My biggest fear is that we will get re-zoned to Clairemont. I’m sure it is wonderful on the inside, but getting there from my house is going to be a nightmare! Have been over there during pick up and it is a complete zoo!!
I’m trying not to take offense to this statement. Clairemont is a fantastic school and we LOVE being there. We feel lucky to be there and would be very sad if we were zoned out. The other Clairemont families that I know feel the same way. If it’s your biggest fear that your kids will have to attend one of the best schools in the state (probably moving from another one of the best schools in the state), then maybe you’re doing pretty well.
Everyone is worried about traveling to the various schools but hardly anyone is talking about what happens in fourth grade. Try getting to F.AVE from the north side of town. It’s not fun.
I don’t think it is a real option. The presenter said that is what happens if he incorporated the desires of the various neighborhood groups. I think Westchester and Clairemont were both under half full and the other 3 would be over capacity. Maybe someone else who was there can chime in on this, but I think he was trying to illustrate that some people are going to be unhappy with the re-zoning, but he was cut off before he could really make the point.
As was pointed out at the meeting, there are only 2 elementary schools south of the Dequater. The 4/5 school make the logical, geogpraphical distribution of kids impossible. The growth in Oakhurst and Sycamore Dr is explosive. More redistricting may occur in the future.
If you people on the ‘Khurst side of town would stop building those McMansions and procreating like rabbits to fill them, maybe your kids could go to school closer to home.
A few people (including me) brought it up during comments period. It really should be revisited before the new districts are formed. Returning to old models of k-5 and prek-5 could help with growing pains without so much construction, especially in Oakhurst. Plus, I think most folks have forgotten years ago they built a school to handle crowding at Oakhurst and Winnona Park: College Heights. Anybody besides me wonder why we’re using a whole elementary school just for 0-4 year olds?
No, because I know the reason why. It was started to help identify at-risk and special needs kids early and provide the federally required services to at risk babies and toddlers. The 0-3 preschool model integrates disabled and low income children in with typical and mixed income kids. The infant rooms pay for themselves.
I am starting to think K-5 is inevitable, but it won’t happen with this re-zoning. Wait about 3 years until Oakhurst and WP are bursting at the seems and we have to re-zone again, and K-5 is going to get a lot of traction (although the more this subject comes up, the more I get the sense that the majority of CSD parents favor the K-5 model.)
But, I would like to see a proposed map of 6 K-5 schools with F.AVE being converted back to an elementary school. That would solve a lot of the problems on the southsidse (i.e. not splitting WP), may accomodate LP’s desire to stay at Oakhurst and let the northern part of Glenwood Estates stay at Glenwood. Westchester and Clairemont will have some capacity, but they could take tuition students to fill those spaces until the demographics shift again and those schools are full of CoD residents (which won’t take long). I have no idea if it would work, but I would like someone to run the numbers.
I would like to see some real options with K-5 too. I would like CSD and the school board to seriously consider the k-5 option and not just pay lip service to considering it. Maybe it really won’t work out but unless the community can see those options and understand how will we really know? I served on a reconfiguration committee for CSD years ago and know it’s not a easy thing and they have to do the best with the information available at the time. And it seems that information is outdated within a year! FAVE was built with room to grow and it’s already had to have an addition. That certainly was not anticipated by the committee at the time we were discussing the need for a new 4/5.
The original reason for the 4/5 academy (reduced population) no longer applies. I don’t think there should be anything sacred about preserving the k-3, 4/5 model. We had it for 10 years, it was fine, but maybe it’s not the best configuration for CSD anymore.
I don’t think any of the options presented are great. It’s strange to send parts of WP close to WPE to Glenwood or to send parts of MAC to Glenwood. I can see sending the south side east of Columbia to Glennwood or even Columbia drive, as they are probably as close to or closer to Glenwood than Winnona Park Elementary.
At the time of those reconfiguration discussions, some folks DID predict that we would immediately outgrow FAVE. It was unbelievable to most of us. I don’t think there’s anything anyone could have said to CSD and the School Board as they were composed then that would have gotten them to seriously consider K-5. I remember commenting on that process wearing a couple of different hats and I felt that the pros and cons provided, as they were articulated to us all then, were clearly stacked against a K-5 model. We’re about to get a new School Board that will have only one member who was on the Board in 2003-2004 when the 4/5 model was selected. While I think it will be cautious about radical change, I think it’s more open to considering K-5.
Some of the commentators last night suggested considering switching back to K-5 as well. I wonder how FAVE can accomodate all these children from 5 lower elementary schools in CSD. Converting FAVE to another elementary and make all elementary schools K-5 seem more logical in a long run.
Yeah, there really was no support at that time within CSD for K-5. As a committee, we were told to consider it because parents would want us to, but there was no serious consideration. But the population issues then were different then now. At that time there were still only 3 k-3 with one more anticipated to open. Now we are moving to 5 k-3s feeding into a mega 4-5.
I would love to see a survey to see if the community prefers one model over the other. Not because I think parents should dictate how the school system is run, but it would be interesting to find out what configuration the majority of the community prefers.
I wish it were that simple….. In a place as intertwined as City of Decatur, voter vs. business vs. personal vs. family vs. neighborhood vs. clique interests are hard to disentangle. The interconnectedness is often wonderful but it does lead to a lot of backstage discussions.
I would like to be seeing a lot more informal polls. As you said, not to make decisions, but so we all get a feel for preferences, varied as they may be. Otherwise, all we know as a community is what is said by the unrepresentative few who show up to School Board meetings (which are less advertised that football games and Moms and Muffins) and what is said on this Board and neighborhood listservs. CSD/School Board probably get lots of email, phone call, and in person opinions but those aren’t available to us general public. Informal polls are SO easy to do. Girl Scouts do them, families do them, even churches do them. In fact, why doesn’t the CSD website have a running poll? Many workplace and other websites do. Have a poll of the week–one week, it’s what you want to see in school lunches, the next week it’s your opinion of Accelerated Reading, the next week it’s your top 3 priorities for school redistricting. If there’s always a poll up and a poll archive, it wouldn’t seem like such a big deal to do polls to gauge the waters out there. I believe that the City usually has a poll of some sort active on its website plus an archive.
Please consider joining a new FB page dedicated to exploring more options. Ideally it would be great if the Board could hear our collective plea for more time and more thoughtful, strategic, long-term thinking: https://www.facebook.com/groups/519785771451608/
We’ve also set up a survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DK5FLH3
Rezoning every 3 years is not acceptable. We need more than a bandaid fix here.
Great idea and I feel dumb that I didn’t know about it. Quick comments on the poll:
1) Needs a place in the poll to fill in the specifics for the “Other” response. In my case, “Other” would be cost, if I had a place to put it.
2) Respondents may get your 1-5 scale backwards because the form automatically sorts “1”, which is low, to the top, not bottom.
No worries, we just put it out this morning. The poll is not perfect but if we can get a good number if people to participate it can be a starting point for a discussion with the Board. Who’s in? Let’s at least make an attempt to get this into the public domain and have out concerns heard. Feel free to email me offline at .
I think we all agree that rezoning elementary schools is a painful process for all involved. Not everyone is going to be happy.
But here’s the thing: when we rezoned the last time around, we knew then that we’d have to rezone again in a few years to incorporate Westchester. I don’t believe that’s the case this time. I don’t know of any plans to open another elementary school in 3 years. I believe that all predictions we’ve heard thus far have fit within the capacities of the K-3s with Westchester.
Can you give some background the assumption that we’ll need to rezone again in 3 years?
Rezoning kids is no small matter. It’s painful for them. But we should also recognize that opening up another elementary school in anticipation of additional capacity – which would in effect mean that we would be well below capacity for a while – may be an option that’s too financially painful to already cash strapped CSD to handle.
Best quote I’ve heard yet, ” I am kind of tired after a decade of the Phyllis Edwards administration of people in charge using our kids and schools like interchangeable Lego pieces.”
I recognize that this an actual quote from last night but I hate to see individual names used. Others in the CSD admin/contractor/legal advisor/etc. category share some responsibility for districting during this administration. And the members of School Board during this period are ultimately responsible too. Very few votes were not unanimous. And everyone knew the outcome ahead of time, often before the public comment.
This complaint has been bugging me, and I just have to say something:
Enrollment has EXPLODED in the past few years. CSD has been forced to deal with this. What would people rather they do – ignore it? Hope it goes away? Refuse to redistrict?
Sorry, but the complaint is totally nonsensical given the reality of the situation. They HAVE to use trailers, they HAVE to expand schools, they HAVE to add new schools, and they HAVE to redistrict to deal with all of this. There is no way around it. People don’t HAVE to like it, but that’s the way it is. Blaming Dr. Edwards for this is an immature reaction.
TeeRuss: I think we all agree the growth must be addressed. We would like it to be done in a thoughtful, and possibly even open and democratic, manner. Public officials should expect to be held accountable and, goodness sakes, even have their names mentioned in public.
So what you are saying is that the management of our enrollment growth has not been done in a thoughtful, open, democratic manner.
If you don’t think it has been thoughtful, then that’s an immature response.
if you don’t think it has been open, then you haven’t been paying attention.
If you don’t think it’s been democratic, then the system is working as designed. This is not mob rule. We have leaders who we empower to do what’s needed, and hold accountable via elections. Thank god we don’t put every single school capacity decision to a referendum.
I just want to make it clear how much I flat out disagree with directing the complaints to CSD. The world is changing, people need to deal with that.
“If you don’t think it’s been democratic, then the system is working as designed. This is not mob rule. We have leaders who we empower to do what’s needed, and hold accountable via elections. Thank god we don’t put every single school capacity decision to a referendum.”
Great point. Could you imagine the mess we would be in if our leaders weren’t able to make tough decisions?
There are no easy answers here – we can’t just magically place schools right in the center of proposed attendence zones.
I just hope that the ultimate result reflects more of Decatur’s core values, like walkability and neighborhood preservation. These are more enduring bases for drawing borders, rather than demographics that can and do change quickly.
RE “I just hope that the ultimate result reflects more of Decatur’s core values, like walkability and neighborhood preservation. These are more enduring bases for drawing borders, rather than demographics that can and do change quickly.”: You stole this quote from the “We love all our Decatur schools” group in 2003, right? (For those not around, that group preceded the pitting of Clairemont vs. Westchester. Not enough folks, including myself, paid enough attention to it. There were people who really cared about all the schools including Fifth Ave Elementary which badly needed remodelling and College Heights that was down to 90 students.)
Seriously, your statement is well-articulated. Folks wanting to retain their neighborhood schools have sometimes been portrayed as selfish. But now that that baton has been passed all around Decatur, maybe we can recognize a core principle that goes beyond resistance to change. Sometimes our model of small, neighborhood, walkable schools isn’t perfectly efficient, but it’s what the community wants. And elementary schools do affect the character of a neighborhood. The Westchester and Chelsea Heights neighborhoods clearly lost some luster after Westchester closed. I predict they’ll boom with the reopening. The question is whether we are willing to pay for this model and how.
One glaring reality is that there ARE four primary school buildings on the south side compared to three on the north side, but only two of those serve K-3 kids. The ECLC and the 4/5 have served our family well but I can see the operational problem caused by devoting two buildings to them. No easy answers.
“I just hope that the ultimate result reflects more of Decatur’s core values, like walkability and neighborhood preservation. These are more enduring bases for drawing borders, rather than demographics that can and do change quickly.”
