Residents Concerned About 5th Avenue Academy Circulate Letter to CSD
Decatur Metro | December 18, 2009In an effort to urge CSD to reevaluate the decision to renovate 5th Avenue Elementary as the city of Decatur’s new 4/5 Academy, a group of residents is circulating an email with a lengthy letter detailing their concerns. Recipients of the email are urged to “sign” the note, which will be sent to the City of Decatur schools administration today.
The full letter can be read after the jump.
As of this posting, City of Decatur schools administration have not responded to requests by DM regarding this email or the 5th Avenue acreage issue.
Dear Signers,
This is the email that you can start sending out to whoever you think might be interested and/or consider signing. If you send your own personal intro as well as the formal intro, please remind people that if they want to sign on to the letter they need to send their name and address to Lisa Coronado Mauldin at or to Don Calder at , not to you. This letter is for all Decatur citizens, and all may sign it. Thanks so much for signing on first, and thanks in advance for your aid in forwarding this email on to others!
Lisa Coronado Mauldin
Dear Fellow Decatur Citizens:
As you may be aware, City Schools of Decatur (CSD) is preparing to execute contracts and break ground for construction of a new 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue. (The location is at the intersection of Oakview and Fifth Ave.) Recently, a site survey established that the size of the Fifth Avenue site is significantly smaller than the site at Glennwood Academy. This calls into question whether a 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue will represent a substantial and lasting improvement over Glennwood, especially when CSD is planning to spend $8M on construction.
Please consider reading and signing the attached letter, which asks CSD’s superintendent (Dr. Phyllis Edwards) and school board to pause for a review and reconsideration of its plans to construct the new 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue. This is an extremely urgent matter because the superintendent is on the verge of signing construction contracts, assuming she has not done so already, and we hope to hand-deliver the letter to CSD’s superintendent and board members sometime Friday, December 18.
Please understand: We are not interested in being obstructionists or agitators; we want to be part of the solution to CSD’s problems. We are trying to ensure that CSD’s new 4/5 Academy, wherever it may be, solves the overcrowding problems at Glennwood in the best and most lasting way. CSD’s board currently is planning to put the largest group of elementary school students (all fourth- and fifth-graders) on the second smallest elementary school site in our system, potentially at the expense of the open/play spaces that children need. Many people have sent e-mails to the board regarding these concerns, all of which have gone unanswered, so we feel compelled to take a more formal approach.
If you’re willing to support our efforts by signing the attached letter, send your name and address directly to Lisa Coronado Mauldin at or Don Calder at . (For the sake of people’s privacy, we cannot add names passed on to us by friends, neighbors or other third parties.) As you will see in the attached letter, many folks already have signed on. “Signatures” received by 10:00 a.m. on Friday, Dec 18, will be included in the letter delivered later that day. Any signatures received after the designated time will be forwarded to the letter’s recipients in a separate e-mail. Please feel free to e-mail either of us, of course, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Lisa Coronado Mauldin
Don Calder
Following is the text of the attached letter:
December 18, 2009
Dear CSD Board and Dr. Edwards:
We represent a group of Decatur parents who share concerns about the proposed 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue. Although delivery of this letter may seem unconventional, the impending execution of legal documents regarding construction at the Fifth Avenue site compelled an immediate and formal statement of our concerns, a reasoned response to your public comments, and notice to you that we are working vigorously to inform and engage the broader community in refuting misconceptions about the Fifth Avenue site. Please note that we address you with the utmost appreciation and respect. We value the tireless efforts that CSD’s Central Office and you contributed to the most recent reconfiguration process. One key fact was not part of that process, however: Fifth Avenue’s site limitations were not considered, and these limitations make it unlikely that a 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue will represent a significant and lasting improvement over Glennwood Academy (Glennwood).
It is our sincere hope that the Board will: (1) immediately defer the execution of any unsigned contracts regarding construction at the Fifth Avenue site; (2) reinstate the reconfiguration process to determine whether the Fifth Avenue site represents a significant and lasting improvement over Glennwood; and (3) undertake a thorough review to consider which site(s) and designs can viably accommodate the ‘state of the art’ 4/5 Academy that the community has been promised, and which best meets the needs of our students. We are gravely concerned that the Fifth Avenue site is too small to accommodate a 4/5 Academy with substantially improved (or even adequate) instructional and outdoor spaces, plus provide the necessary flexibility and expandability for future increases in enrollment.
Our concerns regarding the Fifth Avenue site are as follows:
I. The Fifth Avenue site is significantly smaller than the existing site at Glennwood.
There is no denying that size is a critical factor to be considered when selecting a site for the new 4/5 Academy. There is also no denying that the reconfiguration process did not properly account for the size of the Fifth Avenue site. One of the “pluses” published for the Fifth Avenue site (Option 13) was its being “a big lot.” The Fifth Avenue site, in fact, is neither a big lot nor among the largest lots held by CSD, the sizes of which are as follows:
*Westchester +/- 6.4 acres
*Winnona Park +/- 6.1 acres
*Clairemont +/- 4.34 acres
*Glennwood +/- 4.13 acres
*Oakhurst +/- 2.65 acres (plus 1.13 adjacent acres at Mead Rd Park)
*Fifth Avenue +/- 3.62 acres
When considering financing options, furthermore, CSD assumed the site was 5 acres. A recent survey established that the Fifth Avenue site is actually one-half acre smaller than Glennwood’s, at 3.62 acres. Now that we know the publicity and assumptions regarding Fifth Avenue’s site were incorrect, the site’s actual size and limitations must be reviewed and reconsidered, regardless of any delay or disruption of construction at Fifth Avenue.
II. The reconfiguration process should be reinstated to properly account for site limitations at Fifth Avenue.
We understand that reinstating the reconfiguration process may seem unduly burdensome and time-consuming, but it need not be so. The 13 options previously considered have been thoroughly vetted. Many of the options have been wholly rejected, and others need only be reconsidered in light of newly-surveyed limitations of the Fifth Avenue site. Any new options could be subjected to fairly intense, quick analysis. In the end, the interests of the Board, CSD, students and the community will be best served by a thorough review of the Fifth Avenue site, as well as its alternatives, based on complete and correct information.
III. A formal review will produce a more efficient and effective design for a 4/5 Academy.
The design process is a critical component of planning for a new school building. You have pledged to create a ‘state of the art’ 4/5 Academy, yet it seems the design process is being short-circuited to rush completion of the 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue for the 2011-12 school year. Please slow down. Design decisions regarding the 4/5 Academy will affect the facility and Decatur for decades to come, and they should not be rushed for the sake of short-term imperatives. Let’s be clear: the community expects the new 4/5 Academy to be a significant and lasting improvement over Glennwood, given the enormous cost of building at the Fifth Avenue site.
The programming needs of the new 4/5 Academy should be established in consultation with more stakeholders, namely parents, teachers, and concerned professionals in the community who have experience in school planning and construction. This would likely produce a school design and construction plan that will be both less disruptive and possibly less expensive in the long run. Following this process may allow us to avoid repeating what has occurred at both Winnona Park and Clairemont during the past ten years (i.e., the need for trailers after repeated and costly renovations to both schools).
Please resist any perceived urgency to execute a plan now. During the last Board meeting, the design/build team made clear that they are operating under a very tight deadline: their estimated completion date already is very near the start of the 2011-12 school year. Dr. Edwards and several board members tied the fate of much-needed improvements at Renfroe Middle School to the fate of the 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue: it seems some proceeds of borrowing against the Fifth Avenue site can be spent at Renfroe. These assertions, however accurate or laudable they may be, should not cause you to abdicate your (or the community’s) role in ensuring that the site and design of the new 4/5 Academy are the best possible, and that they provide significant and lasting improvements over Glennwood. Rushing through a design/build process would represent just such an abdication: by starting construction of the 4/5 Academy without a thorough, balanced, full and formal review of its design, every constructed element of the Academy will reduce future design choices.
IV. CSD’s concerns about increasing enrollment will not be addressed by the Fifth Avenue site.
Unforeseen increases in CSD’s enrollment have exceeded the capacity at Glennwood, and there are many reasons to expect future growth, including: the return of families displaced by DHA construction; the City’s Avondale/LCI residential development; the City’s mixed-use, residential plans for the former DeVry campus; and the City’s plans to reconsider annexation options within a year or so. A 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue, which would occupy a smaller site than Glennwood, may provide relatively little or no flexibility in responding to future increases in enrollment. As we have seen, flexibility is sorely lacking at Glennwood, and it is fair to say the community expects to see more flexibility and expandability from a new, very expensive 4/5 Academy. How can these expectations be satisfied on a smaller site than Glennwood occupies? How will the community respond if, within just a few years, enrollment increases push beyond the capacity of a 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue? Will the community accept increased class sizes, trailers and/or elimination of non-classroom space (i.e., ‘state of the art’ science labs, art rooms, music rooms)? There needs to be a meaningful discussion of these issues before construction begins at Fifth Avenue.
V. The community is only beginning to understand the actual consequences of building the 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue.
As indicated by recent activity in local community blogs, it is reasonable to assume that others will raise serious concerns when it becomes more widely known that the Fifth Avenue site is substantially smaller than Glennwood’s. Construction at Fifth Avenue will affect every elementary school student. The community has high expectations of the new 4/5 Academy, and of you. The key to satisfying these expectations, in our view, is pausing to review and reconsider the choice to construct the 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue.
In closing, we sincerely hope you initiate the necessary review and reconsideration of constructing the 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue. The Board has the authority and resources to get all stakeholders working together, and it will gain credibility by acknowledging that we must revisit the assumption that a 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue would be a significant and lasting improvement over Glennwood. Pausing for review and reconsideration will not be easy, of course. Some parents, understandably, will be upset by any undue delay which puts their child in a trailer, but building a new 4/5 Academy that represents a substantial and lasting improvement over Glennwood is our foremost goal. In the end, how could anyone reasonably criticize the Board for being forward-thinking, and considering every possibility for building the most effective and most expandable 4/5 Academy for our current and future students?
