Nancy Creek Elementary School could provide relief to 600 elementary students across the Dunwoody and Chamblee clusters as early as Fall 2020.
Address: 1663 E Nancy Creek Dr
Nancy Creek Elementary School
Nancy Creek Elementary School was built in 1970 and served the local area south of the perimeter for almost 40 years. Due to under utilization, in Fall 2008, Nancy Creek ES students were moved to Huntley Hills ES and Montgomery ES to make room for Kittredge and the high achievers magnet.
The old John Lewis ES (next to Adams Stadium and Kittredge Park on N. Druid Hills Rd) was named Kittredge before they changed it a couple years ago. It was where the high achievers magnet was located before it moved to Nancy Creek.
During the redistricting process, my push to consider alternative solutions to add elementary school capacity in the Dunwoody and Chamblee clusters, including finding a new, suitable location for the high achievers magnet, was met with resistance from the former Superintendent and his staff. Interim Superintendent Tyson started in November and has taken a different approach.
Superintendent Tyson is taking a second look at moving Kittredge back to its original home at the old John Lewis ES site and opening Nancy Creek back up in Fall 2020. Nancy Creek could be used to provide relief to the Dunwoody/Chamblee Clusters until a new school can be built with a target opening date in 2023. I’m looking forward to hearing more from Superintendent Tyson soon on the potential for this plan to be deployed in the Fall.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
There is the buzzword again – “high growth areas” which says: move apts to AES. Regarding playgrounds, new AES playground is actually small. I don’t get how the school was built with such a small playground. Old AES school was a smaller building but had more playground space. Old AES had 2 playsets in 2 different areas, 2 basketball courts that ended up with trailers on them, and a grass area. New AES has a 1 playset and some grass around it all confined in a pretty small area that looks way too inadequate. The play area at DES is much larger than at new AES. This is just an observation on play areas, for what it’s worth.
Laura, Everybody agrees that DES can’t handle the future projected enrollment. The DES community isn’t happy with just addressing the projected enrollment, it must be by ditching the apartments. We can all get on board with the projected enrollment problem. However, the rest of Dunwoody can’t stand with you on your instance that it must be done by shedding the apartments.
The DES community is large and of course does not agree on everything. The families redistricted to Chesnut who did not want to be, for various reasons, provided that feedback, as the process encourages. The DES PAC did not argue against the Chesnut redistricting and praised the last plan for providing DES with some relief…
Inside Man- why does the rest of Dunwoody oppose giving more of the high growth areas, where much of the projected enrollment is coming from, to Austin? DES has almost all of it now…some of that area is closer to Austin. I genuinely don’t understand why Austin is so opposed. Why is it fine for DES to have most of the high growth areas, but not for Austin to have some? Under the PAC’s plan, DES would still have plenty of that area (i.e. apartments).
(I haven’t been using that term apartments because I thought there were going to be townhomes and condos in that area as well) if it’s just that Austin wants to protect its school from over crowding, just say that; everyone gets that. But there is no need to vilify DES parents for wanting the same thing…
I understand this means a lot to a lot of people, but I don’t understand making this about racism when it is not. My family and many families we know chose their homes in Dunwoody Elementary FOR its diversity. We chose DES because we see diversity as an asset of the school and something that will benefit our children.
Our community is not racist and neither is our PAC. The ask for West of Ashford Dunwoody to go to AES isn’t about apartments, it’s about shared growth. If the new planned developments materialize more students, then sharing the Ashford Dunwoody corridor shares the new students. And if new students don’t materialize in the next few years, then sharing the area keeps two schools (instead of one) vested in continuing to pressure DCSD for a better solution.
Neighborhoods who put up a fight to stay at their (diverse) school is not racism. That makes no sense. It’s parents happy with their community and wanting to stay there. Neighborhoods in several school districts across both clusters did this; it’s no different than Oxford Chase, or the neighborhoods at MES that vehemently opposed moving from their community. To single out DES and call this racism is below the belt.
What DES wants is roughly equal enrollment and shared growth areas, with a school that has equal capacity. This should be a given, but the latest proposal is nowhere near equal for two equal-capacity schools.
In honor of what today is all about,
“We must learn to live together as brothers, or perish together as fools.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
Can we drop the baseless low blows and move forward with constructive consideration of where we ALL go from here? Up, I hope. Down doesn’t seem possible.
@DES Parent, I wish DES parents would stop referring to the new Austin as a school of equal
Capacity. DES was built to hold over 1000 students, and Austin 950. Given the land constraints, Austin sits on a retaining wall over the nature center there is very little of any land to place trailers. The new playground and field are much smaller than DES’. I agree DES desire to share “high growth areas” may not be racially driven, but it is driven by socioeconomics. Ashford Chase is also closer to Austin, but I haven’t heard one request for that large neighborhood to move to Austin. DES parents can spin it how they want, but they are being selective with the relief they find acceptable.
FACTS
With the Superintendent’s interim plan, in August 2020, there are 851 current students districted for Austin and 1,143 current students districted for DES. That puts Austin 99 seats under capacity and DES 188 seats over capacity for 2020. That is a differential between two equally designed schools of 287 students.
Projections have DES adding an average of 45 new students every year for the next 4 years, while DCSD staff believes that Austin will experience a 100 student new school increase although they have never stated a timeframe for which this is expected to occur.
The Superintendent has proposed building a new 950 student elementary school in North Dekalb to provide relief to Dunwoody/Brookhaven/Chamblee. It seems that the absolute earliest that this would be completed is Fall 2023. That is when current Kindergartners will be starting third grade. It can be easily assumed that construction of a brand new school with no existing attendance area will require a wholesale re-drawing of all attendance lines.
The pushback against moving more children from DES (or Vanderlyn) for that matter seems to be an unwillingness to ask children to move twice. I believe this is a red herring for the following reasons.
1. It is based on an assumption that the areas redistricted to Austin now would be moved out of Austin whenever a new school is built. That is a bad assumption because we have no idea where such a school will be built and what the new attendance lines will be.
2. Even if the exact same attendance zone is asked to move twice, most of the moved children will have already aged out and will have moved onto Middle School and not a new elementary school. Here is what I mean by that. If the first move takes place in 2020 and the second move takes place in 2023, the only children that would be asked to move twice are children currently in Kindergarten and 1st grade.
I would ask any proponents of the Superintendent’s plan to dispute any of the above and defend why there should be a 287 student differential between Austin and DES.
@Ben Greenwald you can’t pick and choose which DCSD projections you wish to accept as FACTS. If DES will have 1,143 students, per the same chart Austin will have 950. Not 851 as you state above. Likewise, you can’t agree that DES will add 45 students per year, but question “when” Austin will see the new school bump. Realtors in the Dunwoody area have said they already saw an increase in families with multiple children trying to buy in the Austin district, before the new school had even opened. I’ve had two houses on my street close in December and January that have children that will be at Austin. While DES certainly remains overcapacity, as do VES and Chestnut, holding off on a massive redistricting while developing a comprehensive plan is not a multi-year solution. Having two grades impacted by potential double moves is no big deal to you, but all other Dunwoody families with K and 1st graders may disagree. Lack of a comprehensive plan has gotten us in this situation, a thoughtful, strategic approach is long overdue.
@DESParent for the win. Every single parent, PAC and PTO in Dunwoody should be aligned on a plan that supports equal enrollment (based on capacity) and enrollment of the shared growth areas. This will come from the Ashford Dunwoody corridor and spillover from Doraville. Enough with the racism accusations, “DES v. Austin” narrative and other insults. Before your next post, remember that this is all being debated in the name of helping our children grow and become responsible and respectful human beings …
@PassionateMomma “for the win?” I respectfully disagree that anyone is “winning”. I do think every PAC agrees on balancing enrollment, but a thorough plan must be developed.
