I do not know one person who has referred to low SES students as a "burden" but I do know a lot of people who feel it needs to be evened out. And it does need to be. The board has time and time again stated that this is an objective and those of us in S South CS who were geographically zoned out to Consol accepted it. Those that didn't went private or moved to a neighborhood for CSHS that ironically could be zoned back again. I don't think it's the Consol parents who are in denial.
CSISD proposed boundary adjustments [Second Staff Warning on OP]
101,796 Views |
858 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Oogway
Someone did in fact label the poor and challenged students attending consol a burden, and to add to it they were a member of our school board. The school boards job is to help the students, not run a school popularity contest on the tax payers dime. I honestly believe we have some of the best people here in College Station, most have huge hearts and are very friendly. I have not talked to a single person that thinks its morally right to bus poor "free Lunch" and challenged "SES" students away from there school because they are unwanted there for popularity reasons. What does this tell our kids? This is supposed to be about educating kids and helping them. It's common sense that this zoning has zero to do with our kids. Maybe there are some school board members or their spouses speaking up on here saying its okay, or maybe an angry elitist consol parent or two. But I live in this community and have not talked to anyone from anywhere on the map that thinks this is right.
GIG 'EM
Retaining legal counsel?MTTANK said:
Stupe, tigermom is saying the same thing you are. Thats what she is talking about as far as being bussed. I can confirm that she has walked this neighborhood for school related issues. I am considering doing the same, as well as retaining legal counsel.
AgGirlCO95 said:
I don't think it's the Consol parents who are in denial.
In denial about what? Here is what we are not in denial about. Everyone wants and expects their kids to be able to get a good education. That means academically good, you know: reading, writing, math, science, history, etc. The stuff that they will be graded on from now through their college career. This is what the school board needs to be focused on. Academics....that is, after all, what we go to school for. When the current zoning agenda does not help the academic performance of anyone, why do we keep pursuing this method? The very fact that we have a 16 and counting page thread about this tells you all you need to know.
MTTANK said:
Someone did in fact label the poor and challenged students attending consol a burden, and to add to it they were a member of our school board. The school boards job is to help the students, not run a school popularity contest on the tax payers dime. I honestly believe we have some of the best people here in College Station, most have huge hearts and are very friendly. I have not talked to a single person that thinks its morally right to bus poor "free Lunch" and challenged "SES" students away from there school because they are unwanted there for popularity reasons. What does this tell our kids? This is supposed to be about educating kids and helping them. It's common sense that this zoning has zero to do with our kids. Maybe there are some school board members or their spouses speaking up on here saying its okay, or maybe an angry elitist consol parent or two. But I live in this community and have not talked to anyone from anywhere on the map that thinks this is right.
Low SES students on average perform lower academically. Hence they will require more resources and teachers time. Burden may be a little too strong of a word, but it certainly fits the situation. I have no idea what a board member may have said but you are blowing this word out of proportion as a scare tactic.
Morally wrong would be to have our two high schools segregated by income levels, in my opinion.
02skiag said:MTTANK said:
Someone did in fact label the poor and challenged students attending consol a burden, and to add to it they were a member of our school board. The school boards job is to help the students, not run a school popularity contest on the tax payers dime. I honestly believe we have some of the best people here in College Station, most have huge hearts and are very friendly. I have not talked to a single person that thinks its morally right to bus poor "free Lunch" and challenged "SES" students away from there school because they are unwanted there for popularity reasons. What does this tell our kids? This is supposed to be about educating kids and helping them. It's common sense that this zoning has zero to do with our kids. Maybe there are some school board members or their spouses speaking up on here saying its okay, or maybe an angry elitist consol parent or two. But I live in this community and have not talked to anyone from anywhere on the map that thinks this is right.
Low SES students on average perform lower academically. Hence they will require more resources and teachers time. Burden may be a little too strong of a word, but it certainly fits the situation. I have no idea what a board member may have said but you are blowing this word out of proportion as a scare tactic.
