Reconfiguration Informational/Listening Session Wednesday
Decatur Metro | March 22, 2009There sure are a lot of strong opinions out there about CSD’s reconfiguration! But dispatches from last Tuesday’s Reconfiguration Informational and Listening Sessions reported poor attendance.
Maybe you were at the Grange. Maybe you forgot. Luckily you have another chance!
This Tuesday, March 25th, CSD will hold another session starting at 6:30p in Renfroe’s cafeteria.
Come one, come all! And get your fill of Options 1-13!
If you need to catch yourself up to speed on the issues, the Interim Report is very useful.
Latest from Decaturish
“Maybe you were at the Grange. Maybe you forgot.”
….Maybe it doesn’t matter — because the good ol’ school board is going to jam another brilliant reconfig down our throats…..only to change things around in another 5 years or so, when this huge influx of people never materializes
“….Maybe it doesn’t matter ”
Geez, maybe that kind of attitude is what ensures a bad decision. Hopefully everyone doesn’t have that attitude just because they might not (or perhaps did not) get their way on some issue.
… and the huge influx has already materialized – have you seen K-3 enrollment numbers? Projections for the incoming K are about the same –
This sounds like the kind of comment from someone who never bothers to vote but loves to take part in Monday morning quarterbacking.
For those who choose not to participate… please spare everyone your nasty comments after the fact….
And don’t come back with some 1st ammendment response that you have a right to say whatever you want. I know that… that’s why you should participate.
Folks at the Central Office and the School Board have a very difficult task before them, not mention a thankless one. I have dealt with a lot of them and all have been conscientious and serious about the long-term health of the school system. They also do want to hear from us, but … educate yourself first. It’s a complicated issue. DM is right to point to the Interim Report as a good place to begin.
Makresident shows part of their bind: If they do this major reconfiguration/construction and the projections don’t materialize, they get blamed. If they don’t do it and they’re not prepared for these projections, they get blamed. My instincts in such a bind is to go slowly.
This leads me back to the projections. The interim report says “we are operating under the assumption that this is not a temporary bubble but an ongoing trend.” From what I can see the numbers are not sufficient to work under EITHER assumption. We simply don’t know yet.
There was a one-year uptick in K enrollment in 2004 (now the bubble at Glennwood), then back down. Another small uptick in 2007 and a big jumpt this schoolyear in 2008. The 08 K took everyone by surprise, especially since Rosser had in 2007 just completed a large study projecting enrollments out to 2017, and they had missed that big bump in 08.
If you take out the 08 class, it’s hard to see even a bubble, let alone a ongoing trend. And if there’s one thing the Rosser study does show, it’s that it’s damn hard to predict even one year out.
What I conclude from this is that the prudent thing to do would be to wait and see. Esp in this budgetary environment. And while trailers clearly aren’t a long term solution, they’re really not so bad. And they’re a cheap temporary fix while we wait and see what trend does materialize.
Thoughts?
Well, dont ask Mr. Fixit, he’s going to want to spend and spend … “the huge influx has already materialized”.
I totally agree — let’s walk, let’s be slow and methodical about this. We already have large expenses to (thankfully) upgrade the athletic facilities. We already spent a boat load on Glenwood. We don’t need to rip everything up every five years. In this economy, I think we should be prudent — and we should wonder if these projections are sacrosanct.
As far as my attitude is concerned, Mr. Fixit, save it. I do vote. I’ve also seen the process around town
Actually, I think the city is best served by not relying on this Rosser company again. Seems like they miss the mark quite often. Maybe a new consultant?
Be sure to visit the CSD Reconfiguration Blog where I’ve tried to put together as much information as possible and have invited comments from anyone and everyone. Garrett has made some great comments on this morning’s post about “Why now?” which asks the very question: why not put in more trailers and wait-n-see for another year or so?
I must say that you really should attend the meeting on Wednesday, and bring several neighbors. The whole community needs to get involved in this process. The meeting last week was very informative. The reconfig cmte has done their homework, and they are doing their very best to inform the public about this process.
