CSD Reconfiguration Adult Showcase This Week
Decatur Metro | March 9, 2009
Is 5th Ave the Answer? (photo circa 1936 - Prior to Addition)
CSD Mom sends along this announcement from the school system…
During the week of March 9-13th the City Schools of Decatur’s Reconfiguration Committee is hosting an Adult Showcase of their work. Come to peruse posters for each option offering the following: financial and demographic data, instructional implications, strengths and challenges. The showcases will be held from 8:00 am – 4:30 pm at the Central Office at Westchester (758 Scott Blvd., Decatur 30030). The Adult Showcase may be borrowed by individual schools for other sessions. Stay tuned to school newsletters and electronic communications for more information.
Additionally, there will be a Board informational session followed by a listening session at Renfroe Middle School (220 W. College Ave., 30030) on March 17th at 6:30 pm and on March 25th at 6:30 pm. The topic of these sessions is reconfiguration.
Or if you don’t have time to view the posters in person, you can also view them in this PDF right now!
I’ve been digging into this data for the last couple weeks, and I’ve gotta say that if you think that this is a cut and dry decision, you’re sorely mistaken. Lots of options (13 in fact) each with its own pros and cons. These posters try to sum up the arguments for each.
A quick look at the “posters” seems to show that Option 13 (make Fifth Avenue the 4/5 Academy & add a few classrooms to Winnona and Glennwood) has the fewest “cons” of all the stated options, though “highest capital costs” at over $9 million is a pretty big negative. I wonder if this relatively new option is now the new favorite amongst the reconfiguration committee.
Latest from Decaturish
Option #5 seems like the best option if you remove some of the “padding” in the negatives. If they don’t open the Westchester school to help resolve this issue-this will clearly be for the few administrators in that building not wanting to move.
After reviewing every option here, I have a couple of questions for the “Administrator Educators” that put this together:
1) Green Space. Why the constant concerns of loss of green space? Why does the “loss” of this supposedly sacred space factor so prominently into these options? What does it have to do with teaching kids?
2) Socioeconomic and racial diversity. My question….does this matter? Maybe I should rephrase, “Can somebody please point me to empirical evidence that states that learning quality goes up when ‘Socioeconomic and racial’ percentages are evenly mixed?” Please review the following:
http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html
3) Why does Winnona seem to bear the brunt of most of the changes?
4) If number 13 is the new favorite, I would “assume” that it is because they can add more teachers, hence, more dues.
5) Expeditionary Learning? Well.
For those who are not privy to our schools emphasis on esteem over results, let me post here the “Principles of Expeditionary Learning”:
The Primacy of Self-Discovery
The Having of Wonderful Ideas
The Responsibility for Learning
Empathy and Caring
Success and Failure
Collaboration and Competition
Diversity and Inclusion
The Natural World
Solitude and Reflection
Service and Compassion
Read it again, please. No wonder our public schools are in such disarray. I mean, if you had the means, would you send your children to places like this? There is a reason that private schools in Atlanta cost upwards of $17K+ per year.
These are not schools. These are indoctrination/feelings/esteem factories. You can call them whatever you want, but these are not schools, IMHO.
Hey kid, having a problem finding your primacy of self-discovery? Too bad, go home to your parents and tell them about it.
Hey kid, was your idea ridiculed by the other kids? Please go the the Having of Wonderful Ideas Representative to voice your concern. Now kid, you’re probably wondering if this person is qualified to handle your issue. Don’t worry, this Representative was recently trained in how to handle this type of feeling/emotion by attending EL classes.
ARRRGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
I would like to present my “Principles of turning schools back to places where people TEACH, not educate”:
1) Reading
2) Writing
3) Arithmetic
4) Science
5) Social Studies
6) History
However, I don’t think those are fashionable enough to get teachers trained.
Too much to take on at once, Joke, but I think I can hit on a couple of your points:
1. The green space. It’s listed among plenty of other possible cons that need to be assessed. I don’t get how it’s factored more “prominently” than the others.
2. Balanced Diversity. Even if you fully discount the educational benefit, failing to address it can artificially depress housing values by taking certain neighborhoods out of consideration for people with options. (I’m not defending such human nature but how people tend to act when it comes to school perception is no secret.) That makes it a tax revenue issue, which is just as important.
Dear “What a Joke”,
The Design Principles of Expeditionary Learning Schools form an important part of the culture and character of Winnona Park, Clairemont, and Oakhurst. We feel the Design Principles, coupled with engaging instruction, and meaningful assessment in the core subjects you listed above, form a solid nucleus of what we feel are great little schools. We hope our students understand and embody these principles as they become part of each child’s personal character.
I’m curious to know, which Design Principle would you NOT want your child to exhibit as part of his or her character?
Below is a link to a more thorough definition and explanation of each Design Principle:
http://www.elschools.org/aboutus/principles.html
Also, we were fortunate to host an Expeditionary Learning Site Seminar last month. 54 teachers from around the nation visited our schools because EL wanted us to share with teachers in the EL network the great work we’re doing. Below is a link to my school’s newsletter that highlights the feedback we received. You might be interested in reading this for a different perspective. Click on “Winnona Park Newsletter” on the top.
http://winnonapark.cityschoolsofdecatur.com/news/index.shtml
Thank you.
