CSD Addresses 5th Avenue and Beacon Hill Debate
Decatur Metro | December 27, 2009Yesterday I received correspondence from Assistant Superintendent Thomas van Soelen and City Schools of Decatur Board Member Julie Rhame on the ongoing community issues involving 5th Avenue acreage and the potential of using the Beacon Hill as the site of the city’s new 4/5 academy.
Both the Assistant Superintendent and Ms. Rhame attached two documents with their email. One is a 4-page letter from Superintendent Dr. Phyllis Edwards responding to these two issues; discussed at length here and sent to CSD in a letter/petition format. The other attachment is a 3-page site evaluation of Beacon Hill, requested by the board and performed by Rosser. Both documents are must-read.
In her letter, the superintendent recaps the extensive decision-making process that went into choosing the 5th Avenue site, specifically addresses arguments made here in relation to 5th Avenue’s site acreage and comparisons to Glennwood, and presents a list of her concerns about the Beacon Hill site.
Rosser’s report goes into further detail about issues with the Beacon Hill property, including the most costly issue of flooding at the site. Both the Superintendent and Ms. Rhame note that it would cost upwards of $1 million to deal with just this one issue, most likely by redirecting funds that were to be spent on renovation at Renfroe Middle School. In addition to flooding, the Rosser report details potential issues with street access to the site, the proximity of the MARTA rail line, on-going construction at Allen Wilson Terrace, issues with moving the police department, the extensive delay in construction, and the potential size of the site, which would be dependent on whether Decatur’s Active Living Department would give up the Ebster soccer field.
But of all the reasons given by both the Superintendent and Rosser for favoring 5th Avenue over Beacon Hill, it was this brief aside from Ms. Rhame that most caught my attention.
And fyi, with the new state legislation surrounding charter schools, any new charter school can come in and take over any school system’s vacant buildings without the local board’s approval. We’ve already had inquiries about the 5th Ave. site from prospective charters.
Would we be willing to risk losing 5th Avenue in order to build at Beacon Hill?
Latest from Decaturish
I am excited to read that the K-3 school leadership teams (SLTs) and the current 4/5 SLT will meet with the builder and architect team. Hopefully, issues over inside space and an outside playground that meet the needs of most of the children will be addressed. I hope that the SLTs will have more than a single passive meeting but will also have a process to gather input from parents, teachers, and the community, assimilate that input along with the builder/architects’ information, and then give thoughtful input. The input from SLTs will hopefully be documented along with how it was used or why not. If input and documentation are complete enough, that should prevent misunderstandings in the future about how the community was involved, what was said, what was decided, and why. But it is up to us parents, teachers, and community to give our input to the elementary and Glennwood SLTs. If we don’t, we’ve missed our chance. School Board members clearly stated during the recent campaign that it’s up to SLTs to take the initiative to use their authority and demonstrate their usefulness. We should ask the SLTs to do the hard work of actively soliciting input and then developing thoughtful recommendations to CSD. This is a chance for CSD to demonstrate whether SLTs can have a meaningful role when important decisions are made.
Thoughtful, reasoned responses– and Dr. Edwards apparently even had a survey (albeit abbreviated, no doubt because she didn’t want her response to be too delayed) done of the prospective property done to address the feasibility of its being an alternative; this is something she didn’t actually have to do. I have no reason to believe that this information is incorrect, or that the results are other than the CSD Board says they are, and I appreciate their taking the time to actually respond with information and reasonability. Sadly, I have no doubt that most of the 5th Ave. opposition crowd will be similarly appreciative. However, in the spirit of community, now that the site selection is for all intents and purposes a fait accompli, can everyone just stop whingeing about their dissatisfaction, and come together to make the process as inclusive as possible from this point on?
In light of the last point made by Ms. Rhame, mayhap all those who’re still smarting about Westchester could take some initiative and shop that site around to some charter school entities– since they won’t need CSD’s approval, they might find it attractive enough so that we could end up with a charter school in the Westchester property, thus providing another educational alternative here in the City. Either way, the new 4/5 site has ben settled, and further carping on it is simply counterproductive.