Judd et al,
I think the driving factor for doing something now comes down to the overcrowding at Glennwood, and that problem is getting worse. I agree that the K projections are subject to some significant uncertainty, but we can predict with much more certainty the number of 4th and 5th graders we will have in the near future because those kids are already in the CSD system.
Using the numbers the CSD provided to the reconfiguration committee, we now have 423 students at Glennwood in a building which has a ‘crowded capacity’ of 276. Next year there will be roughly the same number as there are this year, and the year after that looks similar. Here’s where it gets worse — we currently have 481 1st and 2nd graders in the system, and we have 508 K and 1st graders. When those cohorts move to Glennwood we would have roughly 500 kids in a building suited for no more than 276!
I don’t think adding more trailers to Glennwood solves the problem because it is not only classroom space that is lacking there. From what I’ve heard, kids practically sit on each other’s laps to eat lunch now (lunch is served in the auditorium as well as the cafeteria), and there is no assembly space big enough to accomodate the whole student population. I don’t have a kid at Glennwood, so I can’t speak to how bad that situation really is, but I think our 4th and 5th graders deserve better than that.
I think your point is well made that we should just add trailers where we can during this time of uncertainty, except that it doesn’t address the Glennwood issue. I’d like to see an option where we solve the Glennwood overcrowding problem (with permanent construction, not just more trailers) while we wait and see what happens with the K-3 population. I’m not sure what scenario does that best. We could build a bigger 4-5 academy at Renfroe, 5th Avenue, or Westchester, or we could expand Glennwood in place, except the CSD construction expert says we can’t build onto Glennwood without closing it for a year. If we build a bigger 4-5 somewhere else, what do we do with Glennwood while we wait to see if we need to use it as another K-3? I’d hate to see us put another perfectly nice building in mothballs.
Any ideas?
How about K-4 at GW, CL, OA, WI… 5-8 at Renfroe. It costs very little money and leaves us very flexible to adjust while we wait and see if this is a bubble or a trend.
I know… I know…. IB is sacrosanct… but do we HAVE to keep it if it puts the health of the school system at risk?
What if we build this ginormous school at Renfroe and then the increase in kids turns out to be a bubble… what do we do with that building then?
BTW… personally I think the population increase is a trend.. not a bubble.. have y’all seen all they $500 jog strollers around town these days?
I think many are coming to the conclusion that a K-4, 5-8 configuration is a reasonable choice.
I think if we’re seeing such high numbers at the elementary level, then it’s only a matter of a few years before Renfroe is bursting at the seams too, right? And then we’ll need to expand Renfroe. And if we’ve already put 4/5 there, then we’ve limited how much we can expand Renfroe. Am I missing something here?
K-4, 5-8 is something CSD can build consensus around. What I hope we don’t see is an attempt by CSD to put fear into people against K-4, 5-8 by pitting neighborhood against neighborhood. So here are some more things we could build consensus around:
Even with a K-4, 5-8:
Winnona Park will not be used for 600 kids
Glennwood will not be closed
If Westchester is re-opened, we will do it in a cost-efficient manner
We will not borrow more money
We will make sure the Central Office has decent offices
We will work with IB to minimize the costs of moving the 5th grade to Renfroe
Rick, I appreciate your comments, but everyone has a vested interest if you live in the City limits! The quality of the school system is what draws many people to live here, and so real estate health is tied up in whether our school system remains one of the best in the state.
The 4/5 went well for a couple of years (I also have an 8th grader who loved it), but my current 4th grader is suffering because of the overcrowding issues. That school is teeming and I will be glad to see when the walls expand a bit, whether physically as a building or figuratively in a move to another space.
I know I’ll catch heat for this, but I’m beginning to see the upsides of a Renfroe expansion. Its central, there’s available land and its cheap. That can’t be said for either Westchester or 5th Ave.
So does this come down to choosing between a “mega-school” and dismantling IB?
Wish Ponce de Leon OR Beacon Hill Elementary were still around to help solve this problem. Stupid urban renewal.