@ Ben Greenwald – The numbers and timeline above are misleading because a very large and crucial part of the interim plan is moving 600+ Kittredge students out of their current school to make room for students from the Dunwoody/Chamblee clusters. Their hope is to see this play out by this coming Fall, which I would consider to be immediate relief.
It is also frustrating to constantly hear how “unfair” it is that Austin isn’t also overcrowded, doesn’t get more apartments, more risk, more students, etc… even when there was the option that gave Austin 4 trailers. DES parents are constantly stating that the “high risk” areas are closer in proximity to Austin. “High risk” or “mobility” equalization is NOT a criteria in redistricting. The outcry regarding “geographic proximity” is amusing when DES does not consider that the school is located within very close proximity to so many of the other elementary schools in the cluster. Geographic proximity, if used correctly as ONE of the primary criteria WHEN POSSIBLE, would essentially prove that due to DES’ proximity to these other schools, DES is in a unique position where it is to land-locked by Vanderlyn (North), Kingsley (East), and Chesnut (South). Austin does not have such constraints when it comes to boundaries. So, the arguments that Austin is trying to keep from taking their “high risk” properties that are closer in proximity to them and not DES, and are only interested in keeping “uppity ilk” are rendered baseless. The closest properties in proximity to Austin are majority single-family homes and neighborhoods to the North, South, East, and West. That would be the main reason geographic proximity can be used as a major component in conjunction with the other criteria for Austin. What DES is asking for, is a diversion from the use of the primary criteria for Austin that DCSD strictly utilizes.
Please stop this nonsense specifically targeted at Austin and begin working with DCSD and the cluster schools (including Austin parents – who are willing) to ensure this interim plan comes to fruition as quickly as possible. DCSD is finally admitting that there is an issue that they have neglected and are working towards correcting it. Work together to solve this overcrowding issue at all school levels – most importantly middle and high schools levels.
@ Jay. If Nancy Creek opens up again as a neighborhood school, it will provide sufficient capacity to relieve overcrowding in the Chamblee and Brookhaven cluster (it’s original attendance footprint). Unfortunately, given Nancy Creek’s small size, there probably wouldn’t much additional capacity to relieve the Dunwoody attendance areas you referenced, but you can always hope.
Yes, for the win. Because folks here are arguing and I believe she won it. Thanks.
Her? DES Parent doesn’t reveal his/her gender. @Passionate Momma if you know DES parents’ gender, I hardly think you are impartial to determine who has made the best argument. Another effort by DES parents to disguise themselves so it appears their message is more widespread than it is. THANKS!
Oh good grief! I don’t know the gender – I just took a guess. Or maybe it’s my subconscious rejection of the rule that male pronouns should be used when the gender is unknown.
For the record, I’m a former Vanderlyn parent with children at Kittredge and Dunwoody. Please, stop with the conspiracy theories.
There we go again with “high growth” areas meaning high density meaning apts. The new Austin playground is smaller than old Austin. Old Austin had 2 playsets in different areas, 2 basketball courts (with trailers on them), and a grass area. New Austin has 1 playset surrounded by some grass. The play area is small for a larger ES. Sort of surprising when you see it. The playground at DES is much larger than new Austin. The playground at new Austin was built too small but probably because there is no more land based on where located next to nature center.
Is anyone paying attention to what the city is planing at Dunwoody Village? Their new plan allows apartments in the village. How will this affect surrounding neighborhoods? What will this do to the schools? I don’t think anyone is talking about this.
As recently as November 20, 2019 in DCSD’s redistricting presentation, New Austin was promising 450 seats of additional capacity to the cluster. Many of us made the mistake of assuming that meant 450 seats of overcrowding would be relieved. Shame on us for making that assumption.
Because of the 100 student new school bump that DCSD is building into the plan the actual overcrowding relief is 350 students. Of that Austin is getting 248 students relieved and Dunwoody Elementary is getting 102 students relieved. That works out to Austin getting 71% of the relief and DES getting 29% of the relief. Whether you think the current plan is a good one or not, I hope you can at least acknowledge that the numbers are strongly in Austin’s favor.
Another way to measure is portable classrooms. Austin loses all 7 of its portable classrooms. Dunwoody Elementary loses none.
For those who are opposed to more children going to Austin because they might have to move twice when the promised new 950 student elementary school opens, are you also opposed to students being moved to Nancy Creek? Since the promised new school is to provide relief to Chamblee/Brookhaven/Dunwoody it is much more likely that it is those students that would have to move twice.
With regards to no relief for Vanderlyn – relief was offered to Vanderlyn by moving students to Kingsley and that was rejected by the affected communities who would rather stay at an overcrowded Vanderlyn than move to Kingsley.
I do wonder how many people advocating for the Superintendent’s plan actually have children that now attend or will be attending Austin and how many are homeowners worried about their property values if Austin doesn’t at least maintain its 9 rating on http://www.greatschools.org
All this high growth, West of Ashford Dunwoody, DES vs AES talk is a minuscule issue compared to what is going on at DHS and PCMS. All schools in this cluster feed into both schools and that is what we ALL should be focusing on – the BIG PICTURE. Regardless of where these “apartment “ kids go to ES (and luckily they have 5 great ones in our cluster so they can’t go wrong), they will end up at an overcrowded PCMS, and an extremely overcrowded DHS.
Both Tyson’s short term plan (of moving the magnet and reopening Nancy Creek) and hopefully long-term Comprehensive Master Plan will relieve this overcrowding. We already have over 100 kids moving from Hightower to DUES, and if Nancy Creek reopens and takes 100-200 kids from DES. This will amount to 200-300 fewer students at PCMS and DHS, which would be a huge improvement.
I know we all agree Dunwoody Kids should stay in Dunwoody, but the reality is our Middle School and High School just can’t accommodate these numbers – not only is the overcrowding a safety concern, but it affects the kids in academics, athletics, drama, arts…the list goes on and on.
Moving “West of Ashford Dunwoody” to AES at this point does NOTHING to address the major issue of the cluster. Kids needs to be shifting SOUTH not north to ensure long-term relief.
All this infighting is a really bad look for Dunwoody as a whole and it seems like most of you have lost sight of the BIG PICTURE!
@High horse… so you were in on those meetings? I take it you read the joint letters written and signed by all Chamblee Elementary Schools? Trying to “steal” Nancy creek as a “private” 3-5 school. What junk are you spewing and are YOU even buying what you are saying??? Ugh. The MES community has been trying to come up with solutions for our very overcrowded community. One more time, we are the ONLY cluster that hadn’t received a new school. We are even asking for a new school, we asked for our old (very rundown) neighborhood school back!!!! If we get NC we can also provide relief to Ashford Park. A split campus was a suggestion. DeKalb said no because Area Superintendent and Principal did not want this format. Once that happened, we said we still need relief and we are will to split as a community. Our argument about not going to HH was because our kids would shifting without removing trainers. Opening NC removes trailer.s. But I’m sure it doesn’t matter how it’s laid out, you are going to call us selfish. Interesting. We lose a school, beg for school to be returned to neighborhood and we are selfish? Oh, and the cluster worked together. Notice the Chamblee schools aren’t screaming and calling each other names..
@BIG PICTURE YES!!!! All of what you said. Enough arguing over elementary school lines, the 24 portables at our high school are a bigger concern! The overcrowding at the high school level may affect college placement. Let’s work together and focus on the middle school and high school we all attend that are in dire straits from an overcrowding standpoint.