Re charter schools and Westchester: I don’t think a charter could ask for Westchester since that building is not technically empty, right? While it is not fully utilized as a school, e.g. the cafeteria isn’t used for anything at all, it’s not empty. Even though many have been speaking up and voting as taxpayers with concerns and questions about CSD, that doesn’t mean that the same folks would automatically want a charter school in Decatur. I’m not sure it would be a plus for the community. I theoretically like the idea that it would provide some competition for CSD and keep them on their toes. However the benefit of competition would be outweighted if it siphoned off our very limited resources, not to mention some good families and students, without necessarily helping us out with some of the tough issues of No Child Left Behind, the achievement gap, funding Spanish, art, music, and PE programs without adequate state dollars, not enough paraprofessionals at the elementary grades K-5, etc.
Here’s the way that it is stated in HB 555…
“Each local board of education shall make its unused facilities available to a local charter schools. The terms of the use of such a facility by the charter school shall be subject to negotiation between the board and the local charter school and shall be memorialized as a separate agreement.”
There’s nothing in the bill specifying the use of the facility. So, I think you’re right Karass.
Having seen the actual provision that governs these things (which I hadn’t when I initially tossed the charter comment out), I agree with DM that you’re most likely right, K. If I’m being honest, I have to admit that I really hadn’t any idea how charter schools are put into place, and I just thought the notion of having one in Westchester might be a way to placate some of the restless masses who can’t seem to move on where that capus is concerned. I appreciate the explanations (from both you & DM), though– learn something new every day!
Well, I hope that this settles it.
I do not like green eggs and ham…I do not like them Sam I Am…..
I do not like them… with
500 kids in a building on a high traffic street, across from the courthouse, in a flood zone, next to MARTA trains running every few minutes, next to a heavy duty, very long term construction project, next to a field that we may or may not have any access to at all.
Especially if the privilege of all this is going to cost extra money and involve the possibility of a less ideal locale for the police station. Darn shame that our DHA kids have deal with all this though.
And I really, really don’t want 1200 or so kids crammed into Renfroe.
Could not agree more about no megaschool at Renfroe. That was always my least favorite option.
So it’s OK for the Police Department to deal with this buliding in the shape it is in?????
No, it’s not… I think that the police department is an embarrassment to the city, honestly. I think the location is superb, but the building desperately needs a renovation. I think I heard somewhere (don’t know where or in what context – may have been a dream) that such a thing is in the works, no?
It is better that the police and criminals have to deal with it than the kids.
Given the information presented in the letters, I think folks will be hard-pressed to continue to argue that delaying/stopping 5th Avenue is in the best interests of the CSD students. I hope everyone will peaceably let Dr. Edwards and CSD move forward. I agree that some very good points were raised regarding the 5th Avenue conceptual plans, and I hope people will redirect their efforts into working to make 5th Avenue the best possible 4/5 Academy.
What an interesting tidbit that CSD could be forced to allow a charter school to use the 5th Avenue site if it is left unused! Now that CSD holds title, that is a very real concern if Beacon Hill were pursued instead. A charter school within our school system could be devastating to CSD, given the limited financial resources of our small city. Also, it would completely take 5th Avenue off the table for all future CSD reconfigurations, beyond the 4/5 Academy discussed today.
I would love to know more about this charter school movement. Is there really an organized group of CSD parents actively trying to create a charter school, or were these inquiries more general in nature? Hmm.
“folks will be hard-pressed to continue to argue that delaying/stopping 5th Avenue is in the best interests of the CSD students”
Have you been paying attention to all this crap from these so-called concerned citizens? IF they do stop arguing about this issue, they will just find something else to gripe about. It’s actually NOT about making the CSD better; It’s about some perceived wrong committed by the Administration and the School Board.