Hi,
Can anyone tell me how Renfroe is doing as far as keeping discipline, keeping all kids on a good academic track, and providing something more than a social sitting room unitl high school? In years past, Renfroe did not have a good rep — it was even expected that kids would learn nothing while they were there, because of that intractable tweenage. Lack of discipline in the classrooms, kids who talked back to teachers, it was not a good setting for learning. (Expectations are met–or not met, depending on your viewpoint. I believe kids rise to higher levels if you give them the chance.) What will change with a bigger building, with more students …
Just asking … especially from parents who are there now … anyone? Bueller?
come on cranky! we live in Mayberry! this is the best school district in the land. The water is fine, just jump on in! You can’t say anything bad about the great CSD…it;s why we live here and pay the big taxes.
And now, now we have great porjections…. so we need to build more, more, more. never mind all that stuff about how Glenwood would answer our problems — we have seen the new light. We’ll put all the kids in a new, improved Renfro. Hey, even the blogmaster spotted some green grass over behind our middle school and determined that it too can be paved over for new classrooms and we can cram some young kids into this Nirvana.
Ok, i’m overreacting. yet, still we’re ripping up the playbook every couple of years. Cramming things down everyone’s throat. I’ll bet anyone here that in three years, we’ll be tearing up this plan, too, and looking for something else….
Bruce Roaden, principal of RMS, said tonight at the info session that their discipline problems are at the lowest levels since he’s been there, which has been about 4 years I think. He credits the IB curriculum and the 4/5 academy for this, but I think he is not taking enough credit himself. And there’s a lot to be said for good leadership.
Oh, and as a parent of an 8th grader, I would say it’s far exceeded my expectations of a middle school. In the last three years I’ve only heard of one serious discipline problem that involved a lockdown. My daughter has thrived there, which is SO much more than I could say about my own middle school experience.
[DecaturMetro]
-Odd, there was no [reply to] button on your comment.
To answer your question: No, Option #13 4/5@5th Avenue as written is not less expensive than Option #9 4-8@Renfroe. It is $367K/y more expensive. However, Option #9 as currently written is missing a principal, assistant principal, and IB coordinator for the 4/5 school within a school. If those positions are added to the operational costs of Option #9… then #13 might only be around $100K/y. more expensive.
Alternatively, if the K-3 component of Option #13 were modified to provide (3)K-3 adding +5 classrooms at each… instead of the (4)K-3’s which it currently provides for… then this variant would be over $500K/y cheaper. On the upside, this option would be the only one which wouldn’t require redistricting. On the downside, would require closing Glennwood.
Another alternative is to do the same thing, but use Oakhurst or Winnona instead of 5th Avenue for the 4/5 Academy. If either can be expanded to 24 classrooms, then Glennwood wouldn’t have to close. It would also be significantly less expensive in terms of construction costs.
[Zip]
The idea of using Beacon Hill/Ebster hasn’t been mentioned to my knowledge. It is a good idea. If the City and Schools could sit down and come to some kind of agreement on a landswap… it would be great to exchange 5th Avenue in return for a nice central location for the 4/5 Academy.
I’ve never responded to any of these blogs however I felt it important to address a few things from a professional perspective.
First, EL and IB are not buzzwords. They are comprehensive school reforms that have given high quality teachers and principals a framework to work from, which is crucial for any well run school.
In regards to parents not being listened, I’m confused. The reconfiguration team consists of teachers, administrators, and parents. Parents have been involved from the beginning. The 13th option was added mainly due to the tremendous amount of feedback given by parents.
Finally, teachers do know your children. We would never claim to know them better than parents, however we have been trained to understand the whole child from an educational perspective. We are about kids. We will and have done whatever it takes to get a child to grow and learn. Quite honestly, the parents and school board should be listening to our thoughts and ideas, as we are with you children “six hours a day, five days a week”.
My greatest hope though is that this community will find a way to work together even if their option isn’t chosen.
I think it is also important to keep in mind as people toss around IB and EL as if they are just textbook titles, that teachers have spent years training on implementing these research-based school reform models. A huge impact on your child’s education, regardless of what building they are housed in, is a teacher that does not feel validated in the hard work he or she has dedicated their professional career towards. Morale is hugely important, given the little extrinsic rewards that come with the teaching profession. The teaching field has a terrible retention rate due to feelings of frustration with overwhelming responsibilities, lack of autonomy, compensation, and unappreciative attitudes. Fortunately, CSD has done a very good job of keeping our teachers because they are seen as professionals where their experienced voice is largely important to the success of our school system.
