Which Elementary School Reconfiguration Should CSD Select?
Decatur Metro | March 28, 2017 | 12:40 pmCharts and tables apparently don’t get the attention on the social media as a colorful photo. But this is important, wonky stuff so to heck with it. To heck! (Plus I’m too lazy dig for a photo just now.)
OK, so let’s try to get up to speed on this topic, since we haven’t spent enough time looking at it.
As many a parent and concerned citizen knows, the City Schools of Decatur are considering options as they prepare to accommodate more students in the coming years.
They publicly floated three options recently, which were reviewed at a community meeting in mid-March:
- K-2, 3-5 Option 1 – turn College Heights into a K-2, build a new ECLC, Oakhurst would become a 3-5 and a new 3-5 would be built at Talley Street.
- K-2, 3-5 Option 2 – turn College Heights into a K-2, build a new ECLC, Glennwood would become 3-5 and a new 3-5 would be built at Talley Street.
- K-3, 4/5 Option – turn College Heights into a K-3, build a new ECLC, all other schools would remain the same and a new 4/5 Academy would be built.
Decaturish reported from the meeting earlier this month that some seemed to favor K-2 Option 2 to Option 1, because Option 1 would put all the 3-5 schools on the southside of the city. And many residents were concerned about the traffic it would create.
Also, some are wary of the K-3 option because the K-3 schools would still be at 103% capacity even with the expansion.
In a follow up post, Decaturish noted that Glennwood parents were concerned that the school system had already settled on K-3 Option 2, which would make Glennwood a 3-5 school. But CSD stated that they weren’t settled on any option at this time and were still open to other configurations – beyond the three stated options – and was requesting all kinds of feedback from the community, not just on the three options. The survey, which we posted about earlier this month, closed on this past Monday.
So what are your thoughts? What’s the best solution?
Decaturish reported that the Superintendent hopes to make a final call on the K-5 schools configuration before summer. And then next year we can all regroup and have an exciting conversation about redistricting – a perennial topic around these parts the last few years.
Also – just your enjoyment and edification, after the jump you can see the three presented options in slide format, courtesy of the Cooperative Strategies presentation at the community meeting back on March 13th. Enjoy!
They can’t actually redistribute the kids until both the Talley Street school AND the replacement for College Heights are built. So for everyone that is worried about being separated from their neighborhood elementary school — by the realistic year of 2020, your kids might be too old to go there anyway. Dr Dude, please prove me wrong.
Dr. Dude has said he hopes to implement by August 1, 2019. Even so, it doesn’t matter to me if this plan doesn’t implicate my kids directly. I care about the long term impacts on my neighbors’ kids and traffic around Decatur.
For the $75 million bond I hope we get the option with the most room for growth and the most flexibility. It would be nice not to have to go through this every few years.
I wonder how much this is going to cost us; none of the options show cost. I bet you it’s not included in the 75 Million we approved. I bet we will approve another 75 million to purchase more trailers.
The price of the new structure on Talley street is the same whether it is used for 4-5 or 3-5.
Trailers are operating expense so that would be part of the millage set by the School Board.
The total cost is $92 million, which includes the $75 million from the bond, and the balance from a capital fund the school board has saved.
All three options are crummy. 1a and 1b leave Oakhurst or Glennwood without a walkable, neighborhood school for its youngest students. No one wants to put their Kindergarter on a bus at 6:00 in the morning. And both would exacerbate traffic on Mead or Ponce. (Side note: How about a traffic study before launching in??). All three options are comparable in terms of seat deficits and leave me with the distinct impression that we’ll be right back here again with all of the upheaval and disruption in another 3 years. Where is the long term vision?
1. There are many k-3 students throughout the city who currently do not have a walkable school. Who walks to school may shift a bit under these plans but in the end, every one of the school buildings has lots of people within a 1/2 mile radius who could walk kids to school if they choose.
2. Is there some reason that people won’t be able to walk to College Heights?
3. Would that not encompass much (if not all) of the Oakhurst district?
4. Busses don’t pick up anyone at 6am. They definitely wouldn’t be picking up that early for schools that don’t start until 8am. Our districts for k-2 would be even smaller than they are now. So it’s not like kids would be on the bus more than a few minutes. I do agree CSD should work on the current transportation plan so that more kids could actually use it.
