Decatur School K-3 Redistricting Maps Now Available Online
Decatur Metro | October 10, 2010
With the help of “GSU partners”, a City Schools of Decatur sub-committee has come up with seven different redistricting options, all of which are available to the viewing public HERE.
Along with the color-coded maps, you can also view grade and race population totals for Decatur’s four K-3 schools, based on a model that assumes the next incoming kindergarten class will be the same size and come from the same areas as the current class.
In Superintendent Phyllis Edwards’ letter to the Board of Education (pdf), she lists out 10 assumptions that were made in the creation and evaluation of these maps, and ultimately recommends Option #7 for adoption, with the caveat that Glennwood keep trailers for Pre-K and that Oakhurst keep a trailer “in order to allow for the possibility of opening Westchester in 2012-2013, lessening chances that families on the west side of town would need to be zoned differently three years in a row.”
The school board will hold a public work session about the redistricting on Tuesday at 5:30p in the Westchester Auditorium. Additionally, the Superintendent’s note states that blow-up versions of the maps will be displayed at all the K-5 schools and that the public will be able to comment about the proposed options online or in person over the next month or so.
The Superintendent has stated that she’d like to get a vote on redistricting before the school board in November.
“Option 7″ in the map above. Red = Clairemont, Yellow = Glennwood, Green = Oakhurst, Blue = Winnona Park
Between the criteria used in the Superintendent’s letter, the seven options, and the discussion of what might happen in the future, there’s a lot to digest here. After a quick perusal and drilling down through % Non-White to % Black students, I have observations (some of which surprised me), not opinions yet.
- The recommended choice #7 has the widest disparity between schools in terms of % Black with Clairemont at only ~8%, Winnona Park at ~14%, Oakhurst at ~37%, and Glennwood at ~24%. That kind of spread reminds me of pre-reconfiguration although not as drastic because the percentage of Black residents has been declining overall. Overall, the percentage of Black students in CSD is ~22% now.
-Options 4 and 7 have Glennwood being particularly small (210 students), again feeling like pre-reconfiguration schools
-Option 4 has the most even distribution of Black students with Clairemont, Oakhurst, and Glennwood all at ~24% but Winnona Park only at ~14%
-In all of the Options, Winnona Park has only 12-17% Black students
-In none of the Options does Winnona Park have students from the downtown Housing Authority homes (if I’m understanding the map correctly). I think it has some now.
-It would be helpful to know more about how Option 7 would make adding Westchester easier. I’m not disputing it, just not mastering the concept right now.
-It was explained that Free Lunch data are not available yet but I think it would be helpful to look at old data or some other measure of family income. I think that’s more important in terms of school resources and measuring achievement than is race, which is only a proxy for income level, and is becoming less and less of a useful proxy.
I wasn’t going to go to the Board Meeting but now I am intrigued and may go. I’d like to hear the rationale for each of the Options.
Good analysis Karass, but I think you are reading the wrong column for racial percentages. I read that they vary from about 28% to about 42%. Double check and see what you think.
I calculated Black percentages myself rather than using “Non-white” percentages. Or am I still wrong?
¿Was Map #6 included for comic relief?
It’s the closest to my idea of concentric circle zones!
Wow, those maps are pretty near illegible. What is the name of the street that runs vertically between the new Winnona Park and Oakhurst districts?
Seems like if I could click on these to enlarge them that would avoid a lot of parental calls to the school office on Monday morning.
I found that, if I clicked on the “View” option of Internet Explorer, and then on “Zoom”, I could see a lot more detail. Of course, now my screen is all messed up in every application, but eventually I’ll figure it out.
Kings Hwy–it was the original demarcation line years ago, but one side of the street only~
It looks like Kings Hwy is the dividing line for Winnona and Oakhurst. King’s is labeled. I don’t understand why they didn’t give us a map with streets!
It’s not really Kings Highway that is the dividing line – all Kings Highway kids would go to Winnona. Greenwood Ave kids would go to Oakhurst.
In all but options 5 and 6, they have switched the MAK from Oakhurst to Winnona.
King’s Hwy was the dividing line before the last reconfiguration. In fact, one side of the street went to OAK and one side went to WP. Not a smart idea, IMO.
I was able to click Control-+ to zoom in and see some of the street names.
J – I believe the street running between the new winnona and oakhurst districts on map 7 is McKoy (of course I may be wrong
)
Hasn’t it always been? I have never understand why half of Oakhurst doesn’t GO to Oakhurst! It really should be McDonough so the neighborhood schools are neighborhood.
You might be interested to know that there is no “official” Oakhurst (neighborhood).
I just saw Oakhurstgirl’s post. It looks like on Map 7 the dividing line between winnona and oakhurst is Mckoy in the south part of the divide, and kings in the north part of the divide….
On Map 7, the dividing line between Oak and WP is where the back yards of the folks that live on Kings Hwy. and Greenwood Ave meet. I think there’s an alley there. This is true between College to the north and Oakview to the south. So, all folks living on Kings are slated to WP and all folks living on Greenwood Ave are slated to Oak in this option.
South of Oakview, the boundary is McKoy.
Greg Wiseman
Thanks for chiming in Greg. Much appreciated.
wonder if there is any talk of grandfathering in those kids who will be third graders next year so as to allow them to finish their K-3 where they started?
I have thought this was a good idea if not too difficult logistically. It shouldn’t involve a lot of students.
i’d like to see at least the option available.
I remember that when we started Oakhurst years ago, there were many new 3rd graders who were redistricited from Westchester and Winnona. So my guess is that they won’t grandfather kids.
Actually, Westchester third graders zoned to Clairemont were allowed to attend Oakhurst instead if they chose and several chose that. There were strong recommendations from Westchester admin about Oakhurst probably being a more stable school during the transition compared to Clairemont which was completely reconstituted in terms of kids, teachers, and staff with little continuity from the past.
