CSD Details Scope of Work That Would Be Covered Under $75 Million Bond
Decatur Metro | August 27, 2015 | 1:44 pmThe City Schools of Decatur recently posted a new webpage that provides more detail on all the projects that would be completed under the $75 million bond if the referendum is approved by voters in the November election.
To see the full presentation of the 2015 Bond Referendum projects, CLICK HERE. (The Elementary School rendering above is from that presentation.)
CSD has also provided a “fact sheet” that details growing enrollment and future projections, which you can view HERE.
Below is a list of projects to be completed at DHS, Renfroe and elsewhere. I’ve added the cost figures from the full presentation to CSD’s list below for convenience.
Decatur High School – $22 million
GO BOND SCOPE OF WORK:
Full Renovation of existing Main Building
Development of a new Bus Drop off and receiving area from Commerce St.
Development of a new Visitor Drop off / Parking – N. McDonough St.
Development of new Bridge Connector between Main Building and Gymnasium / Performing Arts Building
Development of approximately 140 new Parking Spaces
Development of a new Internal Courtyard / Program Space
New Media Center
Development of Four New Science Lab/Classrooms
Development of Four New General Classrooms
Development of Three New CTAE Classrooms / LabsCurrent Capacity (including 2015-2016 Modulars) is 1,353 Students
This Scope provides Capacity for up to 1,600 Students or 95% of Current Projections of 1,683 Students by Year 2020Renfroe Middle School – $15.4 million
GO BOND SCOPE OF WORK:
Demolition of approximately 25,000 Square Feet of existing facility
Limited Renovation of existing Main Building where New Addition connects
Development of renovated Administration Space and new Main Entrance
Development of a new Visitor Drop off / Parking in front of Main Building
Development of approximately 40 new Parking Spaces
Development of a new Internal Courtyard / Program Space
Development of a new Kitchen / Cafeteria / Stage
Development of Three Physical Education Classrooms
Development of Five New Science Lab/Classrooms
Development of approximately Thirty-Four New General ClassroomsCurrent Capacity (including 2015-2016 Modulars) is 1,268 Students
This Scope provides Capacity for up to 1,613 Students or 93% of Current Projections of 1,735 Students by Year 2020Other proposed projects included in the 2015 Bond Referendum:
New Elementary School – $15 million
Land Acquisition – $10 million
Additional Modular Classrooms – $3 million
College Heights Elementary and/or relocation of ECLC program – $7 million
The proposed new combo K-3/4-5 accommodates a total of 549 students. Doesn’t that seem way too low?
The floor plan shows “future” elevator and stairs. Maybe it is being designed to plop another story on top if expansion is needed? Or maybe CSD plans to recruit Dr. Who for the principal….
Why so many parking spaces? Are teachers and staff at DHS and Renfroe unable to park on campus? (This is not a baited question, I’m hoping there’s a solid rationale that’s consistent with Decatur’s professed commitment to walkability. After all, a walkable community is one where people not only CAN walk, it’s one where they DO walk.)
STG, I think data would show that only a small percentage of CSD employees live within reasonable walking distance to the school where they work.
I’m sure you’re right. So all those new parking spaces (140 at DHS and 40 at Renfroe) reflect a current shortage of parking for faculty and staff? If so, then by all means. (Obviously, there should be a parking space for every person who works at the school plus a handful for visitors. Beyond that, IMO, there should only be a handful for students, reserved for those who make a compelling case that they need to drive to school, e.g., health issue that prevents walking or using the bus, after-school employment that makes walking/bus unfeasible.
Keep in mind all those new students also need additional teachers. If enrollment grow 10% per year, it is reasonable to think that DHS will hire teachers at that rate (and I presume some level of staff expansion as well). If they add 10+ employees per year, just that starts adding up.
I know my Renfroe kid seems to have multiple new-to-Decatur teachers every year. That growth rate will be hitting the high school.
There could be a shortage, but there is also certainly a necessity of expansion as well.
