Superintendent Changes Mind, Recommends 5th Ave Over Renfroe
Decatur Metro | May 6, 2009This is what its all about folks. Good, honest discussion can change minds.
First on DM: In a lengthy and detailed letter to the school board (click on Action Item IX.d), Superintendent Dr. Phyllis Edwards lays out her final recommendation regarding the school system’s reconfiguration. (Thanks to CSD Mom for the tip!)
After thanking various parties for all their hard work, Edwards admits that comments presented during the listening sessions changed her position on the issue and she has decided to go along with the reconfiguration committee and recommend Option #13 (renovate 5th Ave Elementary to serve as 4/5) as the best solution to the school system’s capacity issues.
Here’s the must-read paragraph…
I have reviewed the results of the committee. I have reviewed the survey results from the teachers. I am recommending two options. My top recommendation is that we completely renovate or rebuild Fifth Avenue School as the new home for the 4/5 Academy. I believe that this is a beautiful site in a neighborhood that has waited patiently for us to do something with this property. I feel that thinking long-term, CSD will need the additional school building renovated and in good condition-especially if annexation moves forward. The city is four square miles. This is not far for students to attend school and bussing will be available. It will require capital outlay but we can also get some rather good pricing in this econony. We have run the numbers and borrowing 10- 15 million (which would allow us to rebuild Fifth Avenue, as well as renovate Renfroe Middle School) would be at a cost of $350,000-$600,000 estimated annually. Even if we approve this plan at this board meeting, it will take perhaps the better part of two years to design and construct. [emphasis added] It would be my recommendation that we move ahead with our planning process in terms of selecting a firm and getting the architectural and zoning work done as quickly as possible. In the future, I would recommend that the next SPLOST (IV) be dedicated in part to paying off the GO Bond and the new borrow. If successful, which I have no reason to think it would not be, the voters/taxpayers would not see increases in their taxes. We have done a good job of keeping the millage down, even this year in tough economic times. I cannot guarantee that this will always be the case but I do not see the millage rising beyond 1 mill in the 2010-2011.
She goes on to recommend the Renfroe renovation as a backup option and states clearly that she does not support any of the other 11 options, including waiting a year or two.
Also of interest in this letter: Edwards details future plans for Westchester that seems to guarantee that the school administration offices would have to move to a new facility.
Latest from Decaturish
So let’s be clear. We would start attending the new schools/configuration in school year 2011-2012? I have to figure out my panic timeline.
I missed this whole debate on reconfiguration so can someone out there help me catch up? Why is reconfiguration necessary? Where is the 5th Ave location? Was moving back to the more traditional 1-6 grade model not an option?
Why would anyone be panicking?
You know, the little things. Personal things. Like, will my current 1st grader switch schools twice (WP for 2nd, GW for 3rd, 5A for 4th) or only once? A 2-year lag in implementation will make her transition a little smoother. Just trying to find some happiness here. (I’m a K-5 cheerleader.)
Also, the superintendent’s 2nd option makes my heart flutter. I’m scared that she even put it in the letter. But I’m counting on community backlash to keep our 4/5 away from Renfroe.
I am happy to see the acknowledgement that Westchester may eventually be used as a school again.
Oh come on CSD Mom. Time to acknowledge that there’s no 4/5 Renfroe conspiracy orchestrated by the Superintendent (for reasons I’ve never heard or understood.)
Where is the 5th Ave location?
5th Avenue and Oakview Road.
Oh man, re-open Westchester after the recent battle to close it? If I had bought a house near that school before the close and then sold it in the last year or two, I’d be pretty upset at this kind of waffling.
Appreciated the shout out to us patient folks in south Decatur about the long-empty 5th Avenue school.
The total cost is unclear.
Is it $600,000 per year for 25 years for the interest only, the principal only or the principal and interest?
Also, if it’s going to take two years, why don’t they make Westchester into a citywide theme school, like a math and science school, in the interim to relieve overcrowding? No redistricting and no reconfiguration and the kids get out of trailers. Paying for two years of kids in trailers vs. paying for two years of office staff in rental space, it seems like you should push for the kids.
Paying for two years of kids in trailers vs. paying for two years of office staff in rental space, it seems like you should push for the kids.
You would think.
(Above comment was not an attack on foodie, but agreement in a sarcastic way. I didn’t realize the ambiguity until I hit send.)
