Yesterday, City Schools of Decatur held its pre-K lottery for 190 slots at College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center.
As recapped in an email from CSD’s Community Liason Courtney Burnett, “Bright From the Start allocates 9 Pre-K classrooms to City Schools of Decatur that is included in our grant agreement each year. Class sizes are determined by Bright From the Start. Currently, we have 4 inclusion classrooms with 20 students enrolled and 5 Pre-K classrooms with 22 students enrolled which totals 190 slots for College Heights ECLC.”
This year, a total of 263 children were involved in the lottery, so 73 children ended up being added to the waiting list. This is up from 47 children added to the wait list across all of last year.
According to Ms. Burnett, 17 children from last year’s list remain on the waitlist for this year. With yesterday’s addition of 73 children to the existing waitlist, Ms. Burnett confirmed that “This will be the first year that families who participated in the lottery “probably” will not be offered a slot prior to the start of school.”
Cool that College Heights preK is so popular. Darn that it can’t meet all of the need. In fact, I wonder if there’s enough slots in ALL Decatur preK programs, private as well as College Heights, even if you define Decatur loosely, to meet the need. Wonder if Glennwood and Westchester have room to add a preK class or two. It’s not ideal, a mixed model like that, but demand is high.
Technical question: how can a child be on the waiting list for preK two years in a row? A child is only age 4 years on the specified eligibility date once.
Probably those 17 are choosing to start a year late in kindergarten. After a year of private pre-K they are interested in their children attending College Heights pre-k instead of a private 5 year old kindergarten. Or maybe they just haven’t notified CH that they want to be removed from the wait-list. This is just a guess but these are the only explanations that make sense to me.
So what happens to the children who don’t make it into CHECLC? Do their parents then have to find another pre-K program, most likely one they have to pay for?
I’m curious, because CHECLC is a CSD program, right? If so, residents pay taxes so their kids can go. But if they don’t make it in, aren’t the parents then essentially being double-charged (property taxes AND a private pre-K)?
The state only mandates that public school systems provide kindergarten through 12th grade, except in the case of children with special needs, in which case I think public schools have to serve age 3 through age 21, or something like that.
No, 7.62 x 39. Pre-k in GA is lottery-funded, not through individual school systems.
There are state funded pre K programs that are not located in public schools too. Since the Georgia pre K program is funded from the lottery, not taxes, so parents who pay for pre k are not paying twice (unless they buy a lot of lottery tickets) .
If parents do decide to go the private preschool route, there are many wonderful private preschool programs in and around Decatur, too!
Oh, OK. Thanks for explaining the state mandate and funding. Now things are much clearer.
To some degree yes. The lottery only funds so much; so, part of Decatur’s property taxes do, indeed, go towards the teachers’ salaries (and whatever other financial gap is left) at CHECLC.
That’s a point, that a sizeable proportion of our preK program is funded by local tax dollars so ideally all resident children should have the opportunity to participate. That’s why I’m thinking that maybe preK classrooms will be opened up at Westchester and Glennwood or wherever there’s space. 73 children is 4 classrooms worth of preK.
A counterpoint is that there’s plenty of things funded by our local tax dollars that don’t benefit us as individuals. I’m never available for any of the daytime Decatur Rec activities, nor do I benefit from any of the dog parks, nor do the childless get a direct benefit from the school system. Some families lose the after school program lottery. But we all benefit from living in a community that has those activities.
Ms. Burnett’s email implies that state limits number of pre-K classes offered by CSD. Is that right?
Is there anyway for the city to negotiate for more classrooms? This issue in only going to get worse – the tidal wave of children is coming.
When my kid was a senior at DHS last year (2012-2013), the freshman class was almost twice as big as the senior class. The tidal wave is already here.
That’s right. In fact the state doesn’t fund enough classes statewide to meet demand. The statewide wait list is at least 8,000.
Our little one went to this program and had an outstanding time there. The facility is fantastic as are the teachers. I am sorry to see the stress on the system and know that the schools and system needs to really think about the expansion needed.
I have always been pro-development on this blog but still worry what the loads are going to be like in the near future for the education programs in Decatur! Our child is nearing middle school so I think we will be on the front end of the population push but would be interested in comments of those parents with younger kids.
Already over capacity, yet we have three massive developments coming to the City. Is there a plan for this or are we just going to add more and more apartments and condos?
Apparently it’s the latter.
Apparently so. I would seriously be interested to know if anyone can tell me if there really is a plan.
CSD has been developing a master plan. More info:
http://csdecatur.net/master-plan/
You mean other than “Build, build, build and figure the rest out later”?