Here, here, TeeRuss. No truer words have ever been written. All proposals currently on the table siphon off the top half of the Winnona Park neighborhood and ship those children across the tracks. You’ll have kids that live on Avery St. not attending the school that is on Avery St. and is less than half a mile from them. You’ll have kids on Winnona Dr. not attending Winnona Park that is less than half a mile from them.
This is a true affront to, not only the neighborhood, but also to, as you put it, “Decatur’s core values, like walkability and neighborhood preservation.” No other neighborhood is being carved up in these proposals. I know the committee has a tough job, but I fear they are not being provided with options that will help them make a decision that takes into account ALL the important, Decatur-specific, community dynamics. I hope the committee, and the school board that will ultimately make the call, insists upon new options that protect the integrity of ALL the historic neighborhood groupings, and by extension protect “Decatur’s core values.”
Walkability is important, but it has to balanced against other factors, such as neighborhood preservation. I was at the meeting last night, and if I had to choose between keeping WP intact and moving LP to Westchester, I would not split WP. Yes, LP would lose its walkability, but at least the neighborhood isn’t being split in half and all of those kids who run around the neighborhood together would go to school together. I don’t live in a neighborhood with a walkable elementary school now, and although it would be nice, ultimately I am happy the kids are being dropped off at a great school every morning.
I was concerned to see that every single option proposes some fracturing off of a few core streets of Winnona Park neighborhood. I think that folks that live on Avery (share a street with WP school) and on Winnona Drive (the namesake of the neighborhood) didn’t even think to study the maps that closely until recently. I think most were shocked to see those core, close in streets being zone for Glennwood in every single scenarios. As Geoff said, this isn’t just about commute or walkability. No one is going to say ‘hey please make my school further away’. But swiping off close in streets of a well defined neighborhood undermines much more than a commute.
There was good WP representation last night and I’m hopeful that the next options will use some of the logic of defined neighborhoods.
As already said – part of what makes this tricky is that there is more capacity (with opening of Westchester) in the northern parts of city but population exploding in southern parts. Whatever solution is made for this round, it’s short lived.
I agree that neighborhood preservation should be as important as walkability. I hate that LP will lose the ability to walk but I don’t see how the numbers will work having that neighborhood cross the tracks. I think it would be better to keep that neighborhood together and have them attend Westchester and free up some space on the southside.
“Yes, LP would lose its walkability, but at least the neighborhood isn’t being split in half and all of those kids who run around the neighborhood together would go to school together.” This is not entirely true. The very small area of Rosewalk and even smaller area of Greenwood Cir. are being separated from LP and in two of the proposals being zoned for Clairemont, not Westchester. In option four, my children would have very, very few neighbors attending their school at Clairemont…most all would be at Westchester. Greenwood Cir. is a very isolated street when not considered as a part of Rosewalk and LP.
Speak up while you have the chance! Sounds like there’s opposition to splitting neighborhoods and yours should be no different. Lines have to be drawn somewhere but some lines make more sense than others.
From the looks of it, Option 2 seems the one that could be tweaked a little to preserve neighborhoods.
Make the rest of LP Westchester, shift OAkhurst to the east a little, leave WP intact (ie. south of the tracks, then play with the Clairmont/Westchester boundary until parity is reached.
Or as someone said, leave some capacity at Westchester to handle tuition payers.
Yes, I want Greenwood/Rosewalk/LP to be together, but ultimately at Oakhurst. It would be such a shame to loose our walkability and all that comes with that if zoned at Westchester. I understand the crowding issue at Oakhurst, but I’m confident there is a way to make it work…K-5, expanding, trailers…many options have been proposed on this thread.
Are you suggesting expanding Oakhurst? If so, I don’t think it is a viable option, especially given the needs of the entire city to expand Renfroe and DHS (as opposed to the wants of one neighborhood to be able to walk to school). Don’t get me wrong – I hope you get what you want, but I don’t believe expansion is the way to do it.
I understand, I do. But I want it all…not just for my family, but for everyone. Decatur is such an amazing place to call home and I don’t want that to change because of rushing to address this issue. Would it be so terrible to have trailers at a few of the schools for one more year to avoid another rezoning in three years from now when the population declines or increases again? As others have stated there needs to be a broader look at the problem and include more options for discussion such as K-5, 6-9, 10-12 and other ideas. Deciding to reopen a school and rezone (again) all within a few months just doesn’t allow enough time to explore all reasonable options and get adequate public input.
I don’t disagree, TeeRuss, but your comment seems to suggest that making a decision based on core values would represent something new, which I don’t think is the case. The last time ’round this carousel we hammered out changes predominantly based on: commitment to diversity and fairness; educational consistency; and responsible economics. Not arguing for or against that rationale or suggesting that every decision was the right one but there’s no denying that those are all prevalent Decatur values.
Also, keep in mind that, at the time we were fixing certain problems, residents typically had no problem enrolling their kid in their walkable neighborhood school or worrying that their class size was spiraling out of control.
Today we find ourselves firmly in the “victim of our own success” column which, I would argue, still beats the hell out of “victim of our own failures.” Decatur holds many admirable values, IMO, and typically does its level best to balance/accommodate them. So to your point, the question is not whether or not the decision will be made on our core values but, rather, the debate over exactly which of our values we’re going to prioritize this time around.
We agree that these are issues brought on by our own success. My point was that I believe this town as evolved core values around our walkability, which is unique and a major draw, and our appreciation for our neighborhoods, many of which are historic and geographically well-defined. The PC police will kill me for this, but diversity is not top of the list anymore for most people – that’s an issue that was dealt with in 2003. Moving forward we have different challenges, so I hope the reconfiguration process doesn’t fight the last war.
Wasn’t it “dealt with” in 2003 BY carving districts that create demographic balance across the schools? I don’t see it as something that has been addressed and completed. It’s either an ongoing priority or it isn’t. I don’t disagree with the comments in support of walkability and neighborhood feel/togetherness, either, for what it’s worth. Those are important considerations. But I also agree that Decatur’s commitment to demographic balance is a strong “pro”. I hope those involved in the process will find a way to strike a balance between these concerns and move us forward in the right direction.
I believe it has been addressed and completed, and is not an ongoing priority. Keep in mind that pre-2003 we had schools that were 95% one race or the other, and that dynamic has been shut down completely.
I’m not saying it’s not something to keep in mind, but it should not be a dominant priority for the reconfiguration effort.
One thing for everyone to remember is that we do have one neighborhood that is, by it’s own mission statement, heavily skewed to ESL and lower SES demographics. If we keep demographic balance as a top priority, that neighborhood will likely need to either be broken apart, or be redistricted every time a slight imbalance develops between elementary schools.
Don’t faint, TeeRuss, but I think you have this right. Why is diversity more important than community and neighborhood? We have big giant houses sitting next to subsidized housing next to $350,000 starter homes next to $150,000 townhouses and rentals. The new builds so over shadow everything that I think we forget we have so much diverse housing stock – and that I our diversity is not necessarily color or ethnic…
If Nelliebelle and TeeRuss are coming to easy agreement, there is HOPE FOR US ALL! (Sorry, I really need to find some humor in all of this; hopefully y’all don’t mind.) No really, maybe you two should run for school board.
In 2003, the only schools that were close to 95% one race were College Heights (90 students) and maybe Oakhurst but I think the latter was already gentrifying a little already. Fifth Avenue was closed “for remodelling” but had been declining in student population. Glennwood drew from a more diverse neighborhood–I think it was also getting former Fifth Avenue students but I could be wrong–it also got shelter families. Clairemont drew from Allen Wilson Terrace–I can’t remember the % white, non-hispanic but my guess is that it was around 70%-75%. Westchester drew from Gateway Homes and was 80% white, non-hispanic. I believe that Winnona Park may have had a period of being 95% white later than other schools but, by 2003, it drew students from Swanton Hill and my guess is that it was 80-85% white. I’m not saying this to argue but just to set the record straight. Redistricting students to another neighborhood to achieve better diversity started way before the closing of Fifth Avenue, College Heights, and Westchester. There was a court order to achieve a racial balance in 19??, right? In my opinion, the tipping point that resulted in the 2003-2004 reconfiguration was the fact that all of the mostly African-American schools on the south side were severely underenrolled, close to closing, or closed. It didn’t seem right to that Board to only close schools that had predominantly African-American students. As it turns out, the declining enrollment was just about to change anyway and many new, gentrifying families pointed that out. Those folks had already recognized the high quality of the principal and teachers at Oakhurst and were starting or planning to send their young children there.
If we are going to district by diversity–and there’s a long, meritorious tradition of doing that–we should be clear on what we mean. Diversity by race? Diversity by ethnicity? Or by income/class? By religion? By national origin? All of the above? Only until the achievement gap has been eliminated? Or indefinitely regardless of student performance? What if a school is as diverse as any other school in Decatur but the diversity is made up of minority students from high income, professional families–does that count? Or what if its minority students are mostly not African-American?
This is a tough business for us humans–celebrating and preserving cultural and social diversity at the same time as ensuring equal access to educational and economic opportunity!
so who has a good alternative plan they’d like to share? i’ve read most of the comments the last month or so on the subject, and have looked at the options proposed by the board. they sure don’t seem perfect but i have yet to see a better alternative.
ant1 – any alternative that preserves the integrity of our established neighborhoods is better than the ones that divide our neighborhoods. I can’t direct you to an alternative that satisfies this goal, because there isn’t one on the table currently. It is imperative that an option is placed on the table that preserves our neighborhoods so that we can fully assess this option in context of the current proposals that illogically divide Winnona Park.
I’m a little confused: These appear to be the same maps that went up just after last Monday’s meeting (Oct. 21). I thought we would see adjusted maps dated the 28th?
Walkability, equitable distribution (“race, socio-economic levels, Second Language Speakers”) and facility capacity are the three mandates. I submit that the charge to keep all schools equal in demographic makeup is driving the map more than any other. So how does the Decatur school community feel about that mandate? Does this charge divide a neighborhood while preventing one school from being seen as better than another?
At this point in our development, a lot of the “equality” concerns are off the table. Most neighborhoods are mixed race and income. Arbitrarily deciding those boundaries won’t work anymore. I would be more inclined to have school designated for ESL or special needs kids so those precious and limited resources are concentrated. My daughter is in the latter category and I would rather have her in place where services for her hearing and speech issues are available abundantly rather than have her in the school down the street.
Is that true? I’m not sure all Decatur neighborhoods are equally mixed and I do think we could end up with concentrations of low-income students at certain schools. I think this dedication to racial and income diversity is one of the better features of CSD and why [all] students at our schools do so well. I’d really hate to see this mandate lost and fear the domino effect. Income inequality in this country is widening, not narrowing so it’s no less important than it’s ever been.
