CSD Makes More Redistricting Info Available Online
Decatur Metro | October 13, 2010 | 9:51 am
Assistant Superintendent Thomas Van Soelen alerts us to a new page on the City Schools of Decatur’s website with additional info on the school system’s redistricting options.
In addition to .jpgs of the 7 map options are:
- A list of Pros and Cons of the 7 enrollment zone maps (PDF)
- Detailed written descriptions of the enrollment zones in the 7 maps (PDF)
- A Powerpoint presentation detailing the process of creating the 7 maps, assumptions that were made, answers to various questions (“What about current 2nd graders?, “Why not use free/reduced lunch data?”, etc…). **Note that page 14 of this presentation also states that Map 4 is a “strong contender”, along with Map 7.**
Also, feel free to use the comments section of post to report on your takeaways and reactions to last night’s redistricting work session.
Does anyone know what the blue asterixes on the maps represent?
Schools, right?
Oh! D’uh.
This site pulling all the documents is excellent. It’s especially impressive that the Powerpoint presentation addresses many of the various questions being posed here and elsewhere, even if I don’t agree with every single answer. Thank you, CSD!
Couple of quick reactions to answers to various questions:
- Excellent that CSD may consider letting second graders stay at original school on case-by-case basis; numbers are indeed small and for one year only.
- Excellent that CSD will consider modifying zones where streets are divided in illogical ways
- Understand dilemma of parsing out non-White category when multi-racial families are becoming more common but not doing so does seems to mask a return to some black-white percentage disparity among the schools. Why not look at the data both ways as a sort of sensitivity analysis? Ignoring black percentages altogether is not a good idea unless one can use income data instead.
- Free/reduced lunch data: Understand data wasn’t available in August. By now, 2 1/2 months into the 10 month school year, the data should be available, right? By now, kids are on the list that the lunch lady uses to check off whether kids have paid or not or they aren’t getting a free/reduced lunch, right?
Suggestions of what to add to website:
- Table of current K-3 school enrollment and race/ethnicity by grade, similar to ones provided for Options 1-7
- Black percentages in Tables for Options 1-7 and current enrollement, in addition to counts
- Free/reduced lunch percentages “
The school board and the public cannot make informed decisions without the free and reduced lunch data. They need to provide this, estimate based on this year’s data, or delay the decision until they can get the data. Without that, they can’t see the true impact of option #7 on Oakhurst.
OK, so I’d like to dig deeper into this “Map 7 is unbalanced between whites and non-whites and shows Clairemont parent influence” claim….not because I currently have a dog in this fight (if I did, he’d be redistricted twice in two years anyway), but because I have a strange penchant for trying to untie the most tangled and divisive knots.
Here’s the spread between the most non-white and the least “non-white” schools for each map:
Map 1: Glennwood 52% Winnona 29% – 23 point spread
Map 2: Glennwood 52% Winnona 29% – 23 point spread
Map 3: Glennwood 52% Winnona 29% – 23 point spread
Map 4: Glennwood 41% Winnona 29% – 12 point spread
Map 5: Glennwood 52% Winnona 29% – 23 point spread
Map 6: Oakhurst 45% Clairemont 30% – 15 point spread
Map 7 Oakhurst 45% Clairemont 26% – 19 point spread
Is this the best way to look at this? Maybe not.
South Side Z stated in a previous thread that map 4 is the most racial balanced while map 7 is the least using a “chi-squared statistic”. (I’m guessing that’s because map 7 has two schools with non-white %s in the 40s range while maps with the 23% point spreads, has Glennwood above 50% and the others all hovering around 30ish %)
So to a certain extent it depends on how you choose to look at and value the data. Now of course there are other considerations other than this particular spread and repeat redistricting for a large number of students seems to another concern near the top of the superintendent’s list. According to the pros/cons list, the only other map that tries to minimize the number of students needing to go to a third school in three years, other than map 7, is map 3 – which has a 23% spread in white/non-white.
These both seem like valid concerns to me. Are they not?
DM: Run that same exact spread for black vs non-black and you’ll see why some folks are concerned about Option 7. I did that a couple of nights ago but don’t have the data right now. The counts are already in the tables for each Option but the percentages aren’t calculated. Or you can do black vs white if folks feel that lumping other with white isn’t kosher. (I actually think that, in Decatur, other race/ethnicity is more similar to white than to black in terms of income). If you don’t get a chance to post, I can do later.