I love it! Some people don’t even know where Fifth Avenue is? Awesome, that doesn’t point to some ‘north of the tracks, south of tracks’ mentality that exists in our fair city, does it? New to Decatur and unwittingly an Oakhurst resident, I have noticed there seems to be some distinction made between the two.
Also, annexation is scarier to me than whatever temporary permutation the school system has planned.
Agreed grumble! And personally I think Decatur only benefits from having these two “personalities.”
One without the other would be a pale and sorry comparison to its current self.
Perhaps we should celebrate those differences (and commonalities) with a day of friendly competition between the two neighborhoods. Like a huge, city-wide game of capture the flag…and (obviously) the tracks would be the dividing line. That might actually go a long way in teaching people more about other Decatur neighborhoods!
Who knew a simple railroad track could create such a profound dividing line in our fair city.
Great neighborhoods on BOTH sides of the tracks; both have their own “flavor, distinct styles and character (or characters, take your pick!)
I “discovered” Fifth Avenue during the 2008 Tour of Homes and was like, wow, is this a cool spot for a school. (And me, living here 22 plus years, so that’s my bad I didn’t know where the school was before.) A great neighborhood with lots of different types of homes. Yes, with all the fanfare of “discovering” Oakhurst, this neighborhood is really a gem and ready to take the spotlight. It makes me so happy to hear that Dr. Edwards has really listened.
Vote Cranky!
Aww shucks.
As a parent who was initially reluctant to have her kid “cross the tracks” to go to Winnona Park (because of transportation), I have to agree that the mixing of the sides of Decatur has been really pleasant. There are not many places where both sides of the track have their own flavor and manage to be equally appealing.
About the school thing, I attended one of the input/listening sessions on March 25 and was enlightened on many counts. Thought I’d throw in a few details in case it helps. Hopefully not oversimplifying, misstating anything in the process.
First, both the reconfiguration committee and the school board seemed to be doing a very thorough job of studying this thing from all angles. There’s a lot about the process I didn’t know, many fine details.
Reconfiguration has to occur because of unexpected growth in the population. They’re basing estimates of continued growth on whatever they can get their hands on, but it’s hard to measure. What they know for sure is that they unexpectedly had a huge number of Kindergarten kids register last year and that growth will most likely continue. Also, though the city has shelved the idea of annexation, they anticipate it happening in the future. Thus more school capacity needed. (For folks who’ve been in Decatur less than 5 years, the city did renovations and expansions to a number of schools relatively recently, but that will not be enough to accommodate the population increase… understandably they want to “get it right” with whatever choices they make going forward). A main issue is that Glennwood (formerly a K-5, now the 4th & 5th Grade Academy) is having capacity issues, and they felt it necessary to move 4-5 to another location. I am glad to hear that 5th Avenue is now at the top of the list! I think it’s a fantastic location.
It was determined that the top priority in the decision-making, above all other aspects, is keeping the quality of instruction & learning high. I think that’s admirable, given the obvious high priorities of budget concerns and logistics/capacity problems. In order to do that, they’d like to keep their current models of learning in place (Expeditionary Learning for K-3 and International Baccalaureate for 4-5 — good programs); and retain and hire good teachers who work well together and really care about the students.
I learned that the 4-5th Academy (which I formerly opposed) is a great deal as far as preceding the transition into middle school from all of the individual elementary schools. According to the middle school teachers, the kids coming into 6th grade – having all been together for 2 yrs. – have less behavior issues & cliquishness about where they’ve come from than in pre-Academy days (which equals more time for learning, and students able to work with ea. other better).
Because they want to keep the 4th & 5th Academy and Expeditionary Learning and International Bacc. programs, going back to K-5 (or 1-6) isn’t an option.
I learned that Westchester would need further expansion to serve as a K-3 (or 4-5); that it has floodplain issues; that being situated on Scott Blvd. is seen as a negative, safety- and traffic-wise.
Teachers from the old 5th Ave. school spoke to the school board at this listening session, and also a large contingent of teachers from Oakhurst Elementary. I was so impressed with the professionalism, dedication and camaraderie of these teachers. They are here in Decatur because they CARE; and they know that it is here in CSD that they can be most fulfilled and empowered to teach the kids.
Okay, I’m out of breath.
