Superintendent Makes Case for Redistricting Map #9
Decatur Metro | December 9, 2010 | 11:51 amIn a note to the Decatur School Board prior to next week’s meeting (see Agenda Item “e” at this link), Superintendent Phyllis Edwards details the process and reasoning that resulted in her recommendation of K-3 redistricting Map 9. Here’s a snippet…
…the Board listened to the community on November 16, 2010 and feedback was compiled from the electronic comment space to create Map 9. This map brings the schools virtually within a few students of each other in terms of total enrollment, non-white percentage, free/reduced lunch percentage, and use of classroom space at each school. A substantial change in Map 9 is that CSD will continue our practice of clustering English Language Learner students at Winnona Park. A large majority of these students that need second language services live in the Decatur Housing Authority, in particular, Allen Wilson. By continuing our current practice, this diversified Winnona, lessened the enrollment at Clairemont, and evened out the percentages. The following detail more minor changes that created Map 9:
1. The area around Willow on the northeast side is now zoned to Glennwood.
2. Rosewalk neighborhood will continue to attend Oakhurst.
3. McKoy Street will continue to attend Oakhurst.
The Superintendent recommends that the Board vote to approve Map 9 tonight.
Related Posts:
-
October 10, 2010 Decatur School K-3 Redistricting Maps Now Available Online (123)
-
November 4, 2010 Superintendent Recommends Narrowing Redistricting Options to Maps 4 & 8 (40)
-
June 9, 2011 With CSD Enrollment Rising, Superintendent Urges Board to Think About Westchester (32)
This looks like a good compromise to me.
We attend a CSD school by paying tuition, but if I lived in the house next door, I wouldn’t have to. In looking at all of these maps, I really find it appalling that the City would split a street in half. It goes against everything that the community of Decatur stands for. I understand certain “whole” streets being in different zones, but to have a city line cut a street in half does nothing to promote a sense of community where children can walk to school together, play together and get to know other neighbors. It only promotes a sense of disconnect for the children that can not go to the neighborhood school. I would love an explanation for why this was done . . . something we have never gotten. Just had to get it off my chest.
This brings up a question. If the classrooms are overcrowded, why are we still accepting tuition students?
I don’t believe CSD is accepting tuition students in K-5 anymore. Just at Renfroe and DHS, where there is still room.
DM, can you do some snooping and find out why CSD is accepting tuition kids who are not the children of school employees in the current enrollment climate? If CSD can accommodate tuition kids, then it seems that Clairemont can accommodate the Willow kids…. Not pleased to find this out.
I agree with this sentiment of how could they create maps that split streets or neighborhoods in half in the first place. This map 9 seems to have addressed most of these issues finally but who were the ones who created the maps in the first place? I think (but I don’t know for sure) that the company hired to create the maps may have never driven down the streets that bordered the districts and no one seemed to have fully vetted the maps before delivering them to the public.
Can you be voluntarily annexed into the city? We’d love to have you on the tax roll. Assume you knew when you bought the house this was the case, or do you live on a street that was half-annexed after you moved in?
Granted I haven’t looked at the map that carefully (it’s so hard to read the street names on-line!), but didn’t map 9 specifically address these issues? If I recall correctly, in prior maps, McKoy was the street where one side would go to Oakhurst and the other side to Winona, and Rosewalk was the neighborhood divided between Oakhurst and Clairemont. From the superintendent’s comments above, I assumed both of these issues had been corrected in map 9. Is that not so? Are there other streets still divided in half in map 9?
I’m not positive but I get the feeling that Rae is not so much talking about the redistricting lines as she is about where the city boundary line is placed, and the fact that it bisects her street. Is that correct, Rae? If so, and I’m not sure on this, I think that line predates the neighborhood, so it’s not the city that did it but the developer of the land.
The cure would be for the unincorporated remainder of the neighborhood to petition for annexation. Given commenters’ past reactions to large, single family home annexation proposals, though, expect no shortage of pushback.
