Get Schooled

By DB

March 9, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this

“more diverse sections of the district complain that new schools are built in the wealthier communities that often don’t have as many minority students.” Translated: The new schools are being built in areas that already have a strong academic tradtition, which is what attracted families with children who put education as a priority in the first place, which is why those schools are crowded.

This is a chicken-and-egg argument. Which came first — the strong school, or the strong parental support for making the education of their children a top priority? Parents who place a high value on their children’s education tend not to move to low-performing school districts. You have more people move to the district, because the school is appealing. The school becomes overcrowded. Why build schools in an area where housing values are declining rapidly? This is not an area that is going to attract families with children who value their education. That’s just economics.

By bearcasey

March 9, 2009 9:42 AM | Link to this

You build schools where the students are going to be! Race or socio-economic status has nothing to do with it. This isn’t rocket science! It’s also not an exact science.

By V for Vendetta

March 9, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this

DB is exactly right; however, some school systems like Gwinnett have backwards thinking in regards to the matter at hand.

I believe the Gwinnett credo is “Better schools build better communities.”

No, dear readers. It is quite the opposite.

By jim d

March 9, 2009 10:48 AM | Link to this

OH MY!!

What do you think, is there a better way to decide where to build schools?

Gwinnett has used a rather innovative method in the past. Look for a toxic landfill, force the sale of an adjoining property and build a new elementary school that will be occupied primarilly by minority students. (helluva plan)

How open are school leaders in explaining the process they use?

Again I can only comment on Gwinnett’s history of not even having the balls to vote in public on the purchase of property to build on. (in violation of state law aaccording to Attorney General Thurbert Baker)). All of their arguments against doing so fall on deaf ears when one realizes they could easily lock in a price pending a public vote to purchase.

By jim d

March 9, 2009 10:55 AM | Link to this

V,

Gwinnett Backward thinking?? Surely you jest! Whith the king of spin running the system—Twisted maybe but not backwards. He just holds the public and employees in such low regard that it’s his way or the highway.

Don’t get me started today!!

By Ernest

March 9, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this

This ‘should’ be a fairly simple process however we’ve allowed politics and the ‘squeaky wheel’ to play a part in this. You build new schools in areas of need. You look at measures such as population projections and new single and multi family housing permits to help forecast where the upcoming needs will be. You research where the best place to place the school and determine if you can purchase it at a reasonable price. You lay out the plans to the community, presenting the data to support the recommendation at the same time. You point out the consequences if ‘something’ is not done.

That is how it should work….

By jim d

March 9, 2009 11:15 AM | Link to this

Ernest,

Gwinnett has simplified even further.

Buy — inform the public——Build. LOL

By jim d

March 9, 2009 11:18 AM | Link to this

Ernest,

Perhaps Gwinnett has gotten it right. You build in areas that will allow you to break up failing schools thru redistricting.

It has worked well for them!

By V for Vendetta

March 9, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this

LOL, Jim D. No, I’m with you. I’m simply referring to the PR-spin nature of the credo. It is not the school that magically transforms the community; it’s the community that shapes the achievement of the school.

From what I’ve seen, it looks like Gwinnett is doomed in the long run, so I suppose you’ll eventually get the last laugh!

By Ernest

March 9, 2009 12:09 PM | Link to this

JimD, you have to admit the overall ‘philosophies’ between DeKalb and Gwinnett are quite interesting. Gwinnett seems to believe in ‘large and few’ whereas DeKalb is ‘small and many’ with respects to actual school buildings. That is partly why DeKalb has so many buildings despite being 50% smaller that Gwinnett, in student population. Also factor in the long term labor and maintenance costs with our infrastructure, it becomes more costly to operate. I still contend Gwinnett got it right by including a football stadium and two basketball courts, allowing the citizens to ‘recoup’ some of the investment by running tournaments and other revenue generating activities when the facilities are idled.

Gwinnett also makes use of buildings near office parks. While driving the Fry’s near Gwinnett Place Mall (A sin that I’ll never get over), I noticed the old Gwinnett Daily News building is now a school. I’m curious what citizens think about that. I would think the procurement costs would be less thus beneficial to the citizens. I do know some have concerns about schools being close to high traffic areas like that.

By Dewey Decimal

March 9, 2009 12:12 PM | Link to this

Been reading this blog for a long time and I have one question. Do you guys work or just blog all the time?

By Jim Neighbor

March 9, 2009 1:13 PM | Link to this

In Fulton, its the Katie Rule - BOE members kids get schools first. Everyone else must wait until enough SPLOST is taken from south Fulton.

7 new high schools in north since 1991; palaces, unique designs

1 new high school in south since 1991, one under construction; exact same design, go figure.

