School Board Elections Nov. 3!

If you have children in the City Schools of Decatur, please remember that it is SO IMPORTANT that you vote in the school board election on Tuesday, November 3. This is your best shot at having a voice in what happens on the school board.
Find out what district you're in and then learn more about the candidates.

Here are the candidates:

At-Large:
Valarie D. Wilson (incumbent)
Robert H. Pope
Elizabeth A. Hagberg
Carla Melissa Anderson

District 1:
Marc J. Wisniewski (incumbent)
Judith Lomas
Garrett Goebel
Alan Greenberg

District 2:
Bernadette J. Seals (incumbent)
Stephan Yurman
Catherine W Carter
Mildred Thompkins

Rob Pope runs for at-large seat on school board

Please see Rob's web site for more information.
Rob Pope for School Board!

Garrett Goebel runs for District 1 seat on school board

Please see Garrett's web site for more information.
Garrett Goebel for School Board!

Board votes unanimously for Option #13

Many thanks to Don Calder, who posted over on the CSDparents yahoo group:

Tonight, the CSD Board unanimously voted in favor of Reconfiguration Option #13. This option redeploys Glennwood as a K-3, and moves the 4/5 Academy to Fifth Ave. In the Board's view, this option maximizes CSD's flexibility in dealing with current enrollment problems (read: elementary schools and 4/5 busting at the seams), as well as the City's future growth (i.e., the City's revisiting annexation sometime in the next two years, the Avondale LCI project).

Dr. Edwards and the Board also spoke to those who opposed new construction while Westchester, in effect, remains idled: keeping Westchester in its current state provides a buffer against extraordinary enrollment increases, because it can be reopened as a K-3 somewhere down the line.

Finally, here are some figures that were thrown out regarding tonight's decision. The cost of renovating Fifth Ave is expected to be $8 million. The impact on the operating budget (as of 2013) should be approx $500 to $700K, which may require a millage increase of approx 0.5 to 1.0 mil. Both Dr. Edwards and CSD's finance rep, Theresa Link, stressed that these are worst-case scenarios, however, and difficult to project.

Board meeting next week

The next school board meeting is Tuesday, June 9 at 6:30 p.m. This is the superintendent's latest letter on reconfiguration:

Requested Action
Move approval of reconfiguration option 13 as recommended by the Superintendent and Committee.

Background
In May, I presented the Board with my recommendation for the future regarding the use of school buildings to accomodate student growth. This process has been ongoing for the better part of this school year and some preliminary work was completed during the 2008-2009 school year.

This time, a group of parents and teachers was involved in the process. You have heard comments from the committee and read the various reports. All of the documentation has been on the website. The process was transparent.

My recommendation was provided to you at the May meeting. For a variety of reasons, I support the rebuilding of the Fifth Avenue school to accomodate the 4/5 graders in an IB Academy concept. I feel that the majority of teachers support this option. On the nights of the Listening Session, many parents and some community members also spoke in support of this option.

This option will take care of the current issues at both the elementary and 4/5 level. It will also position CSD for the future by having the building renovated for use.

I estimate that if you make the decision in June, it will still take two years until the building is ready. In the meantime, we will add portables as we see fit. In the following school year, we may have to explore other temporary options.

By doing a lease purchase for $10 million dollars, Fifth Avenue can be renovated and the remaining dollars spent on renovating RMS, which sorely needs attention.

We have provided cost estimates which are reasonable. It is recommended that when the preparation begins for the next SPLOST, we write the SPLOST language to include the payment necessary for this borrow.

Between May and June, Theresa Link, Dr. Van Soelen and I have made ourselves available to all Board Members for further discussion on this topic. The Board had asked for an additional month to review documents and have questions answered prior to a vote.

Financial Impact
Fiscal Impact Statements have been provided in previous documents.

Submitted By
Dr. Phyllis Edwards, Superintendent

Parent Survey Results

Everyone, please click here to view the survey results. For the open-ended responses, click the little button at the very bottom of the survey labeled "View."

There were 288 respondents. Thanks everyone!

Stats on Parent Survey

I am happy to report that 258 273 people have responded to the parent survey so far. I will post the complete results on this blog next Tuesday, May 26, when the survey closes. Some of the respondents do not have children in the system, so I am happy to see some community members outside of CSD getting involved.

