CSD Advised That Allowing Gateway Manor Students To Stay During Reno Not in System’s “Best Interest”
Decatur Metro | December 1, 2014 | 3:28 pmThe AJC’s Bill Banks reports on the tough spot that the CSD school board finds itself in with Decatur’s public housing community, Gateway Manor, scheduled to be renovated next year…
Early figures show that 29 Gateway children will be temporarily relocated outside city limits — as early as January— during the 12-to-18-months renovation.
Decatur Housing Authority Executive Director Douglas Faust has asked the board to allow these students to remain in Decatur’s system during relocation. Seals said the school system’s “been advised legally that it’s not in the best interests” of the school system to let children officially outside the district, regardless of circumstance, to continue attending city schools.
The Board tabled the issue at their last board meeting and is scheduled to vote on the issue on December 9th.
Photo via Google Streetview
Precedent blows.
I don’t think the only concern is precedent, although it is certainly a large one. Could allowing those students to remain jeopardize any federal or state funding? I imagine those dollars come with strict requirements with little or few exceptions.
Could we get the lawyer’s rationale? Can’t the exception for families who are being temporarily displaced, not by choice, be written in such a way that it doesn’t create a precedent? There’s already exceptions for tuition students and children of CSD employees.
That is a very slippery slope. And although this is going to offend, I am not sure the “not by choice” characterization is entirely accurate. There are other housing options in CoD, and the fact that most of those options are unaffordable to the residents of Gateway Manor is largely irrelevant. Hell, most of the new housing inventory in CoD today is unaffordable by 98% of the population. This sucks and I don’t like it any more than you, but CSD’s hands might be tied.
Your “Compassionate Decatur” dollars at work?
“We don’t want to kick anyone out,” she said, “but we don’t want to put ourselves in a legal bind.”
I, too, would like to know what that legal bind is. It’s one thing to say “this isn’t in our best interest” because, hey, isn’t it the STUDENTS’ best interests we should be concerned about? But it’s another thing to say “we just can’t legally do this.” So which is it and what are the legal obstacles?
“isn’t it the STUDENTS’ best interests ”
Yes, but it is ALL of the students’ best interest, not just the 29. And I agree in that we need more info.
Students leaving and then coming back to CSD impacts the other students who will be in their future classes- if the schools the Gateway kids had to attend during the reconstruction are not as good as CSD schools (most likely), then those kids will be behind when they rejoin CSD– which means teacher time helping them catch up vs time available to help the whole class move forward. I find this very ridiculous- any means to keep the kids in CSD during the temporary relocation should be pursued.
Yep, you are right. But, why stop there? You are forgetting about the impact on the current students when new students move into the system who haven’t been blessed with CSD education. We should just refuse all new students. Those heathens will just slow our kids down.
I stop there because this is a very specific situation.
Wow, DawgFan – that’s a really slippery slope you’re standing on. Someone oughta put up a guard rail or some caution tape or something. Folks could get hu-whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…….
OK fine but you also have to kick out all the kids who are living in apartments outside COD while their homes are being renovated.
+1 Exactly.
YES! And those with the money win again!
Ooooh. So if a family is temporarily renting an apartment or house outside of Decatur or even staying with friends/family outside of Decatur while the home they own in City of Decatur is being renovated for 7 months, their children should not be attending CSD schools but the school where they are temporarily living during the renovation? Wow. Sure glad we remodeled before our kids were in elementary school because we weren’t about to live with young children in the middle of that mess. We fled to young adult month-to-month rentals nearby, but outside of COD.
And there is the hypocrisy in the ruling. And I know MANY families who did just that. But then who is gonna complain about those poor, cuddly kids having to stay outside COD while the SFH is being upgraded. Now those public housing kids….Bah humbug!!!
TBH, the CSD should be ashamed of themselves. The precedent has already been set in the lack of enforcement of this “rule.” IMO that is the leg those 29 kids have to stand on. UNLESS the CSD is saying renovation relocation outside of CSD is a separate class because they are returning to s specific address since they are property and these individuals are returning, in theory, to an undetermined space.
OR the harsh reality is in Metro Atlanta 85%+ of all individuals who live in public housing do not return to rehabilitated developments once they move away. Cynically one could say this a move of economic gentrification and/or an assurance the new development has fewer families and perhaps more seniors. IJS.
