Superintendent Recommends Narrowing Redistricting Options to Maps 4 & 8
Decatur Metro | November 4, 2010From the Decatur School Board’s agenda next Tuesday…
Requested Action
Move approval to narrow the list of K-3 enrollment zone options to Maps 4 and 8 and table the decision until the next regularly-scheduled Board meeting.
Background
In the continuing project related to K-3 enrollment zones for the 2011-2012 school year, CSD has responded to community feedback on the seven maps that were posted electronically and in the pre-K-5 school sites for public comment following the October 12, 2010 Board work session.
First of all, free and reduced lunch data was added on October 27, 2010. This data set was always intended to be added; the cutoff for families to submit an application for consideration had just closed and our School Nutrition staff worked diligently to verify family-submitted information and enter the results into our student information database. Results were sent to our Georgia State University partners who superimposed the data set on the existing maps.
Upon analysis of the narrative comments offered by community members, Maps 4 and 7 emerged as most appealing. Map 4 offers the best racial and socioeconomic mix, labeled “differential” on the pros/cons list. Map 7 allowed one of the smallest school sites, Clairemont, to remove the learning cottage.
A concern about Map 7 arose regarding the number of Black students that would be attending Oakhurst. The perception may be a reversal of Board policy regarding the integration of students, capped by the removal of the Desegregation Order in 2007.
Thus, Map 8 was born. In response to this feedback, Map 8 has been created so that the differential of Map 4 is achieved but with no learning cottages needed at any of the sites. In addition, Map 8 divides Decatur Housing Authority into three areas, thus creating more of a consistency between schools. This division of three has historical precedence: during the years of 7 schools, Allen Wilson Terrace was divided north/south. The proposed line would divide that area east/west.
Since the community clearly is not supportive of Maps 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (and staff concur) and that Map 8 is being offered to the Board tonight, the Superintendent recommends that the Board narrow the options to Maps 4 and 8 and, consequently, table the discussion until the December Board meeting.
In her “Overview” letter to the School Board, Superintendent Edwards explains that her motivation for narrowing the options down to two maps is that the community can focus its comments on the final two options during the Tuesday, November 16th public hearing.
Here’s the maps link again, in case you need it.
Latest from Decaturish
As expected, looks like my little people will be Winnonans instead of Oakhurstians. And frankly, we’re happy either way.
We’re in the same boat, and we’re okay too–blessed to be in the Decatur school system.
Thirded.
Although my Glennwood 4th grader is not so happy that her siblings will now attend what is apparently her alma mater Oakhurst’s most hated rival. I believe she told Naaman that Oakhurst rulz, Winnona Park droolz.
It just shows Oakhurst snobs breed little snobs.
Hilarious, but it doesn’t say much for the spelling curriculum at Oakhurst.
OK, so what’s the difference between maps 4 and 8, exactly…? Squinting at the maps, it looks like Winona and Glennwood are exactly the same in both–the only difference is that Oakhurst and Clairemont swap some land. In 8 Oakhurst’s zone has crept north a little bit and grabbed some of Clairemont’s zone 4 area, along West Ponce and Pinetree, and just east of there, in 8 Clairemont district has crept south a little and grabbed Ridley Ln and some of the east side of Adair. That right?
Offhand, map 4 still looks a little bit better as far as walkability/closeness goes (sending the Ponce and Pinetree kids to Clairemont and the Adair kids to Oakhurst), but it’s not a big difference, and if they’re pretty confident the 3-kid [!] projected swing from Clairemont to Oakhurst is enough to keep trailers off Clairemont, that’s a biggish plus for map 8. Either seems quite reasonable.
“Decatur: Striving to have all the options seem quite reasonable.”
To my eyes the difference between Map 4 and 8 are exactly what you said, Clairmont takes a bit of Oakhurst’s students and vice-versa in an attempt to move a few kids around depending on their grade level. Unfortunately it divides a few neighborhoods in half which really shouldn’t be divided. Also this will not work for more than just the coming year and we should be longer sighted than this. We can’t keep swapping out 15-20 homes from one school or another each year just to keep the number of classrooms low. I think any solution should be more dedicated towards preserving walk-ability and neighborhoods than getting rid of a single “learning cottage”.