On the topic of Dunwoody HS:
1. How can the problem be fixed?
2. How can we best hold our elected officials feet to the fire on this issue?
@Ben Greenwald That is a ridiculous statement. Those students were already there. Austin was at 147% capacity. Maybe DCSD should have kicked the 248 kids out of Austin in order to relieve DES? Absurd. DES is/was the least overcrowded in the cluster, outside of Kingsley. Why is DES not talking about big picture relief and only focused on Austin getting it’s fair share? How does that relieve the cluster? DES had options, as stated on another post, where they could have been relieved of just as many students yet DES opposed all of them. There has been so much opposition to any plans that DCSD set forth, Tyson certainly took notice and has chosen to do something about it. Her plan helps to relieve some of the pressure immediately with more hope than we’ve ever had of longer term relief for the entire cluster. My concern is that if DES keeps fighting, we’ll all lose that too. If you haven’t read it yet…read BIG PICTUREs comment. Please stop the madness!!!
stop The Madness I think you are correctly conveying the difference between DES and Austin’s point of view. DES views the Austin expansion as primarily a shared resource to improve all of Dunwoody while Austin views it primarily for the benefit of the Austin community with the rest of Dunwoody to get the leftovers.
What are these other options that DES has rejected that would further reduce student population in August 2020? Prior to the Superintendent”s recommendation, the vast majority of DES Relief was always sending students north.
I just wish Austin would own this point of view. I would much prefer it, because it does kind of make sense. But if Dunwoody as a whole was always just going to get the leftovers, why bother to include us in all of the meetings this fall?
@Ben Greenwald LOL! Leftovers!? Are you for real? I must be misunderstanding you. Let’s say DES got an even newer and bigger school, you’d want to keep your current student body, wouldn’t you? Actually, don’t answer that…we already know the answer to that one.
Below you’ll find someone else’s previous post regarding DES option to relieve 242 students.
“11/20/2019 – 3rd community input session option relieves DES of 242 students. DES utilization rate drops to 105% w/3 trailers. New AES opens at 109% utilization rate w/4 trailers. Any neighborhood that voiced concerns gets what they want at VES, CES, and DES! DES still unhappy b/c Austin not getting “ALL students West of Ashford-Dunwoody”
At this point, I can’t even understand what you’re saying anymore. I’m done…I’m stopping the madness.
I don’t believe that the DES PAC has made any official comment on “All Students West of Ashford Dunwoody”. They have been consistent of just wanting more relief and not stating where the relief should come from.
There are individuals in the DES community that have the “All Students West of Ashford Dunwoody” point of view. I am not one of them. They have this point of view because currently all of the thousands of new apartment homes and condominiums that are already approved to be built are zoned to DES. So far not a single proposed option has changed this.
I personally would be satisfied if we simply moved Attendance Area A in Option 3 that was presented on October 23 from DES to Austin – Here is the link. https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/operations/files/2019/10/Round2_Austin_Opt3_Handout.pdf
This would move 179 students from DES to Austin. In 2021 it would leave Austin with a projected enrollment of 1,028 and DES with a projected enrollment of 1,066.
This move would meet all three primary criteria
– Geographic proximity
– Instructional capacity
– Projected enrollment
With regards to Geographic proximity, it should be noted that this area is closer to Austin, Montgomery, and Vanderlyn than it is to DES. Under the Superintendent’s plan, to get to school each day, those students will have to travel through the Austin and Vanderlyn attendance zones to finally get to DES.
Stan –
Will you support asking Tyson to announce this change (moving KMS) this year and wait until 2021 for it to be implemented?
Where do you stand?
@Ben. I agree with your sentiment that the DES PAC’s stance should be like you said, “just wanting more relief and not stating where the relief should come from.” The PAC and community, however, have been quite consistent about wanting to move to Austin “high growth” or “high mobility” areas.
The DES PAC letter dated October 27, 2019 says, “We have the following four specific recommendations … 3. Expand the existing section “A” area (noted on the shared Round 2 maps) to incorporate all areas west of Ashford-Dunwoody extending to I-285.”
@Ben Greenwald there are a few inaccuracies in assumptions made by DES community. One is that the new Austin would add 450 seats. The old Austin has a capacity of 500, so DCSD is staking they added 450 seats. However, as pointed out, Austin’s utilization was at 147%. So nearly 200
Of those new seats were already needed for current enrollment. I hope we can all agree on that. DES is very concerned about High Street project, which hasn’t even announced when residences can be expected to be completed. The projected growth this area would add could certainly be addressed through the comprehensive plan. We don’t need to redistrict in 2020 based on future projects to be built. I don’t understand how DES can dismiss the new school bump Dunwoody realtors have already confirmed they are seeing, yet be fighting all of Dunwoody to redistrict based on planned projects to be built, as you acknowledge in your post. And DES parents are fighting all of Dunwoody, every other school wants to develop a well thought out comprehensive plan. Dunwoody implores DES parents you think of Dunwoody as a whole, and direct these concerns to bigger problems at PCMS and DHS.
There is value in having all Dunwoody schools feel the pain of overcrowding as the community as a whole will push for relief. By selectively fixing the overcrowding problem, the constituents that no longer have overcrowding will likely spend their political capital elsewhere. Already in previous comments there is a sentiment of why are we worried about Elementary School overcrowding when it is Middle School and High School that we should be worried about? As a community we need to be pushing for solutions for all of the overcrowding.
If I was an Austin parent I’d probably feel this way. After all, I have a brand new school that is under capacity for my children to go to and I’ve successfully inoculated my school against future growth by not taking on areas that might have significant future growth. Elementary school overcrowding is now someone else’s problem.
If you are happy with the Superintendent’s interim plan, the path is simple to solve Middle School and High School overcrowding.
1. Rezone the Hightower attendance area out of the Dunwoody Cluster
2. The attendance area for all Dunwoody children that are zoned to the either Nancy Creek or the new Brookhaven/Chamblee/Dunwoody elementary school will go on to Chamblee Middle and Chamblee High School. Nancy Creek and the new school will not be a split feeder. I don’t know the exact numbers but I suspect that would solve many of the PCMS and DHS overcrowding problems.
Austin’s stance on opening over capacity (ie with trailers) has always been the same, if the rest of the cluster is over capacity then they will welcome any students. Both Vanderlyn and Chestnut are staying over capacity because their PACS and Parents fought hard not to lose neighborhoods to Kingsley (baffling as Kingsley is the hidden gem of the Dunwoody Cluster). So all this “blame” that DES is pointing AES should really be directed to VES and CES. Why should Austin open with trailers when Kingsley doesn’t have any. But like @BIGGERPICTURE said, we should not be pointing fingers at each other, rather we should all be focused on the issues at PCMS and DHS.
As a side note, I hope a lot of the families “West of Ashford Dunwoody” and in the additional complex that DES is trying so hard to move are not on this, or any other blog, for that matter. Talk about feeling like a “leftover.” These are small children we are talking about…and hard working families who are getting their kids great educations. Imagine for one second you are sitting your “apartment” reading these comments.
This conversation has gone a little sideways. @Stan – is the school board considering the Kittredge students who would return to their home schools in Dunwoody should they move the magnet? Do you know how many KMS students are from each Dunwoody school, and how this might increase overcrowding? I have a 5th grader at KMS and soooo many of his classmates came from Dunwoody schools.
Given what you know about how Dekalb County operates – is this even logistically possible to pull off in 6 months? Has the county ever been able to renovate a school in such a short period of time? Is the county taking into consideration the impact of this potential move on families who are either at KMS currently, or who have applied for the lottery to attend next year? Many private school application deadlines have already passed. This would leave a lot of families with difficult decisions to make – and not lots of time to make them.
I would greatly appreciate some more concrete information about this potential change. Magnet parents don’t have powerful PACs advocating for our families, and we also aren’t getting ANY INFORMATION from the county or the school about this potential change and how it could impact our kids. I really value the magnet program and I will figure out a way to follow it if it moves. I understand and support the thinking behind reopening the neighborhood school. It just seems very rash to do it so quickly without proper preparation and planning.
@Need More Info…..I can tell you that the Chamblee cluster PACs who worked together during this process reached out to and invited the KMS PAC to participate in joint school PAC meetings, but they weren’t interested, basically stuck their heads in the sand (Kittredge parent here too). It’s really unfortunate that they didn’t want to be involved or give any input.