I will have a 3rd grader at Oakhurst next year and if this passes will have to move to Winnona. It would be great if they would let us stay ! We will be very SAD to leave our wonderful school in our last year!
I don’t like it either, but I will tell you this. Back when they flip flopped MAK over to Oakhurst, my kid was in this boat, and it actually was a great thing. She got to know lots more people and when she got to Glennwood (soon to be 5th Avenue) there was very little adjustment b/c she already knew most of the kids there.
It was much harder on my as a mommy than on my kid. I say that seeing that my kid will probably be transferring back to Winnona next year from Oakhurst which will again be harder on me than my kid.
Frankly, the walk to Winnona is much shorter from MAK (it doesn’t look that way but it is when you look as how the streets run) than the walk to Oakhurst. I love Oakhurst, but hate the walk.
It may not be too many kids as some may have siblings who will be kindergarteners. We have been at WP and love it but our second grader is looking forward to going to Glennwood with his little sister next year. Next time they will be in the same school: his senior year in HS! Actually I love that they will have their “own” school but it will be nice to have just one school run for one year. I would have loved him to stay at WP for third grade if he didn’t have a sister going to K. I hope families who have a 2nd grader that wants to stay put can.
Glad to see that some folks are checking out the results of this challenging work.
This worksession isthe beginning of several opportunities over the next month. The board will have two public listening sessions (dates tbd) as well as look at results of electronically-submitted comments. They may also discuss the challenge of making a decision such as this in mid matriculation, that is when some students have been at a school and may be rezoned.
Few other notes:
Map 6 emerged when we asked GSU to ignore current lines and create zones that would theoretically balance nonwhite diversity.
Google maps has been helpful for us in processing the maps. We found that putting street names everywhere made it quite difficult to read. The narrative descriptions that will be published soon are quite helpful.
Best,
Thomas for CSD
Selfishly, I really don’t want option 6. It completely eliminates the option of walking to school for us, because we’d be way over at Glenwood. Not only that, it adds a lot of commute time when you factor in all those crzay lights back and forth over the tracks.
But whatever is chosen, I just hope it’s done with some foresight and smarts so that we don’t have to go through this whole highly annoying process again anytime soon.
I object to Option 7 because of the caveat that Glennwood keep trailers for pre-K. Here’s some background: When Glennwood was renovated a much larger parking lot was created, seriously reducing the size of the playground. Many Glennwood parents spent hundreds of hours coming up with and presenting options that would not result in that reduction, but they were ultimately told by the board that they were “too late.” This was despite the fact that it was only at the very last community renovation presentation – right before the end of the school year – that the outdoor renovation was presented. Until that point the community believed that only the interior was to be renovated. There was no room for “timely” objections and concerns to be expressed about the exterior.
When trailers were added to Glennwood due to enrollment, those trailers were placed on the already reduced playground area. This has had serious implications for the school. Students for the past few years have only had recess three days a week, partly due to the fact that it is very difficult to run P.E. and recess concurrently on such a small playground. Now that another school is opening to relieve enrollment pressures, the trailers can be removed. I believe that Glennwood parents will and should resist any movement to place pre-K in trailers at their school. Last year, the Clairemont community successfully averted such a move at their school, demonstrating that they value play space for all students at their school over the convenience of a closer pre-K for some. I believe that this same value is present throughout the entire CSD community.
Our school system has very small school sites. None meet state size requirements – most fall extremely far below the minimum. We need to accept and work within this reality. Play space needs to be prioritized – more on why later – and I personally believe that with our enrollment figures that means that pre-K needs to be contained at College Heights. I hope that many parents will attend the session this Tuesday to voice their concerns about any redistricting option which will reduce the already too small play areas at our schools.
Whoops! I erroneously assumed that there would be public comment during the meeting at Westchester on Tuesday evening. Hopefully, the option of leaving the current trailers at Glennwood to accomodate pre-K will be taken off the table during the work session and there will be no need for parents and community members to communicate their concerns more formally!
We happen to live on the “dividing line”, McKoy St. Presently, McKoy is split into two, N. McKoy is Oakhurst and S. McKoy is Winnona. With the new plans, it gets even worse. One side is WP and other in McKoy. We don’t go to school with our closest neighbors. Why divide up ONE STREET?
I hope you really express this to the school board. That McKoy division is just stupid in a such a small district.
There has to be a dividing line somewhere but you’re right. The middle of the street is the wrong place to put it. Dividing lines for school zones should be mid-block so that children on the same street attend school together.
Yours isn’t the only street cut in half by some of these weird proposals. Option 7 would have a dead-end part of our street going to a different school than the whole rest of the neighborhood. And they’re not any closer to that school than we are.
It’s best not to divide streets if at all possible, but of course long streets sometimes have to be cut. There used to be a lot of weird splits between Clairemont and Westchester with interesteing dynamics. Your kids would play with the neighbor kids until they went to kindergarten and then all of a sudden they didn’t see each other again until middle school. It made for real bizarre dynamics leading up to the reconfiguration decision. When Clairemont was threatened, half the divided streets had “We love our K-5 Schools” on every lawn; the other halves were empty. When Clairemont was picked instead of Westchester to stay open, those signs immediately came down and then the other half of the street had signs, I don’t remember what, something like “Decatur School Alliance”.
Primadonna, it looks like map 4 fixes that – if you are referring to the dead end section of Melrose.
I just noticed that Map 3 sends the southside of Nelson Ferry homes to Oakhurst and the northside – along with the rest of Ponce Heights – to Clairemont.
Observations and Questions:
Enrollment zones are based on generalizations from a single year’s enrollment data.