I am not taking a stance one way or the other on this issue as I don’t know all the facts, but I hope you all understand the difference between the above situation and Bo’s example. In the case of home renovation, that family OWNS the home and is still paying property taxes. I understand the frustration, but let’s not let emotion cloud rational thinking.
Well, outside of my stance that this really sucks for these kids, and I hope they figure out whatever they need to figure out to keep them in CSD.
Agreed
My understanding is that merely owning a home and paying taxes on it does not meet CSD’s residency requirements. That’s why they’ve blown the whistle on folks who try to reside in a big home elsewhere but get their kids into CSD because they own a condo in City of Decatur. So, to be consistent, if Gateway students absolutely cannot stay in CSD while Gateway is renovated, then neither should other students whose homes are being renovated, even if those homes cost a gadzillion dollars and yield commensurate taxes. We don’t base residency on how expensive one’s home is or how it is paid for–mortgage vs. rent.
It seems like the kinder, gentler, more reasonable approach to allow a special, one-time, temporary exception for these 29 students (and it may end up less than 29 if some parents decide that they want their children to attend the school in their temporary neighborhood.) I am sure that good lawyers can figure out an appropriate way to write that exception such that it doesn’t open the door to a deluge of unreasonable requests. Some people will try to work around the system whether or not an exception is made in this case.
I hear you, but your scenario is different than what was discussed. Yes, if said family has 3 kids in CSD schools based on owning a 1 bedroom condo, that would be an issue. If said family had a 3 bedroom condo that they do not rent out, then I do not see the problem, and I hope that it would satisfy the requirements.
But again, I agree that these kids should be kept in CSD if possible.
I don’t think the 3-bedroom condo situation would meet residency requirements unless the children were truly sleeping there every night. My understanding is that, when CSD does residency spot checks, it demands evidence of actual residency, not just ownership, e.g. bedrooms with childrens’ belongings, enough beds for all the claimed occupants, food in the refrigerator, utility bills showing that water and electricity are being used at the rate you would expect of an active residence, etc. If the parents are divorced, they probably check custody agreements.
I don’t disagree that Metro Atlanta’s return rates are very low for displaced residents of housing undergoing renovation/redevelopment but, from every anecdote I’ve ever heard, it’s likely unfair to paint DHA with the same brush. They are an independent authority and, again, as I’ve heard it, they’re committed to the highest levels of continuity — in both one-for-one replacement of units and in making it as easy as possible for displaced residents to return to Decatur.
Atlanta’s housing authority is a wholly different animal. Nelliebelle, if she’s still on board here, has a lot of experience with them.
The difference is, when renovating, the homeowner is still paying CSD taxes AND the permanent residence is indeed still the Decatur address. Just as those children whose parents are divorced and one lives in Decatur and one in Atlanta and they do the switch-off every week. CoD parent’s address, and taxes, is the key.
FTR: I hope they can keep these children in Decatur.
+1 more. Students moved out of technical boundaries for the convenience of the housing authority should not be denied access to CSD during that period…unless every family living outside the city during their home renovation is similarly denied. Though I feel both cases should continue in the schools during those extraordinary relocations.
Isn’t there any way for the city to relocate them within the district? Sounds to me like this renovation may have been the result of poor planning. Had they started the next phase of the housing on the corner of Trinity and Commerce (which has been an empty, grassy field for more than a year now, if memory serves), perhaps they could have relocated these families to those units, even if only temporarily. Just an idea…
That empty field is to be sold for private development, which will help the housing authority pay off development costs from the adjacent subsidized development. There may be a portion of the private development designated for low- to moderate-income households, but that is largely moot since the goal all along was to sell part of the property to finance the rest.
I see. Thanks for the clarification on that. I wonder if there are any multi-family buildings for sale that could be bought or leased by the city for these residents and then either sold or used as additional income-generating property for the city. There was a multi-family building for sale off McDonough not long ago, and another one toward the end of Olympic Pl. I’m just throwing that out there, though. I know nothing about the red tape a city might be required to deal with in order to consider something like that.
I think this is exactly why the word “exception” exists. To me, this is a common sense exception. Their address is their address and they’re not giving it up for good, and interrupting these kid’s educations for not-so-good reasons just doesn’t pass the straight-face test.
I think Bo’s home renovation comparison is an excellent one. This is the same kind of nonsense that B.S. zero-tolerance rules stem from. While I’ve never been much of a Hillary fan, in this case our “village” would be letting some of our own down if we were to give these kids even a temporary boot.
