CSD Releases Updated “Pro/Con” Enrollment Zone List
Decatur Metro | October 14, 2010After receiving a very thoughtful note from a resident this morning detailing his trouble with understanding or recreating the CSD/GSU “differential” percentages found in the school system’s list of pros and cons for the 7 redistricting map options, I contacted Assistant Superintendent Thomas Van Soelen for clarification.
Mr. Van Soelen explained that the referenced “differential” is “derived from subtracting highest k3 school non-white percentage and subtracting lowest (not considering out of district)”, and that the reason these percentage differences did not match the charts was because GSU updated the data in the maps on Monday and the differentials were never recalculated.
The Assistant Superintendent provided me with a revised version of the pro/con list for the 7 redistricting maps, which now has the differential of white/non-white in map 7 as a CON instead of a PRO. (NOTE: The “14% differential” in Map 7’s Con column still needs updating, as Mr. Van Soelen confirmed to me that map 7’s differential was now 18% and not 14%. Additionally, the 11% non-white differential in the Con column for map 5 looks like it should be 23%. I’ve contacted him about these discrepancies.)
Latest from Decaturish
Please note that those differentials for Maps 6 and 7 are much greater (24% and 29%) if one consides the percentage for blacks alone instead of lumping them in the larger group of non-white. That may be ok with the community but should be made clear. When the original reconfiguration was done, the focus was on black-white disparity, not nonwhite-white disparity.
And Map 4 is a 10% differential, correct?
OK, so my general view of this – based mainly on conversations here and comments made during Tuesday’s meeting – is that Map 4 is picking up a little traction. But Map 4 gives Clairemont the most kids of all the schools. And Clairemont ain’t that big, correct?
I am not advocating for a particular map. Having to keep a trailer at Clairemont is worrisome. If it is for just one year to be followed by Westchester opening, not such a big deal.
I’m also not against Map 7 if it is well-accepted by most of the community. I just remember the sting of the northside being accused of being racist during the last reconfiguration when what most wanted was to keep an extremely high functioning school open, not maintain effective segregation. (There many excellent suggestions that would have ended effective segregation in Decatur without closing Westchester, e.g. theme schools or four K-5s). I want everyone to face all the implications of each option so no one can complain later that there was a plot or secret agenda by a subset of parents trying to make things better for their children compared to others.
Shouldn’t the ‘pro’ “Provides for the possibility of needing to open up Westchester in 2012-2013, thus eliminating the need of some families to be rezoned from Oakhurst in 2010-‐2011, possibly to Clairemont in 2011-‐2012, then to Westchester in 2012-‐2013″ also be listed under map 4? It seems to me map 4 and map 7 are virtually identical, except for the public housing across from the stadium. These students would go to Oakhurst if may 7 were used and Clairemont if map 4 were used.
I guess not listing it as a ‘pro’ under map 4 makes sense if the students who live in this public housing are currently zoned for Oakhurst and would be rezoned to Westchester if it opened. This may be the case. I am not sure how the lines are currently drawn or where the potential Westchester lines would be. Can anyone clarify that?
However, it seems to me that this ‘pro’ probably concerns all students who live north of the tracks and currently go to Oakhurst, rather than just the smaller group of public housing students. Therefore, shouldn’t it be listed as a ‘pro’ under both map 4 and map 7?
Also, why are we considering potential Westchester lines in this reconfiguration debate? Although the administration is open to the idea of reopening the school when enrollment justifies it, no one can predict exactly when that will happen. It very well could be 2, 3 or 5 years down the road. In addition, even when it is re-opened, no one can predict exactly where the lines will be drawn. It’s probably inevitable that some parts of the city will be zoned to 3 different schools in the 2 reconfigurations, especially if annexation happens. Given how many unknown variables are involved with a Westchester opening, does it really make sense to use this ‘pro’ as a primary driver of the current reconfiguration decision?
I am guessing that the Westchester caveat was listed under 7 and not 4 because of the people in the NW corner of the city that are currently zoned to Oakhurst but are split off to Clairemont in map 7 (but not in map 4). This area was (and would logically again) be part of Westchester if that school reopened. It’s a small area – not a ton of kids (yet) – but they are being sensitive to these kids enduring three moves in a row: Oakhurst in ’10, Clairemont in ’11, then Westchester in ’12.