I have the same questions for Stan pertaining to a Fall 2020 Kittredge move/Nancy Creek reopening….I do hope that Nancy Creek is returned to the area community as a neighborhood school soon, the extra seats are so desperately needed. But, to do so this Fall seems way too quick at this point in the process.
To all of the Dunwoody folks posting such ugly comments back and forth to each other, shame on you all! Wow is all I can say and it certainly doesn’t leave us in the Chamblee cluster all warm and fuzzy about potentially sharing a school with any of you.
I do not have kids at either DES or AES for which I am beyond grateful. You are all a bunch of disgusting pigs. I am utterly embarrassed at how childish and immature you are. The name calling, insults and veiled racism is pathetic.
One thing I’ve seen reading these posts, especially relevant to AES parents, which is quite amusing, is that they are calling DES racist by wanting to move the multi-family residents west of Ashford Dunwoody to alleviate their overcrowding. Currently, DES is 60% minority and 10% low income while AES is 38% minority and 0% low income. If Austin does not want to add the diversity to their school and is fighting so hard to keep it away, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
The 2016 FCA for Kittredge is not close to accurate. Compared to the previous FCA, the score dropped 18 points. No other school in the district dropped more than 5.
Was there raw sewage in the hallways? Is the HVAC system 60 years old? Wasn’t the building renovated prior to Kittredge moving into it? I don’t believe the FCA.
It is a false score to justify putting millions of dollars of upgrades in for the high achievers. Wadsworth got a new school in SPLOST IV. Just trying to even things out.
For those interested in how many Dunwoody Cluster students attend Kittredge, the info from this fall can be found at this link https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/operations/files/2019/11/NonResidentAttendees_Matrices_2019_ES.pdf
To save you the work
Austin sends 22
Chesnut sends 9
DES sends 32
Hightower sends 2
Kingsley sends 12
Vanderlyn sends 23
For Middle School, PCMS sends 96 to Chamblee (presumably for the Magnet program) and 50 to Kittredge.
For High School, DHS sends 98 to Chamblee (presumably for the Magnet program).
This page has a wealth of enrollment info – https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/operations/planning/
Another interesting page is this one – https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/documents/planning/2016-2017/distance-table.pdf. It is a bit dated as the data is from 2016 but since the attendance zone maps haven’t changed since then I imagine that the takeaways stay the same.
One of the take aways is that the attendance zone for DES is the most spread out of any elementary school in region 1. When measured in miles from their school, the average DES student is 1.89 miles. For Austin it is 0.87 miles. 25 percent of DES students are greater than 2.81 miles from their school with max being 3.43 miles.
If you have been advocating for more biking and walking in Dunwoody for our school children shouldn’t that extend to the where the child goes to school and assigning them to the school closest to their home?
The Kittredge Magnet Program for (lucky) High Achievers does not meet the 2019 – 2024 DCSD “Strategic Plan At-A-Glance” Stated Goal Area 1. Student Success with EQUITY with ACCESS. Students who qualify and are not picked in the lottery have NO ACCESS. It is not an equitable program and should be terminated. Until every cluster has a high achiever magnet school that serves all who qualify and feeds into their cluster MS and HS, the program should be disbanded. Do us all a favor, close Kittredge, deploy their fabulous faculty throughout the system and return students to their neighborhood schools. We would all benefit from their attendance in the classroom and their parents support of their respective neighborhood schools. Traffic along major arteries might be noticeably lighter too!
Sour grapes from High Achiever Magnet Mess. His/Her kid didn’t get into the magnet program so he wants to take his ball and go home. Grow up!!
High Achiever Magnet Mess, do you support dropping all school choice programs in DeKalb or just the High Achiever program? All 30-40 school choice have a lottery to get in if there is room. Meaning some will get in and some won’t (some include attendance lines and if there is room then a lottery). Having language immersion, IB, magnet (technology and HA), arts, Coralwood inclusion, Montessori, and several charters. If a lottery is unfair, wouldn’t they all be unfair?
I support having different ways to learn and grow and it would be a huge mistake for Dekalb to serve students in one way and only one way. I’d love to see an expansion of all programs vs a closure of all.
Regarding distance from Area A: it is 1.6 miles to DES and 2.1 miles to AES. This is a difference of 1/2 mile which is not material. It is easier to drive to DES: take a right on Ashford Center Pkwy and go straight to DES (name of this road changes to Womack Rd). You have one light at Chamblee Dun Rd. Asford Center Pkwy is lightly traveled and has a median. Womack Rd is 2 lane with no traffic in morning in that direction.
To go to AES: take a right at end of Ashford Dunwoody Rd and merge onto Mt Vernon Rd which is tricky with busy traffic on 4 lane road. The bus will have to merge onto Mt Vernon Rd onto a lane with cars driving in the same direction. Cross over two lanes to get into left turn lane in a short amount of time when there is traffic in your direction – the bus driver will need to cut off traffic quickly to successfully get into the left turn light for Chamblee Dunwoody Rd. With existing traffic plus a long line of cars already stacked in that left turn left, it gives the bus driver little actual roadway and time to safely get into that left turn lane. The bus driver may have to actually stop on Mt Vernon Rd in order to hope someone lets them get into the left turn lane – dangerous. You are now at the light at the intersection of Mt Vernon Rd and Chamblee Dunwoody Rd which has 5 lanes each way (4 lane roads with 2 lanes each way plus a middle turn lane). This is the busiest intersection in Dunwoody. Take a left onto Chamblee Dunwoody Rd which can be dangerous at a crowded intersection which is dark in fall/winter and which has backed up commuter traffic opposite way of bus – the bus will take a left turn in front of this traffic,- dangerous. Then continue through Dunwoody’s commercial district through two more sets of lights which include the intersection of Chamblee Dunwoody Rd and Roberts Rd.
Please stop with the mantra that Area A and surrounding is closer to AES – it is only a 1/2 mile difference which is not material. More importantly, it is much quicker and much safer to drive from Area A to DES than Area A to AES.
@Thankful I’m Not a DES or AES Parent… HELLO POT! “A bunch of disgusting pigs”. You may want to get off your high horse since you are now guilty of the worst name calling. Shame on you! While different sides may not see eye to eye, none have stooped as low as you.
The area “A” I am referring to is from Option 3 presented on October 23. https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/operations/files/2019/10/Round2_Austin_Opt3_Handout.pdf
It includes The Carlyle at Perimeter, 100 Dunwoody Gables Dr, Dunwoody, GA 30338
According to Google Maps, it is 3.1 miles from Dunwoody Elementary – https://www.google.com/maps/dir/The+Carlyle+at+Perimeter,+100+Dunwoody+Gables+Dr,+Dunwoody,+GA+30338/Dunwoody+Elementary+School,+Womack+Road,+Dunwoody,+GA/@33.9324571,-84.34576,15.31z
It is 2.5 miles from Austin.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/The+Carlyle+at+Perimeter,+100+Dunwoody+Gables+Dr,+Dunwoody,+GA+30338/Austin+Elementary+School,+Roberts+Drive,+Dunwoody,+GA/@33.9450591,-84.3620619,14z
C thank you for the detailed directions. Unfortunately I think you got the area wrong as the area. I’m advocating for is this one which is 3.1 mikes from DES. I am referring to is option A at this link. https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/operations/files/2019/10/Round2_Austin_Opt3_Handout.pdf
It would move 199 students from DES to Austin
My question to the Austin advocates who are opposed to getting all areas west of Ashford Dunwoody, what areas would you be open to that would provide more relief to our cluster?
@BenGreenwald I am an Austin parent and am open to students from any area. I feel very badly for the families at The Carlyle that have been singled out and must feel very unwelcome at their school. Ashford Chase is a large neighborhood and is 1.5 miles from Austin and 2.1 miles from DES. Just curious why you haven’t suggested moving these children??
