The purpose of the Secondary School Facility Planning and Feasibility Study is to develop long-term plans for addressing capacity needs of the district’s middle schools and high schools.
Committees consisting of steering committee members and two representatives from each of the forty middle and high schools studied and discussed these pros and cons of the four potential options to address current and pending capacity needs. From these four options, over the next few weeks, the steering committee members will put together and recommend one (unchanged or modified) option to take to the public at the 3rd and final round of public input on Aug 23 and Aug 25 .
Based on 2022 Enrollment Projections
 |
|
| Pros | Cons |
| • Provides relief for projected over-capacity conditions at Dunwoody HS, Cross Keys HS, Lakeside HS, Clarkston HS, Lithonia HS, Chamblee MS, Peachtree MS, Sequoyah MS, Henderson MS and Freedom MS; • Eliminates 92 percent of current portable classrooms (60 of 64 total); • Uses existing site (Briarcliff) for new middle school • Relatively cost-efficient; • Would maintain one-to-one middle-to-high school feeder patterns where possible, except for Henderson MS; • Provides better balance of enrollment between middle schools and feeder high schools. |
• Would use most available E-SPLOST V funding for new facilities and additions, leaving limited funds to address additional elementary school needs; • Recommends new schools larger than DCSD standard for middle schools (1,200-seat) and high schools (1,600-seat). • Would not maintain one-to-one feeder pattern for Henderson MS (splits feed to Lakeside HS and New Sequoyah-area HS); • Provides only partial relief for over-capacity Chamblee HS; |
 |
|
| Pros | Cons |
| • Provides relief for projected over-capacity conditions at Dunwoody HS, Cross Keys HS, Lakeside HS, Clarkston HS, Lithonia MS & HS, Chamblee MS, Peachtree MS, Sequoyah MS, Henderson MS, Tucker MS & HS, Freedom MS and Miller Grove MS; • Eliminates 92 percent of current portable classrooms (60 of 64 total); • Minimizes attendance zone adjustments; • Relatively cost-efficient; • Recommends addressing needs at other schools using other E-SPLOST funds and funding beyond E-SPLOST; • Would maintain one-to-one middle-to-high school feeder patterns where possible; • Provides better balance of enrollment between middle schools and feeder high schools. |
• Would use most available E-SPLOST V funding for new facilities and additions, leaving limited funds to address additional elementary school needs; • Would not construct any new schools; • Cost-constrained due to limited E-SPLOST funding available; • Provides only partial relief for over-capacity Chamblee HS. |
 |
|
| Pros | Cons |
| • Provides relief for projected over-capacity conditions at Dunwoody HS, Cross Keys HS, Lakeside HS, Clarkston HS, Lithonia MS & HS, Chamblee MS, Chamblee HS, Peachtree MS, Sequoyah MS, Henderson MS, Tucker MS & HS, Freedom MS and Miller Grove MS; • Eliminates 92 percent of current portable classrooms (60 of 64 total); • Minimizes attendance zone adjustments; • Relatively cost-efficient; • Recommends addressing needs at other schools using other E-SPLOST funds and funding beyond E-SPLOST; • Would maintain one-to-one middle-to-high school feeder patterns where possible; • Provides better balance of enrollment between middle schools and feeder high schools; • Adds magnet programs to Southwest DeKalb HS cluster. |
• Would use most available E-SPLOST V funding for new facilities and additions, leaving limited funds to address additional elementary school needs; • Would not construct any new schools; • Relocates magnet programs away from Chamblee MS & Chamblee HS. |
 |
|
| Pros | Cons |
| • Best utilizes existing capacity by shifting students from overcrowded schools into schools where capacity exists; • Most cost-effective option; • Makes available at least one new middle school facility (Miller Grove) for school choice programs or other DCSD program needs; • Uses existing site (Briarcliff) for new middle school |
• Disrupts every cluster with attendance zone shifts at every middle school and every high school; • Loses MS-HS one-to-one feeders, and may lose some ESMS one-to-one feeders; • Does not provide complete relief for over-capacity schools; • Still would cost approximately $96 million. |
Pros & Cons
Planning and Feasibility Study Options
July 25, 2016 – Committees consisting of steering committee members and two representatives from each of the forty middle and high schools studied and discussed these pros and cons of the four potential options to address current and pending capacity needs.