Agreed, but I’m trying to be optimistic! However, I wouldn’t be surprised if those who wrote/signed the letter are angrily crafting their rebuttal and new strategy as we speak. We’ll find out soon enough…
Yep– although I hope we’re all being overly pessimistic, I think the vocal opposition is gearing up to prepare a point-by-point counterargument to Dr. Edwards’ statement, which will no doubt be simmering long after folks on this board decide they’re sick of bandying the subject about. Unfortunate.
As far as I know, there’s no movement towards a charter school in Decatur. Vocal comments and questions from the taxpayers might be challenging for the CSD Administration but the top administrators are very well compensated and it was their choice to go to a Charter which is hardly a top-down “trust-us-we-know-best” type of school system. Vocal folks are engaged folks. When the taxpayers become less vocal and move towards charter schools or private schools or just give up on the job and no longer care to donate time, energy, or money, that’s when CSD will start to circle the drain. A small school system needs to engage all possible to survive. There’s more to leadership than being decisive, although decisive is certainly better than indecisive.
I am one who is not spending time “crafting a rebuttal”, but would still like to know how the money being spent on 5th avenue will provide a substantially better education than Glennwood can or could with a small addition.
A highly tendentious report from Rosser, which is vulnerable to counterargument. But trying not to miss the forest for the trees: restoring Beacon Hill as a school ain’t gonna happen.
Yeah, I was also a little taken aback by the Rosser report, which really had nothing good to say about the Beacon Hill site. It’s like they went into it not with the goal of “evaluating the site” but with the goal of unveiling any and all negatives about the site. I would have given it a bit more credence if they had ANYTHING good to say about the location.
But I agree. Forest for trees.
DM, isn’t Rosser the company who provided the faulty data that allowed the system to move forward with consolidation? Why is CSD still using Rosser?
I’d like to know the answer to this too. The reconfiguration of 2004 could have been just as massive and effective, but a whole lot easier and with less long-term consequences and costs, if it had been done a little bit more carefully and with better data.
“Then ask the freakin’ school board!
The consulting companies that were used in the ’04 reconfiguration were Boston Consulting (who worked gratis thanks to Mr. Ahmann) and Sizemore Floyd, who did the facility analysis and the demographics. Sizemore contracted the demographic work to a very reputable Ga. Tech professor, who specializes in city planning and demographics. He was dead-on in his forecasts for the first three years of his five-year study; however, there was no way for him to predict the influx of new kids in to CSD because of the surge of new families that moved into Decatur over the last couple of years.
Rosser has been handling construction management of CSD’s SPLOST/Bond construction projects over the past 2-3 years and has done an excellent job for CSD in helping to keep all projects on time and on/under budget. They are construction experts with a team of engineers, so they are well qualified to evaluate a site such as Beacon or Fifth Ave.
Rosser also subcontracted with a demographer earlier this year to help CSD with an updated demographic study. Georgia State professors & students also provided their expertise in predicting CSD’s demographics as well. As many know, these numbers were thoughtfully challenged by some members of the community. Predicting population numbers is a very difficult process for any city, county and/or school system, so only time will tell whose crystal ball was the “clearest” and working the best!!
Back in ’04, there were families all over town, including in Oakhurst, trying to tell the School Board about their 0-4 year olds! That a surge was about to hit was visible on the street by the number of families with young kids everywhere. Even on the northside, there were streets that had been once dominated by elderly residents being converted to streets of young families. But a School Board member, now gone, famously stated that he/she didn’t care how many baby carriages there were in Decatur, many of those families were going to private school. So the surge started before the reconfiguration even though it wasn’t detectable in the projections because of the kind of data they used. Neighborhoods informally collected data for CSD on the <5 year old population; something more formal probably should have been done by CSD.
That more families moved in later is undoubtedly true but that was the point that folks tried to make when critiquing the projections. In Decatur, one cannot use conventional methods to predict school enrollment because birth records don't tell the story. Many future CSD students show up in Decatur after birth because their families move there! That was true in 2004 and is true now too.
