After a few weeks of community discussion and petitioning, the DeKalb County Schools planning department (headed by Chief Operating Officer Josh Williams and director of planning Dan Drake) has released an updated SPLOST V project list to be approved by the Board of Education (BOE) this coming Monday.
The most notable addition is the elementary school for the northern part of the Cross Keys cluster — presumably somewhere in the Doraville area. This is especially exciting for the families in this part of the county who have been waiting for years for relief from overcrowding.
As Maureen Downey posted in an op-ed from Parent Councils United president Allyson Gevertz, “The project list is based on superior data and unprecedented community input.” Hundreds of parents from the Cross Keys community have been involved since September 2015, as have hundreds from the surrounding communities of Chamblee, Dunwoody, Lakeside, and Brookhaven.
This project list isn’t perfect, but it is a step in the right direction for the school system. I understand there are a few who would like to request the DeKalb BOE to #DeferTheVote until February (as articulated in this op-ed from a Sagamore Hills parent), but it seems the overwhelming majority support the proposed project list. If you would like to come and show your support during the Community Input Session prior to the BOE vote on December 5, please wear white as a sign of solidarity. We want our Superintendent and BOE members to know that we support their hard work and planning efforts by wearing white. (Community Input Session begins at 5:45PM and the BOE vote and Business Meeting begins at 7PM at 1701 Mountain Industrial Blvd, Stone Mountain, GA 30083.)
I think this arduous process has brought many community members together in a way that will hopefully transfer to continued involvement from the affected communities. There is much work to be done as we begin designing and implementing the proposed SPLOST V project list, and I look forward to seeing our communities continue to work together.
December 1, 2016 at 6:23 pm
Rebekkah, On what are you basing your OPINION of “a few” and “an overwhelming majority”? Using the phrase “it would appear” I am curious to know, based on what? Can you cite some specific sources from which you form this opinion? Even if you use the very questionable “data” from the survey – the participants were exactly 50/50 split between supporting a high school in Doraville (Options A & C) and supporting a new high school closer to CK (Option B). So there’s definitely no overwhelming majority there.
I appreciate the fact that you included links to both Op-Eds – they are both well written and come from concerned, involved parents. I can assure you it is far more than “a few” who are opposed to the retrofitted additions in Option B and who support the more long-term solution of creating a high school in Doraville. There are private facebook groups with hundreds of members. You are not a part of them, so I understand you would not be aware of that.
LikeLike
December 1, 2016 at 11:13 pm
Hillary, I am basing my information off of the fact that the parents in the CK cluster have supported Option B, many Dunwoody residents (as demonstrated in the school council letters) have supported Option B, many parents in the Chamblee cluster (including Huntley Hills, Ashford Park, and Rose Woods neighborhoods) have supported option B, and the citizens of Doraville have supported Option B.
I also think it’s “just a few” who want to delay the vote because –comparatively speaking — a few hundred parents from parts of Dunwoody, Chamblee, and Lakeside do not outnumber the thousands of parents in South DeKalb who would like the vote to proceed so that we can begin implementing the SPLOST V projects. And in North DeKalb, there are as many individuals who would like the vote to move forward on Dec 5 as there are who oppose it. The parents who are writing on my blog, Stan’s blog, or Paula’s blog are not representative of the majority of the county, so I think that because we only see the VERY vocal Facebook group members and blog-followers, we think the #delaythevote group is the majority. However, I don’t believe it is.
I also think most people already believe that the BOE is going to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation, and therefore don’t see the point of getting into online battles at this point. As far as I’ve seen, there is only going to be 1 (maybe 2) BOE members supporting a delay of the vote.
That’s why I (respectfully) still think — relative to the whole — it is a loud “few.”
*Edited: Formerly I said “hundreds of thousands.” I have corrected this comment to be more accurate.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 10:24 am
Rebekah,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I can see why you have drawn the conclusions that you have. However, please note that the process by which DCSD solicited feedback from the community was at the Middle & High School level. What you are seeing now are that Elementary schools are becoming more vocal. This is not an either or, it is a subset of. For example within Dunwoody ,Vanderlyn and Austin have come forward advocating to defer the vote. So to say that “Dunwoody” is in favor of Option B is no longer an accurate statement.
One of the main reasons you are seeing such a shift in the tide is because detailed information has just become available. When Option B additions were originally shared with the community the budgets were higher, additional land to accommodate the expansion was included and improvements to common areas was part of the deal. Now what parents have seen is what feels to many like a bait and switch. The proposed additions are simply an irresponsible use of the dollars of ALL taxpayers throughout DeKalb County.
