In addition to the proposed 750 seat addition to Lakeside HS, the school district has announced it’s intention to redistrict 250 students currently attending LHS to the new Brookhaven High School cluster. The stated reason for this potential redistricting is to alleviate the estimated overcrowding at LHS.
There are other redistricting efforts in neighboring clusters as well. Sources have indicated that school district officials may target certain elementary schools for redistricting on the basis of socio-economics and demographics.
DeKalb School District has a policy on school attendance zones – “Policy AD – School Attendance Areas“. Policy AD does not contain any considerations for demographic or socio-economic factors when proposing attendance zones or redistricting.
Various sources have previously indicated that the school district intended to redistrict Sagamore ES, but I have since learned that other schools are being considered in addition to Sagamore.
On November 10, Dan Drake (Director of Planning and SPLOST Programming) and Jim McMahan (Lakeside area Board of Education representative) met with Sagamore residents at Oak Grove Methodist church. At that meeting, Dan Drake set the record straight. As one of the attendees reported to me,
Mr. Drake explained that the school system had not made a determination yet about which school might be redistricted and that they had not specified Sagamore. Someone in the audience asked, “So you might move students from Oak Grove or Hawthorne instead?” To which Mr. Drake said something like “Since we don’t know where the new school will be and that decision will be made at a later date, but yes, it could be Oak Grove or Hawthorne.”
Mr. Drake’s response seems to indicated that the district intends to move an elementary school out of the Lakeside HS feeder pattern to a new Brookhaven HS.
The problem I see with redistricting Hawthorne, Oak Grove or Sagamore Hills to the new Brookhaven cluster, is that it appears to violate DSCD Policy AD.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
So it is no longer the Cross Keys Cluster? School Administration has already made their mind up. It was a done deal before they started with their Community Meetings. So they will be the savior of Brookhaven….Dunwoody….Lakeside….Good job solving the Cross Keys problem. Sure South Dekalb will think highly of the list of projects. They will really appreciate tha artificial turf for their practice fields. Will help improve the academics at their schools.
How can schools like Oak Grove, which according to the graphic provided, be redistricted to another school l?
This seems very unfair to the parents and students at Oak Grove. It does seem to be in violation of the BOE’s own policy. What is the true reason for this? How is this in the best interest of the children at Oak Grove? Shouldn’t the needs of all the children in the distict be considered?
Based on this graphic Montclair and Dresden “might” move to Lakeside. They are closer than Henderson Mill, right? But that isn’t real because of where the surrounding MS and HS capacity is located. We are trying to spread more FUD.
Does anyone realize that the cluster involves a middle school which is on the opposite end of the cluster? No? It figures.
Kim Gokce,
If you were to be in charge of redistricting, how would you draw the attendance areas? Where would you send kids to school?
Certainly does seem like Montclair and Dresden would fit nicely into that Lakeside High / Henderson middle feeder zone. Possibly more so than Pleasantdale.
Anonymous if I were in charge, Lakeside probably wouldn’t be in the discussion vis-a-vis the proposed new HS.
Kim Gokce,
If you were in charge, how would you design the high school clusters?
Anonymous – I would design them veeeeeery carefully. Really?
I know you realize you are asking an impossible question with a loooooooong list of assumptions about a future state of things. There is a reason why DCSD isn’t drawing maps – it isn’t possible today and all hypotheticals will simply piss off this or that constituent.
Kim Gokce
I’m not asking DeKalb, I’m asking you. How would YOU design attendance zones? What schools go to what high schools? As the spokesperson for the Cross Keys Foundation, I think that you should have an idea of what you would like to see. Please tell us how this would work from your perspective.
Oh, Anonymous! If you insist on this waste of time, you draw a map and I’ll tell you what problems or improvements I see in the scenario you draw. Ready when you are. GO!
What’s that? You can’t do that because there’s too many assumptions you’d have to make and the data is going to change depending on a few dozen of those assumptions? That’s ok. We’ll wait while you draw that out and explain those hundreds of combinations. Good?
Stan, is this when you share your map that represents the “right” solution? As a system leader and the host of this blog surely you have a map at the ready you can post here, right? Of course not. It’s a ridiculous task and that is why there are none for any option A, B, or C as a point in time analysis.
The only maps that I have seen that have been tossed around have been scenarios for what a cluster might look like if a HS were built at the BHS site. And EVEN that is founded on many, many assumptions and not worth the paper it is written on.
If nobody knows who is being redistricted where…..how can the Board vote on the additions to any school? Don’t you need all the facts before the vote. Think it is time to take a long hard look at the Planning Dept. Think they are failing the Board and the entire county again. Definitely the last time I vote for ESPLOST without a firm list of projects…
Tim, drawing maps is not facts. I appreciate everyone’s frustration with the unknown – that is natural. But what is being demanded as a prerequisite to a Board decision is only a way to create fear, uncertainty and doubt. Can you draw the map today for the planned John Lewis ES on Skyland Dr for its opening in the fall of 2019 and guarantee us it won’t be different when it opens in three years? Of course not. That’s what critics are asking DCSD to do for dozens of potentially impacted school districts that all have interdependence not only on each other but also on enrollment figures between 3 to 5 years into the future. Not feasible and that is why no one, not DCSD, not its critics can produce a map with any fidelity. Let me see one critic produce a credible map and them lets talk. All the “facts” are published. Why haven’t critics done this?
Kim, if you do not know which students are going to which schools, how can you say that Lakeside needs a 750 seat addition while Cross Leys only needs a 600 seat addition? To many unknowns without enough facts. The Administration is slipping into the Pat Pope mindset. How many millions of dollars are being spent on parking decks and artificial turf. Exactly how is either one of these major expenditures is improving the level of Education in Dekalb. Want my idea DCSD needs more than it can afford. Rehab Briarcliff for less than $30 million that would save over $45 million to build a Middle School. Make Sagamore Hills, Montclair andBriar Vista it’s cluster. Make it Charter Magnet School. This would free up seats at Lakeside Cross Keys and Druid Hills. All of which are overcrowded. You also free seats at Chamblee by moving Magnet program. Plus it would make it easier to get parents onboard the redistricting. DCSD needs Briarcliff as insurance in case Druid Hills is lost to APS. Their will be many Dekalb students that will not be eligible to go to APS
Honestly think DCSD Planning Dept should be able to plan more than a couple of years ahead. Our area needs at least 2 more High Schools. Continuously adding on to existing schools is short term expensive planning. There is not enough space left at existing schools.