I completely agree with E. and Blog Reader. Anyone attending the listening session Wednesday night could easily hear the passion our teachers have for their profession and for our children. Several of the teachers mentioned that in the many years of their teaching they have not experienced such exciting, collaborative, authentic learning that is currently taking place in our schools due to EL and IB.
I would like to mention that I know enough about these reforms to say that they are quite difficult for the teachers. The “learning” is not scripted – the teachers are not given textbooks to follow – this is a work-intensive process for the teachers. They must collaborate, align the standards, choose compelling topics, design expeditions, etc. So why are the teachers so excited and passionate about EL and IB? Because they have seen the difference that it has made in their students – and it works!!
So … now I ask you … do we give up EL and IB so that all children can bike or walk to the 4/5 Academy (wherever it may end up?) Stop and think about what you are really arguing over. The education of your child …. or if your child can bike to the 4/5.
By the way … I have a child that will be attending the 4/5 in a couple of years … and if the 4/5 is at Fifth Avenue she will not be able to bike every day … however, I know she’ll be getting a GREAT EDUCATION!
Midi, can you please show me where anyone has suggested an either/or where walking/biking should be used as a sole determinant in the reconfiguration? As much as I’ve been able to keep up, the suggestion (mine, by the way) was that it should be considered, just as we’re considering short and long-term costs, instructional programs, environmental/green space issues, neighborhood impacts, and more.
I’m equally a fan of EL and IB and my child is testament to its success. It should weigh heavily, I agree. However, your comments suggest you’re approaching this issue through the lens of that single component alone. That kind of thinking rarely results in decisions that fully address the layered complexity of the challenge.
Where has anyone EVER talked about dismantling EL? I still don’t understand all the chatter about this. None of the configurations put that on the table. There is a possiblility, however, of dismantling IB, and that is a very real discussion. But EL would move in to replace IB if the schools’ configurations changed to K-4 or K-5.
Oh, and Midi, I can’t figure out how this statement makes sense:
“do we give up EL and IB so that all children can bike or walk to the 4/5 Academy (wherever it may end up?)”
If we preserve the 4/5, then we preserve IB. That’s not an either/or.
Maybe I did not state myself clearly. I am not approaching this decision with blinders on focusing on one issue, the education process. I am taking into consideration all factors: immediate costs, long-term costs, instructional programs, environmental/green space issues, neighorhood impact, etc. However, I keep hearing a great deal about that the 4/5 Academy should be centrally located so that students can walk and bike to school.
If there are no facilities that can accomodate the students without splitting them up into 2 schools (thus losing IB) … or moving to Renfroe (which I’m fine with – but most parents aren’t) ….. my point was … let’s focus on education
If we go to K-4 or K-5 who says we will keep EL and not move to IB?
I’m right with you Judd.
Predicting the future is hard enough when things are “normal.” Throw in a game-changer like the recession and its all that much more impossible.
I applaud CSD for trying to be proactive about issues like this and potential budget shortfalls. But the economy has changed all the rules, and at this point we don’t know to what end.
Renfroe “as is” can deal with higher 6-8 enrollments than we’ve seen in any grade since 1986. And record levels of 5-8 enrollments. But it can’t deal with record levels of 4-8 enrollments…
We are told Renfroe has 43 classrooms and that 32 will be needed to deal with the 2012 enrollments estimate.
Between 1986-2008 the highest number of students enrolled in any grade has been:
K: 288 (1995)
1: 300 (1996)
2: 260 (1997)
3: 251 (1990)
4: 242 (1999)
5: 220 (1996)
6: 247 (1994)
7: 237 (1996)
8: 219 (1996)
9: 277 (1996)
10: 218 (2005)
11: 200 (2007)
12: 180 (2007)
As you can see, and as can been seen in a detailed analysis of the historic enrollment data, CSD tends to pick up kids at the traditional transition points: 1st, 6th, and 9th grades. And we tend to lose a small percentage in each year that follows and across all grades. I.e. we are historically have higher enrollment in primary than secondary grades.