Maybe the issue has to do with the fact that they actually *are* giving their address up for good, in the sense that their home is not being renovated. It’s being demolished.
Current residents will be moving into new homes, with new addresses, upon completion. Could that be a legal distinction between DHA residents and people renovating whose current home/address will remain intact?
“Could that be a legal distinction between DHA residents and people renovating whose current home/address will remain intact?”
Surely less of a distinction that the practical one between people renovating and people being relocated due to circumstances outside of their control. Such an obvious distinction should have some bearing on the legal one, with an exception to the letter of the rules here being no basis for a precedent.
Please note, this is not a renovation, this is a complete redevelopment. The existing buildings will be torn down and the new buildings will be built. DHA could build on the lot where the other apartments existed, but they would rather sell that lot to finance the Gateway project – and in my opinion hide it from view. Sounds like this was not fully thought out. There is a long and sad history to this “Urban Renewal” in Beacon Hill that really should be a part of the discussion of a “Compassionate Decatur”.
Yes, this would not be the first time Decatur has torn down housing in Beacon Hill, forcing residents to leave the city.
Isn’t the DHA separate from the city? If so, why blame the city for the DHA redevelopment? Also, what do you expect the DHA to do, put up a tent city for two years? They can’t exactly build temporary structures while they are building new buildings.
How are you supposed to plan for tearing down and re-building something and keep everyone there at the same time?
A friend that this is happening to told me about it and I said, “No way!” That just sounds crappy! I am sure you misunderstood! No apparently she did not. I was too trusting of my fair city.
Wow I am shocked that Decatur would do this to these people. All the people I know who live there are very hard working and trying to make better lives for themselves and their children. This would throw a wrench in things for them. Plus those kids just got re-zoned this year so they have to go to another new school next year! Seems like poor planning for sure!!
For what it’s worth, this is a CSD decision in regards to a DHA redevelopment. The city is not involved.
I was at the meeting when it was discussed and I believe I’m right in saying every board member wanted to figure out a way to keep the kids in the system. The lawyer very delicately said he thought it would not be legal but that he would do everything he could to find a way to make it work. Pretty much everyone in the room that night wanted to make it work. They tabled it so they could see if there was any possible way. So, if there’s a way, I’m sure CSD will keep them in the system.
So glad to hear this. I had a feeling the members of our school board would find a way to handle this, and that the lawyer just had to cover the bases first, but still thought it important to speak out about the issue so the board knows how the community feels as well. Thanks for going to the meetings!
I was also at the meeting. I did not hear Bob Wilson say it was illegal. He definitely said more than once that he could not recommend they allow the kids to stay. He seemed to be concerned about the system’s ability to hold the line on residency in the future if they make an exception in this case. The Board, especially Caiola and Jones, asked him a lot of questions. They seemed to be trying to gauge the legal risk associated with the action. All of the Board members expressed a desire to find a way to make it work. Seals, however, was by far the most concerned about the legal risks. I have a feeling a couple of Board members are doing a lot of legal research on their own. It seems to me that the unique facts of this situation counteract the power of creating bad precedent.
There’s advantages to having lawyers on the School Board–they don’t have to rely solely on the legal perspective of the CSD lawyer. Any lawyer working for an organization, whether it be CSD, Emory, the Carter Center, CDC, or a corporation, is going to be biased towards protecting the interests of the organization. We need to also consider the needs of the community, families, and students, not to mention respect the historical context of Beacon Hill. I hope that the lawyers on the Board pursue the issue of whether the legal risk of letting Gateway children stay in CSD is really so great as to outweigh the negative impacts of not doing so. We make exceptions to the rules for the children of CSD staff and exceptions for tuition students, so it seems that we can make an exception for a short period of time for Gateway children.
Could the sticking point be transportation? What if Gateway students are allowed to stay in CSD until they move back but aren’t offered transportation? That would be equivalent to the privilege that staff children and tuition students receive.
I had the same thought on transportation. Where will these families be relocating? If CSD allows them to remain in the schools, but they are spread out geographically does CSD have to provide transportation? How would it do so?
I imagine it would be logistically difficult to provide transportation, plus costly, although it’s done in other special situations like when disabled or homeless students have to be transported at a distance. That’s why I’m thinking that a reasonable compromise might be to allow the exception but not provide transportation. That would be consistent with what is allowed for tuition students and staff children.
