City Schools of Decatur Has Talley Street Property Under Contract
Decatur Metro | June 15, 2015 | 8:17 pm
Remember that whole thing where East Decatur Station partners were interested in putting a school on the property? And how the AJC then asked the Superintendent about it and she said she’d “definitely like to meet” them?
Well, it looks like the AJC may have played matchmaker for CSD and East Decatur Station. A school on the site is now closer to becoming a reality, according to the news org. Of course it all depends on whether the Go Bond passes in November.
The AJC reports…
Decatur’s school board approved entering into a contract for purchasing four acres on Talley Street, where City Schools Decatur hopes to build a new school. The vote came after an executive session last week and the news was confirmed Monday afternoon by City Attorney Robert Wilson.
…Superintendent Phyllis Edwards has said the school system will need two new schools, a K-3 and 4/5 Academy, by 2018-19 or earlier. Talley Street has room for one school, though what type hasn’t been determined. The land sits directly across from an AT&T facility which the city hopes to eventually purchase and turn into a lake and park.
So if the bond passes, CSD has the land in hand to build on. If the bond doesn’t pass, the deal was contingent on it passing, so CSD just doesn’t close on the deal and is not committed to land that it can’t afford to buy?
Isn’t most/all the bond funding already allocated to work at the high school and middle school, or was a portion of it earmarked for a new site & structure as well? If it’s only going to cover the middle/high buildings, is the school board just going to be asking residents to raise their own taxes again next year to build this property out, or can they cover it in other ways?
Pure speculation, but perhaps the notion is that if the bond isn’t funded, other money will have to be allocated to cover the needs of the middle school/high school, whereas an approved fund leaves that other money free for the Talley Street purchase.
As I recall, but can’t find now, the language of the ballot measure included lots of school related stuff, not just the middle and high school expansions.
Obviously there’s a lot of details to be worked through, especially as it relates to financing and configuration, but I couldn’t be happier about this choice of site. So much discussion has been around auto-centric site options out in proposed annexation areas. This one has the potential to really be a great, walkable neighborhood anchor in all the ways our other schools do the same.
Hell, district the kids from west Oakhurst and Lenox Park around the East Lake Marta and put ’em on the train!
Surely there’s a “Dr Edwards, you ROCK!!!” in there somewhere… :0)
I agree moving back to a K-5 would be a move in the wrong direction. My thoughts on the new location are new 4/5. I honestly doubt Dr Edwards is going to make that decision, though. I’m sure her primary goal was just to secure land. As far as the bond goes, I feel we’re be taxed out. Decatur is losing it’s diversity and “average” families.
Understandable skepticism about funding in the initial comments, but like Scott I want to note my initial reaction is one of excitement regarding the choice of location and, more fundamentally, the very existence of a viable option that does not depend on annexation and/or eminent domain.
More tone deafness from the Supt. If she wants the bond to pass, she needs to talk as much about being flexble and looking for creative, efficient solutions at least as much as she talks about borrowing more money to buy our way out of the problem. In this article there is no mention of revisiting the configuration, looking at leasing buildings, making College Heights a school again, etc. Likely we will need to build,but this bond is in trouble unless the Supt changes her tone.
smith, ??? You sure you’re paying close attention? Dr Edwards has said all those options are actively being weighed.
I guess I’m not expecting an exiting Superintendent to lead the charge on a referendum that will occur after the new Superintendent is hired. I want her to focus on preparing the system well for the transition, especially principals, teachers, and staff. She is still the active Superintendent but the Board probably should take the lead when in comes to future directions. I think it is very gracious of her to stay while her replacement is being selected.
Genuine question-How are those options actively being weighed? Has the school board openly discussed other configuration or planning options? Saying “we’re pursuing all available options” is often political-speak for “leave me alone.”
Recently, we seem to be engaged in a conversation about renting vs. buying, rather than rethinking the structure of the system. We need to have an urgent and thorough conversation as a community about our school priorities going forward. We love our small elementary schools and value the place they have in our neighborhoods, but how many more separate buildings can we afford to build and operate? The superintendent mentions that we may need to add another K-3 and 4/5 academy. Do those options offer us the best combination of efficiency and educational outcomes? What are the social and economic implications of going back to the K-5 model? Should we head into a period of tremendous growth only looking to duplicate our previous patterns? We’re too far down the road at RMS and DHS to change course, but surely we can examine the K-5 path forward a little more deliberately.
I, too, am glad that we’ve found space inside the city to build, but this should just be the first very small step in thinking about how to deal with our K-5 enrollment.
K-5 offers the most flexibility over a range of contractions and expansions of student population. IMHO, the biggest benefit of the 4/5 model is that kids from different elementary schools mix and get to know one another before they are mean preteens. I never saw the teacher collaboration touted by proponents except for the first couple of years that the 4/5 model was in existence when it had pods and explorations (aka clubs but clubs have a certain legal definition and ramifications). College Heights preK and Decatur Rec sports and camps also provide that mixing of students across schools.