Let’s figure out how many classrooms would be needed if we had the most enrollments we’ve ever had (since 1986) in any grade in all the 6-8 grades. I.e., Does Renfroe have the capacity for 900 students?
For interdisciplinary grades, the number of classrooms required, I believe, is calculated by dividing the number of enrollments by 25 and then figuring on 85% efficiency. Because 300 divides evenly by 25, we can calculate this as:
(900/25) / .85 = 42.352941
Which we would round up to 43. Which conveniently is how many classrooms Renfroe has. -So there can be no doubt that Renfroe as is, is big enough to deal with never before seen 6-8 enrollment levels.
Now let’s look at 4-8 giving it every benefit of the doubt by assuming _only_ 225 enrollments per grade level (slightly less on average than the average high water mark for those grades).
(225*5) = 1125
(1125/25) / .85 = 52.941176
Which rounds up to 53 classrooms. Which means that if we ever see anything approaching record levels of enrollments at a 4-8 grade RMS, we would need to add 10 more classrooms.
What about 5-8 @ Renfroe? 225*4 = 900 -Which we already know from the record breaking 6-8 enrollments example would require 43 classrooms.
Zip: I see what you mean about what’s coming to 4/5 in 2011 and 2012. That’s coming soon and we should be thinking about this now, and something will have to happen. But what, exactly? The assumption of the overall trend operating now is not based on actual data, and that’s a problem. Will we need 10 additional classrooms overall? 20? 30? The answer depends on information we do not yet have, and whether we think the answer is 10, 20, 30 has a big impact on how major a reconfiguration is needed. For example, GW can be added on to a bit but not a lot.
Another reason to find a way to wait before doing anything radical is the 2010 census. That data in the hands of a real demographics expert (not Rosser) will tell us far more than we know now, and better data will produce a better decision.
(I’ll also weigh in to say that the times that I have tried to dig in to the options in light of the the working assumptions and the very real budgetary restraints, K-4 & 5-8 made the most sense to me. But would WE need to come on line? Depends on our enrollment projections, which are currently not very scientific in my view. So I’m back where I started.)
Garrett, you are truly amazing.
These discussions could go on and on! But to add my 2-cents and I have no vested interest here since my one child is in 8th grade, the 4-5 at Glenwood was great for him and I assume his cohorts. It was a wrenching change but it worked out for the best in terms of my child and the system, as far as I can tell.
My son’s Mom, (my baby’s momma) is a teacher. A professional. She says mixing 5th graders (still little guys) in a school with 7th and 8th graders is never good. That is why we have Middle Schools.
Oh, someone in this or another discussion asked if CDS ever asked the Middle School students to see how they felt about their Glenwood experience, now that they are in Middle School. Well, I have now asked several and to a kid, they loved it!
There is another alternative to the “mega-school”.
Option #12 (3)K-3, (1)4-5, (1)6-8
But it would need to be modified as follows to be feasible and financially attractive:
1) Distribute expansion equally by adding 5-6 classrooms each at Clairemont, Oakhurst, and Winnona Park
2) Put 4/5 Academy at Oakhurst, 5th Avenue, or Westchester
2a) If Oakhurst becomes 4/5, then Glennwood would need +5 classrooms
2b) If not Oakhurst, then Glennwood would need to be closed.
No heat, but understand that the 4/5 will not be cheap and there won’t be consensus on it. Then ask, why would a charter school system do something that costs taxpayers a lot of money that parents don’t even want.
The figures for using Westchester as a K-4 (if needed) are inflated to make it seem this option isn’t viable. That’s because it is viable.
Plus if you haven’t walked around Renfroe, do. It has almost no green space, even without 350 more kids and an addition.
Personally, I prefer the K-6, 7/8, 9-12 configuration that Paideia uses, but K-4 as something that is practical considering all of the factors. That’s what consensus is, finding something that everyone can support, even if it isn’t his or her personal first choice.
It is not fair to charge taxpayers for more construction, more interest from borrowing money and more maintenance costs when there are empty classrooms available.
