quote:
Instead of busing the students around , why not put money and resources where they are most needed?
Seems a common senses approach to me.
That’s a complicated question. I think the more informed you become, the less "common sense" that approach would be. I would first suggest that you actually look at who is “bussed” at the elementary level instead of simply grabbing on to the term and being opposed to it on principle – it is not a lot of students. Students are “bussed” for any number of reasons at the elementary school level. For some, it’s because even though the distance to their school seems short, they have to cross a hazardous street. For some, the statistics are clear that for low-SES students, school attendance is better when the students are bussed as opposed to when the students are not. For some, it’s because they are bussed to a school that has a program they are likely to need such as the numerous “Head Start” programs we have throughout the district. The list continues… If you are interested I would tell you to go to school board meetings and learn.
quote:
And yes, going to school near your residence does matter. You're invested in the neighborhood, you bought your house based on the types of schools, and you can have a your children go to the same school as their friends in the neighborhood.
Nobody disagrees with this. It is pretty evident by the way the schools are zoned. You will also note that there are no lines randomly drawn down the middle of neighborhoods (although it may seem that way at first glance). Keeping children close to a school is a top priority for the rezoning committee. However, it is not as simple though as drawing a circle around each elementary school and zoning like that. People aren’t distributed that way. See the density map on slide 14 of the presentation.
quote:
Since you were one of the priveleged few selected for the rezoning committee, could you provide an answer to the original question- why did the central planners dictate that socioeconomic balance outrank geography in rezoning considerations? Its included in the CSISD presentation on the WTAW story.
I do not consider myself “privileged” – I was asked to serve and give my time to the committee and I agreed to do so. If you want to be “privileged” too, you should start volunteering yourself – it is not difficult and there are many opportunities to become informed and help out. I was so engaged by the difficult work that I also went through the process of going through the election and am now one of the 7 CSISD school board members.
To answer your question directly – geography is always one of the major considerations of zoning elementary schools. It is simply not the ONLY consideration. Making it so is untenable (i.e. it just doesn’t work). The DENSITY of school children in the city doesn’t map that way. Schools were originally built in places that made the most sense at the time given growth patterns. When growth continues (over 30 years), you can’t just pick up an already built elementary school and move it so it better fits your needs geographically over time (or tear it down and rebuild it for $20 million).
Take a look at slide 14 in the presentation you posted – it is a density map of where kids in our city live. That area in the Barron road/Hwy 6/Hwy 40 triangle is absolutely CRUSHED with school age kids because of the type of housing that is there and more is scheduled. It is my understanding that the committee this year tried to lower the number of elementary schools that these kids are sent to and they simply couldn’t do it. Moving the lines makes the split of kids unworkable. You'd be trying to squeeze 1200 children into a school with a 600 student capacity. As it is, with expected growth, no school should have more than 700 students over the next 4 years. (See slides 15, 16, 28).
Instead of getting hung up on one line – read the ENTIRE presentation to see how many things the committee had to grapple with and why they arrived at this decision. Nowhere does it say that anything OUTRANKED something else – priorities that were given to the committee in addition to SES balance were “Zone for Growth” and maintenance of Title 1 schools. If one thing OUTRANKED something else you wouldn't see the distribution of LOW SES students that you see on slide 31 (those numbers would be much more even).
quote:
Also, why hasn't our fine city laid out out a comprehensive masterplan to allow for managed growth? It wouldn't take much to sit down with the ISD and lay out plans for growth. But then the developers wouldn't get to continue running things.
Are you serious? We have a huge dept within the city that does just that. CSISD works with this group on a continual basis to ensure that they are aware of what is happening. Wow.
**********
As far as future posts, I’m done responding to random people on an internet forum who have motives I am unclear about. As I stated in my first post, I would encourage those people that are truly interested and have questions to attend the public meetings and/or start attending some board meetings - they (and the workshops that preceed them) are all open to the public. If you would like to meet with me personally or have a direct question I can answer for you (not on TexAgs) I would be glad to do so – my email is on the CSISD webpage.
[This message has been edited by mwesson (edited 8/20/2014 7:16p).]