Re: “Map 8 divides Decatur Housing Authority into three areas, thus creating more of a consistency between schools. This division of three has historical precedence: during the years of 7 schools, Allen Wilson Terrace was divided north/south. The proposed line would divide that area east/west.”
Some might interpret this statement as saying that the DHA area is being divided and sent to three schools. Actually, it’s being divided into three areas and being sent to two schools–Clairemont and Glennwood. If I’m reading the map correctly, for some portion (<50% probably) of Allen Wilson Terrace that will be no change, staying at Clairemont. But for the Gateway kids and the rest of Allen Wilson Terrace, there will be a change, going to Glennwood when they used to go to Clairemont or Winnona Park or going to Clairemont when they used to go to Winnona Park.
I really apologize if I missed this information, here or elsewhere, but do we have any feedback from DHA residents about the options? They are taxpaying residents too.
Actually, I believe public housing is exempt from property tax base…
Yeah, I guess you’re right. I was thinking income and sales taxes but those are federal and state. Anyway, I think satisfied parents make involved parents makes better students makes better test scores makes AYP. Plus it’s just nice to involve all the stakeholders.
I’ve had enough of all the talk about redistricting, and it’s time to present the only option that universally pisses EVERYONE off, but is ulitmately the fairest.
Close down all of the elementary schools, Glenwood included. Parcel and sell those valuable properties to make enough money to build one Pre-K through 5th grade mega-school, centrally located near the high school. Then we would have one elementary, one middle, and one high school.
It may not be walkable for most, but it would be diverse as hell and gets rid of all the neighborhood back-and-forth.
There. I said it. And I feel better now.
Oh my stars. Can you imagine the morning traffic jam on McDonough?
Don’t we actually miss out on state funding because we have smaller schools that don’t meet the minimum student population requirements for certain state funds? If so, building one big school would actually result in more programs being funded by the state. I I think I heard this a couple of years ago and it might not be true anymore (if it ever was), but it’s something to chew on.
I have my moments when I think this is the way to go. The school could be built to meet all the criteria that have been discussed. With a central location, the elementary school would be equally walkable for all, never more than 1 mile. And no disparity issues of any sort!
But my heart is with our smaller schools which all getting pretty historic since even the 1960s is a half-century ago. I’d hate to lose them. When schools become something else, they are never the same again.
I missed the meeting last night despite some efforts to secure childcare. What I am wondering is if there was further discussion about population projections underlying all of this. As was said above, making decisions about a few kids swing doesn’t make sense given that in a year or two it seems that could all be shifted around. Or perhaps better said, how sensitive are the choices to shifts in population by some %. It seems to me that adding Glennwood but taking away trailers leaves many of the schools still pretty cozy. I don’t know all my facts on this so this is just a quick look.
Should we be focusing so much on getting rid of trailers when they’ll be back soon enough with population growth? I don’t like the trailers too much either, but are they a deceptive issue to focus on… political payoff to get rid of them and ease parent concerns, but short lived? As a friend of mine said – as she watched all the under 3’s trick or treating on halloween and their pregnant mother’s not far behind – Wow does the school system know about this! If we didn’t focus on the trailers would the decision be different?
SFmaster,
They are not “trailers.”
They are “learning cottages.”
Trailers are ugly, utilitarian, and temporary.
Cottages are cute, friendly, small scale, and utilize inviting details such as narrow clappboard siding, shutters, and picket fences and are intended to be permanent structures.
Learning cottages are ugly, utilitarian and have become a seemingly permanent fixture at Winnona and other local schools.
It takes a trained eye to detect the subtle design differences between the three categories so itis a natural mistake.
OK, now I’m shifting back toward 4–just how confident should we be that Map 8 is going to keep trailers away from all of the elementary schools, and for how long? If that’s quite iffy, then the walkability / not splitting contiguous neighborhoods up advantages of Map 4 — which are a lot more solid — would seem to weigh for more. But as I said above, they both seem OK.
Why does the wealthiest part of Decatur absorb the majority of the public housing and have the highest percentage of non-whites and a free lunch program? This is not even close to the make-up of these neighborhoods. Furthermore, why is one of the smallest schools, Clairemont, have the most students? Who drew these latest maps?
Wake-up Clairemont district–with these inequalities, watch those property values fall!
