5th Avenue Tranformation to 4/5 Academy Should Not Exceed $8 Million
Decatur Metro | December 3, 2009In line with projections given during the reconfiguration effort, next week’s school board agenda caps the cost of renovating 5th Avenue Elementary into a new 4/5 academy at $8 million.
The not to exceed project budget is $8.0 M. This number is to include program management, surveys, geotechnical reports, environmental abatement, design and construction of the building, the design builder’s fee and material testing as well as the Owner’s FFE and a 5% contingency.
The school board is scheduled to give 5th Ave’s construction contract to New South Construction and employ the architectural services of Chapman Coyle Chapman Architects.
Latest from Decaturish
Great! Weren’t they originally projecting $10 million?
I am so excited for this project to get started! That building has been an eyesore as long as I’ve lived in Oakhurst (moved in exactly 5 years ago this week – my how time flies!). Can’t wait for it to be alive with children!
Harpua, I also remembered that $10 million number, but when I went back and checked here’s what I found…
“By doing a lease purchase for $10 million dollars, Fifth Avenue can be renovated and the remaining dollars spent on renovating RMS, which sorely needs attention.”
So while the lease purchase was for $10 mil, it sounds like they always planned on portioning some of that to the RMS renovation.
I’m glad to see some new contractors have been chosen. I was beginning to think there was something fishy going on between CSD and Ra-Lin! Anyone know when they project it to be complete?
It’s fine if they want to renovate 5th avenue, but it isn’t the right place for 4/5.
Here is a quote from the superintendent.
“Since then, the Fifth Avenue property has been surveyed and appraised. It was assumed that the 5 acre property would be appraised at $2 million. However, the survey showed that the property acreage is actually 3.62.”
I know there will be some zings at me, but I think it’s worth taking the shots to say it isn’t fair to children for the school board to put the largest elementary school on the smallest piece of property. 5th avenue is a site for a small school.
I can’t help but to think that if the reconfiguration committee had the correct acreage information, they would not have recommended to put the 4/5 here.
Not meant to be a zing, but how does the loss of 1.38 acres make 5th Avenue a poor choice?
It’s a big space (bigger than Glennwood, I believe). Why isn’t it suitable? It’s got plenty of room for the students. I live near 5th Ave., and I don’t see any problems with it. But if you have links to documents showing that the site is unsuitably small, compared to the alternatives, I’d like to see them.
To compare, Clairemont is on 4.8 acres and it is totally overcrowded with 350ish kids and now after two trailers has no field at all, just a play structures and a pavilion. Now maybe Fifth Avenue will have two stories but some are saying that the plans do not have enough classrooms and the kinds of areas that a 4/5 needs. But I can’t speak to that because have not seen the plans myself. What I do know is that CSD needs to get this one RIGHT. After closing three elementary schools and making major additions to two of the remaining schools, they were out of room and adding trailers just a few years later. This needs to be the building that solves the problem. If we’re not sure this one will do the trick, wait until we are. It will be total egg on CSD’s face if they misestimate again. It’s great to improve the Fifth Avenue lot, but other buildings and uses could do that too.
Writerchad & TOK,
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I wrote the above to get it off my chest, I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind. Most of Decatur’s elementary schools are on small sites. It’s just that 5th avenue is the biggest contrast yet. It will have the most elementary students, the biggest elementary students and yet be on the smallest piece of land.
There are recommendations for how much acreage there should be for facilities. 3.62 acres isn’t even close to meeting those recommendations for a 400-500 student school. But there is also a bit of potayto potahto in how each person feel about outside space for children.
TOK –
Glennwood is on almost 6 acres.
Clairemont is on almost 5 acres.
Are these the same acreage recommendations that help guide construction of suburban schools? If so, I’m not sure we should be following them anyway.
One observation is that 5th Ave is pretty close to the urban farm that’s going in off 3rd Ave. Instead of recess, get those kids over to the farm and have ‘em work off some excess energy hoeing corn!
From a letter that was sent to the CSD board and is circulating the chat rooms:
At 3.62 acres the Fifth Avenue site is almost 30% smaller than the five acres expected by central office. The Glennwood Academy site is 4.13 acres, a half acre larger than the proposed Fifth Avenue school site. Since the CSD assumed the Fifth Avenue site was approximately five acres, one would reasonably surmise that the Reconfiguration Committee used the same inaccurate information in their evaluation of the site.
Site acreage and configuration matter for several reasons. The Fifth Avenue site is long and narrow, approximately 190-200 feet wide x 735 feet long along the longest boundary. In comparison, the Glennwood Academy site is approximately 300′ x 600′. There will be required setbacks along all property lines and additional buffers are typically required when institutional property abuts residential property. The net result is a long narrow building envelop. I understand that CSD intends to go three stories on the building to lessen the building footprint size. Some footprint sizes do not change. Parking (think of Glennwood +/- 26,000 sf of parking) bus and car drop off areas, ingress, egress, pedestrian circulation, and new drainage regulations etc. will consume a large portion of this site, likely much more than most people expect. Because the site is small and narrow the design team and central office may request a package of variances, such as parking and setback reductions, that could negatively impact the surrounding neighbors in unexpected ways. As an example, several years ago, a private school submitted plans for a 180 student school on a +/- 3.3 acre site in the city of Decatur. This application was denied by our city commission based on many issues, but a primary factor was the lack of space to serve a school community of that size and maintain adequate buffers from surrounding neighbors. The Fifth Avenue site is 3.62 acres, only +/-11,000 sf larger than the denied site and would serve two to three times more students. There are currently 397 students at Glennwood Academy with higher enrollment projected.
Hmm…this letter states “Site acreage and configuration matter for several reasons” but then the only reason given is a needed buffer with residential neighbors. What are the other reasons?
And I still don’t understand why more space is better. Personally I think I’d rather see a school with less space, so it’s students and teachers are pushed out into the surrounding community spaces on a daily basis.
“Parking …bus and car drop off areas, ingress, egress, pedestrian circulation, and new drainage regulations etc.”
To name a few. Sidewalks. Emergency access and exits. Not to mention needed outdoor space for the kids. What surrounding community spaces would be available other than people’s backyards-and possibly the farm-where you would want to see students and teachers on a daily basis?
Agreeing that a reasonable level of recreational space must exist on site or be available nearby, I have to say I’m immediately suspect of motivations (or understanding) anytime I hear specific concerned mention of any of the following: onsite parking; onsite pick-up and drop-off; and buffers and setbacks.
These reflect suburban conventions. Suburban schools exist as stand-alone entities; urban schools require conscientious *integration* with their surrounding neighborhoods. That means leveraging the considerable drop-off, stacking and parking opportunities afforded by the ginormous 5th Avenue rather than paving over playfields. Or meeting the street (as the existing building does) and building taller rather than setting back in isolation. Or solving proximity concerns with neighbors *through design* rather than knee-jerk green buffer band-aids.
I’m not saying the letter reflects nefarious intentions; only that most folks chose a place like Decatur *in contrast* to the ‘burbs, so we shouldn’t be holding up their conventions as some ideal standard in school design. Oakhurst Elem. manages these types of things just fine on a much more narrow street that only allows parking on one side. And it’s a much better neighbor because of it.
Scott, if only Fifth Avenue was going to be a “neighborhood school!” Then all the kids could walk and bike to school like they do to Oakhurst. Oh yeah, but Fifth Avenue is going to have kids from all over the city–so buses will definitely be in play, and most parents who aren’t close enough to walk or ride bikes will drive their kids in the mornings because the buses pick up so early–anywhere from about 6:45 to 7:15 or so for a school day that starts at 8:00. So contrary to what we may have moved to this city for, we WILL need to talk about pick-up/drop-off and parking spaces.
