Feedback

The initial scenario is a conceptual starting point, not a recommendation. It is intentionally broad so that the community can see the system‑wide picture early, identify issues, and contribute lived experience before the next draft is shaped. 

The scenario is built on a districtwide evaluation of building adequacy, capacity versus enrollment, proximity to where students live, and the geographic relationships between schools. Facility condition, educational suitability, building size, utilization trends, and opportunities for ‘cascading use’ (repurposing stronger high school buildings as middle schools, and middle schools as elementary schools) form the backbone of these early concepts. 

Because long‑term enrollment has shifted unevenly across the county—some clusters gain resident students while others have seen steep losses—some schools have become significantly underutilized, while others face persistent over‑capacity. The scenario groups buildings according to these patterns so the district can evaluate the entire system rather than isolated clusters. This is why the planning sequence begins with Buildings → Boundaries → Programs: boundaries and program placements must follow facility decisions so that future maps and offerings are grounded in actual capacity and geographic logic. 

When a building is removed from service or converted, there are ripple effects across nearby schools. System‑level modeling is therefore necessary to understand how closures, conversions, and additions interact. The conceptual model invites feedback so communities can identify inaccuracies, share development details, correct enrollment assumptions, and highlight factors that may not appear in the data alone. Those insights will shape subsequent iterations before any formal recommendation is considered. 

Earlier mentions of “8 - 24 potential closures” were not proposals. They were used simply to show the scale of underutilization districtwide. The 27 school closures in the initial scenario emerged only after building a full, interconnected model that included factors such as cascading use. Future scenarios may show different numbers as additional options and community feedback are incorporated. 

The initial scenarios do show a disproportionate number of proposed closures in South DeKalb. This is due to the area containing the largest share of physically empty seats and under‑utilized or less adequate buildings relative to where students live today and are projected to live in the future. These patterns reflect long‑term demographic shifts—aging‑in‑place, lower household sizes, and changes in school‑age population density—not race, school performance, or community value. 

The purpose of releasing a first scenario is to make these systemwide patterns visible and to gather community input early. The goal is to consolidate resources into fewer, better‑resourced, modernized schools so every student has access to strong academic programs, full staffing, and supportive services—conditions that are difficult to sustain in severely under‑enrolled facilities. 

Safeguards are built into the broader process. As part of the facility reuse plan, closed buildings will not be abandoned or left to deteriorate. They will be repurposed for early learning, district operations, public‑agency partnerships, or land‑banked for future educational needs. These approaches are designed to prevent neighborhood decline, maintain community value, and preserve flexibility if demographic patterns shift. 

Later phases will address boundaries and program placements, allowing the district to distribute opportunities in ways that strengthen equity, reduce travel burdens, and avoid repeating historic patterns of disinvestment. 

The enrollment forecast uses a modified cohort-survival model. This industry standard model projects future enrollment based on average grade progression rates, historic school choice participation, historic and planned housing developments, housing yield rates, and programmatic changes. We are working with the commissioners and city government to add housing development, and city data. Information that has been posted so far can be found at the following links: 

SAP Resources: here  

Planning and Forecasting Information: here 

HPM dashboard and Facility Report: here 

The long‑term plan is designed to unfold over six to eight years, allowing construction, additions, and grade‑band conversions to be sequenced before moving students whenever possible. This approach reduces disruption and ensures that receiving schools are prepared to welcome students with adequate space, staffing, and programming. 

While the goal is to maintain cohort integrity, final decisions about how student groups move will be determined during the Boundaries phase. Boundary changes must follow building decisions because assignments can only be responsibly made once the district knows which facilities will operate and at what capacity. 

The initial scenario does not dictate student placement; it identifies the structural possibilities that later phases will refine. Families will be given advance notice, and transitions will be designed to minimize academic disruption. Feedback on walkability, traffic patterns, special‑population needs, and cohesion will inform boundary design so final recommendations are responsive to local priorities. 

Transportation planning occurs after building and boundary decisions because route efficiency depends on which facilities remain open and where attendance zones fall. By consolidating under‑enrolled schools and aligning boundaries with where students live, the district aims to create a more coherent and efficient routing system, which can reduce overall travel time for many students compared with today’s fragmented routes. 

The district also recognizes that some families may face longer commutes depending on geography and boundary outcomes. For that reason, feedback about traffic flow, neighborhood cut‑through patterns, walkability barriers, and unsafe corridors is critical. 