Tim, all the projects proposed will remain just that after approval: proposed. What I mean is that, of course, the projects would be approved to move forward. But that doesn’t mean DCSD doesn’t adapt the sites and the plans to the needs as they are evolving over time. Again, we are demanding a higher level of certainty that is possible.
You know who would have given you certainty about projects? Dr. Lewis and Pat Pope. They “promised” to take care of Cross Keys HS … lol. They “promised” to build an Arts School at BHS. They made many promises that were useless in the end. I don’t want promises – I want a plan. DCSD has proposed one. Let’s hope the BoE is savvy enough to realize how to manage via plans rather than promises.
To invoke the name of Pat Pope, a convicted felon, in this dialog is over the top. You and I both interacted with DCSD in those days and I hope you are not comparing Dr. Green to Dr. Lewis and Joshua Williams to Pat Pope. I know better than that and you should, too.
I respect you, Tim, but we are FAR from dealing with a criminal enterprise. Yellow card!
Let’s do an exercise here folks. If every school had exactly the same racial and socioeconomic breakdown, would Option B really be the right solution? Would renovating all these schools and creating facilities that are way too large for the land in which they sit be the best solution when most of the problem could be solved with just one new high school in the north part of Doraville? I think if you ask yourself that question, you will discover the agenda here is mandated diversity vs. an alleviation of overcrowding. And that folks, is illegal.
Kim, actually I was talking about lousy planning and being fiduciary minded with taxpayers money. But since you brought up I will does make me wonder why and how you are willing to put off delivering the fastest relief possible for Cross Keys. You say you want a plan. That is something we both agree. The Administration is asking the Board approval for their so called plans. As one person said to me at Public meeting about this…..how can I vote for any option if I might be voting for his kids to be redistricted.
Now they need to show what their big picture is and how it effect everybody.
Tim, I assume you mean reno and re-open of Briarcliff. DSCD has repeatedly indicated that is not an option. It was not presented among the options. To suggest I’m against “fastest” relief for ou kids is simply wrong and hard for me to process. Delaying the vote for construction projects sure as hell isn’t going to accelerate relief for these kids and schools. We have to respectfully disagree about that.
I know that both Montgomery and Sagamore will be fighting hard to #deferthevote. Both have gotten extremely organized. Too many major decisions without enough facts or clarity – having a vote on this without the available information is a disservice to the taxpayers.
My My everyone. Don’t you see what DCSD is trying to do. They are attempting to turn neighbor against neighbor. So far they have done a pretty good job. I attended that meeting with Dan Drake. I also observed him closely when I listened to him give his reports. If he is talking then…. you fill in the blanks.
What I have seen is that there are several alternatives available to fix some of these problems. Unfortunately many affected by the decision have taken the “my way or highway” stance. As someone so aptly pointed out here… the middle school is the problem. That is what we need first. The worst thing we have to face is that whenever there is severe overcrowding how do we move people so there is minimal effect on their lives. That is not always easy to do.
Kim, I have no problem delaying the vote. What I am talking about is the way Briarcliff site or land of equal value. This leaves it open ended while they look for land of equal value…. The only reason Briarcliff was not offered as an option is Taj Mahal thinking. Joshua Williams does not want to rehab Briarcliff so it was never offered as an option. Sorry but as far as Briarcliff site said it before and will say it again DCSD needs that property for insurance against losing Druid Hills due to annexation. Which if I was on this Board would also give me seconds thoughts of locating any new building inside a municipality. Brookhaven and Dunwoody both want their own school systems. So DCSD ma y lose anything they build.
Georgia Tech did a wonderful School Siting and Design Study with recommendations which should be followed.
The authors of this study recommended that schools become ‘community centers’ with sites picked for safety, traffic, bikeability, and walkability.
It is very shortsighted to redistrict Oak Grove, Sagamore, or Hawthorne for a new Brookhaven school solely for demographic or socioeconomic reasons contrary to Georgia law. These communities are geographically separated from Brookhaven by I-85. I-85 cannot be crossed over on side roads and forms a serious traffic barrier, making it impossible to walk or bike over.
The Briarcliff and Brookhaven plans were likely cooked up to make it more acceptable to Brookhaven residents to un-gerrymander their district. Some feel that gerrymandering is wrong, but so is busing. In fact, busing students is illegal and unconstitutional. It is very shortsighted for DeKalb’s future.
Sagamore and Oak Grove are real communities that should be respected. A Brookhaven school should only be for Brookhaven residents. Also, ease of transport should be one of the main criteria in school redistricting. Geographical proximity is not equivalent to traffic. Just because parts of Brookhaven are within a particular mile-radius of these communities does not mean these communities should cross over I-85 daily.
Anyway, these ‘sources’ meeting in secret should make their plans a lot more multi-dimensional and democratic!!!
All: Please take the time to read it. http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/e-splost/files/2016/11/FAQ_20161118__.pdf
Bill, Thanks for the link to the “Frequently Asked Questions for Secondary School Study”. Which FAQs did you find most interesting and relevant?
#17 & #18 – I’m telling people “stop complaining, get on the committee.” At least stay in close communication with those who are on it.
Is it perfect? no. But as I commented on your new post, I’m satisfied enough to support moving on with the vote on 12/5. I know others won’t be. I am also of the opinion that no amount of answers would satisfy some. Unless the plan changed too. To what they want.
How can they vote if Planning Dept doesn’t even know what the big picture plans are????
Does anyone know what is driving the December vote? I see they created a timeline to create plans and then vote in December and that the tax starts collecting in July 2017. But, if there are reasons to postpone the vote as many have mentioned, is that a real possibility or was there a need to get it passed by this December date? It looks like there is time since we are not even collecting the tax until July 2017.
Dear OGEparent,
Work on the E-SPLOST-V project list will begin as soon as it is approved. Slide 38 in Joshua Williams’ presentation of the Proposed E-SPLOST-V Project List is the following:
Next Steps
December 7, 2016: Board approval of the 2017-2022 E-SPLOST Project List
December 2016 –January 2017:Develop cost-loaded schedule in support of the Board-approved E-SPLOST Project List
February 6, 2017:Board adopts Bond Resolution (approximately $130 million) to accelerate E-SPLOST Program
February 23, 2017:Bond funding available
March 2017:Board approval of E-SPLOST project budgets and anticipated start and finish dates
July 1, 2017: Sales tax revenue collections start for new E-SPLOST
I don’t know what is driving the goal of setting project budgets and anticipated start and finish dates by March. I suppose it is due to the enormous bid process that will be required for all of the projects.