Morally wrong would be to have our two high schools segregated by income levels, in my opinion.
Using the word "segregated" is also a scare tactic. No one is suggesting that we "segregate by income levels". The argument has always been, zone by proximity to schools, because the only school that gets the benefit of proximity right now is CSHS and that's not fair. Choose neighborhoods that are close to consol and let the demographics fall where they may. When you do that, Consol becomes 40% Low SES (as seen in the East-west maps that were presented last week, and QUICKLY tossed out as ridiculous), which qualifies it for Title 1 funding from the state. Now, with more cash available, the school can choose how to spend the money. My opinion would be hire a boatload of high performing teachers, pay them well, lower class sizes at Consol, and put the RESOURCES where they need to be, which is attempting to close the achievement gap between our low achievers (traditionally low-ses kids), and high achievers.
Edit: Sorry Title 1 comes from fed govt I believe, not state.
So we should create such a discrepancy between the 2 schools that one qualifies for additional government aid? I would like it if you would list out the cons of that solution, the potential reprocussions. IMO your solution would be a disaster, and I've already listed why in this thread.
Segregation may be a strong word but it fits your solution, just as burden fits the situation you would be creating for those teachers. Why else are you having to pay them more?
Segregation may be a strong word but it fits your solution, just as burden fits the situation you would be creating for those teachers. Why else are you having to pay them more?
You are correct, Title I comes from the federal government. It doesn't amount to all that much money, sadly. It would be great to hire a boatload of teachers, but unfortunately that would cost way more than the District could ever get, especially from Title I and not enough to lower the student to teacher ratio enough to make a difference after having increased the proportion of the neediest students.
Unless that is what you are advocating under the East/West line? Consolidated would have a student body of 2218 in 20019/20 of which 40% are low ses and CSHS which would have a student body of around 1727 and a low ses % of about 12.8. If you set Consol's student to teacher ratio at ten to one and CSHS student to teacher ratio at 40 to one then you could perhaps do it and not have to hire more teachers. The catch is that class size ratio is most important in the K-3 grades and has longitudinal benefits so you would want to start your most educationally disadvantaged in smaller class sizes and keep those sizes small as long as possible. It can be difficult to track that though because most schools use averages. So, yeah, I imagine most parents, regardless of income level would want small class sizes and most especially for the neediest students.
I can foresee some problems with going that route though. What do parents do when the high ses school has crowded classrooms due to fewer teachers and the low ses school does not? There are still 12% low ses at CSHS, is that okay that they have to be in classrooms where there is a high student to teacher ratio? Or do you make the classes they are enrolled in smaller and have the less needy students be in classes with fifty students. It gets complicated.
So, I'm not a big fan of the east/west line. If you could pick one of the options the board has laid out thus far, which would it be? Option 3? I still think Margraves should be zoned for Consol, since it is not even built, regardless of whether a developer gets upset. If a developer gets upset, then why don't they donate some land for the third high school!
Unless that is what you are advocating under the East/West line? Consolidated would have a student body of 2218 in 20019/20 of which 40% are low ses and CSHS which would have a student body of around 1727 and a low ses % of about 12.8. If you set Consol's student to teacher ratio at ten to one and CSHS student to teacher ratio at 40 to one then you could perhaps do it and not have to hire more teachers. The catch is that class size ratio is most important in the K-3 grades and has longitudinal benefits so you would want to start your most educationally disadvantaged in smaller class sizes and keep those sizes small as long as possible. It can be difficult to track that though because most schools use averages. So, yeah, I imagine most parents, regardless of income level would want small class sizes and most especially for the neediest students.
I can foresee some problems with going that route though. What do parents do when the high ses school has crowded classrooms due to fewer teachers and the low ses school does not? There are still 12% low ses at CSHS, is that okay that they have to be in classrooms where there is a high student to teacher ratio? Or do you make the classes they are enrolled in smaller and have the less needy students be in classes with fifty students. It gets complicated.