The “equitable” demographic factors are important and certainly must be part of the discussion, however, TeeRuss also makes a great point that should not be overlooked: the boundaries created by these criteria are not “enduring” and are ever-shifting. The natural boundaries of our neighborhoods are historic, and in the case of Winnona Park, are enshrined in the National Register of Historic Places. The current proposal would divide a neighborhood that is one of the oldest in the city, dating back nearly a century. The dividing line in the current proposals drives right through the most historic section of Winnona Park. See here: http://www.decaturmetro.com/2011/02/15/a-1919-blueprint-of-winnona-park/
How do you weigh it though? In my opinion, keeping neighborhoods and streets together is more important than drawing crazy maps to arbitrarily- and, yes, with the demographic shifts it gets a little arbitrary-divide people into clusters by perceived economic class.
exactly, and kind of my point above. it’s easy to criticize a plan based on a single factor, be it distance to school, neighborhood breakup, socio-economic diversity, or whatever else. based on people’s comments here, it seems not everyone values the various factors in consideration equally. impossible to please everyone, maybe the current proposals piss of the least?
coming from someone who changed schools quite a bit growing up (2 elems, 3 middles) and didn’t always attend the local school, there’s a positive aspect to changing the faces you see in school every day. and it’s not like kids will stop playing soccer with the neighbor down the street if they go to different schools for a couple years. one can have school friends and neighborhood friends.
Points well taken, ant1. However, there are currently 4 proposals on the table and each and every one splits Winnona Park. So how can we determine, or weigh, the merits of the other criteria vs. keeping Winnona Park whole, when there isn’t even an option to keep Winnona Park whole? This must change.
definitely not against a whole-winnona proposal. just unsure if the lack of one is due to it not being feasible, given the other factors taken into consideration, or just not yet thought of. if the latter, i wish someone would propose one.
adding: i’m really enjoying this discussion. school redistricting is not something i’ve ever cared about, but with a little one on the way and hopes of eventually buying a house in decatur, i’m glad this community is this involved in the process.
Maybe the schools have to be a little uneven at times? Never in terms of quality but perhaps sometimes in terms of size? Maybe that unevenness could be balanced a bit by offering a tad of school choice? For example, if Westchester had space even with tuition students and Oakhurst had borderline excessive class sizes, perhaps Oakhurst families could be offered the option of attending Westchester instead, bus service provided. This makes more sense to me than constant redistricting to keep things even-steven.
Interesting suggestion to offer Westchester to Oakhurst-zoned families as an option, instead of redistricting Lenox Place & Rosewalk against their will. There are plenty of people in Oakhurst who drive to school anyway, and maybe they would prefer smaller class sizes or some other enticement that might be offered to go to Westchester.
Are you talking about people who actually live in Oakhurst or people from across the tracks who are currently zoned for Oakhurst? I cannot imagine anyone who lives in Oakhurst choosing that option. A good portion of the drivers are people from across the tracks, not neighborhood people. Most families I know who live in Oakhurst but get shipped to Winona are excited that they may be at their neighborhood school. They were zoned to Winona against THEIR will and in fact next door neighbors are now attending different schools in a couple spots.
I just think it’s a creative idea to offer a choice, considering that a concern seems to be predicted overcrowding at Oakhurst. Personally, I think opening Westchester will take a lot of pressure off the Oakhurst neighborhood and we’ll soon be talking about the need to expand WC. That is where a lot of the incoming families will be. You can get a bigger house for the money and you don’t have to tear anything down.
Anyway, crossing RR tracks is not a big deal for people who live so close to the school. And I see plenty of people in the Oakhurst neighborhood who drive to school, for whatever reason.
The schools not having defined boundaries and people having “creative choice” is a recipe for an absolute disaster year after year. The constant redistricting is proof for the need for stable boundaries and legitimate, thoughtful planning, which is not something this administration can handle.
I think families that live 1.5 miles from WP or Oakhurst are getting into cars and buses to get their kids to school. I think in many of the scenarios, Weschester and Clairemont are going to have capacity to fill. It’s worth understanding the interest and opportunity. Perhaps someone working at Emory likes being closer to the school. Perhaps if Weschester offered a special music intensive curriculum? Perhaps a pre-k class makes it a better logistical alternative for families?
I remember a preK-5 model at Westchester that allowed most families to have all of their children in one school for at least a while. If we went back to that model (which never existed at every single elementary school, only those with preKs), then two school facilities on the south side would be opened up and we’d probably have enough capacity on both sides of the tracks…for now. But the 0-3 program would have to go somewhere else and I’m not sure that the foundation that funded the ECLC would allow that. And the preK program would be split up–advantages and disadvantages to that; it’s worked well both ways. Animal Crackers used to be licensed to handle to preK age children; it probably could be again.
That may be the case, but I dont see much ‘equality’ as it relates to ESOL or Minority across the options. I am taking data from the charts at the bottom of the photos — if someone can point me towards the actual data, I would love to fiddle around with it.
For minority enrollment Option 3 is the most equitable.
For ESOL, there is a spike for all 3 options – whether at Glennwood or Clairemont. Option 1 puts the spike at Glennwood, Options 2 & 3 put it in Clairemont.
For Free Lunch: Option 3 is the closest in terms of equitability,
Demographics are constantly shifting in Decatur. They can get the mix “just right” and it will immediately start to change. Map #4 leaves Westchester with openings, but for how long? Homes around Westchester are some of the most affordable right now. As soon as Westchester re-opens, that could well be the hot new area for families with school-age children.
Instead of achieving the perfect balance for a fleeting moment, the school board should follow logical boundaries (Scott Blvd or Commerce, for example) and prioritize keeping neighborhoods together and schools walkable.
+1. That was my point via email to the board. The numbers are a moving target, what is perfect today will not be in 1 or 2 years. Natural boundaries, like a state highway and Railroad tracks make sense to me!! How about the crossing at College and Candler, that is a mess. Where did the drawing come from that I saw on DecaturMetro last week….it was very clean and used sensable boundaries.
Natural boundaries make sense to a degree, but they also shouldn’t be used in a wholesale way without thought because of how they dissect COD. Currently our small neighborhood crosses Dekalb Ave. and the tracks to get to Oakhurst (we are adjacent to Lenox Place). We are 1/2 mile from Oakhurst and it is not a big deal to walk. In 2 of the 4 maps, we need to cross at least Ponce and Clairmont to a school 1.5 miles away. In fact, there isn’t a school we could attend where we wouldn’t have to cross a natural boundary.
The maps you saw last week were the first 3 from the demographer, and the ones that the public commented on last night. As someone else said earlier, a fourth option was introduced, with a lot of questions. At the next (yet-to-be-scheduled) public comment section, they’ll have additional maps that will address the comments.
Agreed. There are dozens of walkers in Lenox Place and they don’t have a problem crossing the railroad tracks. It’s a much better option than crossing Scott Blvd.
But keep in mind that the speed limit will be reduced on Scott and there should be several crossing guards. Not that walking across Scott is ideal, but it won’t resemble the experience of crossing Scott today.
Please, please, please let the reopening of Westchester Elementary be impetus to put a crosswalk across Scott from the school to Westchester Apts. It would prevent a lot of dangerous jaywalking and be one more mechanism of slowing traffic down to the speed limit. It’s a long haul on Scott between the crosswalk at the Coventry light and the crosswalk at the Clairemont light. Not only is Westchester Apts. full of children but there’s cluster housing, condos, duplexes, and several residential side streets, that empty onto that long, long stretch between Coventry and Clairemont.
As someone already said, Oakhurst is bursting because of there’s a great school in the neighborhood. As soon as West Chester opens, I’m sure that area of Decatur will be the hottest area for new family to move in and the builders will be adding new homes. Then in few years WC will be the overcrowded one. I really wish CSD will consider switching back to K-5.
Crossing the tracks from LP/Rosewalk/Greenwood Cir. to get to Oakhurst is much different than crossing further east. College is only two lanes at that point and the lights are timed so that there is plenty of time to cross W. Howard and College. By far, the safest of any of the crossings.
Agree that hot areas and demographics keep shifting in Decatur and there’s a dynamic interaction between neighborhood school (or lack thereof) and community demographics that is hard to predict. Not only does single family home ownership fluctuate but so do rentals and subsidized housing. Westchester Apts. was dead for awhile and now it’s booming. How much is the traditional Emory grad student crowd and how much is housing vouchers, I’m not sure, but there’s a long waiting list for those apartments. My impression is that the DHA housing complexes have fewer total units now open to families but we have more voucher families scattered throughout rental housing in Decatur.
I like the idea expressed on this Board that we need to recognize that certain schools go with a defined neighborhood that would be harmed if it were broken up by school redistricting. When possible, we should honor the principle that we not harm neighborhoods by redistricting. However, certain conditions must be met in terms of size (90 students at College Heights was clearly too small to operate and 500 students cannot fit into Clairemont), evenness of spread of race/ethnicity, income levels, maybe other indicators of inequality, and other factors we deem critical.
Walkability is the number 1 priority for my family. We share City of Decatur’s active living philosophy of “preserving and promoting an appreciation for our green spaces and celebrating diversity while bringing us together as a community” and we take pleasure in walking to Oakhurst Elementary from Lenox Place on a daily basis. This is my time to connect with my child and to communicate with my countless Lenox Place neighbors who also walk or ride to school. It also ensures that my son arrives at school feeling invigorated and ready for the day of learning ahead. There are numerous studies showing that walking to school greatly reduces the risk of not only childhood obesity, but also adult obesity later in life. If Lenox Place was rezoned to Westchester, our walk would require crossing over dangerous Scott Blvd, and would go from a 10-minute walk to an estimated 30-minute walk, which means we likely would no longer be able to walk.
I hope our school system leadership will move toward thinking outside the boxes — i.e. our school buildings as they are currently used — for ways to manage the changes that growth is forcing us to make. Constrained by those limits, we cope by spending millions to add on to the schools, again and again. I’ve heard CSD leadership doesn’t want to consider returning to longer grade span schools because it would be too disruptive. Redistricting and construction are disruptive too. I’ve also heard, for 20 years, that it’s easier to get money to build than funds to operate our schools. Does that have to drive our decisions? Before we build again, could we please brainstorm some truly progressive ideas for managing our growth? Are there other communities we could study? Have our surrounding universities asked their students to dream up some ideas for CSD? This community is full of really smart people — got any new ideas? I feel like we use up all our energy pushing and pulling on each other about who gets to go where, when I wish we could channel it toward a collective goal.
All of the proposed maps only offer a short term solution. Our children need stability. That is not going to happen in this scenario, because in 3 years we’ll all be looking at another rezone.
I want to know why there is not a broader discussion about what happens to our kids down the road? Our community as a whole cannot be doing this every 3 years.
Those of you who’ve posted on here but haven’t made comments to the re-zoning committee or board already, please do so, regardless of what your views may be! There are so many good ideas in this discussion. If I’ve learned one thing from this experience so far, it’s that you can’t assume anyone is expressing your views for you.
Good point. What’s the best mechanism at this point–especially one that doesn’t require showing up at a meeting? Given that I’m districted to Westchester no matter what and my children aren’t going back to the K-3 stage, I’ve wanted to leave centerstage for the families who are more directly affected.
. At the committee meeting last week, they had printed off all comments sent in to this email address and were reading them. It was also stated at the community meeting that comments sent there were reviewed by the committee and the board. And, last time I checked, they were all posted on the K-3 zoning web page for folks to read. Of course you could also contact a board member, but this seems a broader and possibly more anonymous approach.
Last night they said we were encouraged to submit all comments from their website. (There is a page dedicated for this zoning issue.) I wonder if they read DM?!
They read it but they are not obligated to admit they read it or incorporate suggestions from here. So it’s safest to send your bright ideas in officially.