118 people have left comments and I forwarded the first 90 of those to the Board yesterday. I will send along the rest--I just wanted to let them get started reading the comments!

Click here to take survey.

Please complete the CSD reconfiguration parent survey!

CSD Parents,
In the process of deciding how to reconfigure our schools, the reconfiguration committee circulated a teacher survey. However, they did not circulate a parent survey. They solicited feedback from those who attended info and listening sessions, but there are scores of CSD parents who for any number of reasons were unable to attend those sessions. The reconfiguration committee sent their recommendation to the superintendent, who then put forth the same recommendation to the school board (see item IX.d. on this page). On May 12, the board tabled the vote for 30 days to better digest the material before casting a vote.

Regardless of how the schools are reconfigured, I believe that parents need to have a say in this process. In the absence of an official parent survey, we need to be proactive in sending our feedback to the board. I have created a survey that you can complete in less than five minutes. Please take the next few minutes to send your message to the board! Results of the survey will be tabulated and sent to each board member in one week.
Click here to take the survey

It's time to call for a parent survey.

Let me rephrase that: it's PAST time to call for a parent survey. I am going to pressure the board to do this. Please join me in this effort! Send emails to the board. Get your friends to send emails to the board. Call your board members. This survey can be done over the parent portal inside a week, and those who are interested will be able to have their say on this issue. The school system has access to most parents by email, so they will be able to reach a majority of parents. If they can poll the teachers, then they can--and SHOULD--poll the parents and community.

This is not just about which option is chosen. This is about parents getting the chance to vote on the factors that are most important to US.

To send to the board as a group, copy and paste into the "To" field of your email:
pedwards@csdecatur.net; vwilson@csdecatur.net; mwisniewski@csdecatur.net; jahmann@csdecatur.net; bseals@csdecatur.net; jrhame@csdecatur.net

Board tabled the reconfig vote for 30 days

The vote on reconfiguration has been tabled until the June board meeting. However, board members made very clear that they supported the superintendent's recommendation of Option #13 and would only use the extra time to better digest the material and understand the decision, not to receive or entertain additional information. They will have one-on-one meetings with Theresa Link and Thomas Van Soelen as necessary and Julie Rhame, at least, has a few community members she wants to whom she wants to talk and hasn't yet had a chance to do so.

Although it is clear the board will vote for Option #13, you can never be absolutely sure, and I urge everyone to continue sending the board your feedback. With Option #9 (4/5 at Renfroe) looming as the second choice, we all need to stay on top of this issue.

Despite several calls for a parent survey during the public comments section last night, the board members made no mention of it and obviously are not interested in parent's concerns regarding reconfiguration. I find it shameful that the only parent voices that will be heard on this issue are those who are on the reconfiguration committee. The committee members were hand-picked, and there was never an appeal to the public for volunteers on the committee, nor were they voted in. The only representation we have is our own voice, so please send those emails and letters!

Go to the Board meeting Tuesday, May 12!

There will be a public comment session at tomorrow's board meeting. Please plan to attend! Make your voice heard!

Superintendent is recommending Option 13 to the Board.

This is item IX.d. in the agenda for the school board meeting on May 12. I can't link directly to the letter, and for some reason blogger is not allowing me to copy and paste the link. I have linked the document to the right. Click on IX.d. in the agenda.

Board meeting May 12--what'll happen?

Any thoughts on what will happen at the board meeting on May 12? Do you think they'll pass the vote on Option #13? Is anyone sending feedback directly to the board?

Recommendation to the Board

I have been informed that the reconfiguration committee recommended Option 13 to the Board. Comments? Post them here!

Post your feedback here!

Hey, it's not invading your privacy if you post it anonymously! I'm curious as to what people are sending to the reconfiguration committee. If you've sent an email to the Board or the committee, would you mind pasting it here? I think all of us are very interested in what everyone else thinks.

What about K-5?

Is it on the table? In a meaningful way? My very unofficial, informal, tiny poll to your right tells us that 55% of 43 people want to see us go back to K-5s . (For the record, NO ONE wants 4-8.) Should K-5s get more buzz? Is it even worth it to pull a K-5 option to front & center?