Cost Estimates
Planning and Feasibility Study Options
July 20, 2016 – Based on 2022 enrollment projections, the Steering Committee discussed these Cost Estimates for the four potential options to address current and pending capacity needs.
DeKalb Secondary School Facility Planning and Feasibility Study
July 18, 2016 – The study will identify the challenges and opportunities facing each middle school and high school, determine options to address the needs identified, and prepare regional master plans to implement the options. Here are the problems, the funds and the options.
Chamblee Magnet Program – Is it moving?
July 13, 2016 – Any truth to the rumor of moving the magnet program from Chamblee Middle and Chamblee High? Steering committees discussed the pros and cons of the following four potential options to address current and pending capacity needs.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
I’m opposed to any plan moving Chamblee magnet programs. Trying to put magnet programs in the middle of county (though really is more south-leaning) and having all magnet families handling their own transportation, supporting school, etc., is a mess. One south, one north – or better yet, add magnet capacity to let in more kids, as so many never make it through the lottery.
So….I think there’s a flaw in the thinking around option 2b, in that it assumes that all of the children in the Chamblee magnets will follow the magnet program when it moves 20 miles away.
I suspect that the percentage who choose to do so will be less than 100%, and those that do not choose to do so will end up returning to the schools in their attendance zone, increasing their populations.
It would have been more realistic to have polled the population of the magnet programs to determine how many would be willing to relocate, and apply that percentage to the number of students relocating.
Who benefits from the Magnet being located in differing places. Obviously, Dunwoody residents benefit from it being at CCHS versus say, Avondale or Stone Mountain. But the numbers show that EVEN located at CCHS the majority of the enrollment comes from communities to its south as per this data: http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/www/documents/planning/2016/october-hs-(2015).pdf
I get that moving the DeKalb County High Achievers Magnet for High Achievers from CCHS to really anywhere farther south is a negative impact on transportation for Dunwoody parents. I think it is equally important to consider the improvement it would make for the overwhelming majority of the current enrollment. Let’s agree that wherever it is located will have winners and losers. Right now, yes, Dunwoody is a winner with the current location. That is hard to argue with.
Interesting. Assuming we split region 3 in half (Clarkston and Stone Mountain on one side, Redan and Stephenson on the other), about 1/3 of the CCHS magnet population comes from schools that would otherwise be geographically closer to SW DeKalb. Whereas about 10% of the SW DeKalb magnet program comes from schools that would otherwise be closer to CCHS.
My question is…..Why the discrepancy?
Why do half of the students from schools closer to SW Dekalb choose not to attend that magnet program and instead go to one further away?
There are grand myths of superiority in south DeKalb about our schools in this area, in general, that draw. That is true at Dunwoody, Chamblee, Cross Keys (yes, even CK!), Tucker, Druid Hills and Lakeside. It is a well known secret that address fraud has brought many kids to our area schools, especially Lakeside. It is also popular with employees of DCSD. It aligns with the myths and politics of North vs South, Black vs White with the idea being that our area gets special treatment. Very sad but that is the legacy in our communities from my experience.
I would like to know where the 64 trailers are that are discussed in options 1 & 2. Considering there are approximately 400 trailers in use in the district, what is the plan to eliminate the other 340?
Minimizing attendance zone adjustments is a CON, not a PRO for any plan. What world do the consultants live in where it makes sense to build capacity in one part of the county when there is excess capacity in other parts? Also, I want to say changing schools is much harder on parents than it is on students. Get over it people.
Stan, your biases are showing in this post. None of the options provides complete relief to overcapacity schools. Losing one-to-one feeder patterns is something that should be considered a PRO. Sending students to the geographically closest high school should be the goal.
Given the capital improvement needs and the maintenance needs of the district, a secondary schools capacity solution needs to be cost effective and sensible. Maintaining the status quo should not even be considered. We need to rethink and redesign the school district.
Breakup all the current clusters and redistrict the entire county? Sounds like you would throw Communities of Interest to the wind.