Greg Wiseman
Principal, Winnona park Elementary School
Adult Showcase?
Sounds…. naughty.
Right wing [edited] alert! How do you say?
(1) Citing Thomas Sowell is a dead giveaway.
(2) Complaints about socioeconomic and racial diversity in schools. If you don’t understand the benefits to a child to be exposed to other kids who are different from themselves then I don’t even want to waste my breath with arguing about it.
(3) Our schools are in disarray? In Decatur? Not hardly. There are plenty of people “with the means” who choose to send their kids to public schools in Decatur. Not very many choose private or else they probably wouldn’t be living (and paying more taxes) to live in Decatur.
(4) “These are not schools. These are indoctrination/feelings/esteem factories. You can call them whatever you want, but these are not schools, IMHO.” Take your ear out of your radio playing some right wing radio host and think for yourself for a minute.
What a joke, you need to get a grip. You are seriously over-reacting. Here’s a link http://www.paideiaschool.org/about_us/framework.aspx
to the “Framework of Values” on Paideia’s website and it looks, uh-oh!, surprisingly like Decatur’s “Principles of Expeditionary Learning”. I don’t think either school has thrown the main subjects out the window, do you? C’mon, seriously.
I can understand the argument against busing kids out of their communities across town but when you’re talking about a 4 square mile city I think it would be ridiculous not to strive for some equity in social, economic and racial status in our small school system.
I quote myself from a Dec ’07 post…
Decatur Finally Freed From 1969 Desegregation Order
Originally when this 1969 desegregation case was brought against the state of Georgia , there were 81 school systems in the state that unlawfully regulated “a racially dual system of public education in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.”
By 1973, Decatur was one of only three school systems (Newton and Rome county were the others) left in the state that hadn’t made significant progress towards reaching unitary status. As a result, Decatur and the other two counties remained active parties on the suit, up until today.
Due in no small part to the city’s 2003 consolidation of schools, last week the court ruled that Decatur “has fully and satisfactorily complied with the Court’s desegregation orders.” It went on to conclude that the school system “has met the legal obligations for a declaration of unitary status.”
Read the complete U.S. District Court Order here.
Greg, you’re the greatest principal evah.
To “what a joke”: I suppose you have to see it in action to appreciate it. I’m getting the feeling that you don’t have kids? My first grader is learning not just the facts, but the whole picture. It’s truly astounding. She is learning more than I ever did in first grade, and her retention is remarkable because she is so immersed in what she learns.
On another note, I find the “options” posters to be completely haphazard. Yes, it looks like they spent a lot of time on them, but they’re still not organized adequately. There are cons listed for some options that are not listed on other options that have the same cons. I wish I could get in there with my red marker and fix them so that they are more comprehensive.
C’mon everybody don’t waste your time with What a Joke. He can wallow in his own misery. It’s doubtful he has a child in a Decatur school. Heck, it’s doubtful he even live in Decatur.
I noticed that too CSD Mom…pros and cons were not universally applied. At a minimum they should go back and make sure that for instance when they propose “renovating Westchester”, they put each pro and con that goes along with that on every sheet.
As a father with a child at Winnona, I can state that he’s learning all the basics one would learn in elementary school and some academics that I never saw until 5th grade or later. That is in addition to all the cool things that go along with Expeditionary Learning. I WISH I could have attended an elementary school like Winnona when I was a kid. So, What A Joke, try taking off the ideological blinders and learn about Expeditionary Learning, instead of just ridiculing it. By the way, teach is a synonym for educate.
It is amazing that some conservative extremists like “What a Joke” cannot acknowledge that a public school in a liberal community like Decatur can be successful. When you have been indoctrinated to believe that anything government is bad and anything liberal is bad … it must defy the mind.
I’m proud of Decatur and I’m proud of our schools.
Also, i don’t understand why the “expected demographics for 2012-2013″ aren’t the same for each option. Would it be better to say “capacity” for each site? How come the numbers don’t add up?
Also, if I’m not mistaken the documents are scanned in, but yesterday they were not. I wonder if changes have been made.
Given the energetic discussion I’m seeing seen around the CSD Reconfiguration issue on this blog, I hope all those interested in this issue will attend the Listening Sessions with Board of Education members that are scheduled for March 17th and March 25th to have their opinions heard.
Like Greg, I was at the reconvened reconfiguration committee. I’ll trying to answer some of the questions…
[Lots of tiny little details]
If you take a look at the documentation available on eBoard. You’ll see that there is a tremendous amount of detailed information on classroom requirements, operational and capital costs. I have to take my hat off to the CO staff involved in preparing and presenting it.
However, there was clearly not enough time for people to internalize the new information. And it was also clear that many of the people in attendance were exhausted by the process. 2 variations on options were proposed, but were tabled, because some committee members were very vocal about not wanting to re-open that particular can of worms.
I was very familiar with the data which had been previously available. But with the addition of all the new stuff, I myself walked around in a state of data overload the first night. This might explain why some of the comments on the posters may be inconsistent with the data.