5. Both Glenwood and Oakhurst would house fewer students than they currently do under all three options. Because Decatur is so small, most families districted would be able to walk to them if they chose. And 3rd to 5th graders are capable of a longer walk than k-3. (More kids could walk). How does this make traffic worse?
6. Agree that long term vision should be a priority. Dude has stated that the new Talley Street school will have the capacity to be expanded. Doesn’t seem like that would give a whole lot of flexibility. What alternative would you suggest?
Take a look at the bussing schedules. Some College Heights students who live north of the tracks are on the bus for nearly and hour each morning because they have to stop at Renfroe first. The new Talley schools likely mean more bussing and earlier pick up times for students.
“May shift a bit” is a pretty big understatement. Do you understand that there is going to be an entire Redistricting after the school Reconfiguration is settled? The school attendance lines are going to be completely re-drawn. Some students will be unaffected. But many, many will not. This applies to all neighborhoods, not just Oakhurst and Glennwood
Traffic would be worse for Oakhurst and Glennwood because they would have families from all over Decatur (not just these neighborhoods traveling by car to get students at a 3/5. Traffic is already terrible on Mead Road (and Feld) and Ponce. Parking is problematic. Looong lines of cars already queue on these roads at pick up and drop off times.
In terms of walkability, my point was that the Oakhurst or Glennwood neighborhoods would lose a walkable school for their youngest students — not that no one could walk to the new 3/5s. Walkability is an important consideration for our youngest students because it builds a sense of community for families early on and encourages involvement in the schools right from the start. It also builds community within the neighborhoods.
In terms of Oakhurst and Glennwood housing fewer students, those enrollment numbers would be obsolete in a few short years, because the demographic projections keep going up and up. These proposals feel like a bandaid, not a solution.
What would I suggest?
1. Well first, I think that Dr. Dude needs to honestly address the leadership vacuum that he has. Tasking Noel Maloof with this project was unwise. We need long term solutions. Everyone is tired of doing this every few years. It wastes resources and the upheaval is no good for our students and teachers.
2. Next, I think that CSD should work with COD to do traffic studies in advance of rolling out its proposals. We need to see more engagement from the city itself in trying to resolve these problems.
3. Last, I would suggest that the school board and the city work together with local business and real estate leaders to make a concerted effort to find some land suitable for building additional schools north of the tracks. I’ve got nothing but love for all of Decatur, north, south, east, and west. But continuing to build new schools only south of the tracks is going to lessen our sense of community and wildly exacerbate traffic, especially on the southside. It is an hour round trip from the Westchester neighborhood to College Heights. Could we should we all bike or bus? Yes. I do. But most don’t.
I agree there would be a lot of redistricting and there would be bussing. But by taking the current one isolated 4/5 location and dispersing those classrooms around the city a little more (not a lot, but some), it would open up walkability at the 4/5 level to many more families than what currently exists. And in addition to that, most people will still live within 1 mile of a k-2. The current districts have only been in place for a short time. Before that, many families from north of the tracks have walked to schools south of the tracks (Glennwood families to WP and Lenox Park area to Oakhurst). And in both scenarios, many families were unhappy to leave those south side schools.
I also like that with the ECLC moving to a more centralized location, at least that hour long round trip will change.
I completely agree that bus times aren’t ideal, and do not look forward to the possibility of my north side kids having to ride a bus down to FAVE ever. Under all of these options, we might still have to do that. Those in the far north corners have the least favorable outcome under all three scenarios. Most of the current Glenwood and Oakhurst districts come out pretty well under all three in terms of having schools within a half mile distance for all of k-5 and even k-12.
I also wish there were more schools on the north side of the city, and it’s my understanding that CSD has tried to do that, but they haven’t had any luck. Not sure if anyone would like to offer up 6 acres of their neighborhood to accommodate a new school. Calloway site is gone. Should we use eminent domain to buy one of the bigger church properties? What else is there? Until we are prepared to do something crazy, drastic, and unpopular as that, everyone on the north side has to accept that we can’t all avoid crossing the tracks for k-5.