Please tell us more about your plan to redesign the school district and provide complete relief to overcapacity schools.
I can speak the question of why someone in north Dekalb would drive to Wadsworth vs Kittredge. A colleague at work entered her child in both lotteries. They got a spot at Wadsworth and not Kittredge. They are considering wadsworth- not everyone gets into Kittredge via the lottery (and vice Versa) so there is part of your answer.
I am a parent of a magnet student at CCHS. Our family lives in Region 2 and we commute to school. The location is feasible for us, as our jobs are a bit north of CCHS. If the magnet program moves to SW DeKalb, the Atlanta traffic would make it impossible for our family. Factor in clubs/sports/band/PTA/school events, and it would be a real
challenge just to manage the trips to/from school. I suspect that might be true for other magnet families who commute to CCHS from areas south as well. The impact of travel demands on the students and families needs to be considered. Either leave it as is, with offerings in either end of the county, or designate a more central location.
KG,
It’s a bit simplistic to state that the majority of students in the magnet program live south of Dunwoody and CCHS given that those areas are the northern end of the county. We live in the Lakeside area, and many magnet students come from Lakeside, Tucker, Druid Hills – CCHS is still a closer drive by many, many miles. There is no way SW Dekalb would be convenient for the majority.
@DeKalb Inside Out, you are correct in stating my plan would break up current “communities of interest” if the definition of that is a school cluster. You seem to overlook the fact new “communities of interest” would be formed to replace the current ones.
This is what I wrote last year regarding redistricting. http://dunwoodyschooldaze.blogspot.com/2015/11/guest-post-case-for-redistricting.html
Another thing that hasn’t been shared in this discussion, but was communicated during the previous public input meetings, is the purpose for (potentially) relocating the high achievers magnet program is to stop the drain of students from south-to-north.
One of the reasons there are so many open seats in some schools is because many of the attendance zone parents drive their children to other schools. Moving the magnet program is supposed to stop that and keep students in schools which are currently under capacity.
I believe it is the least well thought out part of the proposals, would not address the underlying issues, and fail to solve any problems. Adding more magnet seats makes much more sense and causes no hard feelings
A Community of Interest is a “group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social and/or economic interests.” We use Communities of Interest to define school and political districts, not the other way around.
Interesting. The City of Lakeside tried to use the school feeder zone to define their community of interest.
They shouldn’t take a well-established program with teachers and kids who came to that school which is working in synch with non-magnet and expect the same quality to happen in another location, particularly one all the way on the other side of the county. Moreover South Dekalb already has magnet option(s) and if extra seats there, some redistricting and/or consolidation should be considered. Finally, I feel confident that the moving of the magnet will cause harm to CMS and CHS with the magnets being a strong asset for attracting teachers, leading to many vibrant teams and clubs and always giving our Brookhaven and Chamblee residents at least a hope (even if not a slot) that if they keep applying they may eventually get a slot. In the high school, magnet and resident students are mixed quite a bit in AP and other courses, and in my opinion, all students benefit from the opportunity to be around the high calibre students in advanced and AP courses. Our magnet program is recognized and known by colleges and sets our school and our Chamblee Charter High graduates apart.
Hi Mel, not sure how I ended up at “KG” up there but that’s me. Yes, SWDHS is too far for most North DeKalb families. That isn’t the metric I would use, though, because the working documents posted here aren’t real in that regard. The SWDHS reference was a random and convenient one used to connect the two sites together implying “centralizing.” Was that inartful? Yes. Is it a problem? Only when the documents are shared without introduction by the planning department that created them.
So we are in vehement agreement that SWDHS is too far. Is Briarcliff HS? Is Stone Mtn MS? Is Avondale MS/HS? Other or new sites not identified? We are not furthering the discussion to say SWDHS is too far.
The actual options are now published. Much to digest: http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/secondary-school-facility-planning-and-feasibility-study/
If Brookhaven continues its rapid regentrification there will be no worries about over population at Cross Keys and Sequoiah. They are forcing people out in droves because they can’t afford to live there anymore. The population of young folks will likely decrease 25% if they continue at this pace.