We look forward to your response, and request that you direct it to Lisa Coronado Mauldin and Don Calder at your earliest convenience before December 24. Time is of the essence. It appears Dr. Edwards is on the verge of executing contracts for construction at the Fifth Avenue site, assuming she has not done so already. Starting construction without an open and inclusive reconsideration of Fifth Avenue’s site limitations, unfortunately, may foment a great deal of confusion and frustration in the community.
Latest from Decaturish
Thanks for posting DM!
19 signers, 16 from the northside.
If you think that this “size” debete is really about a concern about a half and acre, you are kidding yourselves.
Regardless of the motivation of the principals, I’d like for someone in a position of authority to respond to the smaller acreage debate. If the lot size really was a red herring, taken up by a bunch of northside yupsters with fears of southern Oakhurst and a hatred of mile and a half bike rides, then it should easily be explained away. “The smaller lot size is still suitable because…”
I don’t have an opinion on this issue currently, but the longer we don’t hear anything from CSD the more curious I become.
Two points Pete. First it’s 1.38 acres difference not .5 acres. Second, I am going to assume from your post that you believe that the folks who are concerned about rightsizing 5th Avenue are voicing their opinion because they are prejudiced and do not want to come to the “south side.” Keep in mind that most of the people who signed are in support of having the 4/5 at the old Beacon Hill site – right in the heart of the largest public/subsidized housing projects in Decatur. It seems to me that someone who was elitist would not be advocating to send their kids to a school where our most disadvantaged families live. One of the biggest arguments for locating at Beacon that I have heard from supporters is that it offers the easiest access to the largest number of potentially at risk children and their families. Locating the 4/5 as close as possible to our economically challenged families makes their involvement in their children’s school as convenient as possible and allows for a more inclusive learning environment.
5th Avenue is right across the street from a couple of DHA subsidized apartment complexes. However they are smaller than Swanton Heights and Allen Wilson, and they serve families who are somewhat better off financially.
Now, CSD has no property rights to Beacon, so absent CSD being approached about it by the City, it’s just not going to happen. However, I don’t think that there is a need to be so cynical. If we are going to be an inclusive city we need to be inclusive of everyone’s point of view, regardless of whether we agree with it. I choose to believe that people (parents, admins, teachers, … everyone) have good intentions unless they provide palpable evidence otherwise.
Great points.
Community involvement in the schools correlates with academic success.
I missed the last board meeting (delayed flight). Is it true that one of the reasons given against consideration of Ebster was the lack of residences in close proximity? Did someone actually say this? And if so, do you know who? Could they really have missed everyone in the DHA next door?
From what I’ve been told… It isn’t a question of CSD being approached by the City. The City has expressed that it is open to the conversation, but must first be approached by individual board members or the superintendent.
Pete – what is it about then? Just asking.
The size argument has only recently surfaced as a last ditch attempt to kill the project. Before, it was something else.
This is really a coalition (particularly after reading the names of the signers) about two issues:
(1) Northside parents who don’t want to cross the tracks and send their kids “way the hell down in South Decatur” (to paraphrase what was said on this blog by one of the ringleaders of the movement) to Fifth Avenue.
What about south Decatur parents who have been sending their kids all the way up to Glenwood for several years?
(2) Some Decatur residents who see all of the construction spending by the CSD over the last couple of years as excessive and they want to see all construction projects stopped. This was actually one of Rob Pope’s main campaign platforms.
So, “size” is this month’s stated reason, but you always need to look further than a party’s stated reasons and find out what is really motivating them.
The same people who are complaining about 5th Avenue’s size in the same breath want the 4/5 Academy to be at the old school on Trinity where the police station currently is …. a much, much smaller piece of property than 5th Ave, but it is on the northside. You make up your mind.
Robbie,
Every time someone phrases a question in terms of us and them… we’ve all lost.
When we moved into Decatur a few years back, we ended up on the North side because we couldn’t find a house in our price range around Oakhurst. All the houses we found in our range either had a tree fallen on them or a caved in basements.
Also, we are temporarily living South of Swanton Heights on Commerce. North of the tracks, but South side as far as voting districts go. I often make the >1 mile trek with my boys from school back home.
Walking isn’t a hang up. Nor is biking to 5th Avenue. It isn’t about race, class, or crossing the tracks. Those appear to be your issues…
What is motivating me is the long term interests of every child in our community. I want them to have the best possible education at the best possible schools. And I want the dollars we spend to give them the best possible bang for the buck.
Construction spending undercutting academics was an issue I ran on in the recent elections. I lost. It wasn’t about stopping construction spending. It was about how we’ve been cutting teacher and paraprofessional positions based on budget short falls in one year… Then transferring funds from the fund for teacher salaries into construction based on budget surpluses the following year. I’m all for construction spending if it meets our long term needs or achieves long term operational efficiencies.
So what is the question? Does the 5th Avenue site and planned construction resolve the enrollment capacity problem? Is it a flexible long term solution which maximizes operational efficiency?
What it is about is:
– the 5th Avenue site was selected based in part on incorrect data
(we were given to believe that it was 37% bigger)
– can we get what we need on 3.65 acres?
– does the site and plan provide flexibility for future growth and change?
– has the site plan been vetted by a community involved public process?
I frankly don’t get it. These seem like obvious and important questions. It isn’t like we have bottomless pocket books, endless time, or vast tracks of land with which to revisit these problems over and over and over again.
Let’s take the time necessary to do it right.
Let’s consider Ebster. It is an opportunity that is present for about 30 days. If the City is willing to work with the Schools, and the opportunity is a good one… it should be pursued. If not, we need to make sure we get things right at 5th Avenue. There is precious little margin for error given space restrictions at 5th Avenue.
I’m told that Marc Wisniewski mentioned something at a recent Board Meeting about whether or not we could continue planning for 5th Avenue while checking out the opportunity presented by Ebster. I think that is a great idea. The 5th Avenue plans should undergo community feedback while the opportunity presented by Ebster is evaluated.
No… Ebster wasn’t on the table at the Spring Reconfiguration Committee. You know what? 5th Avenue wasn’t on the table at the Fall Reconfiguration Committee meetings! When the Reconfiguration Committee reconvened in the Spring, and was given more detailed data on costs and requirements… It changed its mind and selected the new Option #13 for 4/5 @ 5th Avenue. The Reconfiguration Committee demonstrated a willingness to consider new and better solutions. Shouldn’t we?
Ebster _is_ on the North side. But it is central. And that translates into long term transportation savings. It neighbors a huge park and field. The city is beginning a Master Planning process focusing on it and neighboring blocks. The city can redraw property lines and grant title to its land as it sees fit. It also presents opportunities for shared usage and operational efficiencies on the use of park, field, playgrounds, pools, gym, auditoriums, and parking. This would require cooperation between the City and Schools on an unprecedented level. The recent work on a shared maintenance facility between City and Schools demonstrates that it can be done.
To add to Garrett’s comments on the central location of Ebster, I think it is important to know that CSD spends in the neighborhood of $600K on transportation. That is down from $800K last year. Quite a load of cash! With that kind of money, we could put paras back at Glennwood, add two days of Spanish back to the 4th & 5th grades, hire new teachers, etc etc.
Regarding the “ringleaders” of this movement, I think it is a shame that we are still fighting the Westchester battle. Or rather that we are still influenced by the discussions from that reconfiguration. I’d suggest that everyone take a look at the letter without considering who it comes from. I also hope the school board will do that. I chose to believe there are no ulterior motives until I’m proven wrong.
The number of signatures is probably not an indication of the number of folks who are in support of the approach suggested in the letter. I received a copy of this only yesterday and I believe that is close to the time when it went public.
I have some serious reservations about the 5th Ave plans as they stand. Two biggies are the cost of transporting kids to one far corner of the city (mind you, my child will be able to walk/bike about 4 blocks to get there) and the lack of playground equipment.
Additionally, I’m concerned that we are not preparing for the largest group of students possible and will max out the capacity of the building in short order. In enrollment predictions, I think it wise to pad the numbers by 10% or so to account for folks who move into our district for the wonderful schools we have. And wonderful, they are; make no mistake.
In a Decatur Metro Truism: the answer is Westchester, of course!
Seriously, though, the letter does bring up some legitimate issues that CSD should address. I believe most of the issues can be addressed at the 5th Avenue site, though.
I too would love issues with 5th Avenue addressed.
Ebster is a promising opportunity, but I fear it will not receive the consideration it deserves.
I think it’s unfortunate that Pete had to count up the signatures. That said, I think his observation is very telling and I’m glad he did it. I can’t imagine that this ‘issue’ would be so prevalent were it in a different location.
Not that I blame the northsiders – it can be a genuine pain in the a** to get across the tracks in the morning. And I apprecaite the well thought-out and rational approach they are taking to this issue (even though I support the current plan).
I’m pretty sure this isn’t a class issue as some might suggest, but really is more of a convenience issue that has become interwoven with multiple other CSD concerns. At least that’s my hunch.
Are you serious? I truly find your argument maddening, Pete. I am the one you like to paraphrase but you are taking my comment out of context. I have no problem sending my kids to school on the southside, and I think you are one of the [unfortunately loud and annoying] few who really think that is the motivation here. I moved into my house specifically for the Glennwood school, which was then pulled out from under me in the last reconfiguration. Since then, I have considered countless times whether or not we could afford to move to Oakhurst, because at least then we’d be in [easier] walking distance from most of the schools (the 4/5 would then be the only one we’d be really far away from). But the size of my family prohibits me from uprooting us simply because we can’t afford a house big enough. If only we could…I’d be one of the many southside supporters who is just as vocal about this letter.
Perhaps most of the signers are neighbors and that’s why they’re in close contact about this issue? Perhaps most of them go to the same elementary school so they share issues and complaints? There are many more signatures that have come in since this letter started circulating, and more than a few are southside residents. Trust me.
I maintain that you are the one who is being petty here. Stop obsessing about other people’s motives and look at the facts. The 5A site is too small and is not centrally located. A central location would be closer for everyone.
This has nothing to do with convenience. I’ve been going across the tracks to Winnona Park ever since 2005, and my only complaint has been that my own neighborhood school was taken away from me. And all northsiders cross the tracks to go to Renfroe.
Grow up.
