CSISD proposed boundary adjustments [Second Staff Warning on OP]

101,328 Views | 858 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Oogway
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Not a single intelligent person is saying that rezoning isn't going to be necessary.

It's HOW they are doing it that has everyone so angry. There is no reason why they can't wait until the expansion and the near future developments are being built in order to do this.
We are going to be going through this garbage again in two years just like we are now because they are doing the exact same thing by using the same projections and criteria.

Last time they said this was the last rezoning until 2023. Why in the world should anyone believe in what they are saying this time?
ChiefHaus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Leonidas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The folks who dont have a problem with this clown show are also the ones who never want to compare BCS to other ISDs. Mismanagement is mismanagement.....other cities have done this better and we should be trying to learn instead of acting like we are unique in our situation. A situation, by the way, that we are experiencing again due to school board incompetence.
AgGirlCO95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The projected numbers have continued to be wrong because they have continued to under estimate total students at CSHS/over estimate Consol and they have continued to be way off on the low SES balance between both HS. The two issues go hand in hand, which is why one school is continuing to grow and one is not. Waiting, if anything, means that the overcrowding at CSHS continues to increase even more rapidly than the projections. Trust me, as a parent of a soon to be Consol student, I'd be ok too if they waited- I'm fine with my kid going to a school under capacity- less students, less problems.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
If they waited until the expansion, the overcrowding would be temporary and so would, hopefully, the rezoning issues.

Right now the only thing that's consistent and seems to be permanent is putting this community through the ringer every couple of years because they use very little forethought AND they think they can control growth.
ChiefHaus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tigermom84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here is the ugly truth IN CSISD. In summary, across all grades and all subjects, 75% of Texas students perform at or above grade level, 82% of CSISD students perform at or above grade level, and 64% of Economically disadvantaged students perform at or above grade level.

https://1.cdn.edl.io/jjd23ckrdxlCasej4tabEue9BZJgWYXQs43Bx2YScTP5NFui.pdf

These are the numbers for how our scores compare with other districts across the state. IN EVERY SINGLE GRADE, IN EVERY SINGLE SUBJECT, our Economically Disadvantaged ("Low SES", "ED", in the second to last column of the data) perform below the district AND below the state average. You can put up research reports and articles all day long about how great comparable composition works in OTHER places, but it doesn't work here in CSISD. So why do we keep repeating the same ol thing, and moving people around every 2 years waving a comparable composition flag? 1) To maintain a shell game and spread these test scores out equitably among all the schools to keep one school from looking bad (hence the "we need to keep our schools equal", and "these kids are everyone's burden to bear" as stated by or board member and by some on this post). Also, 2) to make ourselves feel better that med-high SES kids are getting exposure to diversity, and low SES kids get a better education by not having to attend their neighborhood school. But the ugly truth is that our low SES kids are not getting a better education.

Edit- In my opinion, I don't think this is a reflection on our TEACHERS. We have talented and skilled teachers. I don't think we give them the resources they need (small class sizes, freedom to be creative and involved, money, etc) to develop Low SES students on an individual basis.
AgGirlCO95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh I definitely understand how frustrating that must be and I am just looking at what continues to be wrong with the projections and like I mentioned those numbers could end up even more tilted than we think. I think we would all agree that most people with HS aged children or soon to be HS aged children that are moving into town or within town are choosing areas zoned for CSHS. The areas being developed now or in the near future zoned for Consol will help some but as long as there is availability and a choice for those with older children, for whatever reason people keeping choosing the CSHS zoned neighborhoods. To answer your question about what went wrong in 2016, I think, and please correct me if wrong, they baked in numbers for what was supposed to happen around the speedway. That is why I cringe at projected neighborhoods that haven't even broke ground or don't have a definitive date to and even if they did, there are variables that are hard to predict. I think neighborhoods like that and the Margraves development will mostly attract families with smaller children because as long as there are comparable homes available in some of the new or existing neighborhoods currently zoned for CSHS, the ones with older kids are going to continue go that route. Majority of the families moving into Lick Creek Crossing have small children, Pebble Creek Elementary is actually a selling point right now because the class sizes and total population is more like private school. So yes, there are more families moving south in neighborhoods zoned for Consol but I wonder how many of them actually have kids that will impact any numbers at Consol 2 or 5 years down the road.
scs01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tigermom84 said:

Here is the ugly truth IN CSISD. In summary, across all grades and all subjects, 75% of Texas students perform at or above grade level, 82% of CSISD students perform at or above grade level, and 64% of Economically disadvantaged students perform at or above grade level.

https://1.cdn.edl.io/jjd23ckrdxlCasej4tabEue9BZJgWYXQs43Bx2YScTP5NFui.pdf

These are the numbers for how our scores compare with other districts across the state. IN EVERY SINGLE GRADE, IN EVERY SINGLE SUBJECT, our Economically Disadvantaged ("Low SES", "ED", in the second to last column of the data) perform below the district AND below the state average. You can put up research reports and articles all day long about how great comparable composition works in OTHER places, but it doesn't work here in CSISD. So why do we keep repeating the same ol thing, and moving people around every 2 years waving a comparable composition flag? 1) To maintain a shell game and spread these test scores out equitably among all the schools to keep one school from looking bad (hence the "we need to keep our schools equal", and "these kids are everyone's burden to bear" as stated by or board member and by some on this post). Also, 2) to make ourselves feel better that med-high SES kids are getting exposure to diversity, and low SES kids get a better education by not having to attend their neighborhood school. But the ugly truth is that our low SES kids are not getting a better education.

Edit- In my opinion, I don't think this is a reflection on our TEACHERS. We have talented and skilled teachers. I don't think we give them the resources they need (small class sizes, freedom to be creative and involved, money, etc) to develop Low SES students on an individual basis.
I looked at the report and have a hard time drawing from it the conclusion that we're doing a poor job educating low-SES students, or for that matter that we're doing a good job or any other kind of job. The report only lists state and district numbers for all students, so comparing our district's low SES-numbers to the state's overall numbers seems like an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Tigermom84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Scs, I would agree, if they posted what the state's ED numbers are, it would be more apples to apples. You are right. But the takeaway is, in general, that group is still struggling, and shifting them around is not helping here.
AggieMom_38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe our district also has data that shows NO actual improvement in academic achievement when low ses kids are shuffled around. When asked, they say attendance goes up (but don't show data on that either) and simply rely on anecdotal reports that low ses families appreciate being bussed across town. Regardless, attendance isn't enough (and they could improve attendance through other less disruptive ways). Let's simply have the district provide the data over the past several years that demonstrates that the comparable composition focus is working for the kids is there benefit to the kids or is the only benefit to the district in smoothing out numbers as well as just "sharing the burden" (like prior posters have said)which is truly shameful to think that way.
02skiag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There is a long list of reasons for trying to even out low SES between schools. You can't just point to as single reason and then call it a failure or pointless as a whole.

I would personally think it would be easier for a teacher to provide additional time and resources to 2 low SES students than say 4.
AggieMom_38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Then show the data not just speculation and assumption show some actual improvement for these kids. The district tracks all this stuff, it's all about data nowadays so lets see it. I care about the actual kids and would like to see some actual evidence that they are benefitting. If they are great, but we can do better than assuming and hoping. If shuffling around isn't working, then let's try something else that might benefit them in reality not just in our hopes and dreams.
02skiag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well my speculation is that improving low SES test scores is not the top priority/motivation for moving low SES around. So the fact that there isn't improvement won't change their stance on doing it.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Quote:

Well my speculation is that improving low SES test scores is not the top priority/motivation for moving low SES around.


I agree. It's not about improving scores for individual kids. It's about keeping the average scores equal across the district.

That's why most people tune them out when the board says the "it's for the kids" line.

Oogway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's not like the other demographic scores are going up. Considering the Texas Lege takes your tax dollars from your District and uses them to balance the budget instead of help high poverty districts, means the gap could have widened.