Although, it’s very hard to consider this pro/con when we don’t know the probability of the Westchester opening on the scale of “really unlikely” to “practically a done deal”. And, if enrollment projections are just based on current PK+ numbers and trends (and not on data of current 0-3 yr olds) then how does anyone know the likelihood? That said, I have no brilliant ideas on how to track 0-3 yr old’s and know if a tidal wave of PK-3’s is coming.
I don’t understand why prek in trailers is a PRO under any circumstance. I would rather have all the preK together in trailers at College Heights!!
Nelliebelle, I agree with your comment about rather having all of the preK together at College Heights. My main concerns are for the play space that is lost when you plunk preK trailers on top of already too small playgrounds. You seem to be familiar with the College Heights facility. Do you have any insights as to why the plan is to move out three of the three preK classes? I know that it is crowded there, but bringing preK onto any K-3 school is going to result in crowding and trailers at one or more of the K-3 sites. My understanding is that everything at College Heights is sized for the children, the books in the library are all age-level appropriate, and there is a real benefit for collaboration and services with everyone being together on the same site. Why the move?
If anyone else has any thoughts, please respond.
I agree with all your points. If there isn’t enough space at College Heights for all the PK classes, then CSD should cut back the number of PK spaces offered. PK is a wonderful program but not required. First priority of resources (play space included) should go to K-12.
Except that goes against the entire early intervention and education model the school system is attempting to establish, fifi. And if resident parents can’t get into preK because of cutting classrooms, there will be some serious problems, I predict.
We don’t serve every single resident now at the PK level and I’ve never heard it as a stated goal that we would. I think the spirit of the early intervention model is to serve all at risk kids as early as possible, not necessarily PK for every resident child . There are plenty of private PK slots around town that many Decatur residents can afford. Personally I’d like to see means testing as a way to set priority for PK spaces but that isn’t politically correct . (Maybe not even legal – I’m sure someone would threaten to test it in court)
I stand by my comment that K-12 needs first priority for space and resources at schools other than CH. In our small system, one entire building dedicated to early intervention and education is an ample allocation.
Does the ECLC now make at risk kids a priority for enrollment? Do they actively recruit them? Hopefully, they do so now. They didn’t initially because a new a family that had to push and push to get special services over there. But that was early on.
I understand that we don’t have a slot for every kid, but we have managed to accommodate just about everyone who applied this year at lottery time (there was a 15 student waiting list at the end, but many of those registered late or moved into district later) and I believe we should still. I don’t agree with you at all, basically, which is fine. There are plenty of families now with kids at College Heights or who kids graduated from there who are the parents of the future k-12 kids, and considering our school spirit & parent participation at this little facility, I am betting they will be supporting this model in CSD for years to come.
The one decent thing No Child Left behind did was put an emphasis on the importance of early childhood education & intervention (of course, states were given mandates for this and no guarantee of federal dollars, so there). The College Heights 0-preK model is an inclusion model and it won’t work without mixed income, race, ethnicity and ability in the classrooms that reflect the community.
I also don’t agree at all with the statement that preK should be income based. It’s not a matter of being “PC”; it’s a matter of the lower income kids not being ghettoized and all children receiving the same access to good education and care regardless of income. It’s also a matter of middle and upper income families having access to quality preK and other resources just like lower income kids. It’s not a matter of being able to pay and not.And I would bet paying for private preK is not as affordable for many more families in Decatur than you think.
My son has been at College Heights since the older infant room, and I truly believe the stability of four years in one place with the same kids has been magnificent for his development and growth.
The collaboration with headstart, karass, and the early headstart program both help identify at-risk kids for preK and make sure they included in the prek. I am not as familiar with preK “recruiting” but I believe Suzanne does have her ways to make sure at risk kids are identified and served.
