Monthly Archives: November 2016

FAQ – School Facility Planning Study

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Secondary School Facility Planning & Feasibility Study (November 18, 2016 Version)

FAQ

DeKalb Schools just released another FAQ. These are the questions and answers I thought were interesting.
1. Was a feasibility study done for each site?
A feasibility review was conducted for every site. The purpose of these studies are to demonstrate that the proposed capacity additions are conceptually feasible and to establish a cost estimate for each. This review does not determine the best and final location or configuration of the additions and associated site changes, as these decisions will be made during a formal design process to include the principal and the School Council Construction Committee for each school.
2. Where will the additions go?
The final design and location of each addition will be determined in the design process for each school in collaboration with the principal and the School Council Construction Committee. Please note that the locations shown in Appendix A (conceptual plans; http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/documents/secondary-schoolstudy/appendix-a-conceptual-plans-(10-31-2016).pdf) are conceptual in nature and are intended to show that the additions are capable of being done given the site information available at this time. Decisions regarding the final placement of the building additions will be addressed during the formal design process for each school project.
3. Will additional land or sites be needed?
The feasibility review conducted for each site did not suggest the need to acquire additional land at this time. The cost of acquiring additional land for these middle and high schools was not included in any project budget. If, however, it is determined in the design process that additional land is necessary for a project, additional funds will need to be identified and subsequent Board approval would be required to allocate these additional funds for that project.
5. How will necessary road and traffic improvements be implemented? Have you done a traffic study? Is the District coordinating with the County and the cities?
The District has informally discussed these plans with most of the appropriate local jurisdictions. Only after approval by the Board will formal traffic studies be initiated with these local entities to determine what road and traffic improvements, if any, will be necessary for each school.
In anticipation of the Board’s approval, the District is currently working out plan for a proactive and comprehensive transportation and public utility impact analysis of these set of school additions and the new Cross Keys HS. We will formally meet with the local jurisdictions as we plan and implement this comprehensive analysis. This will allow all parties to weigh in on and strategically prepare for any necessary improvements. Please note, the respective system (e.g. roads, sewers, water, etc.) infrastructures around the District’s schools are the responsibility of the local government, not the District.
9. Will adding capacity mean adding students to a school?
No, not necessarily. The schools receiving additions are forecasted to be hundreds of students over capacity by 2022. The intent of the recommended additions is to provide sufficient capacity for the existing number of students attending the school and the additional students forecasted to attend by 2022. It is assumed, however, that some attendance lines may need to be adjusted, particularly for the re-clustered Chamblee and Cross Keys clusters, to balance school size and projected enrollment.
10. Wouldn’t it be best to build the schools a little bit larger to allow for higher than expected attendance levels in the future? Put another way, why build to a utilization of 100% rather than adding additional capacity?
District staff are aware of the uncertainty inherent in any future forecasting. Rather than risk the cost of “overbuilding” by adding much more capacity than is needed, or “underbuilding” by building much less capacity than is needed, the District is recommending adding capacity as the forecast data indicates is needed. These forecasts will be updated annually as we track demographic shifts across the District. Our buildings will be designed so that, if warranted, we can add additional building capacity to accommodate future student capacity needs at each school where possible.
11. Will the District’s standard of 1,600 seats for new high schools change as a result of this process?
Yes, due to the shortage of available land to build new schools and our commitment to the most effective use of the taxpayer’s dollar. The recommendations at some schools are to exceed the District’s high school capacity standard of 1,600 seats.
12. How will students be moved once these additions are complete? Is this redistricting? How would this redistricting related to student move assumptions published as part of the Secondary School Planning and Feasibility study?
If redistricting is needed for these additions and the new high school, it would follow an extensive community engagement process. The three-meeting process of redistricting would occurs one year prior to opening of facility/addition, and be based upon the criteria set forth in Board Policy AD. The first redistricting meeting would simply introduce the process and gather comments related to secondary criteria (in Board Policy AD); no plans would be shown at this first meeting. At the second redistricting meeting, we would present two or three redistricting plans and collect input on these plans as they relate to the secondary criteria. We would then use the input from the second meeting to draw one staff recommended redistricting plan. At the third meeting, we would receive input from the community on the staff recommended plan. The input from the third meeting would be used for the Superintendent to recommend a redistricting recommendation to the Board for its approval.
14. How have city development plans been taken into account?
The District works with officials in the municipalities in DeKalb County to track development and determine potential impact on schools. A review of the school impact of each housing development is part of the permitting process for most jurisdictions. In addition, the District purchases development data from national development tracking venders in order to keep abreast of future housing changes that have not yet reached the permitting stage of planning. All of this data is incorporated into the District’s student population forecast models.
18. What is the Construction Committee and its role?
As part of our stakeholder engagement process for all major construction projects, the School Council (or Governing Board, if a conversion charter school) is informed of the general scope of the project, the project budget, and the related timeline by the principal and a representative of the District’s Design and Construction Department. In an open meeting, the Council is tasked to create a subcommittee of stakeholders who can advise the principal and the project’s Design Team (i.e. architect, project manager, etc.) of stakeholder input during the design process. This “Construction Committee” generally consists of five to seven members in addition to the principal and School Council President. The membership does not include staff members who will be informing the Design Team through other avenues such as user group meetings.
The Construction Committee maybe be asked to comment on various design issues, including: parking, core spaces (i.e. Cafeteria, Gymnasium, Kitchen Area, and Media Center), impact of improvement options on school climate and culture, impact of the construction phasing, the balance of competing need for land amongst athletic fields, parking, and other school design features, etc. School staff (principal) will inform the Design Team on the project as it relates to academics, support services, operations, etc.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Secondary School Facility Planning & Feasibility Study (November 18, 2016 Version)

Who's Getting Redistricted Out of Lakeside High School

[poll id=”3″]

In addition to the proposed 750 seat addition to Lakeside HS, the school district has announced it’s intention to redistrict 250 students currently attending LHS to the new Brookhaven High School cluster. The stated reason for this potential redistricting is to alleviate the estimated overcrowding at LHS.
There are other redistricting efforts in neighboring clusters as well. Sources have indicated that school district officials may target certain elementary schools for redistricting on the basis of socio-economics and demographics.
DeKalb School District has a policy on school attendance zones – “Policy AD – School Attendance Areas“. Policy AD does not contain any considerations for demographic or socio-economic factors when proposing attendance zones or redistricting.

Various sources have previously indicated that the school district intended to redistrict Sagamore ES, but I have since learned that other schools are being considered in addition to Sagamore.
On November 10, Dan Drake (Director of Planning and SPLOST Programming) and Jim McMahan (Lakeside area Board of Education representative) met with Sagamore residents at Oak Grove Methodist church. At that meeting, Dan Drake set the record straight. As one of the attendees reported to me,

Mr. Drake explained that the school system had not made a determination yet about which school might be redistricted and that they had not specified Sagamore. Someone in the audience asked, “So you might move students from Oak Grove or Hawthorne instead?” To which Mr. Drake said something like “Since we don’t know where the new school will be and that decision will be made at a later date, but yes, it could be Oak Grove or Hawthorne.”

Mr. Drake’s response seems to indicated that the district intends to move an elementary school out of the Lakeside HS feeder pattern to a new Brookhaven HS.

The problem I see with redistricting Hawthorne, Oak Grove or Sagamore Hills to the new Brookhaven cluster, is that it appears to violate DSCD Policy AD.