The city is following the strategic plan, which among other things set forth a vision for higher density, mixed use, downtown development. So this is all going according to plan.
CSD has developed a master plan to deal with the enrollment growth (Go to csdecatur dot net and look for the Master Plan link). The City Commissioners disgraced themselves by not approving their recommendation last year, but it’s still before them and they should act soon.
Everyone take a deep breath, the people we have put in place to deal with all of this are, for the most part, aware and working on it.
As City of Decatur looks to cast its annexation net even farther, should they be successful, CSD will also need to accommodate the children from the additional apartment communities. There are 5 large apartment communities along DeKalb Industrial, 2 on Milscott, and 2 more proposed within the expanded boundaries.
First, I wish I had your confidence. In my opinion, the city commissioners have completely passed on this. They punted on the bond referendum last year, and since CSD is taking matters into its own hands and obtaining financing without public approval, the commissioners apparently feel this is no longer worthy of their attention. They should be active participants in the conversation. But hey, we have had/will have several work sessions to talk about trees, so all is good.
Second, I think the strategic plans are in some ways out of date. No one could have predicted the enormous growth of CSD or the drastic increase in the number of teardowns, etc. in our communities as they are largely result of outside forces (the utter chaos and threatened loss of accreditation facing both Dekalb County Schools and APS). Yes, CSD would have grown due its great reputation, but not at these levels.
Admittedly, if I didn’t hold the first opinion above, I would be less concerned about the second. But, presently the left hand isn’t talking to the right. Dr. Edwards publicly stated a few weeks ago that the current projections which show the schools being overcrowded in 4 or 5 years do not take into account a single downtown development. At the same time, the city is still considering substantial residential annexation. There is an obvious disconnect.
I agree with your last paragraph – the two organizations clearly have not been working together until late last year. Some of that was by design, separated political entities for historical reasons, but it can’t continue that way anymore. I tend to blame the commissioners more, as they apparently had never reached out to CSD to understand the impacts of annexation or development options on the schools, which are 70% of the budget.
I’m hopeful that CSD’s working sessions with the commissioners late last year started started some cooperation. At the very least, the CSD bond request got their attention that this is a huge deal. In my opinion, a much bigger deal than a tree ordinance.
Your last and second to last paragraph contradict themselves. The recommendation has been made, yet the people who are supposed to approve the recommendation haven’t done so. Meanwhile, we are adding at least 1,000 housing units to our City.
It seems that we are ready to add residential at will, but I don’t see any schools being built or expanded to deal with the increased population.
I’m not hyperventilating, but I’m also not convinced that everything is OK.
You asked if there was a plan. There are two plans – the city’s strategic plan and the CSD master plan. Question answered?
I don’t think everything is perfect, and that’s what I was pointing out regarding the commissioners’ lack of approval of the CSD bond referendum. But there is attention to all of this.
The plans will obviously need to be revised as things change. Annexation and large scale development projects are not factored into the CSD enrollment projections – both factors are unpredictable and must be incorporated into the master plan as they get close to reality. Dr. Edwards has been saying this throughout the process.
Thanks.
“The plans will obviously need to be revised as things change. Annexation and large scale development projects are not factored into the CSD enrollment projections – both factors are unpredictable and must be incorporated into the master plan as they get close to reality. Dr. Edwards has been saying this throughout the process.”
This basically means there isn’t a plan.
You win. There is no plan, except for the plan. It’s clear I can’t have a productive, informative conversation with you, so I’ll bow out.
Nobody wins, and nobody is trying to win. I had a legitimate question (“Is there a plan?”) because I am concerned about the increased residential development, which seems to be ahead of the school development.
There is no snark to my “there basically isn’t a plan” comment. It’s the truth if there was a plan a few years ago that is no longer a valid plan to follow for our current situation.
Replying “Question answered?” to someone is hardly the tone you take with someone when you’re trying to engage in a productive conversation.
My opinion is different than yours, but that doesn’t make it wrong. And it doesn’t make you wrong either.
Bulldog- he answered your question. “Yes there is a plan.” He tried to be sympathetic to your point. “The plan might need a revision.” You dismissed his answer. It appears to me that you don’t want to recognize that there is a plan. You don’t really want an answer. You just want to be right.
Signed, an impartial observer.
Geoff – Thanks for that helpful comment. I don’t want to be right. What I want to know is how the City is going to address the influx as a result of the new developments. Nobody has answered that. And I’m sorry but saying there’s a two or three year old plan that needs to be revised is not an answer.