So, I'm not a big fan of the east/west line. If you could pick one of the options the board has laid out thus far, which would it be? Option 3? I still think Margraves should be zoned for Consol, since it is not even built, regardless of whether a developer gets upset. If a developer gets upset, then why don't they donate some land for the third high school!
No skiag, if you draw a district like responsible school boards do without a personal agenda you are not "creating" anything. You draw a district to make geographical sense, and to be sure you feed schools in a way that does not tear kids apart from the other kids they grew up and went to school with. I do think you have some good points Oogway, and looking at these kids that might need extra help is very important. I think its evident that bussing them around and letting them know their "demographic" is a "burden" and consol does not want them is the opposite of trying to help them. Lets work together as a community and try to really help our kids. Lets not turn this into a south vs north or east vs west competition. On the way to the spring game my wife and I were talking about the zoning the district is doing and she started crying. I told her it would be okay, and she responded that she knew WE would be okay. She told me she would be happy to go to another school if the district would just not bother those that were low income and SES. Please, lets concentrate on our kids and not politics or popularity contests.
GIG 'EM
I have asked the same question because AMCMS has a slightly higher low SES percentage than Oakwood (which was designated Title 1 this year) and is not designated Title 1. Adding Title 1 schools doesn't mean you keep adding dollars to your pot. You get the same base amount from the federal government and the more schools you add divides the pot even further. Each school will get less money. I think they are focusing the money on younger kids to address education gaps.
This is not over. Some people (not all people - you need to expand your circle) are upset about rezoning the high schools when the discrepancies between Pecan Trail and Oakwood (and eventually AMCMS and WMS) are double and worse than the high schools. If I had a guess, the board is waiting for WMS to open to see what the numbers will be before more changes happen.
Yes, the 2016 rezoning committee was a failure. It's why the board will rezone from here on out. I can't understand all of the vitriol when you grasp that fact. The board is trying to fix what the committee would not. It is unfortunate the committee's decision couldn't even make it through 1 school year, but there were some in the room that knew this was going to happen.
This is not over. Some people (not all people - you need to expand your circle) are upset about rezoning the high schools when the discrepancies between Pecan Trail and Oakwood (and eventually AMCMS and WMS) are double and worse than the high schools. If I had a guess, the board is waiting for WMS to open to see what the numbers will be before more changes happen.
Yes, the 2016 rezoning committee was a failure. It's why the board will rezone from here on out. I can't understand all of the vitriol when you grasp that fact. The board is trying to fix what the committee would not. It is unfortunate the committee's decision couldn't even make it through 1 school year, but there were some in the room that knew this was going to happen.
Putting nearly all low SES students in a single school beacause of where they live is responsible? You have the ability to move to another school zone, they most likely don't. I'm glad the board has a broader vision than that.
-spreading out those that need the most help will give them a better teacher to needy student ratio.
-Just like any student in any zone, they can still hang with whoever they want when they get home. No one is getting "ripped apart". Perhaps there is one neighborhood zone that could be tweaked a little to not cause a split.
-I've already conceded that IF folks are in walking distance then the board should reconsider those areas. This is the only valid argument I've read on here in regards to low SES.
-spreading out those that need the most help will give them a better teacher to needy student ratio.
-Just like any student in any zone, they can still hang with whoever they want when they get home. No one is getting "ripped apart". Perhaps there is one neighborhood zone that could be tweaked a little to not cause a split.
-I've already conceded that IF folks are in walking distance then the board should reconsider those areas. This is the only valid argument I've read on here in regards to low SES.
The committee wasn't the problem in 2016. They were canon fodder for the board. They did exactly what the board wanted them to do. The committee made a recommendation, nothing was binding. And it was clear that they were far from unanimous. The board had no obligation to listen to them, much less act on it.
The committee was the pretty girl assisting the magician. The board was the magician. The committee distracted the public long enough for the board to pull rabbit out of hat unseen.