City officials should disregard the advice of their lawyers and come up with their own legal solutions? Really? The lawyers are just “biased toward protecting the interests of their client”? I guess that’s one way of looking at a fiduciary and ethical obligation.
What if the school board lawyers don’t practice in this area and aren’t expert on this subject matter? I guess the phrase “a lawyer who hires himself has a fool for a client” means nothing to you.
Maybe folks here should consider that even though you feel very strongly about something does not mean that it is legally appropriate, and there are other considerations at play besides your opinions of social justice. Rules govern our society, and though you don’t have to consider those on a blog comment board, people in responsible positions have an obligation to do so.
Why do you think the city is doing something unethical? Based on what?
Perhaps you should get the facts first before jumping to conclusions.
Let’s just temporarily annex the kids’ temporary living arrangements and be done with this hullabaloo.
And, so we don’t become members of the catastrophic alarmism society, let’s all remember we’re not condemning children to death by stoning, or stealing them from their parents in the darkness – we’re (potentially) simply asking them to attend a different Georgia public school for a year or two. If they come back to the city, they will again be part of CSD.
Probability says otherwise. And what about those kids at DHS?
The more I ponder this, I think the crux of the issue is do real property owners (“fixed residents”) have greater rights to CSD privileges than either renters (“temporary residents”) or public housing renters (temporary voucher residents)? IMO, that’s the only way you can get around a discrimination suit on behalf of the Gateway residents.
Discrimination based on what? A real property owner in the city pays taxes on that property while being renovated and can maintain a domicile in the city, even though not a resident. He can get mail at that address too.
A renter cannot, particularly when the property is not even in existence because it has been torn down.
Of course there are fundamental right differences between a property owner and renter. A renter holds the property pursuant to the terms of a lease, and if the lease expires, the property owner can do whatever he wants with the property, and he can make the tenant leave. That’s the law everywhere in the world, including Decatur. A tenant does not gain any equitable or inherent rights to the real property by signing a lease. No one has a right to live anywhere if they don’t own the property (except as provided in a lease).
As much as people don’t like it, no one has a right to live in Decatur. Even property owners only have a conditional right to live here, subject to tax payments. If it were different, I would be claiming my homesteads in Paris and Maui right now.
Aren’t the residents still tenants of the Decatur Housing Authority? They are not moving and still covered by the lease/rental agreements they established with DHA. (This is my understanding – someone more knowledgable feel free to correct me.)
DHA is renovating and rebuilding their complex and relocating them temporarily – and as a group. I think the discrimination argument comes in when you have evidence that single family homeowners renovating their homes have been allowed to continue to send their kids to school in CSD while living outside the city limits temporarily, yet the school system wants to treat these residents differently.
If the tenants still have a legal relationship with DHA – the property owner and landlord that, to me, would constitute residency in the same way that renovating homeowners could still claim residency. They are not terminating that relationship in the way that an individual moving out of an apartment and seeking residence elsewhere.
They would not be subject to a rental/lease agreement. A lease provides a place to live in exchange for rent. Typically, a landlord like DHA would let the leases expire before they demolish the building because they would not be able to fulfill the obligation to provide housing. The tenants would leave an pay rent somewhere else.
No, they won’t still be tenants of DHA, at least not at Gateway. The tenancy is tied to the property. If there is no property, how can there be a lease?
And, as moderate said above, there is no discrimination. If their permanent residence was in CoD, they would be able to attend CSD, same as everyone else. In this case, the permanent residence will be elsewhere. Every single person currently living at Gateway is free to find another residence in CoD. The fact they may not be able to afford any of the current housing inventory simply puts them in the same shoes of thousands and thousands and thousands of other people who would like to, but can’t afford, to live here. That my friend is equal protection. They are treated the same as everyone else.
Everything I have read says that the residents are being relocated temporarily and will return to occupy a DHA property (that is property owned by the Decatur Housing Authority and inside the City of Decatur) upon completion of the redevelopment. How does it follow that they are just “leaving and paying rent somewhere else?” That is not what is being represented as occurring by DHA.