Also, you can build a 3-story building there but state regulations exist that require younger grades to be housed on ground level, so building too tall will prohibit the building from ever being used for younger grades. Not very forward-thinking.
I believe your argument only pertains to intown neighborhood schools, right? Not city-wide schools?
Just to be clear, CSD Mom, I’m in full agreement that we need to talk about the realities of pick-up/drop-off and parking. As you point out, kids and their parents will be coming from across the city and need to be accommodated. My point is that we need not assume that it all must be handled on-site. That’s the suburban thinking part.
5th Avenue is wide enough for parking on both sides. It’s probably also wide enough for the city to assign a portion of it to a dedicated pu/do lane in proximity to the school’s front door. In addition, there’s a church one block up with a sizable parking lot. It wouldn’t surprise me if they liked the idea of a little revenue for use during the week when they’re not having services.
Which is all to say, let’s not just accept as a given the criteria for designing a suburban school. Let’s look at what we’ve got to work with *in context* and make best use of it, freeing up recreational space for kids through creative thinking. Good, neighborhood-friendly urban design is good, neighborhood-friendly urban design. It doesn’t matter whether the kids are coming from next door (which some are) or two miles away (which some are).
I never said people’s backyards.
McCoy? Downtown Oakhurst?
I do think there is some need for on-site outdoor recreation, but just want to make the point that there are other, perhaps ever better and more interesting options out there if people think a bit outside the box.
If it was more centrally located this would be a good idea. I am not sure visiting the bars and restaurants in downtown Oakhurst constitutes valid recreational activity. Especially on a daily basis. You’re still going to need a place for daily outdoor activity as well as indoor for inclement weather, though I’m not sure a requirement for that exists (have no idea).
The Beacon Hill site, which has been mentioned as an alternative to the Fifth Avenue site, would be more centrally located and would offer myriad opportunities for walking field trips, much like the Glennwood site currently offers. Of course, Beacon Hill would probably also include lots of outdoor space too!
I like the Beacon Hill idea too for all the reasons you state. There is a lot of field space/play space over there, and walking field trips would still be possible from there. I like that it is very close to DHA too. It would also help with engaging the families from those apartments if GW is right next to them. I’m not sure how it would play out though. Where would you put the police station?
I think in reality though, it will not work well to expect the kids to walk all the way to the 3rd Avenue farm or McKoy park for recess/PE. There is very limited time for recess these days and, even though these areas are quite close, it would take all or most of the designated PE/recess time just to get there and back. The 4/5 kids are in school for seven hours and need some actual free play time where they are engaged with each other and not subject to a teacher controlling their every move. They need this time every day if at all possible. A monitored walk around the neighborhood is not going to be enough of a release for many of them.
Huh. We visit the 5th Ave playground all the time. Sure, it needs some updating but the old school metal slide is awesome for fast sliding. Sadly there are no plastic toys.
“Pushing kids out into the surrounding community” involves permission slips, chaperones, etc. Our children need to have their physical education needs met daily on their school sites.
Please remember, even though the name “Academy” makes them sound all grown up, these are primarily nine and ten year olds. Parents really don’t like to have them out on the streets that often.
Honestly, I think we all know that the size of a property matters without saying much more.
Fifth Avenue is not a large piece of property. It is simply a flat piece of property so folks think it looks bigger than it is. Glennwood, 4.13 acres
Configuration matters because it determines how the building, parking, circulation, etc. can be placed on the site. A narrow site provides less flexibility of design. We are likely to be left with a smaller amount of open play space for our children because elements such as the parking, driveways, walkways will simply take up much of the site. Our children deserve to have adequate open space on their school sites. Particularly those who may not have much open play space at their homes.
I wrote the letter that is circulating in the chat rooms. In fact I would like to post the entire letter, but it’s long and for now I will just give you a portion of the letter which offers a suggestion that has not been considered by our school board, reconfiguration committee or city planners and commissioners:
Another City of Decatur “school site” could have been part of the reconfiguration discussion. Beacon Hill Elementary and Trinity High School were closed in1967. Combined with Ebster Field the site is centrally located, anchors an important part of our community and could house both the 4/5 Academy as well as recreational fields for both school and community use. Many changes are occurring in this area in the next few years. The HUD master plan has both public and private housing on the current Allen Wilson Terrace site. There would be many issues to coordinate between the school, community and police needs on the site and as with all sites there are disadvantages and advantages, but there are also many efficiency opportunities on this site that should be considered. The Citywide Comprehensive Athletic Facility Master Plan recommends using Ebster Field for the DHS and Renfroe athletics. School Park sites are recommended in general because of the opportunity to combine resources and provide accessible recreation for the community and schools. Ebster/Beacon Hill could serve this function. The recommended improvements for Ebster Park could be integrated into a school campus. The master plan also recommends building multi use rooms at all our schools for use by the recreation department. A new school at Beacon may still host the Big Kids, Summer Kids and community center programs which are now housed in the old school buildings. The board has stated the advantages of having a schools adjacent parks many times. School by day and recreational facility on nights and weekends….shared facilities… shared costs. Has this been discussed by our school board and city commissioners?
The Beacon Hill Arts component would probably need to move. Revitalization can occur in many ways. Fifth Avenue’s highest and best may be a cultural arts center, recreational field, or an early learning center to name a few. To my knowledge, no one contends that Fifth Avenue is the best location for our 4/5 Academy. It is simply an available location and now we know that the location is 30% smaller than what was expected. The obvious and easiest solutions are not always the best. I have not spent much time on any of these ideas, but I do think they are worthy of consideration.
The City of Decatur has embarked on a Cultural Arts Master Plan and will begin planning for the redevelopment of the Ebster Field/ Beacon Hill/ police department area sometime in the next five years. Why not sooner? Ideally, several years ago City Schools of Decatur and the City Commissioners would have begun a dialog with the recreation and other departments in the city to determine the most efficient sharing of costs and facilities. The planned shared Maintenance facility between the schools and city is a great example. We can do more of this. Out of the box solutions take more cooperation and planning between commissions and boards in our city. Will it take longer to achieve? Absolutely. But doesn’t our community deserve the best comprehensive long term planning we can achieve for our citizens and community?
I respectfully request that the School Board stop action on the Fifth Avenue site and convene with the City Commissioners to discuss the comprehensive long term planning issues related to the proposed 4/5 Academy location. The construction choices we make today will be with us well beyond the tenure of any administrator, presence of most families and grade configuration in our system. As a City we will be better served if our City Commission and School Board will take this opportunity to work together to determine the best location for this significant expenditure.
Please contact your city commissioners and school board if you would
Unless someone can come up with a good explanation of how this (Beacon Hill) option was considered and why it was eliminated, I’m with Nola. Of course, I’m open minded and can be convinced either way at this point. I just want to know if it was thought of and what the problems are, if any b/c it does seem ideal in theory from many standpoints, field trips, recess, PE, walk and roll to school, accessibility for all, accessibility for potentially at risk families/kids, sharing resources etc.
Dr. Van Soelen? Dr. Edwards? City Commissioners? Anyone want to comment on this?
Given its history, how cool would it be to bring Beacon Hill back online?
To my knowledge Beacon Hill / Ebster was not considered during the Reconfiguration Committee process. At least not the Spring meetings in which I participated.
I understand the desire to maintain momentum. Public construction projects can drag on for years. But equally important are the long term implications. We need a solution that will last at least 10 years and be flexibly able to adapt to the unforeseen challenges in the decades beyond.