I live in Lenox Place and I just want to thank y’all for speaking on our behalf! Considering you don’t live in our neighborhood, I think it’s amazing that you guys think you know what is best for US and think you should have a say in how we want to live in our community! I mean a 12-minute walk to Oakhurst vs. a 28-minute walk to Westchester down a traffic-heavy main road is SO MUCH better for all of us and WAAAAAYYYY safer for our children!
I hope you caught the sarcasm is that paragraph. Since ALL City of Decatur schools are awesome and it’s a highly sought-after school district, I don’t really care what school my child goes to as long we can WALK to it – that was why we stayed here when we decided to have a kid. ALSO, my child has special needs, which is something Oakhurst has been working on with him for 2-years now. NOW people I don’t even know, are fighting for HIM to be removed from the staff that knows him, has worked with him (and us), and has his best interest in mind.
Thanks for your say/opinion, but let Lenox Place fight our own battles. We aren’t just houses on a grid/map, we are families with children and yes, we do give a HOOT and this IS important to us.
You seem to think that the your desires (and those of your neighbors) outweigh everyone else’s in the city. All of these pieces fit into a very large, incredibly complex puzzle, and if you get your way, someone else will be adversely affected. So, in effect, you are fighting to remove someone else’s children from their schools.
And I haven’t heard a single person say they want Lenox Place be re-zoned away from Oakhurst. In fact, I think every here has universally said they hope everyone gets what they want and people have been offering thoughtful suggestions on how to make it work. But, at the same time, most of us realize that this is a balancing act which requires evaluating several factors. Although walkability is one of them, it doesn’t trump the others.
Well, my neighbors don’t get to send their kids to the school nearest their home where everyone else on their street gets to go, and they are tired of having to cross both McDonough and Candler in rush hour to walk, so what your neighborhood wants is more important than what they want? Get over yourself. This a COMMUNITY effort.
Forget the school zones – these maps look like they will help me identify which kid-heavy streets to hit up for candy in a couple of days (I’m looking at YOU Oakhurst)
Correct me if I am wrong, the dots on the draft maps represent houses with rising K-3 students in them. The dots on my street are incorrect. Anyone else notice this for their street? If this is a universal problem, could this visual be incorrectly influencing where zoning lines are being drawn?
I was actually surprised that our dot does seem to be there even though we moved to CoD after the census and our kids aren’t in the CSD system yet. We are on theCollege Heights wait list so maybe that’s how (or I’m mistaken about the dot belonging to us.
I wondered about that too. When was this census taken? We’ve lived in our house for almost 3 years and we have rising 1st grader but we are not on the map, neither our neighbour who has rising K student for 2014. Do they just use the current CSD registration?
From what I understand the dots on those maps represent kids from the 2010 census, so it’s not totally representative of today’s numbers. They’ve traditionally had a challenge with getting an accurate count of kids coming up; it happened the last time they re-zoned, maybe 3-4 years ago.
And the time before that and the time before that. I keep thinking there has to be a better way in an age when we can text folks in remote Manchurian villages and I see GIS maps showing the proportion of residents who have bought vanilla ice cream in the last 30 days.
They are missing at least four K-3 kids on my block, including my 1st grader at Oakhurst. Why can’t they use current enrollment data instead of 3-year-old census data (if that is what is being used)? I would think it would be helpful to the process to know a bit more precisely where all of the K-3 kids are located, even within the designated attendance zones, especially since this is the population most likely to have a younger sibling who will be a new entrant into the system in the next few years.
It’s accurate for my street, if it’s meant to mean next year’s k-3 kids, not this year’s group. But my street is short, hasn’t had anyone move in since the census, has more older kids than younger, and the non-child houses are not likely to have kids in the future, unless the current occupants move away. Half the households currently do not have kids under 18. Probably can’t generalize to the whole of Decatur based on this sample! One interesting thing I noticed when tabulating kids is that over half the families on my street with kids under 18 had 3 children. (The rest had 2).
And my street in Oakhurst is almost completely wrong because we have many rising 4th graders where the dots are.
The new round of kids are still 3 years away from first grade, so my street is definitely throwing off the numbers.
Did they say why they cannot use an up to date accurate count of the number of children?
In 2010, we had 1 child on our street of six homes: today we have 8 (0- 2nd grade.)
This increase is happening over and over in our association.
On the map there are not any dots on my street.
Our street shows no kids in CSD, but we currently have 3 in Oakhurst. We also have 5 approaching Pre-K. I saw that this may have been taken at the last census at 2010. Isn’t that a problem in itself? Kids are only in the elementary schools for 4 years. By the time the next census rolls around the kids currently in the school would never have been counted at all. If CSD is thinking about redistricting, shouldn’t they have the most up to date info?
There is one option that could allow for all current zones to remain as is and provide a K-5 option to everyone in Decatur – open Westchester as a K-5 choice school (likely starting with grades K-3). CSD could give enrollment preference to the non-Scott crossers and then help manage the demand across the other zones to ensure over-crowding doesn’t get too bad at any one school. Westchester actually has a decent location for a choice school (since it’s on a main road on the way to Emory and CDC), and it has the space to build out in future years to manage overall district growth (and help alleviate the FAVE expansion issues).
That being said, I don’t think that CSD is considering this as an option (I’m on the Committee and have brought it up). It seems CSD leadership only may be comfortable with a “conversion” charter school idea (where the school is already up and running) rather than a true “start-up” charter school like Westchester could be (where the central office might not have as much direct control as the other schools). State law and Decatur’s “District Charter” would actually make Westchester as a start-up relatively easy to implement – but the desire would have to be there from the district and/or Board.
Obviously this would be a big decision to make (and it is pretty late in the calendar to be making any of these decisions), but I was a little surprised it wasn’t seriously discussed as an option. I agree with others when they say that whatever we choose, there will likely be another redistricting within 5 years if we don’t build in the flexibility now…
The School Board should sit down and meet in a open discussion with the committee and make sure all ideas are out on the table, not filtered before they see them. (Legally of course, fulfilling open meeting rules, etc. etc. etc.)
To be clear, I don’t get the impression that ideas are being intentionally filtered (and I think a committee member or 2 will be part of the presentation to the Board). I just think there are a narrow set of solutions being looked at – partly due to timing I’m sure. Overall the committee experience has been positive – I just wish Decatur would take full advantage of its District charter to think a little out of the box.
We don’t want a choice school in our neighborhood. We want our neighborhood school back, a school just like the rest of you are now fighting for like we did 10 years ago.
A school can be both a choice/charter school and a great neighborhood school – you can look at the Museum School in Avondale and Neighborhood Charter in Grant Park for 2 great examples. You could do a geographic preference for those on the North side of Scott (Chelsea Heights and Westchester) and you’d kill 2 birds with one stone.
I certainly agree that having a strong Westchester will be a great thing for the neighborhood!
I think an option like this is something that could be attractive to a lot of folks. Maybe an initial Westchester zone that could relieve some pressure, additional families could opt into, and buy some time for consideration or debate to move the system back to K-5.
Here is the comment I submitted on the CSD website. I suspect it will go in the “off-topic” pile, but I agree with others on here that we should look for solutions that go beyond the current grade configuration.
“I support maximizing the benefits of our neighborhood schools by eliminating the 4-5 academy and having six K-5 schools; three north of the tracks and three south of the tracks. I believe the rationale for establishing the 4-5 concept in 2004 – eliminating the achievement gap between elementary schools and under-enrollment at certain schools – no longer exists and we are faced with new problems. Having more K-5 schools with smaller enrollment zones will facilitate greater parental and community involvement, reduce transportation costs and encourage healthy lifestyles. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.”
I just want to say that I have no idea why everyone’s panties are in such a tangled wad, but I would like to thank each and every one of you demon spawners for validating my decision to not procreate.
just to offer another idea, what about the splitting early learning center? why not have westchester as a small day care for the north side AND a small elementary k-3, and mirror the concept on the southside at the early learning center? this is being said with never setting foot in the ELC, just seeing where it is and thinking about traffic and walkers.
from the amount of time and trouble friends have had gaining good day care placements, this seems like a brilliant idea and much needed in the city. It would take the idea of getting some tuition income for the district as some have mentioned, but those paying and benefiting would be City residents…
That wouldn’t work with current configuration of one room per six month developmental time span and the way floaters move from room to the next throughout the day and the way resources are used and shared. There are also state and NAEYC guidelines that would make splitting up the daycare nearly impossible. They double the size but couldn’t split it. You have to remember that requirements are very different for babies and toddlers than even pre-k’ers
OK, the time seems ripe to re-introduce STG’s Can’t Please Everybody So Give ‘Em Something Real to Complain About Elementary Re-districting Plan.
Operate however many schools CSD says they need and can afford, configured however. (The beauty of this plan is that it works equally well with K-3/4-5 or K-5.) Assign attendance by individual student, by lottery. Rotate attendance assignments annually, by lottery, with no kid attending the same school two years in a row. (This would enable CSD to tweak the population size at each school each year, optimizing classroom space & other resources.) Operate a couple of buses on a jitney-type circuit beginning as early as necessary before the morning bell to enable hitting each official bus stop twice. (Start school at the same time everywhere.) Let anybody who wants to, ride the bus regardless of where they live. If your kid has to travel farther to reach their school, put ‘em on the earlier bus. Siblings headed to different destinations can catch the same bus, or not.
Annual attendance assignments are final–no exceptions, no do-overs, no waivers. Whining is optional (the same as now).
FYI to procrastinators: There are no pumpkins left in town anywhere that I can find. Your only hope at this point is a tiny organic cooking pumpkin at Your DeKalb Farmer’s Market. I tried the two nearest Publixes, two nearest Krogers, Oakhurst Market, Decatur Farmer’s Market, and every drugstore in the area. Evidently, pumpkins are scarcer this year.
Yesterday’s AJC has an article “School districts on the lookout for students who live elsewhere” which indicates that 15 students had to leave CSD so far this year because their families weren’t true residents. CSD definitely has become quite efficient at identifying and sending away students who are not attending legally. I remember a time when people used to claim that there were 100 to 300 illegally-attending students in CSD and that you could see many of them being dropped off to wait at bus stops at the borders of town. This is something that CSD seems to be on top of. Fewer folks seem to be trying to have their children attend illegally and fewer are succeeding.
(Full disclosure: I always feel sorry for the students sent away. It’s not their fault. I suspect that often there’s been a family change beyond their control–parent living with new mate outside of COD, losing an apartment; grandparent who owned the home died, etc.)
My biggest fear is that we will get re-zoned to Clairemont. I’m sure it is wonderful on the inside, but getting there from my house is going to be a nightmare! Have been over there during pick up and it is a complete zoo!!
I’m trying not to take offense to this statement. Clairemont is a fantastic school and we LOVE being there. We feel lucky to be there and would be very sad if we were zoned out. The other Clairemont families that I know feel the same way. If it’s your biggest fear that your kids will have to attend one of the best schools in the state (probably moving from another one of the best schools in the state), then maybe you’re doing pretty well.
Everyone is worried about traveling to the various schools but hardly anyone is talking about what happens in fourth grade. Try getting to F.AVE from the north side of town. It’s not fun.
Option #4 was sprung on the crowd (and the committee) tonight. Anyone have it online?
I don’t think it is a real option. The presenter said that is what happens if he incorporated the desires of the various neighborhood groups. I think Westchester and Clairemont were both under half full and the other 3 would be over capacity. Maybe someone else who was there can chime in on this, but I think he was trying to illustrate that some people are going to be unhappy with the re-zoning, but he was cut off before he could really make the point.