I do wonder how many kids drive to school …. (I recall last year a study said 25% of Renfroe kids were driven by their parents daily, a stat that drives me nuts … how many high school kids drive to school?)
“Current shortage” wasn’t the correct term. I meant shortage relative to the number of faculty and staff members who will be there.
Check the wording as it’s possible some of the spaces are replacements for others lost through construction of new building(s) rather than all being additional spaces so the net gain is not this high. I don’t know if this is the situation but do know that I am now parking back in the neighborhood when I sub at RMS.
They might not be able to afford to live in Decatur anymore…
Stupid question here, but the high school is being designed to be overcrowded again in less than 5 years?
It’s not stupid. Yes, our high school enrollments may be strained in five years but more than likely it’ll be a temporary condition, unless you believe that upward trends continue out forever. At some point the enrollments will peak and then drop off. As a taxpayer, I’m not interested in being overbuilt when that happens.
Some capacity, I agree, needs to be met through facilities construction. But some also needs to be met through coping strategies like trailers. Our present upward trend, IMO, will not continue indefinitely. I was around the last time CSD was dealing with unused schools. I don’t want to end up in that position again.
Why do you think enrollment will drop off? Are there any data to support this hypothesis? I’ve only seen data to suggest that enrollment will continue to increase; therefore we could be being short sighted in only planning 5 years out. It could end up costing us more in the end.
Do you think at some point that every resident in Decatur with have a couple of kids in the public schools?
That would obviously require all current residents who have kids in the schools to either (A) continue having kids well into their 50’s after their first set of children have gone off to college or (B) all of the current residents with kids will move out of Decatur. While I can see that some people will leave after their kids have graduated and sell to a young family for the schools, I certainly think some people will stay even after their kids graduate. That has traditionally been the case and Decatur is a great place to live.
I am very concerned that we are actually overbuilding for our long term school needs.
“I am very concerned that we are actually overbuilding for our long term school needs.”
Me too.
Echo the concerns on overbuilding–which is precisely why I plan to vote “NO” to the $75 million bond. CSD, like the rest of us, is going to have to learn to live within its means–and ours.
I get it. The schools are full. We need more space.
At the same time, all this money would be so, so, so much better spent on instructor salaries. Make CSD the best place in the Southeast to be a teacher. Sigh. $75M, and none of it going directly to the teachers.
“all this money would be so, so, so much better spent on instructor salaries”
Of course, they would each be teaching 80 students in the parking lot, rain or shine, but let’s spend ALL of the money on teacher salaries.
using sarcasm is never constructive.
Maybe not, but DawgFan is really really good at it, so he gets a pass.
Plus, sarcasm or not, he makes a valid point.
+1
Bond money can only be spent on capital expenditures. If you want more money for teachers/aides, that has to come from increases in state tax money allocation from the state legislature and/or higher local property taxes.
I appreciate this point, although bond referendum money wouldn’t go to that. Someone needs to address how low CSD salaries are in comparison to APS and other districts. 10k+ per year to go to another district is a lot of money, esp for a teacher.
But I had heard that (at least some) CSD schools get hundreds of applications for each teaching position. From a pure market perspective it’s kind of hard to justify raising salaries when there’s such demand to teach here.
Damon! That’s one big honk-in’ elementary school! I can imagine a parent walking in on the first day asking “Can I speak to the principal?” and the response is, “Which one? The blue hall, red hall, green hall or the _____ hall principal? Or would you rather speak to the Uber-Hallist?).
So this is what our progressive leaders have in mind with the bond vote, a big box school building more suitable for Fulton or DeKalb counties rather than lil’ old Decatur (“lil” is one of my favorite abbreviations). I remember participating in a forum a few years ago during which school board candidates where asked something like, “Are there any alternatives you would support rather than adding building capacity, such as double sessions, home school vouchers, etc?” and the answer from all three candidates was “NO!” And this is the result.