Let’s give the architects a chance to show us what can be done with 5th Avenue. But let us also leave the door open to considering better alternatives. Especially if it becomes increasingly clear that 5th Avenue will have problems delivering enrollment capacity, be inflexible for future expansion, or have too negative an impact on the surrounding community.
I think the Beacon Hill / Ebster idea is great:
o central location: less transportation issues and more walking field trips
o shared school and community use
o large neighboring park
I encourage you to contact your city commissioners and school board members. This is an issue where long term city and school planning intersect.
I hope enough voices reach out to our board and commission, so they know that the community will support them should they feel the need to change direction. Please come to a board or commission meeting and speak during the public comment time. Doing so gives our leaders room to redefine and moderate their stance on the issues.
I’m a newbie blogger….I pushed submit too soon. I just learned that the city will begin the master planning process for Beacon Hill this January, 2010.
I am all for creative non suburban solutions for the site planning, but there will still be a significant amount of infrastructure if the recent renovations at Glennwood and Clairemont are any indication. I invite you to visit the bioretention ponds on Clairemont’s property. They’re quite a sight to behold. It’s open space, but I dare you to play in it.
Busing is a very suburban model. Most of the CSD one mile, no bus service radius, around Fifth Avenue is in the city of Atlanta. T
A system wide school should be in a more centralized location if at all possible. Combined with the small size of the size I think we should petition our school board to consider a better option, specifically Beacon Hill.
“Busing is a very suburban model. Most of the CSD one mile, no bus service radius, around Fifth Avenue is in the city of Atlanta.”
I could not agree with this more and it’s the main reason, based on the choices presented at the time, I favored using Renfroe over 5th Ave. Now, my comments in this thread reflect the assumption that the decision to use 5th Ave. is a done deal. But if you can talk ‘em out of that in favor of Beacon Hill, I’d be very interested in learning more.
Not to brag (ok – yes, totally to brag) but I floated the Beacon Hill idea back in March.
Garrett replied and said that he didn’t think it had ever been considered. Check it!
http://www.decaturmetro.com/2009/03/22/reconfiguration-informationallistening-session-wednesday/#comment-7457
Man, I wish I could give the comment search function to everyone!
Thank you, Scott.
I need your help and the help of many, many more people to get the attention of the School Board and Dr. Edwards.
The superintendent says she has a school to build and she has a site. She is not interested in considering any more alternatives. Who could blame her? But this option is worthy of consideration and it was not an option presented to the Reconfiguration committee. I’d like to learn more about the option, too.
Two comments. As I hope my letter reflects, I too, want a good community use for the Fifth Avenue property.
Secondly, be aware that the police station would more than likely remain on the Beacon Hill site next to the school. Separate, but beside.
This is what one might call a grass roots effort. If you wish to have this idea considered by our school board…..we all have to contact the school board members, Dr. Edwards, Dr. van Soelen, neighborhood associations, etc. and plead our case. The city “protocol” will require CSD to request the start of this process. Not the city commissioners.
Will you help and spread the word?
What do you mean by “The city “protocol” will require CSD to request the start of this process.”?
I am also of the opinion that building at Fifth Avenue should stop immediately and reconfiguration should be considered again. My additional reasons are below. I recently sent my concerns to the Board and Dr. Edwards but have not heard back from any of them.
“Of note, I am concerned about the fact that College Heights and our Pre-K students were not included in the reconfiguration discussion.
-At any point in the future we could decide we need to fold Pre-K students back into the elementary schools.
-The agreement with the YMCA should not be considered something that will last forever.
-We should be considering Pre-K enrollments in our discussions about enrollment projections.
-CHECLC is adding trailer(s), and there are now Pre-K classes at three different locations.
I firmly believe that we must completely reevaluate the reconfiguration options including College Heights in the mix. The Pre-K students technically belong to CSD (NOT the YMCA) and any reconfiguration discussion should have included them.”
I’m not advocating for any position here, but I am genuinely curious as to the decline of the school bus. Through 13 years of public school, I always took the school bus (my schools were in the neighborhood, but were a little far to walk — except on the sad days I missed the after school bus). Now it seems like no one rides the bus anymore. I guess someone above alluded to the early pick-up times — is that because budgetary problems have reduced the number of routes? I seem to remember that in elementary school, if the bus dropped us off early, we were thrilled because it meant we got to play on the playground until the bell rang.
Paula, i think plenty of kids still take the bus. Mine take it in the afternoon–i totally advocate that over individual cars picking up kids for environmental reasons. But in the mornings, the buses have to get to the schools in time for the kids who buy breakfast to eat. Some of these kids otherwise wouldn’t get any breakfast. But it means that our bus picks up at 7:10 and I’d really rather spend that extra time with my kids in the mornings anyway.
Also, because of our school configuration, the buses go to multiple schools to pick up kids. For example, kids at Winnona Park get on the bus, then ride over to Glennwood to get those kids, then ride back to WP to drop off kids on the routes. So the kids can be on the bus for more than an hour depending on where they live.
In our previous configuration I don’t think we ran buses except for the public housing kids and the middle and high schools.
Two quick thoughts: a) bigger doesn’t always mean better. must everything be supersized?
b) be honest, is it about size or is it because it’s way down in south Decatur?
Ah hah, Mr. Chad, you’re thinking the same thing I was–of course, you said it first.
Hey, stop stereotyping! Do you think none of us who happen to live on the northside now have ever lived/rented on the south side? Or Kirkwood? Or early Inman Park? Or East Los Angeles? Or the northwest section of Portland? Or Spanish Harlem in NYC? Or the old combat zone in Boston? Come on! Maybe the size and type house we were looking for wasn’t available on the south side at the time we were buying in Decatur! And some of us never wanted to go to Clairemont! We were redistricted there from the less prestigious north side schools.
And it’s not like downtown Decatur is Malibu–look at the crime reports.
And is the promotion of the south side really disinterested? I love eating and shopping there but it isn’t the same place it was 10 years ago and a lot of people have been displaced. I’m all for boosterism but let’s be honest–while some people have been profiting from the renovation of Oakhurst, College Heights, and Fifth Avenue areas, the original community has been disappearing.
Agree re supersizing. I don’t think many would like a suburban size school in Decatur, although the state would love it and would fund us better. All we want is better planning so that we aren’t adding on to schools or adding trailers right after we build them or close them or reconfigure them.
There’s this odd scarring on the school conversation that’s leftover from the 2003 reconfig (that’s what the cool people call it).
It seems the opposition from then thinks that since they were right about increased enrollments then that they can better predict school enrollment patterns than the current administration. I would just say, be careful what you wish for. The enrollment won’t go up forever…and just like the stock market, I’d love for you to prove you can also call the high point of the student “bubble” so CSD can stop building and start downsizing again.
Maybe we should all make enrollment predictions over the next 5 years right now, bury it, and then dig it up in 5 years.
Great idea! We can bury it over at Beacon Hill and dig it up at the ground breaking ceremony.
Fun idea. I predict stable enrollment although those stroller brigade stories make me wonder if it won’t continue to inch up….
I’m actually an advocate for slow, conservative moves. If we’re not sure, let’s wait. It’s not like these are extravagant devil-may-care times. What makes me irritable is when we go through a big inconvenient and expensive change only to go “Whoops! Well, enrollment is hard to predict. Who knew?” right afterwards.
One more thought: Most of the elementary school parents who have concerns now about CSD decisions weren’t even around in 2003. They were at their high school prom or something like that! The current concerns of the newer parents are way different from what were the issues in 2003.