[Short comings of Showcase Posters]
One of the short comings of the posters at the showcase, as Gabriel Ramirez pointed out during the committee meeting, is that we aren’t paying cash for construction. It will be financed. An apples to apples comparison would require looking at all the options from the perspective of impact on the annual budget. Unfortunately Gabriel’s request to modify the posters was effectively denied.
[Apples to Apples Cost Comparison]
Here is the apples to apples comparison from page 2 of the operating and capital cost analysis.pdf:
Opt Summary Annual Cost Differential
1 (3)K-3, (2)4-5, (1)6-8 $1,098,664
2 (4)K-3, (2)4-5, (1)6-8 $1,505,870
3 (4)K-4, (1)5-8 $890,149
4 (4)K-5, (1)6-8 $1,172,801
5 (5)K-4, (1)5-8 $963,056
6 (5)K-5, (1)6-8 $1,651,397
8 (5)K-3, (1)4-5, (1)6-8 $1,427,376
9 (4)K-3, (1)4-5, (1)6-8 $997,919
10 (4)K-3, (1)4-5, (1)6-8 $1,435,700
11 (4)K-3, (1)4-7, (1)8-12 $325,356
12 (3)K-3, (1)4-5, (1)6-8 $0
13 (4)K-3, (1)4-5, (1)6-8 $1,365,683
(hopefully that came out in a fixed width font)
The real kicker on impact on the annual budget, is whether or not at the end of the day the option requires CSD to operate an additional school. The overhead cost in admin personnel for running an additional school is $484K/y. The bean counters also estimate around $440K/y in efficiency related to needing to have fewer classrooms and teachers. 484 + 440 = $924K/y.
Also, it is worth noting that all things equal, the option which incurs more operational costs will be the more expensive one in the long run. Operating costs are primarily personnel. Salaries and wages rise with inflation. Over the last 12 years, CSD General Fund expenditures have risen at an average rate of 5.24%/year. Whereas capital construction costs are financed at a fixed rate which doesn’t rise with inflation.
[Complexity vs. Over-simplification]
Reconfiguration is a complex issue. I am worried both that committee members are exhausted and overloaded with data. At the same time, I am concerned by over-simplifications in the data that was presented.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
— H L Menken
For instance the formula used to determine how many classrooms will be required makes the false assumption that enrollments will be equally divided among facilities. However, of the 13 options _none_ (with the possible exception of #5), would provide an equal number of classrooms at primary grade facilities. As a result, we were told that having 4 K-4 schools would require more classrooms than having 5 K-4’s.
However, if you calculate classroom counts instead based on redistricting the percentage of the population going to each facility, we find that some of the required classroom count for Option #3 may be overstated by as many as 10 classrooms. For Option #3: (4)K-4, (1)5-8, this would reduce its impact on the annual budget by $1,180,000 per year… making it the least expensive option.
So, I’ve very concerned that requirements and consequently the cost estimates are off. I don’t believe for a second that they are deliberately skewed. But over-simplification does appear to be skewing the cost estimates.
[Is Option #13 the new darling?]
The City representatives (Amanda Thompson and Rick Logan) clearly indicated a desire that we do something with 5th Avenue. And there was significant vocal support for it from Central Office staff. That said, I’m not sure whether or not it is now the favorite. If I were a betting man, I’d lay my wager on Option #9: (4)K-3 (1)4-8@Renfroe.
However, as you can see above in the annual budget impact estimates, the $9M construction cost for Option #13 doesn’t actually make it particularly more expensive. In fact, it estimated to be less expensive than 4 other options.
To my mind, Option #13 would be greatly improved if it handled the capacity requirements of the K-3 schools by closing Glennwood and adding 5-6 classrooms each at CL, OA, and WP. This would result in CSD not having to operate an additional school. This would knock the annual impact on the budget for Option #13 down to $512K/y. -Making it one of the least expensive options.
[Why Winnona Park seems to always bare the brunt of additions]
There was apparently an assumption on the part of the people who provided the expansion scenarios that we could not expand at OA or CL. Rick Logan from the City clearly disagreed at the Feb 24th meeting. And Gene Ponder has stated that we could put 5-6 classrooms each at OA or CL, but at a higher estimated cost per square foot.
Many of the options which would require us building a 3 legged, 4 armed Winnona Park have been considered non-viable on this account. It would be nice for community members visiting the showcase to write in comments asking for variations on the options which would expand our primary schools in a more uniform fashion.
cheers,
Garrett
Garrett, thanks so much for this. Really good, wonky stuff…it’ll take me a bit to digest. I think the chart got the comment stuck in the spam blocker… so I’ve given it a new updated date so it should soon show up in the “recent comments” section.
Otherwise, hopefully my own comment will bring your efforts to light.
Thanks again!
Would Option 5 be $320,000 cheaper if the superintendent temporarily moved the Central Office to the 12 or so available rooms at Decatur HS? I just don’t understand why they are talking construction when they don’t even know what is going to happen re: annexation. Don’t they need a 2-3 year solution as a stop-gap? Options 5 and 11 use the existing facilities the best. Option 5 might not even need the extra classrooms. Why don’t they reconfigure to Option 5…and then see if they need to do construction?
