Comments on: Decatur School K-3 Redistricting Maps Now Available Online

By: Honeybee

Honeybee — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:56:15 +0000

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…!

By: LHS

LHS — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:25:59 +0000

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.

By: Garrett Goebel

Garrett Goebel — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:52:41 +0000

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.”

By: karass

karass — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:49:28 +0000

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?

By: MrFixIt

MrFixIt — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:45:19 +0000

Because of the roving bands of zombies. It’s dangerous to go out after dark.

By: CSD Mom

CSD Mom — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:40:20 +0000

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?

By: Heather

Heather — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 02:51:46 +0000

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!!!

By: karass

karass — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:29:32 +0000

What’s the weird artificial boundary? You have to know some of these areas intimately to grasp some of the implications.