CSD Mom reports over on her reconfiguration blog that the school board voted last night to table the reconfiguration issue for 30 days, but gave strong indications that they would follow the superintendent’s recommendation of Option #13 (renovate 5th Ave).
Not to jump ahead too quickly, but I wonder how reverting Glennwood back to an elementary school will affect districting.
Latest from Decaturish
Daydreamer
Daydreamer
Cubalibre
J_T
csheffie
FM Fats
phototrekker
MBAERO
Michael
FM Fats
Marla (of the tiara …
Marla (of the tiara …
Zed
GreenTea
J_T
Yep, that’s right. The board properly wanted to make sure they understood the recommendation as well as possible — particularly the enrollment projections and how to pay for it all.
Of course, 30 days from now they’ll be fairly close to getting real enrollment numbers for next school year. That could be useful info for assessing the enrollment projections. It would be frustrating to put a decision off another month or two, but better information makes for better decisions.
I’m all for waiting until the best decision can be made. In these financial times, a misstep could put CSD under for good. The last time CSD reconfigured, there was some margin for error, and it looks like we ended up needing it. This time, finances are more fragile and warnings of doom and gloom aren’t so hypothetical.
A 10 -15 million dollar proposal is not consensus building. Is it possible the superintendent painted the reconfiguration committee into a corner by presenting all options using Westchester as non-viable?
I want to know
1) Were there any previous Westchester district members on the committee?
2) Are there any viable options for using Westchester for students?
3) Was a citywide theme school ever presented as an option, and if so, why was it rejected?
I’ve always thought that Westchester would be essential as a K-3 if Decatur annexes. I wonder if it is possible that they are considering that they need to keep it available in case the annexation goes through in a couple of years since so much of the proposed area is near Westchester.
There are no annexation areas even remotely close to 5th Avenue, so it makes more sense as a 4/5.. as least the way I see it.
My guess is that Westchester will be reopened in the future.
Doesn’t it seem risky to spend 10-15 million dollars because you Think you might get students in the future? There is an available building for the students in the system now. I know there are political issues around the building, but what if there weren’t? The superintendent never asked, what are the different ways we can incorporate the building in a cost efficient manner? This isn’t about re-opening Westchester for the sake of re-opening Westchester. This is about an available elementary school in the district when the school district needs more classrooms. The counter-intuitive part doesn’t work for me against 10-15 million dollar bill.
[...] 14, 2009 · No Comments Decatur Metro and CSD Mom have provided excellent coverage of the CSD reconfiguration, including the latest [...]
Foodie, what would you do with Westchester, keeping in mind these facts? You can’t build out (even for parking) b/c of stream buffer requirements and b/c of flood zone issues. You can’t build up without redoing the foundation b/c it is currently not strong enough to support a second story. Westchester can’t fit all the 4/5 kids that we have now, much less the ones we will have in a couple of years, without adding a significant number of classrooms.
We need another K-3 school in addition to a bigger 4/5 so you can’t just use Westchester as a second 4/5 school.
What would you do with Westchester? We know your complaints. I’m curious about your solution. Is it 5K-5?
Five K-5s would be a more flexible configuration to accommodate swings in enrollment. Preserving the 4/5 academy at this point is a banner cry and nothing more; it will be done at the expense of having a solid configuration that will persist for more than five years. Bringing the kids together at an early age works well when it is appropriate, but our enrollment and our very small buildings do not support it. We are better off developing EL at four or five K-5 schools, with collaboration between same-grade teachers easily accomplished using technology. This collaboration happens everyday across the globe. We do it here at Agnes Scott every day.
Board member John Ahmann specifically stated the other night that he thinks annexation should not figure into enrollment projections or reconfiguration plans. He and the board do not support annexation and–unless I heard him wrong–he thinks they should not even factor in the possibility.
Expeditionary Learning: I’ve seen it work incredibly well with the right expedition and competent teachers. But with an incompetent teacher, it can be a complete bomb, worse than nothing at all. At least your basic, unenlightened worksheet approach to teaching has some content.
IB: I know it has great potential. But I have yet to see much concrete come of it at all at either the Glennwood or RMS level.
Life before EL and IB: Seemed fine to us as long as you had a good teacher
Decatur Senior Project: What I saw as a judge was fantastic, mostly because of the efforts of the kids, teacher leaders, and teacher mentors.
I have come to believe that “curriculum” is important to keep teachers organized and focussed, give parents a sense that their public school is almost as touchy feely as the local private schools, and to keep lots of specialists and administrators in a job. But what really matters is whether or not we have excellent classroom teachers and paraprofessionals. An excellent teacher can make any curriculum work well in the classroom. A mediocre teacher cannot, no matter how many trainings you send them to around the world.