I’m just as frustrated with the options, and I don’t think anyone sees any of them as perfect. But I also don’t think these were presented lightly or without thought.
Honest question, and not trying to stoke the debate here:
What do people think the outcome of a traffic study will be?
We will have X number of cars, in a 4 square mile city, where the draw is Y number & configuration of schools in set locations. All of the people who live in this city will be going to work, dropping off kids, heading to yoga, etc. at pretty much the same time.
What will the outcome of a traffic study tell us to help with decision making?
what is the projected plan for middle and high school??? None of the 3 options discusses this matter. By year 2020 the middle school is projected to have 1600 students and the high school is projected to 1800. That is the size of a small college and there is no way all of these students will fit into one building. So we will need 2 more new schools. Why are they not discussed here???
The consultants’ proposals only address the elementary schools. http://www.dejongrichter.com/csdecatur/ There is ongoing construction at the middle school and high school.
Yes, most folks get into cars and drive somewhere during peak hours. But a traffic study answers more specific questions than that.
Consider something called trip generation. The trip generation of a proposed Reconfiguration change is basically the number of inbound and outbound vehicle trips that are expected to be generated by the Reconfiguration during an average day or during a peak hour. Will my trip take me 0.25 miles to my neighborhood school? Or 3.5 miles through major congested ineptersections? By sing thresholds, a study can estimate the trip generation, compare that generation to accepted thresholds, and then determine the type of traffic study needed.
Traffic studies should answer questions such as the suitability of local, neighborhood roads to high volume, the need for additional traffic lights, signage, and the allocation of roadway improvement resources.
I don’t necessarily disagree, particularly as it relates to destination mapping, but speaking as someone who spends entirely too much time around traffic engineers, it’s worth noting that the modeling they use is derived largely from behavioral data collected under auto-dependent, suburban conditions. Which is all to say that, in a place like Decatur, people often have more options beyond just “My kid has to be somewhere; get in the car.”
If nothing else, I hope this becomes a key consideration if modeling and forecasting based on data are to become a primary driver in the decision.
If there is no suitable land to build additional schools north of the tracks, could we increase the capacity of the schools that we do have? I bet the seat deficits and redistricting would look a lot different if we popped the top of the elementary schools and built one additional floor to each. Too expensive? Too time consuming? So is bottlenecked traffic and hiring reconfiguration consultants every few years.
Agreed, building up as an option was not discussed. It’s difficult to see the big picture of what the CSD is proposing. Another example is the purchases of single family homes adjacent to schools.
I think it might be against fire codes to put children that young on a 3rd floor.
So … slides and zip lines? Ok, kidding.
Sure would make the fire drills fun!
I don’t know if it’s true, but a couple of years ago someone within CSD told me that the current elementaries had been expanded as much as possible. I remember someone specifically asking about Westchester being so small – that portables were not an option on the property nor was building out (floodplain?) and that for some reason building up was not an option. Maybe it would have to be torn down to go up? It’s a very vague memory from a school meeting that was not at all about facilities or over crowding.
Most single story buildings do not have a foundation to support adding more floors. Which means you have to do some serious structural design work to add footers, support structure, etc. to add another floor. That’s pretty expensive and time consuming construction, and likely would cause some extended closure of the facility during the work. As well, adding another story would trigger the need to meet ADA requirements (i.e. adding elevators).
IMO, building up will be far too costly for the results the community would get in the end.
We are all fixated on capital expenditures such as building construction, but at least we can count on the voters of DeKalb Co to keep approving ESPLOST to help with that. Operating costs are what are going to eat us up and drive up our property taxes. There’s not much to cut without adversely affecting the quality of the student’s experience, but transportation is one area that is ripe. That is why I can’t understand why a K-5 configuration was summarily dismissed. We could actually save $$$ over the long haul by taking advantage of the fact that we have school buildings scattered all over the city. Instead we have all these options that are going to increase pollution, increase traffic and decrease the number of kids walking or biking to school. Why???