I have a Renfroe kid and CBL is right about the Academy improving the transition to Renfroe. My child had virtually no drama related to transitioning to Renfroe. The only big change was having a different teacher/classroom for each subject. Strangely, any drama that she was involved with revolved around behavior from kids who had transferred into Renfroe from Fernbank – a K-5 school. There was some very cliquish/exclusive behavior coming from that crowd.
With IB, the kids work together in groups a lot. If they can’t get along, IB won’t work well.
Well, to play devil’s advocate, you really don’t know how your child would have transitioned without the academy, do you? I am not fully convinced that the academy is the most-wonderful-thing-ever that we’ve done with our school system. This is all just a matter of speculation and opinion, on everyone’s part. Certainly, Mr. Roaden’s leadership and the new culture forged at the elementary schools has made a big difference in our kids’ learning, attitudes, etc. I would argue that expanding EL to 4th and 5th grades with a move back to K-5 would be just as much of an advantage. The only reason we’ve retained the academy is because the teachers didn’t want to see all their work over the past 5 years “undone” (which it wouldn’t be, since you can’t “untrain” people, can you? Their training would still be applicable in an EL environment.)
I have seen much better work being done in the EL with K-3 than with the IB. If you ask me, Glennwood is a mess. Everytime I go there I feel a sense of chaos and panic. You should have been at the WInnona Park expeditionary learning showcase last night. You would faint when you hear what my first grader has learned this year. There is a big difference from when my older two were in 1st grade.
Good points, CSD Mom. I haven’t been to Glennwood to see it in action – I’d heard from several folks about how the Academy kids transition to 6th. Maybe some of that “chaos” is from bringing all those kids together at the 4th grade level rather than 6th?
I was amazed and very pleased at the showcase at WP last night. Does seem plausible to use EL for K-5, but they’ve determined they’ll have to do more construction at WP and other schools to make that happen. I don’t think they want to do that, but should that be a deal-breaker?
If anyone would be good enough to give a remedial lesson in all the non-school name acronyms, I would be most appreciative.
Thanks in advance.
I think there’s a trade-off — advantages and disadvantages — either way. As someone that was highly skeptical of the last reconfiguration a few years ago, just prior to my kids entering the system, I’m very impressed with CSD and can’t imagine leaving. I think CSD can make a particular configuration work and won’t pick one they don’t think they can make work.
So it seems to me that as important as the reconfiguration is, the bigger challenge for the school system is anticipating the waxing and waning (right now, it seems mostly waxing) of student enrollment, just as it happens organically in the city as it is. And in this case, the challenge is heightened by the uncertainty of whether to expect a spike of enrollment of some unknown number (several hundred) if the city decides to pursue large-scale annexation.
Obviously, the schools shouldn’t spend money they don’t have to in anticipation of what may never happen, but they also don’t want to be stuck with another massive reconfiguration in a couple of years. A real bind (which, as I recall, DM, you were onto a few months ago).
Try doing some keyword searching in the sidebar. There has been a ton of discussion and posted resources here; much, if not most, of it very helpful.
Was moving back to the more traditional 1-6 grade model not an option?
That configuration hasn’t existed in Decatur for quite some time.
I wondered the same thing….your child is abducted, you panic. Your child goes to a different school, you deal with it.
When did I mention a 4/5 Renfroe conspiracy orchestrated by the Superintendent?
Wasn’t there an ongoing thread about how the Superintendent was having listening sessions but she wouldn’t listen, had the Board in her pocket, and ultimately would shove the Renfroe plan down everyone’s throat just like she did with redistricting?
I thought that your comment about Renfroe was asserting that she put it in the letter just so she could bring it back at the last possible moment.
No, I had just hoped that it wouldn’t even be on the table. I was really hoping to see 4/5 at 5A as the first option, then 4/5 at Westchester as a 2nd option, and then somehow just sweeping 4/5 at Renfroe under the rug. Though the reality is that those first two are really the same option, and 4/5 at Renfroe is coming in as a 2nd. However, I choose to believe that we won’t end up with that configuration. So I’m concentrating on figuring out the timeline here.
While I do sometimes have to remember to take off my tinfoil hat, I don’t think there’s any “conspiracy” going on here…
I do think that Dr. Edwards is very good at what she does. I think she has the confidence of the Board, because she’s smart, articulate, communicates well, and provides good leadership. And while the last reconfiguration may have been difficult, divisive, and diminished the role of small neighborhood schools in Decatur… We still have a very good and well run school system.