I think your response pretty much validates my concerns about the motivations of the 5th Avenue opponents. Your concerns seem to be mostly about the fact that Glenwood was taken away as your neighborhood elementary school (the reason you moved to your current house) and the fact that 5th Ave is not centrally located. Just as the Westchester parents are motivated by similar reasons. The size of the property just seems to be an afterthough, and a pretext, for other concerns, particularly since the CSD’s site plan adequately accommodates everything.
You do not address that the current 4/5 Academy is just as not centrally located as 5th Avenue. Maybe it is more centrally located for people who live in the Glenwood area or Old Decatur, but that’s about it. For the many (and growing) southside parents, 5th Avenue as the City’s 4/5 Academy is very convenient.
Where is this ideally centrally located location for the 4/5 Academy that you speak of? It seems that the CSD initially wanted the Academy at a new building on the campus of Renfroe, that would have been more centrally located than anything, but this was loudly shot down by parents who were concerned (maybe rightfully so) about 4th and 5th graders being on the same campus as Jr. High students.
Many rely on the pipe dream of the Academy being at the old school on Trinity. But that property is not in the CSD’s hands, is currely being utilized by the police dept and the Beacon Hill artists studio. Show me that either party is willing to negotiate this, and whether it could be accomplished in 10 years, and maybe I’ll listen.
Actually Pete, the only move I’ll fully support is a return to neighborhood schools, which is REALLY the reason I moved here. Even though I’ve been told many, many times that will never happen, I don’t give up hope! I continually try to point out the negatives about dividing up our elementary students as much as possible. Too bad my intentions get so misconstrued.
I do not believe in the 4/5 academy model, period. So my ultimate motivation here is to put a stop to the construction at 5A, and then try to get the community to reconsider having a 4/5 at all. But instead of rehashing that here, it’s probably better if you just go back and read all my old posts. I think I’m pretty much the only K-5 flag still waving around here.
Ahh … you’re correct CSD Mom. I forgot (how could I?) to add to the list of pretext arguments the folks who do not believe in the 4/5 Academy at all and see this as an opportunity to end the program and go back to neighborhood K-5 schools. Thanks.
Return to neighborhood schools? While the CSD schools today are bigger than pre-closing of Westchester, you have a very weak argument that they’re not neighborhood schools. Go take a look at any public school system in metro Atlanta, and tell me how big each of those elementary schools are. Each will be bigger and drawing from a larger geographic area than Decatur schools. Heck, this whole city is four miles square.
I, for one, don’t want to see decisions made about school configuration that have to do with accommodating the children of certain neighborhoods who want to walk to school. That argument has come up before. In a perfect world, yes, it would be nice. But it’s not the ultimate consideration, in my opinion.
If you want to talk about a school that is a pain in the neck to get to, let’s talk Glennwood. My child went there two years, I loved the school and the principal. But it was incredibly difficult to get to. The bus to the school left an hour before school started, and even though MOST of the student body comes from west of the school (since the school is on the east side of town), there was no light that allowed you to turn into the parking lot. Not to mention limited parking.
> It seems that the CSD initially wanted the Academy at a
> new building on the campus of Renfroe,
This is incorrect.
You are right that CSD initially said that. However, the plans produced showed taking 10+ classrooms from Renfroe and adding a new wing to the building. CSD also talked about having a separate principle, etc. I.e. a school within a school. -But when the operational costs estimate data came out… The separate administration was lacking.
The devil is in the details. I’ll be happy with 4/5 at 5th Avenue if we can work out the details. Unfortunately, the details seem to keep getting revised.
I’ve lived in Decatur for 17 of the last 18 years and have never thought of our city in terms of “northside” and southside.” I always think of the different neighborhoods–MAK, Oakhurst, WP, Decatur Heights, etc. The first time I ever thought about being a “northsider” was in the last couple of weeks here on this blog.
Same here. Been in WP for 10.5 years and never knew/heard about the whole northside/southside thing.
You know, now that you mention it, I have been in Decatur for 17 of the last 20 years, and the first time I heard of the ns/ss thing was when a Agnes Scott classmate’s boyfriend (who lived in Inman Park not Decatur) expressed concern we were moving to the wrong side of the tracks on the ss!
Don’t you mean an “Agnes” classmate?
Sorry, just had to poke the bear.
I took medication. I am okay now.
Can I be a lion instead of a bear???
Yes, cupcake, you can be a lion if you wants to. I’ll even make sure your kibble is laced with…something to relax you, maybe some 10-Cane or some such.
Don’t make her angry. You wouldn’t like her when she’s an angry Aggie.
i think I live on the westside.
Ridiculous! Where were you all when they were voting, talking and deciding on this? The meetings were sparsely attended, and now that it is a done deal, you want to speak up. Absolutely ridiculous!
The news about the acreage came out about two weeks ago. The reconfiguration committee and the board and superintendent voted for and approved Option 13 without the right information about the acreage.
I, too, wondered about that, Rebecca. Whilst I don’t exactly have a dog in this fight, it was pointed out by Mr. Boykin some weeks ago that while approx. 70% of the taxpayers here in Decatur don’t have kids in CSD, their taxes do go to support them. So…it obviously should be a concern for everyone as to how the tax $$ are spent. Unless I’m just missing something, it’s my understanding that the size of the 5th Avenue parcel is a matter of public record, so I can’t quite buy into the notion that people just relied blindly upon CSD’s figures as to the precise acreage of the site. I have no reason to doubt that people care deeply about this issue, but really– where was all the back-upo research and input when this process was still being hammered out (i.e., when it might actually have made more of a difference)?
Buy it.
I was there. I fact checked and reproduced the enrollment projection methodologies. I went out and got historic data from other sources and produced my own projections. I looked at test data trying unsuccessfully to validate assumptions that 4/5 improved academic achievement.
I didn’t go down to the city and compare parcels. Sorry to let you down. I didn’t think to check it. To my knowledge nobody else did.
Why might I ask is it too late? If new data is uncovered which raises questions… If decisions were made based on false assumption… Why should that be ignored? Likewise if new and potentially better opportunities present themselves.
Simmer down, there, GG– I’m not saying it’s too late, just that this kind of concerted effort might have made more of a difference BEFORE the CSD selected the 5th Ave. site. And sorry, but despite your well-pled explanations, I’m not buying into the fact that the site information wasn’t publicly available for anyone who cared to go and look into it. I’m not saying that the folks who’re asking for reconsideration aren’t truly well-meaning, or that consideration of an alterntive site is a bad idea. Like Rebecca (and likely many others who’ve just not spoken), I was just wondering why this wasn’t looked into to this degree earlier. At the very least, this could serve as a good lesson in civics: no matter how good your local government is, it, too, can make mistakes, so maybe you’re better off not simply taking at face value future information it disseminates about similar spending projects.
Sorry. I am a bit frustrated. But I didn’t intend to come off that way.
I think the missing 1.35 acres was an honest mistake. We all make them. Which is why we need as many eyes as we can.
You did a much better job getting those points across.
Unless I’m just missing something, it’s my understanding that the size of the 5th Avenue parcel is a matter of public record, so I can’t quite buy into the notion that people just relied blindly upon CSD’s figures as to the precise acreage of the site.
Because this has NOTHING TO DO with the acerage of the 5th Ave site, Cubalibre. These folks lost an election (Pope vs. Wilson) that would have derailed the plans for 5th Ave, so they had to move to plan B. Plan B was to fight 5th Ave based on the acerage of the site, or any other reason they could get their hand on, even though, as you mentioned, that was public record all along. Their eyeballs were public record as well.
I agree with you Pete. Same folks on here that simply won’t give it a rest. Not that questioning decisions is totally a bad thing always, but these folks seem to dislike anything the school board or Dr. Edwards has done. They have heard all the discussions and made their decisions. If you can’t live with them, then I say you should move, or send your children to private schools. I do not hold a masters, nor did I run for the board. I trust these educated folks have the information to do their best planning and decision making for the benefit of our children and our community. Their reputations and jobs depend on doing the best they can. I am also tired of listening to the continued bemoaning from folks about what was done 5 years ago, get over it and move on people!
And there it is…the dreaded “if you don’t like it, you can move” argument.
Just giving you a good-natured hard time, Rebecca. No insult intended. Since I don’t really know the details of the reconfiguration, that’s about all I can add to this discussion.
Many good people did move after that reconfiguration previously. We survived. If folks would be part of supporting the system instead of fighting it, I think we’d all be better off. If you ever talk to folks who have kids in other systems, you will certainly see where ours (while flawed) is far, far superior.
I’m going to have to plead ignorance on this issue…but I would like to learn about what is happening. Where would you suggest I go to read a history of the school situation…
Land, you can actually backtrack through the tags above and see lots of stuff. Try reading DM’s “objective” posts then the comments!
BTW, Rumandlimes, baby, I don’t think it matters if you don’t have kids in a school system (or to run around screaming in restaurants). All Decatur residents should take interest in this and other local issues.
Land, clicking the “city schools of decatur” tag above is probably your best bet if you want to wade neck deep into this mucky debate.
Chapter 1:
Decatur reconfigures from a K-5 configuration to a K-3, 4-5, Middle School, High School model. This configuration proved very controversial to some because it resulted in the closure of schools based on ‘walkability.’
Chapter 2:
Decatur prospers. More families move in and place greater strain on the school system. The current 4-5 academy will prove too small to accommodate the increase in student population.
Chapter 3:
An exploratory begins with 13 options to choose from for addressing the increasing enrollment. A 4/5 at 5th ave. rises to the top and is approved by the school board.
Chapter 4:
Fifth Avenue is smaller by 1.38 acres. Let’s make sure we know it’s big enough before we proceed.
If you’re going to tell the whole story, don’t leave off the preface and the introduction. It was a far different Decatur in the years before reconfiguration.
ahhh….forgot about the tags…gracias.
thanks for the quick chapter analysis too!
Actually DM, not all the posts are tagged properly. The one with the plans in PDF are tagged “5th Avenue Elementary” and this one is “Fifth Avenue Elementary”. I’ve been trying to read up on all this for the last few months and I found it inconsistent with some posts. Thanks for the tags, in any case!
Eeek. Thanks Roo.