Paula, this speaks to your comment as well: A VERY important note is that those request to defer the vote are seeking simply to defer decisions about Category 2. This would not hold up all of the other projects we all realize are so desperately needed throughout the County. Furthermore this requested time would be minimal – no one is seeking to delay for delaying sake. This time would be used efficiently and productively to seek the most benefit to the most students with the least amount of expense. In my opinion, not only reasonable, a fiduciary responsibility of all Board members.
PS: You say that “hundreds thousands of parents in South DeKalb” where are you getting that from? There are only 100K students in all of DeKalb…perhaps a bit overstated?
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 10:41 am
Lol true. Hundreds of thousands is probably a bit of an exaggeration. I stand corrected — I should have said “thousands.” I’m used to being in Gwinnett where there are 300,000 students total. And Hillary, you know I respect you and those who are thoughtful like you. I know that parents from the CK cluster had elementary school parents at all our meetings, and they were unified with the hs parents in saying they supported option B. You know I’m speaking from my dual role as a parent of almost es school age children and as a hs teacher, so I — in both roles — see Option B as preferable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 2, 2016 at 10:48 am
Thanks Rebekah, I appreciate that and your receiving that in the light-hearted way it was intended 🙂 It is my understanding that the real consensus at CK meetings was that the community really just wanted to stay together. Is that true?
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 10:43 am
Hillary, you do realize there are other elementary schools in the Dunwoody cluster other than Vanderlyn and Austin? Do the voices of Hightower, Chesnut and Kingsley not count?
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 11:11 am
Absolutely! My point was simply that saying, “Dunwoody” is in favor of Option B is not an accurate statement. ALL of our voices throughout the County are equally important. And the allocation of these dollars and the fact that we’ll have to live with these decisions for a long, long time to come are too important to rush.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 11:09 am
Well at those meetings the main takeaways did not include “staying together.” Main takeaways were that the community wanted an expedient, sufficient expansion of current facilities. And renovations to ones that couldn’t be torn down and expanded.
They felt that Option A and C were too uncertain and, honestly, way too expensive. People even suggested that they help the school district by starting to raise money to improve/rebuild the facilities of Sequoyah and Cary Reynolds since those facilities getting improvements seemed to be difficult even with an Option B.
The loudest people supported an immediate tear-down and rebuild of CKHS, but it wasn’t motivated by “staying together” (at least, not according to what they said). Many people there were speaking as alumni of CKHS who were now raising their kids in the area with their children attending CK cluster schools.
LikeLike
December 1, 2016 at 7:29 pm
My question too. How did you come to the opinion that an “overwhelming majority support the proposed project list.” I have yet to find anyone other than Allyson G. who supports it.
This is what I posted on Stan Jester’s FactChecker blog a few minutes ago in response to Allyson’s op ed.
_____
As much as I like Allyson, she much of what she wrote was not correct.
Dr. Green has made some great improvements and shown excellent leadership. Any trust he had earned evaporated with the lack of transparency with the whole eSPLOST V process up to now. He relies on his staff, but most of the senior staff is still the same group of incompetents which have been in the central office since Dr. Atkinson.
The data used to put together the project list is severely flawed and contains numerous errors and omissions. I spoke to the BOE last February about the water coming into Midvale Elementary when it rains, however, even though there has been a work order to fix it since October 2015, the roof at Midvale received high marks and was not recommended for repair or replacement until 2025. The administration had nine months to consider that input, but the Facility Condition Assessment was never updated. The schedule of Facility Educational Adequacy Assessments was posted on the district’s website two months after they started. Stakeholder input during those assessments was NOT included in the final products.
Community input was done in highly controlled and filtered ways to provide the district with what it wanted to hear. Leading questions were asked or we were given two straw men to choose from. Questions for clarification and more information were ignored. One such question is, “since the district has more than 30 trailers in storage, and budgets $2 million each year for trailers, why are trailers included in eSPLOST V when the goal is to reduce the number of trailers?” I have been waiting for a response from Dan Drake since Oct. 13.
No SPLOST project list is set in stone. The BOE has always had the authority to modify it and has on several occasions.
Let me be clear, redistricting will be part of SPLOST V. I happen to think that is a good thing because I would rather see my tax dollars spent in classrooms than on busing students to schools which are farther away from their homes, but in their current cluster.
