Pete noted that a conceptual master plan and elevation drawings (both PDFs) of the proposed Fifth Avenue 4/5 Academy have been posted on the City Schools of Decatur website.
Dig in!
Latest from Decaturish
spreak
theron wasson
smith
Deanne
macarolina
Kevin
Sara
AED
spreak
smith
Decatur Metro
Curious
Deanne
Deanne
Deanne
I cannot read architectural plans worth a darn. They always look gorgeous and spacious to me. These do too although even the full plans on the CSD site don’t show give me a feel for the inside of the building. Does one assume that the number of classrooms (12) is duplicated on the second floor? And the site doesn’t look as big when I look at the little cars and then imagine how many it takes to comprise the length of the building or the field. Are they to scale or are they just decoration? It looks to me like at least some of the outdoor space could be converted to an age-appropriate playground. But will that then impact the field so that sports can’t be played on it? What might be helpful would be similar sketches for Glennwood so one can compare. They should exist since it was recently renovated, right? Then one could directly compare the space currently at Glennwood with what is in the plans. I tried using the Glennwood website to compare but it doesn’t really work–one can count regular teachers (17 total now) and count that as classrooms needed but one can’t tell how many other rooms are needed–e.g. what rooms are needed for the severly mentally challenged, band room, music room, suspension room, staff office space, art?, Links, work and supply rooms, staff lounge, nurse office etc.
Anyone know what the areas called “multi purpose open to below” and “roof below” are and what those terms mean? Is an auditorium and stage in there somewhere so music and drama performances can occur? I like the outdoor pavilion if it’s a pavilion like what’s at Winnona Park or Clairemont so PE can occur even in rainy weather. Besides needing a space for playground equipment, where is the basketball goal area? This is pretty darn mandatory for boys this age, especially if one goal of a 4/5 Academy is to get kids to mix early and not get cliqueish. Nothing like a basketball goal to do that. I’m fine with the volleyball area–it’s more co-ed than basketball–is it meant for only for PE and formal volleyball games or can it be used by kids during recess too? Playground equipment and a hoop are still necessary for those kids who don’t play volleyball or basketball.
Hopefully, the Glennwood School Leadership Team is going over these plans in detail with the leadership at Glennwood and with Central Office staff and getting parent and teacher input. As anyone who has renovated their home knows, the time to have bright ideas about what should be included is before one starts! The items labelled “we could always add this later” often never get done and usually cost a lot more than if they had been included the first time.
I have not examined any plans beside this PDF. I see how car riders and buses are being routed. What is not clear how walkers and bike riders are being routed. And where are all the bike racks?
Bike Court, at the northeast corner of the building.
what is going on where the low income apartment were/are on trinity??
Renovating. Hopefully most former residents will return, especially the kids who have probably been in much lower quality schools with the vouchers they got during the renovation. We miss them!
I like that its two story, and not a sprawled out monstrocities you find in the burbs…the architecture is nice…if not a little weird. The lower elevation looks like it should be in the Colorado mountians or something.
It would have been nice if the building fronted 5th a bit better (ie figured out a way to get the bus drop off in a different configuration). I mean..the prominant corner of the site is a detention pond it looks like…or a putting green…hard to tell…oh well. Seems like that was a missed opportunity.
I wonder if anything could be done with that small patch of piece on the corner of 4th and Oakview labeled ‘City Park’? Right now It’s a patch of green, with a few trees and benches, and as far I can tell people in the neighborhood don’t use it for anything.
Maybe use it for the student garden (it would look nice there) and free up the current space labeled student garden to other uses (playground type stuff, maybe, although it’s probably a little small for that).
I agree! That park is very barren and seems to be little if ever used. I’m sure there would be some bureaucratic hurdles and security issues to overcome, but I think it would be great to incorporate it into the school plan! Maybe the city could allow some sort of arrangement where the park was only open to the public after school hours and on weekends?
Also, I assume this land wasn’t included in the official survey of the school site, so if it were allowed to be used by the school, it could help alleviate the concerns of some parents that the 5th Avenue site is inherently too small for a 4/5 Academy.
Perhaps this is where they could put a 4-square court and playground for the kids. Maybe even a basketball court. It could be a beneficial arrangement for the school and the surrounding community.