I guess I need to be more consistent with my tagging when dealing with Fifth Avenue (or 5th Avenue). In any case, it might take a bit more filtering on your part, but the “city schools of decatur” tag is a pretty old (and consistent) one and SHOULD hopefully give you most of what you need if you’re willing to do a bit of digging.
Also, you can always do a search of all posts in the upper right-hand corner of the page. It’s actually pretty good at giving you what you’re looking for. However, it only searches posts, not comments. (I wish I could provide that too)
Umm…it is about a half acre. Sweettea, where do you get 1.38 acres? Fuzzy math, unless you are talking about different schools and their lots. Glennwood = 4.13, Fifth Avenue = 3.62. 4.13 minus 3.62 equals 0.51. That’s about half in my world. And it adds up to about 15% percent size difference. The size of the lot is not all that matters, it is also important the use of the space–parking versus classrooms, outside class space, etc. In the letter, points I, III, IV, and V all relate to the size of the lot and whether or not the new school will be adequate for a growing city. As for point II, all I can say is wth? Seriously, we need to revisit that? We visited it plenty. It’s time to move on.
I, too, think this boils down to people not wanting to cross the tracks, not for any other reason but convenience (I’ll leave any assumptions about race and class out of the picture, I really don’t know how, if at all, that factors in). True, the residents on the so-called “northside” only have on K-3 and the 4/5 academy, and some have to trek across the tracks for K-3. I don’t like using that term because it is so divisive and I had not heard it until just recently, anyway.
We in Oakhurst have been lucky to have College Heights, Oakhurst Elementary, Renfroe, and even DHS all within close distance. Of course I was excited to hear about plans for doing *anything* with the old Fifth Avenue site. For one, it is an old empty building (and looks like it used to be beautiful like Oakhurst) just sitting there, and the site might as well be put to use. Two, it would be nice to have the 4/5 academy over here, but it would be by no means a deal-breaker if it were not to happen. We were fine with Glennwood and our kids going over there when it’s time.
What is the alternative to locating the 4/5 academy at 5A? I don’t understand how Beacon Hill could be used, it seems far more expensive and to involve more hurdles than 5A. Westchester could work, but it, too, is far from central Decatur and, worse, it is across Scott Boulevard for most of Decatur residents. I’d much rather cross RR tracks than Scott Blvd, and I certainly would not let my child ride her bike in a bike train there like they do now from Oakhurst to Glennwood. Westchester may have a better/bigger lot, but it is not ideally located on a busy, four-lane road on the far north side of Decatur.
It seems like the “northside” residents would be happy to have another K-3 on their end of town, since Glennwood is going back to a K-3 once 5A is ready. After all, the children attend K-3 for 4 years as opposed to 2 for the 4/5 academy. Children are older and more able to get to and from school independently in the 4th and 5th grades, so the distance does not seem to be as important at that age.
Let’s get real, people. CSD has given this plenty of time, consideration, and opportunity for public input. The majority of Decatur citizens and school parents are in favor of this. We need to address this issue of our growing student population, and bringing back another K-3 along with renovating Renfroe and Fifth Avenue should do so nicely.
The 1.38 is what is missing from the assumption that 5A was 5 acres. This assumption was what stood as actual data when the reconfiguration committee voted on Option 13. It was incorrect data.
Some quick comments:
1. While there is probably some residual resentment from the last reconfiguration process, we will never get beyond that if we continue to bring it up. So Pete, while I get what you are saying, it doesn’t help. And whatever the motivations of people in different parts of town, it should be the best ideas and plans, not the quality of motivations, that should be discussed.
2. The 5th Ave solution was actually tacked on to the original 12 options that were considered by the committee and community. It sprung up from a similar discussion to the one we are starting for Beacon Hill. It was beyond the last minute. That’s why not as much “due diligence” apparently went into it, and we see that there is a bit of a surprise now. I would be dollars to donuts that the same would happen in a scenario where we suddenly pivoted to the Beacon Hill idea. Not that we shouldn’t consider it, but everyone should keep that in mind before starting the finger pointing.
3. I think the school board has been very open and accomodating for public input throughout this process. See #2 above for evidence. They asked us what we thought, and listened to our responses. I see no reason why that can’t continue to happen.
4. We are a town of only 18,000 residents, only 2,500 students in the school system, not that many city employees….and yet it seems like we’ve got some dysfunction between the city government and school system. One of the potentially great things about Decatur is that our scale should allow us to be nimble. It seems our divided bureaucracies are hampering that. No one from the schools talked to anyone from the city about Beacon Hill (or vice versa)? C’mon people, work together.
What I find surprising is how few people (if any!) seem to have actually visited the Fifth Avenue site. Given what seemed to be intense pressure from parents to choose it over Renfroe for the 4/5 Academy, wasn’t anybody curious enough to go look at it? I have no kids so am not familiar with any of the school premises the way parents would be. But I have walked by the Fifth Avenue school many times, along 4th, 5th, and Oakview; and I have driven all through the Glennwood driveway and parking lot a couple of times (turning around, on a weekend when it was empty).The Fifth Ave. property has always seemed the smaller of the two, from my casual observation.
And just for the sake of I’m-going-to-hate-myself-later for saying anything: Why is this acreage difference such a crisis? Isn’t it more important to get involved in planning how the space is going to be used? (In town = limited space. Get over it.) Plus, the Boys and Girls Club on East Lake Drive is half a mile away via residential streets with sidewalks, and immediately next door to that is Oakhurst Park. Can’t some of the energy being channeled into angst and agony and Beacon Hill fantasies be redirected to exploring ways the schools might partner with the B&G Club (with their INDOOR POOL) and/or the City Rec dept (Oakhurst Park has basketball and tennis courts and ball fields). McKoy Park is even a little closer, probably, again via residential streets with sidewalks.
Honestly, the suburbs and exurbs of this greater metro area are crawling with parents who’d be thrilled to send their kids to the school CSD is planning for Fifth Ave. And I’d bet we could turn up plenty of them in Kirkwood and East Lake, too. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt to pause and look at what you have and are going to have, before continuing this campaign about what you don’t have (and think you need but really?).
Great points, smalltowngal. Thanks for your insight. It’s always nice to hear from residents in the community who are not parents, and you bring up some interesting ideas to consider.
The school day is way too tight to allow for walking to B&G or Oakhurst Park. They hardly have any time for lunch much less PE or recess. They’d get about half way there and then have to turn around and go back to school.
Amen, Sweettea!
Point taken. I was just trying to put things in perspective. A “state of the art” school for 4th and 5th graders doesn’t live or die by having a state of the art playground. while I would never want Decatur kids to attend a facility as impoverished as the one I did (especially for what we’re paying in taxes!), the truth is that children can have a lot of fun and get a lot of fresh air and exercise given wide open space and some balls. Kickball, anybody?
I agree with smalltown gal.. We have great schools , great teachers, and a board who cares. Why can’t we let them do their job???? They were elected to do so! I have 2 kids in the school, both who will eventually be at the new 4/5. I can honestly say I’m not the least bit worried! The plans look great and I’m quite sure they will find the kids a place to play.
I still find it extremely odd that centrality is a key concern – it is a 4 square mile city people! 4 square miles – that’s it. Of course, 4 square miles until we annex all of unincorporated Dekalb (joke).
Pete,
I love you man. You’re doing a great job, Keep it up.
Hi ,
I like the theme ….why didn’t you make the suggestion during the reconfiguration process. It’s similar to what Dr. Edwards said at the last board meeting …if only Ebster had been suggested sooner, but I have a school to build…..
Well the bottom line is this, most of us who participated in the process…and I count myself as a participant, if only in that we were asked to respond to a dizzying array of 13 options. Most of us were just trying to process the information provided on 13 options. Frankly, there was much more talk about educational issues and less information on site planning issues. Most assumed due diligence had been done on each option and we were not trying to come up with more options. The structure of the process was enough to squelch any creative thought. Then I ended up in bed for a month, but I still somehow found time to write a letter to the board saying “Do you realize how small this site is ….you need to look into using a portion of the high school site at the corner of Commerce. ( No, not for the 4/5 students)” Of course, that letter back in May/June was too late, too.
Regardless, I did not know the exact acreage of Fifth Avenue in the spring and frankly I would guess that the reconfiguration committee members were not told a specific acreage….and did not think to ask. They were told it was a “big lot.” Sounds like there should be enough room to me. Just recently I had to go to city engineering to get the acreage of all the school sites. My requests from CDS went unanswered.
I was still terribly concerned about the property size, but alas, it was summer. Then one day this fall my son was playing soccer at Ebster….the Ebster idea was born. As of the last board meeting the Ebster idea was too late. So now here we are again asking the board to at least pause long enough to make sure they are building the right school, with the best facilities in the right place. This will be the first new school in +/-57 years here in Decatur. We are asking very reasonable thoughtful questions. The group of initial letter signers includes architects, landscape architects, and structural engineers among others. We are used to reading plans and when Dr. Edwards brought out the plan during the December meeting we were not surprised at what we saw.
How could this conversation have occurred earlier? Without a plan to review most people would immediately assume we were just trying to be troublemakers. And honestly, CSD deserved the right to show how a Fifth Avenue site would function. But we ( that would be a citywide, we) need to subject the plan to a critical review process. This is a normal part of any good design process. I think that should be done by qualified architects, planners and parents along with employees of central office.
OK, I’ll admit it ….I am getting tired of the why didn’t you make the suggestion during the reconfiguration process question. The real question that should be asked is why didn’t CSD hire a school planner to evaluate the site options and include more specific site comparison information in the pros and cons section of their 13 Options. Anyway, it wasn’t my job to do.
It was theirs.
A girl can only do so much in her spare time.
“But we ( that would be a citywide, we) need to subject the plan to a critical review process. This is a normal part of any good design process. I think that should be done by qualified architects, planners and parents along with employees of central office.” — nola
With all due respect, I heartily disagree. We elect a school board, who hires a superintendent, who is in charge of professional staff. We also have opportunities to attend school board meetings, write letters, make phone calls, and participate on school leadership teams and probably other initiatives I’m not aware of (as a non-parent). I, for one, do NOT want the professional work of running the school system, which my tax dollars are paying for, to be subjected to critical review by a bunch of self-appointed “architects, planners, and parents” no matter how qualified they may be. I believe that I’ll get the most bang for my buck if the professionals are allowed to do their jobs.