As i said, i am open to Austin taking families from”high growth” or “west of Ashford Dunwoody” or whatever euphemism you want to use. However, I am opposed to these children being moved twice. Just because they live in a high growth area doesn’t mean they should be subjected to multiple moves. And redistricting really needs to utilize empty seats in the district and must therefore move south, rather than east to west. Hence, a comprehensive redistricting plan must be formulated. And yes, I am opposed to moving “a handful” of kids multiple times. It will be much more than a handful of kids because all of Dunwoody needs to shift. If you look at Stan’s post re the trailers, one Chestnut parent makes a wonderful suggestion to expand Chestnut. These are the ideas that need to be explored and would impact hundreds of children, not a handful.
@ Austin Parent asking for Strategic Planning. Is Ashford Chase the neighborhood of homes South from Valley view road. Since that only has 83 students are you suggesting that in addition to the area the Superintendent has recommended?https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/documents/planning/2016/pl/Students_Res_North.pdf
I wish DCSD published a map updated since 2016. It would be helpful.
To answer your question, I think your suggestion gets DES the immediate relief it is looking for but also has the effect of further isolating areas zoned to DES that are surrounded by areas zoned to Vanderlyn and Austin.
I don’t think I’ve yet heard an adequate answer to why people assume that areas moved in this round of redistricting will also be the areas moved when new capacity opens. The opening of a new school to serve Brookhaven, Chamblee and Dunwoody will hopefully alleviate overcrowding throughout District 1. Where it is located will have a huge impact on how attendance zone lines are drawn. I expect that all schools that are overcrowded will seek to gain relief when this new school is completed.
By the way, my suggestion is that those attendance zone lines should be drawn, before construction is even started on that new school.
Question – If we started with a blank slate today, how would attendance lines be drawn for North DeKalb County Schools?
@Ben Greenwald, yes Ashford Chase is off Valley View. It is surrounded by the Jefferson which goes to VES. I don’t think we can “geographically” isolate the Ashford Dunwoody corridor as it’s too dense with single and multi family homes. Some of these complexes go to AES, DES, and VES. I am not really suggesting Ashford Chase move to Austin I use the argument to highlight DES parents are focused on selective relief. However, if there are 85 students in Ashford Chase plus the 103 slated to move, that would eliminate 188 students which would bring DES close to 100% utilization. But then, why should Austin and DES sit at 100% while VES and CES are at approx. 130%. Round and round we go, but keep coming back to the fact that redistricting must happen across all of Dunwoody and that should be done according to a comprehensive plan.
I totally agree that where a new school is built will impact attendance lines, which is why I oppose rash redistricting without a long/term plan. Your statement supports my point.
It would be interesting to draw attendance lines from a blank slate if I had time for a fruitless exercise.
In the Round 2 community surveys, the Ashworth town homes, condos, and two single family neighborhoods were vocal in expressing a desire to be rezoned from DES to AES.
https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/operations/files/2019/11/Austin-Elementary-Redistricting-Round-2-Community-Input_November-11-2019.pdf
@jm that is certainly another logical possible area to be rezoned to AES. But they don’t make DES’ list of families they would like to have moved. I find it interesting that their desire for relief is targeted to one specific development, which makes me think it isn’t just about getting relief and it is selective relief that is desired. I strongly support the plan to minimize disruption until we have a comprehensive plan. The Carlyle may be an area that moves south to Nancy Creek in a comprehensive plan, and I oppose redistricting families twice. However, if the comprehensive plan determines that area should move to Austin I would support and welcome those families.
@Austin Parent,
I think Ashworth was hemmed in by the need for a contiguous boundary linking the Jefferson Apartments to Vanderlyn.
@Austin Parent.
A few thoughts.
1. I do not believe that because VES and CES were resistant to redistricting that they should be able to have veto power over the rest of the cluster which is effectively what we are giving them.
2. When you suggest waiting on a long term plan exactly when will redistricting take affect? Wait until the master plan is complete? (hopefully to take affect for the start of 2021 school year but more likely the 2022 school year)
or
wait until the master plan is complete and construction is finished on a new elementary school (2023 or likely 2024). On top of all of that, given our experience of how long it took to plan and construct Austin, do we really think that DCSD can acquire land, design and build a new elementary school in 3 1/2 years?
If redistricting happens after a master plan is completed, we increase the chance of students making a double move (in 2021 and again in 2023 or 2024). If avoiding double moves is your main reason for supporting the Superintendent’s plan, it would be logical to oppose any further movements until construction is complete.
The issue is we are trying to stuff 10 pounds into a 5 pound bag. There is no plan that removes all portable classrooms in 2020, or 2021, or 2022, or likely 2023, 2024, 2025 or beyond. Because of that it seems like we will continue to argue with which school bears the burden of portable classrooms.
One item to think about with regards to a Master Plan being able to provide solutions to overcrowding. A huge unknown is the impact two massive projects under development adjacent to the mall will have. Park at Perimeter Center East and High Street will add thousands of residences to our community. I don’t believe there will even be residents in them when the master plan is complete so we will have no idea how significant their impact will be on our student population.
While it appears that the city is doing everything it can to limit the number of children in these residences, there is nothing they can do to prevent them from being occupied by families with children. Even if the student occupancy rate is low, because of the large number of units involved they have the potential to add hundreds of students to our population. It is likely when the master plan is complete that we will be guessing about the impact of these properties.
While proposed maps have these properties zoned to Dunwoody Elementary, it should be noted that both are physically closer to Montgomery Elementary which already has severe overcrowding issues.
No sour grapes. My kid was picked (eventually) and we decided not to do the stressful commute. Unless we can fund a magnet school for high achievers within every cluster that feeds into the cluster MS and HS we are doing a disservice to our neighborhood schools. It’s not a healthy model for the system as a whole. It all comes down to funding, the budget, wise use of limited resources, priorities and leadership. Let’s hope a new superintendent, armed with a real strategic plan (comprehensive master plan), will improve the system for all. Perhaps taxpayers would then support a GO Bond?
As a DES parent, I support the superintendent’s plan if executed as described. While ~100 kids is minimal relief and our school is overcrowded, we need to be pushing for the comprehensive master plan. We need to take a hard look at all schools, lines, enrollment, upcoming developments etc. and redistrict accordingly. Making too many changes too quickly without proper planning can have great consequences and will ultimately impact our children. Let’s all work together to hold DCSD accountable and push them to put together a comprehensive master plan ASAP.
Stan- Can you please advise on the number of students that attend Kittredge today that come from the Dunwoody and Chamblee clusters? I can’t locate that information. I believe that moving the school 11 miles and into a horrific traffic situation will cause many current/future planned Kittredge students from the Dunwoody/Chamblee area to drop out of the program and move back into the Dunwoody/Chamblee cluster which is not going to help the overcrowding problem that we already face. Not sure if anyone has thought about that, but I would like those numbers so that I can be sure to share my thoughts/feedback with the school board since the Kittredge parents have not been given a chance to weigh in on this potential change.
Non-Resident Attendee Matrices – ES October 2019
School Enrollment & Capacity Report – October 2019
@Concerned KMS Parent I just added Dunwoody kids and it’s 100 exactly. Not all 100 will go back to Dunwoody schools, so say 75% do (which is generous) that’s less than 30 students returning to each school. Chamblee will be even less impacted since some may live in between both schools. I understand it’s inconvenient to have the location centralized, but the approx. 75 students (probably much less) that might return to Dunwoody schools hardly justifies keeping the school and losing the opportunity to relieve Chamblee and Dunwoody of 550-600 seats. And there are transportation options to ease the burden of the relocation.