The residents occupy a property owned by a landlord that is being redeveloped and, according to the landlord, they expect them to return once redevelopment is complete. If residents did not return and continued to live outside CoD, then I could see making those students leave, since the residents will have chosen to remain outside the city. This is precisely like homeowners living in rental property outside the city limits while their homes are renovated or rebuilt. And, no, I am not persuaded by the argument that the new property will be in a different location. Their rental agreements are with the housing authority, not the physical site itself.
If you want to make an argument that all children must be living in a domicile within the city limits while they attend city schools, fine. But that should apply across the board to all students.
According to the linked article, the redevelopment is expected to take a year to 16 months. I think it is ridiculous to make them attend another school for part of this remaining year and then return some time in the middle of the next year or following. It’s a short period of time, but a huge disruption in the lives of these students.
And, yes, I will definitely be making my feelings known to the school board members.
You and I want the same thing, but I am not willing to re-write hundreds of years of property law to make it happen. Any rights/benefits of residency afforded to a tenant under a lease which commences upon completion ripen only when the tenant takes possession and occupies the property. Look at it this way – if I entered into a lease for a house in North Carolina which will be completed in August 2016 (and which I intended to make my permanent residence at that time), would my children be entitled to in-state tuition at UNC for the 2015-2016 school year? I am not saying exceptions shouldn’t be granted for these students, but any property or vested rights arguments, just like any claims of discrimination, are non-starters. A contractual claim to later occupy a currently non-existent home does not include the present right to accept the benefits of residency, such as attending local schools.
They will be treated differently if they are not allowed to continue in CSD schools. I know for a fact that folks in my neighborhood have sold/ removated their SFH residences, relocated outside of the city and had their kids continue in the schools, with nary a peep from the schools.
Funny how there was no hand-wringing about out of district kids attending Decatur schools when they were the children of CSD employees. I suppose when it’s economically disadvantaged minorities instead of your own kid, it’s a bit harder to find it in the “best interest of the system” for them to attend.
some of the paras, teachers, maintenance workers, nutrition workers, etc. that take advantage of that provision might also be considered economically disadvantaged… so besides a cute little jab, what’s your point?
If it’s not in the best interest of the system to allow out of district kids to attend, why isn’t that policy enforced unilaterally? CSD has no problem spending something on the order of $1.5M annually to allow 150 out of district courtesy tuition students to attend for free . . . but balks at the proposition of allowing 30 kids being displaced largely against their will to continue attending for a year and a half.
I imagine the rationale is that allowing non resident children of teachers to attend is in the best interest of all CSD students as it allows the school to attract and retain more qualified/better teachers, staff, etc. who wouldn’t otherwise consider working here.
Right. They’ve rationalized it. That’s fine, and probably largely accurate. Sounds like they are trying to avoid a legal can of worms with this decision. Maybe having the courtesy tuition policy written in the employee handbook is enough to give them a reasonable defense against any legal action. Seems like it’d be easy enough to make an official policy for these kids if there was any motivation to do so. I’d just like to hear their rationale beyond “ehhhhhh better not, it sounds sorta tricky”.
So would I.
“some of the paras, teachers, maintenance workers, nutrition workers, etc. that take advantage of that provision might also be considered economically disadvantaged…”
Which is kind of messed up too, if you think about it.
It is actually a state law that requires school systems to allow children of full-time employees to attend the school where the employee works. O.C.G.A. § 20-2-293 “a student shall be allowed to attend and be enrolled in the school in which a parent or guardian of such student is a full-time teacher, professional, or other employee.” No amount of hang-wringing (at the local level at least) can change that.
This is so outrageous and ridiculous. Find a way, make it happen, CSD! This is where these kids belong. Their homes are being demolished for God’s sake. Let them at least keep the stability of their school system and friend base.
Help me understand why “this is where these kids belong”.
Help me understand why you think they don’t belong.
Perhaps they should live under a bridge too?
I feel bad about the kids being uprooted from their school/class. However, would it be a possibility that, after their move, some families may ultimately find other permanent housing outside COD? That seems like another potential issue if the kids are still enrolled in Decatur schools.
Some families will stay away but they are a lot less likely to if their children can stay in CSD schools. Many of the families have years, if not generations, of ties to City of Decatur. What is known is that, when the students move to another school when they move, they are less likely to return. My children say that most of the students displaced by the Allen Wilson. Luckily, that renovation happened in stages, and many families managed to remain on site by moving into another apartment when their building was demolished. Unfortunately, the Allen Wilson Terrace renovation will not happen in stages so that the 29 children can be moved around and stay.