I didn’t say only lower income/ at risk students should be given spaces in PK rather that when spaces are limited , priority should be given to lower income families who have fewer other options. Unless things have changed since my children attended, with the PK lottery system, it is possible that classes can be filled with mostly upper income kids while the low income students are left out because their names weren’t drawn for a space. When my children attended Decatur PK there were few – in one case no – free lunch kids in their classes. There were plenty of free lunch kids the following year in kindergarten so this wasn’t due to lack of at risk students. At that time, upper income families were much more likely to be aware of the program and willing and able to complete the paper work and submit it on time for the lottery.
I am glad your son has had a good experience at CH and that it has benefited his growth and development. Nothing personal – I am speaking in terms of philosophy here – but I think it is valid to question whether CSD (taxpayers) needs to offer free day care from infancy for children regardless of family income level. I stand by my comments about means testing – not for exclusion of upper income kids but for priority for admission. If I were king for a day , I’d add some type of sliding tuition scale based on income level,too. I don’t not agree that upper income families need the same access to free early childhood classes as lower income families. I believe the program should be about leveling the playing field for families with few options due to income factors.
Daycare is NOT free (trust me!!) and I agree with you on that. Unfortunately, there is no scale as far as I know, either, but the I may be wrong. I know TANF offers a subsidies to daycares, but I do not believe we participate with that.The Y has been able to raise money to offer scholarships in the 0-3 program, though.
Sorry I misunderstood your point. I think we are closer on the same page than I realized.
I am pretty sure the free lunch data at preK now is different. There has been a concerted effort through headstart to get more lower income kids in. I hope that data is represented with the rest of the CSD data.
I apologize, too , nellie. The free daycare comment was an offhand one on my part – but glad you got my general idea. I just want us ( not only CSD but systems State wide) to be sure to meet the needs of the at risk students, even if it means some fewer opportunities and sacrifices by those at the top of the economic ladder . In the long run everyone benefits if we narrow the achievement gap.
From some of the stories I am hearing from parents of last year’s crop of pre-K’ers, I think that closing that early achievement gap is beyond important. A lot of parents I know who worked part-time or not at all are helping in classrooms because the teachers are having to spend so much time catching up the kids who didn’t get pre-K. I wish there was more money for good public 0-4 education & care -on a sliding scale or however it best works- for everyone
Re parents having to help out in classrooms: This is a sign of needeing more paraprofessional help. Parents, bless their hearts, are great to involve in their school because parent involvement helps the individual child and garners political and financial support for CSD as a whole, but they are NOT the sufficient or equivalent to the kind of support that is needed in classrooms that are diverse in terms of needs and performance so must “differentiate” the instruction. There’s only 60 minutes in an hour and if there’s 20 kids with diverse needs, that’s only 3 minutes per child on average. Paraprofessionals, “specials”, and special ed teachers, including gifted instructors, are critical to delivering truly differentiated instruction.
The areas at College Heights where the four trailers are now are not play areas. One is off the side of the parking lot on some grass that was never used for play and the other is borders the playground to the right as you face the building. I don’t believe any play area was lost. The biggest problem in my opinion is the trailers on the left- they are sitting smack on the roots of an old, old tree and no way they aren’t causing damage we can’t see.
They’re not trailers. They’re “learning cottages”.
That’s not what TeeRuss says and I believe it!
AH (and I’m not picking on you personally, just referencing your comment) – I hear the argument you put forth over and over again, but I just don’t get it. I went to first grade at one school which burned down and thus sent me to a different school for second grade. Then, redistricting sent me to a third school in third grade, at which I stayed through 6th. It had no ill effects on me (twitch, twitch). Kids are much more resilient than the modern parent gives them credit for being. I challenge anyone on this forum to name a close friend they had in any of their first three grades – assuming you did not continue to go to school with them beyond those years.
It’s parents who have a tough time with it. I doubt ultimately this will be a strong consideration as we decide which of the 7 districting options are selected.
Just to clarify – I don’t have any personal worries about the multiple transitions. I was just trying to answer Harpua’s question about why that particular pro was attached to map 7 and not 4.
Although, in this instance, I can see how some parents are concerned about several moves that are not just to a new building but all new kids too. It seems that some kids have the personality to make all new friends with no problem, and some don’t.
I heard second-hand that the administration mentioned tuesday night that they are wide open to looking at kids on a case by case basis if parents are super worried. In which case, the concern shouldn’t be a huge driver of district lines.