The proposal assumes we can be 94% efficient in utilizing classroom capacity
- CL, OA, GL, WP are stated to provide a capacity of 1254 K-3 students
- estimated enrollments are 1184 K-3 students
- 1184/1254=94.44
- [Note: Including Pre-K w/o trailers gives 1244/1254 = 99% capacity]
The proposal still has students in trailers. What is the long term solution?
Has green space and playground equipment been considered in PreK placement?
Has there been consideration of a PreK-3 configuration using Westchester?
- Westchester’s 11 classrooms give an additional 242 student capacity
- PreK-3 configuration: split our 9 PreK classes between CL, OA, and WP
* total PreK-3 enrollment estimate would be 1,364 students
* 91% efficient in utilizing capacity across CL, GL, OA, WE, WP
* addresses College Heights’ overcrowding problem
By the looks of the maps, I don’t personally have much of a dog in this race, but I like this option, Garrett. I hate to see CSD redistrict this year only to redistrict again the next year. It’s really not fair to the kids that will be caught up in all of that, and my guess by looking at the maps is that some of our most at risk kids will be shuffled the most. Let’s spend some more time, figure it out and get it all done this year, Westchester included, if necessary. I think it’s possible to figure out enrollments for more than one year ahead of time. Spend a couple of weeks and go door to door if you have to.
I wonder if CSD looked at the church and private daycare PreK enrollment when figuring the number of kindergärtners coming up. Dr. E’s report makes it sound like they only looked at CH enrollments. I know a lot of north side families keep their kids in church preschools b/c they don’t want to have to haul all the way down to College Heights, particularly if they have younger kids who don’t need full time daycare and are in church preschools themselves. Can CSD poll the private daycares and church preschools in the city to get a count of how many preK and 3.y.o. kids will be likely to go to CSD?
I think that is a great point. I too know several kids whose parents chose to keep them at the private preschool for preK but will be entering the city system for K. I hope there is a logical way to stay ahead of future enrollments (track Leapin Lizards traffic? just kidding!). The baby population seems to keep growing but I’m not sure how to access real, trackable data on that.
I’m also very confused about the possibility of opening Westchester. That would mean this year’s redistricting is only for one year which completely affects how I feel about Map 7. I hope a lot of this information is shared tomorrow night.
I’m going to try and get some clarity from CSD on Westchester prior to tomorrow night.
As for why not just open it in the coming year, my guess is that they’re a bit gun-shy about opening too many schools at once and then watching enrollments decline in future years.
Doing westside redistricting again next year is an easier pill for the community to swallow than to go through another school closing.
But that’s just a guess. I’ll report back when I get a response.
Wouldn’t the 2010 Census be the most up-to-date source of data?
Or, frankly, lunch assistance data. My kids are non-white, and while they occasionally try to convince me that they are “disadvantaged,” it has more to do with iPods and cell phones than what the school board is trying to mitigate. I would also put out there that using “non-white” as a proxy for “poor” is going to make less sense over time in our increasingly multi-cultural little city.
Thanks, Garrett. I am not at all opposed to using trailers in peak years, which makes more sense than over-building and having excess capacity most of the time. But I had thought the expectation was that we are not yet at the projected peak enrollment. If we expect enrollments to go up — to judge from Garrett’s numbers, even by a little — then a reconfiguration that is already using trailers on day one is obviously problematic. And if #7 is recommended in part owing to the likelihood of re-opening WE in 2012-23, and reconfiguring again a year after this reconfiguration, we’d be better doing it all at once.
I think being conservative and avoiding re-opening Westchester until it is absolutely necessary is fiscally prudent. Especially with the question of annexation unresolved… -Doing what we can to sit tight for “one more year” makes sense. However, what are the parameters under which bringing new brick and mortar online will be deemed absolutely necessary?
Note: We will hit 100% capacity if the grow estimated in the enrollment zoning proposal is followed by 6% the next year. Alternatively, if we grow at a half-percent less than our current 9% rate… we’ll also surpass 100% capacity in 2 years.
It is also worth mentioning that the Reconfiguration Committee’s Recommendation for Option #13 called for the addition of 7 classrooms split between Glennwood and Winnona Park. Perhaps it is time to implement the recommendation? Or to look at alternative proposals that might also address overcrowding at College Heights?
The numbers…
According to the enrollment comparison presented at the August Board Meeting, we currently have upwards of 1047+ K-3 enrollments. The chart presented listed 1047 K-3 students not including 77 absences across K-12. Assuming equal absences across grades, 4/13ths of 77 rounded down is 23. Giving an estimate of 1070 current K-3 students.
The enrollment zone proposal lists classroom capacity at K-3 with Glennwood at 1254 students. It estimates 1184 enrollments next year. This would represent 10-11% growth at K-3 and an average of 296 students per grade.
In the 2nd paragraph of Dr. Edwards’ “Update”, she states that the GSU projection doubles current Kindergartener addresses to predict next year’s Kindergarten and 1st grade enrollments. -To her credit, this is fairly conservative. We have a huge Kindergarten class this year.
Got it. I actually saw that but was (perhaps unduly) fixated on the 75% of preK from Winnona/Oakhurst and 25% from Clairemont figures. I was thinking that there are probably more preK students that will come from the private preschools that would be districted to Clairemont (as we are currently districted).
Man, this is an analyst’s dream, isn’t it?
I assume you mean “huge” compared to the classes ahead of it, but what about the looming classes behind it? Any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that this particular Kindergarten class is bigger than succeeding ones?
I’ve been wondering about the rising K numbers, too. At the private preschool where I work in downtown Decatur we enrolled more 4-year-olds this year than we have in 20 years!
Let’s look at the math.
With Option 7, Oakhurst will have131 african american students. Clairemont, Winona, and Glenwood ALL 3 COMBINED will have 111.