You should think about this as we approach the upcoming election. The most important issue is not the same old “diversity”, “positive”, “equitable” and “high educational standards” platform championed by the current pretty face but CAN WE AFFORD IT and are there any conservative, common sense solutions to the problems we now face?
Your comments, Chris, are right on target. They also highlight the importance of having people on our school board with a sense of the history of our school system. You need to know where we have been, what we have done in the past, what has worked and what proved less effective, to bring us forward in the wisest course.
Tom Stubbs for School Board!
Seriously. Please?
+1
also this school is described as a K-3/4-5 … so, can we call it what it really is? K-5
Unless students from other elementary schools will be attending the 4/5 in that location. Then I think it would be more like two adjacent schools…
Run, Tom, run!
For once I agree with you Chris. These plans are an atrocity.
My impression was that that image is not an actual design for Decatur but just an off the shelf rendering of a generic 2015 elementary school to represent the unknown. I certainly hope so anyway.
I hate to say it. But it’s not all about the children. Two thirds of the residents of the C.O.D don’t have kids in the schools.
SHHHHH! Are ye daft, RSizz?? Don’t you know that the schools are the MAIN, nay, the ONLY reason Decatur is what it is today??? The PWK brigade will stone you to death in the Square for daring to say otherwise!
well, personally, i believe the children are our future
teach them well and let them lead the way
show them all the beauty they possess insiiiiiide
I think it’s more important to
give them a sense of pride to make it easier.
Let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be
Subtract from its current value what your house would be worth just over the Dekalb line, and that is how much the schools should be worth to you. Unless people are bidding up house prices because of our newsletter and garbage collection.
Or it could also be the result of a walkable community, with great restaurants, the city has a master plan, there is a sense of community.
No, no, you are right. My CHILDLESS household only moved here for the schools and we were willing to pay a premium for only that.
+1. (And I actually do use the schools.)
No, that still doesn’t address it. Bo is right. Not all of CoD residents can easily walk to all of the downtown amenities, some of us still have to drive (if you live more than a mile away). That being said, I live about 4 houses away from the city line and there is a very clear difference in the price of the houses on the other side. There is hardly a difference in our houses’ access to the amenities, downtown area, etc. In fact, I own a house that is closer to the downtown area than my current one (but not inside the city limits) that is far less expensive.
Your logic is invalid.
Huh? How is my logic invalid?
I am stating I decided to live in the City of Decatur for a whole slew of reasons other than the school system, a newsletter, and garbage collection.
Really. It happened.
And other people did it too.
No, I get that you had a reason. You knew prior to purchasing your property that CoD has the highest tax rate in Georgia, right? There is a reason for that, one of those being that we have the best school system in Georgia. Odd how those two are related. We have a whole host of amenities in this great city including good schools, and with the increasing amount of school enrollment we have to address it.
That being said, my point was that you could have purchased a (childless) home outside of the CoD limits and saved a LOT of money, and still have the relatively same experience as someone who lives inside the city. There are properties outside CoD that are walk-able to the wondrous amounts of restaurants, downtown amenities, etc. that you said you bought into. There would be no difference in your experience in the community, except that since you do own a property in CoD. Being in a great community means paying for it. I am sorry that you feel that this money isn’t being spent the way you want it to, but I can guarantee you that if the school system ends up degrading that you will see a subsequent decline in your property values.
You folks who think the schools are the be-all, end-all of everything have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. CSD is what it is today because it was nurtured and supported for years by the WHOLE community–people with children in school, people whose children had long since graduated, and people who never had and never would have children in school. It takes all of those constituencies to support a healthy community including a vibrant school system. But it takes more than a rock star school system to keep all of those different people invested in the community. Decatur was a delightful place to live even when the schools were no great shakes. Some people like it better then than now, overall. But it’s becoming harder and harder for people to justify coming, or staying, if they don’t have children to educate. You are dead wrong that the same community experience is available outside the city limit as long as you stay within walking distance. It’s not. But is the Decatur experience worth what it costs? Subtract the desperation of having to find quality public education from your equation, and that’s what living in Decatur is worth. Now come up with some arithmetic by which Decatur can support a continually exploding K-12 population on a residential tax base made up exclusively of households with children. Then populate those properties with people happy to live in a town where nobody moves in unless they have or expect kids and everybody leaves the minute their last offspring picks up their DHS diploma.