I don’t understand why they don’t grandfather the kids who will be entering into third grade next year. Kids thrive on consistancy and moving them three times in three years is pretty harsh.
Some kids thrive on consistency , others enjoy the excitement of a new place and new friends. It won’t be just one child shifted. Those who must change schools will be moved along with others. The old school will end up being a new collection of students and teachers. 3rd graders will still be the “big kids” at whichever K-3 they attend and will find themselves back together at the 4/5 in one year.
One of my children moved around – 3 schools in 3 years – during the last reconfiguration. He was fine . I came to see that all my worrying was for naught. If in fact your child is moved, he/she may surprise you with his/her ability to deal with and perhaps even enjoy the change.
At some point CSD administration must shift kids to help deal with enrollment fluctuations. They have to draw the lines somewhere and must shift students at some point. Will it be any easier for next year’s 2nd graders to be shuffled than this year’s class? Each child will be places in a welcoming environment with good teachers, isn’t that the most important thing ?
With all do respect I don’t think you understand that not all children adapt as easily as you and your children have in this similar situation. My child for one has had sensory issues, speech issues, and others….he has excelled tremendously over the past three years at his current school and does have problems with transitions. I understand that after third grade he will have to change schools, but ALL his friends will be changing schools as well. Where we live any option they choose our son will be at Glenwood. We know of three children in our small area that will be switched as well…none of which will be third graders. All of his friends are not being zoned fo Glenwood. I don’t doubt that Glenwood will be a good school, but think it is unnecessary to move rising third graders from the school they have been attending. What worked for one family does not mean that it works for all.
Donna –
Those posting here about their personal experience aren’t trying to say all children react the same way to change. We are saying that we have been through this situation, experienced your worries and found that everything went OK. We are trying to help ease your fears not attack you.
My child who changed schools 3 times in 3 years has speech issues, sensory integration issues, attention deficit issues and dyslexia. I bet I have a pretty clear understand of your situation and your feelings .
CSD was wonderful during our school changes. My child was placed with good teachers who understood all of his learning issues . The teachers school counselors kept an eye on him to keep me informed about his social transition. My son made new friends who saw him as he was rather than remembering all the struggles he had in the early grades. There were a few bumps in the road but overall the transition experiences were more positive than negative.
Obviously I can’t be certain what will happen for your child but I do think my experience should give you hope that everything can work out OK for your family. If you are redistricted and manage to get an exception, more power to you . If you do need to change schools, keep an open mind – it may not be the disaster you anticipate.
Donna, if your child has an IEP I am sure you can present your case that moving that much would be harmful – especially if he or she is working well with the language therapist or other professionals in his/her current school. Even without an IEP, I bet you could work it out. That’s the joy of a small, responsive system.
Donna: I hope you realize none of us here are experts; just folks relating our own experiences and life lessons. Whatever option happens, in whatever school or school system you are in, public or private, you should spend the time and effort to make sure that you understand the options for your child and his/her particular needs, including state and federal law and regulation (see I.D.E.A. and F.A.P.E. just as examples), the timeframe required for evaluations and appropriate educational plans, the accomodations and interventions required, etc. Even if you come to the conclusion that what your child is getting is adequate, you’ll feel better that you were able to determine that yourself.
Having had a child in three schools in four years under the last reconfiguration, I can tell you that fifi has it right. No child will be transfered alone – there will be other kids in his or her neighborhood that will go also. Kids in K-3 make new friends quickly, even the shy ones. Shoot, I’m even surprised by how quickly middle schoolers make new friends.
I found that going to two schools before the Academy made that transition much easier b/c my kid literally knew most of the kids in her grade. Plus, once you are at the Academy, you are pretty much done with transitions b/c all of the kids stay together from that point and just move from building to building. They may have different schedules, etc., but once they get to the Academy, their fellow students remain largely the same. Decatur becomes essentially one huge campus.
This is much harder on parents than kids… but you can still hang out with your buddies from your old K-3! That’s why we have Java Monkey and the Brickstore!!