Pay attention much?
Nice.
Everyone is forgetting that there are still sixty something tuition and courtesy kids that need to be placed in all of this. Remember that they can be put at Glennwood or Winnona to increase there enrollments so they are equal to or greater than what might exist at Clairemont or Oakhurst.
Mr. Fixit,
I was thinking of you last night. Before map 8 was created you had recommendations for making map 4 more equitable . Do you remember what you said. Decatur Metro….list of old links?
I think it was map 5.
The issue of equal enrollment is not valid because all the schools don’t share the same footprint. Caliremont has more kids because it has a higher physical capacity in the building.
No. It doesn’t by a long shot.
It was tiny at the time of the last reconfiguration and even the expensive addition afterwards didn’t get it up to par for more than a couple of years, then trailers. Tiny playground that becomes a mudpit within two years of any renovation or resodding, bad substrate somehow. Gorgeous building in a cute location but logistically difficult. But because of all the money poured into it, not to mention the considerable community, parent, and teacher financial and emotional investment in it, it would be foolish to do away with it now. But we shouldn’t punish the children with overcrowding.
Isn’t Clairemont the smallest building? Why does it have the most students? It looks like the goal of Map 8 was to appease the Oakhurst parents who thought there were too many Black kids at Oakhurst in Map 7. Interesting goal. And even more interesting that the solution is to move most of the public housing to Clairemont. Won’t the Clairemont parents now raise the same objection as the Oakhurst parents? They make the north/south divide all too easy.
Uh, look at the percentages of the different maps:
Map 7:
% F/R lunch
Oakhurst 28.2%
Clairemont 6.49%
% black
Oakhurst 37.3%
Clairemont 7.58%
Map 8:
% F/R lunch
Oakhurst 14.83
Clairemont 22.32%
% black
Oakhurst 23.87%
Clairemont 24.53%
Which seems more economically and racially balanced to you–7 or 8?
Actually, I was more concerned about the disparity b/t Clairemont and Winnona Park, both in terms of socioeconomic status and size. There are actually four schools involved in the mix, not just two.
Uh… I think you and G8 need to become friends.
In the debate between options 4 and 8, we have to say that we’re sorely tired of being caught in the middle.
It’s keeping Winnona at 284 that’s causing overcrowding at Clairemont and Oakhurst. If the school board asks to have 20 more students put at Winnona, there’s still plenty of room for annexation students at Winnona.
What if they put the courtesy and tuition students at Winnona – there are 62 or so of them… that would bring it to a hefty 350 or so kids… the highest enrollment in the K-3 schools. Would that work?
Typically you would put tuition students where there is space in an already existing classroom. So, if at one school there are 3 teachers with 17 kids in each classroom in grade 3, you can add 6 3rd grade tuition students to that school. From a financial point of view, you don’t want to add additional teachers.
In a separate and personal opinion, I think Winnona Park should serve as many residents of Decatur as possible.
9 students.
Karass had the numbers on this, but I’m pretty sure It will further dilute Winnona’s low diversity ratios. Karass?
Using Option 8, if all the tuition and courtesy students went to Winnona, it’s enrollment would go up to 346 (284 + 62). It’s proportion of low income students would drop even more although slightly from 10.6% (30/284) to 10.1% (35/346). The tuition/courtesy group has an even lower proportion of low income students than does Winnona Park. Makes sense–this group has either families who can afford tuition or CSD employees who are at least working (although a few are evidently low income…..a story for another thread).
However, if one looks at race/ethnicity rather than low income, then assigning all the courtesy/tuition students to Winnona Park would increase the school’s diversity greatly because this group is 32% black. Winnona Park students overall would then be 17% black and students oveall at all three other schools would be 24-25% black.
If I were the four K-3 schools, I’d fight to get the tuition/courtesy students if all else were equal–they add diversity without the disadvantages low income students can bring plus their parents are either real motivated (tuition paying) or education-oriented (employees, many of whom are educators). Ought to be good for those CRCT scores and AYP status.
I think the trailers should stay at WP and be removed from all other sites, if we have to continue having trailers. WP has space several times over what other schools have even WITH the trailers.
“In a separate and personal opinion, I think Winnona Park should serve as many residents of Decatur as possible.”
I agree.