I think there’s more than a month-for-month slip should the Bond Resolution be delayed from February 6. Perhaps I have that incorrect. Stan, do you know the details?
If the board votes and approves Plan B, they should be sued and they should be enjoined from implementing the plan. The plan was designed in secret. The public’s opinion was ignored. The stakeholder’s real concerns were not recorded on DeKalb’s website. The plan was designed to fix demographic problems in other regions – not the Lakeside region which is being split and destroyed. The plan buses Lakeside students out of their district. The plan was pushed heavily by people who likely were acting in sync to drum up fake activism in the Cross Keys district. The survey had the same people vote repeatedly. Sagamore students were not kept at Lakeside as the publix wanted. Traffic patterns were entirely ignored without any studies. This is an unacceptable plan. Working on a committee to implement a plan that is flawed to its very core will not satisfy parents.
The money won’t come in until July, but the school district plans on bonding up to $200 million as soon as possible. What’s driving this December date? Perhaps they want to get the show on the road (for those who support Option B). Perhaps they want to shove this through as quickly as possible (for those who support a Doraville High School).
Aren’t we still waiting on a new Pleasnatdale Elementary school funded under E-Splost IV and lots if other projects? I’m questioning the haste by the planning department to push through E-Splost V.
Anon – You nailed it. This entire thing has been rigged. You also didn’t mention the secret focus groups that were held with Dan Drake in late August with a group stacked with folks that were adamantly singing the benefits of Option B. In other words, telling Dan and company what they wanted to hear. In addition, if you look at the designs they are dated from June. This entire thing has been a complete waste of time. They know exactly what they’ve wanted to do the entire time – they just sought public input to cover their proverbial ass. This school system is as crooked as its ever been. I’d pay particular attention to the awarding of the contracts too….I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day….
I think the issue of getting the Board to vote on something before the end of 2016 is important. It must be stopped. It is about getting bonds out that probably marry the district to a particular path. That path isn’t good for Lakeside, Chamblee, Dunwoody, or Brookhaven.
Stan – that’s about as even-handed a summary that can be here. I think we know where the other stands – we certainly find ourselves on opposite sides. But your statement is a clear one.
I wish everyone would just use their actual names on here; you lose your credibility when you post anonymously.
Good for the planning department to explicitly state in the FAQ that we will finally have kids attending per the attendance policy AD; if this had been followed for the last 15 years then Silver Lake kids would have been at Woodward, the southern part of the Ashford Park district would have been routed into Montclair and Cross Keys, and Cary Reynolds kids would have been at Chamblee HS. It’s long overdue to bring us into compliance with the district’s own policies to get kids to their closest schools; for our area, if redistricting would focus just on geography, we’ll end up with a good mix of single family homes and apartments in both clusters, and across as many of the ES’s as possible.
By the way, Lakeside HS has a neat idea in their position paper, proposing a separate ninth grade academy as opposed to an outright expansion. Given the underutilized commercial property near Chamblee HS, that might be a solution for the Chamblee HS expansion – it’s not like Chamblee Plaza’s being actively developed! That can be worked out in the design phase, however – maybe we just need one of the strips across C-D to take care of parking (don’t move Dandy Donuts though!) and preserve some of green space on the current CCHS campus. Chamblee City Council will be an important stakeholder in that discussion.
I’m fine with looking into a 9th grade academy. That sounds like a viable solution, but that should be finalized before the vote. The board will be voting on a 600 seat addition on campus. Buying a piece of land and building a 9th grade academy is a different project … even if it’s right next door.
I agree with Scott, easy to be tough and divisive posting anonymously. You’ve got a position, stand behind it, as yourself. Anon, Run Amok, to me I feel better standing behind my thoughts, with my name.
As for this “it’s all rigged” “it’s no better than before” “they won’t really listen to us” “if you believe Drake & Co. then you are being duped, you are naïve” on & on, well I’ll cross-post this, under my own name:
I for one do not consider myself naïve. I’ve been “dealing with” with DeKalb schools, the board, superintendents, the central office, for over 12 years. And by “dealing with” I mean “fighting against,” or at best advocating against their policies and plans. To me, so far, Green is not Lewis (or the others) far from it. It is early, but I have newfound confidence in our system under him and the team he is building. I’ll add that if you think this mantra “we need more time for facts, once we have them we’ll be satisfied and push for a vote” is being bought by me, we’ll you are mistaken if you think us Option B supporters are naïve enough to buy that. I’m not sure many, if not most, of the “delay the vote” crowd will be satisfied with anything less than a delay long enough to change the entire plan to their own.
I came back from the School Council meeting last month thinking & telling others “if he (Green) can pull off half of what he’s planning, we’ll be far ahead of where are now. My kids will be better off, yours will too.”
And that meeting was evidence of an improved opportunity for true input from parents, especially from the “organized bodies” level, such as the School Councils. I’m on my second stint on a Council now, and I can say that while I felt our input was valued by the Principal & was effective locally in our own school, it didn’t reach anywhere outside, even if it was theoretically possible. It was “lip service.”
But now, under Green, there is a true mechanism, an actual department with real people set out to interact with the councils. A uniform structure for the operation of the councils is being put into place, and interaction between the various councils is being encouraged, to an extent expected. Also, the roles of the Regional Supers. with Green’s concepts of micro-cabinets, it is concrete, real. At least for Region 1, my interaction with Sherry Johnson, has been excellent. She spoke of the “buy-in” of the teachers and school community as playing a vital role in the success of Huntley Hills. She is right. And I see an opportunity for a larger “buy-in” with her on the Regional level, leading to success for Chamblee Cluster, and all of Region 1. I for one, I’m buying in.
I understand that’s not the venue to impact the planning we are dealing with. Rather, that will take these School Council Construction Committees. You say that’s lip-service, there will be no real input. Maybe not, but to me, this veteran DeKalb parent, I don’t think so. No, they’re not going to be taking blueprints and renderings from a group of parents, but will there be meetings and planning taking place over time, with true changes made based on the input they are seeking, at least I think so.