The group of kids moving is much smaller. So whereas during the last configuration, you might have 3-5 kids from your home school in your classroom in your new school, this time you might have none, unless CSD makes a conscious effort to put kids from the same grade and school level into a classroom with at least one other. I think the current CSD approach of letting families petition to stay in their home school is a good one. If it really doesn’t matter to them, they probably won’t. But if they have a really good reason, like that their child is bonded to a particular special ed teacher or the child just moved to the school recently and had a hard time with that transition, they may excercise their option to request to stay. Since it’s just for one year, it doesn’t seem worth it to be hard-core about it.
Having 3-5 kids you know in a class was not necessarily the case in the last configuration, particularly at Oakhurst. It certainly wasn’t the case for my kid. If they are going to redistrict, I think that CSD should not get in the business of granting “exceptions”… particularly on a case-by-case basis based on how “effective” a parent is at pleading their kid’s case. My exception to this would be for a kid with identified special needs.
I can’t think of anything that would work parents up more than granting “exceptions” to some families deemed “worthy” (again, other than kids with true special needs) and denying exceptions to others.
This could very well play out that savvy parents with good negotiation skills and the right relationships with school leadership will get their way and less sophisticated/less connected parents will just have to deal with whatever their plight may be. Even if it doesn’t play out that way, it will be perceived as playing out that way. How do you explain to your kid that the girl next door was able to negotiate a way to stay at her old school, but “we couldn’t work that out for you, honey.” Either the kid feels like his parent doesn’t really want to go to bat for him, or he feels that his old school would just as soon do without him but likes the girl next door.
I say this knowing that I probably would have a decent chance of working out one of these coveted “exceptions”.. I don’t think that is very fair though.
Either grandfather everyone or no one (once again, except special needs kids).
I think what CSD may be intending is to give choice but make the default to change schools. So it’s an “opt-out” sort of choice. I think the point of showing the data about what kids attend out of zone schools already was to show that it’s already on a case-by-case basis and working out ok. I just don’t want to punish the current crop of second graders just because kids had to go through it before. I know most kids did just fine but I also know that a few did not in big ways. Those of us who are lucky to have your average adaptable kids don’t realize how different life is for a few kids. I think CSD is best off having a child-centered approach to decisions rather than taking a hard-line since this is just one year of transition and they make exceptions anyway. But I respect that one could have another point of view.
I am happy to hear that the transition was so easy for your child, however that is not the case with every child. As far as we as parents are concerned…..if we thought our child delt with transition well we would have no hesitation in bouncing him around however that is not the case.
I would also like to add that there is NO child in our small neighborhood that will be entering the third grade next year! There are six children in our neighborhood and no will be third graders next year. What works for one family does not always work for other families. Without knowing about others children I think it is pretty bold of you to make assumptions on how ALL children will do in a situation. It is not as easy for all children as much as it may have been for your child.
And often a parent’s anxiety rubs off on their child. Children look to their parents for cues on how to react to a potentially negative situation. How many times do we all recall our toddlers falling down and immediately looking up at us to see how we reacted? If you stay calm, they often do too. If you flinch, they cry.
This is a bigger deal than a skinned knee, but that doesn’t mean that children won’t be channeling their parents’ anxiety to the extent that they perceive it. I think we set our children up for failure by assuming that they will react badly to a situation. Maybe they will react badly no matter what we do, but there’s no sense in making a bad reaction a sure thing by letting our own negativity rub off on them.
My boys are adults and won’t be affected by this, but I’ve noticed how overly anxious parents are these days. I even read about parents getting involved in their children’s college lives because they feel that their kids have to be happy and fulfilled all the time. They do not have to be happy or comfortable all the time – just supported and encouraged.
The worrisome ones seem to have worrisome children. Maybe it’s genetics or maybe it’s learned behavior.
Here is a question: Why does the CSD have NO link to these maps on their home page?!?! There is no link to the maps that we have here on the actual school district’s website. I’ve had several conversations with parents the last few days and had to refer them here (more than happy to give you pageviews, DM!). I know CSD is working on communication. I know large maps have been posted in the schools. And this is not against you DM, but a lot of parents want to see the maps without the blog commentary here. CSD, if you are reading, please link it (and yes, I will send you an email too).