I have to go with Karass on this one. I have lived in Oakhurst over a decade and Decatur almost 20 years. All it would have taken was an unkeen eye on the stroller population at the Universal Joint – or heck, even the fact that the Universal Joint actually thrived -to know something was afoot that was about to have a huge impact on our schools.
Yes, Rosser was very much involved in the run up to the current reconfiguration. Their biggest claim to Decatur-Metro fame is for providing CSD with a flawed projection of the number of students to be expected in six areas the City was considering annexing at the time. They later revised their estimate much higher, which played a big role in the decision to wait and do more homework on annexation. In Rosser’s defense, they were asked to consider annexation very late in the preparation of a report focused the current city limits. There too they grossly underestimated the next years incoming K class. CSD has definitely and rightly taken a much bigger hand in enrollment projections lately, and the most influential enrollment estimates are projected to be much higher within the city limits. I think CSD is still, in fact, somewhat reeling from that unexpected spike a couple of years ago. Enrollment projections are not an exact science. The person I know that has made it nearly as scientific as it can be for Decatur in particular is Garrett Goebel.
Then they should hire Garrett!’
Um the voters had a chance to do that! And he did pretty darn good for a newcomer who has only lived in Decatur for three years and is not one of the usual suspects. He’s well known among the K-8 parents for all that he does with the schools, just about every day of the week. He got within ~150 votes of the long-standing incumbent and won a voting district. He definitely has educational research, budget, and enrollment projections under his belt. Maybe next election!
To be honest, I don’t know enough about all of the issues involved in this debate to comment much. However, I think I do need to comment on the use of anecdotes in a debate. First, most of what I am about to write are my observations only (i.e. anecdotal) and, as such, I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn. When we first moved to Decatur in 1978, we were the youngest people in our neighborhood (Glenwood Estates) and we were childless. By the time our first son (Robert) was born in 1983, baby carriages were evident; at least in Glenwood Estates. When Robert entered kindergarten (there were no preschools) at Glenwood there were about 10 other children from the neighborhood in his class. When our younger son, John, entered Glenwood 5 years later, there were only 2 children from the neighborhood in his class, even though baby carriage spottings had not noticeably diminished over that period. Some parents had opted to send their children to private schools over sending them to Glenwood. We even considered sending John to private school because of ‘issues’ which existed at Glenwood. Over the next decade or so, the age of the residents in Glenwood estates increased, presumably because people are happy in Decatur and don’t want to move (the large majority of the parents’ of John’s and Robert’s peers remain in the neighborhood) and, baby carriage sightings decreased. Within the last 5-10 years, there has once again been an increase in baby carriage sightings. What does all this mean? Hell, I’m not sure without conducting a study or looking at a lot of data. That’s not to say that anecdotal evidence should be totally dismissed. It can provide for a working hypothesis that should perhaps be tested and that is why consultants were hired to attempt to make predictions. I presume the contractor had experience in population dynamics and statistics and was able to make a “best estimate” in predicting the future population of children in CSD. In conclusion, John and Robert both went through the CSD. Robert graduated magna cum laude from Georgia Tech in Chemistry. John is a senior at Georgia Tech majoring in Electrical engineering and computer science with similar grades. Their success is not due to genetics, but to the outstanding education that they received in the CSD. Part of this education was due to the parental involvement in the school system. I’m glad to see it has not waned
Under HB555, a locally approved charter school (not state or commission approved) must be allowed to use an unused (unused by students is the best definition) school facility. As these facilities have been paid for by the tax payers/public, and charter schools are PUBLIC schools, to hold on to these facilities for possible future endeavors, is NOT in the best interest of the current charter (public) school students. Add in the fact that charter schools pay for every penny of facility costs out of their operating budget, typically 15% or more, HB555 was put into the books as an attempt to help ensure the financial sustainability of charter schools and to prohibit local boards of education from charging lease agreements with public charter schools.
Unfortunately, until the passage of 555, APS had a long time practice of charging their charters $40,000 – over $100,000 a year to utilize dilapidated publically owned buildings.