I am not advocating that black-white diversity be the only factor considered, but considering how much it’s been a justification for decisions made in the past, I think it needs to be addressed openly and head-on. Otherwise, if a disparity is felt to exist, folks will feel that decisions were made covertly or without adequate attention to the issue.
Same data using black percentages instead of non-white which mixes several sub-groups, e.g. Hispanic, multi-racial, Asian American, native American, etc.
Here’s the spread between the highest percentage of black students and the lowest percentage for each map:
Map 1: Glennwood 36% Clairemont 13% – 23 point spread
Map 2: Glennwood 34% Clairemont 13% – 21 point spread
Map 3: Glennwood 36% Winnona /Clairemont 14% – 22 point spread
Map 4: Glennwood/Oakhurst/Clairemont 24% Winnona 14% – 10 point spread
Map 5: Glennwood 36% Winnona 12% – 24 point spread
Map 6: Oakhurst 37% Clairemont 13% – 24 point spread
Map 7 Oakhurst 37% Clairemont 8% – 29 point spread
So when looking at black percentages in particular, the spreads for the first 5 options don’t look that different than what one using the non-white category instead. But Options 6 and 7 have a much higher spread. Specifically:
% Students who are black
Option 6 Option 7
Clairemont 13 8
Oakhurst 37 37
Winnona Park 17 14
Glennwood 18 24
Feel free to check my math.
DM: Feel free to edit my comment to fix the columns in the last “table”.
It was obvious in last night’s meeting that the board and Thomas were responding to many things that had come up in the comments on this blog.
[Thinking out loud...]
When I moved into Decatur ten years ago, I studied each school intensely and chose Glennwood based upon the socio-economic demographics–at the time it was 50/50 black/white. I like the idea of there not being a “minority” at the school, so to speak. However, a poster in the other thread made a point that I think is really interesting–that if the city is 70/30 then the schools should be too. While I like the 50/50 option at Glennwood, I also like the idea of our schools reflecting the immediate environs.
However, all of that being said, at some point we have to reign in our urge to draw the lines demographically, because the demographics are always changing. So physical boundaries and having “neighborhood schools” are still important.
Dear Decatur Metro,
My eyes hurt trying to read black type in gray boxes.
I am trying to follow your reasoning. Maybe it’s just my browser? IE7
Argh. I’ve never had this problem myself…in IE7 or elsewhere, but you’re not the first person to have this issue. Sorry about that…I guess I’m going to have to go into the code and change the background color on my posts. Or get someone else to do it for me, because that’s probably a bit more involved than I can handle.
Not sure what I can do in the meantime. If someone else wants to post my comments into a comment of their own, then maybe that can be a work around in this particular instance.
Primadonna momma’s not the only one experiencing this.
The box gets darker to the bottom and to the right, so as long as you just keep your comments short, it’s not much of a problem.
Misleading–on map 7, the first “pro” says “No learning cottages needed at Glennwood, Winnona, or Clairemont for K-‐3 students”
but the second “pro” says “Three pre-‐K classes could be placed in learning cottages at Glennwood.”
I think the fact that “learning cottages” will still be at Glennwood should be listed as a “con.”
I thought the superintendent had committed to getting rid of all “learning cottages.”
If you were there last night, then it was made clear that this was an option on top of option 7. As presented, option 7 does not require trailers for k-3 – that’s true. But the existing trailers COULD be repurposed for a northside pre-k mini-campus, if option 7 came about.
And can you provide any evidence that the Superintendent committed to getting rid of all trailers? (I refuse to go along with Newspeak terminology)
A couple notes from the presentation last night, that have not made it into the powerpoint and/or Decatur Metro:
1. Dr. Van Soelen emphasized that there is no perfect solution.
My editorial: While this is glaringly obvious to some of us, it will probably need to get pounded into the heads of some. And there are many tradeoffs at work here: Walkability, neighborhood preservation, diversity, transportation costs, school plant resources (facilities other than classrooms), overall budget impacts, etc. Lots of commenters here seem to be focused on only one of these parameters, but they all need to be weighed.
2. Dr. Van Soelen explained that the initial idea of reconfiguring with an eye on using Westchester in 2012 has been de-emphasized. Enrollment projections for 2012 and beyond show no more population or classroom growth, and thus would not require another building.
3. The courtesy tuition students (children of CSD employees) can be spread around the elementary schools to balance things out.