Oh and by the way, all the CSD links here, are now broken: http://www.decaturmetro.com/2010/10/13/csd-makes-more-redistricting-info-available-online/
Well, I can’t help but feel a little offended, but I’ll get over it.
CSD says they’re having issues with updating their website. All I know is that the docs CSD page went down some time mid-morning.
But there are still maps here: http://fiscalresearch.gsu.edu/decatur/
No, I am sorry. I worded that poorly and got too ranty there. It was just hard to tell people, “Go to this website, no scroll down some more, no not that link, oh the link to the reports is broken, go to the other post, no I don’t know why it’s not on the district site.”
And repeat.
I am extremely grateful for resources like Decatur Metro. So thank you for your time and effort to keep our community informed when the official channels of communication fail.
Hee! I wasn’t fishing for an explanation or retraction. I was just being silly. I can understand that there are people out there that don’t want to navigate lots of commentary. Hopefully that link helps!
There are gigantic maps of all options up at College Heights in hallway by Felicia’s desk (for trailer parents and those on the other wing). You can actually see your street (even though mine is labeled kinda wrong).
My kids went through the last reconfiguration with flying colors. And they have been in the system long enough now, this next reconfiguration will not really affect them. But I’m sure what ever option is picked, everything will work out fine. I also feel that instead of looking at the black/white ratios, people should be looking at how easily it would be to walk their child to school.
Perhaps we should look at the effect it will have on the children to be bounced around to three different schools in three years. Yes, they will survive, but is that the best option for these kids. Children thrive on consistency and this is anything but consistency for these kids. Not all kids deal with transition so easily. Uprooting a child from all their friends and a school is certainly not in the best interest of the child.
But consistency really comes from the family, not the school building they are in. People bounce around all the time in the military and with other jobs and because they keep routines and other family-centered traditions stable for their kids, the children thrive. At College Heights, our classroom has six lead teachers and I don’t know many aides in 3 years. I was really angry about that until realized that my kid was fine. Out of all the arguments, I think this one will not hold much water.
I’d much rather have children in a racially and economically diverse school that is preparing them for the road ahead than worry about the buildings. Kids change classrooms, groups of friends. schedules and teachers every single year. The only “consistency” is the school building and I am just not sure keeping kids in the same building is all that important when weighed against a lot of other factors. I think it’s annoying to have to rezone and get used to a new school every year, but I would really like to hear a child therapist weigh in on what harm changing school buildings might do to kids before I proclaim it negates all the other good stuff.
You obviously did not read my response correctly. It goes far beyond the “Building”, in fact the building has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you should read what I wrote. Actually I do work with children as a therapist so hopefully that will put your mind at ease in regards to my thoughts on consistency and transition for children. Again read what I wrote!
I attended the meeting Tuesday night. Dr. Van Soelen (I hope I am spelling that right) said that the staff are focusing on the non-white percentages instead of the black or African-American numbers because he said families are shifting how they self-identify to multi-racial and other options. Accordingly, the staff felt that using the non-white number captures more students of color and is more accurate.
In any of the maps (aside from #6) we would need one trailer for k-3 and three pre-k will still be in trailers. This is the part I think most folks will be disheartened about because I think they were operating under the assumption that 5th Avenue would solve all of our crowding problems.
The board members asked some very tough questions regarding enrollment assumptions and seemed concerned that the numbers include 22 kids per kindergarten class. The board asked whether the private preschools were surveyed to assist with enrollment projections and the answer was no.
In the end, if the numbers hold and enrollment does not drop, we will have at least one trailer for the long term or will need to open Westchester. It was very clear that the staff has worked very hard to try and balance the desire for diversity and the desire for walkable neighborhood schools with the physical barriers like the railroad tracks and so on.
Adjustments will be made to solve issues like the one kid n the culdesac going to a different school than the rest of the street, etc. Dr. Van Soelen also said that because they have heard a variety of things from parents of rising third graders, that having a rule seemed less desirable than possibly having an appeal process where individual students could petition to stay in their school for third grade.