The district did not develop the project list in a transparent, systematic, or objective way. When the Midvale School Council asked to meet with someone regarding the errors and omissions in the Facility Condition Assessment and the Facility Educational Adequacy Assessment, no one from the central office would meet with us. However, when the Lakeside School Council had questions, Joshua Williams, himself, walked the building with them and made adjustments to the Facility Condition Assessment. Where is the objectivity in that?
I do not understand how or why certain projects are priorities. Apparently, the operations staff has problems with that too. The “Major System Replacement” proposed project list from October did not list Henderson Mill E.S. Fairington E.S. or Kittredge. The November list included them and dropped Brockett E.S., Canby Lane E.S., Chesnut E.S., Columbia E.S., Oakcliff E.S., Huntley Hills E.S., and Stone Mountain E.S. Henderson Mill E.S. now is the largest project on that list.
I do not understand how Musical Instruments and Equipment got added to the eSPLOST project list when there was no mention of them at any of the community meetings. I also don’t understand how musical instruments are considered capital equipment.
The school board should delay voting on the the project list until the district holds 10 more community input meetings (two in each region) to listen to what we have to say about it and answer our questions.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 6:53 am
Georgia Educator – I’m sorry but you are full of it. Period. I hope you don’t teach math. Because, clearly you either don’t understand basic statistics or you just see things through your own Rose colored glasses, and like Donald Trump, believe things to be true just because you say it. You and your ilk have been completely dismissive of the other side throughout this process, trying to belittle them, calling them hateful terms, and otherwise trying to minimize their opinions. You embody the same closenindedness that you, in your mind, believe you are rallying against. Instead, you show your hypocritical ways.
If you want to look at facts, here are a few:
– the following schools have come out against Option B: Lakeside, Chamblee high, Chamblee Middle, Sagamore, Montgomery, Oak Grove, and Austin.
– A building of Doraville High was preferred by the public – even with the rigged voting. When you combine A & C together, it is more than B. Again, math.
So for the love of God, you are free to state your opinion, but you need to stop factually stating that it is just a small band of rebels who are against this. It just further cements the point that you really have no clue.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 7:39 am
I originally supported a Doraville HS but, as someone who is open to new ideas, I began to see that that wasn’t necessary at this point. I live in Doraville. My kids would go to a new Doraville HS. However, I believe (as a six-year hs teacher) that we need to support expansion at chamblee and a reconstruction of a bigger ckhs. I will advocate tirelessly for the expansion to be done in the right way. However, I don’t believe a delay in the vote is the right way to go.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 7:52 am
I agree with Rebekah. To simply #delaythevote due to a very vocal minority in North/Central DeKalb who dislike Option B is not fair to the other students within DCSD. While the new facilities and capacity additions are a large component of the E-SPLOST V project list, they are by no means the only projects that will be put in jeopardy of being delayed or modified. There are schools across the county in line for school playground renovations, ADA modifications, new HVAC systems, roof replacement and other site improvements. One could argue that those items should be components of a General Budget and not an E-SPLOST project, but that is not reality at this point. There would need to be 4 BOE members willing to the #delaythevote. I do not believe those votes are there. Outside of the Dunwoody/Chamblee cluster projects, Clarkson HS is in Joyce Morley’s district; Freedon MS is in Melvin Johnson’s district; Cross Keys (old and new) in Marshall Orson’s district; Lakeside is in Jim McMahan’s district.
Per BOE Policy BH: Board members shall act in the best interest of the entire District and not a particular segment of the District.
Many will recall that failure to follow this directive was one of the reasons that DCSD lost its accreditation and former school board members were removed from their jobs by Governor Deal.
Also from BOE Policy BH: Board members shall carry out the duties of their office in a fair and impartial manner, unswayed by partisan bias or special interest groups of any kind. Hmmmm….
Yes, Kirk, Ramona Tyson should have been gone a long time ago…..
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 7:59 am
Thank you Paula!
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 3:04 pm
And just to be clear. There are 600 homes in the Sagamore Hills neighborhood alone (where Sagamore Hills Elementary sits). “FEW” is BEYOND the incorrect term. It’s a straight up lie. Many of us are planning to show up on Monday.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 9:39 am
Dan Drake told the audience at “On the Scene with Dr. Green” a vote by the BOE in February would not delay the issuance of bonds or any projects. So, why the rush?
What some people (myself included) are asking for is a conversation on the current project list now that the public has seen it. Personally, I am tired of the administration withholding information, then pulling a bait-and-switch with the projects.