As transportation plans are developed, the district will evaluate supervision needs for younger riders, potential adjustments to bell times, and mitigation strategies at key congestion points. Because the plan is phased over several years, transportation adjustments will be sequenced to ensure families have time to prepare, with a commitment to student safety, reliable access to after‑school programs, and a more sustainable network. 

The SAP process is designed to strengthen schools while reducing the number of underutilized buildings - not to reduce educator positions. Note that when the district operates fewer facilities, cost savings come primarily from administrative and non‑instructional overhead, not from classroom teachers. These reductions occur gradually through natural attrition, allowing instructional staffing levels to remain stable.  

Regarding specialized roles - CTAE, Fine Arts, Special Education, and support staff - larger, properly enrolled schools will actually offer stronger programming and more stable staffing environments, since balanced capacity allows schools to fully utilize positions funded by state and federal formulas.  

Again, the district’s intent is reassignment over layoffs. Phasing over six to eight years provides time for natural attrition and planned transitions. Communication with employees and principals will be continuous, with an emphasis on retaining high‑performing educators and ensuring receiving schools are fully staffed as they expand or convert. 

A dedicated Facility Reuse Plan governs what happens after final Board decisions. Options include repurposing buildings for district administrative or support functions, creating or expanding early childhood centers, partnering with other public agencies for community‑serving uses, or land‑banking sites for future educational needs. 

The intent is to avoid long‑term vacancy or blight and to manage costs responsibly. Where buildings are not needed for near‑term instruction, land‑banking (including demolition and site stabilization) is considered to reduce ongoing liability and keep the site available for a future school if demographics change. 

Reuse decisions will be made case‑by‑case, balancing neighborhood context, facility condition, cost to retrofit, and long‑term educational value. The district is not pursuing data centers as a reuse strategy. 

The objective is to operate schools at the lower end of state class‑size ranges by aligning enrollment with capacity and by fully staffing programs through state and federal formulas. 

When enrollment is spread across too many small or under‑enrolled facilities, districts must subsidize basic staffing, which can limit program breadth. Consolidation allows resources to be concentrated so students gain access to multiple course sections, arts, and supports that are difficult to sustain in very small schools. 

Multiple grade‑band options are under consideration, each with distinct benefits and trade‑offs (transitions, extracurriculars, staffing certifications, transportation tiers, and space). Any configuration that places a wider age span on one campus would include physical separation, schedule management, and supervision tailored to developmental needs. 

No single grade configuration will be right for every cluster. Feasibility depends on building locations, sizes, adjacency, and the ability to provide age‑appropriate environments. The intent is to pair grade‑band choices with facility strengths and local geography so that safety and program quality are protected. 

Community feedback will determine which options advance in the next iteration. 

The commitment is to plan in public: release concepts early, collect feedback through multiple channels, and publish updates that show how input changes the next draft. The initial scenario is intentionally high‑level so communities can surface local realities and share feedback. 

As the process moves into Boundaries and Programs, additional formats will be added—cluster‑focused sessions, student voice opportunities, and targeted outreach for directly impacted neighborhoods. The goal is to pair districtwide consistency with local detail, and to provide clear timelines so stakeholders can prepare and respond. 

Phasing is central to minimizing disruption. Construction, additions, and conversions will be sequenced before student moves whenever feasible, followed by boundary adjustments that balance enrollment and protect program delivery. 

Families and staff will receive advance notice for each step. The longer runway allows hiring, scheduling, transportation routing, and program transitions to be aligned with facility readiness, reducing mid‑year shifts. 

Our first responsibility is to ensure that every student has a safe, supportive, and appropriately sized learning environment. Buildings define those essential conditions—they determine how many students a school can serve, where learning spaces are located, and what shape those spaces are in. Without that foundation, any discussion about boundaries or programs risks being built on shifting ground. 

Once we understand the true capacity and condition of our facilities, we can more thoughtfully align attendance boundaries so students are connected to schools that can genuinely support them. After that, we determine program placement, making sure specialized services and opportunities are located where students have the space and resources to thrive. 

Separating these phases isn’t about treating them as unrelated. It’s about ensuring that the decisions affecting students’ day‑to‑day experiences—who they learn alongside, what programs they can access, and how crowded their classrooms feel—are grounded in real, stable information. This approach helps us make choices that are not only efficient, but compassionate and student‑centered. 

The overarching strategy is to strengthen quality and stability by aligning students to fewer, better‑resourced schools—so families experience broader offerings in modernized facilities rather than thinly spread resources. This approach is designed to retain students by improving day‑to‑day experience. 