DeKalb County Schools has a terrible track record with their charters. Not one charter school has ever been able to utilize a vacant building within the district. The excuse has always been that there are future plans for the building.
Here in Decatur, as there are no locally approved charters, nor are there plans for any, the discussion of a charter using any facility within the district is unnecessary.
Re Ms. Rhame’s comment on charter schools being able to use vacant school system facilities. My understanding was that charter systems were exempt from the new charter school law. In other words, one cannot start a stand alone charter school (or at least a stand alone approved only by the state charter school board) in a charter district such as Decatur’s. Am I correct?
RE: “it was this brief aside from Ms. Rhame that most caught my attention.
And fyi, with the new state legislation surrounding charter schools, any new charter school can come in and take over any school system’s vacant buildings without the local board’s approval. We’ve already had inquiries about the 5th Ave. site from prospective charters.”
Ms. Rhame should get her facts straight, particularly in a public document. In fact, as was clearly articulated by Andrew Broy of the state DOE in the most recent meeting of the State Charter Commission, state chartered schools are not eligible to obtain vacant school facilities under the recenlty passed state law. Only locally approved schools are eligible. State chartered schools are, in his words, “on their own”.
If inaccurate statements serve as justification for their facilities plan, that is sad indeed.
Mr. Fixit – There was such a provision in the law until the very last minute but it was removed before it passed, hence CSD’s fierce opposition to the law.
Technically, that part wasn’t in a public document…just part of the email I received.
But that’s interesting. So, in order for a charter school to request space, they would need to be locally approved? Well, then I wonder where these requests for space are coming from.
Now, hold on…. I didn’t mean to start some nasty string. I was just curious about the charter system “exception” to the new charter school law b/c I thought it was added at the last minute – largely due to input of small charter systems like CSD. I just was wondering if my understanding was correct… nothing more.
The requests have been coming from potential charter school applicants who are researching areas to start new charters. CSD hasn’t received an actual petition yet, just several inquiries. School systems like CSD and Atlanta Public Schools who have high per pupil expenditures are ripe for potential charter school applicants. And yes, I was referring to local charter schools in my quick footnote to DM. My apologies if it was confusing.
Ms. Leckband, congratulations on receiving approval of your Museum School of Avondale Estates charter application from the Georgia Charter Schools Commission. I know you and I don’t agree on the constitutionality of HB 881; however, I am a fan of charter schools and wish you and our many friends in Avondale much success with the new school.
Thank you, Ms. Rhame. It is our hope that we can create a school that is every bit as good as the ones in CSD.
I am sure you can see that with the opposition that has formed against a law that is vital to our existence and to the future of education in Avondale Estates that it is necessary for me to clarify that we have no legislatively granted power to conduct a land grab . I also hope that you and CSD can see the careful deliberative process that was used in awarding our charter and the very few others that were awarded and see that it is not the goal of the Charter Commission to grant charters carelessly or for no good reason, but instead to grant them where there is real need being addressed and real innovation being offered. I can see no instance where the Charter Commission would grant a charter within Decatur unless the quality of your schools took a long term turn for the worse, something I am sure you will not allow.
I again invite the Board of CSD to have a dialogue about this issue. There should not be such a dramatic disparity in the quality of public education only 1 mile from Decatur, with no avenue to remedy the problem, and no real accountability from the people who can. The Charter Commission is vital to improving the quality of education in this state. I hope you will begin to consider the needs of stuidents other than those in CSD schools and drop your opposition to this law.
Wow.
“I hope you will begin to consider the needs of students other than those in CSD schools…”
Really? So now CSD needs to worry about schools OUTside of the City of Decatur? Don’t they already have enough on their plates with the schools INside the city?
I think there’s history to this. Evidently the CSD School Board took an active stance on whatever the new state legislation was involving charter schools being approved by the state after not being approved locally. So, in the opinion of a charter school trying to get state approval, CSD’s voting to take a position on charter schoolss outside its borders made them involved in the education of students outside of Decatur. I heard that, at a recent CSD School Board meeting, someone spoke up against CSD taking an active position.