The committee was the pretty girl assisting the magician. The board was the magician. The committee distracted the public long enough for the board to pull rabbit out of hat unseen.
Option 3 is the worst option because it relies heavily on future development (mistake one), includes too many walkers, rental properties (mistake 2), and an apartment/townhome complex around tower point that traditionally does not have students (mistake 3).
In my opinion I think it will be some modification of either 2B or 2A.
In my opinion I think it will be some modification of either 2B or 2A.
I do agree that the mistake the board made was not making changes back in 2016. They were looking at possible changes, then it got nasty and they punted. The only complaint I would have is that the board should of inserted themselves more. But it was my understanding previous rezoning committes used the same format. I heard it was breaking down in 2010 but it finally became clear the committee format had run its course in 2016.
Thanks for you help skiag, I will work much harder in trying to find somebody in our community that thinks its morally correct to call poor and challenged students a burden and try to bus them to a school further away with less kids that are such a "burden". Maybe I can even get them to talk to my wife about it when shes crying about the districts mistreatment of these kids. I think you have some good points Wendy1990. I can promise you they would never ever pick option 3, this does not give consol the clout and wealth they are looking for. They really want option 1, but were caught pigging out and taking all the most expensive neighborhoods to their school(consol). I agree they plan on taking a form of option 2. They have done a good job pinning the options in a corner of "well our hands are tied here, either we take all the wealthiest hoods or move these kids right on top of cshs that can walk" . In effect none of the options are acceptable, and they get what they want, a bunch of people fighting each other on whether their kids should have to be bussed when they can walk, or whether their kids should have to bussed all the way across the map for over 2 hours worth of driving daily. The answer is neither. All the plans yank poor and challenged kids from consol, which is unacceptable and shameful. Draw a zone to make logistic and school feeder sense. I'm sure some will still be unhappy, but at least we are making some sense and not insulting a "demographic".
GIG 'EM
Without some common sense modifications, 2A and 2B would still have walking / biking distance kids going to schools that are not in walking / biking distance but the demographics would probably look good.Wendy 1990 said:
Option 3 is the worst option because it relies heavily on future development (mistake one), includes too many walkers, rental properties (mistake 2), and an apartment/townhome complex around tower point that traditionally does not have students (mistake 3).
In my opinion I think it will be some modification of either 2B or 2A.
I can absolutely see them choosing that.
I imagine if you asked any parent in the county, no matter in what school district they reside; "Do you want your child to ride a bus to school," the answer would be no. There might be some parents who like the convenience of a short bus ride, but most parents would rather probably not. Therein lies the difficulty. The schools are close together and in some areas, so are the students. In order to compromise, the Board really does need to examine the proximity factor I believe.
I was pretty much of the mindset when this all started that no, if they are already on a bus, then it isn't that big a deal. Before people get all mad about that, you have to understand, that was a common mindset of the school board for many years and long before any of the current board members were serving, even the ones who have served for a long time. I used to ride a bus from first grade til I had a car. It was an hour one way, so I was thinking, 'this isn't that big a deal.' But here, the traffic really is becoming a bigger issue and it is unpredictable and so the time the bus ride takes can vary by a lot. Knowing that some parents have students in multiple schools and not all of them driving yet, I have slowly started to see that while the folks east of highway six have a valid argument about driving as they have done it for years, so do those who are west of highway six and so do the folks who are currently bused south. I don't think the Board should push Option 1 through (even though it does address the overcrowding and the SES numbers) without trying to remedy the busing and proximity issues. But, I also don't think it is as simple as drawing the line horizontal through town, based on prior history with SES in the school district. It is going to be hard, but maybe they can get the percentages somewhat comparable without bringing in students who are essentially adjacent to another school district. I don't know.
I will be watching the meeting next week and hope the Board comes ready to tackle some tough issues.