MTTANK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The board openly stated in their last meeting that they are trying to change the perception of AMCHS by making these moves, and they did not want it to go too much the other way. This was in response to being called on obviously trying to pull the highest valued hoods in our district to consol. This is not about helping kids, ses or non ses. Its common sense. Thats why its pretty tough to find a district in Texas with such a ridiculous zoning map. Its funny how consol all of the sudden had an increased student capacity of hundreds when there has been no additions to the facility. Oops, we found a bunch more room over here for indian lakes, nantucket, saddle creek, and duck haven. But wait a minute, we no longer have room for the anderson area currently going here so lets send them to a school we are proposing is dangerously over populated. This is all just a game created by them. The real crime was placing cshs so close to consol, that is whats causing much of the over population at cshs. I would say they learned from this mistake, but if you take a look at the land they bought for a new hs you will be shocked. If we don't come together as a community and do something about all of this now, its only going to become a bigger problem.
GIG 'EM
Oogway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MTTANK said:

Its funny how consol all of the sudden had an increased student capacity of hundreds when there has been no additions to the facility.
I am confused by your statement here. Consolidated has always had a higher capacity. It even had its capacity reduced when they renovated the gym entrance (or something like that). I think the capacity went down to about 2300 give or take. It held an amazing amount of students during one of the high growth spurts back in what, 2012? That is why that poster that had the suggestion to swap buildings was somewhat on target w/respect to capacity-Consol could easily hold the CSHS student body and likewise for the other campus and Consol students. I am not suggesting they do that, although it is interesting, but those are what their numbers are like with respect to capacity.
AggieMom_38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Was just talking with a friend about the topic of moving the low SES kids and she brought up that coach fedora has been attending the board workshops and apparently there is concern about moving the Anderson area to CSHS since there are key Consol football kids there. So now, the admininstation at Harris' (?) request is trying to find a different low SES area to move so that consol doesn't lose (& CSHS gain) football players. This sounds pretty unreal (maybe just gossip?), but does anyone sense this might be accurate (I don't know what kids/football players live in the Anderson area). On the one hand, I appreciate not moving kids that have a good connection to consol, but the idea that football would come into zoning decisions so directly is quite troubling.
RGRAg1/75
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can you post link to map or coordinates of land for 3rd HS?
TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There are many administrators at these meetings - they make up most of the audience during typical meetings. Huff is free to attend if he wants but it is convenient for Consol/Oakwood/AMCMS to show up frequently - and they do.

I think we have officially jumped the shark.
MTTANK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks Oogway, I have not heard that but it makes sense. I made the mistake of listening to someone else and not verifying that info.
GIG 'EM
AgGirlCO95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you don't solve the low SES balance between both HS, you don't solve the CSHS problem of being dangerously overpopulated, you make it worse. That's common sense and plays a huge part as to why we continue to be here time and time again.
02skiag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You think it's unreal that a Texas football coach would want to keep a specific pipeline of players? The board doesn't have to listen to him, but I would expect nothing less from a motivated Texas football coach.

Edit. Not saying it's true at all, just believable.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
That doesn't sound out of the question at all.

This is Texas.
Oogway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am going to hope that it is gossip, as I imagine the rumor mill has spiraled completely out of control by now. I don't care if this is Texas, if people find those types of issues all-consuming I suggest they investigate IMG Academy and enroll their child there...
ChiefHaus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The only way to solve overcrowding at CSHS (which I do not believe is an issue at this time) is to identify current fully developed neighborhoods that put AMCHS at 100% capacity. Stop relying on growth, it is where CSISD has failed in the past.
ZFG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know how to post a link to a map on here, but I THINK the land for the new HS is west of the railroad tracks in the area of Rock Prairie West and Holleman Drive. I also think that area is currently zoned to Consol.

Map can be found on the CSISD website under
The March 28th boundary adjustment workshop in the presentation link.

