Thank you for saying that, especially as someone from another neighborhood. Westchester was truly vibrant, so much so that many of us were naive and sure that rational people could work out a solution that would achieve CSD’s goals for the southside without destroying what was working so well (and not just for Westchester-area families, but also for Gateway Homes families, some of whom came to meetings about the closing of Westchester and signed the petition to keep it open.) That’s why I think it’s worth the extra time to tweak this reconfiguration plan and/or the accomodations to it (e.g. what happens to third graders). Evidently the tweakings of the options have made those Oakhurst families assigned to Winnona Park satisfied, if not ecstatic, if the postings on this blog are representative. Now, let’s see if that can be done for Willow/Eastland/Pensdale or any other area that has big concerns, without negatively impacting another area.

I recall looking at the schools when we bought here, and thought it sorta weird that my hypothetical kid would go to Oakhurst. But only because it seemed sorta far away. Once I saw that it performed on par or better than the other K-3s, I was perfectly satisfied. Would I have been more satisfied with Westchester as my elementary school? Eh…perhaps. I admit that I didn’t experience all the solid and deep relationships that seem to have developed at Westchester before it was broken up, but at first glance – that’s what we’re talking about here right? – Westchester kinda stinks because it’s on Scott Boulevard. I know Karass says it’s not bad walking down Scott, but I do it frequently and I don’t enjoy it. So for me, Westchester is nearly as inaccessible as Oakhurst.

Beyond all that, I think you have a valid point about people recognizing what was lost for what was gained. Unfortunately most conversations about this topic don’t get to this point. They usually orbit in the “personal experiences” realm and how Oakhurst was a booming toddler-town before the reconfig or how great life was post-reconfig and how people were pulling “For Sale” signs outta lawns to get their kids into the school.

That’s why we all get a vote.

I know it’s been said there are just 14 students on these streets. But, if 3 students were enough to tip the balance on needing an entire extra classroom in map 4 vs. map 8, then these 14 students (probably 3 or 4 per grade level?) certainly have the potential to tip the balance on requiring a few extra classrooms down the road.

That said, if Clairemont parents as a whole are willing to take the trade-off of slightly higher enrollment (and thus a higher chance of trailers between now and the potential Westchester opening) in order to keep the historical school boundaries, I personally see no problem with it. I’m all for students going to their closest and easiest to get to school whenever possible.

For the administration’s sake, though, I hope the trade-off is remembered if it does come to pass that Clairemont needs trailers again sooner rather than later. I don’t envy their job!

TeeRuss, allow us to raise our glasses of Kool-Aid together in support of our shared experiences. I was in Oakhurst long before the reconfiguration and witnessed the arrival of quite a few of the “limited options” folks you refer to (that’s our story, too). We knew them as we all had kids and, with notable exceptions here and there, we heard them fret over what they’d have to do once their kids hit school age. Many said move, some said private. It wasn’t until Julie Rhame and a small collection of other families emerged that the possibility of attending Oakhurst Elementary was ever explored in a meaningful way.

The organic changes they launched, I’m sure, would have grown over time but it would have been slow. When the reconfig happened a year later, the tenor of the real estate market changed immediately. Where once folks of limited options came here in spite of the school, now people were coming here because of the school, which expanded the homebuyer pool considerably.

Tom, I know you disagree but I watched it with my own eyes. I won’t be so bold as to call it a fact but it’s clear as day as far as I’m concerned.

TeeRuss, a toast: L’chayim!

Decatur was not an option for us in 2003, because homes on the northside were outrageously expensive, and Oakhurst’s affordable homes were in an 80% reduced lunch elementary school district. No one with better options (like we had with Mary Lin Elementary in Candler Park, which had taken over a decade to turn around organically) was going to move there.

The reconfig reshuffled the deck, and upgraded Oakhurst’s desirability overnight. Coupled with the affordability of the housing, it was a bargain move. That’s why we bought a house here in 2004. The calculus was obvious, and we have many friends with similar stories and timelines.

The problem with the enrollment projections was that they were too humble in their estimation of the success of the reconfig. They attracted a lot of people into affordable Oakhurst who wouldn’t have otherwise come. Sure, there were strollers everywhere back then, but that’s the same story in East Atlanta, Grant Park, and other affordable intown neighborhoods with subpar schools. In subpar school districts, once the kids outgrow the strollers, the families move to the burbs or explore private schools. And existing families generally don’t move in. The reconfig changed all that here.

And I’d appreciate it if my personal experience is not labeled as “drinking the kool aid”. Talk about being hurtful, unprovable, and likely wrong.