I am glad the Cross Keys elementary-north was put back into the list, but other questions need to be answered. To not have more conversations would be continuing the DeKalb tradition of ignoring stakeholders to go ahead with what the administration had planned to all along. Dr. Green promised not to do that, but appears to be doing exactly that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 2, 2016 at 12:03 pm
Paula,
I am not interested in changing which Secondary Schools Study option is included. Like Rebekah, I supported the idea of a Doraville H.S. until I read the Huntley Hills position paper which makes more sense to me. Doraville will likely get a high school in SPLOST VI. Dr. Green will be gone by then and the next superintendent will have to deal with it. This plan is a way of kicking massive redistricting down the road. Dan Drake predicted the need to redistrict in 2017 within the Proposed 2016-17 School Organization (https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/ViewMeetingOrder.aspx?S=4054&MID=28652). Sorry. The document has been removed from eboard, but that is the link.
My concerns lie in the misapplication of bad data from the Facility Condition Assessments and the Facility Educational Adequacy Assessments.
My concerns are trailers, artificial turf, kitchen equipment, and band equipment being prioritized over repairing schools. In reality, none of these were in the “options” presented in October.
My concerns encompass why seven schools were dropped from the list of Major System Repairs and three schools added; schools which were not in any of the “options.”
My concerns include why the additional classrooms at Clarkston High are supposed to hold 24 students each when, in every other high school addition, the classrooms are supposed to hold 18 or 19. Why do active boards need to be replaced when three years ago the BOE was told the entire district would have the newest, state-of-the-art active boards?
My concerns involve a lack of communication and transparency, including updating the project list four days before the BOE is to vote on it without making any public announcement.
No. Most people are not going to change their minds about the proposed list and building a new Doraville H.S. However, there is much for the district to explain and many questions to be answered. Why not, with no risk of delaying anything, postpone the vote and have the administration demonstrate the transparency and openness which it claims to have? Why not answer the public’s questions? Why not hear feedback on the real project list? That, in itself, would be something I consider an accomplishment.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 12:39 pm
Fair enough Kirk. I now understand your concerns. My belief, however, is that any continued conversation about the project list is going to be drowned out by those whose only goal is that Doraville HS. I am willing to admit I could be wrong about the conversation, however.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 1:06 pm
And Kirk, I too, see your points, but like Paula, I think that we need to approve the list and remain vigilant as we implement the plan.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 10:18 am
Kirk, you know how much I respect your opinions. Here is one of my many thoughts on this subject:
Delaying the vote would not be the end of the world, but what would it accomplish really? Continued conversation on which items? Most, not all, stakeholders adamantly opposed to Option B have one mindset only – build a new Doraville HS. Period.the.End. They don’t want further conversation. The rhetoric is already ugly and divisive. Is 3 more months of this really going to bring about a consensus?
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 10:44 am
I can understand your position, but assure you that is the last thing desired. The consensus of people that I am in regular contact with is around collaboration and creative problem-solving. This whole thing has been set-up in a scarcity mentality – If we win, you lose. It is time for communities to come together, I attended a Chamblee-wide meeting this morning that had advocates of B and advocates of A. There was a lot of great discussion about moving away from this A/B model. I truly believe that is one important way to use the deferral period. There are a lot of creative solutions the County hasn’t considered yet – or perhaps considered far enough.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 4:17 pm
MES will also be out in full force. They are seeing a cluster in which they led the redevelopment of going by the wayside.
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 9:01 pm
Rebekah,
I see that you have edited your post, which is great. Thought you might be interested in this latest post:
http://factchecker.stanjester.com/2016/12/6896/
LikeLike
December 2, 2016 at 10:08 pm
Rebekah – 3 of the 4 high schools have now officially come out to #delaythevote. Ever think the small but vocal minority is you?
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 5:28 pm
Last I looked, Lakeside High School and Oak Grove Elementary supported the options on the table. Had some concern, sure. But not enough to request a deferment. Not enough clarification or justification to need a 60 day delay. LHS specifically wants the addition, sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
December 4, 2016 at 10:48 am
I made a mistake in an earlier comment. It is Cross Key where the additional classrooms are slated to have more students than the other high schools. Also, it is 35 students in each classroom; ten classrooms for 350 students.
LikeLike
December 4, 2016 at 5:06 pm
Again, I don’t have an issue with delaying the BOE vote, I’m concerned with the consequences of that delay. Continued angry rhetoric is not something I will support. Perhaps one of the other BOE member Orson or McMahan or Irwin can lead an adult, respectful conversation around the concerns. It is evident to me that Stan Jester has no interest in a constructive discussion.
LikeLike