I was pretty much of the mindset when this all started that no, if they are already on a bus, then it isn't that big a deal. Before people get all mad about that, you have to understand, that was a common mindset of the school board for many years and long before any of the current board members were serving, even the ones who have served for a long time. I used to ride a bus from first grade til I had a car. It was an hour one way, so I was thinking, 'this isn't that big a deal.' But here, the traffic really is becoming a bigger issue and it is unpredictable and so the time the bus ride takes can vary by a lot. Knowing that some parents have students in multiple schools and not all of them driving yet, I have slowly started to see that while the folks east of highway six have a valid argument about driving as they have done it for years, so do those who are west of highway six and so do the folks who are currently bused south. I don't think the Board should push Option 1 through (even though it does address the overcrowding and the SES numbers) without trying to remedy the busing and proximity issues. But, I also don't think it is as simple as drawing the line horizontal through town, based on prior history with SES in the school district. It is going to be hard, but maybe they can get the percentages somewhat comparable without bringing in students who are essentially adjacent to another school district. I don't know.
I will be watching the meeting next week and hope the Board comes ready to tackle some tough issues.
I am hesitant to write this, because tone is so hard to convey in written words. My intent is not to fan the flames, but to try to bring some peace.
You clearly have very strong opinions and emotions on this topic, which I respect. But from what you've written, it sounds like you've become so upset that you can no longer see any side other than your own. It is easy to lose perspective and not see the big picture.
A number of years ago my daughter had a math teacher who had a lot of great teaching abilities, but her math knowledge was lacking. When I realized that my daughter's teacher didn't understand what I considered to be basic math, it brought me to tears. I was worried for my daughter's future, as well as her classmates' futures. Now, a number of years later, my daughter is doing great in math, despite having that teacher all year long. And the teacher who I had been so upset with is the one who finally got my daughter to be careful with her arithmetic and stop making sloppy mistakes.
I tell this story hoping to help you and your wife find some peace with the rezoning. At the time, I was livid. Looking back, my anger only hurt me and my daughter, and made me blind to the teacher's good qualities. I believe that however the rezoning turns out, all children in CSISD will be offered an excellent education.
You clearly have very strong opinions and emotions on this topic, which I respect. But from what you've written, it sounds like you've become so upset that you can no longer see any side other than your own. It is easy to lose perspective and not see the big picture.
A number of years ago my daughter had a math teacher who had a lot of great teaching abilities, but her math knowledge was lacking. When I realized that my daughter's teacher didn't understand what I considered to be basic math, it brought me to tears. I was worried for my daughter's future, as well as her classmates' futures. Now, a number of years later, my daughter is doing great in math, despite having that teacher all year long. And the teacher who I had been so upset with is the one who finally got my daughter to be careful with her arithmetic and stop making sloppy mistakes.
I tell this story hoping to help you and your wife find some peace with the rezoning. At the time, I was livid. Looking back, my anger only hurt me and my daughter, and made me blind to the teacher's good qualities. I believe that however the rezoning turns out, all children in CSISD will be offered an excellent education.
Ratsa, I really appreciate you saying that. Means a lot to me. Not to get all good will hunting hug it out or anything, but thank you. I have never been the one to stir the pot, and if you look at my number of posts and as long as I have been on this forum you will see that. To be clear, I am not concerned about my kids education regardless of what district we are in. I have confidence in my parenting and in my childrens ability to overcome any challenge. My oldest child is in kindergarten, so if you really think about it this zoning will likely not matter by the time she is in high school. For me this has become much more about standing up for right vs wrong. I really feel like the public needs to know whats going on. Maybe its because I came from very poor schools with a ton of challenged kids. I feel like the sort of thing our school district is doing is what drives such a wedge between different races or demographics. The thing I love the most about this town is it has never mattered how rich or how poor anyone was, almost everybody was so friendly and caring to each other. Sorry for the rambling, I wish everybody the best regardless of what we are put up against.