Are we really going to do this – racially divide our school system again?
Is the option 7 solution being recommended because it is the best for our children and our city?
Are we trying to undo the work that was done years ago to address the achievement gap?
This feels like a power play by folks on the north side to re-segregate the city elementary schools.
And there’s the northside/southside argument, alive and well.
I guess I was wrong.
Hey, I’m a southsider, too. I’m curious how you would slice up the pie to avoid low African-American enrollment beyond Oakhurst. Is option six better because it promotes more diversity? What’s most important? Keeping kids that live on the same street together or insuring diversity among each school. Beyond Karass’s concentric circles I don’t know how you adequately stir the melting pot.
As a northsider, I can say that, if there’s a northside plot, it’s a secret one. I was shocked to see an Option 7 that put Clairemont at 7.6% Black students and Oakhurst at 37%. See my post where I wondered about it. It makes me wonder if the orginal rationale for the 2004 reconfiguration was really just about achieving systemwide diversity or if it was also about promoting southside real estate and business interests.
But I haven’t heard the full explanation of Option 7 yet; maybe that will help. Maybe if it is followed by an opening of Westchester, that will somehow equalize the diversity more.
AND I wish we could look at household income data vs just race/ethnicity. None of us really believe that it’s race/ethnicity that creates achievement gaps and need for special resources, but rather financial and social factors that create prenatal, postnatal, and social environmental factors that affect how children learn and perform.
Another thought: Of all the K-3 schools, the school that with the lowest percentage of black students throughout all 7 options is Winnona Park. Does that mean that there’s a power play by the southeast side of Decatur?
I can’t say it looks like a “northside power play” to me, but given the overall statistics shown, Map 5 actually makes the most geographic sense, IMO. Glennwood ends up with a higher percentage of non-white students, but it otherwise looks pretty balanced. It doesn’t make much sense for MAK to be flipped back over to Winnona Park (especially since it’s already so crowded). Of course, since I am without progeny (school-age or otherwise), I realize I have no personal stake in this, but just my .02 observation.
Wow, those are REALLY discouraging numbers. I don’t want to go back to where we were 8 years ago. I do wish we could get rid of the “non-white” language–what does that mean, anyway-have you seen Decatur, lately?-and look at reduced lunch as the reference statistical point. That seems to make more sense.
Option 4 fixes that.
Option 4 puts the largest student population in our smallest building and campus.
Regardless of classroom count, Clairemont is just too small. Please, tour for yourself. We have 360 + kids at Clairemont this year on 2.9 functional acres. (Winonna, 390 on 5.81 acres) It’s rather ridiculous. Unfortunately, the decision to use Clairemont instead of Westchester seven years ago has lingering consequences. The lack of acreage at Clairemont will probably be the reason why we eventually go back to five schools, thus losing the goal of operational efficiency set forth seven years ago. Five elementary schools in four square miles. I know many people like this, but if it happens I will be sad to see the neighborhoods divided again.
OK, then Take Option 4 and add the 62 courtesy and tuition kids to Oakhurst and/or Winnona. Then move all the kids on the west side of Church St. (near Glenlake Park) to Glennwood. Then I believe Clairemont would have the smallest enrollment of the three schools that have 15 classrooms (Glennwood only has 12 classrooms from my understanding).
PreK could be added to schools other than Clairemont. Would that work for y’all? I getcha on the small campus thing… just want to know if this would work since this seems to do the best job of balancing diversity.
Since this is a very important issue to many, many people and a number of mistakes and/or miscalculations were made during the recent reconfiguration, I would suggest everyone posting issues here make sure they send those issues-in a reasonable, calm, professional manner. That’s what I plan to do!
Can someone (DM?) post in this post what the current stat breakdowns are for each school for reference?
You can kind of get the data and derive percentages from the school report cards on the CSD website but would be more informative if a table for the current demographics of the K-3 schools could be constructed in the same format as Options 1-7.
Finding anything on the CSD website is a mystery to me. The reason I ask is because I know that
Oakhurst currently can’t even have an all school Community Circle inside because of too many kids. We are lucky to have space outside to do it. But I want to know what our current numbers are.
The more time I look at the maps and see what streets are being used as the boundaries, the more I am in favor of #5. Using McDonough as the dividing line between Oakhurst & WP makes more sense.
Just noticed that the school report cards are out of date on the website. The latest ones posted are for the school year 2007-2008. At that time, Winnona Park students were 34% Black (vs 12%-17% in Options 1-7), Oakhurst was 32% Black (vs. 23%-37% in Options 1-7), and Clairemont was 31% Black (vs. 8%-24% in Options 1-7). But since the data in the current Options have the overall Black percentage at 22%, things have obviously changed a lot. (Or my quick and dirty math is off. Geeks: please feel free to correct).
A total tangent, but I find it interesting, in 2007-2008, Oakhurst had the lowest percentage of students on free and reduced lunch of all three K-3 schools (21% vs. 28% for Winnona and 25% for Clairemont). This all the more support for my contention that we should be looking at indicators for family income as well as race/ethnicity. The two no longer are as correlated as they once were.
The only problem with that option is that it puts 368 kids at Oakhurst and under 300 at all the other schools. Last year the FTE numbers were only 294, and it was really crowded (with trailers) even then.
Although, selfishly… I do like that it keeps us at Oakhurst. – we’d be packed in like sardines though.
But would #5 makes us packed like sardines? I know that this option is not desired because of the the option of Westchester coming on board and possible 3 school moves for some kids. But 5 elementary schools for a 4 sq mile city?