Between 1910 and 1940, our population grew by over 600%. In the 50s and 60s we had 10% more residents than we have right now. Can someone please tell me about the magical former time in which the school system was not faced with responding to population growth (or decline)?
My guess would be that those classrooms held 40-50 students, something that is unheard of today.
Wherever the standards are drawn, the system must still react accordingly to growth or decline. What I’d really like to know is if there’s ever been a time when the school system has actually been able to control the number of kids that show up any given year. I’d think not.
I believe larger past populations were mentioned here before and someone noted that segregation would have had an affect on the school enrollment. Regardless, I agree with Scott: adaptation is a constant requirement for pretty much everything.
Scott – The difference is that the new developments are creating population growth, whereas in previous years the population growth/decline was anybody’s guess. While I agree that we must always adapt, if we’re creating the situation to which we must adapt we better plan for it.
I’m not sure I follow this. In this instance, downtown development is a surefire source of population growth but it is only a speculative source of significant growth in enrollment. Historically, development occurred at the neighborhood level in predominantly single family homes and was a guaranteed source of enrollment growth. We’ve always created the situation. The only difference has been the form of what was built.
Given everything that has occurred with neighboring school districts and given CSD’s reputation for excellent education, it’s certainly a possibility that new apartments and condos will bring families to the area just for CSD. It’s probably not in our City’s best interest to speculate which developments are likely to bring kids and which developments won’t.
It’s a puzzle, of course, but I don’t think it would be wise to assume that enrollment won’t go up in the next 4-5 years based purely on the past. It’s always possible that more families and empty-nesters move out of single family homes and into these new downtown developments, leaving the home for a new family with a little one.
I don’t have the answer, but I hope the City has taken enrollment into consideration before moving forward with these massive developments.
A 600 % increase on a small base is much different than a 600 % increase on a much larger base. We would have to look at the figures to see the relevance of a 10% increase in 50s and 60s. What about now?
Small base notwithstanding, it was not in any way insignificant. It was a massive increase of 14,000 residents over a period of 30 years. In contrast, in the 30 years since the city’s Town Center plan, our population has grown by roughly 1,500-2,000 people.
You are not taking into account the alarm created when minority citizens (aka African-American) began moving from east Atlanta into DeKalb County and the City of Decatur, creating a white flight. In the 1970s and 1980s, people were very reluctant to move into Decatur. Many of those who purchased homes considered themselves “urban pioneers.” Blatant statements in favor of certain positions, omitting causality and nuance, contribute to a misunderstanding of the historical circumstances of Decatur’s evolution.
I am not taking those things into account because they are not the issue we’re discussing (or at least not the issue *I* was discussing when I posted the comment you responded to). The issue is change and rate of change and the ability of a school system to react and adapt. My illustrations are not to suggest that our point in history mirrors any other. Clearly it does not. My point is that, taken in an historical perspective, the challenges presently facing the school system do not seem particularly catastrophic. We’ve dealt with rapid and significant changes — both in terms of growth and decline — before. I don’t see why we can’t again.
Not completely true. Many young families were moving into Decatur in the early to mid 80’s, including my own. This spurred the enrollment growth in the early 90’s that led to the cycle of renovations that began in 1997-98.
I am very concerned about the new developments and their impact on all of Decatur’s systems and infrastructure. Too much, too soon. If the building of these new developments was staggered, I’d feel much better about the city monitoring their impact and making adjustments accordingly. Our schools are already overcrowded, the police force seems to have their work cut out for them with the recent crime reports, not to mention it takes over 25 minutes to cross our 4 square miles at any given time AND Decatur Square looks like Buckhead circa 1989 on Friday and Saturday nights. Too much.
Decatur Square’s looking like Buckhead circa 1989? Really?? I don’t know what Buckhead looked like in 1989, but I know what it looked like when we used to party there in 1996-1999 (the height of the bar/nightclub scene there, which pretty much went down & then toppled around 2004, 3 or 4 years after the Cobalt nightclub murders). And I can tell you unequivocally that our present-day Decatur Square in no way, shape or form resembles Buckhead in its wild heyday–not on Friday or Saturday nights, nor any other night! Now, if Buckhead 1989-1995 was a bit tamer than 1996 onward, then you may be right. But I don’t think your complaint is that the Square is too tame, is it? So…I think mayhap your perspective is a bit out of line with reality. Not being snarky, I promise–your statement just threw me a bit.
I partied in Buckhead from 89-98, at the peak of my partying years. Decatur Square looks nothing like Buckhead.