4. They are clearly reading and listening to Decatur Metro, and addressed several questions and comments head-on. Kudos to DM for building an online community town hall of sorts, and to CSD for plugging into it.
Wondering which parameter you mean in “Lots of commenters here seem to be focused on only one of these parameters, but they all need to be weighed.”
-Race/ethnicity?
-Neighborhood preservation?
-Walkability?
Several seeme mentioned a lot throughout the CSD zone-related threads.
What specifically are you referring to when you say: “Enrollment projections for 2012 and beyond show no more population or classroom growth”.
Are these enrollment projects publicly available anywhere? Or are you referring to the “2008 and 2012 enrollment comparison.pdf”? If the latter, we’ve already surpassed the K-3 enrollment projection for 2012.
During the board meeting, Dr. Van Soelen showed that the projections for 2011 are for 57 classrooms, and for 2012 it is the same, 57 classrooms. So whatever reconfiguration plan is adopted for next year, it should be adequate for 2012.
Which brings up another note – Dr. Van Soelen pointed out that the number of classrooms is a better unit of measure than number of students. The example he gave was a school having 69 2nd graders – that number would require 4 classrooms. Officially, those four classrooms have capacity for 88 students, but in that case they would not be completely filled.
Thanks. I was wondering what was being said during slides 15-17 of the powerpoint. So it sounds like the current projections are for around 9% growth next year (2011-2012) and 3% the following (2012-2013).
“During the board meeting, Dr. Van Soelen showed that the projections for 2011 are for 57 classrooms, and for 2012 it is the same, 57 classrooms. So whatever reconfiguration plan is adopted for next year, it should be adequate for 2012.”
Unless of course the enrollment projections are off by 3%. 2009 projections for 2010 K-3 enrollments understated growth by 5% (1030 vs. 1083). Kindergarten enrollments are notoriously difficult. CSD works hard and does a good job at predicting overall enrollments, but variations in a single grade can be significant.
I’m guessing that the 9% growth projected for next year is conservatively high. And that we’ll actually have more wiggle room. But time will tell. It is good to know that CSD is watching the bottom line and are prepared to add brick and mortar classrooms via Westchester or additions to Glennwood or Winnona Park if necessary.
One of the things that became clear in the presentation is that for elementary schools they do not apply blanket % growth projections. It is more of an estimation of the incoming K and 1st grade classes. The 2nd and 3rd grade classes are pretty much known, as they can be based off the preceding year’s 1st and 2nd grade numbers.
For obvious reasons, K is the first year that many students enroll at CSD, and historically there have also been some who stayed in private K programs and went to CSD for 1st grade. Dr. Van Soelen showed the current numbers of students by grade, and you can clearly see the bulge of K and 1st graders this year that has driven the overall increases. He basically said that the projections for next year and the year after assumed that bulge will continue, but not substantially increase.
Has anyone looked into how many Pre-K classes there are at private schools? Off the top of my head I’m thinking Decatur Pres, Decatur Methodist (do they have PK?), First School at First Baptist, Phoenix School, Holy Trinity, Suburban Nursery–are there any more? If all these schools have one PK class with 20 kids then that’s 120 plus 180 at CHECLC, assuming almost all of those kids are city residents. But if any of those schools have more than one PK, we’re past the projected 305 kindergartners for next year. I know there was a waiting list for CHECLC even before it was opened up to non-residents, right? Should I assume CSD has done its homework finding out the real population of rising kindergartners? Should be simple enough to poll the area private preschools to see how many of the Pre-Kers have 30030 addresses. That would give a good estimate. (Right now the links to the maps and redistricting info are down but I thought 305 was the kindergarten number.)
Also, Arbor Montessori, Emory Montessori, Decatur Montessori, Cliff Valley, CDC/Emory’s Clifton School, ?Glenn School?. None of these alone will have that many future CSDers, but added together, the number can add up to something substantial.
“Which brings up another note – Dr. Van Soelen pointed out that the number of classrooms is a better unit of measure than number of students. The example he gave was a school having 69 2nd graders – that number would require 4 classrooms. Officially, those four classrooms have capacity for 88 students, but in that case they would not be completely filled.”
This is part of my overall concern with our ability to efficiently utilize capacity… and the opportunity costs of running near 100% of capacity.