Putting the 4/5 at Renfroe sounded like a great idea to me. The only objection I heard anyone voice or repeat was a repugnance at the idea of having tender 4th and 5th graders at the same campus with big, bad 6th, 7th, and 8th graders. I’m thinking, what are people letting their 8th graders turn into, that it isn’t feasible to let them be on teh same campus with 5th graders? Should we be worried about the 6th graders? Who’s in charge over there, anyway? And what about teh children who represent sibling groups? Are we saying that some of our 4th and 5th graders aren’t safe around their older sisters and brothers? Or their friends’ older sisters adn brothers? So then the 4/5 was going to 5th Ave, which also sounds like a good plan, it’s a great location in many respects, etc. But now are the pitchforks and lanterns coming out again?
As I said, I haven’t been paying much attention to this whole thing until now. But based on what I’ve read here today, it sure seems like there might be a strategy in play to derail the whole k-3/4-5 configuration; and/or that some people simply don’t like or trust our CSD administration or our school board, or anything they do or how they do it. Since I hear so many great things about our school system–pride and gratitude from within Decatur, envy and congratulations from beyond–I really don’t understand why the board or the administration come in for so much criticism.
Not to keeping saying this, but I did suggest Beacon Hill back during the reconfiguration process, though no one, including myself, brought it directly to the Board.
http://www.decaturmetro.com/2009/03/22/reconfiguration-informationallistening-session-wednesday/#comment-7457
Garrett even responded to it on March 26th saying…
“The idea of using Beacon Hill/Ebster hasn’t been mentioned to my knowledge. It is a good idea. If the City and Schools could sit down and come to some kind of agreement on a landswap… it would be great to exchange 5th Avenue in return for a nice central location for the 4/5 Academy.”
Not that this means all that much, but still the idea was floated.
I wasn’t a patron of Decatur Metro at that time but I sure wish I had been. If the idea of Beacon Hill had been as thoroughly vetted as Options 1-13 were, it would either be off the table like Options 1-12 or be as well understood as Option 13. I never heard of the Beacon Hill idea until after the election. I wish it had been part of the candidate discussions.
I find it interesting that money doesn’t seem to come up much in this discussion. Size, race and travel seem to be the biggest points.
My child is failing math, but we were told that they didn’t have the resources to give her any special help. I don’t care if she goes to school in a trailer if she could get the skills needed by a well paid happy, caring teacher or tutor. State of the art isn’t going to help her academic self esteem or make the children learn more. This is pretentious nonsense.
I agree completely! We keep begging the board to spend money on more para pros instead of buses and buildings. Maybe you can get through to them.
This gives me a headache and I don’t even live in Decatur anymore! But Decatur will always be a very soft spot in my heart so I always check this blog. From someone who is on the outside looking in (and used to be inside), y’all have so many blessings in Decatur, and your schools are one of the biggest. Perspective is everything. As smalltowngal said above, you are the envy of many.
Once when I was in sixth grade, I was making a poster of South America and used different colors of glitter for all the different countries. After many evenings of long and tedious work, it was truly a work of art, albeit a geographic one. But yet I continued to futz and fidget with it, not wanting to leave well enough alone. It is then I knocked over the green glitter and spread it all over Peru, Bolivia, and Paraguay, and ruined days of effort.
Decatur, don’t knock over the green glitter.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and good vibes to all.
…sorry that should say…”your schools are some of the best…not biggest…now back to the eggnog.
you are missed Jim.
I have children at Oakhurst & now Renfroe. I spoke at the school board meetings supporting the 4/5 at Renfroe option. Consolidation of the schools and central location are, I believe, some of the most important issues with CSD. 4/5 at Renfroe!!!
“The group of initial letter signers includes architects, landscape architects, and structural engineers among others….”
And a teacher – that’s me. Teachers know a lot about teaching spaces and there were some on the reconfiguration committee. That’s why when the plans were revealed, I sent an e-mail asking to let the reconfiguration committee and Carter Wilson to look at the plans and give feedback. I did not receive a response.
The committee compared two visions – a smaller urban-type school (Glennwood) on a small lot and a larger suburban-type school, Fifth Avenue, on a larger lot. Once this was recognized as not the situation, the committee should have been informed and reconvened. When was this? July, August? I can’t imagine why they weren’t informed.
And isn’t just playground space that’s compromised. The conceptual plans shows very small classrooms. The total size of the building is 46,000 which is 4000 square feet less than is recommended by the state for 500 student school.
This week the principal and assistant principals of Glennwood toured the new DeKalb 4/5 with the construction manager. That facility is 107,000 square feet on 18 acres for 975 students. I wonder why.
I’ve rolled my eyes plenty of times at the usual CSD opponents, but I have to say that Nola doesn’t seem to me like someone who is just trying to be a thorn in CSD’s craw. CSD Mom openly admits something more along those lines, but I’m not sure that anyone’s annoyance with her position should invalidate Nola’s question. She’s not jumping from side issue to side issue (like some others) or accusing folks of ulterior motives.
She simply asked a question about 5th Ave’s acreage. And she’s received no response. That’s really whats causing all this back and forth and speculation. In absence of a response from CSD, everything above is what we get. Not very productive public dialogue in my opinion.
On other issues, I’ve taken the position “let CSD do it’s job, it’s what we elected them for”. But that wasn’t on a factual error. If an error is revealed, at the very least we should get an explanation of why it happened and why it does or doesn’t change the current plan.
DM, love you long time, but I do have to say that what troubles ME about some of the people posting on the anti-5th Ave side (I don’t know what else to call it, so don’t jump on me about that one!) is the anger and the “we” statements.
I agree Phyllis Edwards owes ALL of us an explanation on 1) why the people planning first the reconfiguration screwed the numbers up so royally when a quick walk around Oakhurst alone with its parade of million dollar strollers and all of our swollen bellies could have been a danger will robinson flashing sign that space was needed; and 2) why was the 5th Ave acreage so off published reports? (I mean, on both counts, are we hiring monkeys with abaci and measuring sticks or actual professionals here??).
Anyway, after some bizarre stuff with the College Heights waiting list and an absolute lack of response from Edwards, I understand fully why the silence from that office leads to complete lack of trust. We are not only paying this woman’s salary, we are trusting the children that grew in our bodies and/or our hearts to her judgment. She has an absolute responsibility – if not a mandate- to answer citizen concerns.
However, I also understand where Pete and the others are coming from. The language of many of the folks supporting this letter and the anger they exhibit do make me wonder about publicly unspoken agendas. We want this, we beg the board for that. This group is representing its own interest and what it thinks is right so fiercely that it doesn’t exactly come across as including the rest of us. Some of the arguments just seem hollow; people keep harping on that 1.38 acres until its meaningless. Remember how Rudy Guiliani lost so much credibility with the “noun, verb 9/11″ jokes? Check out some “Agnes” threads and see how far too much complaining on one thing gets you!
I have a child. I want to make sure we do what is best, but I haven’t seen anything that so compelling that 5th Ave should be stopped (though Token and I will be doing a slide-in to protest the lack of neck breaking playground equipment). We need to dial back and address the factual errors- both in the past and now.
DM, do you think there is anything you could do? Could you as the official Decatur Gossip Girl approach Edwards for an official statement? I think she really should explain why CSD’s numbers never have anything to do with the actual math.
Nellie, absolutely agree with your POV of both sides of the issue. I can see where the exasperation is coming from, I just think that the simple question and lack of answer is what’s getting lost in the process.
I’ve twice emailed the Asst. Superintendent about this issue, who is my contact at CSD. The first time he responded and said he would work with Dr. Edwards on a response. From the follow-up email I have thus far heard nothing.
This could mean they are just too slammed to respond. It could mean that this question has real teeth so they’re just hoping it will die down. I will follow-up again at the beginning of early next week. If I don’t hear anything I guess I’ll have to start going to board members to try and get an answer.
Thanks for the shout out, Nell. See you on the slide.
https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/ViewMeeting.aspx?MID=1364… I think this was posted by the school system on Dec. 1 or 2nd, 2009:
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.
This is the information found on eBoard regarding the Fifth Avenue acreage. Clearly, there was some confusion at CSD regarding the size the Fifth Avenue property. Central Offices position is that they alway knew the site was smaller than 5 acres, but according to Susan Simpson at one point they thought the park at the corner of Oakview and was part of the school property, which it is not. Therein lies the confusion regarding how much smaller is Fifth Avenue than originally thought.
Fifth avenue is .51 acres smaller than Glennwood
Fifth Avenue is 1.38 acres smaller than the 5 acre assumption stated above by the board.
I seriously doubt the reconfiguration committee was given a specific acreage in the spring. They were told it is a “big lot.” I hope someone who was on the Reconfiguration Committee will provide some insight into the information presented in the Spring.
Regarding the Renfroe option…my concerns were the same as with Fifth Avenue. We were adding 400-600 students to the school site and no additional land for play and open space.
I don’t think the site is big enough for that many grades.
Well, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, etc. to you all. I’m entering a blog free zone.
Lisa reports that she collected 123 signatures prior to the Friday deadline and that signatures are still coming in.
DM, Scott, etc- how easy would it be to get the city to donate or annex the strip of park?
I’m wondering myself that if the park is the difference, as Nola stated above, how much of an actual difference the loss of acreage means. If it’s still accessible by the students then who cares what the “official” acreage is?
I also think this might be the cause of the discrepancy.
Given the angst of so many parents about the acreage, I definitely think the City should donate the park to the school as Nellie suggested (or at least come up with a shared use agreement – I still like the idea of putting the playground there and letting the community use it after school hours).
Also, since the letter above included Mead Rd park as part of Oakhurst Elementary’s acreage, I think it’s only fair that this park should be included with Fifth Avenue’s acreage for purposes of this discussion.
However, something tells me that even if the City donates it outright (and thus greatly diminishes the main arguments presented in the letter), this brou-ha-ha about stopping 5th Avenue won’t die down…
One more related point: isn’t pretty much all of the proposed Beacon Hill site considered
“city park”?
Those who propose Beacon Hill as a better site for the 4/5 Academy have alluded to a shared use agreement between the City and CSD for the field, pool and other resources at the site.