Buckhead went downhill when folks started commuting in to party, get rowdy and start stabbing and shooting folks instead of merely barfing on you, popping collars and trying to pick up chicks. That is what prompted the Buckhead Coalition to change the rules and push the bars out.
Decatur on Friday night is families walking to dinner and relatively affluent late 20+ year olds having fancy beer/ cocktails. I worked at a bar I buckhead in 1989. That weekend scene was thousands of kids 19-25 from North, South, East, and West of Atlanta looking to hook up. Not very similar.
“If the building of these new developments was staggered, I’d feel much better about the city monitoring their impact and making adjustments accordingly.” — I don’t understand this comment.
“it takes over 25 minutes to cross our 4 square miles at any given time” — I get across Decatur in less time than that, all the time, at various times of day and night. Not sure I could walk the longest diagonal in that time, but maybe. (Could definitely do it on a dare, with incentives.) Definitely could cover any east-west or north-south traverse on foot in under 25 minutes. In a car, it could only take that long if there’s a train. Maybe. But then, I always looked upon the trains as secret weapons to calm traffic and discourage the riffraff from settling.
“Decatur Square looks like Buckhead circa 1989 on Friday and Saturday nights.” — Well, no. Not so much. Not at all.
“Decatur Square looks like Buckhead circa 1989 on Friday and Saturday nights”
If that were true, I’m pretty sure I would have noticed the scent of Drakkar Noir and puke wafting through my windows.
Haaaaahahahahahaha! Exactly.
“Not sure I could walk the longest diagonal in that time, but maybe.”
Assuming that longest diagonal is in fact 4 miles, you cannot possibly walk it in 25 minutes, which is a 6 minute 15 second per mile pace. That’s a fast — actually quite fast — jog. Even walking 3 miles in 25 minutes isn’t possible (about an 8:20 per mile pace, again, a brisk run).
Wouldn’t the longest diagonal in a 4 sq. mile square be 2.828 mi?
still an 8:50 mile though
The longest nearly-straight line distance across the city appears to actually be about 3.2 miles, from North Decatur Road to the south side of Dearborn Park. That’s about an hour walk at a normal pace. I can’t imagine it EVER taking 25 minutes to drive it, and I drive it during rush hour often.
A reasonable walking route from 2nd/Oakview to Suburban Plaza is about 3 miles. It would take me about an hour to walk that. And if we’re being literal and precise, I’m sure it would take me longer than an hour to walk from Chevelle Lane to N. Decatur Rd. (the top of the hat). OTOH, I could scoot from the post office to Arcadia/W. Ponce in way under 25 minutes, especially if I ignored the traffic signals, like most pedestrians are wont to do.
So, even though your geometry is way off, the gist of your comment is correct and I’m busted. You win.
Take it easy — if it came off as trying to throw egg in your face, that wasn’t my intent. It just struck me as an implausible estimate.
Well, one of my pet peeves around here is when somebody derails a discussion through literal nit-picking. So I brought that to the exchange, and also forgot that I’m not supposed to post before the first cup of coffee really takes hold. Vehemence is almost always overkill here!
Of course, I can’t cover 3 miles on foot in 25 minutes (although there was a time when I could and sufficiently incentivized, I could work up to it again). But I also can’t figure out how somebody could take 25 minutes to drive across Decatur, unless they managed to catch long trains on both the NS and CSX tracks AND chose not to back up and go around either crossing.
Understood and no worries. In fact my nitpciking of your post was prior to MY first cup, so there’s a lesson here for me, too.
Reunited and it feels so good
Reunited ’cause we understood
There’s one perfect fit
And, sugar, this one is it
We both are so excited
‘Cause we’re reunited, hey, hey
“Reunited”
-Peaches and Herb
I think you’re the only person that can give me a vile ear worm without eliciting a grudge!
I’m so glad, I’m so glad
I’m glad, I’m glad, I’m glad
I’m so glad, I’m so glad
I’m glad, I’m glad, I’m glad
“I’m So Glad”
-Cream
🙂
Re crossing Decatur: crossing Decatur isn’t what takes the most time. I can drive to the East Lake YMCA from NW Decatur in 10-15 minutes any time of day. Columbia Seminary is 15 minutes. What takes the most time is getting to Renfroe Middle School at drop off or pick up times. Between the railroad tracks, commuters, parent sherpas, crossing guards, car line, traffic lights, etc., the 2 to 2 1/2 mile drive (depending on route and I’ve tried them all) can take 20+ minutes (and 30 minutes has happened). I don’t think more density will make a difference, the major delay is due to the track crossings, not volume of cars. The inceaseing number of Renfroe students may increase delays though. The answer of course is the bus. And I totally believe in it. Problem is that kids miss it and don’t get me started why. They could walk but a) it’s already too late and/or b) they are carrying a huge box that holds some kind of 3D cell project and/or c) they are on crutches for the the third time this year. And then you have parents jumping in their cars, already late for work, now their child is almost tardy and they all converge on …….McDonough and College. Luckily, I am careful to leave for work before the bus comes and am blissfully unaware–and that’s the approach I recommend to all RMS parents. Until we get……DRONES! Can’t wait until we can deliver our RMS and FAVE students across the tracks via drones.
