassed” that she is not on par with her classmates. I believe there is no right answer to how the re-districting should shake out, but the heart of it should be how ALL of our kids can best succeed, as opposed to how short their walk (or a parent’s commute) to school would be. I would like to close by stating again my great respect for the teachers in our schools. Their responsibilities are great, their accountability is more onerous than almost any other profession I know of, and I cannot say thank you enough for the people who have helped my daughter learn.
Keep up the good fight. School systems sometimes aim for the minimum letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law which is to allow each child to reach their full potential, not just get over some minimum bar. It’s hard enough to have a child who needs an IEP and/or 504 plan; it’s an indignity to then have to fight for it.
Agree that our great CSD teachers are admirable and that they have higher stress, less control, and more accountability, for less pay compared to most professions.
I think my point is that parents can talk all they want about their preferences for redistricting, but need to remember that all they can see is what is through their own prism. They do not have the perspective of a teacher who manages a classroom, or a principal who manages a school or the administration who manage the district. For example, on a map the parents living across the tracks from Oakhurst cannot fathom why CSD would want to redistrict them to Weschester, but when you have to decide what is more important: keeping a neighborhood together, but moving them to help even the equity numbers vs. keeping that neighborhood at Oakhurst and splitting up the DHA kids by ESOL or not, so that one school’s numbers are not skewed, which would you choose? Should the district listen to the loudest voices just because they have the resources to attend the meetings and make comments via the internet? You want inclusion with special needs and low income? – then fight for that – make sure your schools represent those population groups more equally (without splitting up low income neighborhoods). Families should be paying much more attention to the numbers at the bottom of each map. Remember that fair is not always equal. Maybe it is time for low income children to get the bigger slice of the pie so to speak – place them first and then fit the rest of us in.
4Brocks, thanks for the reply and clarification. I can see that inclusion classrooms, if implemented in the way you’re describing, could work out badly. But I don’t see that that’s a worry in CSD right now, and it shouldn’t be a concern elsewhere if inclusion classrooms are implemented in a thoughtful way and with adequate resources. Right now at CSD, children with special needs who are in inclusion classrooms attend their neighborhood school, so there isn’t any particular reason why one school would have a largely disproportionate share of kids with IEPs, and in any case, even if one school does have a larger %, I don’t any good justification for packing lots of kids with IEPs into one classroom without adequate parapro support. If an elementary school has 6 children in one grade with special needs in inclusion classrooms, have 2 inclusion classrooms for that grade (with an intervention parapro in each) rather than one. My daughter was at College Heights for 2 years in inclusion classrooms, and each year was one of about 4 children with mental and/or physical disabilities, and things were great for everybody.
Not all children with special needs attend their zoned schools. All children in K-3 with special needs – no matter what their level of need is – spend SOME part of their day in an inclusion setting.
Hi 4brocks (Four Brocks or Four Bee Rocks?). Right—I think we’re just using our terms a bit differently. I was thinking of “children in inclusion classrooms” as cases where the child spends the majority of her time (usually 80%+) alongside her typical peers in an academic setting, with occasional pullout sessions (or sessions within the classroom on the side) for OT, PT, speech therapy, extra help with recognizing letters, etc. AFAIK–and correct me if I’m wrong–in CSD, children with IEPs who are in inclusion classrooms are sent to their neighborhood school. I know that for some children with high needs, it’s deemed not appropriate to have them in inclusion classrooms (in the sense above), although they’ll sometimes visit the regular classroom for specific (usually non-academic) subjects. And not all of these children are sent to their neighborhood school. (I have friends whose daughter was in this situation.)
Map 6 seems the fairest of the maps with potentially a couple of small changes – it seems to keep almost everyone walking, keeps Winnona Park in tact, Lenox Place walking to Oakhurst, and MAK at Winnona (I think… hard to tell the exact streets…). Hoping the board will consider that over Map 7 – hate to see any neighborhood lose the ability to attend their neighborhood school. It’s one thing when schools are closing but seems wrong when an additional school is getting added to the mix.