A four-square court, hoop, playground equipment, indoor stage/auditorium and some guarantees that the classroom/other instruction space is clearly more than currently exists at Glennwood, would greatly relieve me. I have learned through painful experience that if it’s not clearly in the original plans, don’t expect it to magically show up later.
I truly think that if CSD builds a state-of-the-art facility at 5th avenue, parents won’t mind the extra time it gets to school.
What I am worried about is a political bait and switch on what the politicians have promised and what they’ll deliver. And since those impacted are children, I want to share my knowledge as a K-5 educator as to what constitutes a state-of-the-art facility.
What has been promised: An 8-million state-of-the-art facility on 5 acres.
Ignoring for now the fact that it isn’t on 5 acres, but acknowledging that it will cost 8 million, here is the state-of-the-art piece for an elementary school:
Roomy classrooms above the minimum square footage
An art room with a kiln and a storage closet, plenty of classroom cabinets
A music room with risers and storage
A science lab with sinks, extra outlets, a storage closet, plenty of classroom cabinets and a door to outside (for outside experiments)
A real gym (in addition to a cafetorium)
A computer lab and/or wifi with laptops/netbooks
Plenty of natural lighting
If these things aren’t part of the plan, there are probably several ways to go – one of which is to throw money at the project raising the cost – which really makes parents look bad but really isn’t their fault since they would only be asking for what had been promised (state-of-the-art).
Another would be to do a head-to-head challenge between Glennwood and 5th Avenue – taking the politics out of it and using a comparison checklist between a conceptual plan for Glennwood and a conceptual plan for 5th avenue.
I don’t have a child in elementary school anymore, but as a teacher, I wanted to make this information accessible to anyone who might find it helpful.
You forgot the playground. There is currently a big zero for play equipment on the conceptual plans. A garden, and empty field and “sand volleyball” alone isn’t going to work for 8-11 year olds. Put the garden in the adjacent city park next door. It can serve the whole community. I’m a big fan of gardens, but a garden at the 4/5 isn’t going to get the use that a garden at one of the K-3 schools would get anyway. A playground on the other hand… .that will get tons of use if the experience at Glennwood holds true. These kids need to have a place to go out and play freely for a few minutes a day without some grownup orchestrating their every move.
Yes, yes, yes, elementary kids need some developmentally appropriate playground equipment. This reminds me of the story “Mike Mullligan and His Steam Shovel” where they dig so fast and furiously against a deadline that they finish a perfectly square basement by the sunrise-to-sunset deadline…only to realize that they forgot to engineer a way out of the hole they have dug around themselves. CSD needs to slow down and get this right. Maybe they’ve thought of all the points folks are making and had them totally covered but we taxpayers and parents need to know that.
To clarify, I left the obvious things that a school has like a media center, lunchroom and bathrooms. The post is focused on what makes an elementary school state-of-the-art without going crazy. Notice that I left off an indoor pool. Ha, ha.
HI,
I read plans for a living. I attended the school board meeting on Tuesday and quickly reviewed the 30 scale site plan. The play field is approximately120 x 250, which is smaller than Glennwood’s field and has absolutely none of the miscellaneous open space at Glennwood. Glennwood uses the cul de sac for basketball. There is no such area on the Fifth Avenue plan. There is no room for a play structure and it was determined by CSD that our kids would rather have a field…..since we have to chose due to the size of the lot. It’s very difficult for people to understand site plans, particularly at this small scale. Our existing school sites are the best point of reference for most people. Following are portions of an email I sent to the board in response to a very good question asked by Valarie Wilson:
Hello Dr. Edwards and School Board,
In response to Valarie Wilson’s question, ” How does the size of the Fifth Avenue Play field compare to the Winnona playround?” I went to the City of Decatur Engineering office this morning was able to meet with John Madejewski and Deming Chen. Deming Chen prepared the attached scan of the Winnona Park school site using the GSI Arc Map system. Please open the attachment. As you can see the Winnona site is about 6.10 acres. The open space at Winnona, including the pavilion area is about 4.4 acres. I would take off somewhere between ¾ to one acre for some additional parking that is not shown and creek bank area. You are still left with an open playground space of 3.40 to 3.64 acres. They also have additional open space and gardens in the front of the school.