This system, under Dr. Green, it feels different to me, it looks different. If you persist in this “same old – same old” argument, well, it might be true. But you better hope not – you better hope you’re wrong. I think you are. Otherwise, we’ll all find ourselves 3-4 years from now in the same place, no progress, a push to get rid of the super. & a new board. The losers then? The kids. They’ve lost long enough.
For the first time in a long time I have true hope. Don’t mistake that hope for naivety.
Have a great Holiday weekend, a Happy Thanksgiving!
And then hope to see/hear from many of you on 12/5, I’ll be there. Speaking in my own name, in front of any/all to see.
Amen, Stan!
A BOE vote to approve the E-SPLOST-V Project List in December is binding and basically stops any alternate options. Approving the Project List means that DCSD is accountable for specific projects with specific budget amounts.
After a BOE vote on a specific E-SPLOST-V Project List, DCSD is not authorized to use E-SPLOST-V funds for anything other than those approved projects.
Once the A&E contract is signed for a specific project, it is possible that the “feasible concept” will be shown to be infeasible. Maybe more land is needed, requiring more funds. Maybe the local municipality does not grant a zoning variance, meaning more funds for more design work. There is a mechanism for dealing with this, but remember that the contingency budget for all E-SPLOST-V projects is just $25 million for $481 million worth of projects. That’s slightly over 5%. That doesn’t sound like much to me given the wide range of concerns still remaining for the new facility and addition projects, which total $261 million.
The time to look at details is now, BEFORE the E-SPLOST-V Project List comes to a vote. That is why I support delaying the E-SPLOST-V vote. Or maybe the BOE could approve projects in Categories 1, 3, 4, 5 and allow some extra time for finalizing Category 2, New Facilities and Additions. That way, progress could begin on safety and security improvements, new playgrounds, new roofs and HVAC systems, buying buses and band equipment, etc. and buy a bit more time to solve the overcrowding problem in middle and high schools. We’ve got to get this right.
If you did a 9 th grade academy WHY wouldn’t you just put a high school in Doraville. That school would need to be staffed just like a school! I have not dead why people are SO opposed to giving Doraville a school in their area! Don’t the deserve one? I think I high school would be just what that community needs. FYI…. SMS was a high school at one point. This area is booming, they need a school. Imagine students in this community being able to walk to school and attend after school activities without transportation concerns. Also, Chamblee City Council has already stated that they will not support the additions. This was discussed with the initial negotiations of the new CCHS. I applaud Chamblee for sticking to their vision and protecting the area for more traffic congestion.
‘Anonymous’ (if that is your real name) – it’s all about the land required. There’s enough available close by Chamblee HS that could be available to expand the campus, or set up an area with additional classrooms in near proximity. I can give three or four possibilities, but they can all be worked out in design after the vote. 30 acres in Doraville for a brand new high school does not exist. If you want to keep advocating that an alternative exists, show where the land is on the market. And if you are advocating that eminent domain be used, then you really mean that you don’t want it solved for another five years.
Eventually we are going to have to build a Doraville High School. The development of GM Plant site alone will be a catalyst for population growth and a serious increase in property values. Land is only going to get more expensive.
Just because a piece of land doesn’t have a For Sale sign out front doesn’t mean the owners won’t sell it. There are numerous run down or abandoned properties the school district could approach. Take the Presidential Towers at spaghetti junction as an example.
I agree. Now is the time to figure this out. Five years from now will be more difficult and more expensive. How about renovating Sequoyah Middle to make it the new Doraville High School? It was a high school originally, so I’m guessing it has enough land for a high school? Then finding the right amount of land for a middle school is less daunting. Also, Chamblee land near Doraville is an option.
Scott. Where is such land in Chamblee??
Scott – get a clue dude! Plenty of land available. You just don’t want to see it. Atlanta silverbacks, Hotel on peachtree and 85, GM site, Jim Hearn driving range, Sequoyah middle.
What makes you think you can take the land at Chamblee plaza? You’re a clueless partisan hack.
Scott – You also need to learn local geography. Depending on what side of Silver Lake you live on, you are either closer to Montgomery (Cambridge, Hampton Hall) or closer to Ashford Park (Brittany). No one is closer to Woodward.
And, I’ll add that the County seems more than willing to find a “revenue neutral” site to build a new Cross Keys High (assuming a sell of Birarcliff), so why can’t they take the same stance with a Doraville High? Isn’t land also at a premium and just as hard to find in Brookhaven? Things that make you go hmmmm.
Most of you are not asking the right, most urgent, question. Who will second any motion Stan makes? I think he has burned some bridges among other board members — and unless McMahon gets up the guts to second anything Stan suggests, this isn’t going anywhere.
By making such a big deal over the naming of John Lewis Elementary School, not once, but twice, he has made himself a big of an outcast on the Board. Only Morley may have less support when she suggests stuff.
So I suggest, if your priority is a slowdown on the high school plans, lobby the rest of the Board.
McMahon is in a dangerous position. Because without an addition at Lakeside, hundreds of students will be redistricted out, much more than just Sagamore (or whomever goes to the new school).
Also, keep in mind, as you make suggestions that the new high school has to relieve Dunwoody, Cross Keys and Lakeside, so a Doraville location must be central. The Silverback stadium won’t work. Unless Hightower ends up at Chamblee.
Finally, the most logical solution of moving the magnet program from CCHS to a central (not South) location is one that would provide the quickest overcrowding relieve. So there is that.
Have a good holiday.
The board is a bunch of figure heads that say yes to whatever the administration wants. When has the board ever voted no on anything? When has anybody on the board ever moved to do anything but Stan. How many times did Stan move to raise teachers’ salaries only to get voted down 6-1. Even Orson and McMahan are just pawns of the administration. Aside from fulfilling legal requirements, after hiring a Superintendent, what purpose does our board of education serve whatsoever?
If any decisions and changes in this project list are made, it’ll be made by Dan Drake and Superintendent Green … not by this useless board. BTW: I’m not singling out this board in particular. Most boards of education across the state are equally as useless … no offense.
Don’t post anonymously – it’s hard to tell what your actual agenda is, or if you are a sock puppet.
Anyway…
1. Presidential center is the other side of 85, much like the Briarcliff site. If one has a problem, why doesn’t the other?