Ditto re getting home from FAVE. This has added so much to my evening commute versus picking up from our neighborhood school. Especially when combined with the mess over around Trinity/Church they’ve had going on lo these many months.
if you remember what Buckhead looked like on a weekend night in 1989, you weren’t there.
Sweet! Anyone want to meet me at Lulu’s for a fishbowl or two tonight?
Heh. Several of my friends worked at Lulu’s and one of them even somehow appropriated the old drink dispenser machine they served the fish bowl drinks from before they cleaned the building out for demolition. I don’t have a roof top patio but we can hook that sucker up on my patio and drink them around the fire pit. You want Buckhead in Decatur, I’m happy to do my part!
While you are offering a lot of questions, Bulldog. Do you have any solutions? It sounds like you, possibly Dawg Fan too, are calling for drastic government intervention into private sector activities. A moratorium on the construction of buildings that would otherwise meet all current zoning codes. Is that what you are calling for?
+1
Interesting, Bulldog. You still haven’t answered my question. With no response after 3 hours and no reason to think otherwise it must be so: you are calling for massive government intervention into the downtown development process, curtailing all further new building until we have a plan. When shall this moratorium begin? Immediately, I assume.
I didn’t see your post until today. My solution is to scale back on the development until a plan can be developed that fits the needs of 2014, especially given the state of the schools. We’re already at demand, yet we’re developing at will. I don’t see why this is such a controversial request. I’m merely advocating for a plan that includes taking into account what these new developments will mean to our city and specifically our schools. I don’t have the answers, but I do have the right to ask questions, don’t I?
I’m not for stopping any development that complies with current zoning, but I’d consider a moratorium on annexation that includes any residential or the potential for adding residential.
You can ask as many questions as you want. Can you please clarify how we are going “scale back on the development.” Are you calling for a moratorium on building? We know that single family homes are much more likely to add children to our schools. Therefore, should we go ahead and place a moratorium on single family homes too? That would make sense. If we put a moratorium on multifamily but not single family do you think that the multifamily land owners might be a bit upset? I’m just trying to understand your proposal.
My proposal is this: CREATE A PLAN. My understanding is that there isn’t a current plan that addresses the current situation or needs. If that means limiting development, then yes. Why in the world would you develop something without a plan?
These buildings fit perfectly into our city center plans going back to 1980. So which plan is more important? And, says who?
Good question, and one that neither of us have the answer to.
The other thing here, Bulldog, is that you are talking about controlling development based on the schools. The schools have no control over development. So the schools can opine all they want about whether these new apartments are good or bad, but they can’t do anything about it. The city can listen to the schools, but these apartments are exactly what the city wants, and from a tax perspective, needs. These apartments fit perfectly into the city’s plans. The schools, by default, must react to what happens on the ground. They don’t have the option of slowing down whatever changes are taking place, which is what Scott was getting at.
I don’t disagree that schools don’t get to dictate CoD decisions, but you are leaving a huge part of the equation – CoD residents. IF these developments are going to cause school overcrowding or IF these developments are going to cause substantial tax increases to address the school overcrowding issues and increased operating expenses, the residents could collectively (by that I mean a majority (or more accurately, a majority of the vocal ones) direct CoD leadership to slow things down. Not saying that should happen in this case, but it is an option if public opinion turns against these developments. It isn’t as simple as City Commission vs. CSD.
And to answer your earlier question, no I am not calling for a moratorium, except maybe on residential annexation (a strictly governmental activity) until someone, to quote TeeRuss, “model[s] the impacts of development and annexation scenarios to determine what additional requirements they would create”. Further, I would like CoD leadership to stop addressing various issues in isolation. Downtown development, residential annexation, school crowding, school finances, taxes, etc. are all interrelated, but they aren’t being treated as such. I would also like to see the City Commissioners get serious about the proposed bond referendum. Shouldn’t very real threats to the quality of education in CSD get, at a minimum, equal treatment as the tree canopy?