Can’t say I know what’s right or wrong in this case. I see the point that CSD annoyed some by taking a stance on something that didn’t involve them directly. But I also know that a strong charter school movement within Decatur could be very damaging to the students enrolled in CSD because resources are limited enough without siphoning some off for a cherry-picked group of students. This is why CSD has to figure out how to use school leadership teams to address parent concerns effectively so that they don’t give up and turn to charter school activism.
Why should CSD resources support Avondale charter school?
Nellie raises the relevant question. Harsh or not, CSD is obligated to protect Decatur’s long-term educational interests. In some cases, that may involve taking a position on or further lobbying state issues. That doesn’t mean we don’t applaud efforts in Avondale (I know, personally, that I do) but our school board was not elected to serve as cheerleaders for other municipalities.
In the harsh world of winners and losers, Decatur has a nice niche as an intown community that can offer a stellar education. Because this is a relatively rare phenomenon, that makes living here very attractive for some buyer segments and adds a nice layer of protection and enhancement to our property values.
As other intown communities solve or mitigate their school issues, Decatur becomes less unique in this regard and the value of that draw is diminished. It may be inevitable but our leaders are not obligated to help expedite it.
“I again invite the Board of CSD to have a dialogue about this issue. There should not be such a dramatic disparity in the quality of public education only 1 mile from Decatur, with no avenue to remedy the problem, and no real accountability from the people who can. The Charter
Commission is vital to improving the quality of education in this state. I hope you will begin to consider the needs of stuidents other than those in CSD schools and drop your opposition to this law.”
As a taxpayer in the City of Decatur of which a substantial amount of our taxes go for the schools, there is a very good reason for the “dramatic disparity in the quality of education only 1 mile from Decatur” Unfortunately for Avondale and, it really is a shame, I presume that most, if not all of their budget for education is derived from the county and state and, the county has a lot to say about how that money is spent. If not, please set me straight. Just because a farm on the other side of the street decided to invest many years ago into modern technology to produce quality crops is no reason for the farm who did not similarly invest…. complain many years later that their crops just don’t stack up. I would suggest that Avondale adjust its tax base and make whatever arrangements they may be able to do with the county such they can have their own school system. Of course CSD is not going to be in favor of a law which could undercut the efforts and the energy and the money they have spent in developing their system.
Why is there such a silence from the letter signing supporter crowd? It’s deafening….
Given the reactions of one poster on this thread, I can’t blame them. The “bubbling fury” is almost palpable. It’s too bad. Decatur Metro will become a dull place if folks feel that posting is only for those with a certain position on issues.
As one of the concerned citizens who signed the letter to the superintendent and board, I’d like to speak to this issue. Perhaps the silence is because we are a little bewildered by the response. I won’t speak for the other signers, just myself. To put a face on it, I do not live in the Westchester area, I have two school-aged children (one at DHS who went pre-k-5th at Glennwood under the old configuration and one in first grade at Oakhurst), my children are fifth generation Decaturites and I love Decatur and CSD very much. Please note that the signers refrained from griping anonymously on this blog, instead choosing to make a formal request of the board and then await its response.
The reason my husband and I signed the letter was to get the board to reassess the site at Fifth Avenue in light of the revelation that the size was much smaller than the community originally thought.
We don’t prefer Beacon Hill (which wasn’t even mentioned in the letter we signed). In fact we love the vibrant artist community at Beacon Hill. A few months ago we donated food for the Beacon Hill artists’ studio tour/DHS arts fundraiser. As we walked through the studios with our young (aspiring artist!) son, we were so grateful to have such an open and inviting artist community in our midst.
In addition, my husband and I were not overly opposed to the 4/5 at Renfroe. Bruce Roaden is simply amazing – energetic, inspiring, organized, an excellent communicator, and extremely professional. If anyone could make it work well, it would be him.