But let me say that CSD would be wise to listen closely before it makes irrevocable decisions. Everyone can understand the concept of having to make a tough decision when surrounded by many points of view. But not listening to the obvious like–um, our neighborhood used to be all old people and now it’s all women with Baby Bjorn carriers–and then not getting fresh, relevant data, means that one better be darn sure one’s projections are right. If not, don’t expect faith in your pronouncements in the future. CSD and/or the School Board acted upon conviction more than evidence in 2003 and did not try to find a compromise position. So yeah, folks will challenge their assumptions now. We’ve got to. We didn’t challenge the assumptions enough in the past.
I’m still confused as to whether it IS because it’s on the south side or it is NOT.
Really? Does that make you the shallow one?
I’m personally not opposed to the Fifth Avenue site because it’s on the south side. I’m opposed to it because it’s the wrong site. And because we have a standing school building right now that is not in use for its intended purpose. And we have other sites that would work better. And because cramming all of our 4th and 5th graders into one school makes for a very large school, which should be uncharacteristic for our neighborhood. (The “is bigger better?” question falls on deaf ears here–I am a staunch supporter of returning to K-5s which I am told repeatedly will never happen. K-5s would give us the small neighborhood schools that would fit better on all our school sites.)
It doesn’t bother me that Fifth Avenue is way the hell south of downtown Decatur. However, i think it’s a good point that most of the residences within walking distance to this school are not in CSD. A more central location would be closer for everyone.
“I’m personally not opposed to the Fifth Avenue site because it’s on the south side.”
“However, i think it’s a good point that most of the residences within walking distance to this school are not in CSD.”
Ok, so is it the south side thing or not?
You are worried about “cramming” two grades into one school so you advocate that CSD crams two more grades in the other schools. You know, the ones with trailers. I predict that enrollment will steadily go up–the comparison to the stock market is erroneous.
I must be quite shallow, because if 5th ave is too small AND Glenwood is too small AND all the elementary schools are too small, then you must be implying that Westchester is being wasted. AND at that, here we go again…
Why don’t we just open all the schools–the Rec Center, Beacon Hill, change the library–and pay for it by charging tuition to non-CSD folks?
So I should put you down for an unending increase in CSD student enrollment?
Absolutely; we all love it here–for the schools, younger people are going to keep having kids and they’ll need good schools. It may not be as dynamic as four or five years ago, but enrollment will continue to rise. Not everyone wants to live in Peachtree City.
I’m no demographer but it seems to me that Decatur will remain the most viable intown option for young families. The schools are great. Downtown is fantastic. And the homes and neighborhoods have an old-timey feel compared to the suburban alternative. So, there may some leveling off of enrollment numbers but I can’t foresee a decrease.
You guys are probably right for the foreseeable future. According to city data, only 45% of households in 30030 are “family households”, whatever that means. But I just anticipate the day when we keep expanding trying to keep up with growth and it does a 180 on us. Then folks will get annoyed that no one saw that coming. Vicious cycle.
But for all the time we spend talking about trailers and space and growing enrollment, why is it that no one is discussing the actually durability of our school system model? If everyone thinks enrollment will increase and that property values aren’t going to go back up, how are you resolving the financial shortfall that seems all but inevitable? Will it take major cuts at CSD to get people to really start supporting annexation? Will we decide to cut back on city services and dedicate a larger % of property tax towards the schools?
I’m beginning to see where Fred Boykin was coming from. Regardless of how you come down on his reported comment that the system could just be rolled back into DeKalb Countyt, it’s good to see that SOMEONE is thinking about how we’re going to pay for all of these new kids.
In my case, I’m not sure there’s any easy answer and that Westchester is it. (But when in doubt, the answers on Decatur Metro are “Westchester”, “If you don’t like it, you can leave”, and “Control your kids and pets”!
) Westchester certainly isn’t the building or grounds that it was several years ago and it would take a lot of work to get it up to speed to serve more children that it used to serve—only up to 250 kids, I believe, in the past.
What I do think, is that if we are going to have another huge building project, it should be done as carefully as possible to try to avoid having another large reconfiguration and/or building and/or renovation project and/or school closing in another 3-5 years. If you haven’t been through one of these massive musical chairs events, it’s no fun–not only do the kids move, but also teachers, support staff, and prinicipals so it takes a while for things to settle back down. I had been happy to see a consensus built around the 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue instead of Renfroe, although I also saw merit to the K-5 model. (I hate the K-4, 5-8 model even though my favorite Board candidates liked it). I was surprised to see another new option pop up that I hadn’t heard about–the Beacon Hill site which could leave Fifth Avenue as a historic building, return a school to the historic Beacon Hill area, keep our all-students-together schools in a central area, and perhaps have enough space. But now that Beacon Hill has been brought up, I think it should be thoroughly discussed to see if it is viable and perhaps better than Fifth Avenue. I also didn’t expect to see that the assumptions about Fifth Avenue were incorrect in terms of acreage and that people had concerns about whether the plans are showing adequate space. As I’ve said before, this is no time in history to act in haste or without consensus or without pretty meticulous, well-delineated plans.
On another note: Is it Fifth Avenue or 5th Avenue? I believe that the official name of the old elementary school was “Fifth Avenue Elementary School” but I don’t remember for sure.
First of all an apology of sorts – I wrote that Glennwood was 6 acres from the Glennwood homepage… “Glennwood Academy…is in a spacious and convenient location situated on about 6 acres of land.” I guess from comments here, maybe it is less.
Second, the issue may be about South Decatur, but not from the people on this blog. (I’ll explain my thinking below below.) The comments on this blog are about play space. Big kids should be in a space where they can sprint at full speed and feel tired at the end…play kickball, play soccer…you get the idea.
So, ask yourself, why do the school board members love the 4/5 concept, but not for their own school district? The 4/5 is a total NIMBY. It is being put in South Decatur because no one there will fight against it. Winnona Park would be an awesome site for the 4/5 but it would be political suicide to put it there. So…put it somewhere else, where no one will complain. That’s why it is going to 5th avenue, instead of 5th avenue becoming a K-3 school.
I, too, had never heard the Beacon Hill idea and I think it is brilliant. Central location. Huge field. I don’t quite understand the supersize question, but it seems If you are going to supersize the school, you should supersize the location.
Is it unreasonable to think that if a decision is based on misinformation, that the decision should be revisited with the correct information?
maybe a revisiting of the decision could be narrowed to 5th Ave vs. Beacon Hill (and not add back in Renfroe, etc). I really think the Beacon Hill idea sounds great, primarily based on the sharing of school/city resources, which needs to happen on a much more frequent basis. I also like the more central location. However, I was happy that a good use for a great building like 5th Ave was found– perhaps that can evolve into another learning space of some type, soon.
I very much support reopening the dialogue, with Beacon Hill as an option.
Supersizing schools…
The sad fact is that most of the incentives established by the State of Georgia for school funding run counter to best practices: larger school districts in terms of total enrollments, larger facilities in terms of sqft, larger enrollment capacity per facility… all are incentivized in funding formulas.
Larger schools have been shown to have more discipline problems per pupil and lower graduation rates. The populations affected most detrimentally by school size are the socioeconomically disadvantaged. These are all logical conclusions backed by data which fall out of the simple truth which we all know: In larger schools it is easier for kids to fall through the cracks.
It is being put in South Decatur because no one there will fight against it.
I live just around the corner from 5th Avenue and believe me neighbors around here SUPPORT the re-opening of the school as our city’s 4-5 Academy.