Please forgive my ignorance of the whole annexation deal, I don’t remember reading about this here, and I really don’t understand it much to be honest with you. What would be the issue with Decatur annexing residential areas if the street wanted it? Would the taxes not be worth the strain on resources or schools, or more homes make it less exclusive, something along those lines? It would seem like the city would benefit from the increase in property taxes (especially if it were a street of reasonable priced houses)
It’s not my issue personally, but in past discussions here, the issue is usually financial as it relates to homes with kids being a net loss to the city because their taxes don’t cover school costs. Second to that is often capacity/overcrowding concerns with the school system.
Basically, single family homes are more likely to attract families so the city can very easily lose money by annexing them, especially when they’re in areas with no real redevelopment potential. At the level of a couple houses it’s not really a problem but, with a whole (or half) neighborhood, it could add up.
This is an excerpt from Dr. Edward’s Superintendent report for the December 14, 2010 meeting regarding Map 9:
At this meeting, I am recommending a version of a map for the elementary redistricting. Just to reiterate the process, I am listing the efforts that have been taken to inform and involve the community:
1) Prior to development of the maps, a parent/community member was involved in the discussion.
2) Once the draft maps 1-7 had been developed, large maps were made and placed at each elementary school.
3) The proposed maps have been available online through the system’s website.
4) An opportunity to make comment’s on the website on each map was made available.
5) Two information sessions of an hour in length were held prior to seeking the board vote.
6) Two public hearings were held prior to seeking the board vote.
7) Following reading comments and hearing comments Maps 8 and 9 were developed.
8) Two members of the staff have reached out and talked with individuals at the Housing Authority.
9) A meeting was held with Elementary Principals to discuss final recommendation.
10) Requested a vote at regularly scheduled public meetings which allows for public comment at every meeting.
Unfortunately, the only things missing from this list is the following:
9b) Scheduled third information session/ public hearing to address the following map changes:
1. The area around Willow on the northeast side is now zoned to Glennwood.
2. Rosewalk neighborhood will continue to attend Oakhurst.
3. McKoy Street will continue to attend Oakhurst.
The changes noted in items 2 and 3 are in response to comments made during the previous information sessions/ public hearings by residents of Rosewalk and McKoy. Concerned community members were allowed to directly address the board and CSD about their issues with Map 8. Map 9 was created and addresses their concerns. Unfortunately, it also impacts another neighborhood that was not zoned to move to a new school in Map 4 or Map 8, the stated forerunners.
Only the long discarded Maps 2 and Map 9 show the residents of Willow, Eastland, and Pensdale in the Glennwood district. Those residents have not had an equal opportunity to voice their concerns publicly. Since Map 9 was presented via the internet on Dec. 6th and posted in the elementary schools this week. they have been able to contact board members and post information on the CSD website. Yes, they will be able to speak to the board on Dec. 14th prior to the vote, but this is simply not comparable to voicing your concerns in a public setting three or four weeks prior to a vote.
This is exactly this kind of last minute change that caused such bad feelings after the last reconfiguration.
Fortunately, our School Board can chose to defer their vote on Dec. 14th. I hope they will chose to do so.
As Karass said….This feel’s like a game of musical chairs and Willow/Pensdale/Eastland are the ones who didn’t find a chair before the music stopped. I’m real sorry.
Yes, we knew before we moved into the house when our kids were babies and the market was booming. We could annex if our neighbors would annex the remainder of their property to give us the right footage. We would love to pay the taxes rather than the tuition. Partly because our kids would actually go to school with other kids on their street and in their neighborhood. The half of our street that we live on is zoned for Medlock . . . not a single kid in our neighborhood goes to school there. They go private, so the kids on that half of the street don’t know the other kids on the other half. There are about 15 houses that are in another school district from the rest of the street. It just seems ridiculous. Though we were ridiculous to buy the house! As for tuition, K-3 are still doing it and plan to next year. We’ve been doing it for two years.
Was looking through the Clairemont Yearbook for another reason and came across a paid dedication, complete with picture, from the “Willow Lane Walking Gang”. Even though I know this has happened to so many other CSD families over the years, and maybe there’s even some historical justice (although those kids don’t look like they were born for the last reconfiguration), I hate to see such enthusiasm thwarted.