As slide 12 of the presentation illustrates, students don’t necessarily show up in enrollment zones neatly divided into blocks of 22 children per classroom. I understand that if necessary, we can shuffle tuition students around and force new students to attend schools outside their enrollment zones. But there are limits. Also, when every room is a “regular” classroom, then music, art, and special instruction tend to get marginalized and/or sidelined.
I’m also guessing that larger classroom sizes may be part of the equation. In the “Enrollment Zone Update”, Dr. Edwards used the words: “If a 22 student/classroom ratio was used”. This is much softer wording than a strict 22 student per classroom cap. State law on classroom size caps was modified last year. I believe the cap is now the average classroom size across the school district. In the light of the State changes, it would be nice if our BoE would set a cap on the maximum number of students permitted in individual classrooms.
The sky isn’t falling. But we are very tight on brick and mortar capacity. It looks like the plan continues to be “a year at a time… tweak as we go…”. However, it is encouraging that there appears to be some planning for the possibility of continued enrollment growth.
Got to agree. It is great to Dr. Van Soelen tapped in to DM.
These complex, thorny, and potentially contentious issues tend to get all the attention. It is easy for us to overlook all the great things going on in our schools.
I understood from the work session last night that Option 7 would require a learning cottage at Oakhurst, and it is backed up by the ‘Pros/Cons’ list posted on the CSD website. In fact, if you read down the ‘Cons’ side of that list, Option 6 is the only one that does not require any learning cottages at any school.
Love the phrase “learning cottage”. The building formerly known as “shed” in my back yard will now be known as “tool bungalow”.
OMG what has happened to people that they would even think that kind of phraseology would soften the problem of having their kids in portable classrooms. Unbelievable.
You may be kidding, but I bet you could make some serious coin off something called a “tool bungalow”.
I sorta want one right now.
We have an authentic unmodified retro car bungalow with the original rat holes.
And now I also want one of these!
It is Orwellian, plain and simple. I don’t know which is the bigger crime – that people think these Newspeak terms up, or that they hope they will work.
Orwellian perhaps, but no more Orwellian than the monumental effort long invested in transforming the word “trailer” from a neutral description of a lower cost, low infrastructure, semi-temporary structure built offsite and delivered to its footings to a new word now synonymous with the sky falling or the arrival of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Neither side is innocent of having subverted language to further their goals. Each is equally hyperbolic and equally full of BS.
And…Boom!
Nice work Scott.
Wait, so these aren’t the trailers you see hitched up to the back of an 18-wheeler? How disappointing for the children.
Please don’t BS a BSer – “the monumental effort long invested in transforming the word “trailer” from a neutral description of a lower cost, low infrastructure, semi-temporary structure built offsite and delivered to its footings to a new word now synonymous with the sky falling or the arrival of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.”
Good lord, man. On which planet has that monumental effort with sky falling consequences occurred?
Let’s get the discussion back on track – I take it you are in favor of rebranding trailers in order to make them more palatable for parents. My take is that this rebranding is so transparent and laughable that it will only work on stupid people – but I guess that’s the target audience, so I can sort of see the point.
BTW, I realize now that maybe you think I use the word trailer because I dislike them. I don’t.
- My son was in one last year at Oakhurst and it was great.
- I’m broadly in favor of using them to manage enrollment peaks, rather than more expensive construction projects.
- I see trailers as a sign of success for a community and school system. They signal a desirable school and a community with lots of young families.
Never thought you were laying into the trailers. Just saying there’s been more than a little effort expended bulking that word up with emotional baggage. Just go back through the DM archives and you’ll find plenty of examples.
Both sides are capable of being silly and/or hyperbolic.
The mis-use of language is not a good thing and not funny. No different that George Bush using the word “enhanced interrogation” instead of torture. Why does our BOE staff use the word “learning cottage”? It really does not inspire any confidence.
I remember during the last campaign at one of the debates, challenger Rob Pope suggested we open Westchester and put the superintendent and her staff in “administrative cottages.”
Government Official: What do you see?
Parent: I see portables.
Sound Effect of electricity
Parent : Screams
G.O. Tell me again. What do you see.
Parent: Cottages, cottages, I see learning cottages.
G.O. Very good. You may go now. Next!
ha! good one, david!
Has anyone else heard the rumor (I emphasize rumor as I have no verifiable source other than scuttle butt) that one or more of the current principals will be moved as part of the reconfiguration? To me, that could make a much bigger difference than the physical boundaries.