I agree with you DawgFan and I’ve said as much on here before – following one part of a plan that undermines another part of the same plan is crazy. But that is what is happening with the tree ordinance. The XX% canopy coverage requirement on commercial lots seems to undermine the idea that we want more density in our commercial core, which is part of the strategic plan. That ought to be an easy fix – get rid of the coverage requirement for commercial downtown properties. Aligning the school’s plan and the city’s plan is much harder. It gets complex.
I still don’t know what is meant by “direct CofD . . . to slow things down.” How does that happen? These properties have been entitled to build on – some of those entitlements go back 5 years plus. What would we do, tell the land owners that they can’t start building now?
You can’t stop the ones in progress, and you shouldn’t. That ship has sailed. But, you could issue a moratorium on new permits in certain zoning classifications pending further review and revisions of the zoning ordinance. Then the zoning ordinance could be revised accordingly.
“These properties have been entitled to build on – some of those entitlements go back 5 years plus. ”
It seems to me that the recession had the effect of slowing down these developments already.
fyi, I’m pretty sure that the XX% canopy requirement for commercial is mostly being met with tree bank contributions– the City is aware that density doesn’t always = XX% canopy, but wants to get money for trees out of the commercial developers.
Shakedown Street.
“You tell me this town ain’t got no heart.”
Where’s Lyrics Only Guy?
Agree there needs to be better coordination, but at this point it probably needs to be all about the schools responding to development and the City supporting them (e.g. the bond referendum). I say that because there are, what, three (or four?) multifamily residential developments that are already underway. That and the continued increase in enrollment from existing single-family neighborhoods is enough to get moving on now, I’d think, rather than spending time on trying to limit long-planned development.
“Further, I would like CoD leadership to stop addressing various issues in isolation. Downtown development, residential annexation, school crowding, school finances, taxes, etc. are all interrelated, but they aren’t being treated as such.”
Thank you, DawgFan. This sums up my thoughts. I apparently am not explaining it very well since nobody understands that I’m advocating for a plan that takes into account these issues and more, rather than just doing things ad hoc.
What about the annexation report that was done a couple of years ago? Or are new areas going to be annexed in addition to those? With all the annexation talk I’ve kind of lost track of who is grabbing for what. So then there’s annexation, plus this project by Marta, a new building by the courthouse, 1 other one I feel like I’m leaving out. I would think it wouldn’t be terribly difficult to look at everything comprehensively. They may not be able to get actual number of units or families or kids, but at least everything would be on 1 page, in 1 report. Of course gauging the number of tear-downs in the near future would be impossible.
“Therefore, should we go ahead and place a moratorium on single family homes too? That would make sense.”
No, but a moratorium on annexation of such would make sense and not undermine property rights.
Does every square foot of property need to be developed into a apartment/condo complex? Should we let developers come in at will and do whatever they want with the land? I think it is ludicrous to build, build, build, if there is no plan to support what all that building means to the City.
Are you also for a moratorium on tear-downs?
Decatur has a real problem of letting developers come in and build homes that don’t match the neighborhood. I am 100 percent against the monstrosities that are going in in every neighborhood in our city. If you want to tear it down, go ahead. But replace it with something that matches the neighborhood. There are great examples of giant homes on small lots in every neighborhood in the city.
That is a very different issue, and your personal preference has nothing to do with a plan or lack thereof. Your objection is based purely on aesthetics.
On the homes, I agree with you. I was answering the question regarding tear-downs.
But my request for a plan to deal with the developments has nothing to do with my problems with the big ‘ol houses that are being built. It has everything to do with – as I have repeated multiple times in this discussion and in almost every single one of my posts – with not following a plan that takes into account what the new residential developments (condos, apartments, etc..) will do to school enrollment.
” I am 100 percent against the monstrosities that are going in in every neighborhood in our city.”
As much as I may agree with you on the aesthetics, a city is not a homeowner’s association.
Geez, louise, folks! I never said it was!
“Should we let developers come in at will and do whatever they want with the land?”
That would be the free market response.
Not exactly. Developers will only do with the land what they can sell to consumers at the highest price. People looking to buy in Decatur are increasingly well-heeled and tend to want relatively large, modern, expensive homes. The developers are not building to suit their own aesthetic preferences.
Yes, that’s what I meant – “do whatever they want” equals “make as much money as they can.” That’s how it works. Developers get into the business, take on high risks, etc. to make money – if that means build pretty buildings, then so be it. They bought these properties, knowing the zoning and the regulatory environment, to build on them. And make money doing it. That’s how the vast majority of buildings get built.