By LibeGirl

March 9, 2009 2:01 PM | Link to this

The problem DeKalb faces is that the SPLOST 3 $$ was allocated to construct additions to two existing S. DeKalb high schools a couple of years ago (at that time they were crowded) . Since then, a new school (Arabia Mountain - google it, it’s beautiful.) has been built in S DeKalb and students from those schools will be reassigned to the new one. In addition, students from the formerly overcrowded schools have transferred under NCLB to schools in the northern part of the county.

The net result is that the two schools in S DeKalb are now significantly UNDER-enrolled (like 200-300 extra seats) and several high schools in N DeKalb are OVER-enrolled (200-500 over capacity). Yet the S DeKalb schools (all built between 1980s and 1990s) are still slated to get new classrooms and the N DeKalb schools (all built between 1926 and 1965) are desperately in need of repairs and new classrooms, but are not on the SPLOST list.

The test for DeK school admin and school board is to see if they will look beyond their own local areas and the interest of the “squeaky wheels” and re-allocate the money where it is needed.

By Not Buying It

March 9, 2009 2:13 PM | Link to this

Like most Georgia communities with a Splost, DeKalb and its school district are coming to regard the sales tax as a permanent alternative to property tax, not an occasional adjunct to construction funding. I’m sure it’s occurred to School Board members and administrators that the North Dekalb voters could be rather quickly and easily mobilized against the tax in the next Splost election (which won’t draw that many voters), hence the wisdom of more attention to facilities needs in the north county.

By fulton teacher

March 9, 2009 2:21 PM | Link to this

Jim Neighbor - have you looked at population trends in Fulton over the time period you are referencing? That’s why more schools have been built in north Fulton. Now that south Fulton is experiencing rapid growth, more and more schools are being built there.

While there is some major nepotism with the desperate housewives (AKA Fulton BOE), the building of schools has been fairly spot on with the exception of building capacity. (My school has 2800 students - the capacity for the main building is 1800. WTH!)

Believe me, growing up in Fulton schools in the 70’s and 80’s, I saw massive favoritism toward south county. All the administrative offices were in south county. I remember a massive ice storm in the late 70’s when Alpharetta was hit very hard and had no power for a week. Fulton County refused to close on the last two days of that week, and we had to make up school on Saturday. See, south Fulton had no power outages by that time, and the world revloved around Cleveland Ave.

By jim d

March 9, 2009 2:29 PM | Link to this

ernest,

Fraid we are catching up.

Dekalb is operating something like 150 schools the last i heard.

Gwinnett now has something around 120 and growing rapidly. So it would appear we will be many and large.

By Ernest

March 9, 2009 3:24 PM | Link to this

LibeGirl, what you said is not exactly correct. If you look at the current CIP for SPLOST 3, you’ll see where most of the monies are allocated. This is where the staff deserves some credit, they are willing to look at the plan developed before the economic, housing, and AYP transfer challenges and make suggestions for changes. The ‘taste’ of what happened in Cobb County (laptop purchase request) is still fresh on many folks mind thus they want to ensure they communicate with the citizens before making recommendations for changes.

Along the same lines, let me point you and others to a VERY good website I came across on DeKalb school issues. It is called DeKalb School Watch. There is a LOT of insightful information on this site.

JimD, I still contend Gwinnett got it right with respect to the athletic infrastructure. I’ve spent several hundred dollars in Gwinnett over the years participating in basketball tournaments. The citizens and schools in Gwinnett benefited from myself and others during those events. Heck, I may be there this weekend at the Arena for the basketball state playoffs. All the while I say to myself, “Why not in DeKalb”. Here’s hoping Miller Grove (Boys AAAA), Redan (Girls AAAAA), and SW DeKalb (Girls AAAA) bring home more hardware!!!

By jim d

March 9, 2009 5:29 PM | Link to this

ernest,

that may well be, but allow me to point out that Gwinnetts budget this year was estimated to be underfunded by at about $60 million before the bailout.

I dread to think where we will be a year or two from now if the spending habits don’t change. (and they won’t)

By hmmm

March 9, 2009 5:41 PM | Link to this

Build new schools? Who has money to start building new schools in this economy?

By Vidalia

March 9, 2009 8:47 PM | Link to this

Hey jim d, lisa b, and friends, I think that you guys are so smart and make very good points. I am in awe. How do you guys know so much? I am impressed. I have learned so much.

By jim d

March 10, 2009 7:15 AM | Link to this

Ernest,

Just in case you were not aware. Gwinnett’s emphasis on high school athletics is just a bit over the top. Which can easily be explained if you just look at the youth programs within the county.

Sure it’s a money maker in some instances, and enjoy’s great support from parents,families and booster clubs. But just for the record, I don’t care much for tax dollars being spent to support them. What was it (I lose track of time), a couple of years ago when the county bought up all the boosters loans and paid them off?

