Stan Jester | StanJester - FactChecker

Author Archives: Stan Jester

Relocating Chamblee Magnets

Posted on July 27, 2016 | 84 comments

Would moving the Chamblee magnet program to Southwest DeKalb HS kill the magnet program for Region 1 and Region 2?

The purpose of the Secondary School Facility Planning and Feasibility Study is to develop long-term plans for addressing capacity needs of the district’s middle schools and high schools.
Option 2B includes – Chamblee HS: Relocate 650 students (Magnet) to Southwest DeKalb HS
  Pros & Cons
  Cost Estimates
  DeKalb Secondary School Facility Planning and Feasibility Study
  Chamblee Magnet Program – Is it moving?
Online Comments
Evan – I think there’s a flaw in the thinking around option 2b, in that it assumes that all of the children in the Chamblee magnets will follow the magnet program when it moves 20 miles away. I suspect that the percentage who choose to do so will be less than 100%, and those that do not choose to do so will end up returning to the schools in their attendance zone, increasing their populations.
Kim – Who benefits from the Magnet being located in differing places. Obviously, Dunwoody residents benefit from it being at CCHS versus say, Avondale or Stone Mountain. But the numbers show that EVEN located at CCHS the majority of the enrollment comes from communities to its south. I get that moving the DeKalb County High Achievers Magnet for High Achievers from CCHS to really anywhere farther south is a negative impact on transportation for Dunwoody parents. I think it is equally important to consider the improvement it would make for the overwhelming majority of the current enrollment. Let’s agree that wherever it is located will have winners and losers. Right now, yes, Dunwoody is a winner with the current location. That is hard to argue with.
Empirical Data – There is currently no study on who would be willing to transfer down to SW DeKalb HS if Chamblee moved, so let’s look at the data we do have. The Non-Resident Attendee Matrices will tell us how many students are currently willing to go to a high achievers magnet across town.

Non-Resident Attendee Matrices

ES October 2015

MS October 2015

HS October 2015

Magnet schools for high achievers
DeKalb County operates six magnet schools for high achievers:

Kittredge Magnet School (Region 1)
Wadsworth Magnet School (Region 5)
Chamblee Middle School (Region 1)
Chapel Hill Middle School (Region 4)
Chamblee Charter High School (Region 1)
Southwest DeKalb High School (Region 4)

Elementary School Summary – Non-Resident Attendee Matrices
These are the number of students from each region that go to Kittredge and Wadsworth magnet programs as of Oct 2015. Looks like very few students from Region 1 & 2 are going South to Wadsworth and very few students from Region 3 & 4 are going North to Kittredge.

School	Total	REGION I	REGION II	REGION III	REGION IV	REGION V
Kittredge	321	181	104	23	10	3
Wadsworth	145	1	8	65	52	19
Total	466	182	112	88	62	22

High School Summary – Non-Resident Attendee Matrices
NOTE: These numbers do not reflect the number of students zoned for Chamblee that attend the magnet and zoned for SWD that attend the magnet there. It looks like the high schools tell a different story. Next to nobody from Regions 1 & 2 are willing to go down to Southwest DeKalb High School, while quite a few people from South DeKalb are willing to make the trek up to Region 1. (I think we have our answer)

School	Total	REGION I	REGION II	REGION III	REGION IV	REGION V
Chamblee	636	120	223	153	87	53
SW DeKalb	228	0	5	40	82	101
Total	864	120	228	193	169	154

Number of students attending a magnet from each school

Reg	High School	Chamblee	SW DeKalb
1	Chamblee		1
1	Cross Keys	46
1	Dunwoody	74
2	Druid Hills	33	2
2	Lakeside	113
2	Tucker HS	77	3
3	Clarkston	41	9
3	Redan	39	12
3	Stephenson	51	13
3	Stone Mountain	22	6
4	Lithonia	19	20
4	Miller Grove	14	9
4	MLK ,Jr.	36	53
4	SW DeKalb	18
5	Cedar Grove	17	31
5	Columbia	8	24
5	McNair	13	20
5	Towers	15	26