A couple of thoughts….no, this is not about 5th avenue being on the southside . It’s about good comprehensive planning. The two other schools in our community which serve the entire population are located in the center of town. This lessens busing requirements and supports the concept of Walk and Roll program in our community far better than having the 4/5 academy on the south of north side of town.
Bigger is not always better….place 400-500 kids on 3.62 acres and I bet they’d tell you otherwise.
Central Office thought they had a five acre site at Fifth Ave as per this information from the CSD eBoard site,
https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/ViewMeeting.aspx?MID=1364… I submit the following paragraph as confirmation:
Since then, the Fifth Avenue property has been surveyed and appraised. It
was assumed that the 5 acre property would be appraised at $2 million.
However, the survey showed that the property acreage is actually 3.62 and
the appraised value was reported at $1.6 million. The $1.6 million value
that the property has been appraised at will be used to renovate Renfroe in
lieu of QZAB funds.
It is reasonable to ask them to revisit the decision when such a large discrepancy occurs.
Decatur Metro…”the protocol” to which I referred was Peggy Merriss explaining to me that the city would be willing to discuss the idea, but that it is not the place of the city commissioners to suggest alternate recommendations to the school boards decisions….ie: How about Beacon Hill? Dr. Edwards and the school board will have to invite the city commissioners to begin the dialog. At that time they could study the feasibility during the upcoming master plan process for Beacon Hill which begins this January. Frankly, this is great timing.
That’s why it is imperative that people let their school board representatives and Dr. Edwards know if this is something we would like for them to pursue.
Sounds like time to find a baby sitter for the next Board and Commission meetings… Which come up next Monday and Tuesday. Come voice your constructive concerns and support.
City Commission: Monday 12/07@7:30PM at City Hall
School Board: Tueday 12/08@6:30PM at Westchester
City Planning Commission: Tuesday 12/08@7:30 at City Hall
I think it is still worth talking to city commissioners. If only so that they are aware of the possibility and can be prepared to handle the request if/when it happens.
Thanks for the clarification nola. Interesting response from the city manager.
CSD has promised me an official reply on this Beacon Hill idea next week. Hold tight.
Wow, so I guess now you have to be a big-shot blogger to get their attention. Well, at least they responded to someone. Thanks for getting in touch with them.
One day I will learn that I can’t use the tab button while blogging.
Following are all of the board members full names:
Valarie Wilson, John Ahmann, Bernadette Seals, Julie Rhame, Mark Wisniewski,
Peggy Edwards, Thomas van Soelen,
City Commission:
Kecia Cunningham, Jim Baskett, Bill Floyd, Fred Boykin, Patti Garrett
City Manager: Peggy Merriss
City Planner : Amanda Thompson
I think a simple statement is all you need. Something along the lines of :
I respectfully request that the School Board temporarily stop action on the Fifth Avenue site and convene with the City Commissioners to discuss the feasibility of using the Beacon Hill/ Ebster Park site for the proposed 4/5 Academy location.
Please take the time to send an email to all of our board and commission members.
By the way, I’m nola. I’m just too old to operate under an alias at this point! But it was fun for a day.
Please know that I sent the entire letter to Dr. Edwards, Thomas van Soelen and the school board last Monday. I have not heard from any of them. I think they will need strong encouragement from many people, very quickly if we hope to have them consider this option.
City Commission: Monday 12/07@7:30PM at City Hall
School Board: Tueday 12/08@6:30PM at Westchester
City Planning Commission: Tuesday 12/08@7:30 at City Hall
Valarie Wilson’vwilson@csdecatur.net’;
‘jahmann@csdecatur.net’;
‘bseals@csdecatur.net’;
‘jrhame@csdecatur.net’;
‘mwisniewski@csdecatur.net’;
‘pedwards@csdecatur.org’;
‘kecia.cunningham@decaturga.com’;
‘jim.baskett@decaturga.com’;
‘bill.floyd@decaturga.com’;
‘fred.boykin@decaturga.com’;
‘Amanda.Thompson@decaturga.com’;
‘Peggy.Merriss@decaturga.com’;
‘patti.garrett@decaturga.com’;
‘tvansoelen@csdecatur.net’
Following are all of the board members full names:
Valarie Wilson, John Ahmann, Bernadette Seals, Julie Rhame, Mark Wisniewski,
Peggy Edwards, Thomas van Soelen,
City Commission:
Kecia Cunningham, Jim Baskett, Bill Floyd, Fred Boykin, Patti Garrett
City Manager: Peggy Merriss
City Planner : Amanda Thompson
I think a simple statement is all you need. Something along the lines of :
I respectfully request that the School Board temporarily stop action on the Fifth Avenue site and convene with the City Commissioners to discuss the feasibility of using the Beacon Hill/ Ebster Park site for the proposed 4/5 Academy location.
Please take the time to send an email to all of our board and commission members.
By the way, I’ll be posting as Deanna from now on. I’m just too old to operate under an alias at this point! But it was fun for a day.
Has anyone sent Deanna’s brilliant evaluation of the 5th avenue and Beacon Hill sites to the Decatur Education Foundation leadership? Dr. Edwards and Valarie Wilson seem to pretty much pull the strings over there, but some of these folks might think independently. Here is the leadership according to the DEF website:
Leslie Munson, PhD, Chair
Paula Collins, Chair-Elect
Charles Orth, Treasurer
Carol Ellis Morgan, Secretary
Candler Broom
Susan Cobleigh
Walt Drake
Phyllis A. Edwards, EdD
Jim Eley
William F. Floyd
William Funk
Gayle Gellerstedt
Lindsay Jones
John Joyner
Elizabeth Kiss, PhD
Rich Mahaffey
Emilie Markert
Lyn Menne
Katie Pedersen
Anthony Powers
Marty Sadler
Jimmy Smith
Judy Turner
Sara Turnipseed
Eric Willis
Bob Wilson
Valarie Wilson
Re: “Why is it that no one is discussing the actually durability of our school system model?”
This is a good point if our system is really that close to the edge. Does anyone know? How would we know? What could we do? Would anyone bother informing us annoying inquiring minds that want to know?
Is this the school system equivalent of a meteor being about to hit the earth? If a meteor was approaching, would it make sense to hold elections, send troops to Afghanistan, clip coupons, make sure our kids do their homework, go to work, put money in a thrift savings account? Or should we just put our fingers in our ears and go la-la-la-la-la-la.
Similarly, should we be caring about what CSD and the School Board decide if the economy and the State of Georgia’s contempt for public education are going to do us in anyway? Should we be concentrating on getting our kids into private school before everyone else figures out that decent public schools are a thing of the past? Should we give up on Mayberry/Berkeley and move to places where good public school systems are the norm, not a luxury?
When I see how many CSD teachers and parent leaders,including some of the biggest cheerleaders for CSD decisions, are starting to send their kids to private school, I wonder if I’m the last to figure out that I’m wasting my time on caring about what happens in CSD.
If you feel so completely negative about the CSD, then why do you ask so many questions? why bother?
It seems that if the school system was “close to the edge” now then it would have gone over years ago. So far it has the resources to support itself–will it in the future? I don’t know, no one knows for sure–but, for me, what’s important is a balance between student/parent demand and residence willingness to pay taxes. Clearly, if one side of the equation gets out of wack, then the whole thing goes to hell.
However, I have to think that, given we’re all still here talking about it, things will balance out.
Of course, politicians always have the option to screw things up–always.