Edit- slide 15
https://1.cdn.edl.io/zWF6cUqAJlkembXMo5lPmA3Y44UuNyk54lA89qoWZs70Y1I2.pdf
Edit again!! I was wrong.
The RPW/Holleman area designated on this map by a red star is the location for a new elementary school. The yellow star directly below it is the land earmarked for the next high school.
MTTANK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgGirlCO95 said:

If you don't solve the low SES balance between both HS, you don't solve the CSHS problem of being dangerously overpopulated, you make it worse. That's common sense and plays a huge part as to why we continue to be here time and time again.
This could not be more wrong. Do you understand how wrong it is to move students out to try and make a school more appealing? What does this tell the parents or kids that are SES? What does it tell them when a board member refers to them as a burden? I'm just glad the board has not figured out a way to force them out of the district, or off the books so to speak. This is about our kids and the community, not the districts private agenda. This is about right vs wrong. It is absolutely wrong to use these SES kids as pawns for numbers games and high school marketability. What an insult to our community. If you want to fix real population problems plan for growth properly and map the district to make sense, not serve fundamentally wrong agendas.
GIG 'EM
Oogway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe you're referring to Elementary #10, which is underway. The District owns land further south west of the tracks, but just because they have land does not mean they will build there. They have to be careful stewards of the tax dollars and cannot hoard land, but at the same time, large plots of land are hard to come by...
Ratsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stupe said:

Quote:

What do you think is more likely to change students' attitudes towards academics: putting them together in a classroom where everyone comes from a family that has no one that ever went to college,
That is not the case at either high school. It wouldn't be the case if they rezoned the CSHS areas north of 2818 to Consolidated for the time being, either.
Sorry... I should have been more clear. I was speaking about K-12, not just high school. At the elementary level, if you had true neighborhood schools, I suspect the low-SES percentages would be well over 70% at Southwood Valley and South Knoll. When my kids went to SWV, the low-SES students were 55% of the total students, and that was with busing in higher-income neighborhoods. My statement may have been slightly hyperbolic, but I still believe the people that are a part of our school community shape our expectations about learning.

I'm not necessarily advocating for the district's method of balancing low-SES numbers across each campus, but I don't think anything positive is achieved by having economically-segregated schools.
ZFG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you for the clarification! I edited my post with that info!
Ratsa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ZFG said:

My question is, why not consider that those students in question might do better in an environment where they are competing with more of their peers from the same background? Would they feel more comfortable and be more motivated to succeed when they had more students from similar backgrounds in their classes? Does being in a class with more students of "privilege" (financial, parental support, tutoring opportunities, etc) dampen their spirit from the beginning by giving them the attitude "there's no way I can compete with these kids because they are going to do better than me no matter what?"
What happens when they graduate? Are they only going to compete for jobs/college admissions with people from their neighborhood? If you only let low-income students go to school with one another in order to not "dampen their spirit", then you haven't prepared them for adulthood.
ZFG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Once again, I never suggested all the low income students in a class together or all in one school. I simply offered another possible view point.

I don't claim to know the answers or if it even makes a difference. I do know that my own child struggled (was failing) in an advanced math class and claimed he was falling behind because "all the kids in that class are really smart and catch on faster than I do so I just can't keep up." We moved him to a regular math class (where there were more kids on his level) and he has excelled. I know that's just one example, one child, and every child is different but it has given me a different line of thinking than what you expressed in your post. In our situation, being surrounded by higher academic achievers did not help learning & performance.
MTTANK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What are you talking about?! Are you now saying the district is bussing these SES kids away to make it more tough on them, and somehow that will make them a better job applicant? Why not kick them out of school and send them to southlake, really toughen them up and help them succeed. What does SES high school student population have to do with getting a job after school?!! Again, this is not trying to help any children. It is actually an insult to SES children to call them a burden and try and minimize the numbers at schools. An SES student has enough on their plate. They should not have to be bussed away from their community and the core group of kids they grew up with to help cushion some numbers for a schools administration!!This will not help them prepare for a job or make them a better candidate.
GIG 'EM
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.