The Fifth Avenue site is 3.62 acres. The entire Fifth Avenue site would fit easily onto Winnona Park’s open play space. I do not know the size of the Fifth Avenue pavilion, but I think the play field is 120 x 250 which equals .69 acres. Again, the Winnona Park open space is somewhere between 3.4 and 4.4 acres.
Valarie asked a very good question. These questions help each of you understand the final product you will achieve at Fifth Avenue. I encourage you all to continue to ask important questions as you do a critical assessment of the Fifth Avenue site plan.
Other emails have been sent requesting that the board do a side by side site comparison of Glennwood and Fifth Avenue since we are striving to create a better facility, which includes outdoor facilities than we currently have at Glennwood. With a couple of thanks you’s for your efforts, our emails have gone unanswered by the board and Dr. Edwards. These are serious citywide concerns and need to be addressed before our board proceeds with spending 8 million plus dollars.
Nola, could you get rid of the pavilion, the garden and the sand volleyball and fit a playground there?
If you don’t have an indoor gym to handle PE and recess when it’s raining, you need to have a pavilion. The term “pavilion” is gorgeous–sounds like an ancient wood structure in a Japanese garden–but in the case of schools, it’s an attractive roof over a concrete slab so that PE can occur during inclement weather.
I’m sure everyone’s input here is driven by a desire for the best accommodations for the kids, but I’d offer that the amount of land is less important than what is done with it.
Why is there an assumption that the 50 space parking lot on the south side of the property has to be a given when there are 50 on-street spaces immediately adjacent? If parking for faculty and guests can be accommodated with existing infrastructure, why the lot? Removing it leaves additional recreational space that could easily be used to address playground concerns.
I don’t necessarily think it’s intentional, but I’m getting a strong suggestion here that bigger is somehow synonymous with better. But take a look around Decatur and you’ll see all kinds of examples that disprove this assumption. If hard choices have to be made (and they may or may not in this instance), my opinion is that quality of design trumps quantity of space, in the same way that I’d prefer a great teacher in a smaller classroom over an average teacher in spacious digs.
I’m not a bigger is better advocate and hate the fact that the State rewards big anonymous schools with funding. However, isn’t the whole reason to build a new 4/5 Academy so that there’s more space to handle the increased enrollment? If there’s not substantial more space compared to Glennwood, why are we building instead of some other solution to overenrollment? Sounds like there wouldn’t be a lot of room to put trailers if the inside space isn’t adequate.
I agree with what you’re saying….basically it seems like a lot of this is less the architecture and more the site planning. Like you said…is all that parking necessary? Is there some other way to accomodate the busses? Is there space on the property that is being underutilized ie the corner? could that storwater pond, if that’s what it is, be an educational opportunity to learn about bio diversity etc…? so its not jsut a dead space.
Any one else think the elevation looks like it should be in Colorado or out west somewhere…or just me. I’m not saying I dont like it…its fine, just looks like Telluride or something.
A Western look sounds good to me. This could be Telluride, instead of Berkeley, meets Mayberry!
Site planning is critical for having a developmentally appropriate playground. But there’s still the issue of the inside of the building–is there substantially more space than what’s at Glennwood which has ?four? trailer classrooms right now? Isn’t that the underlying reason for building a new school so that we handle our current enrollment plus a little bit of wiggle room? I don’t think blueprint level is needed right now with all the doors drawn in, toilets, sinks, and all but is there a list of all the interior rooms that can be accomodated in the current plans, e.g. something like:
– 18 (or whatever is projected that is needed) classrooms that meet state size requirements and with standard equipment, e.g. sink
– One classroom equipped to meet needs of severely intellectually and emotionally challenged children (special bathrooms, physical care equipment, etc.)
– One larger classroom with science lab capabilities
– One larger classroom with art capabilities/kiln etc.
– One music and band room
— Small in school suspension classroom
– Classroom with computer lab (or build extra space into classrooms)
– Cafeteria
– Media center
– Indoor auditorium with stage
– Four storerooms,
– One teacher lounge and mailroom
– Two copier/workrooms
– Reception area with three administrator offices
– X number of small offices for Spanish/Links/ESS teachers
– Nurse’s office
– X number of student bathrooms
– X number of adult bathrooms
This is a made-up list but I hope that a real list is being reviewed by the Glennwood School Leadership Team. It would be reassuring for all to see soon.