Close Glennwood? After the thousands that have been spent on renovating it (twice) over the last 7 or so years? Ridiculous. All of this is ridiculous. I’m truly stunned that given the gains CSD made by 2004, especially Glennwood (which rose above and beyond where it had been under the great leadership of Jan Goodloe), we went ahead and closed schools. I know it does no good to complain now, but the transformation into a system of K-3 and 4-5 was a bad idea then, and it has plunged us into this mess.
I hope CSD can come up with something that doesn’t resemble another train wreck to fix this problem.
Why not move the 4/5 to Oakhurst and open Fifth Avenue as a K-3 school? Oakhurst already has three more classrooms than Glennwood. Originally, Oakhurst was slated to be the 4/5 Academy anyway. I never did really get why they changed it to Glennwood at the last minute.
Also, I have a kid at Renfroe and there are already outdoor space issues. This is the case even though kids there are only assigned ONE QUARTER of PE per year – that’s it… nine weeks of PE 2 1/2 days a week in an entire school year. There is also NO RECESS aside from a 15 minute “social break” that sixth graders get.
Three are currently about 541 kids at Renfroe. Imagine adding 500 4th and 5th graders who have recess nearly every day and take PE all year long. Plus the classroom addition and associated parking lots will eat up the outdoor basketball courts and who knows how much of the field. Where will a playground go for the 4th and 5th graders? Will they get recess? Will they get the same amount of PE that they get now?
There are also substantial drainage issues at Renfroe field. Stop by there anytime after a hard rain.. it’s a bit like The Everglades. I keep looking for alligators. Allowing for proper drainage would require an extensive underground drainage/retention system. The entire field will need to be completely dug up to install it…. and .. what if it fails? Has the drainage system and maintenance of it been priced into the construction costs?
5th Avenue is an excellent piece of property It would make a terrific 4/5 – so would Oakhurst.
And… I know that the reconfiguration committee is tired, and I know that they have worked very, very hard. I also know from serving on committees that our school leaders are very good at nudging their committees to the result that the leaders want.
However, this is probably the most important decision that has ever faced this school system. If the reconfiguration committee is going to support a configuration that has not been vetted by other school systems and that represents a very permanent and expensive change, they need to present compelling evidence that it is the only solution. That has not happened to date. It looks like there are several options that would actually cost less overall. Some options involve splitting up the 4/5 academy. They are clearly the most cost effective and offer the most flexibility in the long term.
I know that IB is sacred, but it appears that DHS is not sold on it. I don’t see IB as sacred if the high school is unwilling or unable to implement both the MYP and the Diploma Programme. If we can’t get a commitment from DHS to finish the job on IB, I don’t see why we need to move to a possibly problematic configuration just so our kids can have IB for a few years. I think IB is terrific – it is the main reason why I was supportive of the last reconfiguration. However, I’m not particularly interested in it if the kids will have a terrific IB experience in 4-8 only to be denied of it in high school when it really matters.
Unlike the other options, If we move to 4-8 at Renfroe and it doesn’t work because it is too big, or the grade span isn’t a good fit, or our enrollment numbers drop again, there is no way to take it back. We are 100% stuck in a nontraditional grade span.
Re the showcase format, the previous post was correct. The posters in the adult showcase are inconsistent and do not list all of the pros and cons. There are obvious pros/cons that are absent from some options but are listed in others. These gaps in information concern me. Either the posters were prepared quickly for a deadline, and the options haven’t been completely thought through, or information was purposely omitted in order to steer the public or the reconfiguration committee to a desired decision.
“I also know from serving on committees that our school leaders are very good at nudging their committees to the result that the leaders want. ”
Thank you for saying that. So true. This is exactly what happened on Tuesday with the non-traditional calendar vote, which is only to appease teachers and will only inconvenience everyone else.
I hope some good things come out of the upcoming reconfig listening sessions.
“I also know from serving on committees that our school leaders are very good at nudging their committees to the result that the leaders want. ”
School administration is a political process. Certainly no one’s surprised when the participants engage in the business of politics. One person’s nefarious influence is another’s collaborative group consensus.
I’m not saying this situation is one or the other. My point is that I often see posts about school issues that suggest a superintendent and/or board hellbent on forcing through their own agendas, community be darned, but I’ve never seen anyone suggest any incentive for why they would do this. They serve based on performance/results and political relationships. If they operate recklessly, in contrast to what the community wants, I would think this would put their positions in peril. Why would they do that?
Come now … be careful when you “overstate” an issue. Exactly how would the non-traditional calendar have benefited the teachers? Most teachers continue their education during the summer, taking courses at nearby colleges and universities. The “new” calendar could have been problematic when trying to schedule summer courses. Many teachers also work during the summer to supplement their incomes – this also would have become a mute point with the new, non-traditional calendar. However, I am sure there were some teachers that were in favor of the non-traditional calendar, even though they may have to endure hardships themselves; because of its benefits for the students.
I still believe you statement “the non-traditional calendar vote, which is only to appease teachers” is overstated. I am sure the non-traditional calendar was introduced for reasons such as it was more accommodating to the standardized testing schedule and the new six times a year progress reports. As well as, the “consolidated breaks” versus the “short weeks” throughout the year would be more refreshing for teachers as well as students. Again, I will never believe any school system (not even CSD) would institute a controversial, non-traditional calendar only to appease their teachers … there has to be something else to it.