OK, so here are Asst. Superintendent Thomas Van Soelen’s responses to my Westchester questions…
how does Option #7 make the possibility of reopening Westchester easier?
oakhurst would keep a trailer so that children, particularly on the northern end of the current Oakhurst enrollment zone wouldn’t need to be rezoned, possibly for clairemont for 2011-2012, then re-zoned again for possibly westchester in 2012-2013.
Secondly, if it’s anticipated that Westchester needs to be reopened, why not just do it in 2011?
because we don’t need to – the enrollment doesn’t warrant it. we don’t know if the enrollment will warrant it for 2012-2013 either – just wanted to be quite thoughtful for those families if that case arrives.
But if we put PK back into the elementary schools (lengthening grade spans: a plus) and leave the 0-3 program at CHECLC, then we have enough students for all five elementary schools, don’t we?
I say keep the PK all in one place if at all possible.
If PK is put back into the elementary schools, we’ll go back to the squabbles we had before when PK at one school was over enrolled but there were open slots on the opposite side of town. Families got upset because they couldn’t get their child into the PK class at their home school. It became just one more sensitive issue causing conflict between efficiency for the system and the wants of individual parents . There were lots of hard feelings about who got space in which PK class.
Unless enrollment grows well beyond the level projected for the next few years, 5 elementary schools will present the same problems we had before the reorganization . We’d have only 1 or 2 classes per grade level at each of the 5 elementary schools. We wouldn’t be able to maximize state funding for our class rooms .
PreK’s are already scattered all over the place between the Frasier Center and Oakhurst and almost Clairemont.
I was glad they didn’t add Clairemont to the PK mix. I realize the classes aren’t all together now but it is far from the scattered all over the place you will have if we go to 5 elementary schools – each having its own PK class . A lottery for spots at 5 different PK locations would be a nightmare.
Frasier Center is gone for good and the Oakhurst preK is closed. ALL pre-k classes are at College Heights and the plan is to keep them there. Why do you think there are trailers there?
Actually, Dr. Edwards is proposing that the trailers which could be removed at Glennwood with the opening of another school be left behind to house some of the pre-K. (Please see the “caveat” mentioned in the Decatur Metro article above and my first comment) To sum up my argument, there is a serious lack of green space/playground space at Glennwood and the trailers should be removed to reclaim the playground space that they replaced. I am hopeful that this will happen. Clairemont successfully averted placement of the pre-K at their school for this year, demonstrating that they value more (although still very limited) play space for all of their students over the convenience of closer pre-K for some of them.
The Frasier Center is not gone. It has been relocated to another area of the high school during renovation.
I thought it was still there because a short cut between the high school parking lot and McDonough goes right through a toddler playground. But maybe it is only 0-3 now and not preK.
It’s not part of College Heights anymore and principal Suzanne Kennedy told me that the HS wanted the space back. There is definitely no pre-K there anymore. So what is it now?
And it’s not 0-3, either. If it is, it is back to being run by someone besides College Heights.
Just to clarify- the regular 0-3 daycare at Fraiser is still there just like it has been for 20 years. Nothing to do with CHECLC or the preK. Sorry this so confusing and I have not been explaining well!
Oh, I’m behind the times.
And I was snarky when I reread what I said. Sorry
I love the word snarky.
Won’t Option 4 do this too without creating such a diversity disparity between Oakhurst vs Clairemont/Glennwood? Maybe this is just too many variables per option for my head to get around.
I live north of W. Howard and my kid goes to Oakhurst. Does Dr. Thomas Van Soelen’s answer mean that my kid will go to Westchester in 2012-13? We are one mile from Oakhurst and walk to school now and don’t want to be rezoned to Wetchester. Is the rezoning for Westchester being molded at this time? Am I to understand that the school zone lines are going to revert back to the railroad tracks?
Yep, seems like 4 pretty much takes care of it. It also reduces OA enrollment from a very large 351 to a more reasonable 307. Then, put your tuition/courtesy kids at Winnona or Glennwood.
Yeah, offhand 4 looks better to me too. All of the proposals (other than weirdo #6) do a reasonable job of keeping students close to their respective elementary schools. But SW Decatur has a higher proportion of blacks than other areas of Decatur, and #7–alone among the non-weirdo proposals–also zones the public housing off of Commerce to Oakhurst Elementary, which is why the proportion of black students between the different elementary schools is so lopsided in #7.
Is the “elephant in the room” the fact that no neighborhood wants their school to have ALL of the the public housing kids?
Maybe there should be an option 8 that distributes these kids evenly among the 4 schools.
Nice…. just glad I’m not one of “these kids.” Hope they aren’t reading some of “these comments.” I’m happy to have any kids here at Oakhurst. And I’ll take me a Dollar General too.
No elephant in the room here. We play soccer over in the Ebster area, and I see some nice, earnest families there. I really appreciate the social opportunities offered in the area too and I’m aware of several teachers who volunteer time with tutoring and other eduational opportunities. Additionally, with the redevelopment of the housing, I’m assuming it will be mixed income and “public housing” will be no more?
During my Decatur 101 class, I asked what low income housing the Allen Wilson Redevelopment would offer when complete. I was told they had committed to replacing low income housing units 1 for 1.
That’s correct. Talk of mixed income refers to a planned building offering a mix of market rate and affordable units. These units would be in addition to the one-for-one replacement.
Having some market rate housing is a component of the finance mechanism being used for the redevelopment.
I don’t think it’s an elephant in the room. If you have Decatur Housing Authority section 8 housing as public housing–not sure if you do–there is other public housing, for instance, Oakview Apartments and Spring Pointe Apts. on Oakview rd., just south of Oakhurst Village.
Let’s be clear here–there is NOTHING wrong with having kids from public housing in the same elementary school as your very own special, non-public-housing, kid. I was just commenting on why the racial demographics of the schools for map #7 were so lopsided. And I do think that, if we really care about having diverse schools, #7 is weaker. Oakview Elementary is diverse on any of the proposals. But on #7, Clairemont (for instance) is projected to have 3 black students out its 66 K students, and 3/66 1st grade–less than 5% in both cases. That’s really surprising.