DM, I kind of like the idea of Beacon Hill / Ebster as the site of the 4/5. Or better yet, how about the site of the Callaway Building? I’m just dreaming, but maybe there really is an outside-the-box solution to this that we haven’t thought of yet.
When I first bought a home in Decatur, 35 years ago, and had my first child, now 25 years old, no one I knew thought (or dared) of sending their children to CSD schools. Or if they did, many left the system and Decatur by Middle School. My child went to private schools for all his education. Now I have an 8th grader at RMS and have been in the system all his life. We love it. Glenwood prepared our children (and parents) for RMS
.
I lived through the last “reconfiguration”, and now realize that many of the fears many parents expressed were based, at least in part, on irrational racial factors.
In my experience, the change in “configuration” was all for the good. After hearing from parents and teachers last night, I hope we continue to move forward…
Wow, I really don’t know how you can say that (about race). I fought the last configuration tooth and nail and it was never, ever about race, at least for me. And I never got that sense from anyone else.
I do agree that Glennwood has been a relatively good experience. But it is different for each child. My now 8th grader had a good experience, but maybe that’s because she had also been at Glennwood for K-3 because it was our neighborhood school, and the move for her was seamless. I don’t know, but I do know that my now 4th grader is getting lost in the shuffle. The fact that there are 10 4th grade classes is overwhelming for her, and she is a child who has always easily made friends but now is finding herself overwhelmed by all the new people. She is not happy with her teacher (nor am I) and I am not getting any sense of “collaboration” between the teachers although that’s all they talk about these days. So while for years I had been deluded into thinking the 4/5 academy was the answer, I am now completely rethinking that. I honestly think the leadership of Mr. Roaden and his staff has more to do with the success of Renfroe than the Glennwood experience. As I said, it is different for each child. I think we could easily go back to K-5s and see the same success. I really don’t see why expanding the EL into the 4th and 5th grades would be a problem.
The quality of our teachers and principals (which is high) is more important to me than a bunch of buzzwords and acronyms.
Option #3: (4)K-4, (1)5-8 with only 13 classroom additions is by far the least expensive option. -Over a million dollars a year less expensive than 4-8@Renfroe. Fewer transitions. Smaller schools. Smaller grade class sizes. Longer grade spans.
And while doing so would unfortunately pull the rug out from all the very hard efforts which have gone into making 4/5 a success, because of implementation requirements… losing the International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Program (grades K-5|6) would force us to pursue the IB Middle Years Program (grades 5|6-10) at the high school. Which would hasten the day when we would offer the IB Diploma Program for grades 11 and 12.
IMHO: The K-4,5-8 options may hurt teacher moral in the short-term, but more closely follow best educational practices.
An Option #12/#13 with (3)K-3, (1)4-5@5th, (1)6-8… is a good fallback from K-4,5-8. Something which parents and teachers can accept, and which is around $500K/year less expensive than 4-8@Renfroe.
As to why would a Charter System choose a more expensive option over the objections of the parents… I can only answer that while Georgia may recognize the CSD as a charter system, the Federal DoE has not. Do you recall the $600K planning grants which were supposed to be awarded to charter systems? Have you ever wondered why we never received it? The rumor which I’ve heard, is that the DoE has withheld funding those grants for 2 of the 4 charter systems that were approved in Georgia. The grounds for withholding those funds was that the charters did not provide a sufficient governing role for the parents.
There is a loop hole regarding the governing role of parents in Georgia Law. Charter Schools must include parents in a governing body. However in Charter “Systems” there is no provision for parents in a governing body at the level of the “system” or district. As a result, any issue which can be interpreted to affect the system, can be removed from the domain of the parent governing bodies.
I feel that the Board gets a lot of pressure to do what the teachers want, and they all assume that the teachers and administrators know what’s best for the education of our children than the parents do. They may know more of what’s on paper, but I think parents actually know a lot more than we’re given credit for. After all, we’re the ones who get to “debrief” the kids after six hours of school, and to see their education in practice. My opinion is that the Board listens to the teachers and administrators and does not listen to parents. And I believe they will move forward with preserving the 4/5 because that’s what the teachers want.