Love the teachers and staff in CSD! Love the principals too although they have a nearly impossible job given the pressures from above and below and the resources they have to work with. While I have problems with some decisions made by Central Office and approved by the School Board, I applaud others and let them know. In a democracy, a citizen should be letting its government know what concerns him/her, no? And a parent should be involved with their child’s education, make sure they are prepared for school, volunteer as much as possible, donate and support operations, ask questions when necessary, and voice concerns, no? If that’s negative, so be it! I will not quietly defect to private school just to avoid making waves! It is not disrepectful to ask hard questions and expect responses from one’s government officials; in fact, it’s a citizen’s duty. CSD can choose to be defensive or it can trust the energy, good intent, and willlingness to help of its school community. If it’s too painful, well there’s other folks evidently who are willing to take those jobs.
It seems to me that this acreage thing is just being used by opponents of 5th Avenue who already opposed to sending their kids to school in South Decatur (ie the bad side of town) in the first place. The truth is there is greater population density in the area around 5th Avenue than there is at Westchester or Glennwood. I think CSD Mom summed up the sentiment pretty well when she said “Fifth Avenue is way the hell south of downtown Decatur.” Why should South Decatur children have to go “way the hell north of downtown Decatur.”
Stop trying to distract and derail the 5th Avenue construction over a site (Beacon Hill) which has never been considered and never will. The 5th Avenue property has been sitting vacant, rotting for about 10 years now. If northside elitists are successful at stopping construction now, it will sit empty for another 10 years and become an even bigger eyesore for our community.
Since this comment is a more intense version of a comment above, I’m going to repeat my response:
“What I do think, is that if we are going to have another huge building project, it should be done as carefully as possible to try to avoid having another large reconfiguration and/or building and/or renovation project and/or school closing in another 3-5 years. If you haven’t been through one of these massive musical chairs events, it’s no fun–not only do the kids move, but also teachers, support staff, and prinicipals so it takes years (sic) to settle back down. I had been happy to see a consensus built around the 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue instead of Renfroe, although I also saw merit to the K-5 model. (I hate the K-4, 5-8 model even though my favorite Board candidates liked it). I was surprised to see another new option pop up that I hadn’t heard about–the Beacon Hill site which could leave Fifth Avenue as a historic building, return a school to the historic Beacon Hill area, keep our all-students-together schools in a central area, and perhaps have enough space. But now that Beacon Hill has been brought up, I think it should be thoroughly discussed to see if it is viable and perhaps better than Fifth Avenue. I also didn’t expect to see that the assumptions about Fifth Avenue were incorrect in terms of acreage and that people had concerns about whether the plans are showing adequate space. As I’ve said before, this is no time in history to act in haste or without consensus or without pretty meticulous, well-delineated plans.”
New comment: Elitism is in the eyes of the beholder. It is elitism to believe that only supporters of one’s position could have moral value. That folks bringing up new options coudn’t possibly have the interest of all the children in mind. That folks on the north side are all wealthy and unable to fathom the idea of sending our children to that beautiful, historic, neighborhood on the the southside. That thinking of having a school centrally located near Decatur Housing Authority homes, whose kids have always gotten the shortest shrift and were the first to lose their school years and years ago, is more unfair to the southside than to the northside. That asking to consider Beacon Hill as a more spacious and centrally located site condemns the Fifth Avenue Elementary Building to years more of decay when suggestions have been made on how it could be used constructively.
If Fifth Avenue is the best location for a 4/5 Academy, then an open, earnest evaluation of the Beacon Hill site should show that. If it’s not, then the best choice should be chosen for all of Decatur, southside, northside, and central.
On every side of every issue, there will be folks with ulterior motives, so even if you could prove that some folks were supporting a particular issue for a not-so-stated reason, it doesn’t automatically discount it.
At this stage, I think it’s a valid enough option to request a response from CSD as to why Beacon Hill was never considered. If the site was never considered, one has to assume there were either uncompromising circumstances that made it an impossibility or it was just never brought up.
The lack of a central location was indeed one of the “negatives” checked off, when Fifth Ave was considered among the other 13 options. So if central location really gets you hot and bothered, Fifth Ave may not be your favorite option. But I’m not sure you have to be a “northern elitist” to feel that way.
Wow – here I was just happy to see the vacant 5th Avenue school finally see new life. I had no idea this controversy was brewing!
Regardless of anyone’s motives, isn’t it more than a little late in the game to be bringing these issues up? I believe CSD went through a very thorough process of considering all the available options last year, with lots of meetings and public input. At this point, I’m sure CSD has already vested a lot of time and $$ moving forward with 5th Avenue. I don’t think it’s entirely reasonable to ask them to stop everything immediately and essentially go back to the drawing board based on concerns of a few parents. This would most certainly delay completion of the project and probably result in higher costs.
Also, if folks were so concerned about a central location being of utmost importance, shouldn’t they have been more open to Renfroe? Or insisted this Beacon Hill site be considered last year? And, again, if central location was so important, why were so many in favor of Westchester (which is also decidedly not centrally located)? I also think it is a little curious that folks haven’t even waited to see the architect’s site plan before insisting there is definitely not enough space and the whole idea needs to be scrapped. I’m certainly not accusing anyone of bias against South Decatur, but at first blush, it doesn’t seem to add up.
Also, does anyone have a ballpark estimate of how much it might cost to reopen this Beacon Hill site? Based on how long it seems to have been out of service, I’m guessing the costs could be significantly higher than 5th Avenue, and the project could take a lot longer to complete (but I could be wrong!).
Although I see some of the potential benefits of the Beacon Hill site, I do question the timing of these concerns being brought up.
My guess is that 99% of folks, on or off the Reconfiguration Committees, never thought of this idea of a 4/5 Academy at Beacon Hill because it was not one of the original ?12? options set forward. I know I didn’t. The original 12 options and the additional consensus option #13 included existing school properties only and never considered a city property. Most Decaturites know little about the intricacies of how all school properties are city properties unless the city deeds them over. And the decisions then were about the entire K-5 vs K-3/4-5 vs K-4/5-8 model choices, not the ideal place to put a 4/5 Academy. CSD and the City probably never thought of the central option for a 4/5 Academy either. That’s not a problem as long they are willing to openly and earnestly consider it now. I think any time and money already spent on the Fifth Avenue option should be one of the many factors considered, as long as they are not a deal breaker.
Re Renfroe being central: To me, a 4/5 Academy at Renfroe as it was proposed (in the same building with a lot of shared facilities, not in a separate building) is not a 4/5 Academy but a 4-8 school. I much preferred a true 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue. I would have also been happy with K-5 schools. I want my 4th and 5th graders to stay in elementary school classroom setting with one teacher and (hopefully) paraprofessional, not changing classes which takes more organizational skill and maturity. I also prefer to have them in a school with other latency age kids, rather than in school with eighth graders who are well into puberty.
So my heart of hearts order of preference, if one is willing to trust my motives, would be:
– 4/5 Academy at Beacon Hill, if that option is truly feasible. If not, move down the list.
– 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue unless K-5 schools would allow me to be redistricted to Oakhurst which seems to be the most together elementary school right now. However, the latter would take pretty good gerrymandering.
– K-5 schools which used to be my favorite option and probably should be the choice of financial conservatives in Decatur but I’m honestly afraid of what kind of school we’d end up with given the massive reorg that would have to occur and the fact that it seems to take about 3 years after a reconfiguration for the newly constituted schools to settle in.
– 4/5 Academy anywhere but Renfroe or DHS
– Way, way, way down the list, after an option to put the 4/5 Academy on my property which isn’t that big but I hate yard work anyway and the idea of selling and moving to a condo has its appeal, is K-4/5-8 at Renfroe even though it’s the choice of my favorite Board candidates.