Re elephant in the room: I think the discussion is fairly open right now and less politicized than usual. Folks are exploring out loud what do we mean by diversity–racial/ethnic?, total non-White percentage or Black percentage?, low vs higher income?, free lunch eligibility? etc. And then how should it best be achieved given the structure of our neighborhoods, unnatural barriers like the RR tracks, current emphasis on walkability/bikeability, and desire to avoid having children change zones constantly as demographics change.
There are some issues that are a little dicey but not elephants if we discuss them–e.g. why Winnona Park doesn’t receive any downtown Decatur housing authority families in any of the Options, and/or why we are using “non-White” percentages which make the diveristy disparity look less in CSD whereas looking at Black percentages shows that certain Options still create some considerable racial disparity. IMHO, it’s because the Options are trying to meet so many conditions that no one Option can address them all. Not an elephant, but a difficult dilemma that is being openly discussed here, and hopefully will be at tomorrow night’s meeting too.
I am confused by the Winnona Park numbers as well.
In almost every option Winnona has the smallest enrollment and yet it is by far our largest elementary school facility. I have tried to encourage our board to think of their school’s in terms of optimum potential facility usage instead of just the existing classroom count. They seem to be sticking with the current classroom count method of planning.
I recently walked thru the Winnona school building for the first time. It is a LOVELY school! I can understand why you folks are so proud of your school.
I have had children at Clairemont and Glennwood. I am not familiar with the interior size of Oakhurst so I can’t speak to their experience. Winnona classrooms are easily 1 1/2 the size of many classrooms at Clairemont (almost all of the original classrooms at Clairemont are nonconforming by todays building standards) They also appear to be larger than most Glennwood classrooms. The cafeteria and media center are larger than Clairemont and Glennwood’s facilities. And the playground, well, the Winnona Park playground is larger than the new Fifth Avenue school site that will house 500-600 students.(Yes, I know that a small part of the playground is floodplain.)
And yet, almost every option has the lowest enrollment at Winnona. Is csd saving space at Winnona for future annexation that may or may not happen? If not, I hope the school system will please provide more information behind their recommendation to under utilize the Winnona school property. I realize you’ve had 390 kids there this year and that it’s been crowded. I am not implying that your current facility /trailers situation represents optimum usage of your site , nor am I trying to underhandedly push for your trailers to remain instead of those on smaller sites.
As I recall, when the school board voted to proceed with the Fifth Avenue project, they assured us that this action would alleviate the need for trailers at all of our elementary schools. (Of course , that was only likely had they proceeded with the fine print of option 13.)
I assume they are placing more kids at Oakhurst and Clairemont in anticipation of opening Westchester,particularly if annexation moves forward. If they do create a fifth district and open Westchester, how will that effect the racial balance on the north side? If the Oakhurst and Clairemont districts as drawn in option #7 are divided to create the new Westchester district (ha,ha…. these maps are all looking very familiar to me, particularly #7 with a fifth district added) either Westchester or Clairemont will not be racially balanced. Very disappointing. And that’s why I wanted to go with fewer larger schools instead of going back to pre 2003.
I can’t tell you how great it has been to be in school with almost everyone on the north side of town over these last seven years; even if we were crammed into Clairemont! I would have loved to have had some of you southsiders there too, but I’m afraid you just wouldn’t fit. I’m going to miss all of our Glennwood families next year. That’s going to be a great school again!
My apologies, I should have said Winnona has one of the lower enrollments on almost all of the options…. sorry about that!
Having taken all of the numbers to my ‘pooter, I can confirm the assertion above that map 4 is the most racially balanced and map 7 is the least. A chi-squared statistic for map 4 is 12, while the chi-squared statistic for map 7 is 81. the other maps are all in between and comparable to each other. this indicates that ,ap 4 is the least correlated with race, while map 7 is the most, and the other maps are all comparable to each other and somewhere in between.
i have yet to put together the socio-economic data, which may take a while, but i strongly suspect the districts in map 7 are the most polarized.
I like your style Z – lets talk facts and numbers. I eagerly await your next “pooter” calculation.
My vote is for the most diversity, racial and socio economic, with the goal of high academic achievement for all schools.
Unfortunately, I honestly believe there are folks looking for an “advantage” for their own children with the restructuring rather than a “win win” for the whole system.
Could it just be that this whole process is more nuanced than most us can shake out at first glance? Perhaps we should wait to hear a more complete argument for Option 7 before we start propping up our resident bogeymen.
Option 5 looks like the best mix of diversity and geography while keeping things somewhat close to current configuration.
After reading the rationale behind the recommendation for option 7, it seems pretty weak and more political than anything else.
They need to decide once and for all about whether to re-open Westchester. I appears that they are recommending option 7 just to hedge on that decision – which is lame IMHO.
So it’s not an issue for you that under the other maps – including Option 5 – some kids will go to three different schools in three years if Westchester needs to be reopened?
As Van Soelen said, Westchester isn’t needed this year. We don’t need to be wasting money on unnecessary facilities. Money’s tight as it is. So I’m not sure what the argument is for “once and for all” meaning “at this very moment”.
Very good point on the budgetary concern, and add to that the planning that goes into opening a school, particularly on top of 5th Ave and Glennwood. So this well may be the right call for this year. But given that this reconfiguration seems to come so close to maxing out our capacity and even requires trailers, this feels like a stop-gap measure. If that’s just where we are, given practical constraints, so be it.
But maybe we could at least see what a Westchester zone might look like, an option or two. That might explain Option 7 a lot better.