The also-unofficial-informal survey below, about what is more important, has told us that at least 82 people find neighborhood schools to be extremely important. Preserving the IB framework is #2, but by a rather wide margin. Would it be possible to honor both of these factors as being most important by going back to K-5s with EL as the curriculum framework through grade 5?

So what now?

Please start sending your feedback to the reconfiguration committee. I have pulled the list of members from their documents site. I will not post email addresses that I happen to have for some of these people since they are not listed in the committee's documents, but you probably know at least one or two. You may also email Thomas Van Soelen, associate superintendent of schools, at charter@csdecatur.org. I encourage you to copy the Board on your feedback, and I have listed them with their email addresses below.

Reconfiguration Committee members:
Allison Taylor
Anita Corbett
Anne Moore
Anthony Whatley
Beth Sullivan
Brooke Nation
Bruce Roaden
Caroline Wood
Deborah Lester
Eve Wyatt
Gene Ponder
Gloria Lee
Graneze Scott
Greg Wiseman
Jenna Black
Karen Ehmer
Karen Newton
Karen Simmons
Kim Houston
Kim Rossi
Lauri Mckain-Fernandez
Lew Lefton
Lewis Scott
Lexie Parker
Mary Mack
Ned Henry
Paul Duda
Paul Ferraro
Phyllis Edwards
Robin Fountain
Robyn Tibbetts
Rodney Thomas
Theresa Link
Thomas Van Soelen
Tom Seetoo

CSD Board members:
Valarie Wilson
Marc Wisniewski
John Ahmann
Bernadette Seals
Julie Rhame
Phyllis Edwards, Secretary to the Board, Superintendent of Schools

To send to the Board as a group, copy and paste into the"To:" field of your email:
vwilson@csdecatur.net; mwisniewski@csdecatur.net; jahmann@csdecatur.net; bseals@csdecatur.net; jrhame@csdecatur.net; pedwards@csdecatur.net

Q&A with Thomas Van Soelen

This is cross-posted from the yahoo group CSDparents, with the permission of the parent who posed the questions to Mr. Van Soelen. The answers are from Thomas Van Soelen, associate superintendent of schools for CSD.

"[The parent] made a list of parent questions from the last listening session, and [she] contacted Thomas Van Soelen to try and get some answers. If these answers need more explanation, [post them here] or contact Thomas at 404.370.4400 x916. Also, if you have other info to share- please do!

EL/IB:
Q1. What would be the financial and time obligations in training teachers in either the EL or IB curriculum given the possibility of moving to the K-4 option or the 8-9 at the high school?

A: I would argue that the time is not a big deal. A 4th grade teacher could go to a 3-day training and get up to speed on EL. However, it’s the morale-crushing that I’m most worried about. So, I’m a 4th grade teacher in CSD and survived the reconfig of 0304; I learned IB and am now getting better at it; now the schools are getting changed again and I need to learn something new.

Q2. What happens at the 4-5 academy that can not happen in the K-5 model? What would be lost switching the 4-5 curriculum from IB to EL? Could student's be served equally (or at least equitably) by the EL curriculum?

A: I think bruce talked about how the MYP program at RMS would be affected. 6th grade teachers would have to begin “IB-ing” the kids in 6th grade rather than have them come in with some amazing characteristics of what self-directed, inquiry-focused learners should look like. big learning here: remember that IB and EL are not curricula – they are frameworks, or approaches toward looking at the curriculum (which is the state Georgia Performance Standards). I believe that the IB “lenses” used are quite powerful for 10-11 year olds to use. I think the PYP at grades 4/5 makes a lot of sense for kids. That’s why I favor options that keep the 4/5 in tact.

Construction Costs:
Q1. Is it possible, as with many of the construction projects in the past, that the numbers we are working with are "deflated"?

A: I don’t know what this means. I’m guessing that you may be referring to the elementary construction in 04 that ended up to be a lot more than planned. A big change happened this time: theresa link, finance director, used current costs to create these projections. In 04, the previous year’s costs (price per square foot) were used.

Q2. Will the increase in operating costs from the loans from construction force us to make cuts in instructional needs as budgets become even tighter over the next few years, ie. teachers, materials training, etc.?

A: debt service would be paid for through a bond (millage), not operating costs. So I don’t see these connecting at all.

Q3. What funds are available to us from the federal and state governments in weighing the best options?

