Lewis Jones Announces Candidacy for Open Decatur School Board Seat
Decatur Metro | July 26, 2013
Lewis Jones is running for the District 1 seat, being vacated by Marc Wisnewski. He asked that we pass along this note, which is also up on his website…
I am running because I want to help the Superintendent make Decatur one of the top ten community school districts in the nation. I hope to strengthen School Leadership Teams, improve community outreach, promote arts and music, and establish value-added performance standards to ensure that our schools are working as hard as our children. I also want to help manage the master planning process to ensure it does not distract us from the academic program.With five kids in the system, I am totally committed to the City schools, and our own experience has been terrific. As Chair of the School Leadership Team at Renfroe Middle School, I know that we’re doing a great job already, but I also think there’s more to be done to get us to the next level.If you have any questions please call. Thank you! Lewis Jones , cell; , office)
Latest from Decaturish
(link to website doesn’t work.)
Just put an H at the beginning and remove the period at the end.
Just removing the period works on my device. Great family photo!
The correct URL is: http://www.jones-for-school-board.org
(Apologies if this is posted repeatedly — I am having trouble making it stick.)
Any relation to the Lewis Jones supermarkets that used to be in Columbus, GA?
None.
No extra cost. The goal is not to have the finest facilities. It is to deliver the best possible education with the existing resources. Buildings do cost money, and we do have to decide how to accommodate rising enrollment, but that is a separate issue.
hi, Lewis, thanks for offering your skills up for this public service.
based on your current understanding of our need to expand our infrastructure to accommodate student population growth, what’s your opinion about the School Board’s current proposal, and in what ways, if any, would you modify it?
In general I think they’ve done a good job. My questions go primarily to the longer term enrollment projections and the process used to develop the plan. Most of my information is from the briefing given to SLTs, and I understand that much more has been done since then, so let me caution that I do not have complete information.
Regarding enrollment, it is impossible to deny that growth is occurring and that something needs to be done to accommodate new students. I am also persuaded this will require new buildings. That said, I do wonder how far into the future the present trend will continue. The original presentation given to SLTs considered only a single growth projection. I would like to make sure that alternative future growth scenarios have been considered to ensure that we have a plan to cover our costs in the event the current trajectory changes. The plan approved by the board did address this to some extent by providing for construction to be sequenced to allow adjustments depending on future conditions, but I would have liked to have seen more explicit consideration of alternative scenarios. I understand the board has looked at alternative scenarios since the plan was rolled out this spring, so it is possible this type of analysis has already been done, but that I am not privy to it. I hope to learn more at the joint meeting between the board and the City Commission scheduled for August 5.
My second concern is with the process used to roll out the plan. I think it would have been better to engage the community earlier in the process—before the preliminary architectural plans were released—to explain the challenge and to get feedback on a wider range of more preliminary options. It is hard to strike the right balance, because you can’t have a public process without putting some ideas on the table for discussion. I also understand that the preliminary plans were developed primarily to generate a solid cost estimate, and that much more work will be done before final architectural plans are approved, but those drawings do create the impression that all the big decisions have already been made, even if that is not the case. In short, I think the process could be improved, and it is quite possible this would result in changes to the plan.
Lewis
thanks, Lewis.
i’m particularly interested in post 2018 enrollment too. my sense is there’s likely to be some smoothing once our current bubble passes through and it may be better to build for the post 2018 average rather than overbuilding just to accommodate the bubble.
that said, i understand how difficult and fuzzy projections like these can be.
additional factors include projections re: yet developed residential building, e.g., what will replace the Callaway building, additional infill housing, new condos, plus the ongoing influx of Atlanta and Dekalb Country school system refugees. so, it’s even possible the 2018 projections may be on the low side.
Lewis,
Given your statements above, would you agree that the City Commission should vote against putting the bond referendum on the ballot this year and wait until next year so that it can sort these issues out.
Isn’t it better to get it right than rush?
I need more information to form a definite opinion. It would be an easy call if all other things were equal, but I understand construction will get more difficult and costly as time goes on, because it will be harder to stage construction with trailers on site. How these considerations balance out will turn on specifics that I don’t have. I hope to learn more at the joint work session with the City on August 5.
.