2. Jim Hearn site is interesting. Not sure how big it is though. Might be more in play as the second new ES, although it’s really too far west for that, I think.
3. If you put a new high school at the site of Sequoyah, where does the middle school go? Not sure that actually helps the problem.
4. I used Silver Lake as a general label for that part of Brookhaven that’s not actually West Chamblee – really, the old Jim Cherry ES area. Still, I think you’d have an easier run down North Druid rather than fighting through the A-D/JF intersection that Brookhaven says they have to rebuild.
5. Possibilities around Cham HS…as I said Chamblee Plaza’s deeply underutilized and after five years their developers haven’t shown that they have a reasonable plan. If we just need space for a satellite parking lot, the strip across C-D doesn’t have a lot of businesses in it right now to be displaced. The little medical building in front would be an easy move. I believe I saw a sale sign on the light industrial strip on Pierce at the back. The DDA has been buying up a bunch of property just across Ptree Blvd along American Industrial. This is all just off the top of my head – and not all of this has to work, just what’s needed to fit the additional kids, and work for City Council.
And really, looking at the feasibility plan, it might just be a matter of coming up with a parking deck solution that works for council. Fixing parking is a heck of a lot easier than finding a brand new 30 acre site.
Sock puppet? Really? This is why some don’t like to put their names. Many are VERY rude when they don’t agree with you and others. It’s easy to throw out names and labels, as you just did; just want to be heard without being attacked.
Scott Gillispie, anonymous, Survey Says … none of those names mean any more to me than any other name. I noticed Scott Gillispie (if that’s even a real person) doesn’t even bother registering with WordPress … just fills out that name like any other anonymous person.
Scott – I was beginning to think you weren’t real, do tell me is that really your real name? Sure it’s what you have people call you, but when I drove by your house a few minutes ago I was thinking “what if Scott was really an alien in human form” and part of their plot to overthrow Huntley Hills is to enroll their “children” in the school to gain access to the school to set up a mind control machine.
Oh, unless I’m the alien. I hope nobody Google’s us – it will blow our cover – the good ole “hiding in plain sight” – the humans fall for it all the time. Especially the anonymous ones.
Heck Scott – now we’re going to get new fake driver’s licenses and everything.
The proposed map for CCHS and the new Cross Keys (and the objection to a Doraville HS) has been 100% socio-economic and demographic engineering. More than a few people have objected to Doraville HS because it would be a Cross Keys 2.0. Doesn’t this violate the same Policy AD as these Lakeside possibilities?
I am sure the land can be bought in Doraville more cheaply than the other areas discussed. I know someone willing to sell 10+ acres of apartments adjacent to 3 warehouses and other apartments. 4 parcels with frontage on 2 major streets close to Marta rail would be about 28 acres. It can be done.
Max, you should connect that someone with the DSCD Planning Dept. HS or MS or ES they will need land in many future scenarios.
Since the passing of Option B earlier this month the conversation seems to have died down. It appears there is overwhelming opposition to option B, especially those with Sagamore families, is this a done deal? Is there an opportunity to make things right? Considering the socioeconomic drive that is supposedly illegal, is there a potential to stop this on the basis of that alone?
Liz, Allow me to summarize in broad strokes the opposition to the current plan.
• Chamblee Cluster – Chamblee HS and MS school councils strongly oppose this plan. Note: Ashford Park and Huntley Hills ES within the cluster are for the plan.
• Dunwoody Cluster – Dunwoody HS and MS school councils were originally for the plan. DHS school council changed their minds when the school administration released the actual plans for what DHS was going to get. Note: The elementary schools in the Dunwoody cluster range from strongly for to strongly oppose the current plan.
• Lakeside Cluster – Given the turmoil over this subject, the high school council has stayed out of it. The Lakeside Summit cluster is a bit confusing. They are suppose to be a group of representatives from the councils, parents and community, but not many school councils or parents from the area seem to be engaged in this group. Furthermore, they are generally in favor of moving forward with the plan but are asking for a bunch of things they aren’t going to get. This is quite similar to the DHS school council who originally wanted to move forward with the plan and were asking for a bunch of things they weren’t going to get.
So, what now? Stay engaged with your school councils and board members. Stay tuned here, the SPLOST V discussions aren’t over.
Next Steps For DeKalb Schools
School district administration will develop a cost loaded schedule over the next several months and bond financing to accelerate key projects within the program.
February 2017 – The Board will be asked to adopt a Bond Resolution at its February 2017 Board meeting and approximately $130 million will be made available to accelerate the program.
March 2017 – At the March 2017 Board meeting, staff will present a program schedule to include a full list of projects, budgets, and anticipated start and finish dates.
Is there an update from DHS and PCMS positions? I understood that the DHS school council asked for the vote to be delayed for an elaboration on the specific site plans and scope of work for DHS. I have not seen a retraction or reversal of their support for the “Option B” type solution or project list.
No updates. The approved plan includes large additions at Lakeside HS, Dunwoody HS, Clarkston HS and Chamblee Charter HS. Chamblee Charter and Clarkston governance/councils expressly do not want the additions. Dunwoody HS school council does not want to move forward until they get more clarity. The Lakeside HS school council has no position. Like everything else the school district does, it is being forced on them without their approval or my approval.
So the above comment about DHS “changing their minds” may be misunderstood by literalist like me. DHS School Council formally does support the “Option B”-type solution approved by the BoE and the project list. What I understand they want is more details on the site plan.
Clarkston HS doesn’t want an addition? That’s the first I’ve heard that said anywhere and contradicts that community’s specific advocacy efforts during the study and input sessions. What I took from the community there was specifically their wanting to increase the capacity of the building to “keep Clarkston whole.” Has the Council there published a contrary position?
Here’s the source of all input letters (solicited and unsolicited). The Clarkston letters seem to read clearly in alignment of what I heard first person from Clarkston advocates; that they wanted the addition and improvements to the HS regardless of Option. I have not seen any objection to the SPLOST V project list from Clarkston and I believe it is because it provides what was desired – an addition at the HS.
http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/documents/secondary-school-study/appendix-d.pdf
What correspondance do you have from Clarkston HS Council/PTA that rejects the addition planned in SPLOST V project list? This would be big news.