In fact, the committee is relying on a “teacher survey” in their decision-making process, but there have been no efforts to do a parent survey. Watching the Board’s eyes glaze over at a “listening session” while you talk “at” them is not the same as participating in a survey where the results will be tallied and used to inform the decision.
(To be fair, however, I should note that Julie Rhame’s eyes do not glaze over, and she appears to be the only one who takes an interest in what people are saying.)
[On discipline]
The comments which follow do a good job answering the discipline question. I can only add that my 6th grader has had fewer comments about threats and fighting this year than last.
[On the connection between achievement and school sizes]
“Size” can be looked at as a combination of:
o size of building
o students per building
o students per grade
o students per classroom
There is a large body of research that continues to accumulate with each passing decade. All of this research is fairly consistent that for various definitions of “school size”, larger schools result in lower academic achievement, increased disciplinary issues, and higher drop out rates. There is a significant body of research that shows that the problems associated with larger schools fall hardest along racial and socioeconomic lines. Here’s a link to a google query that will help you find the research.
[On the academic achievement]
A while back, I downloaded the CRCT data from the governors office of student achievement, looked at math, calculated percentile rankings and standard deviation, and then compared year-on results by both grade and “class of …”. I didn’t find anything conclusive. Test results seemed to be flat or mildly positive.
But there really weren’t enough years of data available, so any conclusions I’ve drawn really aren’t statistically significant. -With one exception. From 2004 to 2007, the Class of 2011 declined in percentile rank from 87% => 67% => 58% => 27%. I have no idea what happened to the class of 2011, but hopefully someone is working to figure out what went wrong there.
Garrett, you’ve written this before but I wanted to clarify…
While a 5th Ave renovation costs more upfront, over the long-haul its less expensive than the Renfroe expansion, correct?
Someone mentioned last night that even if we put 4-8 at Renfroe, we still don’t even approach the definition of a “mega-school” or even come close to the median size of Georgia public schools. Yeah, but doesn’t GA rank 48th in the state for education? So maybe big schools are not working out, ya think? And if our system ranks among the best in the state, then perhaps small schools are indeed the answer?
I was just wondering why there was all this reassurance about how even 4-8 wouldn’t technically be a mega school. So what? It’s still going to be giant.
And for the record, let’s PLEASE not put 5th graders at RMS. I spoke to an RMS teacher last night who said she thinks even 6th graders are not old enough to be with the 8th graders, and would rather see a K-7 and 8-12 before she saw 10-year olds at a middle school. I agree. K-4, 5-8 is not the answer either. That one almost sounds like a delusional option that someone mentioned at the end of the night when no one was paying attention, and yet it seems to be fighting its way to the top in the last few days.
Isn’t Beacon Hill/Ebster home to the police station and city traffic court? I can’t imagine any solution that would remove them from downtown.
I hope I did not offend you personally. I certainly did not mean to imply that any of the “tooth and nail” opposition was based on race and social class. But I was in the midst of that change. I saw the reaction of Westchester parents (probably the most white and highest income parents in Decatur) to having their children moved just a few blocks to Mead Road (over there). I was a Westchester parent; it was not pretty.
Wow, great response! Ditto!
The Central Office only talks about K-4 and K-5 in the context of losing the IB PYP program.
Personally, I don’t think the teachers give themselves enough credit. They are why the schools are so great. And we should also give credit to the principals and central office for creating an environment that can attract and retain such great teachers.
E: Thank you for your post
As primary grade parents we are told constantly about the considerable overlap between EL and IB, and how one reinforces the other. Can you tell us:
o How EL and IB PYP are different?
o What would be lost if 4th and/or 5th grade went from IB to EL?
o Wouldn’t the IB PYP teachers still be able to bring their IB training and experience to bear in an EL classroom?
One of the positive outcomes I see for K-4,5-8 is that the loss of IB PYP would force us to get IB MYP in the door at the high school. Because we are told that we can not implement only a couple years of one IB program at one school unless it feeds into another. Doing so, might also hasten the day when we see the IB Diploma Program for grades 11 and 12.
Another reason for K-4’s from my perspective, is that we would wind up with more small neighborhood schools with smaller grade sizes, and longer grade spans. How important from your professional perspective as a teacher are the relative values associated with small school size in comparison to instructional curriculum?