Thanks for asking the questions. It further illustrates that the design process is at the beginning stages. No where near ready to sign contracts and proceed with construction. Which is what the board intends to do asap.
I am not the school site designer. You can do all kinds of things, none of which will make much needed land appear out of thin air. I don’t mean to sound sarcastic. I am very serious about this. Glennwood is 4.13 acres. Following is another piece of info I have presented to the board:
The fifth avenue site is .51 acres (22, 216 sf) smaller than the current Glennwood Academy site. For most people this does not mean much. If you need a visual I have one. I went to the City of Decatur building department and scaled the size Glennwood Academy’s parking lot from the construction documents. Glennwoood’s current parking lot, not including any driveways or bus lanes, etc. is +/- 25,000 sf. That is the visual picture of the land area missing from the Fifth Avenue site as compared to Glennwood.
There are a couple of design flaws that can be remedied by turning the building so that it fronts Oakview. You can turn the building by moving the media center to the volley ball court and keeping the covered pavillion where it currently is.
This gets rid of the 2-by-2 bus stacking which is not safe for elementary students no matter that there is a sidewalk between the buses.
Then the buses get routed single file behind the building in an 3/4 oval with a covered sidewalk where students line up for buses. The teacher parking is in the inside of the oval. If 5th avenue is a through street, buses can turn right out of the parking lot down 5th avenue to prevent bus/car traffic jams.
Parent pick up and drop off occurs in the front of the building with additional parking spaces also at the front of the building, most significantly the handicap spaces which shouldn’t be so far away from the building. Various things like the bike rack and delivery area can all fit in the in-between spaces.
By turning the school you add significantly to the playground space, creating about 50,000 square feet which is over an acre, plus you have additional space for the pavillion, 4-square court, swings, play structure & basketball court.
I’m not an architect but I did cut out all of the pieces, turn the building and put them all back in
In truth, I think the outdoor space can be remedied, but we still don’t know anything about the contents of the building. Begging to differ from Scott, this isn’t about putting teachers and students into a small space. This is about creating a state-of-the-art facility.
I love it! You actually cut out the pieces and re-arranged them! I think CSD owes Decatur Metro some consulting fees. Look at all this free help they are getting!
Rachel, you need to bring that to a school board or Glennwood SLT meeting – with visuals. Could you do that?
I agree and can you go with her? One can feel like a lone, lonely voice in the wilderness going to the Board or CSD by oneself. A group of parents, from various parts of Decatur and school levels, is more persuasive.
If enough of us from this blog went, we wouldn’t even have to give away our identities, although of course Nelliebelle would be the really hot, hot mother (see Santa thread).
If Decatur Metro can receive a .pdf, he can post it here. He can let me know if he wants it. Now mind you, I am glue challenged and have horrible handwriting and did this in about 10 minutes so I didn’t make the bus lane round at the top which it should be or fine tune the parking but you’ll get the idea.
Here you go Rachel.
http://www.decaturmetro.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/5th-avenue-turned.pdf
I haven’t been too involved and I gave a pretty quick read through this – but my net takeaway is confused. Why on earth do we want to build a new school if it won’t offer any more space than Glenwood – when the issue was overcrowding at Glenwood?
It looks like this plan has 24 classrooms, assuming there are 12 on each floor. I seem to recall that there are 14 classrooms at Glenwood, at least that’s what the reconfiguration committee was told. So 10 additional classrooms is what we get.
Functionally, Glennwood must have at least 17 regular classrooms because that’s how many classes of kids exist this year according to the website. But we know that several of those classrooms are trailer classrooms–I think four. So it sounds like any 4/5 Academy, wherever it is put, needs ~17-18 classrooms to have sufficient space for good student/teacher ratios given current enrollment. If we are worried about enrollment increasing, and there’s at least one big bubble of and extra ?60? kids/year heading Glennwood’s way soon, then one has to plan for an extra ?120? kids which is another 5-6 classrooms, or a total of 22-24 classrooms. So we’ve used up the classroom space right there. Then there’s all the other spaces people have enumerated on this blog that Glennwood is squeezing in somewhere–a room for severely intellectually challenged (who often have special equipment and sanitary needs), room for ESS and Links instruction, nurse’s office, in-school suspension room, teacher lounge and mailroom, ?3?administrator offices (principal, asst. principal, and IB coordinator/instructional coach), shared offices for counselors, Links teachers, ESS teachers, Spanish teachers, art and music teachers, reception area with space for secretary, work/copier rooms, storage rooms. If space isn’t already dedicated to those rooms (and it may be, I just can’t tell from the sketches), then that will come out of the classroom space which will cut into the 24 rooms pretty quickly. That’s why more detailed sketches are needed to tell the whole story of whether there’s enough space inside.