Dunwoody High School supports the additions if they get a bunch of stuff they aren’t going to get. For some reason DHS school council believed their gym capacity, choral room and a number of other things were going to be addressed. I’m guessing this is why the school administration didn’t tell anybody until October what the additions would consist of even though they knew in July.
Clarkston High School PTA position statement
Clarkston High School School Council position statement
The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy
Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
Rule 4a: Deny, delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.
I’ll have to go back and see if Option A included additions to Clarkston … I can’t remember now. Ultimately it doesn’t matter, because the school district is going down the path of giving these schools these capital projects whether they like it or not.
On behalf of Clarkston High School, the Members of the PTA are pushing for Option A addressing overcrowding in the area schools.
On behalf of the Clarkston School Council, we are in favor of Choice A.
I thought Josh Williams in response to your direct questioning indicated that Federeal and State standards for common spaces would be met at DHS and other sites. If I heard his response correctly, this might include additional funding ahould the allocated funds not cover it.
Clarkston was for ‘A’ from day one because ‘B’ didn’t include an addition to address their full projection. They are thrilled that the HS will be growing to meet the demand as far as I’ve tracked. That’s why your saying they are opposed to the current plan is so surprising. I don’t think that is accurate.
I’m quite sure about this – as soon as the options were published everyone viewed them as a multiple choice test, understandably. Yet there was no reason why ‘B’ was the only option w/o a magnet move or Clarkston addition, for example. This presentation pitted the interest of BuHi area communities against both which was illogical and unnecessary.
Many in the community fought tooth and nail for all or nothing views of choices. I think that was counter productive.
And Gokce proves he full of it once again! DHS is not for Option B. Neither is Chamblee High or Middle Or Montgomery elem nor Sagamore nor lakeside! But let’s force an option down their throats that they don’t want! Just so we can have equal part gang at each school. So glad DCS is adept at social engineering.
No, DHS wrote formally for support of ‘B’ type solutions. If there is manure to spread, you seem to have the needed load. Why hasn’t Stan corrected this point if it’s “full of it?” He knows DHS is clearly in support notwithstanding their fair questions about the HS site planning.
Regarding Lakeside, also inaccurate. But you keep repeating that falsehood as it only reminds readers to be cautious with wht they hear and takeat face value.
As for your opinion of BuHi area children, I pity you and pray you find soon how mistaken you are in judgement of these children. It is clearly hate-filled but forgivable.
DHS was adamantly for delaying the vote – they are also against Option B. Take off your rose colored glasses. And BuHi isn’t the utopia you make it out to be.
But let it be known that once again, Gokce resorts to name calling and accusing anyone who disagrees with him as a “hater.” You’re a bully Gokce. You bully people who disagree with you by name calling. That’s a shame. I pity you and pray you find how mistaken you are in your bullying actions. You need to change your bullying ways and take a healthy spoonful of modesty. I’m out.
DHS school council does not want to move forward with the current proposal as is. Joshua Williams has made it perfectly clear the school district will do the bare minimum to meet district policy and state standards. Therefore the other common areas will not be addressed.
As part of the Sagamore community I have yet to come across one family in favor of this; Lakeside may be, but the people it effects are not.
The Lakeside area Board of Education representative and Oak Grove ES support it.
Sagamore ES School Council
The School Council and Parent Leadership at Briarlake ES
OGE School Council, OGE PTA, and Oak Grove Foundation
Position Statements from Lakeside schools
[The new facilities and additions] deserve time, attention, transparency and deliberations. We ask that you defer the vote to allow adequate information to be presented.
We do not support any proposal that would create split feeding schools. Therefore, we strongly oppose Option B.
We support the List … OGE is deeply concerned with DCSD’s “assumed student moves,” namely the move of 250 students from the Lakeside Cluster to the Cross Keys Cluster … We also have concerns with the process that produced the List.
Jim McMahan (Lakeside area Board of Education representative)
With that as my barometer, I am supportive of moving forward with the vote. I will be part of our community and listening to the community and looking for further information. W ith the support of the district and if there are any alternative solutions moving forward I feel confident that they will be heard but that is where I am right now. I appreciate the support of my community and I request that the boat move forward.
So in summary on the point Stan raised regarding three area HSes:
CCHS – Opposed the recommendation
DHS – Supported the recommendation but has concerns about the DHS plan adequately providing for core services
LHS – Took no position
I don’t understand why this is still a point of confusion.
DHS – Supported it until they found out what it was. Now they oppose it unless they get their common spaces addressed like the gym and choral room.
I think it’s a bad idea.
Dunwoody – Not a Fan of the E-SPLOST Project List
The Dunwoody Crier is reporting this week that many are not happy with the E-SPLOST Project List scheduled to be voted on at Monday’s board meeting.
What needs to be addressed exactly? I’ve heard DHS’ers say that the net increase in enrollment will be 200 or even less IF the projections are hit. What is needed to support them?
Stan – the DHS School Council has been asked about this thread. It is disappointing to see this misrepresentation of our position by our local Board Member. This is an excerpt from an email sent to you and other Board members in December when this position was being questioned:
“We stand by our recommendation for a modified Option B – our request for more time is to help better define the projects, not to restart the long process that we went through this year.”
There are many positive results for this plan for DHS, and we look forward to improvements to many common areas (cafeteria, kitchen, media center, parking), a new turf field, and many much needed new classrooms (note that nothing says these can’t include a chorus room). We would prefer more clarity on some specifics, but certainly are not opposed to a project that addresses so many long-standing issues at DHS.
Please note that you are always welcome to attend a DHS Council meeting if you would like to hear some perspective on these types of issues from inside the building.
DHS Council Chair
Chad, Chad, Chad, –
As you know, we met and I shared with you my thoughts on this matter. I told you that what you were told by Dan and Josh regarding the improvements to common area would not come to pass. You ignored me and dismissed my advice on this matter. Now you know that I was correct.
Subsequently, the school district released their estimation on what they would spend on the addition to DHS. It was lowered from the $25 million they shared with you, to $16 million. Again, I told you this and I was proven correct.
After that, the school district released their building plans. It clearly showed that the improvements to common spaces that you sold to your fellow parents and council members were not included in the district’s plans. I told you this would be the case. Unfortunately, you ignored me. Chad, you should have listened.
Subsequently, you and others who had previously advocated for “option B”, asked for a “delay” because you wanted to get confirmation on what was actually going to be built. (Hardly any common areas were showed as being improved.)