Map #4 is online now at this link: http://www.csdecatur.net/zoning/
Why on earth do all these options have Oakhurst and Winona people at GLENNWOOD. This is ridiculous
As was pointed out at the meeting, there are only 2 elementary schools south of the Dequater. The 4/5 school make the logical, geogpraphical distribution of kids impossible. The growth in Oakhurst and Sycamore Dr is explosive. More redistricting may occur in the future.
If you people on the ‘Khurst side of town would stop building those McMansions and procreating like rabbits to fill them, maybe your kids could go to school closer to home.
Any effort to go back to a K-5 model?
A few people (including me) brought it up during comments period. It really should be revisited before the new districts are formed. Returning to old models of k-5 and prek-5 could help with growing pains without so much construction, especially in Oakhurst. Plus, I think most folks have forgotten years ago they built a school to handle crowding at Oakhurst and Winnona Park: College Heights. Anybody besides me wonder why we’re using a whole elementary school just for 0-4 year olds?
No, because I know the reason why. It was started to help identify at-risk and special needs kids early and provide the federally required services to at risk babies and toddlers. The 0-3 preschool model integrates disabled and low income children in with typical and mixed income kids. The infant rooms pay for themselves.
I am starting to think K-5 is inevitable, but it won’t happen with this re-zoning. Wait about 3 years until Oakhurst and WP are bursting at the seems and we have to re-zone again, and K-5 is going to get a lot of traction (although the more this subject comes up, the more I get the sense that the majority of CSD parents favor the K-5 model.)
But, I would like to see a proposed map of 6 K-5 schools with F.AVE being converted back to an elementary school. That would solve a lot of the problems on the southsidse (i.e. not splitting WP), may accomodate LP’s desire to stay at Oakhurst and let the northern part of Glenwood Estates stay at Glenwood. Westchester and Clairemont will have some capacity, but they could take tuition students to fill those spaces until the demographics shift again and those schools are full of CoD residents (which won’t take long). I have no idea if it would work, but I would like someone to run the numbers.
I would like to see some real options with K-5 too. I would like CSD and the school board to seriously consider the k-5 option and not just pay lip service to considering it. Maybe it really won’t work out but unless the community can see those options and understand how will we really know? I served on a reconfiguration committee for CSD years ago and know it’s not a easy thing and they have to do the best with the information available at the time. And it seems that information is outdated within a year! FAVE was built with room to grow and it’s already had to have an addition. That certainly was not anticipated by the committee at the time we were discussing the need for a new 4/5.
The original reason for the 4/5 academy (reduced population) no longer applies. I don’t think there should be anything sacred about preserving the k-3, 4/5 model. We had it for 10 years, it was fine, but maybe it’s not the best configuration for CSD anymore.
I don’t think any of the options presented are great. It’s strange to send parts of WP close to WPE to Glenwood or to send parts of MAC to Glenwood. I can see sending the south side east of Columbia to Glennwood or even Columbia drive, as they are probably as close to or closer to Glenwood than Winnona Park Elementary.
Sorry –MAK not MAC.
At the time of those reconfiguration discussions, some folks DID predict that we would immediately outgrow FAVE. It was unbelievable to most of us. I don’t think there’s anything anyone could have said to CSD and the School Board as they were composed then that would have gotten them to seriously consider K-5. I remember commenting on that process wearing a couple of different hats and I felt that the pros and cons provided, as they were articulated to us all then, were clearly stacked against a K-5 model. We’re about to get a new School Board that will have only one member who was on the Board in 2003-2004 when the 4/5 model was selected. While I think it will be cautious about radical change, I think it’s more open to considering K-5.
Some of the commentators last night suggested considering switching back to K-5 as well. I wonder how FAVE can accomodate all these children from 5 lower elementary schools in CSD. Converting FAVE to another elementary and make all elementary schools K-5 seem more logical in a long run.
Yeah, there really was no support at that time within CSD for K-5. As a committee, we were told to consider it because parents would want us to, but there was no serious consideration. But the population issues then were different then now. At that time there were still only 3 k-3 with one more anticipated to open. Now we are moving to 5 k-3s feeding into a mega 4-5.
I would love to see a survey to see if the community prefers one model over the other. Not because I think parents should dictate how the school system is run, but it would be interesting to find out what configuration the majority of the community prefers.
“Not because I think parents should dictate how the school system is run”
If not the parents, then who? Last time I checked, the school board works for us.
I wish it were that simple….. In a place as intertwined as City of Decatur, voter vs. business vs. personal vs. family vs. neighborhood vs. clique interests are hard to disentangle. The interconnectedness is often wonderful but it does lead to a lot of backstage discussions.
I would like to be seeing a lot more informal polls. As you said, not to make decisions, but so we all get a feel for preferences, varied as they may be. Otherwise, all we know as a community is what is said by the unrepresentative few who show up to School Board meetings (which are less advertised that football games and Moms and Muffins) and what is said on this Board and neighborhood listservs. CSD/School Board probably get lots of email, phone call, and in person opinions but those aren’t available to us general public. Informal polls are SO easy to do. Girl Scouts do them, families do them, even churches do them. In fact, why doesn’t the CSD website have a running poll? Many workplace and other websites do. Have a poll of the week–one week, it’s what you want to see in school lunches, the next week it’s your opinion of Accelerated Reading, the next week it’s your top 3 priorities for school redistricting. If there’s always a poll up and a poll archive, it wouldn’t seem like such a big deal to do polls to gauge the waters out there. I believe that the City usually has a poll of some sort active on its website plus an archive.
Please consider joining a new FB page dedicated to exploring more options. Ideally it would be great if the Board could hear our collective plea for more time and more thoughtful, strategic, long-term thinking: https://www.facebook.com/groups/519785771451608/
We’ve also set up a survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DK5FLH3
Rezoning every 3 years is not acceptable. We need more than a bandaid fix here.
Great idea and I feel dumb that I didn’t know about it. Quick comments on the poll:
1) Needs a place in the poll to fill in the specifics for the “Other” response. In my case, “Other” would be cost, if I had a place to put it.
2) Respondents may get your 1-5 scale backwards because the form automatically sorts “1”, which is low, to the top, not bottom.
No worries, we just put it out this morning. The poll is not perfect but if we can get a good number if people to participate it can be a starting point for a discussion with the Board. Who’s in? Let’s at least make an attempt to get this into the public domain and have out concerns heard. Feel free to email me offline at .
I think we all agree that rezoning elementary schools is a painful process for all involved. Not everyone is going to be happy.
But here’s the thing: when we rezoned the last time around, we knew then that we’d have to rezone again in a few years to incorporate Westchester. I don’t believe that’s the case this time. I don’t know of any plans to open another elementary school in 3 years. I believe that all predictions we’ve heard thus far have fit within the capacities of the K-3s with Westchester.
Can you give some background the assumption that we’ll need to rezone again in 3 years?
Rezoning kids is no small matter. It’s painful for them. But we should also recognize that opening up another elementary school in anticipation of additional capacity – which would in effect mean that we would be well below capacity for a while – may be an option that’s too financially painful to already cash strapped CSD to handle.
Maybe when the last holdovers leave the Board.
Best quote I’ve heard yet, ” I am kind of tired after a decade of the Phyllis Edwards administration of people in charge using our kids and schools like interchangeable Lego pieces.”
I recognize that this an actual quote from last night but I hate to see individual names used. Others in the CSD admin/contractor/legal advisor/etc. category share some responsibility for districting during this administration. And the members of School Board during this period are ultimately responsible too. Very few votes were not unanimous. And everyone knew the outcome ahead of time, often before the public comment.
No, it was me on the Oakhurst listserv.
This complaint has been bugging me, and I just have to say something:
Enrollment has EXPLODED in the past few years. CSD has been forced to deal with this. What would people rather they do – ignore it? Hope it goes away? Refuse to redistrict?
Sorry, but the complaint is totally nonsensical given the reality of the situation. They HAVE to use trailers, they HAVE to expand schools, they HAVE to add new schools, and they HAVE to redistrict to deal with all of this. There is no way around it. People don’t HAVE to like it, but that’s the way it is. Blaming Dr. Edwards for this is an immature reaction.
+1
TeeRuss: I think we all agree the growth must be addressed. We would like it to be done in a thoughtful, and possibly even open and democratic, manner. Public officials should expect to be held accountable and, goodness sakes, even have their names mentioned in public.
So what you are saying is that the management of our enrollment growth has not been done in a thoughtful, open, democratic manner.
If you don’t think it has been thoughtful, then that’s an immature response.
if you don’t think it has been open, then you haven’t been paying attention.
If you don’t think it’s been democratic, then the system is working as designed. This is not mob rule. We have leaders who we empower to do what’s needed, and hold accountable via elections. Thank god we don’t put every single school capacity decision to a referendum.
I just want to make it clear how much I flat out disagree with directing the complaints to CSD. The world is changing, people need to deal with that.
“If you don’t think it’s been democratic, then the system is working as designed. This is not mob rule. We have leaders who we empower to do what’s needed, and hold accountable via elections. Thank god we don’t put every single school capacity decision to a referendum.”
Great point. Could you imagine the mess we would be in if our leaders weren’t able to make tough decisions?
There are no easy answers here – we can’t just magically place schools right in the center of proposed attendence zones.
I just hope that the ultimate result reflects more of Decatur’s core values, like walkability and neighborhood preservation. These are more enduring bases for drawing borders, rather than demographics that can and do change quickly.
RE “I just hope that the ultimate result reflects more of Decatur’s core values, like walkability and neighborhood preservation. These are more enduring bases for drawing borders, rather than demographics that can and do change quickly.”: You stole this quote from the “We love all our Decatur schools” group in 2003, right? (For those not around, that group preceded the pitting of Clairemont vs. Westchester. Not enough folks, including myself, paid enough attention to it. There were people who really cared about all the schools including Fifth Ave Elementary which badly needed remodelling and College Heights that was down to 90 students.)
Seriously, your statement is well-articulated. Folks wanting to retain their neighborhood schools have sometimes been portrayed as selfish. But now that that baton has been passed all around Decatur, maybe we can recognize a core principle that goes beyond resistance to change. Sometimes our model of small, neighborhood, walkable schools isn’t perfectly efficient, but it’s what the community wants. And elementary schools do affect the character of a neighborhood. The Westchester and Chelsea Heights neighborhoods clearly lost some luster after Westchester closed. I predict they’ll boom with the reopening. The question is whether we are willing to pay for this model and how.
One glaring reality is that there ARE four primary school buildings on the south side compared to three on the north side, but only two of those serve K-3 kids. The ECLC and the 4/5 have served our family well but I can see the operational problem caused by devoting two buildings to them. No easy answers.
“I just hope that the ultimate result reflects more of Decatur’s core values, like walkability and neighborhood preservation. These are more enduring bases for drawing borders, rather than demographics that can and do change quickly.”
Here, here, TeeRuss. No truer words have ever been written. All proposals currently on the table siphon off the top half of the Winnona Park neighborhood and ship those children across the tracks. You’ll have kids that live on Avery St. not attending the school that is on Avery St. and is less than half a mile from them. You’ll have kids on Winnona Dr. not attending Winnona Park that is less than half a mile from them.