I, for one, would be very sad to see the 4/5 model removed. Not that I think it will go any time soon – if at all. Expeditionary Learning is great for the K-3 kids but 4th and 5th graders are ready for a more challenging approach to learning and I think the IB program at 4/5 is a great fit for kids of that age. My kids did great with the IB program and were confident and ready for middle school beyond my expectations. The iPad program is very innovative and my kids REALLY enjoyed integrating technology into every day learning. The stuff they could do impressed the heck out of me. I also think that having a space just for kids at this stage of development is wise. They are too old to be treated like the K-3ers and too young for middle school expectations, the 4/5 model addresses this.
Beyond my personal experience with 4/5, I’m pretty sure going back to K-5 is not only a downgrade for Decatur, it’s also a step backwards rather than continuing to be progressive with our approach to education here in the city and it comes with a whole host of issues/costs with regards to the retrofitting of current buildings to meet requirements of the K-5 set. I’m pretty sure FAVE doesn’t meet the current State requirements to host kindergarteners, for example.
I don’t see why all those great things couldn’t happen in K-5 schools as well. The “Middle Years IB” is already stretched across two schools–both Renfroe and 9th and 10th grade at DHS. Similarly, IB could be started at 4th grade in a K-5 school. It’s about curriculum and activities, not buildings and district lines, although I have to admit that I find the Middle Years stretch across two different levels of school a bit weird. And there was a leadership aspect to 4th and 5th grade in K-5 schools that was neat. The upper grades had both responsibilities and privileges that the younger students didn’t have and they were supposed to serve as role models. The truth is that all configurations have pluses and minuses and trade-offs. I’m ok with keeping the 4/5 model but building a second 4/5 seems to defeat the purpose of a 4/5. Then all the students still have to mix for the first time at Renfroe just like the old days. And all K-5s allows more infrastructure flexibility as the system grows and shrinks and then grows again, asymmetrically of course just to make things interesting, as it inevitably will. Given the crowding and resource issues we are facing, it’s going to take a lot of wisdom on the part of the new Superintendent and the School Board to figure out the best course.
There is greater purpose to the 4/5 than JUST the mixing of the K-3s before middle school, though I agree it would be a real bummer to lose that aspect if/when another 4/5 is built. It’s one of my favorite benefits of the model and it has really improved the transition into Renfroe.
I’m trying to imagine 5th graders at an Oakhurst community circle and not thinking the whole thing utterly “lame.”
My kids were pretty over it by 3rd grade. Obviously, that’s hardly something I would factor into the district’s decision but it’s something that has certainly crossed my mind, lol.
CSD will have a new superintendent soon who will have to make his or her recommendations to the board… Who knows what may happen–we may end up with 3 k-2s each paired with a 3-5…
When Steve Monroe was running for School Board in 2001, he had that idea. There was a proposal to pair Westchester with Oakhurst and Winnona Park with Glennwood.
If K-3, where do you suppose the boundary line would be? This school would be awfully close to WP.
it’s 0.7 miles from Westchester to Clairemont which is about the same as Winonna to the new school location. It’s hard to anticipate what a reconfiguration would look like.
Yup, not sure who would go there if it’s K-3. 4/5 at that location makes more sense.
But it’s a better location than say, Avondale Elementary.
How does Avondale Elementary fit into the discussion?
One potential solution to the school situation was to lease vacant school buildings from Dekalb County.
It is interesting to me that CSD is paying market rate for the property. I wonder if CSD and CoD had teamed up to discuss the purchase/offer, if the City could have waived some development restrictions in part for the remaining parcels if the purchase price could have gone way down. Example- allowing for additional commercial space, or an extra story or 2 on apartment buildings or office space provides the developer with a cash win on another part of the property to offset the purchase price on the school land. Perhaps that can still happen? Is anyone at CSD and CoD talking about this? I for one would be happy to have larger development in exchange for lower tax bill.
But residential isn’t currently allowed on the other parcels. Can the city negotiate entitlement incentives for a use that’s not presently allowed? Having an incentive contingent on a rezoning would seem to add more uncertainty than a developer would want, right?
Seems like the City could re zone, or see if there are any other waivers/accommodations that could be done for other portions of the property. AJC article says CSD has until March to execute on their option to purchase, so there is still time to get the price down via incentives and the accompanying negotiations and approval processes.
In one or more of the Atlanta TAD districts, APS was given land for a school. Granted, APS participation in the TAD/tax dollar increment stream made the land not free, but this shows that Developers may be amenable for this type of give and take negotiation.
Via Decaturish:
“The AJC report also says there are some environmental issues with the property, which was previously used as an automobile storage site.”
If the AJC info is correct, the owner may be offering CSD portions of the property that will require even more expenditures if a purchase goes through.
I know the COD schools need more space NOW, but I read once where the Art Institute is closing (no longer accepting new students). Anyone know if COD school system could get that property??
The Art Institute of Decatur only leased two floors of the seven-story One West Court Square building. I don’t think the landlord or the other tenants would be too excited about the school trying to “get that property”