Haven’t heard that. We know that, at the least, one more principal has to be added. But it’s possible that a current principal will be moved to the new Glennwood K-3 and the vacancy will be at a current K-3. Any guess would be silly but I would think that Clairemont would be left alone since it is on its third principal since the 2004 reconfiguration, with the current principal starting just this year and the previous principal only there for 2 years.
Whoa, another thought. It wouldn’t be real good for the 4/5 Academy to lose their experienced principal during the transition to a new location. I would think that the continuity of a consistent principal would be important for the current fourth graders who will be changing schools three times in three years–from their K-3 to Glennwood, from Glennwood to Fifth Avenue, then Fifth Avenue to Renfroe.
Ok, one more thought. During the last transition, every principal but Ms. Mack at Oakhurst moved, either to a new K-3 or retired. While that seemed like poetic justice for those who sacrificed Westchester to save Clairemont, then lost it anyway because it was a completely different school once the principal and teachers were changed out and Expeditionary Learning disappeared for a few years, and while it probably broke some of the old habits and increased loyalty to the new systemic approach, in the long run, it was not a good thing for the children. Two principals retired within a year of the change and both Clairemont and Winnona Park had a lot more growing pains than they might have if there had been more elements of consistency left in place. Many new parents wondered what was so great about Clairemont that it inspired such divisive loyalty. Old parents claimed that Expeditionar y Learning was nothing like it had once been.
So I think changing principals at the same time as a reconfiguration should be considered with caution. Of course, if principals insist that changing out would be best, I would respect their viewpoint. It just was one more stressful issue last time.
I would hope that an experienced, current CSD principal moved to Glennwood to help that school get off the ground, and a new principal assumed the vacated spot at the existing school.
I expect that many teachers will be moved around with the new configuration. We wouldn’t want an entirely brand-new cast at Glennwood.
Well, if Clairemont and Fifth Avenue need the stability of their current principals because they are going through so much transition, that leaves Mr. Wiseman or Ms. Mack. Or….actually, this discussion is ringing a very distant bell in the back of my brain. Is there scuttlebut that Mr. Rodney Thomas at Glennwood might go to Fifth Avenue as principal leaving Dr. Lee at Glennwood with the K-3? That would provide some sort of consistency for the fourth graders. And there IS a special ring to the way Dr. Lee says “Good morning Glennwood” that could be retained. Having two Mr. Thomases as principals–Fifth Avenue and RMS–would be fun, easy to remember, and lead to all sorts of wacky, zany email and other confusion. When in doubt, the principal is Mr. Thomas. Just like, when in doubt, the P.E. coach is Jones. (RMS/DHS joke)
Obviously, I have no idea….
We’d be very lucky to have Mr. Rodney Thomas in leadership.
Re teachers moving around: Agree that some great teachers will be subtracted from current K-3 schools to constitute the new Glennwood K-3. But hopefully it won’t be the complete toss-all-the- cards-in-the-air reshuffling that occurred last time, but more of a subtraction with replacement if holes are left. Last time, the complete reshuffling was as much of a transition as the consolidation of students and buildings and a few teachers took a while to regain their bearings; some never did.
I’m tempted to change my moniker to Scuttle Butt. Or maybe that could be the twentieth name to date for the band I’ve never formed.
I am in the CSD 101, and Dr. Lee gave us a tour of Glennwood. She spoke as if she’d be moving to 5th Avenue, but I did not directly ask the question.
OK. Can someone please accurately define “scuttle butt” — Love that term.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttlebutt)
Scuttlebutt in slang usage means rumor or gossip, deriving from the nautical term for the cask used to serve water (or, later, a water fountain).[1][2]
The term corresponds to the iconic colloquial concept of a water cooler in an office setting, which at times becomes the locus of congregation and casual discussion. Water for immediate consumption on a sailing ship was conventionally stored in a scuttled butt: A butt (cask) which had been scuttled by making a hole in it so the water could be withdrawn. Since sailors exchanged gossip when they gathered at the scuttlebutt for a drink of water, scuttlebutt became Navy slang for gossip or rumours.[2]
I am somewhat confused about some very simple empirics. I wonder if someone can help.
Can someone please interpret the following claim for me, which may be found on the Map 7 Pro/Con list under Pro #5: “14% differential in non-white percentage.”
What does “11% differential in non-white percentage” mean under Map 4?
Basically, what is the differential being referenced? Obviously it’s not the “spread” DM lays out above. I’ve looked at the tables in multiple ways and just can’t get my head around what measure we’re talking about.