Yep but the debate seems to be over whether that is the best for the community. “That’s how it works” is true if that’s how you set up the regulations to work.
I bet if you took a poll of residents about density today, they would have an entirely different view.
Doubtful tom. Most residents understand that our city’s future is tied to increasing density in our downtown district. That’s the path we’ve been on, that’s the path we need to stay on. We understood this in 1980, we understood this in 2010. We understand this now.
If you do your poll make sure to provide all sides of the issue, including the fact that we only have 2 hopes for commercial growth, which is our only single hope to lessen the tax burden on home owners. One hope is large scale annexation. The other hope is to increase density in our downtown commercial district. I have a feeling the good folks of Decatur might be more amenable to the latter over the former.
The lottery-funded pre-K programs are almost always over capacity for all the metro Atlanta districts (possibly statewide). The only way to add more seats/rooms would be for the school system to fully fund those services.
It is statewide. Actually the only way to add more seats or rooms would be for the state legislature to fund more. They and the Governor decide how many children will be funded for Pre-K each year. Currently it’s about 84,000 statewide, and 8 to 10,000 children don’t get in.
I’m interested in a slightly different angle–when there’s this much demand for CSD preK slots, is priority given to high need 4 year olds? I.e. those who are most at risk for learning delays and later academic failure if they don’t receive interventions and enrichment early on? I’m thinking that the original rationale for the ECLC, and the motivation of the donor that funded the renovation of College Heights, was to try to serve the children who were at risk of failure without early intervention but to do it in a an inclusion setting that had both typical and at risk students. Are children already diagnosed with special needs or those clearly at high risk able to get served at the ECLC preK even if there’s a long waiting list for preK spots? Some of the families of those children can afford a private preK but some cannot. And many private preKs cannot provide special educational interventions. In the end, we all pay if children needing early intervention are not served at age 3 or 4 and then need more costly accomodations, IEPs, and services later.
The school system does have to provide special education services to children 3 and up who meet eligibility criteria. The IEP team determines the service delivery model. Some service delivery models involve a preschool special Ed teacher and/or SLP or OT or PT seeing the child in the community (e.g. at their daycare, preschooler, or in certain cases at home) or a parent bringing the preschool to sessions at a school. Usually school systems have certain slots in inclusion preK classes exclusively for special Ed kids who need that service delivery model (as determined by the IEP team).
In other words, the school system still must provide services to 3-5 year olds who do not attend public schools but who have an IEP under The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Yay! We got in for next year! I was sweating bullets when I heard there were 73 kids on the wait list.
Is it a lottery every year? So, if you want to enroll for Pre-K, you just have to register for the lottery in time? Asked another way, is there a benefit to registering as early as possible, if one only wants to register for Pre-K?
We registered on day 1 but, there is no benefit to registering early. We only did so because I would have procrastinated or totally forgotten due to a bad case of pregnancy brain. There are a certain amount of slots and the number over those slots is how many are on the wait list. The lottery is ONLY for the wait list, so everyone supposedly has an equal chance of getting picked for the wait list spots. It has always been a lottery from what I’ve been told. You have the entire month of Feb to register your kid and this year they extended it a week due to Snow Jam.
I did ask for comments and I guess we got them. I however want pull out my pro-developer perspective stating that the in-town developments are the right thing for these urban sites, they fit with the concept of smart growth and they are what is best for the urban core of Decatur. that is development 101 as well as city planning 101. People may argue that but they will be wrong (sorry that is just fact and not just opinion). It is however very scary what is happening to our school systems and their limited ability to adapt. The total mess that was the demise of the K-5 program and then the need to re-open closed schools still perplexes me. Now the clear and overwhelming need to expand our schools continues to drag. These urban developments will contribute far fewer school age kids to the CSD schools than I think most believe. Most users of these facilities will be college age students and young professionals. Surely there will be some school age children but these development will far outweigh the costs of those new students with the taxes that they will generate.
Now people will say how well our schools leadership is and how dedicated our teachers are (all true) but also keep in mind that the community as a whole contributed to the elevation of our great Decatur school system. No one person, or group should shoulder the credit. I worry that our leaders are now falling behind the community, they need to act with greater speed. Even if decisions are made there are design and construction timelines that will be added to the process. Overall I think that we need to push both the CSD and the city leaders to push this to the front of the line! Hell we argued about trees for months, I would gladly kill some trees to fix the school issues.