– 4/5 at Renfroe which I hate and think will accelerate the current flight to private schools that I’m seeing lately on the “north” and “east” side of Decatur and involves elementary as well as 4/5 kids. (Trust me, it has nothing to do with the “south” side).
Karass, my mom was briefly transferred to New Orleans when I was in fourth grade. I went to a school where fourth graders changed classes. It was awful. I agree totally with you on that. Seventh grade is early enough for that in my opinion
Before, during, and after the reconfiguration discussions, I kept piping up “K-6/7-8″, :K-6/7-8″, “K-6/7-8″ and absolutely no one listened, not even challenger candidates who were clearly wooing my vote. It’s probably because Renfroe was built for at least 3 grades and we are building a new gym there. We know how build new schools, add on to schools, and close schools in Decatur, but we don’t know how to shrink them! My favorite options are probably shared by no one, not to mention economically unfeasible:
Option 15 (if Beacon Hill is Option 14): K-6, 7-8 with the Adminisration in the empty space at Renfroe
Option 16: K-5 schools with magnet schools so we get away from this artificial, non-evidence based northside/southside stuff
Option 17: Option 16 including one elementary for the so-called gifted and Woebegone above-average children in Decatur so I don’t have to be annoyed by their hyperactivity anymore when I volunteer
Option 18: Homeschooling with someone else coming to my home and doing it!
LOL! Too true!
My home town, Asheville, NC, uses a magnet school system. There are no elementary school boundary lines, but each school has a theme, and families apply to the school that best suits their kids.
It seems to work well there, but I wonder how it would play out b/c…looking at my kids, they would each need a different school b/c they are very different learners. I’d have one at an arts based school, another at a math/science school and the third at a top secret, underground CIA training facility b/c she is definitely going to be a spy when she grows up. Also, it’s often sort of hard to tell what type of school suits your kid at age 5, isn’t it?
Another thing… you’d be looking a lotta buses in that system and folks around Decatur definitely don’t like school buses.
Re buses: Well, if we combined magnet schools with the Beacon Hill 4/5 Option #14, you could have a parsimonious hub and spoke system, sort of like what already exists at Glennwood for preK-5 bus riders. All buses for all age groups would come into the Beacon Hill 4/5 hub, then fan back out to the four magnet elementary schools and the ECLC. The middle school students would all be let off at the hub to go wander by Chick Fil A and get breakfast nuggests while they waited for RMS to open. The high school students would have time to also do a bit of shopping at Heliotrope, Kaleidoscope, Squash Blossom, Mingei Arts, and Decatur CD before DHS opened. Or they could ride the elementary and ECLC buses out and back for fun or to earn some babysitting money since all buses end up across from the high school anyway.
Just kidding, folks. Put those cauldrons of bubbling fury away.
Gosh, I remember changing classes throughout my elementary school career and I lived to tell about it. Even graduated high school, college, and have a graduate degree!
The timing is related to the just released information that the 5th avenue lot is much smaller than originally thought.
The reconfiguration committee made the recommendation, but was it based on misinformation?
The next step is to look at the architects’ drawing, getting feedback from the same reconfiguration committee. There are so many less than ideal facility designs in the Decatur elementary schools. This is the building that can learn from the other schools. This is supposed to be a state-of-the-art facility. The question now is, can this be done on a 3.6 acre lot?
Give the reconfiguration committee a chance to give feedback on lot size, lunchroom size, auditorium size, gym, number of classrooms by comparing these to other facilities like Glennwood, Winnona Park and Renfroe. The 4/5 is to be a state-of-the-art facility for 8 million dollars. The reconfiguration committee needs a chance to weigh in on the option that they chose…is the 8 million dollar facility state-of-the art?
Here are three things I am confused about:
Why was 5th Avenue okay just a few years ago? Maybe many of you folks are new and don’t realize that it is not been that long since Fifth Avenue closed – my 13 year old neighbor went to Fifth Avenue Elementary not that long ago. I walked her over there a couple of times and bought booster stuff from Fifth Avenue kids. I have to agree with Chad that some of the arguments do sound elitist. I know no one probably means that, but some of these arguments sound that way. I remember back in the 80s Oakhurst was called the wrong side of the tracks.
Is Glenwood closing? I missed that piece of the argument somehow. What is happening to that space?
Why does Oakhurst have a downtown? It’s not a town.
AND THANK YOU SCOTT, ETC. for pointing out Decatur is an urban area and not a suburb. That’s one thing I have noticed lately around town- some folks don’t get fact that this isn’t a suburb, but a small town that borders a gigantic urban area with all its ills.
Re downtown Oakhurst: Is downvillage a better term? I guess I’ve seen “Oakhurst business district”. Sorry. I grew up in a village in a larger town and we called going to the main street of the village, where the stores were, “downtown”. Delusions of grandeur, I guess.
RE tracks: The “wrong side of the tracks” is a completely outdated term in Decatur now. In terms of hot real estate and school test scores, the right side of the tracks is the south side, que no? I know folks considering moving “south” to Oakhurst because of it’s school having a better reputation than Clairemont right now. And Beacon Hill is almost right ON the tracks! Let’s not get pulled into defensive neighborhood wars because then it gets nasty with south siders accusing north siders of being elitist because they don’t want to attend a brand new school on the south side and north siders accusing south siders of being elitist because they don’t want to attend a brand new school next to the Decatur Housing Authority homes, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, no one has done an objective evaluation of what’s the best choice.
Re Glennwood: Wherever a 4/5 Academy goes, Glennwood becomes a K-3 elementary school. That change will probably be the most disruptive one coming if we don’t commit hari kari over where the 4/5 Academy goes. Glennwood will need a newly constituted staff, a new principal, adaption of the playground and all the bathrooms and other size-specific facilities to accomodate little ones, plus a transfer of kids from both Clairemont and Winnona Park to go there. It will undoubtedly take a few years to settle in as a school community. I hope more resources are put into the shift of staff, students, and facilities this time with lots of listening and feedback options from CSD and the Board.
Re: Nellie’s query about Oakhurst . . .
Oakhurst *was* a separate town many moons ago. (Though you may already know this.)
See the nicely put-together wikipedia page for more. “History” section helps there.
And, funny that the page mentions Decatur as a “suburb” of Atlanta. S’pose I could go edit that.
I regularly say a store or destination is in “downtown Kirkwood,” too. They have an even longer wikipedia page, but no cool pictures.
Questions:
1) Where do you put the police station??? It must be in a place that is as ideal as its current location at Beacon Hill… I can’t think of a better or even remotely equal place, particularly if you are looking for City owned property. Do taxpayers want to spend a bunch of money to acquire property in central Decatur and build a new police station?
2) The City is very supportive of having the 4/5 at 5th Avenue. The City owns Beacon Hill. CSD has absolutely no rights to that property unless there are some secret rights that I am unaware of. CSD can’t just “decide” to move the 4/5 to Beacon Hill anymore than they can decide to move it to the City Hall building. My understanding is that the City has some fairly specific plans for Beacon Hill, and I don’t see them making a 180 at this point. It make no sense to even discuss this unless there are City Commissioners on board. Who are the Commissioners that are in support of this switch? Is Peggy Merriss in support?
3) Has Glenwood’s SLT been consulted on this? Seems like they should have some say.
4) I don’t think that all folks who support Beacon Hill are in this boat, but is there a possibility that, for some folks, this Beacon Hill business is more of a stalling tactic and effort to generally “gum up the works” than a true desire to move the school?