I told you then, and I reiterate now, you were and remain naive. What do you say, and how do you defend yourself to your fellow Dunwoody parents, if DeKalb neglects to improve the “common areas” that you said were a part of the plan that YOU approved? It appears that they have no intention of improving these areas. That’s why the school council asked for a “delay”.
Stan isn’t misrepresenting anything. You got caught trying to harm the majority of Dunwoody and its schools. You asked for a delay when the district did exactly what I told you it would do.
If you would like to debate this matter, I am available. Just let me know where and when.
–Nancy Jester
nancy@nancyjester.com
Nancy,
When Stan states what the DHS Council’s position is on a matter and it is not accurate, he is misrepresenting something. When you say that the plan from DCSD does not address common areas, you are misrepresenting facts. The overwhelming majority of feedback we have heard is that Dunwoody residents want their kids to be able to go to middle and high school in Dunwoody. The modified Option B is the only plan that offered that opportunity for our great, and growing, community. There are lots of details to be worked out going forward, but I look forward to an improved, and less cramped, learning environment for our great Dunwoody students.
The overall experience our Council has in working with Dr. Green and his team over the past couple of years has been very positive. We went directly to them with some concerns in the school last year related to lockers, copiers, space, signage in the building, etc – they listened and addressed issues in ways that directly and positively impacted the experience of students and teachers. In this SPLOST process, they have taken time to meet and go over items and listen to concerns. There are some aspects that I’d like to see looked at differently, but to say this is not a real positive for Dunwoody to have this investment in our schools is hard for me to understand.
Also, as you know, the DHS Council did not, as you claim above, approve the plan. Dunwoody High School and Peachtree Middle School both recommended the modified Option B, favoring a plan which invests in our schools and keeps our Dunwoody student community together in Dunwoody. The plan was approved by the DCSD Board, with Stan as the lone nay vote on a plan that was requested by Dunwoody schools..
I think there’s always constructive room for varying perspectives, but I don’t see much constructive conversation happening when actual facts, whether it be about the plan, or our conversations, are not presented accurately. Maybe I’m a bit naive on what my happen, but what is my alternative? Should I forever fear that things won’t go exactly as I want and just cry foul at every turn in hopes that nothing happens? How would that help our students and teachers?
On Behalf of Dunwoody High School Council
Wow Nancy! You were VERY condescending and rude to Chad. Your angry response is totally out of proportion to him and the other volunteers on the school council, who sent the letter. Sometimes it seems that you have forgotten that you are not on the school board.
Renate Herod
Disappointing to hear from a a public official who was not present at the cluster meeting where all options were debated, discussed and voted on but sure has a lot to say about what occurred at the meeting. Chad was very diplomatic at this meeting. I would really like to see our elected officials actually listen to those who are engaged and working through the process for solving our communities’ overcrowding issues, not just telling them what to do and then calling them naive when not marching in lockstep with you. Using condescending language is counter productive and infantile. Chad, the council leader for DHS is engaged with his parents and community and is acting on their feedback.
I was at the cluster meeting and the majority of Dunwoody was not represented. People from Chesnut and Kingsley bullied everyone. The rest of Dunwoody was not at the table. Chad, Renate, and Laura you are all on the defensive now. Thanks for sticking us with more kids, more traffic, and crappy facilities that aren’t getting upgraded. Good job guys. You may think Nancy was rude but she’s not wrong. She also has every right to speak out on this subject. She’s a taxpayer too. You know what I think it rude, saying something snarky like, “Sometimes it seems that you have forgotten that you are not on the school board.” Maybe you have forgotten all the work that Nancy has put in over the years to highlight corruption and hold people accountable. Renate, you should apologize for suggesting that Nancy can’t voice her opinion because she’s not on the board. What if someone dismissed your thoughts in such a rude way? Trying to shut down someone’s right to speak is un-American. It is a bullying tactic. The same bullying that has been used to silence the majority of Dunwoody parents that don’t want a bigger high school. Nancy has every right to give her opinion. I am glad she did.
I am floored that Kingsley and Chesnut are being called bullies. Tell me, had engaged parents from other schools decided to show up to the meeting and were in the majority, would they be labeled “bullies?” And let’s stop throwing around the word “bully.” If someone claims the kids from Buford Highway are “gangs” and their advocate calls them on it, why is he then called a bully accused of calling people “haters.” Let’s limit the hateful (and yes, condescending) comments all together and then no one needs to throw out any names
Looks like the truth is coming out. The DHS council would like to know more about the project, but the remote possibility that anybody is districted out of Dunwoody is driving everything. Apparently nothing else really matters.
I was at the cluster meeting and the majority of Dunwoody was not represented. People from Chesnut and Kingsley bullied everyone. The rest of Dunwoody was not at the table.
That’s an interesting statement. According to the DHS School Council meeting minutes the only schools that did not have a representative during the Options discussion were Austin and Hightower. If those school chose not to have a representative at the meeting, that is on them.
Nancy,
While reading your recent post, I was wondering if you were inspired by The Nature Boy Ric Flair, Aaron Burr or Alexander Hamilton, or the bully from math class. Your comments are not only inaccurate but completely out of line. While you may choose to throw out undeserved “I told you so’s” and vicious personal attacks on Chad and the DHS Council, we choose to continue to work hard and try our best to ensure that all of our children receive the best possible educational experience. Rather than wallow in the past, the Council will continue to work with Dr. Green and his staff, teachers, administrators, students and the community. We encourage open and respectful dialogue, not blog wars, pay-per-view wrestling matches, duels, or fights after school. Think about it, we are all working for the same prize and that is the best possible experience for our students and faculty. Going forward, it is our hope that we can all work together to achieve this goal.
Bruce Kaminsky, Member DHS School Council
Enough Already, who said anything about the Buford Highway? Please stay on the correct subject.
Yes, the Kingsley and Chesnut crowd have bullied people into silence with their political correctness. If you don’t want a million kids on a postage stamp campus, they accuse you of racism or trying to divide Dunwoody.
I’m not being condescending. I’m not a “hater” (btw, can we not use more mature language). I dislike a big school.
The reason Chad and others gave for their initial support of Option B (modified or not) was that we were going to get all these improvements that we need. When it came out that we were not getting those improvements, the school council of Dunwoody (and other schools I think) asked to delay the vote.