@Concerned KMS Parent: You mentioned that KMS parents have not been given a chance to weigh in on moving KMS. The needs of Dunwoody and Chamblee cluster is what the county and Stan should be listening to and not override this with the needs of KMS. KMS is one of many programs the county offers and it can be moved or suspended until there is adequate space. KMS used to be located elsewhere for years and it can be moved back to its former site. If that school needs to be updated, then the county can update it and then KMS can move back there. The bus can pick up its students at each ES closest to students’ home. It used to be that way. Not difficult to move back to this. But seriously, is all of Dunwoody and Chamblee going to continue to have our kids crowded at current ES’s and not use NCES due to waiting for the magnet program’s parents to have more say? So basically, 100 Dunwoody attendees’ parents should have more say in keeping KMS at NCES than do the voices of 3500 Dunwoody elementary students’ parents and 3000 Chamblee elementary students’ parents? KMS parents at Dunwoody and Chamblee will always want to keep magnet at NCES since it is closer. So no need to weigh in since we already know what you will say – you vote to keep KMS at NCES, otherwise, you all think that moving KMS to where it used to be will be devasting even though KMS was successful where it used to be located prior to NCES.
KMS parents’ preference to keep KMS where it is should be ignored. Additionally, there are more gifted students at various ES’s in Chamblee and Dunwoody than there are at KMS. Vanderlyn, Oak Grove, maybe DES and AES and MES, have more gifted students (students who scored high on tests and are in gifted program) than does KMS. The minimum score required for admittance to KMS is 75% on various tests. The minimum score for admittance to gifted programs at each ES used to be 99% then 98% and is now 95%. Not all KMS students are gifted qualified. KMS has bright students but not all students there are gifted, based on definition of gifted for the county. Moving KMS back to its prior location doesn’t negatively affect the magnet program and positively affects Chamblee and Dunwoody. Keeping KMS at its current location negatively affects Chamblee and Dunwoody.
@C – please don’t forget that many Kittredge parents, myself included, are also parents to children at these other extremely overcrowded Dunwoody / Chamblee cluster schools. We can support relieving overcrowded schools in a logical, well thought out way – while also supporting the magnet program. I’m not worried about the impact of moving the school back to the previous location – it’s worth it to us to make the commute.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to bring up the gifted ratios and testing scores – why is that relevant to this discussion? That immediately frames your argument as one made from a very biased point of view.
The point is that we’ve been through months and months of discussion, contentious debate, community input – and suddenly this is on the table without any clear information. What about all of the kids who will be pulled from their existing schools to go to Nancy Creek? Do you think their parents have a right to weigh in on this, and ask for more than 6 months notice? I’ve been asking around my neighborhood, which could well be impacted – many people have no idea. They think the redistricting is settled and that they know where their children will be in August. This will be disruptive to many families – not just current magnet students. Given what we all know about how long it can take the school district to get things done – isn’t it reasonable to ask for more time (not to mention allowing community discussion and input) before moving hundreds of students to aging and subpar facilities?
I actually support this plan long term. I think it makes sense while a new school is built. I just don’t understand why it’s thrown in at the 11th hour. It feels wrong to me.
@Concerned Parent, the redistricting is far from settled and anyone that is redistricted will receive 6 months notice. I’m not sure why any group feels entitled to more notice than any other group? The 102 families moving from DES to AES will receive 6 months notice. I also have to point out the redistricting is far from settled. Just because your neighbors are misinformed and/or disengaged hardly means we stop looking for solutions! Anyone mildly following the redistricting process knows it’s far from settled. I do see why KMS parents support the plan long-term, they are only trying to squeeze 1-2 more years out of KMS at its current location. But we need to explore what’s in the best interest of the entire cluster. I would also point out that any KMS family displeased with the new location has the option to return to their neighborhood school, in contrast to any other family that is redistricted (unless in 5th grade).
@Concerned Parent- I agree with you 100%. I also have another child at an elementary school in Dunwoody and have that redistricting to think of as well. I actually don’t have a problem with KMS moving to the other location- but as you stated- that this is being thrown in at the last minute which doesn’t provide enough time for parents to make plans for the next school year and this change will be a dramatic impact for many of us. If the decision to move the school is made, I think it needs to be for the 21-22 school year in order to provide everyone with time to plan and for next year’s incoming 4th grade parents to be able to make an informed decision on what they are signing up for.
@Voice of Reason- the magnet program is designed to be a program that will continue through middle and high school. We made the decision to sign our kids up for the long haul, so “returning to their neighborhood school” is not really an option as they will most likely not be able to reenter the magnet program for middle/high school if they drop out now. So, this change affects the rest of their school career, not just the next two years.
@Concerned KMS Parent your child is at KMS as part of a school CHOICE program. Meaning you have the choice not to send if the new location is inconvenient. I hardly think people choosing to send their kids to a lottery magnet program trumps the opportunity to relieve overcrowding for hundreds of over a thousand other students.
@Concerned KMS Parent I understand you have made the choice to keep your child in the magnet program for the long haul. I am familiar with the program and know that it continues through MS and HS. However it’s your choice, and you are lucky to have had your lottery number picked and the rest of the cluster shouldn’t ignore or delay a solution to the critical overcrowding so your choice is more convenient for you. The program serves a very small group of students, and should be the first to be moved or even eliminated for the sake of the greater community. That’s the downside to being in this small program. You have less of a voice.!
Since we also have overcrowding at the Middle School and High School level, I would expect any 10 year plan to also consider moving the magnet program from their current Middle and High School locations to a location with excess capacity. It appears that Chamblee Middle would offer about 348 seats to resident students and Chamblee High School would offer about 598 seats to resident attendees if the magnet program were to be moved elsewhere in the district.
To all of you naysayers about the KMS program and our choice to send our children there- I have to say how disappointing it is to know what the Dunwoody community that I have lived in for 15 years truly thinks- through your comments here and on the surveys that were submitted through the whole redistricting process. Yes- it was my choice to send my child there because she was “lucky” enough to be chosen, but we also have a right to an opinion and should be able to express it and have it heard- it is ridiculous for you to say we don’t have that right. I realize that it is a small piece of this puzzle, but I will fight for what is best for my child and if you were in my position I would be disappointed in you if you didn’t do the same.
@Concerned KMS Parent, you say you would be disappointed if we didn’t advocate for our children and yet you are also disappointed that the “community you have lived in for 15 years” isn’t supporting KMS on this blog or through surveys. This isn’t personal. You need to appreciate that Nancy Creek represents 500-600 seats for Huntley Hills, MES, DES, CES, AES, and KES to alleviate the critical
Overcrowding that impacts their children’s education. No one is saying to get rid of the magnet program, but thousands of children in overcrowded schools do not support keeping it in a location that is more convenient for Dunwoody and some Chamblee families when the school could hold more students and dramatically alleviate overcrowding if converted to a non magnet school. The families from KMS have a right to speak up, but they are 500 voices compared to the thousands that may benefit if KMS is moved. Your child will still have access to the magnet program, it just may be more of a burden or inconvenience to get her there. Ultimately, if it is that important you should be willing to shoulder the burden and if you can’t or don’t want to, you have the option to pull out of the magnet program. But I think it is unrealistic for you to expect thousands of families to not advocate for Nancy Creek to be used to alleviate the critical overcrowding. We don’t care if you spend 15 minutes longer in the car to take your child to their smaller class size school, we don’t want our kids eating lunch at 9:30, spending the day in a moldy trailer and having recess in a parking lot.
Kittredge and MES parent here…..I also want to point out in case some here don’t know, Nancy Creek Theme School primarily serviced the Chamblee cluster before it was closed and Kittredge moved there 10+ years ago. That fact shouldn’t be overlooked by current Kittredge families, but often seems to be. Many may not even realize that was the case.
We desperately need Nancy Creek seats back for resident kids, that should be the first and most important priority. Also, there are shuttle buses running throughout the county that bring children to and from Kittredge each day. There’s a Dunwoody shuttle readily available for transportation. I’m sure that will still be the case if Kittredge changes location, so the transportation hardship argument isn’t very compelling.