Go girl (should I say gal?)
How am I wrong that you wouldnt get the same experience? I live in CoD. Unless I want to walk about 1.5 miles, I have to drive to the downtown area. I am not complaining, just making an example that my house is literally 4 houses down from the city line. What different experience does my neighbor have that doesn’t live inside the city that I do? What different sense of community does he have, other than me?
For one thing, the County has higher fire insurance rates dues to a lower classification rating. For another, police response time is liable to be significantly greater then Decatur. And, I haven’t mentioned DeKalb schools.
Steve, I completely understand those. Fire and police response is typically a small issue with most homeowners. When was the last time you had a fire in your house or how often do you call the police in an emergency? I know that the schools are the big difference, that was the point I was making.
Police and fire response times are very important to me. 10 to 20 to even 30 minutes difference in response time could mean life or death. My sense of safety and security is greatly enhanced by living in CoD as opposed to the county jurisdiction.
Actually, we had no idea Decatur had the highest tax rate. And here is another crazy notion, we didn’t know it had a great school system either. Yet my family still decided Decatur is where we wanted to live because of all of the other reasons previously listed.
I’ll let STG handle the rest of the discussion.
It was so great, she left.
I agree with what she said. And I am still here. I don’t think DM is interested in censoring based zip code.
Yes, buy why does she insist on interjecting herself into this discussion? This directly affects me. This directly affects my children. She no longer has a dog in this fight. I hope you and others will make her points as they are all relevant. But, her choosing to continue to stand on the anti-school soapbox is perplexing, to say the least.
Dawgfan: First, there is nothing in anything I’ve said (in this thread or any other) that is “anti-school.” Second, not sure why it bothers you so much for me to comment here, especially if you think I’m making relevant points.
It’s all about perspective. STG’s is different than yours. She articulated hers and has every right to do so. Mine is different than yours too. My kids have finished their time in CSD. I want to continue to live here because there are many things I like about Decatur in addition to the schools ( not to mention it is home). I recognize my role in continuing to pay for the schools so that future generations have the same opportunity for a first rate education like my children received. That does not mean I am going to sit back and vote yes to a $75M bond referendum without asking some questions. We have jumped to a conclusion that we need a brand new elementary school with no public discussion of options such as adding onto the existing schools. That is flat out wrong. I think this system expansion can be done for less. Gold plated is not the right term, but many of us can’t afford the kind of tax hike that comes with a $75M bond. We just want to see options fully explored.
Smith is right that everyone’s perspective is worth considering. I would not go so far, however, as to say the proposal has not already had a “public discussion.” Continuing debate is absolutely appropriate, but, whether you come down for the bond or against it, there was a long and vigorous public discussion by and before the school board over the issue. I have disagreed and disagreed strongly with the board in the past over many things, but they did expose this proposal to a good bit of public debate before putting the proposal out there for a vote. That public debate explored many, many alternatives. There is absolutely room for disagreement, but I happen to think the board made a good case for this difficult vote.
Wait, you didn’t do any research as to the tax rate or the school system prior to purchasing? Even those that do not have or want kids still research school districts simply for resale value purposes. I am starting to see a trend here…
I could be wrong, but you seem to be insinuating that I didn’t do my due diligence on my home’s purchase. I knew the tax rate when I bought. And why would I research a school system? With approximately a 40% increase in value thus far, I’d say the research that I did before we made an offer served me pretty well.
I did evaluate my purchase based on the things important to my family, and the school system wasn’t one of them. The entire point of my original post was to on the many reasons that brought us to Decatur. I do not agree that I would get the same experience living 4 houses just outside of the limits, but I am OK to disagree with you on this point.