Like all of us, Dr. Edwards will have her own personal biases and a personal preference on the direction she’d like things to go.
Several parents have told me that last time around she was in favor of a K-8 school. I wasn’t around back then, so I don’t know whether she said it outright, or if it was implied or inferred.
But I wouldn’t find it surprising for a central administrator to prefer to solve an overcrowding problem by consolidating more students under a single roof. And a good superintendent is going to get what she wants. So I don’t think it would be a bad bet to guess that last Fall’s recommendation for 4-8 at Renfroe reflects in some part her preferences.
There was clearly a lot of backlash from parents against putting 4-8 at Renfroe. The parent information session feedback reflects that. And the new recommendation for 4-5 at 5th Avenue definitely shows that she is listening. From the “superintendent’s reconfiguration option recommendation” on eBoard:
I put this (Option #9) as my second option because I heard the concerns of the parents who spoke related to the mixing of students at the various grade levels.
She does not however mention that this was also a concern shared by many teachers in the teacher surveys.
Looked at one way, the committee’s 1rst and 3-way tie for 2nd place choices were about where to put 4/5. Look at another, 3 of 4 were against putting 4/5 at Renfroe.
So… in the end, like CSDMom, I’m concerned that 4-8 at Renfroe is still on the table. But I’m not surprised. If it happens, it won’t be the end of the world. But I won’t like it.
I looked at the most recent total enrollments for Georgia middle schools on the National Center For Educational Statistics website. In 2006-2007, having 1340 students would give Decatur the 27th largest middle school out of the state’s 461 middle schools. That would put us in the top 6% for big schools. -The average is just under 800.
I’m concerned that the specific details of the Options were defined before the financial impacts were well understood. For instance, we were told it would cost $180/sqft for a new 10,000 facility for the Central Office (CO) at a cost of $1,800,000. This would be $127K/y in costs of servicing debt on capital on a 25 year lease at 5%. However, the options for re-opening Westchester do not refer to the least costly method of relocating the CO, but the most expensive one: $320K/y estimate to rent the equivalent space. Given the inflated cost estimates, it is surprising that Option #10: 4/5 at Westchester was in the committee’s 3-way tie for 2nd.
I’m concerned that the constraints used for where we could build in the Options were debunked by the City. Option #12 for instance would provide 3K3 school capacity by putting 15 classroom additions at Winnona Park. We now know that we could provide 15 classrooms by building up and/or out at Clairemont, Oakhurst, and Winnona evenly. In this light, it is surprising that Option #12 was in the committee’s 3-way tie for 2nd.
We were alternately told that it was and wasn’t possible to put 12 additional classrooms at Glennwood. Given this I am even more surprised that Option #12 made it into the same 3-way tie with Option #9.
Certain options simply weren’t valid because of construction constraints or the distribution of classroom additions. I am concerned that the question of where and how much to build was conflated with selecting the best and most efficient grade configuration.
But in the end, I was impressed with the reconfiguration committee. Many if not all of the participants were aware of these concerns… and others. No process is ever going to be perfect. But we had a lot of smart, dedicated people examine the issue, strike compromises, and reach consensus. There’s something to be said for that.
Option #13: 4/5 at 5th Avenue clearly has the most support. -Or at least the fewest detractors
But, I’m not surprised that Dr. Edwards is also recommending Option #9: 4-8 at Renfroe. And I can respectfully agree to disagree with it.
If the Board is inclined to put financial considerations first and foremost. Then they will be inclined toward Option #9, because it is slightly less expensive.
But I think doing so would be politically unwise. It is after all an election year…
Well put guys. And CSD Mom, I apologize for the snark. I must have momentarily forgotten some of the stuff that Garrett points out where CSD seemed to selectively use info.
We don’t really know if it was intentional or not, but I do agree that at times it was sorta suspicious.
Foodie…you present this idea like it would be easy to implement, but to me it sounds pretty darn complecated.
I’m a novice in terms of the school system, but just off the top of my head I imagine tons of physical logistical issues (getting the kids to Westchester) in addition to a reaccreditation process (I’m assuming.)
And then there’s all the other crap that I know nothing about.