Yeah, I can’t believe reopening Westchester is even entering into this discussion. Didn’t the closure of the school START this whole mess? Now they’re considering reopening…? If it were to be reopened.. shouldn’t it be a new 4/5 academy instead of a K-3. Seems like that would be a better fit…?
DM-
Why don’t we compile a list of these questions and you can shoot them to the assist. superintendent since he seems to be answering you? That would a great service! (or if he is still checking the thread….)
A few questions I see (not all reflect my opinion but I am trying to synthesize above comments):
Why is the number one option (7) considered tops when it doesn’t address issues of racial diversity that the original config. was partially meant to fix and in fact kills diversity at certain schools? People seemed shocked that option 7 leaves Clairemont with 5 nonwhite projected kindergarten students when the city itself if about 25% nonwhite. The demographics on option 7 are similar to what they were before reconfig. and the part of the point of that was to create more diversity. Now we are losing it.
Why is Winnona one of the largest schools with the smallest enrollment?
What are the plans for preK? It is preferable to have preK classrooms together for many reasons rather than scattered.
Why is it necessary to cut streets in half in the preferred plan? Children are being sent out of their neighborhoods (specific example is a large chunk of Oakhurst being sent to Winnona while a huge section of the “northside” is coming to Oakhurst). Yet this doesn’t address any diversity issues, racially or economically, and if anything, makes Oakhurst disproportionally non-representative of city demographics and in fact isolates all the public housing students to Oakhurst. Why does that make a good plan?
How does Option 7 would make adding Westchester easier?
If “Map 6 emerged when we asked GSU to ignore current lines and create zones that would theoretically balance nonwhite diversity,” why is map 7 preferred? I think most parents prefer the schools to have a good racial, ethnic and income mix or we wouldn’t be here.
Winonna only has the lowest enrollment in one scenario. In most maps it has the second lowest enrollment (second to Oakhurst). In map 6 it has the highest enrollment.
And if you are looking only at the African American demographic numbers, Option 6 is only slightly better than Option 7 – I don’t get why it’s considered the “balanced” option. Map 4 seems to do a much better job of balancing things – am I wrong?
That being said, I don’t think we should be only looking at African American numbers in isolation though. We should either look at all minorities or look at free/reduced lunch numbers… or both…. but not just AA.
Don’t forget that there are 62 courtesy/tuition students that can be reassigned in order to even things out.
A shot at some of the questions:
I am not seeing the numbers you are saying for Clairemont in option 7. I see 52 nonwhite Kinder students at Clairemont.
One of the assumptions under this work is that Clairemont, Oakhurst, and Winnona Park all have 15 classrooms. Glennwood has 12.
Each of these options could have an impact on the three pre-Ks in learning cottages at CHECLC. A sample pro/con list will be published after the Board meeting and pre-K options are addressed for each map.
A substantial con for map 6 is the number of students that would need to be rezoned.
Dividing by parcel rather than by neighborhood is necessary to balance the enrollment at the schools. The MAK section is being considered for a move to WInnona Park simply because the K-3 enrollment around Oakhurst is just too large.
Westchester question: please see earlier thread.
A quick reminder to all that the Board worksession is for the Board to hear and discuss this information. The first opportunity for the public to weigh in specifically on this topic will be at one of the two listening sessions (dates/times TBD possibly tonight).
Best,
Thomas
I pulled the Clairemont/5 students from another comment- I was going by the comments
Let’s not forget “nonwhite” is not just black – it could be Asian, Inuit or non-white Hispanic,etc., and it also doesn’t necessarily mean “low income”. Diversity is a spectrum, not just middle class white vs. low income black.
I like Nelliebelle’s idea about compiling a list of questions. My recommendation is to forward said list to the school board members who will be REVIEWING the work prepared by the asst. superintendent and gsu as well.
Many of the posted questions are about the assumptions and data employed by csd in the creation of these maps. Restating the assumptions does not answer some of the questions.
The review board will have the “first shot” at these maps. I’m sure they will appreciate having the community’s input sooner rather than later.
I would like to know whether csd has contacted all of the private pre-k schools in the city of Decatur, plus Glenn Memorial (other biggies?) for back up data……School has started. These should have numbers on likely 2011 Decatur kindergarten students.
“Winonna only has the lowest enrollment in one scenario. In most maps it has the second lowest enrollment (second to Oakhurst). In map 6 it has the highest enrollment.” You are absolutely right. My mind was simply blown away by the thought of any scenario that had the lowest enrollment at Winonna, it confused my typing fingers….clouded my thoughts! It still kind of blows my mind to see Winonna in the bottom two. My question still stands about the comparative use of each of our school sites. The number of classrooms in each building (of vastly varying sizes to boot) does not begin to reflect the rest of each facility’s “capacity issues.”
Another con for Map 6 is that you’d have students that are a block from Oakhurst going to Glennwood. That’s insane.
Immediately after tonight’s 5:30pm BoE Work Session is a 6:30pm Regular BoE Meeting.
The agenda for the Regular Board Meeting lists Public Comment.
Thanks for reminding folks that there will be time for public comment during the regular school board meeting. During a typical school board meeting the public “comments” and the board responds. Sounds like the public will have an opportunity to respond/ contribute comment to the work session this time.
It seems disingenous or at least superficial to talk about non-white percentages without disaggregating them and drilling down to black percentages. The effective segregation of schools that the original reconfiguration claimed to be addressing, whether or not that reconfiguration was the best way to do it, was the black-white segregation that was being claimed to contribute to the black-white achievement gap. In Decatur, low income and achievement gaps are linked to black-white race, not so much to being Asian-American or Hispanic. This differs from most other parts of the metro area, and the country as a whole, where being Hispanic is often related to income level and academic achievement. For the most part, and I’m sure there’s individualy exceptions, just as there are among the white population, the non-Black, the non-White minority populations in Decatur are higher income, higher achieving families. The tables that go with the CSD Options 1-7 give the data for black percentages so one does not have to use the less useful non-White percentages.