I recall several comments from Garrett Goebel that within a year or two of opening Fifth Avenue, we will be putting trailers over there to accommodate the enrollment swells down the pike. (Metro, can’t you do a comments search?) Garrett saw this months ago! And with the site actually being far smaller than anticipated, the trailers will go in even quicker.
I am worried mostly because of the crappy job CSD did when it predicted enrollment and closed the Westchester and Fifth Ave. to begin with!
24 classrooms is probably okay assuming we _never_ see higher enrollments than are currently projected out to 2012. In 2013, the same CSD methodology projects just enough students to require a 25th classroom. (If we stick to a 25 students per classroom maximum.)
We have to go back more than 25 years to see higher historical enrollments. If we down play the enrollment projections… If we assume the numbers are inflated… If we can assume Decatur’s 0-18 year old population density will remain the same… Then 5th Avenue may be adequately sized. If not, it may need a few extra classrooms.
There are reasons to believe that the long term trend may be higher still. Annexation, new construction at Devry, and redevelopment of Allen Willson etc. may add to those enrollment trends. If we go above 300 students per grade, then 5th Avenue with 24 classrooms will be too small.
So the question comes down to whether or not 5th Avenue as designed is maxed out, or whether it has the available space and was designed with the flexibility for future additions in mind. I don’t know. The conceptual plans look like the architects have done a great job with the space they have available. If we can add on to the media center and cafeteria. And if the construction takes into account the possibility of adding up to 2 bathrooms and 4 classrooms (up or out)… then the 5th Avenue plans may be good enough.
I won’t re-iterate all the other great comments by other posters about what else is missing, or what would make it a state of the art facility. -I like the conceptual drawings, but I suspect 5th Avenue as designed will be maxed out on opening day.
While I would want separate rooms for music, art, music, science, and Spanish, I would not add them to the total classroom count. I _would_ recommend the plans specify classrooms which meet those requirements. But it would be prudent to economize by using them as regular classrooms during high enrollments years. In the last 25 years, a 4/5 Academy has a peak need of 18 classrooms. If we are in a bubble, then as we drop back toward “normal” levels, 5th Avenue can have art, music, science, and Spanish rooms.
One thing others have failed to mention: I noticed that the plans have 2 bathrooms (boys and girls) for 12 classrooms. The requirements put forth in the reconfiguration committee specified 2 bathrooms for every 4 classrooms. I’m not sure if the detailed plans already include enough bathrooms… They may be on the 2nd floor or under the “roof below”.
I have a 3rd grader in a trailer at Clairemont. And my 1st grader will likely be in a trailer before 5th Avenue is completed. That being the case, I think it is more important that the new 4/5 Academy be done right, than that it be done quickly. I will repeat the sentiments of others in suggesting that the earlier community review and feedback is incorporated into the plans… the better the outcome will be.
I continue to recommend that our superintendent and board members consider the opportunity presented by the redevelopment of Beacon Hill / Ebster / Allen Wilson. I hope board members and city commissioners will individually or formally reach out to each other on this issue. -The process would be longer and require unprecedented coordination and cooperation between city and schools. But it would also provide the opportunity for:
o more space
o a great central location
o long term transportation savings
o neighboring park, playground, field
o shared facilities/costs between city and schools: gym, auditorium, pool, parking, etc.
o save a school of historic significance (Ebster)
(I might even go so far as to recommend renaming the new Ebster school after a past mayor and local Decatur civil rights leader.)
The superintendent and board may feel that they are under overwhelming pressure to provide a solution ASAP. -I want them to know that I will support them if they choose to slow down the process. -Whether that is simply to provide more time to incorporate community feedback on 5th Avenue, or to explore the Ebster opportunity.
