Author Archives: Stan Jester

DeKalb School Board To Oppose OSD

Posted on September 15, 2016 | 13 comments

Board Of Education
On November 8, 2016, the people of Georgia will vote on Amendment 1: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow the state to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve student performance?” A “yes” vote supports authorizing the state to form an Opportunity School District (OSD) that would govern certain elementary and secondary schools determined to be “chronically failing.”

Stan Jester

1. Does the state have any responsibility for the performance of local school districts?
2. If the state does not abdicate all responsibility to local school districts, then what is the alternative to OSD?
This Monday, the DeKalb County Board of Education will meet, discuss and vote on this DRAFT “Statement Opposing OSD.” What are your thoughts?

DeKalb School board urges its citizens: Say NO to state takeover of local schools
After careful consideration, the DeKalb County Board of Education urges voters to vote NO on the proposed Constitutional Amendment #1, the Opportunity School District amendment.
Local control of education is a bedrock American principle. We strongly believe that citizens whose taxes pay for a majority of the cost of educating our children should exercise control over decisions relating to that education. We believe it is not only wrong but risky to give up local control to a new state bureaucracy; this approach failed to improve education for children when introduced in school districts in New Orleans, Memphis, Normandy (MO) and elsewhere.
The Board strongly believes that the answer to improved academic outcomes and achievement is in the classroom and the schoolhouse, with motivated, well-trained teachers; engaged, challenged students; and involved, supportive parents, caregivers, and communities.
To accomplish our goals of restoring DeKalb’s national reputation for academic excellence and for providing world-class services to our students, staff, and communities, DeKalb County Schools will continue to invest in our children and our teachers. We have demonstrated our commitment over the last year by eliminating all teacher furlough days and granting multiple pay increases for our teachers and staff. We are transforming our schools through rigor, relevance, and relationships. Voting NO to a state takeover of our local schools will allow DeKalb to continue its progress for all our children.

 

Opportunity School District – In The News
School boards defy Gov. Nathan Deal on state schools takeover
Sept. 2, 2016 – The Cherokee County school board joined about a half dozen of Georgia’s 180 school districts in a rebellion against Gov. Nathan Deal’s plan to take over “failing” schools across the state, and more boards may stand beside them this week. The Cherokee board, in a GOP stronghold of the state, voted 7-0 for a symbolic resolution that says the proposed statewide district, with a superintendent answering only to the governor, would erode local control over education and tax dollars.
Gov. Deal comes out swinging today against opponents of his Opportunity School District
Sept. 8, 2016 – Governor Deal had special venom for school leaders who repeatedly failed to pass along budget increases to teachers in the form of raises and reduced furlough days over the past three years, saying he and lawmakers would make such raises mandatory in future budgets. Deal unleashed his sharpest words on critics of his proposed constitutional amendment to create an “Opportunity School District.”
Note to governor: Opposing state takeover doesn’t mean you support failing schools
Failing schools are typically located in impoverished communities dealing with high crime, low employment and families in crisis. Those communities lack the safety nets and comprehensive social services needed to address all of these problems, so we turn to the schools and ask them to change the trajectories of the children. And schools do, for some of the kids. But the schools alone cannot revive economically desolate Main Streets, conquer crime, get parents good-paying jobs and help them to guide their children to better choices than they made.

13 Comments

Posted in Opportunity School District

Evolution of Facility Planning & Feasibility Study Options

Posted on September 14, 2016 | 2 comments

The options coming from the secondary (middle and high school) facility planning and feasibility study have evolved from round to round. I asked the school district to help us understand how the options have evolved into what we are looking at now in round 3.

Dan Drake
Dan Drake

Dan Drake is the Director of Planning and SPLOST Programming for the DeKalb County School District.
The Planning Department is responsible for the estimates of future enrollment for all schools within the school system. Planning also coordinates with local governments on the future housing development and its impact on the current and planned school facilities. Additionally, Planning provides support to Transportation Department (for bus routing), Plant Services (portable classroom placement), public safety (crossing guards), and other departments, as requested. Finally, the Planning Department provides support to the schools in their work on Safe Routes to Schools programs, including mapping and analysis of location of children relative to the schools.