Middle sentence should have read “My children say that most of the students displaced by the Allen Wilson renovation never returned.”
Grandfather the 29 in. Find a way. Make it happen.
Here’s the bottom line: Since there appears to be no blackline legal basis for denying these 29 children to continue attending CSD during this redevelopment period, CSD can find a way to make this work, IF they really want to do so. Municipalities and their concomitant organizations find ways to make exceptions to ordinances & rules all the time, and the only basis they use is whether it’s expedient for them. If CSD really & truly wishes to keep these children in our system, it will find a way. If it doesn’t, it won’t. We’ll just have to see if they put their money where their mouths are.
If they don’t, I, as a revenue positive householder in this City, am going to want one hell of a detailed explanation with a legally sound basis. If we’re talking about using our tax dollars wisely, I really can think of fewer more worthy expenditures than making an investment in a less-fortunate child’s future.
Thank you, Cuba. Very well said and I agree wholeheartedly.
I don’t necessarily disagree with much what you said. However, as a revenue positive householder you are entitled to nothing more (and nothing less) than the rest of us get around here. That includes me and my 17 kids.
Where do you get that I think I’m entitled to more? I don’t, but since my tax dollars are shoring up a school system where I have no children, I certainly don’t want to hear some lame explanation from CSD about the use of tax dollars. I’m as capable of deciding where my tax dollars are best spent as CSD and/or the City–it has nothing to do with whether I’m entitled to “more” than you & your putative dozen+ offspring.
Thank you so much for your contribution to Decatur. Under your logic, those who contribute the most in net tax benefit should be entitled to extra special communications from city officials. Dosen’t that kind of contradict your point that poor kids should get the same rights as everyone else?
Also, you are not entitled to decide where your tax dollars are spent.
Why do you summarily conclude that there is no legal basis for this? If the lawyer advised against it, didn’t he probably have a good reason?
At the very least, you’d probably understand things better if you read for comprehension. I didn’t “summarily conclude that there is no legal basis for this”, I summed up what is currently known: that the City attorney advised there might be some disadvantage to CSD if the children were allowed to continue here, but didn’t cite a clear legal basis for his pronouncement. What isn’t clear about that to you?
The part that isn’t clear to me is where you wrote:
“Since there appears to be no blackline legal basis for denying these 29 children to continue attending CSD during this redevelopment period”
How do you know the lawyer didn’t cite a blackline basis for it? The article just says that DHA was told that the lawyers said it wasn’t in the CSD’s best legal interests. What does “there is some disadvantage to CSD” mean? What is the extent of the disadvantage? What is the cost? What are the consequences?
Since you are strong net positive taxpayer, maybe you could find out the answers to these questions better than I. I can’t ever get “one hell of an answer” from anyone in the city. I’m just a break-even plebe.
I qualified my opinion about the “blackline legal basis” with “apparently”, since there has been no clear legal basis given in any reported accounts. You not only cannot seem to get that, but you keep arguing a contention I haven’t made, which is that I supposedly believe I’m entitled to more consideration than revenue-neutral/negative households.
If you can’t present an actual cogent point, please direct your comments elsewhere. I’m not trying to be mean, but I don’t care to engage someone who’s belaboring points that aren’t really at issue.
Really, you are the one who is making assumptions. Your assumption is that because the article cites no actual law, there must not be any good legal reason for the CSD’s decision, so “they can make it work if they really wanted to.” I don’t think that argument is cogent.
My point is that this is a dangerous conclusion for people to take without knowing the facts and law. Shouldn’t we find more before we assume that the CSD is doing the wrong thing?
That’s why I started out with “Could we get the lawyer’s rationale?” I don’t read the comments as criticizing the School Board; in fact we know that at least two members are trying hard to find a way to make this work for the students involved.
If it helps cool things off a bit, I asked CSD for clarification on the “not in its best interest” comment early this morning. They said they’d get back to me.
Don’t cool things off just yet. I just got my popcorn and Coke.
So did they???
Yes, no, maybe?
And you keep missing the point in my original post, which was that if there IS a legal basis used as a rationale for denying these children’s staying in CSD, I’m going to want to know exactly what it is. ALL of COD residents are entitled to that, at the very least. Whether all of us care to know whether there in fact exists a clear legal rationale is another thing altogether–I just know that I’m one who does. You’ve basically been trying to put words in my mouth, and I’m not going to try to continue a dialogue with anyone who tries to do that.