This is a true affront to, not only the neighborhood, but also to, as you put it, “Decatur’s core values, like walkability and neighborhood preservation.” No other neighborhood is being carved up in these proposals. I know the committee has a tough job, but I fear they are not being provided with options that will help them make a decision that takes into account ALL the important, Decatur-specific, community dynamics. I hope the committee, and the school board that will ultimately make the call, insists upon new options that protect the integrity of ALL the historic neighborhood groupings, and by extension protect “Decatur’s core values.”
Walkability is important, but it has to balanced against other factors, such as neighborhood preservation. I was at the meeting last night, and if I had to choose between keeping WP intact and moving LP to Westchester, I would not split WP. Yes, LP would lose its walkability, but at least the neighborhood isn’t being split in half and all of those kids who run around the neighborhood together would go to school together. I don’t live in a neighborhood with a walkable elementary school now, and although it would be nice, ultimately I am happy the kids are being dropped off at a great school every morning.
I was concerned to see that every single option proposes some fracturing off of a few core streets of Winnona Park neighborhood. I think that folks that live on Avery (share a street with WP school) and on Winnona Drive (the namesake of the neighborhood) didn’t even think to study the maps that closely until recently. I think most were shocked to see those core, close in streets being zone for Glennwood in every single scenarios. As Geoff said, this isn’t just about commute or walkability. No one is going to say ‘hey please make my school further away’. But swiping off close in streets of a well defined neighborhood undermines much more than a commute.
There was good WP representation last night and I’m hopeful that the next options will use some of the logic of defined neighborhoods.
As already said – part of what makes this tricky is that there is more capacity (with opening of Westchester) in the northern parts of city but population exploding in southern parts. Whatever solution is made for this round, it’s short lived.
I don’t think are any easy answers.
I agree that neighborhood preservation should be as important as walkability. I hate that LP will lose the ability to walk but I don’t see how the numbers will work having that neighborhood cross the tracks. I think it would be better to keep that neighborhood together and have them attend Westchester and free up some space on the southside.
“Yes, LP would lose its walkability, but at least the neighborhood isn’t being split in half and all of those kids who run around the neighborhood together would go to school together.” This is not entirely true. The very small area of Rosewalk and even smaller area of Greenwood Cir. are being separated from LP and in two of the proposals being zoned for Clairemont, not Westchester. In option four, my children would have very, very few neighbors attending their school at Clairemont…most all would be at Westchester. Greenwood Cir. is a very isolated street when not considered as a part of Rosewalk and LP.
Speak up while you have the chance! Sounds like there’s opposition to splitting neighborhoods and yours should be no different. Lines have to be drawn somewhere but some lines make more sense than others.
From the looks of it, Option 2 seems the one that could be tweaked a little to preserve neighborhoods.
Make the rest of LP Westchester, shift OAkhurst to the east a little, leave WP intact (ie. south of the tracks, then play with the Clairmont/Westchester boundary until parity is reached.
Or as someone said, leave some capacity at Westchester to handle tuition payers.
Yes, I want Greenwood/Rosewalk/LP to be together, but ultimately at Oakhurst. It would be such a shame to loose our walkability and all that comes with that if zoned at Westchester. I understand the crowding issue at Oakhurst, but I’m confident there is a way to make it work…K-5, expanding, trailers…many options have been proposed on this thread.
Are you suggesting expanding Oakhurst? If so, I don’t think it is a viable option, especially given the needs of the entire city to expand Renfroe and DHS (as opposed to the wants of one neighborhood to be able to walk to school). Don’t get me wrong – I hope you get what you want, but I don’t believe expansion is the way to do it.
I understand, I do. But I want it all…not just for my family, but for everyone. Decatur is such an amazing place to call home and I don’t want that to change because of rushing to address this issue. Would it be so terrible to have trailers at a few of the schools for one more year to avoid another rezoning in three years from now when the population declines or increases again? As others have stated there needs to be a broader look at the problem and include more options for discussion such as K-5, 6-9, 10-12 and other ideas. Deciding to reopen a school and rezone (again) all within a few months just doesn’t allow enough time to explore all reasonable options and get adequate public input.
I don’t disagree, TeeRuss, but your comment seems to suggest that making a decision based on core values would represent something new, which I don’t think is the case. The last time ’round this carousel we hammered out changes predominantly based on: commitment to diversity and fairness; educational consistency; and responsible economics. Not arguing for or against that rationale or suggesting that every decision was the right one but there’s no denying that those are all prevalent Decatur values.
Also, keep in mind that, at the time we were fixing certain problems, residents typically had no problem enrolling their kid in their walkable neighborhood school or worrying that their class size was spiraling out of control.
Today we find ourselves firmly in the “victim of our own success” column which, I would argue, still beats the hell out of “victim of our own failures.” Decatur holds many admirable values, IMO, and typically does its level best to balance/accommodate them. So to your point, the question is not whether or not the decision will be made on our core values but, rather, the debate over exactly which of our values we’re going to prioritize this time around.
We agree that these are issues brought on by our own success. My point was that I believe this town as evolved core values around our walkability, which is unique and a major draw, and our appreciation for our neighborhoods, many of which are historic and geographically well-defined. The PC police will kill me for this, but diversity is not top of the list anymore for most people – that’s an issue that was dealt with in 2003. Moving forward we have different challenges, so I hope the reconfiguration process doesn’t fight the last war.
Wasn’t it “dealt with” in 2003 BY carving districts that create demographic balance across the schools? I don’t see it as something that has been addressed and completed. It’s either an ongoing priority or it isn’t. I don’t disagree with the comments in support of walkability and neighborhood feel/togetherness, either, for what it’s worth. Those are important considerations. But I also agree that Decatur’s commitment to demographic balance is a strong “pro”. I hope those involved in the process will find a way to strike a balance between these concerns and move us forward in the right direction.
I believe it has been addressed and completed, and is not an ongoing priority. Keep in mind that pre-2003 we had schools that were 95% one race or the other, and that dynamic has been shut down completely.
I’m not saying it’s not something to keep in mind, but it should not be a dominant priority for the reconfiguration effort.
One thing for everyone to remember is that we do have one neighborhood that is, by it’s own mission statement, heavily skewed to ESL and lower SES demographics. If we keep demographic balance as a top priority, that neighborhood will likely need to either be broken apart, or be redistricted every time a slight imbalance develops between elementary schools.
Don’t faint, TeeRuss, but I think you have this right. Why is diversity more important than community and neighborhood? We have big giant houses sitting next to subsidized housing next to $350,000 starter homes next to $150,000 townhouses and rentals. The new builds so over shadow everything that I think we forget we have so much diverse housing stock – and that I our diversity is not necessarily color or ethnic…
If Nelliebelle and TeeRuss are coming to easy agreement, there is HOPE FOR US ALL! (Sorry, I really need to find some humor in all of this; hopefully y’all don’t mind.) No really, maybe you two should run for school board.
In 2003, the only schools that were close to 95% one race were College Heights (90 students) and maybe Oakhurst but I think the latter was already gentrifying a little already. Fifth Avenue was closed “for remodelling” but had been declining in student population. Glennwood drew from a more diverse neighborhood–I think it was also getting former Fifth Avenue students but I could be wrong–it also got shelter families. Clairemont drew from Allen Wilson Terrace–I can’t remember the % white, non-hispanic but my guess is that it was around 70%-75%. Westchester drew from Gateway Homes and was 80% white, non-hispanic. I believe that Winnona Park may have had a period of being 95% white later than other schools but, by 2003, it drew students from Swanton Hill and my guess is that it was 80-85% white. I’m not saying this to argue but just to set the record straight. Redistricting students to another neighborhood to achieve better diversity started way before the closing of Fifth Avenue, College Heights, and Westchester. There was a court order to achieve a racial balance in 19??, right? In my opinion, the tipping point that resulted in the 2003-2004 reconfiguration was the fact that all of the mostly African-American schools on the south side were severely underenrolled, close to closing, or closed. It didn’t seem right to that Board to only close schools that had predominantly African-American students. As it turns out, the declining enrollment was just about to change anyway and many new, gentrifying families pointed that out. Those folks had already recognized the high quality of the principal and teachers at Oakhurst and were starting or planning to send their young children there.
If we are going to district by diversity–and there’s a long, meritorious tradition of doing that–we should be clear on what we mean. Diversity by race? Diversity by ethnicity? Or by income/class? By religion? By national origin? All of the above? Only until the achievement gap has been eliminated? Or indefinitely regardless of student performance? What if a school is as diverse as any other school in Decatur but the diversity is made up of minority students from high income, professional families–does that count? Or what if its minority students are mostly not African-American?
This is a tough business for us humans–celebrating and preserving cultural and social diversity at the same time as ensuring equal access to educational and economic opportunity!
LP=? Lower Ponce? Lenox Park?
Lenox
Lenox Place
so who has a good alternative plan they’d like to share? i’ve read most of the comments the last month or so on the subject, and have looked at the options proposed by the board. they sure don’t seem perfect but i have yet to see a better alternative.
ant1 – any alternative that preserves the integrity of our established neighborhoods is better than the ones that divide our neighborhoods. I can’t direct you to an alternative that satisfies this goal, because there isn’t one on the table currently. It is imperative that an option is placed on the table that preserves our neighborhoods so that we can fully assess this option in context of the current proposals that illogically divide Winnona Park.
The logical alternative is to go back to the k-5 model. It is the only way to ensure we meet all the demands the residents of the city have.
I’m a little confused: These appear to be the same maps that went up just after last Monday’s meeting (Oct. 21). I thought we would see adjusted maps dated the 28th?
Walkability, equitable distribution (“race, socio-economic levels, Second Language Speakers”) and facility capacity are the three mandates. I submit that the charge to keep all schools equal in demographic makeup is driving the map more than any other. So how does the Decatur school community feel about that mandate? Does this charge divide a neighborhood while preventing one school from being seen as better than another?
At this point in our development, a lot of the “equality” concerns are off the table. Most neighborhoods are mixed race and income. Arbitrarily deciding those boundaries won’t work anymore. I would be more inclined to have school designated for ESL or special needs kids so those precious and limited resources are concentrated. My daughter is in the latter category and I would rather have her in place where services for her hearing and speech issues are available abundantly rather than have her in the school down the street.
Is that true? I’m not sure all Decatur neighborhoods are equally mixed and I do think we could end up with concentrations of low-income students at certain schools. I think this dedication to racial and income diversity is one of the better features of CSD and why [all] students at our schools do so well. I’d really hate to see this mandate lost and fear the domino effect. Income inequality in this country is widening, not narrowing so it’s no less important than it’s ever been.
Yes, I think it is much more accurate than you realize.
Of course I am theorizing and have nothing but observation for the last 24 years to go on. Which isn’t as accurate as I might hope
The “equitable” demographic factors are important and certainly must be part of the discussion, however, TeeRuss also makes a great point that should not be overlooked: the boundaries created by these criteria are not “enduring” and are ever-shifting. The natural boundaries of our neighborhoods are historic, and in the case of Winnona Park, are enshrined in the National Register of Historic Places. The current proposal would divide a neighborhood that is one of the oldest in the city, dating back nearly a century. The dividing line in the current proposals drives right through the most historic section of Winnona Park. See here: http://www.decaturmetro.com/2011/02/15/a-1919-blueprint-of-winnona-park/
How do you weigh it though? In my opinion, keeping neighborhoods and streets together is more important than drawing crazy maps to arbitrarily- and, yes, with the demographic shifts it gets a little arbitrary-divide people into clusters by perceived economic class.
exactly, and kind of my point above. it’s easy to criticize a plan based on a single factor, be it distance to school, neighborhood breakup, socio-economic diversity, or whatever else. based on people’s comments here, it seems not everyone values the various factors in consideration equally. impossible to please everyone, maybe the current proposals piss of the least?
coming from someone who changed schools quite a bit growing up (2 elems, 3 middles) and didn’t always attend the local school, there’s a positive aspect to changing the faces you see in school every day. and it’s not like kids will stop playing soccer with the neighbor down the street if they go to different schools for a couple years. one can have school friends and neighborhood friends.