I have read through the literature a dozen times, and the only benefits are these (stated in the letter I linked above):
(Forgive me, it’s scanned so i have to retype it)
“Retention and recruitment of teachers, clear distinctions between the grade marking periods, and the rejuvenating effect of breaks for students and teachers.”
As far as I’m concerned, we are rejuvenated over the weekend. A whole week here and there is going to throw kids off-schedule and disrupt their normal routines and sleep schedules far more than consolidating all of that “off” time into the summer. I see the random breaks as being more intrusive and disruptive.
Glad to see this thread was revived by Garrett’s comment, but I think we’re getting a bit off-topic. Here’s my main question right now….
Why does CSD see this as imperative to do this year? Could this be any worse a year to predict the future?
I keep hearing things about enrollment declines in DeKalb and Fulton County due to a slow down in the metro region’s population growth. Will that affect Decatur as well, or are we too dense or too popular to feel that affect? Also, I wonder about the opposite effect regarding kids currently enrolled in private school but now will make the switch back to public due to the economy. The NY Times did a great piece on this recently.
So why do this now? Has the chorus of people upset with trailers become too loud to ignore? If so, who the heck cares? People that lash out at the mere sight of trailers aren’t looking at the big picture.
Or does it have SOMETHING to do about $ that would be provided by the state (or feds) for the Renfroe expansion? I keep hearing little blurbs about this, but nothing substantial. I know the Superindendant asked for stimulus money for Renfroe, but beyond that I don’t have all the facts on that argument. To me, it sounded like the initial desire for the Renfroe expansion had to do with the city being able to build but not having to pay for it.
We don’t know what the future holds for our population growth, even without considering annexation. I’m beginning to side with those that ask “why are we rushing into this?”, especially when there are SO many options and opinions.
Any clarity would be much appreciated.
Scott, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that there was anything nefarious about the admins pushing the process to get the result they want. In fact, I would expect them to do nothing less. The result that the admins want is, in their opinion, the result that is best for the school system, the teachers, the taxpayers and the kids themselves. It is very normal for the admins to have a favored solution and to try to sell it to committees that are looking at the issue.
I notice little things, and I’m just making an observation that the admins are very good at gently steering committees in the direction that they would like to see the school system take. Most decision makers in large organizations run things this way. That isn’t a bad thing unless it is done dishonestly or for some sort of result that harms others to create selfish gains. I don’t think that any leading has been done dishonestly or with selfish purposes – but it has been done with impressive skill.
I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing – it’s actually a good thing if it keeps more people happy and on the same page. Frankly, I think our country would run a lot smoother if our Congress used some of the skills that we see here as CSD!
1. The Decatur HS teachers voted overwhelmingly for the old-style calendar too. Since these are the years that colleges look at, maybe they should look into why. Maybe there are academic issues from the new-style calendar. I’ve heard of semesters and quarters but 6 recording periods in HS?
2. Re: Reconfiguation The superintendent has, in the past, overstated the benefits of her first choice and understated the costs.
3. The school system already has 2 pots of long-term debt: College Heights (in the rent to own plan) and the new bond construction. More construction means that this superintendent builds, increases debt and then leaves all of that long-term debt burden for her successors to deal with.
4. I’ve heard many good things about Experiential Learning, but have never observed anything amazing about IB in Decatur. The costs are staggering, around $250,000 per year to run 2 IB schools. Reconfiguring to 1 IB school is no loss IMO.
5. Option 5. All the way.
CSD Mom,
More intrusive on your schedule, not the students or teachers.
Just a reminder to everyone that there’s a informational session on reconfig tomorrow at 6:30 at the Renfroe cafeteria, and then a listening session at 7:30. Come with your notes!
Wow, I was really disappointed in the attendance at the showcase last night. We must show the cmte and the board that we are listening and watching what they’re doing and we care about what happens. I hope more will show up next week.
Despite my research into this, I still learned a great deal at the info session. If nothing else, anyone who cares about this should attend the info session next week on March 25. And read the interim report. (If the link doesn’t work, go to the documents on the e-Board site.) This report is immensely useful if you’re just coming into this discussion.
The biggest concern I took away from last night is that the cmte is 100% sold on IB and will do whatever it takes to preserve it. I felt like I was hearing a sales pitch for a product. They have documented that the integrity of the IB structure is their #1 priority. I would like to see a broader scope of what’s important to the rest of us. Whether or not you support preserving the IB framework at the 4-5 academy, you should get involved!
I am getting the distinct feeling that we will end up with 4-5 at Renfroe.
I’m guessing the fact that yesterday was St. Patrick’s Day had something to do with the low attendance last night. Everyone in Decatur was at The Grange last night, evidently.
When it comes to any of these CSD initiatives/roundtables, does anyone else spend most of your time trying to decipher what the Politburo has already decided is the “best solution”? I’m sure that it’s just being paranoid, since I know and respect so many on the Reconfiguration committee. BUT…from reading all the reconfig options, it definitely felt like Option 13 was what they were pushing. I’ll be interested to see if I get that same vibe from the session next week.