Maintaining cohort integrity where feasible, sequencing moves after additions, and addressing walkability and transportation concerns during boundary design are all intended to reduce uncertainty that can drive families away. 

Some facility projects were authorized in prior ESPLOST cycles and are already under contract. Those commitments continue unless the Board changes scope. The role of the scenario is to prevent future dollars from flowing to buildings that would remain under‑utilized or have poor long‑term return on investment. 

Long‑term alignment is the goal: invest where facilities will serve students efficiently for decades, and avoid recurring capital outlay on buildings that no longer fit the distribution of students. 

Program placement is addressed after buildings  so that access can be aligned to capacity and geography. Required student support (e.g., Special Education services) continue regardless of facility changes, with placements handled administratively as part of implementation planning. 

The intent is to use the boundary and facility outcomes to improve program equity—expanding access and aligning specialized facilities and staffing where they can be sustained. 

Right‑sizing is a foundation, not the finish line. Aligning students to modern, properly enrolled schools enables broader course offerings, stronger arts and CTAE, and fully staffed student supports that help retain families through upper grades. 

The next phases—boundaries and programs—will address access and placement so that quality is felt in every region. The district also recognizes external influences (housing mix, aging‑in‑place, private/charter competition) and is building a system resilient to those shifts. 

Operating fewer buildings reduces administrative overhead, utilities, and long‑term maintenance liabilities while keeping teacher counts relatively stable. Savings can then be redirected to instruction and student support. 

System modeling targets portfolio‑wide utilization in the upper‑80s percent range by 2030, eliminating excess seats and aligning capacity to projected enrollment. This structural efficiency is what enables cost avoidance to accumulate and be reinvested. 

SAP is a full reimagining of the district, and all grade-band configurations are being explored, including K - 8 and 6 - 12 models. The district understands concerns about wider grade bands, and any grade configuration considered in later rounds will prioritize student safety, age separation, and appropriate learning environments {separate wings / entries). Facilities can be designed to keep different age groups fully separated even when located on the same campus - for example, the design approach used for the new Sequoyah Middle and High School. 

Transportation safety will be addressed when routing is built from the final boundary maps—evaluating stop locations, lighting, supervision needs for younger riders, and after‑school access so that clubs and athletics remain viable for students traveling longer distances. 

Yes. The scenario explicitly explores K‑8 and 6‑12 options, shared‑site patterns, and cascading use to keep the best buildings while reducing new‑build pressure. Where it improves long‑term value, rebuilding on an existing site may be considered instead of maintaining multiple small facilities. 

The reuse plan includes administrative relocation where appropriate. Final selections will weigh cost, feasibility, program quality, and community input. 

At this time, we are would love to hear alternatives that help us with the 5 challenges we are facing.  

Required services continue regardless of facility changes. Placements for Special Education and medically fragile students will be planned as part of implementation, including transportation supports and schedule accommodations aligned to individual needs. 

Boundary and routing design will consider travel time and access so that support services remain timely and students are not disadvantaged by location. We will also woek collaborativly with the student and wrap around services teams to ensure effective transitions plans. 

HPM was selected through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) issued in late 2024, covering both Capital Improvement Program Management and Long‑Range Facility Planning. Their contract was reviewed publicly and approved by the Board of Education in February 2025. Their planning services are billed as a flat fee, based on the personnel and resources needed to complete the work. 

HPM began its engagement in April 2025, starting with facility assessments and data collection. Because long‑range facility planning intersects directly with student assignment, HPM began coordinating with the district’s SAP team in May 2025. While HPM brings national experience, they do not use a standardized, one‑size‑fits‑all model; their work is customized to each district’s unique needs. In DeKalb, consolidation discussions are shaped primarily by the SAP process, which began in Fall 2024 - months before HPM joined the work. 

At this time, the community does not participate in contractor selection, but all contracts - including HPM’s - require formal Board approval in public meetings. Additionally, the SAP committee is currently filled and is not adding new members since the process has been underway for 2 years. Anyone can follow all SAP information on the DCSD website and all feedback is welcomed. 

The SAP committee is advisory, not decision‑making. Nothing in the SAP process is pre‑determined. SAP develops scenarios, refines them with community input, and ultimately produces recommendations. The Board has tasked SAP with this work, but the scenarios themselves are not Board‑endorsed plans. Once SAP presents its final recommendations, the Board of Education will decide what changes - if any - to adopt regarding buildings, boundaries, and programs.