Points well taken, ant1. However, there are currently 4 proposals on the table and each and every one splits Winnona Park. So how can we determine, or weigh, the merits of the other criteria vs. keeping Winnona Park whole, when there isn’t even an option to keep Winnona Park whole? This must change.
definitely not against a whole-winnona proposal. just unsure if the lack of one is due to it not being feasible, given the other factors taken into consideration, or just not yet thought of. if the latter, i wish someone would propose one.
adding: i’m really enjoying this discussion. school redistricting is not something i’ve ever cared about, but with a little one on the way and hopes of eventually buying a house in decatur, i’m glad this community is this involved in the process.
Maybe the schools have to be a little uneven at times? Never in terms of quality but perhaps sometimes in terms of size? Maybe that unevenness could be balanced a bit by offering a tad of school choice? For example, if Westchester had space even with tuition students and Oakhurst had borderline excessive class sizes, perhaps Oakhurst families could be offered the option of attending Westchester instead, bus service provided. This makes more sense to me than constant redistricting to keep things even-steven.
Interesting suggestion to offer Westchester to Oakhurst-zoned families as an option, instead of redistricting Lenox Place & Rosewalk against their will. There are plenty of people in Oakhurst who drive to school anyway, and maybe they would prefer smaller class sizes or some other enticement that might be offered to go to Westchester.
Are you talking about people who actually live in Oakhurst or people from across the tracks who are currently zoned for Oakhurst? I cannot imagine anyone who lives in Oakhurst choosing that option. A good portion of the drivers are people from across the tracks, not neighborhood people. Most families I know who live in Oakhurst but get shipped to Winona are excited that they may be at their neighborhood school. They were zoned to Winona against THEIR will and in fact next door neighbors are now attending different schools in a couple spots.
I just think it’s a creative idea to offer a choice, considering that a concern seems to be predicted overcrowding at Oakhurst. Personally, I think opening Westchester will take a lot of pressure off the Oakhurst neighborhood and we’ll soon be talking about the need to expand WC. That is where a lot of the incoming families will be. You can get a bigger house for the money and you don’t have to tear anything down.
Anyway, crossing RR tracks is not a big deal for people who live so close to the school. And I see plenty of people in the Oakhurst neighborhood who drive to school, for whatever reason.
The schools not having defined boundaries and people having “creative choice” is a recipe for an absolute disaster year after year. The constant redistricting is proof for the need for stable boundaries and legitimate, thoughtful planning, which is not something this administration can handle.
I think families that live 1.5 miles from WP or Oakhurst are getting into cars and buses to get their kids to school. I think in many of the scenarios, Weschester and Clairemont are going to have capacity to fill. It’s worth understanding the interest and opportunity. Perhaps someone working at Emory likes being closer to the school. Perhaps if Weschester offered a special music intensive curriculum? Perhaps a pre-k class makes it a better logistical alternative for families?
I remember a preK-5 model at Westchester that allowed most families to have all of their children in one school for at least a while. If we went back to that model (which never existed at every single elementary school, only those with preKs), then two school facilities on the south side would be opened up and we’d probably have enough capacity on both sides of the tracks…for now. But the 0-3 program would have to go somewhere else and I’m not sure that the foundation that funded the ECLC would allow that. And the preK program would be split up–advantages and disadvantages to that; it’s worked well both ways. Animal Crackers used to be licensed to handle to preK age children; it probably could be again.
That may be the case, but I dont see much ‘equality’ as it relates to ESOL or Minority across the options. I am taking data from the charts at the bottom of the photos — if someone can point me towards the actual data, I would love to fiddle around with it.
For minority enrollment Option 3 is the most equitable.
For ESOL, there is a spike for all 3 options – whether at Glennwood or Clairemont. Option 1 puts the spike at Glennwood, Options 2 & 3 put it in Clairemont.
For Free Lunch: Option 3 is the closest in terms of equitability,
Demographics are constantly shifting in Decatur. They can get the mix “just right” and it will immediately start to change. Map #4 leaves Westchester with openings, but for how long? Homes around Westchester are some of the most affordable right now. As soon as Westchester re-opens, that could well be the hot new area for families with school-age children.
Instead of achieving the perfect balance for a fleeting moment, the school board should follow logical boundaries (Scott Blvd or Commerce, for example) and prioritize keeping neighborhoods together and schools walkable.
The demographics can swich rapidly with schools with only a 4 grade span. I saw this at my kids’ k-3 over the years.
+1. That was my point via email to the board. The numbers are a moving target, what is perfect today will not be in 1 or 2 years. Natural boundaries, like a state highway and Railroad tracks make sense to me!! How about the crossing at College and Candler, that is a mess. Where did the drawing come from that I saw on DecaturMetro last week….it was very clean and used sensable boundaries.
Natural boundaries make sense to a degree, but they also shouldn’t be used in a wholesale way without thought because of how they dissect COD. Currently our small neighborhood crosses Dekalb Ave. and the tracks to get to Oakhurst (we are adjacent to Lenox Place). We are 1/2 mile from Oakhurst and it is not a big deal to walk. In 2 of the 4 maps, we need to cross at least Ponce and Clairmont to a school 1.5 miles away. In fact, there isn’t a school we could attend where we wouldn’t have to cross a natural boundary.
The maps you saw last week were the first 3 from the demographer, and the ones that the public commented on last night. As someone else said earlier, a fourth option was introduced, with a lot of questions. At the next (yet-to-be-scheduled) public comment section, they’ll have additional maps that will address the comments.
Agreed. There are dozens of walkers in Lenox Place and they don’t have a problem crossing the railroad tracks. It’s a much better option than crossing Scott Blvd.
But keep in mind that the speed limit will be reduced on Scott and there should be several crossing guards. Not that walking across Scott is ideal, but it won’t resemble the experience of crossing Scott today.
Please, please, please let the reopening of Westchester Elementary be impetus to put a crosswalk across Scott from the school to Westchester Apts. It would prevent a lot of dangerous jaywalking and be one more mechanism of slowing traffic down to the speed limit. It’s a long haul on Scott between the crosswalk at the Coventry light and the crosswalk at the Clairemont light. Not only is Westchester Apts. full of children but there’s cluster housing, condos, duplexes, and several residential side streets, that empty onto that long, long stretch between Coventry and Clairemont.
The dilemma is that capacity is being added to the North and Oakhurst is one of the most at risk of being over capacity.
As someone already said, Oakhurst is bursting because of there’s a great school in the neighborhood. As soon as West Chester opens, I’m sure that area of Decatur will be the hottest area for new family to move in and the builders will be adding new homes. Then in few years WC will be the overcrowded one. I really wish CSD will consider switching back to K-5.
Crossing the tracks from LP/Rosewalk/Greenwood Cir. to get to Oakhurst is much different than crossing further east. College is only two lanes at that point and the lights are timed so that there is plenty of time to cross W. Howard and College. By far, the safest of any of the crossings.
Agree that hot areas and demographics keep shifting in Decatur and there’s a dynamic interaction between neighborhood school (or lack thereof) and community demographics that is hard to predict. Not only does single family home ownership fluctuate but so do rentals and subsidized housing. Westchester Apts. was dead for awhile and now it’s booming. How much is the traditional Emory grad student crowd and how much is housing vouchers, I’m not sure, but there’s a long waiting list for those apartments. My impression is that the DHA housing complexes have fewer total units now open to families but we have more voucher families scattered throughout rental housing in Decatur.
I like the idea expressed on this Board that we need to recognize that certain schools go with a defined neighborhood that would be harmed if it were broken up by school redistricting. When possible, we should honor the principle that we not harm neighborhoods by redistricting. However, certain conditions must be met in terms of size (90 students at College Heights was clearly too small to operate and 500 students cannot fit into Clairemont), evenness of spread of race/ethnicity, income levels, maybe other indicators of inequality, and other factors we deem critical.
Walkability is the number 1 priority for my family. We share City of Decatur’s active living philosophy of “preserving and promoting an appreciation for our green spaces and celebrating diversity while bringing us together as a community” and we take pleasure in walking to Oakhurst Elementary from Lenox Place on a daily basis. This is my time to connect with my child and to communicate with my countless Lenox Place neighbors who also walk or ride to school. It also ensures that my son arrives at school feeling invigorated and ready for the day of learning ahead. There are numerous studies showing that walking to school greatly reduces the risk of not only childhood obesity, but also adult obesity later in life. If Lenox Place was rezoned to Westchester, our walk would require crossing over dangerous Scott Blvd, and would go from a 10-minute walk to an estimated 30-minute walk, which means we likely would no longer be able to walk.
I hope our school system leadership will move toward thinking outside the boxes — i.e. our school buildings as they are currently used — for ways to manage the changes that growth is forcing us to make. Constrained by those limits, we cope by spending millions to add on to the schools, again and again. I’ve heard CSD leadership doesn’t want to consider returning to longer grade span schools because it would be too disruptive. Redistricting and construction are disruptive too. I’ve also heard, for 20 years, that it’s easier to get money to build than funds to operate our schools. Does that have to drive our decisions? Before we build again, could we please brainstorm some truly progressive ideas for managing our growth? Are there other communities we could study? Have our surrounding universities asked their students to dream up some ideas for CSD? This community is full of really smart people — got any new ideas? I feel like we use up all our energy pushing and pulling on each other about who gets to go where, when I wish we could channel it toward a collective goal.
All I can add is a big old Ru Paul “can I get an AMEN up in here?”
Amen!
All of the proposed maps only offer a short term solution. Our children need stability. That is not going to happen in this scenario, because in 3 years we’ll all be looking at another rezone.
I want to know why there is not a broader discussion about what happens to our kids down the road? Our community as a whole cannot be doing this every 3 years.
I like the post-its that just say “no way.”
Those of you who’ve posted on here but haven’t made comments to the re-zoning committee or board already, please do so, regardless of what your views may be! There are so many good ideas in this discussion. If I’ve learned one thing from this experience so far, it’s that you can’t assume anyone is expressing your views for you.
Good point. What’s the best mechanism at this point–especially one that doesn’t require showing up at a meeting? Given that I’m districted to Westchester no matter what and my children aren’t going back to the K-3 stage, I’ve wanted to leave centerstage for the families who are more directly affected.
. At the committee meeting last week, they had printed off all comments sent in to this email address and were reading them. It was also stated at the community meeting that comments sent there were reviewed by the committee and the board. And, last time I checked, they were all posted on the K-3 zoning web page for folks to read. Of course you could also contact a board member, but this seems a broader and possibly more anonymous approach.
Last night they said we were encouraged to submit all comments from their website. (There is a page dedicated for this zoning issue.) I wonder if they read DM?!
I hope they read DM…there are many great ideas here.