I think this Washington Post article is very relevant to the CSD redistricting discussion. For the good of all students, I really hope CSD makes the free/subsidized lunch data available (with plenty of time for discussion, not just the final day or two before the vote) before any decisions are made.
Study of Montgomery County schools shows benefits of economic integration
http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c.jsp?item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fwp-syndication%2farticle%2f2010%2f10%2f14%2fAR2010101407577_mobile.xml&cid=578815
It seems clear that over the last several years the percentage of black students (or non-white) has declined. I suspect this is an unintended consequence of the real estate market primarily. Along the way, as a city, we have started a redevelopment project at Beacon Hill. I’m not certain of the numbers, but there is probably some loss of diversity as a result of this project.
The Decatur Housing Authority has been working to increase the stock of affordably housing. Clearly this would help increase our diversity and mitigate some of the decline we’ve seen as a result of the run up in real estate prices. One project of note is the Avondale LCI. This project contains a fairly significant number of low income housing units. Unfortunately, with the change in market conditions among other considerations, this project has stalled.
All in all, I think its a fair observation that the diversity of the city’s school age children has declined. This is particularly obvious in the younger grades and foretells a trend we must address squarely.
In looking at the comments in the blogosphere I’m quite encouraged by our communities desire to maintain diversity at each school and to insure that all of our children benefit not only from a quality education but being a part of the rich tapestry of the city has historically provided. I’m sure that at other times and in other places, some would look at the other side of this coin. No doubt there are those that would push students of color away rather that clammer to insure that their school and children benefit from as much cultural diversity possible.
Given the relative decline in black and non-white students is easy to see how this precious group of students are receiving so much attention. How lucky we are to live in Decatur.
But I’d like to make sure that we don’t let the larger issue pass us by. That being our declining diversity in general. Our City and Schools need to make sure that they collaborate and cooperate to insure that our civic, cultural and educational lives are not deprived from the unintended side effects of the run up in housing costs. Our school administrators are continuing to work hard to insure a great education and environment for all our students.
As a community we need to be sure to support DHA efforts, affordable housing initiatives and yes even annexation (when appropriate) to reverse the decline in minority students.
Pat – I agree with everything you said. I want to see Decatur maintain economic, racial and cultural diversity. Support of affordable housing initiatives is one way to help .
Your comments bring to mind another question. Why does Decatur have such a low percentage of middle and upper income non white families – especially African American families? DeKalb is one of the most ethnically diverse counties in this country yet Decatur has few Asian or Latino households of any income level – why is that ? .
Re Asian and Latino households: That has been asked for several years here. It’s especially ironic because of our Spanish program and international baccalaureate orientation! It may just be an idiosyncratic small area phenomenon. The Asian, Asian-American, and Latino parents I have encountered in CSD have been mostly high-level professionals.
Re African-American families–CSD has MANY more middle-class and professional families than it used to. You see it mostly at the elementary and 4/5 level but eventually the phenomenon will move up into Renfroe and DHS. It’s already there in terms of tuition families. In the old days, I would ask African-American friends at Emory, CDC, or other universities why they weren’t moving to Decatur and sending their kids to CSD and they said that Decatur was too binary–white/high-income and black/low-income. They were afraid their children would be assumed to be low-performing because of the color of their skin. They preferred to live in cheaper areas and pay a ton to send their kids to Paideia or The Children’s School or Woodward or wherever. Even St. Thomas More was preferable.
I’ve often thought that I wish my middle-class white kids could go to school not only with lower-income non-white kids, but also with middle- or upper-class non-white kids so that they don’t end up assuming all non-whites are economically disadvantaged. A real problem here in Decatur.
Interestingly, the lily-white Gwinnett high school I attended in the late 80’s, early 90’s (we had one black student in a school of almost 2000 students), from which I ran screaming for the more diverse Decatur, is now more economically and racially diverse than CSD!
I’m not sure fifi, our loss. karass suggests one reason. Anyone know how this rates on our strategic planning process? How much of our marketing budget is being used to promote Decatur as a leader in diversity?
Surely someone in Decatur has a passion for this issue? I’d really like to meet them and learn more about how to hep.
[On a side note, it was great to see physically challenged and special needs members of our community represented at the Oakhurst Festival]