Do athletics have a place within our educational system? Absolutely, but I feel they should be self supporting at best and subsidized through loans at worst.

The average cost of a football program is something around $60,000 a year—stadiums can cost anywhere from $500,000 up into the millions. Then there are operating costs and upkeep. I personally do not believe this is something that truly benefits the community and should not be a tax burden to the community.

By jim d

March 10, 2009 9:14 AM | Link to this

BTW Ernest,

Any idea as to the extra property purchase required to build a stadium with parking? With realestate prices where they are in gwinnett I’m sure it amounts to a tidy sum.

By Ernest

March 10, 2009 9:43 AM | Link to this

JimD, athletic funding and school systems could be a blog topic on its own (are you listening Laura?). Not to ‘hijack’ this topic but if the athletic infrastructure could be ‘self sustaining’ or even make a profit, that is good for the taxpayers. I understand some of the programs in Gwinnett do a VERY good job through their boosters and private donations. Others have challenges for a variety of reasons. I wasn’t aware that the taxpayers paid off booster loans. How that was done and ‘sold’ to the community would be interesting to hear.

Yes, Gwinnett’s emphasis on HS athletics would be a TV docudrama. I see similarities with it and Valdosta from years ago. It is definitely an interesting model.

By bearcasey

March 10, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this

Oh my! I love sports and coached for 20 years (Pebblebrook, St. Pius, Frederica Academy, Crestwood, and Chattahoochee.) My son also played basketball and baseball at Northview. But, things have gotten out of hand due to parental ego.

• Northview’s $30,000 “Jumbotron” TV system at the football stadium.

• The expectation that each baseball player will raise $1000 per season to participate.

All this while Nortview is overun with trailers!

All this while good students from the class of 2004 (college grads) are working at Kohl’s at near minimum wage.

Way to go decision makers!

By fulton teacher

March 10, 2009 3:21 PM | Link to this

bearcasey, we still miss you at Northview. As a member of the Shady Pines trailer club, I echo your lament on rhe overcrowding.

I was going to comment about Gwinnett’s (over)emphasis on athletics. Yes, the north Fulton schools aren’t the best in some of the sports, but our schools regularly score in the top 10 in the state for SAT scores. In fact, in any given year, Fulron county places at least 6 schools in the top 10 for SAT scores (8 of the top 15 as well). With not too dissimilar student populations Gwinnett will only place one or two in the top 10.

But wow, Gwinnett schools really perform well in athletics!

By Jim Neighbor

March 10, 2009 5:16 PM | Link to this

Fulton Teacher the growth in the north part of the county is the excuse that has been used for years to get more resources there. In south the numbers got out of hand between 95 and 2007. No plans were in place to even consider building a new high school. Milton was built from General Fund $$$. When there really wasn’t a need. We had to damn near riot to get attention of the planners and and BOE.

Our children have fewer and older school resources. Until this year, Tri-Cities was the newest high school and it was built in 1991! Up until last year the media center at the old Westlake wasn’t wired for the internet. Fewer computers existed throughout the building because it couldn’t be wired properly. Hallways ended into classroom. Admin offices were carved out of stair cases. Science labs were too small, inadequate or none existent. The cafeteria was a joke…I’m not going to discuss the athletic facilities.

The Fulton BOE members which represent the north 5-2 have always given the north the advantage. Fulton has always run two separate school districts. The whole resource fight goes back to the consent decree. We still don’t have equal resources.

What’s worse to keep our schools inferior the principals are fired, moved or retired about every two to three years. This keeps the schools off balance with the changes in the administration and faculty.

By fulton teacher

March 10, 2009 6:24 PM | Link to this

Jim Neighbor,

In the not too recent past, the school board was constantly 4 - 3 in favor of the south. North got the shaft. I believe in 1992, the shift went to 4 - 3 north due to population. Oh, the howling that went on then! In 2002 or so, the shift went to essentially 4.5 - 2.5 north, but Gail Dean lives in north county, so I’ll grant you the 5 - 2 split now. I would hope that maybe the next census will bring back a 4 - 3 north split.

When Dr. Fox came in as superintendant, he did a massive consilidation of the schools - about 10 high schools contracted down to 4. Now, those students who are in a crappy building do deserve a better school campus, especially Banneker. (I’ve been inside BHS this school year, so I do have a frame of reference.) Westlake is in a brand new buildling (long overdue). Creekside and Tri Cities have each had multiple renovations. Langston Hughes will be a nice, new building this upcoming fall.

You do have a point about tenure of principals. In many schools, too many of the good principals are moved often or get burned out from the crap that happens.

It’s a game of numbers in building schools. If I’ve read correctly, another south county high school is in the works for 2012 or 2013.

By the way, I am a Milton grad, and the new Milton is an embarrassment in excess. Beautiful, but too indulgent.