I agree. K-5 seems not to get much attention but it would alleviate much of the concerns related to traffic and redistricting. Are there actual limits to expansion of some of the elementary schools?
K-5 did get a lot of attention but was shot down before things were presented to the community. There is a brief explanation in the community meeting materials. It was more persuasive in person, but still didn’t change my mind about preferring k-5 over the options presented.
“but at least we can count on the voters of DeKalb Co to keep approving ESPLOST to help with that”
You are probably right but I am still hoping they wise up and reject the ESPLOST boondoggle the next time it’s up for a vote.
Page 12 of the slide show presented on March 13th (last link in the DM article) explains the main points of why the K-5 option was not presented to the community.
I looked at the slide. It’s a bunch of anecdotal BS. The bus bullet is especially rich since practically everybody would be within walking distance. The bullet about breaking up traditional neighborhoods is a close second on the richness scale.
I think option 1B makes the most sense. FAVE has been a great success, but the size of each grade and the short 2 year span yields a lower sense of “ownership” among parents. Breaking into three schools will help on these fronts, as well as providing more kids the ability to walk to school.
1A would create more traffic issues.
Option 2 is the least disruptive – i think the key question on that option is would each K-3 have capacity to support growing the demand.
I agree. However figuring out the traffic impact begs the question on either 1A or 1B of how these would be re-districted for attendance zones.
Westchester is not immediately walkable to both, so it makes more sense they would be bussed (there is a notable Lenox Park group, but they are just a segment of Westchester’s population).
The worst case scenario would be to take areas that are reasonable walkable (think of someone who could walk to both K-2 and 3-5), and put them to a farther, marginally walkable 3-5 that would still be less than a mile. The city then wouldn’t have to offer bussing (I’m thinking about College Heights zone getting sent to Talley vs. FAVE, or Westchester to Oakhurst in 1A).
I’m just saying that there are a number of implementation details to be discussed that are independent of educational decisions.
Don’t be fooled that 1B will not bring traffic problems as well. A bottleneck on Ponce — the main artery through Decatur – is good for no one. There will be traffic lining up on Ponce from all over Decatur if Glennwood becomes a 3/4/5. And don’t forget the K-2 students from the Sycamore neighborhood (who currently would go to Glennwood) that would almost certainly be redistricted south of the tracks to Winona Park. More traffic and busses there too.
When Glennwood was a 4/5 I don’t recall any significant traffic issues. What makes you think it would be substantially different with the one additional grade?
1B will drive less traffic impact because:
a) Ponce is better able to handle high traffic volume than Mead.
b) having one of the 3-5 schools north of the tracks will reduce the volume of traffic trying to cross the tracks.
c) option 1A leaves the high density southwest corner of Decatur with 2 3-5 schools and no k-2 schools.
I’m not impacted personally – my kids will be out of elementary when this comes into effect.
Its interesting to me that most of the concern at the meeting, and some of the concern here, focuses on the re-districting. I think it was a disservice for the consultants to separate the two issues. Looking at the map, the switch from Oakhurst to College Heights (Option 1a) creates the least amount of redistricting issues (probably about 100 kids).
My choice was option 1a because it provided the most room and most flexibility with the building use. I recall that it left 10-15% of capacity, The other options either filled capacity or created deficits within 5 years. I don’t expect the growth to stop after 5 years, so we’ll be having this conversation sooner rather than later.
I am sympathetic to the redistricting issue. Walkability was my second highest priority. When I put it on my map, changing to option 1a creates the least disruption.
Say it ain’t so…The City Schools of Decatur are ‘exempt’ from adhering to LEED/Earthcraft requirements in all current and future construction projects. If I am incorrect, please say so.
Anyone have info on this?
I believe the argument was made that the bond is limited and there’s a certain list of facilities that need to be built and that they need/want the flexibility to stretch the tax dollar as far as they can.
Fairly certain it was accepted in regards to current projects but I’m not sure about future.
Plus, it is possible to design and build an energy efficient building without seeking expensive certifications.