Thanks for the follow up. I agree that #13 is probably the best option if the board can work around the $ issue.

DecaturMetro: On millage, if you check the Tax Payer Bill of Rights on the CSD website, you’ll see on page 14 that even without Reconfiguration, CSD is preparing to raise the millage rate to 21.8 in 2010 and 22.65 in 2011.

Responding to Foodie’s comments on paid tuition students… Paid tuition students at the middle and high schools would indeed be a great way to fill up unused space. But only if we can charge a profitable rate. Unfortunately, there are state laws which limit what we can charge for tuition, and which we apparently are not exempted from even though we are a Charter System. For the time being, paid tuition students are still a good source of revenue at the middle and high schools where we we have extra capacity. But it isn’t a silver bullet.

The fiscal problems facing CSD remain significant. At least until SPLOST re-opens in a couple years, implementing reconfiguration is going to going to be another hit on the budget. The annual impact on the budget for putting the 4-5 Academy at the following locations is estimated to be:
o #13: 5th Avenue = $1.78 million
o #9: Renfroe = $1.41 million ($1.53 w/ separate principal)
o #12: Glennwood = $0.42 million (operates one less K-3 school)
o #10: Westchester = $1.85 million

At heart, Option #13 is a 4x K-3, 4-5, 6-8 model which preserves the 4-5 Academy as a separate entity. If financial concerns are paramount, then there are 2 ways to improve Option #13:

1) avoid the necessity of operating an additional facility ($500K/y)
2) reduce construction costs by building the 4/5 as an addition to one of the other primary grade facilities

Both of which effectively imply a 3x K-3, 4-5, 6-8 model:
1) least expensive option overall
2) most efficient from operational costs perspective
3) preserves 4-5 Academy as separate entity
4) no redistricting
5) keeps facilities, curricula, and staff intact
6) can be modified to keep classroom counts at K-3′s equal
7) variations which put 4-5 at OA, WP, or CL provide same benefits with exception of redistricting
8) variations which put 4-5 at 5A, WE, or GL provide same benefits with exception that one current K-3 facility would need to close

I fully endorse the reconfiguration committee’s recommendation for Option #13. However, if the Board believes #13 to be too expensive, I hope that they will consider one of these variations which keep 4-5 as a separate entity.

cheers,

Garrett

But to expand a bit more–I believe that in the current economic climate, capital expenses up-front funded by bonds are a better idea than ongoing personnel and other costs, all else being equal. (Obviously, the “all else being equal is a huge caveat.) Interest rates are low right now, especially if Decatur still has a good bond rating, and I’d guess that construction costs should be relatively low right now too, as there is a lot of underutilized construction capacity.

Our K-5 population has increased by 30% since 2004, if you look a the DOE numbers. We are a victim of our own success – the kids have to go somewhere. This success also drives property values and has helped shield them a good bit from a heck of a nasty recession…… so there is an upside.

Hindsight is 20/20, and someone with a crystal ball probably never would have approved the IB/EL pedagogy split or the current school configuration if they had known what was to come. However I think the school board gave it their best estimate with the (woefully inaccurate) demographic data that their consultants gave them. Also, there was apparently no thought given to the fact that Oakhurst would experience a BIG baby boom as a result of the reconfiguration. We have to work within some of the parameters created from this data/lack of data. IMO, the consultants have a lot of “splanin’” to do.