I like that: The Wilson 4/5 Academy to honor Elizabeth Wilson. If I’m not wrong, her family or her husband’s were part of the Beacon Hill community at some point in history. It would bring things full circle.
By the way, does anyone know the history of Allen Wilson, the minister that Allen Wilson Terrace was named after? I’d love to know it.
Politics.
Where are the bio retention, water quality and detention ponds? Other than the one shown at the corner of Oakview and Fifth? Boy, those things can take up alot of space!
See the following links about some (typically) exciting stuff they have done with stormwater at a school in Portland…
http://asla.org/awards/2007/07winners/517_nna.html
http://www.greeninfrastructurewiki.com/page/Mount+Tabor+Middle+School
http://www.artfulrainwaterdesign.net/projects/
It doesn’t have to be a detention pond. They do take up space, but why not make it so the water is a function of the environment instead of going in a hole in the ground? Just make sure the design team has a landscape architect (renderings look like they do) and hopefully they can provide that concept. As for the playground, can’t the City Park get renovated to contain one? Looks big enough for a play structure to me. As for parking, keep in mind a space is usually 9×18 and a full parking lot bay is 60 feet wide (18-24 [two way traffic]-18), so thats why it seems so big. Also, push for that parking lot to be pervious concrete. Less water runoff, and only a bit more expensive, maybe a buck more a square foot. (see East Atlanta Library to see pervious concrete in action)
Did I miss something or has this decision been vetted over and over again? Is crossing the tracks that difficult?
Hack,
5th Avenue has been examined and evaluated _once_ by the Reconfiguration Committee. This recommendation was accepted by the Superintendent and approved by the Board.
The Reconfiguration Committee did not look at or evaluate site feasibility to the level of detail which is happening on Decatur Metro. My memory is that the site feasibility discussions were limited to anecdotal opinions on transportation, land size, flood plains, impact on neighboring community, and feasibility of construction. Only the feasibility of construction was informed by expert opinions. Note however, that the School’s experts and the City’s did not agree. -The 13 options reflect the Schools’ opinion on where additions could occur. They were not revised or improved to take into account the City’s more flexible views.
The Committee was told that the Glennwood site was too small. We have since learned that the 5th Avenue site is 1/2 acre smaller than Glennwood. CSD is on record as having gotten the size wrong. They have revised their original assumption of 5 acres down to 3.65. The Committee made a decision given incorrect information and assumptions. Is a site being 30% smaller than originally thought worth slowing the process down and re-evaluating it?
Also remember that Option #13 wasn’t just about the choice of site for a new facility. It was also about our system’s grade configuration. In effect, the Reconfiguration Committee was asked to juggle 14 factors when analyzing 13 options. Check out the Pairwise Comparison in the Reconfiguration folder at https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/ViewDocs.aspx?S=4052
The difficulty inherent in doing this, is that the 13 options conflated many of these factors so that we were unable to make separate decisions on grade configuration, site feasibility, and where to put how many classrooms. The 13 options presented were packaged as a done deal. Attempts by Reconfiguration Committee members to modify, combine, or improve the options were effectively denied in the interest of time and reaching a decision.
If it weren’t for the Beacon Hill / Ebster opportunity presented by the City’s January Master Planning process… Then the current debate wouldn’t be about considering other sites. It would simply be about getting the best outcome possible at the 5th Avenue site.
Obviously many people here seem to think there are enough questions to justify slowing the process down to incorporate wider community feedback. Are these voices representative of wide-spread community sentiment?
Is a good enough short-term solution ASAP more important than a better long-term solution a day late? Is 5th Avenue a train wreck waiting to happen? Or would slowing down cause a train wreck when an estimated 570 students needing 23 classrooms arrive at the Glennwood for the first day of school in the 2012-2013 school year?
These are all judgment calls for our superintendent and board members.
I applaud our community members and Decatur Metro for providing a forum for constructive and insightful critique. I hope it will continue and have a positive contribution to the final outcome. I trust that the more informed our superintendent and board are, the better their decisions will be.
Wow, I’ve just got so many comments on this I don’t know where to start!