@Ben: I measured distances from Chili’s to AES and to DES at 2.1 and 1.6 miles. If the actual miles from the apts are 3.1 and 2.5, I stand corrected on actual mileage. The difference is 1/2 mile which is minimal and it is safer and faster to drive to DES than AES. Despite this, I am not implying that all apts/condos west of Ashford Dunwoody should go to DES. I am just stating that using mileage as a criteria doesn’t work here since it is faster/safer to DES. I don’t think all apts/condos west of Ash Dun should be in same district. What I repeatedly see is DES community wanting to identify high density areas as “belonging” to AES based on mileage and then just matter-of-factly going ahead and trying to bunch all communities west of Ash Dun Rd into one category that conveniently belong to AES. And then DES keeps repeating this over and over, I guess, in hopes that, if you repeat it over and over, then everyone at the state, county, and city start to believe this to be the will of all of Dunwoody. I am sure that is what is occurring behind the scenes to work the system to try to convince the county to do this . DES has a history of trying to work the system to their favor. When DES was built, it was to be a K – 5 school. Out of nowhere, it changed last minute to a 4/5 academy with no input from anyone other than DES community and Jim R, the school committee person at the time who happened to live near there. And no one was given the 6 months notice of any of this as suggested by @Concerned Parent. The DES community advocated some plan for the entire community using Jim on its side with no input from the community. Then AES, VES, and CHES attended 4/5 academy while KES was left out. KES and AES were not happy but not sure if CHES ever liked it. There is a history with trying to work any avenue to get what DES wants despite rest of community. From all that I have read, it looks like DES continues to send in letters and is using Jim R. again presently to advocate for what they want in hopes that the county will be convinced that DES and Jim R represents all Dunwoody (they don’t).
In terms of repeating some history of DES: original splosts didn’t have specific projects and some areas of county didn’t receive anything new. A state law then required listing projects before public votes on splost. The county then started including a project for each HS cluster. DES was given to Dunwoody and then location was picked from trading prior Dekalb Technical HS nearby to Perimeter College in return for current DES site. The HS was razed by college. The ease of doing this transaction is why Dekalb picked that site for DES – no one in Dunwoody wanted a new ES there. The county never allowed some type of community input to pick the school. The next splost then resulted in picking AES for a new school despite Nancy J (school committee person) requesting that community discuss what to do with $20 million in funds. She was ignored and rest of county school committee picked a new AES. The county tends to want to give each HS cluster something but they should probably work with the community more on what to pick. The Chamblee cluster received a new HS, but from reading comments, never received any ES’s and lost NCES to magnet.
As future schools are built here and elsewhere, this manner in picking schools needs to be improved. An example if Cross Keys HS – the county was going to rebuild this outside of Brookhaven near Lakeside but Brookhaven wants this in Brookhaven and is willing to buy the property for it. The county is picking sites that are not optimal in some cases. Chamblee area hasn’t had new ES’s in awhile – if one or more is built, it could end up at some weird location that then throws a curve at redistricting for it.
C. Thanks for the history. I only moved to Dunwoody in 2008 and wasn’t a parent then so didn’t really follow what was going on at DES at that time. The whole 4 5 academy experience seems like a mess. My expectation is that Brookhaven/Chamblee are going to lobby really hard for the new school to be built well inside 285.
The big unknown is how many new students new development near the mall is going to produce. It has the potential to produce an entire school’s worth of students. Only time will tell. Since DES has the housing East of Ashford Dunwoody it seems an equivalent split for Austin to take the west.
I’m skeptical of your travel time calculations. In the morning both are opposite of traffic but the traffic on Womack near the High School can be horrible.
@Concerned Parent: I am ok with keeping all programs wherever, but there is a critical shortage for classes in Dunwoody/Chamblee and the Chamblee are deeply in need of the seats. The Chamblee cluster hasn’t had a new ES in forever. And they had a local ES taken away (NCES). They really, really need the seats and the magnet program seems like it can easily be moved and work where it used to work – it was at the prior location for years and did work there. I think the county should give us all notice and have meetings but not sure if six months is needed to move the program to where it was. The magnet program has an interest to keep asking for delays forever so that they can keep using NCES until their child is no longer at that magnet school. There is a way greater need for NCES to be used for non magnet at this time.
WOW. You Dunwoody parents are serious head-cases. I suspect that most of the parents in the Chamblee/Brookhaven cluster are now questioning the suggestion that Dunwoody schools might actually receive any relief from a facility that is supposed to serve our.
We’ve got our own issues with overcrowding, but we certainly get along just fine without the type of bigoted hate mongering that you folks bring to the table. Please stay outside of the perimeter where you belong. We really don’t have any extra seats for your children at Nancy Creek, or MES, or HH, or any of our schools for that matter.
@PSDad: I would say that folks are passionate and care about education in Dunwoody and try to make their voice heard. What all good citizens should be doing everywhere. It is better than the alternative – sit passively by while decisions are made by whoever, wondering why you didn’t get involved to effect change.
I stated in an earlier post that I feel that Dunwoody students should stay in Dunwoody, Chamblee in Chamblee, Brookhaven in Cross Keys (rename HS as Brookhaven). I am not in favor of moving everyone all over the place due to available seats. The only impediment is that some schools and their footprint and not overly large to keep accommodate constant flow of new students. I do think NCES should revert to a K to 5 school to serve that area rather than remain as a magnet school. But it is a county school system so the county could move kids around – some Doraville students feed into Dunwoody cluster and some feed into Chamblee, etc. So when you say that Dunwoody should stay outside perimeter, well… it isn’t yours, or our choice; the county runs the school system and, at the end of day, they can do what they want.
God you chamblee people crack me up. I was in the early email chains, I know how you think of Huntley Hills. You love, LOVE that they have the apartments so your spoiled brats in ME and AU won’t have to deal with them. You want everything for yourselves, screw the rest of the county.
But the funny part. Even with your segregation, even with your hate, your schools are still behind Dunwoody elem schools. Look at the lists. Do you think ME is anywhere near Austin or Vanderlyn?
So crawl back in your self-righteous hole, keep the unwashed non-white HH kids in their crappy school, and try to sleep well at night.
This thread has had so many sidebars. Let’s stop pointing fingers and turning on each other. The issue at hand is whether Nancy Creek should continue to serve the magnet population, or if that program should be moved to a centralized location so that NCES can be used to house more students and alleviate overcrowding throughout the area. Given the time involved with building a new school, I think it is irresponsible to allow the magnet program to stay here for the 2020-2021 school year. As has been pointed out, this magnet program isn’t equitable or accessible, and certainly should not be a priority over the education and safety of thousands of students in overcrowded schools throughout Chamblee or Dunwoody.
Chamblee you ARE full of crap. A few points: 1) MES and AP are just as good if not better than Austin and Vanderlyn. 2) At least MES and AP have SOME apartment kids. Vanderlyn and Austin intentionally have none. Zero. So get off your high horse.
Lose The Magnet, That’s an odd thing to say. You’re losing some credibility here.
Vanderlyn is 42% apartments. Vanderlyn has 695 students. 289 of those students come from the Jefferson apartments.
Austin is 24% apartments. 708 students and 170 come from the Point at Perimeter.
Chamblee and Dunwoody communities … you are both discriminatory and prejudicial. Allow me to count the ways….
In Dunwoody – Kinglsey doesn’t want LaCota kids at their school. Dunwoody North and Oxford Chase don’t want to go to school with Kingsley kids. Vanderlyn doesn’t want the Post Crossing apartment kids. Dunwoody elementary is doing everything they can to get rid of apartment kids.
In Chamblee – Ashford Park will sell their soul to keep from going to John Lewis with those Cross Keys kids. Montgomery/Sexton Woods doesn’t want to go to school with Huntley Hills kids.
Nobody wants to go to Doraville United with the Cross Keys kids so Chamblee and Dunwoody have come together to send half of Hightower elementary over there.
Did I miss anything?
@lose the magnet – get your facts straight. VES has almost 300 students from The Jefferson.
Anyone have the data on single family vs multi family numbers are for Dunwoody Elementary?
