2018 Inclement Weather Make-Up Days
The DeKalb County School District (DCSD) closed schools for four days this month due to inclement weather – January 8, as well as January 17-19. According to Superintendent/CEO R. Stephen Green, “Protecting our instructional time is key to supporting student achievement. Making up lost time on those dates is prudent and the least disruptive of the options that were considered.”
In considering options to recover lost instructional time, DCSD has committed to keep the current Presidents’ Day, Spring Break, and last day of school as scheduled. DCSD will make up two of the four inclement weather days on Friday, February 16th, and Friday, March 9th.
Potential make-up day options for day 3 and day 4 include virtual learning or extending the regular school day. DCSD also wants to remain flexible in case more inclement weather days are needed in the future.
Please complete the short survey about the make-up day options. This is not a vote but rather an opportunity to receive input from all stakeholders to determine the best option for our students and families. In order to ensure that your responses are recorded, select the SUBMIT button at the end of the survey. Please complete the survey only once. Thank you in advance for providing valuable feedback.
Please no more extended days. Just the 20 minute delay had busses trying to drive through traffic and middle schools were releasing well past the 20 min point as planned. Families with students who participate in activities during the evenings outside of schools were very pressed for time. Thank you very much for taking the time to read our thoughts.
Typical Dekalb. The survey is limited to choices that the district wants. When will they actually give us the ability to voice our opinions.
As proof the administration doesn’t care about feedback from stakeholders, I am posting an email I sent to Dan Drake on October 5, 2016, the day after I asked about the 400+ trailers the district currently owns during a public meeting. I CC’d the Superintendent and the BOE. I followed up a week later with another email and never got a response to either email.
I also want to note the facility documents currently posted on the district’s website still contain the factual errors and omissions the Midvale school council asked to have addressed. The eSPLOST V project list was put together using faulty information.
I am writing to share with you the trailer inventory obtained through an ORR request. It is dated Sept. 1, 2016.
The total number of trailers (AKA portable classrooms) shown is 448. I am curious why you told the audience last night “the district doesn’t own anywhere near that many trailers.” What information do you have to base that statement on and would you please share it with me?
Please note column E, which is labeled “use.” There are 30 trailers labeled “surplus” and 29 trailers labeled “to be removed.” Mr. Drake, can you please explain why the district needs to have 30 surplus trailers? When has there ever been an emergency need to place trailers, let alone 30 trailers?
I was wrong in stating MGT did not asses play areas. In reviewing the FEAA I found one line in the FEAA regarding outside Play Areas. Playgrounds were not assessed in the Facility Condition Assessments. However, Midvale’s FEAA states, “The hard surface play area is small.” when, in reality, there is no hard surface play area at Midvale. The FEAA for Midvale rates the Play Areas as “good.” However, some of the playground equipment is from the 1960s.
Compare this to Briarlake Elementary’s Play Area which states “Neither the playground nor the equipment are ADA accessible” and is rated as “poor.” The reason for the rating is “In order for student with mobility problems to access the playground they must go around the building and down a dirt path.” However, at Midvale there is no path to the playground.
Why isn’t access to the playground a consideration at Midvale?
Also, the Briarlake Foundation donated new playground equipment six or seven years ago. The playground is very nice and practically new.
Why is Briarlake on the list of schools to receive a new playground when other schools, which have not had a recent playground update, are not?
Speaking of the work MGT did. I am also attaching a floorplan for Midvale. Can you please share the document you reviewed which shows 33 classrooms?
The Midvale School Council requested to have a conversation with “anyone” from MGT or the operations division regarding what they considered “inconsistencies” between the FEAA, the FCA, and the reality of the school building, but was denied. The school council submitted feedback through the principal, but that feedback did not result in any changes between the draft assessments and the final assessments. Midvale’s FEAA is full of inconsistencies. On the first page you see the computer lab is stated to be on the upper level when, in reality, it is on the lower level. Rooms where the “HVAC is inconsistent” and “This classroom has had an ongoing problem with moisture.” are rated as “Good.”
Mr. Williams met with the Lakeside school council and walked the facility. The Lakeside FCA was changed based on his observations. Can you please explain the process used to determine which schools qualified to have their feedback incorporated into the assessments?
Also, attached is the document I first presented to the Midvale School Council in January. It compares Midvale’s 2011 FCA to the 2015 FCA. During SPLOST IV Midvale received an ADA update, an air conditioner added to the gym, a new hood in the kitchen and the roof openings were repaired. It is the same document I emailed to the BOE in February, submitted to the administration by the school council as feedback, and the same one I gave Mr. Drake last night. Despite the deficiencies listed, SPLOST V proposed project list only has Midvale mentioned twice. Once for an ADA update and once for a new trash compactor.
I appreciate other school have needs which may be greater than Midvale’s. However, the FEAA’s and the FCA’s posted on the district’s website do not reflect the realities of the schools. For example, how did Kittredge’s FCA score from 62.6 in 2011 to 33.19 in 2015? Was there a fire? It appears MGT and Parsons were, once again, arbitrary and haphazard in their work.
It is too late to start over again. However, there is still time to make corrections where there are obvious errors. Correcting those errors will increase stakeholder support for whatever final project list is approved by the BOE.
I look forward to a reply containing answers to the questions posed. Thank you very much.