Trailers sound easier to me. Plus I like the way they look when the sunlight hits them on a dewy Spring morn.
Well, and I hate to defend something like a trailer, for heaven’s sake, but they’re really not like the trailers we were in way back in Gwinnett county when the population boom could be heard round the world. They are “mobile classrooms” and they really aren’t that bad. I think they’re even air-conditioned (imagine that!).
It actually would be easy to implement. Remember, Decatur shut down all K-5 elementary schools and reopened 3 K-3 Schools and 1 4/5 in 5 months. A citywide theme school at Westchester would be opening 1 school in 3 months. As another example: Newly built schools often are only ready for occupancy in July and can open in August. Citywide means that there are no issues of resegregation. (Accreditation is for the district, not the individual schools.) Theme schools don’t require busing, although they can offer it. A can-do attitude, forward-thinking and desire by the school system to implement this is what it would need to happen.
Plus, Decatur doesn’t have the nice trailers. They have the long, narrow, noisy ones.
I’ve spent a lot of time at Glennwood this year and haven’t (not even once) felt a sense of chaos and panic. I’ve been very impressed with Dr. Lee and her staff, from top to bottom. I would like to point out that not everyone agrees that things are a mess there and given my experience, I’m not sure how anyone could feel that way. You should talk to my fifth grader. You, too, might faint at the things he has learned this year. He’s had a wonderful year and a wonderful teacher and is ready and excited about “moving up.”
I’m going to second GAK’s comments. I know of only two families that have had a genuinely problematic experience at Glennwood this year (Not saying that’s all there are; just using anecdotal experience as CSD Mom does). In each case, it really had little to do with the school, the curriculum or the other students. Instead, it was a mismatch between student and teacher. Sometimes a perfectly fine kid and a particular teacher with a particular style just don’t click, even when other kids in the same class are getting on just fine.
If there was any weakness at the administration level (as I observed it), it was an apparent unwillingness to change up the class assignments and experiment with another teacher. As a result, each kid was pulled and sent to private school. Less than optimum, I agree, but my larger point is that inflexibility is something easily corrected. If that’s the height of Glennwood’s problems, I feel like the school’s in pretty good shape.
EL= Expeditionary Learning
IB= International Baccalaureate
(others?)
Scott, my child is in this same class, and the unwillingness on the part of Dr. Lee to do anything about it is more than frustrating. My emails to her this year have been, without fail, met with one-word or one-sentence replies. My child is an iffy student with needs that have not been recognized this year, and I worry that her school experience is in jeopardy because of a year that has been completely “lost.”
We definitely have not had a good experience at Glennwood. When my oldest child went through it, it was “good” at best. I don’t think it provided any more benefits than being in a K-5 would have. Naturally, again, this is all opinion because everyone has a dfft experience. But for as many ppl who extol the virtues of the academy, I wager there are as many who think it’s nothing more than another way to make our school system “look good” without offering all the benefits it claims. And I’m not just talking benefits like having choir and band because you’ve got a large enough student base to do so. In the grand scheme, those things are important but when other instructional needs are not being met, then I really don’t care whether or not my kid gets to be in band. I’d much prefer a smaller neighborhood school ANYDAY.
The issue isn’t the railroad tracks per se; rather, it’s the excruciating wait to get across them in the morning as the multiple sets of stoplights challenge even the most patient of drivers (which, to be fair, I am not).
There is also IB PYP, MYP and DP
PYP = Primary Years Program (preK-6)
MYP = Middle Years Program (6-10 w/ optional 5th grade “Year Zero”)
DP = Diploma Program (11-12)
To answer the question about the feasibility of going K-5 for EL (and to make use of our newly acquired acronyms)…
Right now, we don’t completely implement any IB program.
IB requires a 5 year span. We’ve committed to delivering this 5 year span by doing 4-5 PYP and 6-8 MYP. If we give up 4-5 PYP, we would either lose 6-8 MYP or have to negotiate and make the same type of commitment to implement 9-10 MYP at DHS.
Implementing MYP and DP at DHS would be a good thing IMHO.
From my talks with the IB folks, it seemed like IB would actually prefer us to implement the entire MYP program, instead of a bit of PYP and MYP.
I can understand the 4-5 teachers’ commitment to IB PYP. And it seems like both IB and EL are good. I hope IB is implemented at DHS before long.