Glad you’re going to be there, WinnonaMom. You will definitely benefit from all the information to be distributed.
I am starting a blog where we can talk about this and maybe it can serve as a repository of information.
I wanted to update the link to the reconfiguration blog. http://csdreconfiguration.blogspot.com/
What a Joke’s point about teaching the basics resonates with me. It appears that a statistically significant percentage of CSD’s elementary school students are unable to pass the state CRCTs–garnering the schools a mere 7 out of 10 score on Greatschools.net.
Dekalb’s Fernbank, Oak Grove, and Lin elementary schools score 10, 10, and 9 respectively. (Notably, Fernbank and Lin have a significant percentage of students living below the poverty line.)
How does CSD explain this?
The “basics” or Georgia Performance Standards ARE being taught in CSD’s elementary schools – BUT in an authentic, meaningful way. For a better understanding of how this is done, you may want to check out the short video on Decatur EDtv on Expeditionary Learning http://www.elifemagazine.net/learning.htm .
As for the comparisons of our schools to Fernbank and Lin Elementary … black and white numbers on a piece of paper or computer screen (I have always believed) can be deceiving. Both of these schools’ “economically disadvantaged” percentage rate are significantly lower (as presented by greatschools.net) than any of our elementary schools.
One of CSD’s biggest challenges has been to close the bridge on the achievement gap between what is considered disadvantaged children and the higher achievers. If you look at the numbers, it is very disproportionate, but overall our schools do an excellent job considering that a large portion of our students are labeled disadvantaged. Most of the undisadvantaged children are excelling. This issue begins at home with families who value and support the education process. It is an age old problem here in Decatur, and one that will not be easily resolved in the near future.
Woulldn’t you say the demographics are actually quite different? Our wealthiest are still not as wealthy as the wealthiest in Fernbank and Oak Grove, and we must have higher numbers of disadvantaged students–at lower income levels–than any of the other three. Right? I’m not looking at any data so that’s just conjecture.
One of the greatest things about our school system is its economic and racial diversity.
“One of the greatest things about our school system is its economic and racial diversity.”
Why?
“Why?”
Why not?
Two can play the no effort argument game.
Economic and racial diversity are neither good nor bad. They just are.
Well, I suppose I enjoy the fact that my kids go to schools with a great variety of other children and adults, and not carbon copies of themselves. That they don’t grow up in a lily-white school in Gwinnett like I did, where there are BMWs lining the parking lot and where there were very few kids “from the other side of the tracks.” That they are not necessarily a minority or a majority–they’re just kids. That their world now is very much like the world they will live in when they are adults–diverse and challenging.
I should have said that one of the things I enjoy most about our schools is its racial and economic diversity.
Thanks! Good points all! And I agree with those who find value in racial and economic diversity in schools!
““Why?”
Why not?
Two can play the no effort argument game.”
ummm…..I don’t think that poster was starting an argument. Perhaps just asking fro a little empirical evidence on why it is good, maybe?
ummm….”argument” as in “discourse intended to persuade” not “the act or process of arguing.”
No, DM, the poster was just asking a question – with a slight piquant of challenge in it – and some undertones of oak and cranberry…. (hmmm.. I need some wine now). You just didn’t like the question.
I don’t think it was a lazy argument at all. I think it was an elegant attempt to raise a question about the elephant in the room… it actually deserves it’s own blog thread.
I don’t think that the GREATEST thing about our school system is diversity. There are a lot of things about our school system that are much better and that require a lot more work. Diversity is here just because it is. ELOB and IB and all of our clubs and our sports teams and our fantastic fundraisers are here b/c someone has busted their butt making it happen. All of those things are great. No one has busted their butt to create the demographics of our city… they just are what there are.
Do I consider diversity to be valuable. Yes. Is it the BEST thing about our school system, IMO… no.
The GREATEST things about our school system, ELOB… some kicka__ teachers and one particularly effective principal at the middle school. I’m not sure in what order I’d put those.
No matter how you slice it, preserving the 4/5 will cost a lot of construction dollars. I looked up K-4 schools in Google. There are a ton of them as well as a ton of 5-8 middle schools. So the “Showcase” idea that K-4, 5-8 is an unusual configuration just isn’t true.
I don’t see any data from CSD to support the 4/5, only anecdotal. Here’s data…look up on the Georgia OSA site and compare Decatur scores to state scores. We do great in 3rd, 6th, 7th and 8th scoring 9 – 15% better than the state. So, student achievement isn’t better at the 4/5. What about stats on teacher retention and/or student retention at the 4/5? How do they compare to the other CSD schools? What about talking to the middle school students? How do they view the 4/5 compared to Renfroe? What about a qualitative set of data from them?
Foodie, I would argue that scores are so high at Renfroe b/c of the 4/5. That being said, if CSD truly is in the financial straits that it keeps claiming to be in… it has absolutely nooooo business entering into any major construction project. If the very existence of CSD is at risk – as some school board members seem to hint is the case… CSD has also has no business paying out the big bucks for IB to begin with.