I strongly believe that small schools and small school districts are more responsive to the needs of the children, the parents, and the community. Conversely, I worry that larger schools will lead to children lost in the cracks and diminish the voice of parents as well. By moving to Decatur many of us literally bought into the idea that academic success is strongly correlated with school size.
So, the thing which I have the hardest time compromising on is 4-8@Renfroe. Not so much for the mix of grades which span the onset of puberty… But more for the large school and large grade sizes. And the implication that building there will commit us at a future date to yet larger schools and more grades under a single roof.
I’ve already asked about the relative value of small schools. What are your thoughts on the relative costs of large schools?
I too hope that parents, teachers, central office, and the community can find common ground and work positively toward a consensus. Thank you for participating in this dialogue.
Plus, I hear IB is more expensive. Not to mention we are nationally recognized for our EL programs now.
Interesting that we would lump 1400 kids together on 4 acres right as they are all going through puberty.. I would think that kids are the most high maintenance at this age (I know my oldest was) so why cram them all in on top of each other. Let’s see, 4 acres for 1400 kids. That’s 350 hormonal kids who are trying to figure out who they are and where they fit in the world……. per acre. And we are committing ourselves to that scenario for decades if not longer.
It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
BTW, below are the minimum school site size guidelines from the GA DOE. Decatur has waivers and grandfathering so that all of this does not apply to us. However, it gives an idea of what the State considers sufficient land size for educating children. If we were to build a school meeting state DOE guidelines we would need somewhere between 17 and 26 acres. We have only 4 acres. Here is the quote from the guidelines……
_______________________________________________________________________
“The minimum acreage requirements of the State Board of Education are:
Elementary Schools – five acres plus one acre for each 100 children in FTE.
Middle Schools – 12 acres plus one acre for each 100 children in FTE.
High Schools – 20 acres plus one acre for each 100 students in FTE.
In developed areas, deviations from the minimum acreage requirements may be made by the site approval committee if the reduced acreage is considered appropriate.
Although minimum acreages are established, large acreages are highly desirable. Also, those responsible for selecting sites must remain aware of development limitations imposed by certain physical factors of the acreage being considered. The size of the school may not be the only criterion affecting site size. The possibility of expansion, anticipated community use of the school or area, and the school program are other factors to consider.
______________________________________________________________________
Seems to me that we might not even be able to get approval from the DOE for putting 1400 kids on 4 acres. Does anyone want to weigh in on that?
And here is a little more from the guidelines. I would think that CSD would be wise to consider the opinion of the state DOE on this issue.
_______________________________________________________________________
A good, well-developed site and a well-equipped, functionally designed school plant is a basic physical tool for a quality education. Without one or the other, the educational program may suffer. Current school programs include many activities that must be carried on outside the walls
of the physical plant. Well-planned and properly developed outdoor areas are essential to support outdoor activities, provide vehicular circulation, adequate and convenient parking and also be conducive to the safety of children. The site is an integral part of the total school plant
and may enhance or inhibit the achievement of a school’s educational objectives.
Environment is an influential factor in the lives of young children. Therefore, the school site should contribute positively to the health, safety and social aspects of a child’s life at school. Choosing a good site is one of the important early steps in overall planning. Success or failure in
this initial step will be reflected in every subsequent stage in the developmental process. For these reasons, the choice of a school site requires careful study, including a thorough and objective evaluation. Much thought should be given to the basic principles involved in good site
selection.
These principles, when studied in the light of their relation to the local situation, should provide a basis for the objective selection of the best site available. Undue consideration given to the value or acquisition cost of a school site can be false economy, and often has proven to be very
expensive.
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
DD, you’re correct that those are the standards but the state standards are based on the “there’s always more land” regional (some might say “sprawl”) consumption model where schools are physically separated from the subdivisions they serve. They have no business entering a discussion involving traditional city neighborhoods.
Even sticking with our specific local context, we can still argue against or for Renfroe on a number of different levels. For better or worse, Decatur is Decatur and certainly doesn’t adhere to any Georgia “standard” I’ve ever seen.