If that sort of shared-use arrangement of a city park is a given for the Beacon Hill alternative, then the city park adjacent to 5th Avenue should certainly be included in any analysis of 5th Avenue acreage.
Unless, of course, it isn’t really about the acreage (as Pete has suggested)…
I absolutely support the new 4/5 Academy at the 5th Avenue site. You’ll find many Oakhurst and Winnona Park families (whose children could easily walk to 5th Ave.) thrilled with this opportunity for their children- perhaps they should also construct a letter of approval for the Board. It seems the Board only hears from disgruntled parents. I wish we could move forward and let the Glennwood faculty rejoice with anticipation for their new space.
If you (or anyone else) would draft a letter in support of 5th Avenue, I would sign it! (Since I don’t have kids in CSD yet, I don’t feel I am the right person to write and present such a letter.)
Another thing to do is to ask permission to stripe 5th Avenue for head-in parking. This lets you take the parking lot off the playground and significantly increases the play space.
Having said that, the outside space isn’t the only space that needs evaluation. What is it about the building itself that provides more for students than an addition onto Glennwood?
Wouldn’t an addition to Glennwood take up acreage?
I imagine both schools can get to the same square footage on the same acreage. Here’s a question. Page 1 of the Reconfiguration Assumptions by CSD is that all new classrooms are 750 square foot classrooms. Does the new facility have all 750 square foot classrooms? Or, were those shrunk down too to fit the building into the space? Are some of the classrooms extra large 1000 square foot classrooms which are the recommended square footage for Art and Music?
Again, where are the benefits to children? That should be the centerpiece of the discussion.
Why were the letter signers deleted from the post?
A couple of them asked to be so I deleted them all.
The neighboring park is only about 0.30 acres large., or 12000 sf.
It is a small corner pocket park and is already shown on the plans with walkways and green space. Once again the size needs to be confirmed.
If you include the pocket park, the Fifth avenue site is still 3.92 acres, which is only slightly smaller than Glennwood.
I agree that the area may be incorporated into the site plan, as they have already done. Unfortunately, at ..30 acres it does not offer any comparable space to Mead Park or the way Ebster could be combined with a site at Beacon Hill.
Still, if 0.3 acre is accurate, then the 5th Avenue site (including city park) is only 5% smaller than Glennwood. With proper site planning (including CSD addressing many of the valid questions raised here regarding classroom size, room for expansion, long-term flexibility of building, outdoor play space, etc.), I think the 5th Avenue site should be adequate.
Since the acreage of this park was known, I can only assume it was excluded from the analysis in the letter since it doesn’t help the arguments presented.
My main point is that I, like many others on this thread, question whether the acreage really is such a huge deal, or whether the discrepancy is simply being used as an opening to stop progress on 5th Avenue (insert favorite ulterior motive here).
“Still, if 0.3 acre is accurate, then the 5th Avenue site (including city park) is only 5% smaller than Glennwood. ”
It’s still smaller!
“With proper site planning (including CSD addressing many of the valid questions raised here regarding classroom size, room for expansion, long-term flexibility of building, outdoor play space, etc.), I think the 5th Avenue site should be adequate.”
Adequate for what? For the number of students we have this year, or the larger number of students we will have in two years? This school has got to be flexible enough to accommodate the possible enrollment bubble down the road. If not, then what is the point of building it?
Good point. The neighboring park should have been included. A playground is missing in the current plans. Is .3 acres big enough for a playground? I assume in order for it to be used by a school, it would need to be fenced in? We should pursue the question of shared use of that land with the City.
Whether or not the site and plans are adequate is one question. Whether or not Ebster is a better site is another. For the moment, lets forget the latter and focus on the former. And let’s punt on the acreage question until we establish that solving the valid questions requires more space than is available…
Identifying problems leads to better solutions. So let’s not shoot the messenger or assume it is unpatriotic to question assumptions or check facts. Everybody makes mistakes. I caught a significant one during my time on the reconfiguration committee. The Central Office staff was receptive, revised the documentation, and handed out updates the next day. The sooner problems are identified, the easier and less expensive they are to resolve.
On to the valid questions…
I’ve gotten my information on size requirements from the Reconfiguration Committee documentation and the following State guidelines:
Square Footage Requirements for Use in Developing the Local Facilities Plans and State Capital Outlay Applications for Funding. [Georgia]
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/schools/facilities/squareft.pdf
(GA Dept. of Education; Facilities Services Unit, Atlanta, Dec 08, 2003)
[general]
Do the plans facilitate future expansion? This is an important question. If 4-5th grade enrollments ever exceed 300 students per grade, then 24 classrooms won’t be enough. We will be back to the question of using trailers, construction, or reconfiguration. Do the 5th Avenue plans and construction facilitate expanding the media center, cafeteria, adding classrooms and bathrooms?
Do we have enough (6) fountains?
Do the plans allow for sink and faucets in classrooms?
Where is the playground? Where can one be added?
[classroom size]
How big are the classrooms? 660 sqft is the minimum requirement for 4-8 grades. 750 sqft is required for K-3. If we want to future proof the option of serving grades K-3 at this site, classrooms should be 750 sqft.
Are any of the classrooms large enough (1000 sqft) to facilitate use for Art, Music, or Science?
Does the covered pavilion, multipurpose, or some other room provide the minimum 5,000 sqft requirement for physical education?
[room count]
The CSD classroom count requirements reserved 2 classrooms at each facility for special needs and other services. Do the plans for 5th Avenue include these 2 additional classrooms?
Are there enough bathrooms? The reconfiguration committee requirements state a need for 1 set of boy and girl bathrooms for every 4 classrooms. The plans show 1 set of bathrooms serving 12 classrooms. Where are the other bathrooms?
State requirements specify that K-5 bathrooms must be within a wing. Does the current plan’s centrally located bathroom at the beginning of 3 wings meet this requirement? Does the 2nd floor also utilize a single central bathroom?
State requirements appear to be more flexible than the bathroom requirement the reconfiguration committee was asked to use. These single bathroom per floor bathrooms would each serve up to 300 students. The state’s K-5 requirements to serve this many students require:
– 150 girls: 6 toilets, 3 sinks
– 150 boys: 4 toilets, 4 urinals, 3 sinks
Do these bathrooms provide enough of each? Do they provide enough extra to allow a future addition of:
– 2 classrooms: 1 girls’ toilet and 1 boys urinal
– 4 classrooms: 2 girls’ toilets, 1 boy toilet, and 2 urinals
I forgot to put approximately…..in front of the 3.92 acre number.
Please read the letter again. Particularly items lll, lV and V. It does not say don’t build at Fifth Avenue. It says slow down and make sure due to the size and shape of the property you really can provide everything you need on this site.
Engage stakeholders in review committees…..as you did when you built the football stadium. Aren’t our childrens needs of equal importance? Slow down and do it right.. This is even more important if they proceed on the small Fifth Avenue site.
I honestly believe this process will benefit both the board and our whole community. CSD spent a long time on the reconfiguration committee process. Now they seem to be moving forward with the first site plan presented. They need to take a reasonable amount of time engaging stakeholders in the design of buildings and grounds where our children will spend great amounts of their time.
If everything can be done at Fifth Avenue, great. If the Fifth Avenue site will not represent a significant and lasting improvement over improvements that could occur at Glennwood Academy (Glennwood) shouldn’t we know that answer before we spend 8 million dollars?
Re ulterior motives: At the risk of “bubbling fury” and not being trusted, I want to address the contention that folks concerned about CSD choices have ulterior motives. What are those ulterior motives?
1. From what I can tell from around town, on this blog, and on listservs, the folks with concerns are not a homogenous group—some have resided here a long time, some like Candidate Garrett Goebel are recent arrivers. Some have only older children so remember the closings of Fifth Avenue and Westchester, other have only younger children and weren’t even here for that event. Some care most about location of the 4/5 Academy, some care most about whether the new location is big enough, some care mostly about whether it has a decent playground, some care mostly about calendar issues, some care about staffing issues at the elementary school level, some care about gifted or exceptional student services, and some care mostly about school configuration (e.g. K-5, 4/5, 4-8, 5-8 etc.), etc,, etc., etc. (I appear to be the only person in Decatur still in favor of 7-8 but that’s my real favorite even if it’s Option #99). In the last election, some voted for challengers only, at least a few voted for incumbents only, and some voted for one of each (more of those than I think either incumbents or challengers realize!).
2. So what are the ulterior motives? Southside phobia? If that’s the case, why is it that so many speaking up have either sent or are sending their kids to College Heights? PreK isn’t even mandatory so there’s tons and tons of cheap alternatives or one can just avoid it altogether. And do folks remember that, during the transition year after the last reconfiguration, some Westchester folks requested that their kids be sent to Oakhurst even though they were redistricted to Clairemont? They KNEW Oakhurst was a fine school even before it was taken over by yuppies. Northsiders attend southside churches and vice versa. We eat and drink across the tracks.
3. So, how different are the southsides and northsides right now? Less and less. It’s more a question of style than income level at this point. Is it even necessary to think along those lines? And, if so, who is advocating for those being driven out of all sides of Decatur by increasing real estate values and taxes? Should we be labelling those who want the 4/5 Academy at Fifth Avenue instead of Beacon Hill as Decatur Housing Authority-phobic?! I don’t think so.
4. I don’t see how advocacy for an age-appropriate playground is anti-southside. If CSD doesn’t face this issue now, it will face it later, wherever the 4/5 Academy is placed.
4. Elephant in the room: Racism. I heard a few, not many, but some definite shockingly racist comments at the time of the last reconfiguration. I honestly am not sensing racism this time. The cynical side of me says that’s because neighborhood renovation drove out a lot of the historic African-American community. It also may have driven out the most racist folks in town since racism is associated with less education and income. What I hope is that we really are a less divided town now. Between Decatur Active Living (aka Decatur Rec) activities starting at age 4, our schools, our after care programs, our diverse churches, and a generation of young parents who went to school after, not during desegregation, I think our kids are growing up as open to people of all backgrounds as has ever occurred in Decatur. Not perfect of course, and everyone of all backgrounds harbors sub-conscious biases and assumptions about which we’re not even aware. And we aren’t very diverse when it comes to folks from other parts of the world, e.g. few Hispanics and Asians live here compared to other parts of metro Atlanta. I think Decatur suffers from some classism and lack of diversity in income level but that is not purely racism and it affects both the northside and the southside. I don’t think folks motivated primarily by racism would advocate for a 4/5 Academy to be located in a community that is heavily African-American–Beacon Hill. It may or not be a practical solution, but it certainly isn’t another northside school.