IB is valuable.. the 4/5 academy appears to be valuable… but is it worth losing the school system over? Is it worth $10 million or more of debt?
decaturdad,
So glad you agree on the construction…here is the 4/5 data on achievement
3rd grade +10.3% Decatur
4th grade + 5.5% Decatur
5th grade + 3.6% Decatur
6th grade +8.6 % Decatur
7th grade + 17.6% Decatur
8th grade + 15.2% Decatur
The transition to 4/5 lowers achievement which recovers in 6th grade and takes off in 7th and 8th
Foodie, what do those percentages mean? They aren’t fail rates b/c if there were.. then the 4/5 is actually doing better than the other grades. What do those percentages represent. Thanks for clarifying ahead of time.
Oops… I meant thank you ahead of time for clarifying. The way I worded it make it sound sarcastic… no sarcasm intended .. just a thanks.
The state reports on the percentage of students each grade who met or exceeded the standards in reading language arts, math and social studies as measured by the CRCT.
So, in 3rd grade, the percentage of Decatur students who met or exceeded is 73%, but the percentage statewide is 63%, so Decatur is +10%. It’s important to compare to the state, because sometimes an entire grade can be low statewide. For example, you might look at the 5th grade and 8th grade Decatur pass rates (70.2% and 71.5% respectively) and think they are giving you the same message, but when you compare to the state pass rates (66.6% – 5th grade and 56% – 8th grade) you see that the 5th grade Decatur pass rate is slightly above the state pass rate, but 8th grade pass rate is way above the state pass rate.
There’s tons of data on the Georgia OSA site. I just went to the front page condensed information because I wasn’t planning to do any data mining. With this big push to maintain the 4/5, I just wanted to see if something popped out about the 4/5 one way or the other.
Speaking to the idea that teaching students morals (i.e., the design principles) is apparently annoying and a colossal waste of time, I would like to point out the the majority of these principles have been ignored by a society as a whole, and are clearly not being taught or modeled at home by a large number of parents.
I would like to assume the person who posted their view about the interference of these design principles with learning in Decatur schools is a parent who celebrates differences, is empathetic to others, and is instilling these traits in their own children on a daily basis. However, many students are not blessed with such caring parents, and unfortunately are forced to look to other role models as positive examples.
Just another perspective from a teacher who has seen the difference EL can make in the lives of ALL children, not just the ones who are fortunate enough to have wonderful parents.
Speaking from experience – you would be surprised at just how good an education these students are receiving. Don’t believe that they are learning your 6? Compare the first grade curriculum with that of Dekalb or Gwinnett County. CSD students do 2nd and 3rd grade work in first grade while still working on the EL design principles. The emphasis is on teaching an d education NOT on testing. Having sent my child to both schools I can 100% guarantee you that whatever you are imagining EL is you are dead wrong.
Sure there is the touchy-feely stuff, but the brunt of the day is on education – they are expected to do things above and beyond what anyone else requires and are capable of meeting it because of how it is presented. And Decatur kids continuously outshine other systems on standardized tests and just about any other measure you can find.
No, Midi, absolutely not. This was 100% to benefit the teachers. Conveniently, I can’t find the survey results on the CSD website now, but the teachers voted overwhelmingly in favor of the new calendar, and the parents voted overwhelmingly against it. At the board meeting Tuesday, it was said explicitly that the calendar did not affect kids’ retention of knowledge or their education either way. This was specifically to give teachers a “break” in September and February, and the calendar was approved solely for the teachers’ benefit.
Meanwhile, the rest of us working parents get to stick our kids in childcare scenarios for 3 random weeks out of the year. Most of us don’t have the extra vacation days for it. The teachers won’t have to worry about that; they get to stay home with their kids (as will families with stay-at-home parents).
I love how in the letter Dr. Edwards sent out, the decision was based in part on “anecdotal evidence” from Henry County. Um, first off, “anecdotal evidence” is anecdote, not evidence. And second, correct my math if I’m wrong, but that’s ONE county.
And how this new calendar will help us “attract and retain quality teachers.” In this economy? We have the pick of the litter. No one’s going anywhere.
I would wager that most parents don’t even know about the new calendar yet. It was rumored that the Board was going to stick to the traditional calendar for 09-10, which they did. But even I didn’t know they were voting on the calendar for 10-11 until the day before.
Whether or not the CO could be moved to DHS or RMS is a good question. And one I hope you ask at the Board listening session tonight.
I don’t think anyone wants to make a significant reconfiguration now as a stop-gap.
However, if we are looking for a stop-gap, I might suggest asking how many trailers can be maintained at Glennwood?
Each trailer supports 2 classrooms. Historically (since 1986) CSD has never had enrollments which would require more than 19 classrooms at a 4/5 Academy. The current CSD enrollment projection does not project hitting unprecedented 4/5 enrollment levels until the 2011-2012 school year. If we can keep 4 trailers at Glennwood, we could probably watch and wait for at least 2 more years before having to commit ourselves to a particular solution.
It is very possible that Option #5 would resolve reconfiguration without needing any additional construction. However, looking at historic CSD enrollment data from the National Center for Education Statistics, it looks like we might eventually need to expand GL and WE to have at least 15 classrooms. A K-4 configuration would lend itself to having at least 3 classrooms per grade.