The overall tone of this whole discussion (on this thread and on others where it has surfaced) is disheartening on several counts. Too many to enumerate, since no minds will be changed anyway. But one thing bears stating: The decisions the “old” board made, and the ways in which Dr. Edwards and her staff administered those decisions, are what shaped the school system that helped Decatur property values soar and fueled the explosive growth of student population. Most people that depend on and believe in public education in this country would give a lot to be confronting the particular challenges and choices Decatur is up against right now.
I think we need to keep in mind that most decisions “made” by the school board were driven by the superintendent. She is not just administering the board decisions; she is making the policy on which the board votes.
Which is what she’s paid to do. She’s not paid to dance to the tune of posses of parents who want things their own way.
CSD and Decatur are facing tough challenges. As others have noted at various times, the system is largely a victim of its own success. Therefore, I am at a complete loss to understand the current vogue to demonize Phyllis Edwards and/or Board members who have served us so well these past 10+ years. If people spent as much energy articulating what they DO want in the next superintendent as cataloging everything they think Dr. Edwards has done wrong, the conversations would be more productive IMO.
This would be a good thread: What does the community want to see in the next Superintendent in terms of skills, experience, credentials, etc.?
No, no, I agree with you. The comment just sounded like the board was driving the bus. I just wanted to throw in an addendum.
I disagree though, with part of what you say. As public officials, the board and the superintendent have a duty to take into the account community voices. I don’t want parents driving that bus either but parent concerns should be out there too.
For me, the issue is that this keeps happening. I believe that we need an assistant superintendent-level position for facilities. Any nonprofit worth its salt with facilities to manage (art museums, zoos, aquariums) has an executive level position that is constantly working on capacity, expansion and configurations. Rather than pay consultants, let’s get a trained space planner on staff to manage the physical plant, someone sensitive to the community who can manage long term strategic growth and shrinking. I think it would make a huge difference in how people react to these reconfigurations because that would be proactive solution. It wouldn’t seem like we are in a constant state of REACTION. Make sense?
Some might disagree, and it is important especially for new arrivals to know there is strong disagreement about crediting those decisions for any successes we have enjoyed. Knowing this is not useful as a point of contentiousness, but as a guide to figuring out what principles should guide future decisions. At the time of the original reconfiguration, the critical “fact” was declining school enrollment. K-5 schools, by design, had “too much” excess space and we could cut the number of teachers and classes if we combined schools so that there would be more classes per grade. However, folks showed that the declining enrollment was a temporary anomaly, with maps documenting a large number toddlers and young babies about to enter our schools that the administration denied existed. The administration had to have declining number of kids, because growth in that number made converting Glenwood to a 4-5 school (at a substantial cost) unworkable within a very few years. As it turned out, these kids did exist. When this group later came along and the number was too large to be accommodated by the two-grade school, the Administration misstated things twice: (a) it said the growth in kids was a “surprise” even though their existence had been documented during the reconfiguration debate; and (b) the administration claimed credit for attracting the new kids when they were already here before the changes. So, population trends were already underway to increase school attendance. Then we had the gentrification of Oakhurst. It was well underway before the reconfiguration, and already a huge focus of attention of the city. Look at the notes from the city’s long term planning sessions back in the 1990s, and you will see that this process was already underway, with much discussion centered on how the trend was reducing the racial and economic diversity of the City. Then throw in the spikes in gas prices in the mid-2000s, which drove more and more young families to look at intown housing, as well, further fueling that increase in demand for housing in Oakhurst. Finally, we’ve had simultaneous crises in both of the adjoining school sytems — the DeKalb Schools and the Atlanta Public Schools. Can any honest statistician untangle the indisputable effect of all of these forces in driving folks here? I don’t think so. And what folks are likely to come out of DeKalb and Atlanta? Those who value public education and are more likely to be involved parents and committed to their child’s attainment. So, you are getting a cream of the crop kind of family for school attainment purposes. Before the two-grade school came along, we were already a jewel of a school system, far from perfect, but still a top choice. The