5. School Board-phobia? CSD Central Offic-phobia? This is the only ulterior motive that I think merits some examination. Could the opposition to CSD decisions be a knee-jerk reaction against anything they do by folks who are just plain tired of them? I don’t think it plays a large role given the diversity of concerns that parents and the community are bringing up plus there’s plenty of CSD accomplishments and decisions that are not being challenged. As determined as challengers and voters have been, no one has been claiming the kind of incompetence and corruption that one sees in other school systems, e.g. Clayton County. I think the Board and Central Office have the basis respect of the community; as Garrett Goebel has said, it’s not unpatriotic to ask questions and suggest alternative solutions. But trust is one of the hardest issues to address. CSD and the Board should try harder to trust community feedback and vice versa.
I think it is completely fair for folks living near Fifth Avenue to want that decaying property to be restored to something that contributes to the community so I understand their desire for it to be a school. I also understand frustration that last minute concerns have come up–it would have been so much better if the Beacon Hill idea and the concerns about correct Fifth Avenue acreage had come up last winter and spring. But I wish that supporters of the 4/5 Fifth Avenue location (and I don’t even know if I am one or not because CSD and the City have not responded yet with information that would inform my position) would understand that one can object to the 4/5 site as currently described without having “ulterior motives”. Try to take the motives one by one, individual by individual, at face value.
They can build the school faster than anyone can read that last blog post.
When you pass 1,000 words, something’s definitely wrong.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
— H. L. Mencken
So, Garrett, because an answer might end up being wrong, its just best to never answer the question or ever solve a problem and spend forever trying to find the “perfect” answer? That would result in being in a constant state of paralysis and gridlock, which is, by the way, what it seems that the opponents of 5th Avenue seek to achieve.
You can have all of the meetings in the world, seek all of the public input possible, try to prepare for every possibility imaginable, but there are unknowns with even the best made plans.
At some point, you’ve just got to put a plan in action or you are never going to achieve anything. The School Board and the City have done more planning and prep for this project than anything they have ever done. Can there be improvements? Of course. And there will be opportunity for that. Ground has not even been broken yet. I, for one, would like to eliminate one of the on-site parking lots and move it to the street. But does that require stopping everything, shelving the 5th Avenue plan, and starting the process and looking at all of the alternatives yet again? Hell no.
Shelving the 5th Avenue plan means more overcrowding of our schools, more use of trailers to relieve overcrowding, and a decaying, unused building indefinately for a South Decatur neighborhood.
Frankly, I am still not sure what the objections are outside of the acreage, even after rereading the letter and 1000s of words in response.
Part of projecting enrollment is projecting past current enrollments. We cannot assume that enrollment is going to continue its growth at the same rate without annexation. The enrollment “bubble” will burst and relatively soon. As someone pointed out, the city is only 4 square miles. How much future growth can we really expect?
Does anyone have the official enrollment projections and the methodology by which they were obtained? I looked on the CSD website and could not find anything.
The name of the file is: “2008 and 2012 enrollment comparison.pdf”
I can’t find it on the CSD website any more… But I have a copy which I will forward to DM. Perhap he can make it available?
http://www.decaturmetro.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2008-and-2012-enrollment-comparison.pdf
I got a damaged file message…..
Hmm… works for me. Anyone else?
I wonder, when a company selects a CEO, if the entire organization gets to question him/her on the arrangement of chairs in the breakroom.
G, I sympathize with your point and totally get it, but, dude, prepare to get creamed
Nellie, but I’m no CEO (unless you’re making an executive level offer!)
Should we set up our own alternative school with me in charge of curriculum, George in charge of the business and Token in charge of the playground??
No, but the stockholders do! And aren’t Decatur residents and taxpayers the stockholders of our school system and city govenmen!? The teachers and staff are the organization; the taxpayers are the stockholders. And the children are the customers who we should all put first.
I agree that there’s a fine line between acknowledging and using the input of stakeholders vs. allowing them to micromanage the work. Some parents do get overinvolved and try to affect the day to day operations inside classrooms or small budget or purchasing decisions. But I don’t think that it is outside the purview of taxpayers to comment on major school construction, major budget and staffing issues, or major program changes, additions, or deletions. The Central Office and School Board still have the final authority on decisions and can move forward at any point. No letter or this blog is stopping them. But if they do so unwisely, there’s consequences in terms of credibility, trust, or the next election.
“(T)here’s consequences in terms of credibility, trust, or the next election.” – karass
Based on the results of the last election, the current school board has the credibility and trust to keep doing what they are doing.
That might not sit well with those who lost but they didn’t gain enough support, credibility, or trust to sit in the chairs where the decisions are made. This continued bickering over minutia doesn’t do anything to really make the job the CSD any better. It damned sure makes it harder.
It isn’t minutia when compromise after compromise has to be made to put the 4/5 on the Fifth Avenue spot. This decision has moved from what’s best for children to what’s best for Fifth Avenue.
For example, it is a total bait and switch to accept a design that shows classrooms less than 750 square feet. It was on Page 1 of the reconfiguration rules that the classrooms were to be 750 square feet. This is not minutia. This is where the child spends most of his or her time. It isn’t minutia to not want a tiny playground. The reconfiguration committee voted to spend 8 million dollars on a fabulous facility on a large lot. That investment of money was for children, not for the neighborhood of Fifth Avenue.
The Fifth Avenue community wants something fabulous on that spot. If the 4/5 is fabulous, everything will work out. But if it isn’t, it shouldn’t be there.
“The Fifth Avenue community wants something fabulous on that spot. If the 4/5 is fabulous, everything will work out. But if it isn’t, it shouldn’t be there.”
“That investment of money was for children, not for the neighborhood of Fifth Avenue.”
The location of Fifth Avenue (the neighborhood) is fine ONLY if the 4/5 (the school) is good–if the school is not good then the neighborhood is not good. So it is about the neighborhood making the school not fabulous–or, so it sounds, still.
Schools aid and educate children AND neighborhoods–how boorish can you be?
I would be very curious to see the average proximity of anti-5th Avenue folks to Westchester. Anyone up for that one?
It looked like most of the signers of the letter are clearly in the heart of the Great Lakes, Glennwood Estates, or Sycamore/Lockwood area with a one or two Chelsea Heights but I may be remembering wrong.
However, when in doubt on Decatur Metro, the default answers are “Westchester”, “If you don’t like it, you can leave Decatur”, and “Make your pets and children behave”, not necessarily in that order.
…If the 4/5 Building is fabulous, everything will be fine… That should have been clear from rest of the post…
Everything I post is from the perspective of a teacher…I’ve been to the new DeKalb 4/5 and it is fabulous. If the Decatur 4/5 could look like this, no worries.
There’s a new DeKalb 4/5 and it is fabulous? Who knew? I sure hope that the appropriate folks in CSD Central Office, Glennwood leadership, and the Glennwood SLT get a chance to visit it and learn from it. Not saying that Decatur can afford everything that DeKalb County can but I’ll bet there’s some lessons learned and new ideas that are affordable.
Big question, Teacher RachelF: What kind of playground, if any, does the new DeKalb 4/5 have?
Thanks!
Also tell us more: What is the configuration of elementaries that go with that 4/5 Academy? Is all of DeKalb moving towards preK-3 and 4/5 schools?
Maybe it would have been more clear to write “if you can’t put a fabulous building for 500 students on 3.6 acres, it shouldn’t be there.”
This discussion has been hijacked to portray people as not willing to go to Fifth Avenue, the community. That isn’t the issue for me. The reconfiguration committee was looking for a larger space to put the 4/5 to solve some of the building issues of the current 4/5. They thought they had one.
Agree with RachelF that folks are confusing questionning of the placement of the 4/5 Academy with rejection of the community of Fifth Avenue by the “northside”. (As though north of the railroad is one monolithic, homogenous community when actually there’s great income variability and divergent histories among northside neighborhoods). There’s a whole west side of the northside that is happily attending Oakhurst so this isn’t about some primeval fear of crossing the tracks which so many folks do every day in both directions for school, work, church, shopping, kids activities, and restaurants, not to mention friends and family. Admittedly, some of the diagonal treks take longer than the straight north-south trips but there’s always that proposal to use the Glennwood roundabout to sling kids over to Fifth Avenue while we all go merrily off to work…
Ironically, I understand that it was some of the currently vocal folks who suggested or supported Fifth Avenue as Option 13 when it was not yet on the table. Since I wasn’t there, I don’t know why Fifth Avenue was taken up but not Beacon Hill. If Beacon Hill had been taken up then, it would either be Option 14 right now or already be understood as a non-viable option.
Re flood plain issues: Besides being a standard DM response along with “Westchester”, “If you don’t like it you can leave”, and “Make your children and pets behave”, I think that every single schoolyard in Decatur is either officially or functionally a floodplain. Evidently wet soggy areas were where developers were willing to donate land for schools back in the day. Just check the bottom of your kids’ pants for the mud and wear and tear. I need to learn how to convert pants with ragged cuffs into capris and shorts. It could be a new fashion: Decatur-style cutoffs.
RachelF: a quote, “That investment of money was for children, not for the neighborhood of Fifth Avenue.” that sounds like the good and mean side of the same argument: If we spend the money I want it staying in my neighborhood, close to my house. I want the new school near my house–we all want that, sorry.
Karass: “Agree with RachelF that folks are confusing questionning of the placement of the 4/5 Academy with rejection of the community of Fifth Avenue by the “northside”. See the above quote and subsequent explanation.
Now amount of circumlocution is going to cover up the fact that this discussion/argument is just a re-packaged version of the “Free Westchester!” discussion/argument. And I sympathize with the northside folks–I think they should have a neighborhood school like we have in Winonna Park, but this piddling with numbers, standards, predictions, and obfuscation is ridiculous. However, it has suddenly occurred to me that having something to do is very nice, it keeps the mind active, fights of the rust, etc.