But bear in mind that construction can be cheaper and more efficient over the long-term than the cost of running an additional school. I.e. Option #3 which is essentially the same, but doesn’t re-open WE would be significantly less expensive over the long haul.
In economics, one would refer to the cost of renovating Glennwood as a “sunk cost”. It can’t be recovered. We shouldn’t try to rationalize continuing to use a particular facility because we spent a lot of money on it on the past. We have to look at costs going forward. If it will cost less to use Glennwood, then by all means, we should use it. If it doesn’t, we shouldn’t.
I realize with 20/20 hindsight that the BoE made the mistake of assuming that enrollments would stay flat. However, it is very hard to second guess decisions which were not made with the benefit of hindsight.
Our family moved to Decatur after the last reconfiguration. We moved here for the great teachers and small neighborhood schools. I can understand and sympathize with individuals who would like to see things move forward in a direction toward longer grade spans and a smaller numbers of classes per grade at primary schools.
I’d like to think that no matter the choice of reconfiguration option, that our schools will continue to be excellent. Because so many people are so involved and care so much about our children, our schools, and our teachers.
Note, just because I’m suggesting closing Glennwood as a school is a reasonable option, doesn’t mean that Glennwood would have to close.
Glennwood could be used to house the Central Office, a community center, afterschool care, tech/vocational school, or any other purpose for which we could find funding…
If I had to guess why now, I would say that the Central Office has been aware of rising enrollments at least since the Rosser Enrollment Presentation was made to the Board back in May 13th, 2008. This report clearly indicated that Glennwood was and would continue to be overcrowded for the foreseeable future.
In the interim, enrollments in the current 2008-2009 school year increased faster than Rosser’s projections. Now, with the new projections, we are being told that we can look forward to our K-3 schools being overcrowded for the foreseeable future.
I think the Central Office is pushing for reconfiguration now, because they expected the process to be long and drawn out. And they expect that any solution will require a significant amount of time to implement. I.e. they’re trying to solve the problem before it becomes much worse.
You raise a great point about the possibility for rising enrollments due to the potential for declining private school enrollments.
It came out in the last Board Meeting, that our charter status does not allow us to be exempted from the state formula for setting the price at which tuition is offered for non-resident students. The formula basically states that we can’t charge more than we get in local property tax revenue (minus 5 mills). Which means that as enrollments continue to increase and property values remain flat… that we will see tuition revenues drop.
The point about using trailers is a good one. If using trailers will buy us the time to determine whether the rising enrollments are a bubble or a longer term trend… -Then they may very well be the best choice financially.
In my opinion, there are only 3 viable reconfiguration options:
(?)K-4, (1)5-8
(?)K-3, (1)4-5, (1)6-8
(?)K-3, (1)4-8
Which schools you use, how many, and where you add classrooms determine the trade-offs and costs. In general, it will almost always be cheaper over the long term to pay for classroom additions, than it will be to (re-)open and operate an additional school.
I don’t think that the “Stimulus” is a large motivating factor. Though I’m sure, the CO will take advantage of any opportunities available. However, they have to be able to commit to a reconfiguration option on the assumption that the Stimulus will not be available.
Mr. FixIt,
I think any (3)K-3, (1)4-5 option which provides the necessary classroom capacity is probably going to be viable and relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives. The key being that all the other options, except #3, would require staffing and operating at least one additional school.
Please go to tonight’s showcase and ask that your proposal be considered. It has not been established to my knowledge whether or not Oakhurst could be expanded to support 24 classrooms. So you might want to ask whether or not that is possible first.
From my examination of the historical data since 1986, CSD would never have needed more than 19 classrooms for a 4/5 academy. So it is possible that we could get by with fewer classrooms and using trailers for a couple years during the peak years of enrollment bubbles if necessary.
I believe one of the Renfroe expansion plans that was being floated included a new track and field. I do not know what the estimate on its costs were. Or if they included a realistic estimate of the costs of a drainage system. These would be excellent questions to ask tonight.
You might also note, that Options #8 and #9 do not include a budgeting for a principal or assistant principal at the 4/5 “school within a school” at Renfroe. The cost of a principal per the data provided would add $114K/year to both of these options.
Good points about 4-8@Renfroe. Raise them tonight. In my mind too, it would certainly appear to provide less flexibility to meet future enrollment challenges.
Tralala, you’re right that I was probably a bit more judgmental of the question than I would be if I agreed with the unstated assertion. But I think I would have been more open to a fully developed argument as to why diversity isn’t all that “great”. Then at least the other side exposes its argument to dissection. By just asking “why?”, the commenter risks nothing.
My response, without the snarky last sentence, invited Eyeroll to lay out his case too. Note that we’re still waiting on that.
But at the same time…I agree, it was rather elegant.
well the educators and school leaders are the reason diveristy/tolerance is valued/taught in our schools. It takes a village folks and when we start giving credit to one we should give credit to all. We are who we are because of all of us. Reconfiguration is not easy…I rest easy knowing our leaders and community care and are informed enough to make a tough choice.
Waiting a whole day….wow. I am sure he/she has nothing else to do.