First, the classroom needs for this year at Glennwood are 17 plus about 3 more for Art,Links & ESS. Music and Band are conducted in the auditorium and Spanish is in the classroom. So that’s a total of 20. I’m not sure what the 1st grade enrollment is at CL & WP, but at Oakhurst we have 100 kids. If each of the schools has about the same, then on day one of 5th Ave opening (with the current 1st grade in 4th) we would need *at least* 18 classrooms plus the 3 specials. (I don’t know the actual enrollment for 1st & 2nd grade district wide, so I’m just speculating here). As Garret says, that puts us at capacity the first year. With no room for “learning cottages”, where does that put us?
Second, I’m really disgruntled about the lack of playground equipment. This really needs to be addressed. And quickly. The volleyball area can only accommodate 4 or so kids at a time. Frankly, though, the real problem here is that not all kids are the athletic type that are interested in volleyball, basketball or even just tag. What do they do during recess? I sincerely hope this isn’t a movement toward no recess.
Regarding the garden area, this is going to be a required space when the Farm to School program gets up and running. Each school will have to grow a certain amount of food in order to have the program. I wouldn’t want to eliminate this program because of space problems. The garden needs to be included.
I agree with the others here that this process needs to be thoroughly vetted and lots of eyes put on the plans to find the weaknesses. They should be addressed *before* ground is broken, not when its too late. I think the School Board should recognize that critiquing plans is not the same as criticizing. The more critiquing that goes on before the plans are finalized, the better our final product will be. That being said, it doesn’t mean that all of the concerns are going to be fixed, but that they should all be addressed.
I thought 5th Ave was supposed to open for the 2010-2011 school year, which would mean current 2nd graders would be the first 4th grade class at 5A.
Currently at Winnona Park:
Kindergarten: 95
1st grade: 95
2nd grade: 83
3rd grade: 82
Right, and the current 3rd graders would be the first 5th grade class. At Clairemont, the bubble starts even earlier, at 3rd grade. As far as I know, the bubble hasn’t burst yet there. So it’s critical that a brand, new school have adequate capacity and a little to spare in case the bubble is still growing.
minor point, but isn’t the 2010-2011 school year next year? So, current 2nd graders would be in 3rd grade, and current 3rd graders would be in 4th grade? Or maybe you meant to say the school will open for the 2011-2012 school year?
Either way, I am confused now on when the school is supposed to open!
Yes, sorry, it’s supposed to open for the 2011-2012 year. So current 2nd graders will be in 4th grade when it opens.
My understanding is that one reason that play equipment is not currently included in the 5th Avenue plans is that the current equipment at Glennwood has been considered dangerous b/c the older kids are too “rough” on it. Does anyone have contacts for more age appropriate play equipment? I am thinking of the stuff that you see at the park in Atlanta across from Inman Middle School and in the parks on Ponce near Paiedia (sp?) and in Inman Park. Does anyone know who makes that or who designed those playgrounds?
I’m interested in looking into finding a solution that eases the concern of some of our admins while at the same time providing play equipment/opportunities for those kids who aren’t comfortable playing team sports or tag at recess. I’d like to see our outdoor spaces at 5th Avenue be inclusive and accessible to a wide range of children rather than just the ones who like team sports and related activities.
Something isn’t adding up here. Brand new play equipment at Glennwood was added in 2004 after it went from being a K-5 to a 4/5 Academy. So that equipment should have been age appropriate. If not, why not? Now, I know the trailers forced the playground to go down to the “bottom level” (down the steep stairs) of the lot. Maybe not all the equipment or the wrong equipment went down? Either way, new age-appropriate equipment needs to be installed at Fifth Avenue because Glennwood should probably keep some of its current playground equipment when it goes back to a K-3.
The way to handle rough play on playground equipment is to properly discipline the children who are playing rough, not punish all of them by not having it. These kids are only 9 years old when they arrive at Glennwood.
I’ll make one exception to that comment above–the round-a-bout, whirligig thingamajiggy isn’t safe for any age group. They sure are fun but I’m surprised that a school would have one. No matter what size of the children, someone is always falling off and getting hit in the head.
My thoughts exactly karass-
However, as it stands.. .there is no plan for play equipment or a space for a playground at 5th Avenue with the reasoning being that play equipment is dangerous.. or at least the existing play equipment at GW is dangerous.