That expression “Free Westchester” really appeals to me! Even if it doesn’t make much sense, I think it should replace “Westchester” as one of the standard DM responses. When in doubt, choose one of the standard DM responses:
A. Flood plain
B. If you don’t lke it, you can leave
C. Make your children and pets behave
D. You just don’t want to drive across the tracks
D. Free Westchester
My understanding is that this was a decision to spend money on a new 4/5 and the collateral beneficiary was the 5th Avenue community. Now it seems to be about a decision to spend money for the 5th avenue community with a secondary emphasis on the quality of the 4/5 building.
I don’t personally benefit or lose from where the 4/5 school goes. But I can push to have the decision made that is the best interest of children. That is why the letter I sent to the superintendent asked to have the reconfiguration committee and Carter Wilson give feedback on the plans.
And yes, and when ground is broken on whatever is done for the 4/5, I will know that I spoke up even if it didn’t make a difference.
Boy, if building a new school or school staffing or the configuration of schools and grade levels is minutiae, you should see what my mother in law worries about. I guess that would be nano-minutiae!
P.S.: At the risk of seeming to care about minutiae, please note that minutiae, the plural, is the usual form of minutia used.
Since I wasn’t there, I don’t know why Fifth Avenue was taken up but not Beacon Hill.
Why? Are you really still asking why?
5th Avenue was chosen because the CSD could use the 5th Avenue property for a school (it now even has title to 5th Ave), while the Beacon Hill site is not only owned by the City, but it currently be used by the City and their public safety department and the CSD has no right to use it. It’s really not that hard to figure out.
And by the way, 5th Avenue is not in a flood plane.
Or in a flood plain either?
Mud. Mud should have been put front and center in the middle of all the options being considered–i.e. whether the school grounds are predisposed to massive mud puddling for the majority of the year or not. Forget cost, construction, configuration, neighborhood, classroom numbers and sizes, developmentally appropriate spaces, and play equipment. I’ve been dealing with mud-damaged clothes and shoes for years now. Most of the CSD playgrounds, in a flood plain or not, seem to have surprise drainage or hidden springs or some other water issues that make it impossible to keep kids in pants without fraying dirt-stained cuffs. If the Fifth Avenue field is not equally muddy, it will be a truly revolutionary move for Decatur laundry.
When is “make your pets and children behave” NOT an appropriate sentiment? Seems to me like one of those guiding principles that works in any situation.
(Once the comment count tops 100, thread-jacking should be allowed.)
Oh no, please, not this again.
DM, I beg you to shut this thread down soonest!
Oh, you behave. (BTW, if more adults in Decatur could learn to ‘behave’ we wouldn’t be flooding the school system with kids.)
Eh, hee-hee-hee! I just got that. (And YES, I do know where babies come from– I’m just a little slow on the uptake today…)
Are you advocating a one-child only policy?
Based purely on aesthetics, who supports Beacon Hill? Fifth Ave. is in a classic walking neighborhood. Beacon Hill sits in between MARTA and the CSX.
Actually the whole Allen Wilson Terrace/Swanton Hill area has good sidewalk access from Commerce, Trinity, and DeKalb Ave. We walk or bike ride around and through it often on our way to the west side of the southside. And the high school is right across the street. However, it’s true that Electric Ave’s sidewalks are spotty. Some streetscaping and other amenities would make it feel more like the rest of downtown. Wouldn’t that be a benefit? Beacon Hill was one of the parts of Decatur that took the biggest hits when “modernization” and Marta came into Decatur in the ?70s?
The CSX barrier is so unfortunate. It would be so much more convenient and pleasant to go from south to north and vice versa if we could cross over at more points and if the crossings were safer and more conducive to walking and cycling. Wasn’t there a thread about what to do with 4 billion stimulus dollars? Could we buy out CSX and put the railroad underground?
I’ve been meditating on this a good bit… and …..Geez, this whole Beacon Hill thing was nifty from an intellectual perspective, but CSD has no more rights to it than they do to the Decatur Kroger… or Disney World for that matter. I haven’t heard a peep from the City indicating any sort of willingness to just give up Beacon Hill and move the police station to some other property. Plus, the school there sits on a flood plain which brings a whole host of issues related to construction, student health, etc.
My bet is that, like anything in Decatur… if the school was going up at Beacon Hill, there would be just as shrill of a reaction trying to get it moved to 5th Avenue or Westchester or some other place… and my bet is that it would be the same people leading the charge as are leading the current petition effort.
5th Avenue isn’t perfect. No school site in the City of Decatur is anywhere near perfect b/c they were built in a very different time. It’s too bad that it’s on 3.62 acres rather than 5. However, with some creative use of 5th Avenue (the street), such as diagonal parking.. and maybe if we are permitted by the city to put the little side park to good use (outdoor classroom, play area… garden if it’s not too shady)… I think 5th will be fine.
Imagine if we took all this parental energy and used it to raise money for cool stuff at 5th Avenue. … lab equipment, musical instruments, robotics equipment,… and my personal favorite… play equipment. Wow… we’d have a lot of money wouldn’t we?
You know, if 5th ever turned out too small, we could always open up Westchester as a theme K-5 school to relieve crowding there and at the K-3 schools. Make it an arts school or something like that…. or we could go to K-4 schools and move 5th to Renfroe… or just return to six K-5 schools. So, you see, there are lots of options if we ever get to that point. If we ever got to 600 kids at Glennwood… we’d be looking at the potential of 3900 kids for all of CSD. I just find it hard to believe that we’d have 3900 school aged public school kids in four square miles… much of which is taken up with commercial property.
Re raising money: Hope everyone is aware that some of the biggest money raisers and donors of time and money in CSD are the energetic, vocal parents. The passive ones are the ones that silently and politely slip away to private school when they have concerns or just give up on the job and say “Whatever. Why should I keep trying? With these taxes, I shouldn’t have to contribute anything”. So vocal parents, whether they support or oppose a particular position, are the lifeblood of the PTAs, SLTs, clubs, tutoring, band, sports, arts, Carpe Diem, and many other extras in CSD. Not saying that you have to be vocal to support CSD with time and money, but if all the vocal parents were to disappear, so would a whole lot of energy, support, and money.
Karass, you are exactly right. My turn to be vocal…..
I was getting a little sucked up in this nifty idea of Beacon Hill. It is really a cool thought from a philosophical standpoint… You can get lost in the thought of it like I got lost at Ikea the other day. However, a couple of weeks ago reality hit, and I woke up.
So, unless you can convince the City of Decatur to give up its police station and all property rights to Beacon Hill… why not spend the energy, money and time supporting the school in the place where we all know it is going to land.
If we renovate Glennwood, where do we put 500 kids while their building is being torn up? They won’t fit at Decatur High or Renfroe. Where do they go?
We had a long, long, long, long, long, l-o-n-g drawn out process of reconfiguring that was painfully inclusive of all interests at times. 5th Avenue title has been transferred to CSD (Beacon title has not and ….from what I hear … won’t until pigs fly). We had an election…. the incumbents won (narrowly in one case and by a wide margin in another). Because of the issues in the campaign… it served as a vote of confidence in the current reconfiguration plan.. the current plan won.
The 4/5 is going to be built at 5th Avenue and there’s nothing you can do about it!!!!!!… there, I said it.
Y’all may forget that central and at least some of the board members very much wanted a 4-8 at Renfroe. The same folks that are complaining about 5th Avenue complained vociferously about having so many kids in so many different developmental phases in one building. The admins, SLTs and the board heard you and changed their plans. They listened, they acted based on what seemed like the best compromise of a dozen competing interests… and now that’s not good enough.
Central and the board could have very easily told all of us to buzz off and just put the 4-8 at Renfroe.. that’s what happens in the vast majority of districts.
I understand that the 5th Avenue land is smaller than anticipated, but I don’t think that the outcome would have changed if everyone had known that a few months ago. Well, maybe we would have ended up with the old 4-8 at Renfroe.
What gives? What is good enough? What is feasible…. really feasible? Until some of y’all show up at Dr. Edward’s office with the City Commission, a real estate closing attorney (I can refer you to an excellent one if you need it) and a bunch of closing docs with “Beacon Hill” all over them… nothing is doable other than what we are looking at right now.
It’s great to be vocal, but at some point you have to look at the situation and say, “Well, gee, they listened to me and I got a good part of what I want. I didn’t get everything I want , but I can see no plausible way for that to happen. Maybe I need to take a step back and redirect.”
I think it’s time to redirect.
I hope it’s clear that I am not representing any group of people or their views, only my own. In fact, I doubt that my own particular ranking of choices exactly matches anyone else’s. My ranking amy have even changed a bit in the last couple of weeks as I’ve learned stuff here and elsewhere. (I’d have to search archives to tell if I’ve changed or not). My main interest is having the School Board seriously consider Beacon Hill vs. reject it out of hand because they don’t like who is proposing it. If that’s already been done and they can articulate their rationale well to their constituents, I’ll probably be happy.
DM, has Edwards’ office gotten back to you??
Nope.
What is wrong with K-5? Why has everyone forgotten about that configuration? Fewer transitions, neighborhood schools to which everyone can walk/bike, easing overcrowdedness by redistricting areas. The 4/5 is far more trouble than it’s worth. Forget buses except for middle and high school students and the housing authority kids if needed (like we used to do). Open up Westchester as an additional K-5 and put something really nifty that would benefit the whole community over at 5A.
Or better yet, Pre-K to 5.
Why am I the only one who sees this as the perfect configuration?
I agree that it is a good model (maybe even ideal), but wasn’t the 4/5 Academy (and larger K-3s) created to address performance gaps among the neighborhood schools in Decatur? I wasn’t involved with those reconfiguration debates, but that’s my understanding.
Although it does appear to be working, I don’t agree that a change back to K-5 is justified quite yet. Plus, hasn’t the 4/5 Academy ending up keeping more more families committed to CSD past 5th grade? That’s a great thing!
Either way, I don’t foresee CSD seriously considering a change back to K-5 anytime soon, so it’s hardly worth debate.
Happy Holidays everyone!