Elementary Schools

Region	School	Kittredge	Wadsworth
1	Ashford Park ES	12
1	Austin ES	18
1	Cary Reynolds ES	5
1	Chesnut ES	14	1
1	Dresden ES	1
1	Dunwoody ES	24
1	Henderson Mill ES	14
1	Hightower ES	3
1	Huntley Hills ES	7
1	Kingsley ES	10
1	Laurel Ridge ES	9
1	Livsey ES	10
1	Montclair ES	1
1	Montgomery ES	29
1	Vanderlyn ES	22
1	Woodward ES	2
2	Avondale ES		1
2	Briar Vista ES	2
2	Briarlake ES	16
2	Brockett ES	6
2	E. L. Miller ES		1
2	Evansdale ES	16	1
2	Fernbank ES	5
2	Hawthorne ES	12
2	Idlewood ES	1	1
2	Jolly ES		2
2	McLendon ES	1
2	Midvale ES	4
2	Oak Grove ES	26
2	Pleasantdale ES	3
2	Sagamore Hills ES	10
2	Smoke Rise ES	2	1
2	Stone Mill ES		1
3	Allgood ES	2	1
3	Browns Mill ES	1	10
3	Chapel Hill ES		8
3	Dunaire ES	2	3
3	Fairington ES	1	2
3	Hambrick ES	3	3
3	Indian Creek ES	2	2
3	Panola Way ES		3
3	Pine Ridge ES	4	4
3	Princeton ES	3	9
3	Redan ES	1	2
3	Rock Chapel ES		6
3	Rockbridge ES	2	3
3	Shadow Rock ES	1	8
3	Stone Mountain ES	1	1
4	Bob Mathis ES	1	6
4	Canby Lane ES	2	4
4	Columbia ES		2
4	Flat Rock ES	4	16
4	Kelley Lake ES		2
4	Murphey Candler ES		6
4	Oak View ES	2	4
4	Peachcrest ES		3
4	Rainbow ES		1
4	Stoneview ES	1	3
4	Woodridge ES		5
5	Cedar Grove ES	2	4
5	Clifton ES		2
5	Flat Shoals ES
5	McNair ES DLA	1	2
5	Meadowview ES		2
5	Rowland ES		4
5	Snapfinger ES		5
5	Toney ES

It is also worth noting that if the Chamblee magnet programs move, there would no longer be any magnet programs West of highway 85. Here are the other magnet programs in the county.
Magnet schools of the arts

DeKalb Elementary School of the Arts (Region 2)
DeKalb School of the Arts (Region 2)

Other magnet schools

Clifton Elementary School (Region 5) – math, science and computer education
Evansdale Elementary School – (Region 2) math, science and French
Columbia Middle School – (Region 5) math, science and technology
Arabia Mountain High School (Region 4) – environment, energy and engineering
Columbia High School (Region 5) – math, science and technology

Pros & Cons
Planning and Feasibility Study Options
July 25, 2016 – Committees consisting of steering committee members and two representatives from each of the forty middle and high schools studied and discussed these pros and cons of the four potential options to address current and pending capacity needs.

Cost Estimates
Planning and Feasibility Study Options
July 20, 2016 – Based on 2022 enrollment projections, the Steering Committee discussed these Cost Estimates for the four potential options to address current and pending capacity needs.

DeKalb Secondary School Facility Planning and Feasibility Study
July 18, 2016 – The study will identify the challenges and opportunities facing each middle school and high school, determine options to address the needs identified, and prepare regional master plans to implement the options. Here are the problems, the funds and the options.

Chamblee Magnet Program – Is it moving?
July 13, 2016 – Any truth to the rumor of moving the magnet program from Chamblee Middle and Chamblee High? Steering committees discussed the pros and cons of the following four potential options to address current and pending capacity needs.