The district didn’t listen to the requests for a delay. They went forward and now we’re stuck with more seats and no improvements. That was the whole reason Chad and others kept saying we need to do this. Now I learn that Nancy told him to not be naive and she was apparently right.
Chad and friends are trying to have it both ways now. The council asked for a delay. The school district didn’t listen. Chad and friends are now engaging in revisionist history saying that they are just fine with things. If that were true the school council wouldn’t have asked for a delay. It isn’t fine now. It wasn’t fine then. What’s the worst is that they were warned.
I hear the emotion of a mom with three young kids in Nancy’s voice but honestly, who can blame her? The Jesters are among the few who publically stand up to the ineptitude, corruption and everything in between dished out by DeKalb County Schools to Dunwoody, and those in Dunwoody who sell all of our kids down the river to stop redistricting. The Jesters speak for the majority of Dunwoody taxpayers, parents and kids who have gotten the shaft by DCSS for what is now decades. This latest SPLOST episode is just the latest debacle. When the new Peachtree Middle opened it was over capacity, the 4/5 grade school was a disaster, the new DHS auditorium can’t even hold next year’s freshman class of 600, and now we’re going to shove 600 more kids into a shoebox property in the middle of a neighborhood. It’s appalling and disgraceful. Anyone who voted for Option B should be ashamed. More new schools and redistricting are the only logical next steps (I still can’t figure out why anyone would not vote to build more schools for expanding populations. Isn’t that common sense? If that is not true, the DHS population keeps growing indefinitely. Way to go school councils!) Thank you Nancy and Stan for continuing to call out everything from the ridiculousness to criminal. And the bullies.
Anonymous- The language and immature words were not mine. I was simply referring to a commend made by one of the posters. See below.
chamblee getting screwed | January 2, 2017 at 11:07 AM | …….Neither is Chamblee High or Middle Or Montgomery elem nor Sagamore nor lakeside! But let’s force an option down their throats that they don’t want! Just so we can have equal part gang at each school. So glad DCS is adept at social engineering.
chamblee getting screwed | January 2, 2017 at 11:52 AM |
But let it be known that once again, Gokce resorts to name calling and accusing anyone who disagrees with him as a “hater.” You’re a bully Gokce. You bully people who disagree with you by name calling. That’s a shame. I pity you and pray you find how mistaken you are in your bullying actions. You need to change your bullying ways and take a healthy spoonful of modesty. I’m out.
I agree with Nancy. A few people on school councils were concerned their streets would be zoned out of Dunwoody in Plan A. This was a total fabrication, put in place by Drake. Drake has always had the same technique – divide and conquer. For a decade I’ve wtched Drake. He’s a master at it. He’s the white guy sent out by the central office, to convince northern areas they arent getting screwed. He is again successful in dividing us. Key leaders on the DHS Chestnut and Kinglsey live in border areas of the city and they were worried they would be zoned to a new school in Doraville. Total lie spread to get Option B approved. DHS council’s actions will ruin the high school, making even more parents send kids to private school due to the large increase in school size while lacking in amenities. School vouchers are on the way with Trump. DHS will have 2100 seats to fill, and they will be filled with kids from everywhere. In five years 1,000 of the 2100 will be from Doraville and Chamblee. Parent volunteers will decrease. The school will become just another poor performing Dekalb high school. Sell your house now and move to Decatur, Milton, or Johns Creek. Five years from now those still here can look back and point to the DHS council, Kingsley and Chestnut for this demise. Nancy, thanks for calling out these people who have taken a strong Dunwoody High from what could have been 1500 Dunwoody students (including Chestnut and Kingsley and G-town kids) to a 2100 student mega school lacking such basics as a chorus room, adequate cafeteria, and sufficient parking. The independent school district is NOT happening. Even our state rep lacks confidence. Sell sell sell. DeKalb central office and the rest of the county hates us. Do you not understand that? They will do everything to hurt our school. Go visit Arabia Mtn High or one of the other new high schools in DeKalb, then visit the shithole at Vermack and Womack. You’ll then see. and 15 years now with stacks of trailers at Vanderlyn.
Personally, I think Stan needs to resign his position as Board of Education member. It is obvious that he cannot maintain an objective perspective with regards to the actions and decisions for ALL schools within Region 1.
And Nancy, I’ve never been more disappointed in anyone. I thought you were better than this.
Personally, I think Chad, Bruce and every school council member from DHS and Peachtree should resign. It is obvious they are unwilling to stand up for what is right, and only able to be mice scurrying after whatever crumbs DCSS throws our way.
Paula, if you’ve never been more disappointed in anyone, where have you been hiding? Give me a break.
Paula, you are a funny one. You do know that Stan is elected to represent DISTRICT 1, not REGION 1. You do realize that District 1 is a whole lot bigger than Dunwoody. You do realize that Chamblee, in District 1, doesn’t want Option B either. Should all of your elected representatives resign if their perspective differs from yours?
I’ve never been more disappointed in a blog comment. I think you should resign from blogging.
Dear “Dunwoody Mom”
Seriously, you say Paula is hiding? You don’t even use your name. Posts by those of you who are not willing to sign your name aren’t even worth reading.
Renate Herod
Anonymous, why don’t you use your real name if you would like to have a real discussion? The reasons I believe Stan should resign go beyond his support for Option A. I actually do respect other opinions other than my own if those opinions are brought forth in a mature, adult conversation. Stan is not hosting such a conversation. My problems with Stan stem from his need to continually use his blog to eviscerate those he disagrees with. That he, a school board member, actually believes he has a right, or duty, to go after PARENTS is just an inexcusable action for any elected member. You really believe Stan cares about the Chamblee cluster other than his ability to use its opposition to Option B to further his own agenda? LOL….
I actually know of an individual within the Chamblee cluster who I would LOVE to see on the school board….
Oh I see that I’m being used by yet another coward who throws around the term “hater” indiscriminately when they can’t resort to facts. EnoughAlready – do you have any grasp of facts? You do realize the county is social engineering this whole thing, don’t you? Trying to balance the number of illegals at each school equally. How exactly is that hate?
Maybe Anonymous, Chamblee, and others (like myself) are afraid to use their real names because they will only be called “haters” by the self-righteous among you if they have an opinion that differs from yours.