LAND USE MAPS
2019 Actuals – Dunwoody Cluster – Elementary School – Land Use
Elementary School Attendance Zones
https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/operations/files/2019/07/ES_AttenAreas_2019_07_18_2.pdf
Stan – thanks for the links. Please correct me if I’m wrong but for Dunwoody Elementary it appears that it is 57% students from apartments. 673 students out of a total of 1,173 students.
Ben, In the Land Use Maps, Red is apartments and Blue is town homes (I think). I count 632 students which gives Dunwoody ES currently 54% apartments.
I counted 626 in apartments in DES, 62 in townhomes and condos. Depending on whether you consider townhomes as multifamily, the percentages are 53% or 59%.
To review a few facts.
– Dunwoody Elementary currently has the highest number of students from multi-family homes.
– Dunwoody Elementary currently has the highest percentage of students from multi-family homes.
– Dunwoody Elementary currently has zoning approved for another 2,000 + multi-family homes which should be breaking ground this year. All of those multi-family homes are closer to three other DCSD schools than they are to Dunwoody Elementary.
Ben Greenwald, actually Chesnut, Kingsley and Hightower all are higher at 61.8%, 64.7%, and 77.3% respectively. Dunwoody Elementary is 57.6%
Yes CES has about 62 percent apartments and multi family homes. Don’t recall ever hearing or seeing anyone complaining about them. We love all our kids and all our families, and I am proud to be part of a welcoming community. Maybe some of the families that have children who feed into other elementary schools have preconceived notions about Chesnut because we are 62 percent apartments and multi family homes. That’s too bad. We’re proud of our school, our faculty and staff, and all our kids and families no matter where they live. Also, when someone wrote earlier that Dunwoody North didn’t want to go to school with the Kingsley kids, that was grossly inaccurate. We have a strong neighborhood bond, and bond to our neighborhood school. Speaking for all the Chesnut Dunwoody North families that I know, our desire not to move had nothing to do with KES or the kids there, and had everything to do with CES.
Dunwoody Parent,
“Strong neighborhood bond”. Exactly. Just like the strong neighborhood bond Oxford Chase insists they have with the Vanderlyn community, and the strong neighborhood bond that everyone expresses about their current school when told they might have to move. It’s the same strong neighborhood bond we are about to get from Georgetown when they are told they are going to Nancy Creek in the Fall.
Everybody has that strong neighborhood bond (especially when it comes to getting redistricted to Kingsley).
So, how does the school district ever redistrict anybody?
Anonymous –
There were various reasons that were listed in the letters we wrote. The real point I was trying to get across is that it had nothing to do with going to school with Kingsley kids. That’s just wrong. Maybe that’s how you think but that’s not how most people I know think. As for Oxford Chase, I cant speak for their reasons. We have nothing to do with them. “Exactly.” Not going to engage in a back and forth argument of nastiness. Have a good night.
Summary:
The DeKalb County Board of Education has utterly failed to adequately plan for the population growth that was a very easy to predict outcome of the construction zoning the county has allowed. Those tax revenues are great, but y’all have no clue how to properly allocate them to healthy use.
So now we get this “solution.” Move some of the chess pieces around the board so that the loudest voices get quieted down and the quietest voices (Kittredge) gets jobbed. Shame on you all. These are kids. Teachers. Administrators. And you play with the outcome like a board game and come across quite smug in announcing your brilliant plan.
And for those of you advocating the moving of the school, consider how you would feel if your child attended. Try, for a minute to think of others.
This is all one big joke. And the school board is the punchline.
@ Patrick. Can you explain how the Kittredge kids get “jobbed” simply by moving them back to it’s prior location? Given that KES serves the whole of DCSS, it seems reasonable to assume that for every Kittredge family that is inconvenienced by the relocation there will be at least one family that gets some relief in their commute. I suspect there are many families that are cheering this move.
You obviously aren’t familiar with the history of how Kittredge ended up in the Nancy Creek ES building. So before you ask how we would feel if our children were moved out of their school, you should read the story that is linked in one of the earlier posts in this thread. That news article provides a good summary of how the local community was “jobbed” by DCSS when their children were relocated out of Nancy Creek ES (Kittredge).
To summarize that article… When the Nancy Creek attendance zone was consolidated into Montgomery ES, the school system assured the community that this wouldn’t lead to overcrowding at Montgomery. When the NCES and MES families argued that the DCSS attendance projections were flawed, DCSS assured both communities that the school would be promptly returned to the cluster if Montgomery ES was to become overcrowded. That was over a decade ago and while Montgomery has been above capacity since the first year of that consolidation, the school system hasn’t honored that promise to return the facility to the cluster (yet). Another little known fact is that DCSS also refused to credit MES for the Magnet slots that were originally allocated to kids in the Nancy Creek ES attendance zone. So not only did the cluster lose their school building, they lost the Kittredge slots that were allocated to their attendance zone. It’s a decade late, but DCSS needs to make good on that promise to the families in the Nancy Creek ES footprint.
If the high achievers magnet 4-6 is housed at the Old John Lewis building, would additional trailers be needed to provide 24 classrooms? Looking at the spaces info, there currently isn’t enough capacity for the 22 kid per class, 8 classes per grade model.
22 kids per class? That must be nice. I wish my high achieving kids had won that lottery…
@Mark: If the old John Lewis building is not large enough to accommodate all magnet students that are currently at Nancy Creek ES, then the magnet program needs to be reduced in size so as to equal the capacity of the old John Lewis building. Or trailers can be added to old John Lewis building as trailers are added everywhere else. Or the magnet program can be suspended until the old John Lewis building, or any location, is available/ready. Based on your estimate, there are 176 students per grade (22 students * 8 classes) and 528 total students (176 students per grade * 3 grades). In fall 2020, the size of the 4th grade class can be reduced to match the capacity of old John Lewis building. Or the 4th grade class can be eliminated for now and the magnet can be 5th/6th grade only, for now, until space issues get sorted out. If necessary, the 4th grade class can be eliminated forever and magnet can start at 5th grade. If necessary, magnet can be eliminated for 4th/5th/6th grades until space is found. The space issue that you reference is not difficult to resolve. At the end of the day, the ES’s in Chamblee need relief – the entire ES cluster is way overpopulated (a problem they have due to desirability of area with folks moving there continually) and NCES is located in the heart of the ES’s needing relief. Something needs to be done to help the Chamblee ES’s and this should have way more priority than magnet. Not only are the ES’s in Chamblee way overcrowded, they haven’t had a new ES in forever. And their current ES’s are really old – built in 60’s, I think, which puts them at 55 years old.
Chamblee gets screwed again! Reviewing Actions for Monday looks like Nancy Creek will be used to house Dunwoody 4th and 5th. Interesting that Dunwoody made comment MES was “selfish” yet they are the ones receiving relief once again! Y’all are welcome for all the ground work MES laid for you! Betting it’s ok that a Dunwoody school gets a split campus,
as long as it doesn’t happen in the Chamblee Cluster
Dunwoody =2 new elementary schools and an annex
Chamblee = 0
Moving KMS to another location is being done in true Dekalb fashion. With little to no prior warning to parents and teachers and students of the school and with no actual forethought into the logistics of making it happen. Another example of Dekalb trying to build the plane in the air. Why not take time, come up with an actual plan and solution and then implement it. No one would want this to happen to their own kids, their own teachers, and their own school. Why are you so willing for this to happen to Kittredge? These are just kids, kids just like yours. Kids who need prior notice and explanations and warning before big changes happen in their lives. Families who need to be told what’s going on with enough advanced notice to make decisions to stay or go. Parents who want what is best for their children. Just like everyone. Why are we so content to let DCSD keep pretending to take our feedback only to ignore it? Why are we so content to let DCSD make BIG decision without thinking it through first? Before making decisions that effect hundreds if not thousands of kids, should DCSD work out the details before voting to do something?