A: there are no federal funds available for us that we know of. The state offered us 100,000 as a system in the last five years as capital outlay funds. Although it’s in vogue to talk about stimulus, I won’t believe a bit of it until I see it (“show me the money”). We just aren’t needy enough to get the money that we need.

Q4. How will these 13 options look to the tax payer? Is there a way that Theresa could put the costs in terms that we can understand as they relate to the mileage rate? I think it would be very helpful for parents to see these construction costs as they will look to us in both operating expenses and tax rates.

A: theresa has been doing exactly this. Of course, the real elephant in the room is what will happen to state revenues. Some of her projections continue to lower the role the state plays in financing education. In those models, the millage is well above 20 mills – not really due to construction, but due to other factors.

Enrollment numbers:
Q1. It is obviously impossible to know exactly what trends will look like in the years to come- evidenced by the discrepancies between even the most informed opinions of the number crunchers. So, what would it mean for the schools to take the wait and see approach? What would the cost of using portables for the short term mean to our system budget and operating costs?

A: I’m going to delay the answer to this one. One of our board members has asked a question about portables, and I feel that this conversation will bubble to the surface soon. For a quick answer: a double portable (two classrooms) costs $50,000 to seat (electricity, plumbing, technology, safety) and $340/month to rent.

Q2. What options are best for leaving room for growth, but still allowing us to have the flexibility for the possibility of a decreasing population?

A: I think that any option of opening westchester as a school is not a good option if anyone thinks the population will decrease. Once westchester is opened, it will be quite difficult to close it again.

Construction Scenarios:
Q1. If 5th Ave. is built to house the 4-5 acadamy and Glennwood changed to a K-3 (an option that has great potential), would lines be able to be draw easily for the 4 K-4 schools to remain relatively even in demographics?

A: I assume you meant K-3 schools here instead of K-4...of any of the models of what k-3 could look like, 4 schools (glennwood, oakhurst, winnona, clairemont) is the least of my worries concerning diversity. When we open westchester as a K-3 school, then the diversity factorstarts to look ugly.

Q2. If 5th Ave was built to accommodate this expected growth, how would things look if we had a dramatic drop in population?

A: not sure how to answer this. If 5th avenue has 26 classrooms and we lose 25 of our current 5th graders, say, we would have up to 6-8 classrooms that would be empty at fifth avenue. However, that would mean the spanish teachers could have their own rooms, the art teacher wouldn’t have to teach on a cart, the music teacher wouldn’t have to teach on the stage, teachers of the gifted wouldn’t have to teach in the hall...are you seeing where I’m going here?

Q3. There is a constant debate going on about the true possibilities for the reopening of Westchester as a 4-5 school. How can we unify the different players in this construction game to get a true picture of what is possible. There is conflicting information coming not just fromparents but from city planners about where the flood plain actually lies and what the LOMAR (sp) maps say?

A: all I know is what I heard from amanda and rick that night at westchester. Dr edwards will need to consider whether she wants to ask for more clarification.

Q4. Why is the Westchester option so unsafe- when walking to Renfroe poses the exact same difficulties. Couldn't these issues be solved with the appropriate placement of crossing guards?

A: I don’t see walking to RMS anything like walking to westchester. I find scott boulevard to be frightening, even as a driver.

Q5. Is it possible that construction could be done to Renfroe to allow administrative offices to be housed there- giving ample space for board and other meetings?

A: having administrative offices at RMS is problematic. If families don’t want 8th graders to be near their 4th grader, how would they feel about a person of opposite color walking down the hall, lost on the way to human resources to fill out an application to be a custodian? Having offices where the focus is serving adults and having a school where the purpose is serving kids doesn’t make sense to us.

Q6. If we were to return to a K-5 model, is it possible to have lines drawn to maintain relative equality in the demographics between schools?

A: my gut is no. the k5 schools would be so small that their zones would be smaller, too. just like how I answered in #1 above, the more schools you would open (and you would need to open 5 k5 schools and build as well), the higher probability of inequitable distribution or racial andeconomic diversity.

What were your impressions of the info session and listening session?

I'm happy to say that the info session and listening session were rather well-attended. What did you learn? How have your impressions about reconfiguration changed as a result of attending the meetings? What hasn't changed? What more would you like to see?

