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).

We don’t really know if it was intentional or not, but I do agree that at times it was sorta suspicious.

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.

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…