Decatur Candidates Forum in Decatur Heights This Sunday
Decatur Metro | October 23, 2015 | 2:09 pmThe good folks in Decatur Heights have again done the city a public service and set up a public forum for all City Commission and School Board candidates. This year the event will take place Sunday, October 25th from 3-5p at its usual location at The Church at Decatur. More details below!
More … important links to information:
- November 3 ballot
- City Schools of Decatur Bond Referendum
- HB597 Dekalb Ethics Board Bill
I’m unable to attend but can someone please ask the school board candidates about their experience with the education system and their knowledge of the Decatur School system.
Thanks. I’ll be there.
Having been at a recent forum, I have a couple of observations that I hope can be addressed at this one.
1. A gentleman from the citizens group advocating for voting yes on the bond presented prior to the forum I attended. One of his chief points was that the bond would be a “net wash” because of the recent drop in millage. I’m hoping the candidates, both commission and board, will be able to honestly answer how adopting the bond will impact the ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT Decatur citizens will pay in taxes. The presenter continued to use this false millage comparison, rather than referring to actual dollar impact. Even those in the audience in support of the bond questioned why such a confusing tactic was used to support a yes vote.
2. While I found the city commission candidates to be well-informed, the school board candidates appeared unable to answer specific questions about the school system or to even correctly use terminology. Mr. DeSimone referred to CCRPI as a test that kids take, mentioned “parent involvement” as the key to reducing the achievement gap, and has admittedly lived in the city only 5 years and has no personal school experience beyond Winona Park. Mr. DeSimone was able to present test scores verifying the achievement gap that exists as students reach high school, showing he had done some research, but I left afraid that he was simply pulling random numbers and making unclear claims and inferences. Ms. White, when asked about the achievement gap, touted ECLC, but did not offer concrete steps for improving our achievement differences. She consistently mentioned her discussions with previous school board members, but did not use those conversations as a basis for highlighting her knowledge of the schools, but, rather, to consistently reinforce her connections to previous members of the board. When asked about her role in supervising the superintendent, she mentioned more than once that she’d need to hear his “vision for our city” and that she’s a good listener, but did not offer an opinion on how a school board should supervise a superintendent, which is one of the board’s most important roles. I left the previous forum certain that these folks genuinely care about our schools and community, but I’m hoping that they will arrive at this forum more knowledgeable and better able to answer these challenging and important questions. Neither candidate has a long history in CSD, so they must work harder to understand the schools and the challenges we have faced and will face. The job of a school board member is hard and often thankless, but an active, informed, and strong board will be too important to the future of the city for our new member to not be fully committed to her/his new role.
You can find information on estimated actual tax impact on the goyesdecatur.org in the FAQ section. There is a table at the end that estimates the impact by home value.
The reason for the focus on the millage rate in that forum was two-fold. First, the financial impact is driven by millage rate x appraised property value — property value varies, so can’t really say exactly how much personal impact there is on your wallet. Second, tax levels are controlled by the millage rate — that is what our City Commision and School Board can directly impact. That millage rate came down in 2015 and is down again in 2016.
I’m not saying the adjustments to millage shouldn’t be discussed in the larger context of how our tax picture continues to evolve, but to continue to say that homeowners will pay less is misleading within that same larger context. This quote “However, the 2015 millage rollbacks by the city and school board mean that homeowners will not actually pay more – they’ll simply save less” is not relevant to the real scenario that I and most (maybe all?) of my neighbors are facing. It’s a plain fact that the school board was only able to lower the millage because home values have increased markedly in the last few years. The new millage simply keeps the school tax digest constant and, in general, means we’ll all pay about the same amount we paid last year before the bond is added in. Those in the GO Yes group are insisting that our taxes are going to go down and continue to use the false equivalency of millage to tax dollars or “taxes on a 500k home year over year” to support their perspective. It’s simply misleading. Yesterday’s 500k house is today’s 575k house. As soon as those values start to flatline or dip the millage will have to go back up to keep service levels constant.
We need to start talking beyond the bond. It will probably pass and probably should, but smoke and mirrors only taint what should be an open process. What’s our plan for actually paying teachers to educate all of these children?
+1 I was at the same forum and also came away disappointed in the responses from both school board candidates. Ms. White’s strong identification with the Board member she’s seeking to replace was particularly off-putting, offering the impression that she wants to continue that legacy. The last thing we need is another school board member to perpetuate the rubber-stamp cronyism that’s characterized our Board for many years. Mr. DeSimone, despite his fumbling of the details on CCRPI and the achievement gap, seems at least committed (as evidenced in his first Decaturish interview) to increased transparency and discontinuation of the status quo.
I wish Tony Powers, Brian Smith, and Valencia Breedlove could be there too. Hearing from all the candidates side by side would be easier than trying to hit multiple sessions around town. Not complaining–I know they all have day jobs too–just wishing.
I was just perusing the FAQs on the GoYes website for the bond referendum. Part of the bond is allocated to build a new elementary school with a 4/5 in the same building. Wouldn’t this just be a k-5? Would there be two principles? I’m not sure I understand the efficiency. I get that the 4/5 is difficult for people to travel to, but would it make more sense to “pop the top” on Renfroe and make that a 4-8 for the town? Or just revert to K-5?
According to meetings I’ve attended, there would be two separate schools–a K-3 and a 4/5. Not sure what happens principal-wise–two? Or the principal of the main 4/5 is also the principal of the satellite 4/5? Or one principle for the K-3 and 4/5 (which I bet would evolve into a school that was effectively a K-5 even if not officially.) Agree that a K-5 is preferable to two 4/5s which would lose the best features of the single 4/5 model–1) the mixing of neighborhood schools before the cliquey, mean girl, bullying stage of middle school and 2) the synergy between teachers of the same grade level. While a 4-8 may appear efficient in terms of bodies in seats in classrooms, I don’t think it would be great developmentally or educationally. 4th graders are age 9 and not even tweens yet. Meanwhile, 8th graders are solidly post-tween, i.e. true teens. At least in a K-5, the students are all pre-tween.
Can we hope the new Supt is asking these questions about the configuration?