They read it but they are not obligated to admit they read it or incorporate suggestions from here. So it’s safest to send your bright ideas in officially.
So, in two of these maps only half of the kiddos in GLENNWOOD Estates will go to GLENNWOOD Elementary. Hm.
I live in Lenox Place and I just want to thank y’all for speaking on our behalf! Considering you don’t live in our neighborhood, I think it’s amazing that you guys think you know what is best for US and think you should have a say in how we want to live in our community! I mean a 12-minute walk to Oakhurst vs. a 28-minute walk to Westchester down a traffic-heavy main road is SO MUCH better for all of us and WAAAAAYYYY safer for our children!
I hope you caught the sarcasm is that paragraph. Since ALL City of Decatur schools are awesome and it’s a highly sought-after school district, I don’t really care what school my child goes to as long we can WALK to it – that was why we stayed here when we decided to have a kid. ALSO, my child has special needs, which is something Oakhurst has been working on with him for 2-years now. NOW people I don’t even know, are fighting for HIM to be removed from the staff that knows him, has worked with him (and us), and has his best interest in mind.
Thanks for your say/opinion, but let Lenox Place fight our own battles. We aren’t just houses on a grid/map, we are families with children and yes, we do give a HOOT and this IS important to us.
You seem to think that the your desires (and those of your neighbors) outweigh everyone else’s in the city. All of these pieces fit into a very large, incredibly complex puzzle, and if you get your way, someone else will be adversely affected. So, in effect, you are fighting to remove someone else’s children from their schools.
And I haven’t heard a single person say they want Lenox Place be re-zoned away from Oakhurst. In fact, I think every here has universally said they hope everyone gets what they want and people have been offering thoughtful suggestions on how to make it work. But, at the same time, most of us realize that this is a balancing act which requires evaluating several factors. Although walkability is one of them, it doesn’t trump the others.
The claws are starting to come out!
Well, my neighbors don’t get to send their kids to the school nearest their home where everyone else on their street gets to go, and they are tired of having to cross both McDonough and Candler in rush hour to walk, so what your neighborhood wants is more important than what they want? Get over yourself. This a COMMUNITY effort.
Forget the school zones – these maps look like they will help me identify which kid-heavy streets to hit up for candy in a couple of days (I’m looking at YOU Oakhurst)
Correct me if I am wrong, the dots on the draft maps represent houses with rising K-3 students in them. The dots on my street are incorrect. Anyone else notice this for their street? If this is a universal problem, could this visual be incorrectly influencing where zoning lines are being drawn?
I was actually surprised that our dot does seem to be there even though we moved to CoD after the census and our kids aren’t in the CSD system yet. We are on theCollege Heights wait list so maybe that’s how (or I’m mistaken about the dot belonging to us.
I wondered about that too. When was this census taken? We’ve lived in our house for almost 3 years and we have rising 1st grader but we are not on the map, neither our neighbour who has rising K student for 2014. Do they just use the current CSD registration?
The College Heights wait list would not be part of this unless they are somehow using it for projections
From what I understand the dots on those maps represent kids from the 2010 census, so it’s not totally representative of today’s numbers. They’ve traditionally had a challenge with getting an accurate count of kids coming up; it happened the last time they re-zoned, maybe 3-4 years ago.
And the time before that and the time before that. I keep thinking there has to be a better way in an age when we can text folks in remote Manchurian villages and I see GIS maps showing the proportion of residents who have bought vanilla ice cream in the last 30 days.
They are missing at least four K-3 kids on my block, including my 1st grader at Oakhurst. Why can’t they use current enrollment data instead of 3-year-old census data (if that is what is being used)? I would think it would be helpful to the process to know a bit more precisely where all of the K-3 kids are located, even within the designated attendance zones, especially since this is the population most likely to have a younger sibling who will be a new entrant into the system in the next few years.
It’s accurate for my street, if it’s meant to mean next year’s k-3 kids, not this year’s group. But my street is short, hasn’t had anyone move in since the census, has more older kids than younger, and the non-child houses are not likely to have kids in the future, unless the current occupants move away. Half the households currently do not have kids under 18. Probably can’t generalize to the whole of Decatur based on this sample! One interesting thing I noticed when tabulating kids is that over half the families on my street with kids under 18 had 3 children. (The rest had 2).
And my street in Oakhurst is almost completely wrong because we have many rising 4th graders where the dots are.
The new round of kids are still 3 years away from first grade, so my street is definitely throwing off the numbers.
Did they say why they cannot use an up to date accurate count of the number of children?
In 2010, we had 1 child on our street of six homes: today we have 8 (0- 2nd grade.)
This increase is happening over and over in our association.
On the map there are not any dots on my street.
Our street shows no kids in CSD, but we currently have 3 in Oakhurst. We also have 5 approaching Pre-K. I saw that this may have been taken at the last census at 2010. Isn’t that a problem in itself? Kids are only in the elementary schools for 4 years. By the time the next census rolls around the kids currently in the school would never have been counted at all. If CSD is thinking about redistricting, shouldn’t they have the most up to date info?
This is really scary. It looks like the streets around me are underrepresented by about 60-70 % of the actual number of kids.
There is one option that could allow for all current zones to remain as is and provide a K-5 option to everyone in Decatur – open Westchester as a K-5 choice school (likely starting with grades K-3). CSD could give enrollment preference to the non-Scott crossers and then help manage the demand across the other zones to ensure over-crowding doesn’t get too bad at any one school. Westchester actually has a decent location for a choice school (since it’s on a main road on the way to Emory and CDC), and it has the space to build out in future years to manage overall district growth (and help alleviate the FAVE expansion issues).
That being said, I don’t think that CSD is considering this as an option (I’m on the Committee and have brought it up). It seems CSD leadership only may be comfortable with a “conversion” charter school idea (where the school is already up and running) rather than a true “start-up” charter school like Westchester could be (where the central office might not have as much direct control as the other schools). State law and Decatur’s “District Charter” would actually make Westchester as a start-up relatively easy to implement – but the desire would have to be there from the district and/or Board.
Obviously this would be a big decision to make (and it is pretty late in the calendar to be making any of these decisions), but I was a little surprised it wasn’t seriously discussed as an option. I agree with others when they say that whatever we choose, there will likely be another redistricting within 5 years if we don’t build in the flexibility now…
The School Board should sit down and meet in a open discussion with the committee and make sure all ideas are out on the table, not filtered before they see them. (Legally of course, fulfilling open meeting rules, etc. etc. etc.)
To be clear, I don’t get the impression that ideas are being intentionally filtered (and I think a committee member or 2 will be part of the presentation to the Board). I just think there are a narrow set of solutions being looked at – partly due to timing I’m sure. Overall the committee experience has been positive – I just wish Decatur would take full advantage of its District charter to think a little out of the box.
A choice school is an interesting idea and I do think now is the time to consider creative solutions.
How about one where the curriculum is oriented towards math and science (like Gwinnett Math and Tech)?
We don’t want a choice school in our neighborhood. We want our neighborhood school back, a school just like the rest of you are now fighting for like we did 10 years ago.
A school can be both a choice/charter school and a great neighborhood school – you can look at the Museum School in Avondale and Neighborhood Charter in Grant Park for 2 great examples. You could do a geographic preference for those on the North side of Scott (Chelsea Heights and Westchester) and you’d kill 2 birds with one stone.
I certainly agree that having a strong Westchester will be a great thing for the neighborhood!
I think an option like this is something that could be attractive to a lot of folks. Maybe an initial Westchester zone that could relieve some pressure, additional families could opt into, and buy some time for consideration or debate to move the system back to K-5.
Here is the comment I submitted on the CSD website. I suspect it will go in the “off-topic” pile, but I agree with others on here that we should look for solutions that go beyond the current grade configuration.
“I support maximizing the benefits of our neighborhood schools by eliminating the 4-5 academy and having six K-5 schools; three north of the tracks and three south of the tracks. I believe the rationale for establishing the 4-5 concept in 2004 – eliminating the achievement gap between elementary schools and under-enrollment at certain schools – no longer exists and we are faced with new problems. Having more K-5 schools with smaller enrollment zones will facilitate greater parental and community involvement, reduce transportation costs and encourage healthy lifestyles. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.”
I just want to say that I have no idea why everyone’s panties are in such a tangled wad, but I would like to thank each and every one of you demon spawners for validating my decision to not procreate.
After that comment, I have a gut feeling that Mrs. J_T has a surprise waiting for you when get home that involved her peeing on a stick.
Oh, goddess in heaven, I hope so.
That is NOT funny.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you. I think it’s pretty funny.
And it would be twice as funny if it were twins.
just to offer another idea, what about the splitting early learning center? why not have westchester as a small day care for the north side AND a small elementary k-3, and mirror the concept on the southside at the early learning center? this is being said with never setting foot in the ELC, just seeing where it is and thinking about traffic and walkers.
from the amount of time and trouble friends have had gaining good day care placements, this seems like a brilliant idea and much needed in the city. It would take the idea of getting some tuition income for the district as some have mentioned, but those paying and benefiting would be City residents…
That wouldn’t work with current configuration of one room per six month developmental time span and the way floaters move from room to the next throughout the day and the way resources are used and shared. There are also state and NAEYC guidelines that would make splitting up the daycare nearly impossible. They double the size but couldn’t split it. You have to remember that requirements are very different for babies and toddlers than even pre-k’ers
I think we should cut down a few large oaks and make a walking bridge from Lenox Place to Westchester.
OK, the time seems ripe to re-introduce STG’s Can’t Please Everybody So Give ‘Em Something Real to Complain About Elementary Re-districting Plan.
Operate however many schools CSD says they need and can afford, configured however. (The beauty of this plan is that it works equally well with K-3/4-5 or K-5.) Assign attendance by individual student, by lottery. Rotate attendance assignments annually, by lottery, with no kid attending the same school two years in a row. (This would enable CSD to tweak the population size at each school each year, optimizing classroom space & other resources.) Operate a couple of buses on a jitney-type circuit beginning as early as necessary before the morning bell to enable hitting each official bus stop twice. (Start school at the same time everywhere.) Let anybody who wants to, ride the bus regardless of where they live. If your kid has to travel farther to reach their school, put ‘em on the earlier bus. Siblings headed to different destinations can catch the same bus, or not.
Annual attendance assignments are final–no exceptions, no do-overs, no waivers. Whining is optional (the same as now).
FYI to procrastinators: There are no pumpkins left in town anywhere that I can find. Your only hope at this point is a tiny organic cooking pumpkin at Your DeKalb Farmer’s Market. I tried the two nearest Publixes, two nearest Krogers, Oakhurst Market, Decatur Farmer’s Market, and every drugstore in the area. Evidently, pumpkins are scarcer this year.
Yesterday’s AJC has an article “School districts on the lookout for students who live elsewhere” which indicates that 15 students had to leave CSD so far this year because their families weren’t true residents. CSD definitely has become quite efficient at identifying and sending away students who are not attending legally. I remember a time when people used to claim that there were 100 to 300 illegally-attending students in CSD and that you could see many of them being dropped off to wait at bus stops at the borders of town. This is something that CSD seems to be on top of. Fewer folks seem to be trying to have their children attend illegally and fewer are succeeding.
(Full disclosure: I always feel sorry for the students sent away. It’s not their fault. I suspect that often there’s been a family change beyond their control–parent living with new mate outside of COD, losing an apartment; grandparent who owned the home died, etc.)