City is a “City of Neighborhoods” and the six-grade neighborhood schools were a key builder of the connections that underpinned the bonds that made the neighborhoods special — and valuable. The decisions of the board to close Westchester and go with the two-grade school decapitated the last two years of the elementary schools, the very grades where key leaders emerged for our PTAs and neighborhoods. So, it made it harder to build the leadership and bonds that historically and made neighborhoods special, effectively making Decatur neighborhoods less attractive — and less valuable. In the extreme, that was certainly the case in the Westchester neighborhood, where their school was closed, seriously harming neighbor “connectedness” and property values. (Close your eyes and imagine closing your nearest school. Welcome to the Westchester parents’ world of 10 years ago.) While there are pluses to the two-grade school, as far as educational attainment, the vast bulk of studies show that kids — especially at risk kids — do much better schools with longer grade spans and fewer transitions. (Renfroe’s parade of principals and variations in teaching personnel make any claim about the kids being better in middle school dubious.) Parental involvement, a key driver in student achievement, is far more challenging to obtain under this system, with folks not involved in any school for as long, and more likely to be spread over multiple schools. Thus, some might argue that our children’s strong academic performance and in the growth in property values is testament to power of other forces to overcome the school decisions by the board and superintendent. As such, as folks look to the future, a good argument can be made not to give much, if any, weight to the contribution of the two-grade school to our success. What does the research show works best? (Do your own research. This is not neurosurgery. You can read many, if not most, of the studies.) What vision do you have as a great environment for your kids’ education? What structures can most easily accommodate continued growth (or other changes) with as little disruption as possible? Approach the decisions with an open mind, and one that recognizes that network television is not the only place where you can have a Fox News, MSBC, CNN and Jon Stewart version of the “facts” that brought us to where we are.
We’ve been here for 11 years – moved here for the excellent schools, in fact. What I’ve seen during that time is a mass influx of well-to-do, well educated parents fleeing DeKalb County schools, City of Atlanta schools or even Clayton County (remember that disaster? At the time, I saw more than one Clayton County plate pulling up to my child’s elementary.)
How much of this change really can be attributed to our school system’s leadership?
don’t underestimate the skill required to manage and sustain success—especially with the kind of growth we’ve had.
I don’t have a specific map preference especially because I don’t have K-3 children anymore. But two things are worrying me:
1) The data off of which all these maps are based. I don’t see a bunch of dots for Gateway Manor Homes like there should be. Other posters are not seeing their children on the maps as dots. Maybe the dots aren’t really the data off of which the tables and decisions were made. But if they are, I’m worried. Also, the statement that Gateway students have variously attended Clairemont and Glennwood: In my memory, they attended Westchester and Clairemont. This may just be a careless error but this isn’t a time for careless errors.
2) The sentence in the signed “K-3 Attendance Committee Recommendation” which is on the CSD K-3 Zoning website: “This recommendation is made based on the perspective that all K-3 students would attend their assigned zone school zone (sic) without grandfathering in students for the 2014-2015 school year”. I wish that families could have the option of keeping their third graders in their current schools just to finish up K-3, especially those those students with special needs or those who do not do well with transitions. It’s only for one year, most families won’t choose it because they’ll want their children to go with their siblings and neighborhood friends, and it shows flexibility and good will towards the families moved.
Y’know, we’re part of the problem and I fully admit it. We moved out of South Dekalb (our kid was zoned for a school where less than a quarter of third graders were reading at grade level) into Decatur for the schools. It happens. The CSD has an embarrassment of riches here, and this is just about the best possible problem you could hope to have – the schools are so good that they can’t contain everyone who wants to get in.
What an awful curse. Just our cross to bear, I guess.
Rather than invent conspiracy theories, or rewrite history, or call our school leadership a bunch of liars, or call my neighbors racists, I’m going to highlight the significant amount of transparency and public input involved in this process. Good job.
If school enrollment numbers keep exploding, and they likely will, then we will probably have to do this again at some point. When that happens it’s good to know we have a proven model to make it work.
Now back to the regularly scheduled bashing and questioning of motives…
Stuck in moderation – please let me out.
Supposedly, everything is good in moderation.
+1…. giggle