So I’m skeptical when EL or IB are used as a rationale for one option or another. As a veteran of Glennwood, we liked it well enough, mostly because of the quality of our teachers, the overall competence of the administration, and the fun, creative clubs. But we are also happy enough with our elementary school experiences to see how 2 more years of it, for nine and ten year olds, would be valuable too.
So I would rather that the decision makers concentrate on enrollment numbers, logistics, keeping class sizes down, how to attract and retain excellent teachers and paraprofessionals (and if using the initals “EL” or “IB” help with that, then fine, it’s a worthwhile endeavor), spending more inside the classroom and less on paying off debt, rather than on “EL” or “IB” as though they are ends into themselves. My guess is that, in 10 years, we’ll be on to a new kick in terms of curriculae, and that’s ok too as long as we can afford it, have space for it, and have excellent teachers to implement it.
Snowflake, I really, really, really wish you would copy and paste that into an email and send it to the school board.
; ; ; ; ;
With or without the sarcasm?
Actually, I email (politely) the Board and Superintendent periodically. I’ve probably made all of these points at one point or another. Sometimes, I get a response, sometimes I don’t. I have the distinct impression that I have to limit the number of times I email them or speak up at meetings or they will label me as crochety. Sometimes I wonder how people I like so much as individuals can make so many decisions that I don’t like.
Anyone reading may feel free to forward my message on to CSD and comment on what you agree with or not. That might be more effective.
Annexation in anything like the form it was proposed last year (growing the population by 40-50%) is a very long shot for many reasons I won’t go into here. The fact that it still vaguely dangles out there as a possibility shouldn’t cause CSD to make substantive decisions that they wouldn’t make otherwise — ESPECIALLY if doing so would be more expensive. CSD simply doesn’t have extra money to throw after a (big) maybe. That’s money coming out of classroom instruction and HR.
And for what it’s worth, the City’s memo recommending delaying the vote while gathering more data specifically says that CSD should “implement a plan to address CURRENT student population issues” — referring to reconfiguration. So this is the City’s position too.
I’m not advocating any construction at Westchester.
I’m for fiscal responsibility and living within your means.
I’m for any configurations that maximize use of existing space and minimize construction.
I expected one of the 12 options to be picked, not a 13th 10-15 million dollar option. If that’s the best option, I would put it against a 14th option – a Westchester, K-5, Citywide Math and Science Theme (not gifted, just theme) School. I see the same disadvantages to both (location, busing) but without the 10-15 million dollar price tag and 2-year wait.
I wonder: Were there any Decatur City taxpayers without school children on the committee? Did the committee represent the range of incomes in Decatur?
Not sure the answers to your questions, foodie, but we’ve got a school board election coming up and if this option, or the whole direction for that matter, is not to the community’s liking, then I’m sure that we will have a ballot full of people ready to change things. Anyone know how many people have thrown their hat in the ring so far?
I’m right with you on fiscal responsibility. And from an educational standpoint, what is spent on classrooms may potentially have to come from what is spent in classrooms.
Also a good point about the Decatur tax-payer. CSD is not an island. It affects everyone in the city — taxes, property values, overall vitality. The more clearly decision-makers on both the school and city sides of our government see this, the better off we’ll all be.
1) I don’t know
2) Using Westchester for the 4/5 Academy was Option #10. In the reconfiguration committee rankings, #10 was finished in a 3-way tie for 2nd.
3) Not to my knowledge
Good point about School Board elections. The Decatur tradition is to not have any opposition because the Board members and/or their spouses are such nice people and we wouldn’t want to hurt their feelings. But what’s an election without a debate? Democracy without discussion and choices is not healthy.
So why am I not running? It takes a lot of time, money, and skill. If I had any natural aptitude for the politics, coalition-building, legal procedures, and advocacy, I would do it; I could handle the issues and public-speaking. But family and friends corroborate my assessment that this would not be a natural fit.
Tons of folks with strong feelings about CSD decisions do have these skills–they use them every day at their paid or volunteer work. I hope they’ll consider running. Even if they lose, their campaign will have forced discussions that are healthy to have.
Snowflake put it quite well. I probably couldn’t run for the same reasons, though don’t think I haven’t thought about it. There’s still plenty of room on the parent/community side for those of us who want to monitor the board and keep them honest. I’ll be crushed if they run unopposed again this year. I think we absolutely need the dialogue and openness that a good race will force. Qualifying starts in September, right?
I would make a helluva campaign manager, though, for the right person. Anyone interested?
Not public yet, but there is an outstanding person that is seriously thinking about running for the seat that (as rumor universally has it) Valerie Wilson will be vacating.