I am curious what you mean by this statement? ” I am starting to see a trend here…”
To repeat a previous comment, if you don’t like the way things are being done, there is an election in November with qualifying next week. Offer yourself for one of the School board positions.
There are *current* City Commissioners who have said publicly that we should just let the schools fail. This is not a joke. I can think of two sitting City Commissioners who actually hold this view. Their rationale? The school system is too expensive as it is, and allowing the schools to fail and get smaller would be a correction in the market. The CSD school system has failed before (fairly recently) and the city can survive it again.
This is absurd. And I agree with Steve that we need good candidates to run to oppose such idiocy. A good school system is centrally important to a vibrant community. What should we do with the excess in students that we already have? Let them go to school in shifts? Great plan.
Which two?
Boykin and Baskett.
That is what I thought you would say.
Step up and put your name in the pot or get someone else to. Otherwise, sit down!
Really?
Here is an equally ridiculous statement for you:
If you don’t like reading other’s views or hearing people vent about happenings in their community, don’t log onto a community blog.
I’ve spoken with multiple commissioners directly regarding this oft-repeated citation and each indicated that their actual position was not one of letting schools fail but of questioning the wisdom of incentivizing further demand for an already good school system via high dollar investments in gold-plated facilities.
We have a good school system. The question is, are we willing to pay whatever it takes to have a great school system? If the commissioners you reference are suggesting that good schools are good enough, and that we create more problems than we solve by deifying them and the role they play in the larger community, then I’d tend to agree.
Scott, are you equating constructing enough classrooms to provide desks for 90% of the projected growth to building gold-plated facilities?
No. I’m saying that capacity can be met many number of ways, of which new, permanent construction is one. Not everyone is sold on the idea that such construction, as the sole solution, is our best path forward and I tend to be sympathetic to the consideration of more nuanced and exploratory solutions and/or coping strategies for the enrollment challenges we face.
But that said, I’m not doing advocacy. I’m simply stating that the position of certain commissioners, as it’s been articulated to me, is not worthy of contempt. At least not mine, anyways.
What alternatives do you favor? Kids going to school in shifts? Lots more trailers? Really, if you have good alternatives besides building, why not name them?
Why not name them? Because I didn’t realize I was being vague by explicitly stating that I’m not doing advocacy. My comment was to offer appreciation for those willing to meaningfully consider alternatives. Not to shill for any specific one.
What kind of alternatives am I talking about that I’d be open to considering and vetting? Here’s a few: split shifts and trailers, as you mention; increased class size if still able to meet state requirements; consolidated Decatur / Avondale Estates school district; leasing of downtown space for certain functions; etc.
That’s not to say that any of these or others present viable solutions or partial solutions. It’s to say that there has not been, to the degree that I’m aware or have experienced, much in the way of public discussion about such approaches. Take split shifts as a random example. The city has successfully employed this solution before so it’s neither experimental nor poorly suited to our particular context. But I haven’t seen it given much weight which, to me, has little to do with applicability and a lot to do with politics. If leaders and decision-makers simply don’t want to push the issue and fight the fight, so be it. But let’s be honest about it instead of suggesting or implying that construction of new facilities is and always will be the sole go-to solution for enrollment spikes.
I continue to endorse the pursuit of alternatives that can contribute to a multifaceted solution and hope such ideas emerge for broader discussion during the coming election cycle.
I don’t think the quality of facilities matter as much to prospective Decaturites as the schools’ general reputation and test scores.
No one is talking about gold-plated facilities. We are talking about facilities that meet the capacity that we have. Huge growth is our reality. It’s not a question of dis-incentivizing it. The growth numbers are already here. The question is how will the city meet that already-existing need.
Thanks RNH. My experience with the two commissioners that have been mentioned in this thread is that both are big supporters of the schools. I have not agreed with many of their votes as commissioners but in my opinion, they want the schools to succeed JUST LIKE I DO. That being said, there are limits to what the average Decatur taxpayer can support in the bond referendum.