That said, I just hope that we can make the 4/5 academy work – with the space available, wherever that may be. I’ve always been a huge cheerleader for CSD, even when I didn’t agree with a major decision. I hope those disparaging the signers of the letter will realize that we are not just a bunch of grumblers. I know there were several signers who won’t even have children in CSD for another year or so, some who are in their first year and becoming involved for the first time, and others like us who have been active in the system for a number of years. We are truly an eclectic group of concerned citizens, nothing more.
Thank you for reading my long response! This is my first time posting on a blog and I have to admit that I probably won’t reply to a bunch of responses to my post. I guess I’m a bit old-fashioned and prefer a good conversation, and I definitely don’t like the anonymity of this forum. Give me a call or stop by on a walk!
Amy Chastain
308 Kings Hwy
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.–MLK, Jr.
Most of the “letter-signing crowd” (we “so-called concerned citizens”) are too busy trying to make the school system better instead of hanging out here and insulting others with their laughably ill-informed, pollyanna comments. It’s always the people who know the least that seem to talk the most. Get off the computer and get a clue, people [edited].
Wow. What’s with the sudden animosity?
As I recall both sides were “hanging out here” until a couple weeks back. I even posted your letter…IN FULL. Remember the 100+ comments?
But hey, I’m happy to be your whipping boy if you want to rewrite history.
(Ah…I just went back through this thread and saw nugget’s comment. That was a bit harsh and guess I missed it previously, otherwise I probably would have stepped-in in some capacity. My apologies on that, but I didn’t receive the “abandon DM” email, which left that rather harsh statement untested.)
D. Decatur –
An example of missed opportunity to self-censor before clicking ‘submit.’
Regardless of readers’ stand on this issue – I don’t think this type of comment helps your cause.
A good ‘golden’ rule: “No angry typing”
I think Nugget needs the rule too. He used at least two words in this thread that aren’t allowed at our dinner table. I’m was thinking of banning “Westchester” and “flood plain” at the dinner table as well but then I realized that my kids don’t remember Westchester and they think a flood plain is a playground.
P.S.: Why do I think Nugget is a male? There I go, stereotyping again. He or she needs the rule.
Thanks Dick!
I apologize for asking, but I am new to Decatur – can someone tell me when the 5th Avenue school would be opening? Would it be for the coming school year?
Last I heard, the goal was the 11/12 school year.
Thanks Scott. Again, sorry for the novice questions, but when is work scheduled to start? Or has it already started?
I think people who supports the 5th Ave. idea should attend the Board Meeting. It is amazing how a few people can change the mind of the Board when the majority of the people supports the move. Please make your voices as loud as the nay sayers. Show up at the next Board meeting and give your support.
forgive me .. but why isn’t westchester being used as a school?
Cliff notes: Westchester was closed years ago as a result of reconfiguration. The reason given for its closure was that it was less ‘walkable’ than other schools in the district. The building is now used as an admin center for CSD.
since “walkable” now seems to be out, given academies that cover just a couple of grades, and that most of the school building and that fantastic field just sit there, reopening as a school would seem to be worthy of consideration. what did the administration do for offices before westchester?
Westchester is no more walkable now than it was 5 years ago. Scott Blvd will always be a busy street. And this is coming from a resident of one of the busiest, fastest streets/roads in Decatur.
They were in dark, nasty, rat infested, tiny offices that were an appendage to Decatur High. These were torn down when the new gym was built.
Westchester may very well reopen one day, particularly if there is an annexation in our future. It won’t work for the 4/5 academy b/c of its small size and b/c of state/local stream buffer issues (different from flood plain issues) that prevent any sort of significant expansion or demo/rebuilding. There was a good bit of consideration of using Westchester for a 4/5 last spring, but the reconfiguration committee determined it was unworkable.
Are you new to Decatur, Sadie?
not new to decatur, have been paying plenty of taxes for 17 years. if westchester is not useable as a school, how about selling that choice piece of real estate and use the proceeds to invest in teachers and maybe even give the taxpayers some relief?