Joshua Williams
Joshua Williams

Joshua Williams is the Chief Operating Officer for DeKalb Schools.
He is responsible for the day-to-day operational management of fleet, transportation, facilities management, school nutrition, and business service operations. Additionally, he oversees and directs the District’s $1+ billion E-SPLOST capital improvement program to include establishing and managing capital planning and budgets, technical design guidelines, contractor/vendor pre-qualification, selection and contract administration, construction operations, and administrative management.
Mr. Drake and Mr. Williams help us understand the evolution from Round 2 options to Round 3 options of the Secondary School Facility Planning & Feasibility Study.
Round 2 of the study had estimated costs for the various options ranging from $96M to $173M. Round 3 options range from $163M to $247M. Can you tell us about the evolution from Round 2 options to Round 3 options?
The primary differences in the cost of options between the options presented to the Regional Steering Committees for comment (in June 2016) and the options presented at the Round 3 public meetings (August 23 and 25) are:
1. Enhanced estimates of costs for additions and land purchase. The options presented to the Regional Steering Committees did not factor in the high estimated cost of purchasing land in the area around Sequoyah MS. Additionally, professional architects evaluated the schools at which additions were being proposed to determine an estimated cost for additions that included the need to expand core spaces such as cafeterias and media centers. This more accurate estimation of costs for additions was incorporated in the options presented at the Round 3 public meetings.
2. Better accounting for student movement when maintaining 1-to-1 feeder patterns. The options presented to the Regional Steering Committees did not as meticulously take into account the need to always move middle and high school students in direct proportion to each other in order to maintain strict 1-to-1 feeder patterns. As this was corrected in the development of the options presented at the Round 3 public meetings, we recognized a need for more capacity to allow for the inefficient balancing of middle and high school students in a cluster due to maintaining 1-to-1 feeder patterns.
3. Every option involves building at least one new facility. New facilities cost more than additions, and two of the four options presented to the Regional Steering Committees did not include building any new facilities, only additions. One of the primary pieces of feedback from the Regional Steering Committees, as well as previous rounds of public engagement, was the desire of the community to “not put a band-aid on the problem” (by only building additions) and to use all available properties in the overcrowded areas to re-lieve capacity. Based on this, all options presented at the Round 3 public meetings include building at least one new facility on DCSD property.
4. Better understanding of attendance area constraints in the Clarkston cluster. Upon further review, it was determined that none of the options presented to the Regional Steering Committees presented a realistic solution for projected overcrowding in the Clarkston cluster while maintaining a 1-to-1 feeder pattern. Much of the population in the Clarkston cluster is located close to the high school facili-ty. Adjusting attendance areas to relieve Clarkston HS (assumed within the previous options) would result in the feeder MS, Freedom MS, being located outside the cluster. To correct for this, large additions to Clarkston HS and Freedom MS had to be added in Option A and Option C in the options presented at the Round 3 public meetings, raising the estimated cost of those options.
5. Reduction of the future District-wide redistricting necessary for the lowest cost option presented to the Re-gional Steering Committees. That option would have required redistricting efforts that would have disrupt-ed every cluster in the District, and would have completely abandoned a 1-to-1 feeder pattern. This option was soundly rejected by the Regional Steering Committees due to the disruption it would cause.
The Projects (Referendum Focus Area) estimated $170M for New Facilities and Additions + $60M for 2 new elementary schools. Will these new options take us over budget? Can we pay for all of this plus the other referendum focus areas with SPLOST V monies?
Options A and C presented at the Round 3 public meetings will cost more than the $170 million available from the 2017-2022 E-SPLOST funds. Option B would leave only an estimated $7 million for all other new facility and additions projects for elementary, middle, and high schools. Any recommendations from the Secondary School Facility Planning and Feasibility Study would need to be prioritized along with all other new facility and additions needs at all schools in the District under the Building SPACES Initiative’s development of the E-SPLOST project list. If all recommendations from the Second-ary School Facility Planning and Feasibility Study are to begin implementation within the E-SPLOST 2017-22 timeframe, additional revenue sources (beyond E-SPLOST V) would need to be found.

2 Comments

Posted in SPLOST