I hope the committee will take into account the surely large number of comments, suggestions, and questions from the community before making their recommendation to the Board.

When will the decision be made?

At the reconfiguration committee info session last week, Phyllis Edwards mentioned her hope that this reconfiguration decision will be made by May. If you're just getting involved in this discussion, May feels very soon for a decision of this magnitude! Please be sure to attend the meeting tomorrow night. I hope that by getting involved now, we will be able to be a part of the decision-making process. There is still time to make our voices heard. The best thing you can do is get informed by reading the material and by attending the meeting, and then by providing feedback to the reconfig cmte.

Why now?

This is my own personal question: why now? Would it be feasible or practical to add a few more trailers to our overcrowded schools and put off this decision for another year? The current economy gives us no guarantees that enrollments will continue to climb or will not drop in the next school year. And the annexation decision still looms with no real progress on getting good, accurate data on possible additional students. Any thoughts from anyone on this?

The factors: The "Which is Most Important" poll explained

Folks, to your right you will see the "Which is Most Important" poll. I want to explain exactly what this is. The reconfig cmte put together their 14 Reconfiguration Factors, listed in the poll. Last week they did a "pairwise comparison" which is an exercise that forces a choice between each factor, so that you end up with the factors ranked by your preference. I was very interested in their results, and mentioned several times at the info session that I wish all of us could do the same exercise and then ponder the outcome. But a survey of that scale is virtually impossible to do well. I put the poll on this blog to get a feel for what a few people might think. The results will NOT be nearly the same as if we did a pairwise comparison, but it's still interesting.

Most notably, the reconfig cmte's results put "instructional programming (EL/IB)" at the very top, and "proximity to school" was 3rd from the bottom. Of the 29 who have voted so far in my poll, "proximity to school" is neck-and-neck with "instructional programming."

Also of note, "racial diversity" really should not be included in the factors. It is a legal imperative that we reach a certain level of racial diversity in each school, so this factor will be met and prioritized no matter what.

Below are the results from the committee's pairwise comparison, as posted on the e-Board server. The number to the left represents the total number of times a cmte member preferred that factor to another factor.

308 Instructional programming (EL, IB)
265 Racial diversity
255 Socioeconomic diversity
240 Future factor (5 years from now)
237 Building capacity (include parking, playgrounds)
233 Operation costs
211 Facility fit for grade levels
194 Multiple classrooms per grade for collaboration
162 Capital costs (construction/remodeling)
133 Relocation costs for central office
123 Number of K12 transitions
98 Proximity to school
68 Transportation (buses and auto traffic patterns)
67 Impact on tuition (paying/courtesy) students

Most importantly, what we have to realize is that all the thirteen reconfiguration options were ranked by how they stacked up to the results of the pairwise comparison, and none of the options was even a close match! Read the info session powerpoint for more information on this. The document is dated 3/17/09 on the eBoard server. (Unfortunately I can't link directly to any one document, only to the repository.)

How do you feel about IB?

The reconfiguration committee has made it clear that their number one priority is preserving the IB framework at Glennwood. This means they must keep 4/5 together and not change the configuration of grade spans. Under this assumption, the option they will ultimately choose will be something like having 4/5 at Renfroe, Westchester, or Fifth Avenue, and will not involve reverting to K-5 schools, K-4 schools or any of the other options that do not keep the 4/5 academy intact.

Do you agree with the committee that this is the most important factor in considering the reconfiguration options?

Discussion: What do you think about opening Westchester and/or Fifth Ave?

Some of the options include re-opening Westchester as an elementary school and moving the Central Office to rental space (or elsewhere in the system). There is also talk of opening Fifth Avenue as an elementary school. Notably, there is this information from the reconfig cmte documentation:

Note that CSD applied for, but has not yet been successful in obtaining, a grant to begin renovations of Fifth Avenue as a combined Career Tech facility and expansion of the College Heights ECLC.

What do you think about renovating and opening either of these schools?

Discussion: What do you think about 4-5 at Renfroe?

Several of the options include moving the 4/5 Academy to the Renfroe campus. This would involve construction of a new building at Renfroe. We have been assured that the 4/5 and the 6-8 students would be kept completely separate, with separate principals (although there would be a campus-wide principal as well), separate buses, different start/end times, etc. I think this is a very likely scenario. Let’s talk about the pros and cons.