Having said that, I think a whole lot more diversity of all sorts would be great to have in all the schools, especially since we have a focus on Spanish and the international baccalaureate programs. But that’s another issue from making sure that our schools are balanced in terms of student needs, resources required, and achievement gaps.
But even better would be to talk about income levels when developing balanced schools and adequate resources. We are getting twisted around on the concepts of non-White vs Black vs whatever because we aren’t focusing on the underlying factors that affect achievement, like household income, parent education, family support, family stress, etc.
That should have read, “….then non-Black, non-White minority populations…” Or, even better, I should have used “Other” like the tables in Options 1-7 do. A flaw in those tables is that they give the counts for White, Black, and Other, but only the percentages for White and non-White. I think the percentages for all three groups should be presented instead of lumping Black and Other together. It may make the Options look better to lump the two together but I don’t think it’s as meaningful.
Can’t multitask this morning; that should have been “….than non-Black, non-White minority populations…”
A note from the Assistant Superintendent…
please let your readers know that we discovered a table error on map 5 on the website: http://fiscalresearch.gsu.edu/decatur/map5.htm. the map has not changed – the numbers on the table did. GSU regrets the error.
Bu-huh. That’s what Mr FixIt meant by 368! Well so much for campaigning for #5. I still like it because we would not lose the MAK + more area friends we currently have. BUT I rather not have the sardine scenario. I think I like #4 best but am willing to hear what the board thinks or talks about tonight.
Why the support for Option #4? It puts the biggest burden on the smallest school, and creates a weird artificial boundary b/t Glennwood and Clairemont schools. It looks like the second worst option, behind the cooky Option #6. Options 1, 2, 3, 5, and even 7 all make more sense in terms of numbers and geography.
What’s the weird artificial boundary? You have to know some of these areas intimately to grasp some of the implications.
It seems like a hybrid or slight tweaking of Maps 4 and 5 would be good. I like Map 4 for the “diversity” and geographic boundaries, but somehow lower the total numbers at Clairemont given their smaller space. Yes, there is a weird line on Map 4 for Glennwood and Clairmont but it looks like, from what I can tell, that is mostly commercial area. Map 5 is good because of a decent “diversity” mix and it has a boundary for WP and OAK that makes more sense (McDonough versus Kings Highway) to us in Oakhurst. My only issue with Map 5 is that the total numbers for OAK are really high. I wonder what the current enrollment at Oakhurst is now? We seem maxed out, with two classrooms in the trailer and having to hold community circle outside.
I wonder if the options of having pre-K distributed to the K-3 schools (although I read the cons to that in this thread) and/or reopening Weschester as a 4/5 academy (would it even be necessary?) have been discussed. Also, I also still don’t understand why Map 7 would be better if Westchester is reopened as K-3 and Map 7 is favored by Dr. Edwards. I look forward to hearing about the meeting and gaining some understanding. Surely they will account for growth better this time than 7 years ago. No doubt it is a very tricky puzzle to solve, and people will have to be moved around, but please let’s get it right this time!
And yay for everyone keeping this discussion pretty civil!!!
Wow. The attendance at the meeting last night was appalling. I expected standing-room only, given how many people seem to be so interested in the subject. I hope more people will come to the listening sessions. And I hope a lot of people are writing, emailing, or phoning their board members and superintendent if they have something to say or anything to add about the maps.
If you really want to know the reasoning behind the maps, the process that was followed, or if you want to understand the final result when it comes, then why not go to the meetings instead of just drawing your own conclusions on a blog?
Because of the roving bands of zombies. It’s dangerous to go out after dark.
You are absolutely right. It may have been because no public comment was scheduled but folks could have waited until the regular Board meeting afterwards and then commented then. Learned helplessness? Babysitter strike? Divide and conquer? Been there, done that? Totally mea culpa.
Maybe, once the listening sessions are scheduled, DM could require each poster on CSD attendance zone threads to report which listening session they will be attending. It could even be built into the comment box somehow as a required item like Name and Mail are.
Um, anything to report from last night?
I couldn’t make it due to my coaching Soccer on Tuesday evenings. -I did send my comments to the BoE.
I’m curious to hear if the presentation included anything not previously mentioned. And also what if anything the board members said.
Another possibility on the low attendance is that this conversation follows Parkinson’s Law of Triviality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law_of_Triviality):
“Parkinson dramatizes his Law of Triviality with a committee’s deliberations on a nuclear power plant, contrasting it to deliberation on a bicycle shed. A nuclear reactor is used because it is so vastly expensive and complicated that an average person cannot understand it, so they assume that those working on it understand it. Even those with strong opinions often withhold them for fear of being shown to be insufficiently informed. On the other hand, everyone understands a bicycle shed (or thinks he or she does), so building one can result in endless discussions because everyone involved wants to add his or her touch and show that they have contributed.”
I know I’m late here to comment to this, but because no public comment was taken, I watched the neighbor’s kids (and mine) while she listened and reported back!
Maybe we’ll swap duties when they do allow us to talk…!
As an Oakhurst resident and parent of a future CSD student, I would have to object to # 7 for the following reasons:
1) The racial divide is not equitable among the schools. For example, Oakhurst will have 131 non-white students while Clairemont has 21, WP 40, and GL 50. That means that Oak will have more than the other three schools combined. This does not seem to represent the diversity of Decatur.
2) I don’t believe that moving Pre-K from trailers at College Heights to trailers at GL makes much sense.
3) The number of students at Oakhurst is excessive when compared to the other schools with 351 compared to GL’s 210.