84 Comments

Posted in Chamblee High School, Redistricting

Pro & Cons – Options From The Secondary School Planning Study

Posted on July 25, 2016 | 18 comments

The purpose of the Secondary School Facility Planning and Feasibility Study is to develop long-term plans for addressing capacity needs of the district’s middle schools and high schools.

Committees consisting of steering committee members and two representatives from each of the forty middle and high schools studied and discussed these pros and cons of the four potential options to address current and pending capacity needs. From these four options, over the next few weeks, the steering committee members will put together and recommend one (unchanged or modified) option to take to the public at the 3rd and final round of public input on Aug 23 and Aug 25 .
Based on 2022 Enrollment Projections


Pros	Cons
• Provides relief for projected over-capacity conditions at Dunwoody HS, Cross Keys HS, Lakeside HS, Clarkston HS, Lithonia HS, Chamblee MS, Peachtree MS, Sequoyah MS, Henderson MS and Freedom MS; • Eliminates 92 percent of current portable classrooms (60 of 64 total); • Uses existing site (Briarcliff) for new middle school • Relatively cost-efficient; • Would maintain one-to-one middle-to-high school feeder patterns where possible, except for Henderson MS; • Provides better balance of enrollment between middle schools and feeder high schools.	• Would use most available E-SPLOST V funding for new facilities and additions, leaving limited funds to address additional elementary school needs; • Recommends new schools larger than DCSD standard for middle schools (1,200-seat) and high schools (1,600-seat). • Would not maintain one-to-one feeder pattern for Henderson MS (splits feed to Lakeside HS and New Sequoyah-area HS); • Provides only partial relief for over-capacity Chamblee HS;


Pros	Cons
• Provides relief for projected over-capacity conditions at Dunwoody HS, Cross Keys HS, Lakeside HS, Clarkston HS, Lithonia MS & HS, Chamblee MS, Peachtree MS, Sequoyah MS, Henderson MS, Tucker MS & HS, Freedom MS and Miller Grove MS; • Eliminates 92 percent of current portable classrooms (60 of 64 total); • Minimizes attendance zone adjustments; • Relatively cost-efficient; • Recommends addressing needs at other schools using other E-SPLOST funds and funding beyond E-SPLOST; • Would maintain one-to-one middle-to-high school feeder patterns where possible; • Provides better balance of enrollment between middle schools and feeder high schools.	• Would use most available E-SPLOST V funding for new facilities and additions, leaving limited funds to address additional elementary school needs; • Would not construct any new schools; • Cost-constrained due to limited E-SPLOST funding available; • Provides only partial relief for over-capacity Chamblee HS.


Pros	Cons
• Provides relief for projected over-capacity conditions at Dunwoody HS, Cross Keys HS, Lakeside HS, Clarkston HS, Lithonia MS & HS, Chamblee MS, Chamblee HS, Peachtree MS, Sequoyah MS, Henderson MS, Tucker MS & HS, Freedom MS and Miller Grove MS; • Eliminates 92 percent of current portable classrooms (60 of 64 total); • Minimizes attendance zone adjustments; • Relatively cost-efficient; • Recommends addressing needs at other schools using other E-SPLOST funds and funding beyond E-SPLOST; • Would maintain one-to-one middle-to-high school feeder patterns where possible; • Provides better balance of enrollment between middle schools and feeder high schools; • Adds magnet programs to Southwest DeKalb HS cluster.	• Would use most available E-SPLOST V funding for new facilities and additions, leaving limited funds to address additional elementary school needs; • Would not construct any new schools; • Relocates magnet programs away from Chamblee MS & Chamblee HS.


Pros	Cons
• Best utilizes existing capacity by shifting students from overcrowded schools into schools where capacity exists; • Most cost-effective option; • Makes available at least one new middle school facility (Miller Grove) for school choice programs or other DCSD program needs; • Uses existing site (Briarcliff) for new middle school	• Disrupts every cluster with attendance zone shifts at every middle school and every high school; • Loses MS-HS one-to-one feeders, and may lose some ESMS one-to-one feeders; • Does not provide complete relief for over-capacity schools; • Still would cost approximately $96 million.