The need to expand the HS and MS is well documented, but I would like to see a more detailed analysis for K-5. How many seats short are we assuming College Heights is converted back to an elementary school? Is it possible to expand some of the existing schools to meet the need rather than buying land and building a whole new school? That’s a lot of money and, as others have mentioned, we are building to address a bubble.
There is space behind Glenwood to build another good sized building, without losing the playing fields. Take a look at a parcel map of the school and the unbuilt property to north of the property line – cheap residential with no other development potential at this time. Yes, we would lose trees, but vs. multiple millions for new parcels in expensive commercial areas, I think CSD could plant some trees elsewhere. This also saves on long term administration costs by adding to a school vs creating entire new school w/ new principal, etc.
Are you talking about the upper level that used to house the garden that now has 4 trailers? I’m not sure they could shoehorn in a new building in there that would accommodate much more than the the 4 classrooms that are already there.
No, not the former garden area. However, you can put an addition on the main building in the garden area, 3 stories like the main building, and get a lot more classrooms in that spot than the 4 trailers.
I’m talking about the very NW top part of the current parcel, plus the back end of 3-4 of the residential properties that extend far back from Glenwood Avenue. Those lots are 708′, 630′, 557′ and 513′ deep, respectively. Under current residential zoning, I don’t believe the back halves of those properties are otherwise developable, so acquisition cost should be much more reasonable than commercial areas. Plus they could use already existing field area. The new building could start where the current structure near the field is and head north towards the cemetery property. That building could be accessed from a new road from the cemetery (there are parts of roads/dirt roads that are already in the area). This building plus an addition in the garden area would be a lot of extra classroom seats.
Some parents at Glennwood fought really hard to preserve the playing field in its entirely last year. I don’t think any of the schools should give up any portion of their fields.I was sad to see that the new modular building and bus turn around at Renfroe cut into the playing field.
No need to use any field area if the undeveloped residential area is used.
“we are building to address a bubble”
While I agree a more detailed analysis for K-5 is needed (especially one that focuses on the feasibility of converting CSD back to a K-5 model), I am not sure I agree about the bubble. Or maybe you and I just have a different definition of how long a bubble lasts. Looking at my neighborhood, there are way more children under 5 than even a couple of years ago (resulting both from young families with infants/toddlers looking ahead and buying a home in a great school district, and of course from newborns from a much younger population). I have friends in other CoD neighborhoods who have made similar observations. Assuming a sizable number of these children remain in CSD through high school, we are looking at large enrollment numbers for at least another 15-18 years. Plus, most of these children aren’t counted on any school records, the projections, etc., and I think the projections might be a little bit low if this trend continues.
+1
I realize the plan for the new elementary school is preliminary, but isn’t it odd that it doesn’t show a playground or some form or outdoor play space? I get that there is not a gymnasium – I don’t know if any of our elementary schools have a gym, but I can’t imagine a school without a place for outdoor exercise/playtime.
I think all of our elementary schools have either an auditorium or a gym/pseudo-gym that can also function as an auditorium. My guess is that a public elementary school is required to have some kind of outdoor play/PE space. If that’s not true, it should be.
This new K-5 elementary school has me confused. So students who live in the attendance zone for this school will attend it from K-5 and skip going to F.AVE for 4-5? Will the new school open up at 4-5 to accommodate more students from the (less-immediate) neighborhood? I’m just thinking that for a kid going to Clairemont or Glennwood, but not in the attendance zone for this K-5, this school would be way closer and easier to get to than F.AVE. Just for example, I live over three miles from F.AVE, but less than two miles from the location of this new school, but my kids would still go to F.AVE for 4-5 because it’s not their elementary school? Am I missing something? Being too logical?