If you look at the CSD site you’ll see that the school folks starting looking at all of this in 2011 and had draft plans ready more than a year ago. If things aren’t moving fast enough for you, contact your city commissioners and ask why they still haven’t approved a bond referendum that would pay for the school facilities necessary to accomodate projected enrollment growth.
I’m not asking people to consider our CSD leaders as heroes, but they take a lot of unwarranted criticism around here. As Scott has said in his comments, on what planet do school enrollments stay static? It is dangerously naive to think that they can “set it and forget it” when it comes to facilities. If they could perfectly predict the future they’d be on Wall Street or in Vegas, not serving in low/no pay positions taking constant potshots from anonymous DM commenters.
+1
The K-3 attendance maps a few months ago make it clear that the existing high density downtown condos are not the source of the current K-3 kids. Less than a typical Oakhurst Street. Infill, new home sales,and redevelopment of single family homes are the cause.
Yes this could change and we could keep an eye on it, but I think the downtown developments draw a disproportionate amount of attention simply because they are quite visible. The city needs to look closer at the magnitude of new construction and renovation permits, as well as home sale data, which I think are likely a leading indicator of enrollment. The real data is diffusely scattered under our noses.
I wish I could access such real estate data and cross reference it with enrollment/address CSD data, and I bet I could make a predictive model of the likelihood of a given home to create a future CSD student. Cross-linking such disparate data sources (e,g, linking CSD attendance to parcel ID would be tedious! At the other extreme, I don’t think the CSD does much more than plot straight lines through data points when I look at their past presentations on the topic.
Re plotting straight lines through historic data points: that’s been a complaint of mine. Sometimes a phenomenon is not linear but exponential or totally unconnected or some other shape. Sometimes there’s evidence of change coming right at us but we’re too busy plotting past data points to notice it. On the other hand, I am grateful that actual rather than conjured data points are used and the lines are straight rather than crooked. APS and DeKalb County seem to have trouble with the basics of telling the truth.
I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to determine the predictors of CSD enrollment: a) sq ft; b) 3+ bedrooms; and c) new construction/ renovation I would imagine are all powerfully correlated. All of these data are publicly available. Not sure if addresses of households with CSD kids are, though.
Yes. The property data is public, and even sold on a CD annually (that’s how you get all those mortgage “offers” in the mail, and similar deals//scams.) The county website has info on how to order it.
But I highly doubt CSD would release addresses and ages of all enrolled students. Ever. Or any school system, for that matter.
Agreed. And whatever your opinion about density is, if you’re concerned about school capacity then you’d better focus on pushing COD and CSD to get cranking on adding capacity-because the increased density is going to happen, no doubt about it.
+1000 to TeeRuss
Treeruss, I agree with many of your comment epically about the challenges associated with enrollment statistics, it is very hard to hit a moving target and I think we all agree that the population growth (kids included) is all over the map in our fair city. You do however help make my point about speed of decisions by noting the 2011 date. Both the CSD and the COD Commission need to come together and get something done about the overwhelming need for expansion. I am frustrated that decisions have not been made and I will admit it is much easier to arm-chair-quarterback comments from the outside. More focus needs to be placed in this area and less on others. This one topic could impact us all to a much higher level than the trees, pending development or even the UDO discussions that I think are dominating our leaders time. Decatur is partially founded on our urban core but I feel it is equally as dependent on our schools. Overall just basic frustration.
In this case it is probably a good thing that decisions have not yet been finalized. CSD actually started the process of evaluating enrollment trends due to talk from the City about annexation a couple years ago. Those annexation talks sort of petered out, but CSD kept looking at the “organic” enrollment trends to plan for the future.
It took awhile because, my opinion, they get too much criticism from this community about not getting enough input, so they went to extreme levels of involvement. The enrollment committee was made up of people from all over the community, not just the administration. Then there was a lengthy review process once they had drafts and architectural drawings in 2012. This ultimately led to a recommendation last summer that requires city commission approval to move forward, which is not happening because the commissioners are focused on hugging trees and hating homeowners (half kidding).
Just as CSD was wrapping up this process, the annexation wars got going, and now the large scale development market is back in business as well. Two things that will impact future enrollment patterns, although in my estimation not as much as the “organic” growth within the current borders and built environment. I’m busy and need to wrap up so I’ll elaborate on that at another time.
Bottom line, there are plans in place to significantly expand Renfroe and DHS, which is where the space constraints will be (FAVE and the elementary schools have spare capacity, and have seen more of the growth bulge already). But someone needs to model the impacts of development and annexation scenarios to determine what additional requirements they would create.