It is my hope that a compromise can be reached by coming up with a plan for play equipment that is well suited /safe for older elementary children – a win/win so to speak. I also hope that money can be found within the 8 million planned for the 5th Avenue/Renfroe site to pay for play equipment at 5th.
Note to self: Go over to Glennwood and see what equipment is supposedly so dangerous for “rough” 9-11 year olds. I have been there a bunch and can’t think of what, with the exception of the roundabout/whirligig thingamajiggy.
Maybe there is a perfectly good explanation as to why 9-11 year olds should not be provided with a traditional playground and age-appropriate equipment but the evidence-based rationale should be shared so all understand. The National Program for Playground Safety (www.playgroundsafety.org)which is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Injury Prevention has tons of info and recommendations on their website. Their position in short is:
“School playgrounds are more than places for children to burn off excess energy. They are places where children can develop physically, emotionally, socially, and intellectually. School playgrounds should be outdoor learning environments where children can have fun!”
A good reference is the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s “Public Playground Safety Handbook” which is intended for “childcare personnel, school officials, parks and recreation personnel, equipment purchasers and installers, playground designers, and any other members of the general public (e.g., parents and school groups) concerned with public playground safety and interested in evaluating their respective playgrounds.” It lists the following as appropriate for elementary age children (aged 5-12 years):
• Arch climbers
• Chain or cable walks
• Free standing climbing events with flexible parts
• Fulcrum seesaws
• Ladders – Horizontal, Rung, & Step
• Overhead rings
• Merry-go-rounds
• Ramps
• Ring treks
• Slides
• Spiral slides more than one 360° turn
• Stairways
• Swings – belt & rotating tire
• Track rides
• Vertical sliding poles
While I think that an open field and volleyball area addresses some of the above, I think more is needed.
I know we’ve been through this before and some disagree, but my fondest playground memories at that age involved the kid-propelled roundabout thing and, according to my Glennwood daughter, it continues to be a true source of awesomeness.
Yes, someone could be hurt, but that’s true of just about everything. I guess my feeling is that there’s also value in letting kids “live on the edge” of their safety zone from time to time.
Save the roundabout thingy!
Oh okay. We can keep the roundabout thingy especially now that I see that the National Program for Playground Safety feels it’s age appropriate although they call it the much more benign “merry-go-round”. But I’ll bet it’s this thingy that’s got the CSD staff all hot on saying the equipment is too dangerous for those “rough” 9-11 year olds. I’ve seen kids whip around it like they’re trying to propel their little selves into hyper-orbit. Hey–that’s how we could get northside kids over to Fifth Avenue without being late for work–propel them off the spinny thingy at Glennwood across the mere two miles of Decatur space and land them into the garden at Fifth Avenue. They’ll be tired enough that they won’t need a real playground. But what about the southside kids? How will they get age appropriate exercise?
No dangerous play equipment?! But that’s the best kind!
Seriously. It’s frankly stupid not to have play equipment for 9 and 10 year olds. Volleyball and a garden but no play equipment? Stupid. And I am one of those who’d like to see 5th Avenue move forward.
I played volleyball as a teenager and it is actually a pretty rough sport. And team sports like soccer…anyone who has had a kid play soccer knows that kids get hurt all the time on the soccer field… especially by the time they are 9-11 years old.
Now that I think about it, a heavy textbook or sharpened pencil used improperly could kill someone. I hope that they will ban such potentially dangerous objects from 5th Avenue. If they can’t control kids on the play equipment… they can’t control them with sharp objects like pencils either. A kid can get killed or badly injured on a stairway if some out of control child pushes them down the stairs so I hope that they will exclude those hazardous stairs too. Hmmm… then there’s the bathrooms… There is enough water in those toilets to drown a child if some bully comes along and decides it’s time for a prolonged swirly. Even the thought of having a potential drowning hazard like that scares me to death. Also… the sand on the “sand volleyball court,” surely has to go because it’s only a matter of time before a child throws sand in another child’s eyes. Plus they’ll all get worms there anyway because it will be little more than a giant litter box.
It blows my mind that CSD encourages 9-year-olds to walk or bike through a busy urban area teeming with speeding fools on cell phones to get to school each morning and afternoon, but they won’t let them have a playground! Really?