We have some really smart, committed folks on the school board. So, I’m sure there’s nothing I mention that they have not considered. However, if we are going to do this much work, there should be some questioning of some fundamentals. First, as a fundamental matter, we should locate as centrally as possible any school that draws its students from all over the City. The preschool and FAVE violate this, causing large traffic problems along choke points such as the railroad crossings. Certainly, for the preschool (which is oneof the most important achievements of our school system), it sure seems tempting to look at the Callaway Building site. While it is below the size needed for a full fledged school, we might be able to work with it for a preschool — if we could get the City to reconsider its arrangement with Cousins (which the City has the right to do). That would also free up College Heights to return as an elementary school, easing the burden on others. Regarding FAVE, the history of our school system that drew so many committed parents was small, neighborhood, walkable K-5 elementary schools. FAVE is wonderful in many ways, but it dramatically disrupts the earlier model, and for no justification found in the educational literature. Longer grade spans are better for parental involvement. If your kid is going to be in a school for 6 years, you tend to be willing to invest more time, energy and resources into it. You also won’t find yourself covering as many schools, as many of my neighbors do with a kid in a K-3, FAVE and an upper school. Most importantly, if you truly care about at-risk students, then longer grade spans help them because multiple transitions cause such problems for them. All of this argues for looking seriously at returning to K-5s. For those of you who were not here in 2005, one of the main reasons we created the 4-5 school was due to the way the numbers of students were projected, a projection that turned out to be wrong. Whatever good the 4-5 school does by virtue of its being a 4-5, its origins are more of necessity than educational theory, and that’s a weak justification in my book. One of the legitimate criticisms of K-5 is that they sometimes create excess capacity. At this point, that would be a good thing. They would also cut down on the cross-town traffic caused by the 4-5 school. Maybe it can work. Maybe not. It is worth a good look, however, as we embark on these big moves. I say all of this, by the way, as someone who believes that the budgets submitted to justify the bond proposal show that every penny is needed.
Completely agree. 4/5 was an idea for another time.
Tom Stubbs for School Board!
There are more children on the wait list for ECLC than actually attend. A smaller space would not be a move in the right direction. Additionally, you can’t just make College Heights into an elementary school without significant remodeling. There are 16 classrooms in the building; however, 7 are devoted to 0-2 classrooms accommodating anywhere from 8-12 children and housing changing areas. All facilities are designed specifically for children under 5. Therefore, all classrooms, bathrooms, playgrounds, etc. would have to be replaced. Additionally, there’s no gym or auditorium and little if any space to build one.
It’s also my understanding that part of the district’s reasoning behind the 4/5 was to reduce tensions and problems Renfroe was facing when kids from 5+ elementary schools were being thrown in together for the first time.
Good points. I am fairly familiar with the set up there – my son taught there for the last three years (and he loved it). We might be able to expand the number of available classrooms despite the overall footprint of the Callaway Building being smaller. That is because College Heights was an elementary school. Its fundamental design is still for that. You don’t, for example, have to have as big of a playground for a preschool as you do for an elementary school. So, we could build a new facility specifically designed for the preschool environment, much as we built the Phoenix School at Oakhurst Presbyterian in the early 1990s when my wife was an officer there. You are absolutely correct, though, that the waiting lists at the preschool show we could serve even more kids than we already do. (By the way, the preschool is by far the most important, effective and cost-effective focus of closing any achievement gap.) I think the Callaway property could do that AND cut down on traffic congestion AND free up another facility to serve as an elementary school. Maybe not, but it sure seems worth exploring closely.
The City just rejected Cousins’ plan for Callaway because it did not contain enough commercial, right? How about building institutional space on the ground floor with apts above. Use the institutional space to replace College Heights. Then convert to commercial in (pick a number) years when enrollment drops and space is no longer so tight in the system.
Great idea, but I wonder if fire code requirements for a preschool might pose a challenge with the upper floors of apartments.
Tom – I made the same arguments against 4/5 back when it was established. Your logic makes sense, but the results speak differently. I now have a student there, and I’ve observed it is working quite well. The kids love the school, the performance of the school is high and it is helping them prepare for move to middle school before hormones begin rampaging through their bodies.