Good points about city’s perspective: This is the type of information we need to know whether discussions are even worth having. I don’t think anyone was talking about buying property–either way, the city owns school properties unless it deeds them over to CSD.
Police station: The talk I’ve heard would keep it there. The 4/5 Academy would be REAL safe!
Stalling tactic: One person’s stalling tactic is another person’s slow, careful, methodical process. I’m on record here as being worried about moving too fast in tough, unpredictable times. Other than posting on this blog, I’m not a big risk taker.
There’s already been one slow, methodical, thoroughly vetted study, and the result was Fifth Ave. Are detractors proposing a second slow exploratory?
Not thorough if Beacon Hill was never discussed. No question that it would have been much better if it had been considered then.
Re Glennwood SLT: Excellent point. It should be involved in a BIG way with where a 4/5 Academy goes and it has not been. It got to send reps to the reconfiguration committee but that’s not the same as charging the SLT with its own evaluation, getting input from parents, etc. I think it’s an excellent point that the Glennwood SLT could be involved right now in a big way. That would carry alot more weight than a bunch of individuals saying “We should think about this” and then CSD saying “No we shouldn’t”.
Tangent Alert: If CSD is grappling with overcrowding, and pockets of discontent are preventing the kind of consensus we’d ideally prefer, isn’t it possible that this reactionary “flight” to private schools being observed by Karass is actually a positive thing?
One less trailer-bound student; one less angry parent. That can’t be *all* bad. Especially when, even if there’s a number of folks going down that path, it’s by no means epidemic or even of statistical concern.
I know we have plenty of legitimate disagreements related to the schools — and that can be a healthy thing — but have to wonder if the periodically-suggested *level of fury* bubbling below the surface is a bit exaggerated. Posters here are those with the most passionate positions, so I wonder: how satisfied or unsatisfied is the average CSD parent?
Ha – I had the exact same thought regarding kids being pulled out of CSD for private schools! It would save the taxpayers a lot of $ and alleviate overcrowding – both good things for CSD! Also, if too many folks left (which I sincerely doubt would happen), aren’t there a lot of parents who don’t live in City of Decatur who would love a tuition-paying spot for their kids?
No matter how good the local public schools are, there will always be a handful of parents who send their kids to private schools for various reasons. It’s nothing to be concerned about in my opinion.
Bubbling fury can be felt where I sit too! I’m assuming that the heat that’s wafting my way is because folks would be real disappointed if Fifth Avenue as a school was promised, looked forward to, and then wasn’t delivered.
Trust me or not, my primary emotion has not been fury–I was ready for the 4/5 at Fifth Avenue and am already a Kavanna addict. My primary emotion has been chagrin that neither I nor anyone else brought up this Beacon Hill idea earlier. It might have been option #13 instead of #14. I’ve debated in my mind several times whether it’s worth speaking up about given the bubbling fury thing. I just think it would be a waste to not consider it and then years later wish we had.
Re pockets of discontent: The past Board election shows that it was a lot more than a pocket–almost 50% of the voters wanted a change. However, that was not at all about Fifth Avenue in my opinion but about a myriad of issues some of which may affect some schools more than others.
It may be a leap to take, for example, a vote for Rob over Valarie as proof of “discontent.” It could just as easily reflect admiration for Rob’s passion or history of involvement. Or, it might show that people found him effective in working with others. It could even be people who know him personally. All of which are possible with people generally content overall about CSD.
I’m just not convinced yet that, outside this blog, people are truly riled up. Part of that, admittedly, is that I’m among the CSD parents who’ve had a really great experience year after year and know many others in similar circumstances. But I also know folks who’ve had a falling out. So it’s tough to gauge the real temperature out there.
I think what attracted folks most to Rob is that he is active and in touch on the ground level and he’s not yet so jaded by parent feedback that he views it as discontent. Agree that the election was not a slam on current Board members but hopefully a wake up call that some issues have been brewing that need addressing.
We’re all puzzling over the role of blogs in community discourse. I find them useful for:
1) Rapid alerts about things that other entities don’t have the time or resources to alert me about–e.g. crash on Ponce blocking traffic, lockdown at middle school, serial killer at library (made that one up) etc. Decatur Metro is almost always first on these issues.
2) Announcements of events, business openings, business closings, candidate forums, etc.
I’m not as sure about discussions like this thread. Is the bubbling fury worth the sharing of ideas? Is anyone learning anything or is everyone just reacting? Sometimes I hear about issues that I’d never know anything about otherwise, e.g. annexation or obscure-to-me city commission issues or south side candidates who don’t send me flyers; they just don’t come up in my everyday school pickup and neighborhood stroll conversations. Other times, they seem to make innocent questions or comments more volatile than they are intended.
But darn, if others are going to voice their opinions, especially opinions that vary from mine, it’s hard not to chime in.
Oh DM, are you psychic or just too darned logically smart for the rest of us. Back in June, you said, “Barring some unforeseen challenge or circumstance, the vote next Tuesday (6:30p @ Westchester) should be the final say in this matter.” (http://tinyurl.com/yfox2j5)
Well, let’s just say the final say hasn’t been said yet.
Count me among those that support Fifth Ave. Thanks to the thread, I now have all the names and addresses of those I need to contact and let them know I continue to support Fifth Ave.
Psychic or hedging my bets? You decide!
“The timing is related to the just released information that the 5th avenue lot is much smaller than originally thought.”
My “designer instinct” has always told me that Fifth Avenue is just too small for this use. In the spring ( also at the last minute, due to health reasons) I tried to get the board to consider an option that used the vacant portion of the high school property. This is another option that would group more of our classrooms in the center of town for grades 4-12. It too was a challenging idea…. and dismissed.
Fifth Avenue is a small site, not the big lot describe on the reconfiguration pro and con list.
I understand that the plans will be released for public comment next month. Pay careful attention. Many people don’t seem to realize that the school is being torn down. (99.9% sure on that statement) It will be three stories tall. Option 13 fact sheet calls for 62 parking spaces, I assume on site!
My motivation is simply to see the board spend 8 million plus on a solution that has long term flexibility of use and also supports our educational model in the best way possible. I want to see our school board look like heros at the end of the day. By the way, the end of the day is not two years from now, it’s more like four to forty years from now. For the short term my suggestions are problematic for the school system. I realize this. The police department is a big question. Can it stay in the general area, should it stay there, how will we fund any new construction for the police dept? How will it relate to the school? These are all questions that should be answered during a deliberate, planning process which lucky for us begins this January. The school location can be a part of this master plan discussion with the city, but only if the school board tells the city in the next 30-60 days.
The Reconfiguration process focused on the educational models for our community, as they should have. CSD are educators. It was determined that we need to maintain a K-3, 4-5 model. Whether or not I agree, I accept that final recommendation. But if we are to proceed with that model, I want to see it done the best way possible.
Personally, I have two young children, a job, an elderly mother, I’m a member of a choir, a club, a committee or two and Christmas is my favorite time of year. I can find other things to do with my time right now. I am only involved in this discussion with our school board and city leaders ( yes I’m talking to them too) because I want to make sure we get the best outcome possible for our 8 million dollars.
Police station: move to Callaway site. Closer to the high school and still close to housing authority and Beacon Hill.
If Fifth Avenue is 3 stories tall, it will probably never be suitable to be used as an elementary school in the future, which is always a possible need. State (federal?) requirements state that younger grades must be housed on ground level. All new construction should be undertaken with the idea that the buildings must be suitable for another round of reconfigurations in the future. You know it will happen, don’t you?