Just FYI – When you said “If they don’t, I, as a revenue positive householder in this City, am going to want one hell of a detailed explanation with a legally sound basis.” It read, to me, as if you, a revenue positive householder in this City, felt as though you needed an explanation that the rest of us didn’t need. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way; I was just poking you.
Sorry you have gotten so upset. However, citing what you actually posted is not putting words in your mouth.
A. It’s presumptuous for you to declare that I’m “upset”. Being firm with someone who’s misconstruing one’s points isn’t the same thing as being upset.
B. You didn’t post what I actually said–you posted your personal take on what I said, and then couldn’t fathom why you didn’t get any traction.
Please stop wasting your bandwidth, and my time.
You realize you’re a personal hero of mine, right?
STG, the feeling is mutual! 😀
plus 1000.
I strongly advise those who feel strongly about this issue to let the Superintendent and School Board know. An email or phone call in which you identify yourself as a City of Decatur resident carries bajillions more weight than an anonymous blog post. And the School Board responds. Whenever I have emailed the 5 members and the Superintendent, I have gotten a response from at least 2 of the members. Here’s contact info:
Mrs. Bernadette J. Seals
Chair
404-377-8907 (H)
[email protected]
Mr. C. Garrett Goebel
Vice Chair
678-561-0027 (H)
[email protected]
Mrs. Julie P. Rhame
Board Member
404.377.0976 (H)
[email protected]
Mrs. Annie P. Caiola
Board Member
[email protected]
Mr. Lewis B. Jones
Board Member
[email protected]
Dr. Phyllis A. Edwards
Superintendent
404.371.3601 (W)
[email protected]
Attending a school board meeting and speaking during the Public Comment section also carries a ton of weight. But if the vote is going to happen at the next meeting, you want to express your views ASAP. My guess is that Board members come to the meeting with their minds close to made up.
I didn’t read all the comments. But I will say that my sense from being at the meeting where it was discussed is that the Board wants to be able to make this work. This is the legal advice which may or may not be the full end of their decision. The lawyer also wanted to be able to say not a problem we can make this work and was disappointed when he couldn’t. The head of DHA is working very hard to find inside CSD options and I believe has manage to do so for many families. I
To personalize the debate, one of three CSD REACH scholars lives in Gateway. Here is some info on REACH from the CSD press release:
Congratulations to City Schools of Decatur’s three REACH Scholarship winners: Rakaiya Colley, Antonio Kilgore and Khara Smith-Russell! As part of the statewide REACH scholarship signing day, Superintendent Dr. Phyllis Edwards, Renfroe Middle School principal, Derrick Thomas, and Decatur Education Foundation Director, Gail Rothman, welcomed three students into the Realizing Educational Achievement Can Happen (REACH) Georgia program.
REACH is a needs-based mentorship and scholarship program designed to encourage students, starting in middle school, to persist in their educational pursuits. Students are provided with the academic, social, and financial support needed to graduate from high school, access college, achieve post-secondary success, and be prepared for the 21st Century workforce.
Yeah, it’s kind of crummy to have to say “Congratulations on your scholarship. But you got to use it elsewhere. Hope you come back.”
I hope the school system can come up with a way to let these students stay. At the very least, any students who are currently juniors and seniors should be allowed to finish at DHS, even if a special scholarship has to be established.
+1. Yes, they can be tuition students if a scholarship works There’s probably only a 3-4 of them.
(But I still prefer that we make a well-defined and limited exception–then no scholarship needed.)
I think that if the DHA tosses these kids out, and the CSD refuses to let them attend CoD schools, everyone is going to find themselves on the losing end of a very costly discrimination lawsuit. And if the experience of Westchester County, CT is any indicator, they could be looking at federal action as well.
If I were a resident of Gateway Manor with kids, I’d be contacting DOJ. I’m sure someone already has.
I want CSD to keep Gateway students during the renovation too but Westchester County isn’t in Connecticut. It’s in New York. Although it’s true that it likes to pretend that it’s Greenwich, Connecticut.
I stand corrected. But trust me, my Westchester sister tells everyone she lives in CT.
Does she live in Rye? Driving through Rye is funny because you keep driving in and out of Connecticut. Evidently, “even up the borders” through annexation doesn’t work up there.