There are absolute advantages to the 4-5 school, no question. Helping behavior issues at Renfroe and facilitating collaboration among teachers are good examples. However, those are all ex-post rationalizations. The reason the school exists is because the system could not accommodate the population of kids and close Westchester without twisting itself into this pretzel. It is hard to compare the current situation with how the schools would be without a 4-5 school.However, we do know: this was the superintendent’s baby and the 4-5 school got every resource possible to make it fly. Had the H.S. or M.S. received the same attention, or had we tried theme elementary schools, with a STEM school, an arts school, and other such items, the outcome might be even better. All’s I can tell you is that the literature on grade configuration shows that longer grade spans are better for at risk kids and dramatically helps parent involvement, a key to student achievement. Quality teachers trump everything, but, all other things being equal, this grade configuration is hard to justify educationally and certainly ecologically given the traffic — cars and buses — it generates.
CSD doesn’t have the strongest track record regarding enrollment projections (i.e. Westchester closure), but recent CSD enrollment projections have been right on target. Do we have good reason to believe that the current enrollment growth is a bubble? I’d like to see the best possible data on this, but I suspect we’re looking less at a wave and more at an upper trajectory with no end in sight.
The school board is smart to plan for the future. Exploring CSD’S historical enrollment trends is important, but it’s a mistake to assume that history will repeat itself in this regard.
I am still considering the resources and information and have not yet made up my mind as to how I will vote on the bond issue. That said, I do think it important to note that voting against the bond referendum does not ensure keeping your taxes down. These kids are coming and the space is needed, however long the “bubble” lasts. Trailers / portables/ learning cottages (as you prefer) will be required if permanent space is not built. Those will have to be paid for out of the schools’ operating budgets and they are costly. I don’t know the dollar for dollar comparison, but we can expect a tax hike either way.
The low growth CSD projection for the increase in students is 1,869 from 2015-2020.
This is coming from apartments, town homes, and houses.
Today there was an interesting bit of information in DM’s post – Decatur development update: South side of garage to feature mural.
“The project includes 210 apartments, with 80 percent of those one-bedroom, efficiency or live/work. Collins said he expects to draw young singles, Emory grad students and some empty nesters. He anticipates at most five public-school students living in Arlo.”
At most 5 students from 210 apartments, 42 apartments of which are greater than 1 bedroom (2 bedroom or more). Does this same assumption apply to all the new apartments coming in the next few years? There are 1,473 new apartments currently in development (this includes the Arlo), with the Callaway adding another
361 for a total of 1,834 new apartments. So using the Arlo as an example, where 42 (at least 2 bedrooms) apartments are expected to result in 5 students: Does this mean that if all new apartments were at least 2 bedrooms (which they are not), then the expectation would be 218 new students for CSD?
These are the kinds of questions that I find difficult when reading information related to enrollment projections. For example, what is the anticipation of 5 students at Arlo actually based on? Is it an opinion or actually based on an analysis that has been performed?
If the ratios are correct, I do not understand why additional units at Callaway would be of concern. To add to the complexity, how many students are predicted from each new town home and house? In any case, my gut feeling is that the CSD low growth estimate is actually very low.
Regardless, I know of at least one old timer in my neighborhood who is on fixed income and I will pay some of his taxes myself if need be, so that he can live out his time here. It’s always a pleasure speaking with him and learning more about his perspective on different topics.
Can someone explain to me why the City is not talking about reducing their spending to partially offset the increase in revenue needed for schools?
Ben
If I am not mistaken, the operating expense of operating the schools is separate from the GO bond under consideration for capital construction costs.
There is no scenario where we can spend less in total, there are tons more kids coming through…
A great question to consider is, ‘so what is the alternative to the bond? Is it larger classes, trailers, leasing space elsewhere? Some combination? How much will that cost compared to the Bond?’