GIG 'EM
I'm glad my post helped! I've got two high schoolers, one at each school, who have been in CSISD since Kindergarten. Has everything been perfect all these years? No. But their teachers, coaches, and other school personnel have helped them become responsible, caring teenagers ready to begin their adult lives. And I've seen the same with almost all of my kids' friends and classmates. Given the situations in many other districts, I'm grateful for the education my kids are getting in CSISD.
Unless they come up with a couple of new plans, 2b is the plan the board favors at the moment. If there are no more presentations (and I don't believe they asked for another one) then that is the current lean.
Well they asked for other variationsthat weren't provided. At the last meeting when the Superintendent said I still have the other variations that you requested, the board president said that's okay, we don't need to see anymore.
So, I agree with you that they're already leaning towards one.
So, I agree with you that they're already leaning towards one.
Three Twenties and A Ten
Joined:
Jun 3, 2016
Posts:
967
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hard for me to believe they take IL, when one of the current Board Members/prominent local builders is a resident there. Would be interested to know why you believe this is their current lean.ChiefHaus said:
Unless they come up with a couple of new plans, 2b is the plan the board favors at the moment. If there are no more presentations (and I don't believe they asked for another one) then that is the current lean.
I've never heard the board member you're referring to support IL specifically. Moreover, he historically just votes how the group votes. In fact, there is never any dissent.
2b doesn't include IL but yeah, Board member you are referring to has always had a pretty clear agenda.
I believe the board with go with 2b plus. It takes West plus creek meadows which allows for greens prairie elem kids to stay together at WMS and then Consol. 2b plus provides a pretty even split of WMS.
I believe the board with go with 2b plus. It takes West plus creek meadows which allows for greens prairie elem kids to stay together at WMS and then Consol. 2b plus provides a pretty even split of WMS.
I'm guessing they'll start a poostorm if they take people that weren't in the provided options. People will feel blindsided because they weren't given notice that they needed to voice concerns and weren't given a chance to.AgGirlCO95 said:
2b doesn't include IL but yeah, Board member you are referring to has always had a pretty clear agenda.
I believe the board with go with 2b plus. It takes West plus creek meadows which allows for greens prairie elem kids to stay together at WMS and then Consol. 2b plus provides a pretty even split of WMS.
If they do take Creek Meadows, would be interesting to see if they carve out the creek meadows duplexes. Assume there are some low SES kids in there.
We're in the main part of creek meadows and would qualify for free/reduced lunches. Do I need to apply and get in the system so they take my "burden" children in to account and don't send us north? I would feel so torn.
The only safe bet would be to move to the margraves area when it develops. If you look at the majority of our school board members campaign funding, you will see theres a developer or two that dedicate an enormous amount of support. Thats why the board will under no circumstances look at zoning the margraves tract to consol. So looks like the margraves would give your children a chance at continuity in their education and take away the fear of being bussed all across the district. The only problem you might run into is once its developed and sold the board might be able to pull you to the school of their choice. I would say if it turns out to be a really nice neighborhood, they too would be at high risk of being zoned to consol. It would buy you some time while its being developed though.
GIG 'EM
[That poster did not say anything that warranted a ban. Any future posts that do not add to the conversation will simply be removed. -Staff]
This is a little off topic, but regardless of which school ot gets zoned, that whole preliminary plat for that subdivision has me thinking no way would I go in there but some people want the new and shiny. It has one entrance on Arrington and two on Greens Prairie but my guess (and it is just a guess) is that the second on GP will be added long after it is needed (like Castlegate). Eventually there will be an entrance to the west when the Oldham Oaks road is connected. Fun times. On the plus side for Castlegate residents, one of the entrances will be opposite on Greens Prairie so you might get a four way stop or light some day....
I myself have been looking into the board members & administration's interests/suspected motivations, etc. as the idea of an "agenda" has been brought up numerous times. It is clear that many board members (5 of 7 & also the superintendent) live in or have kids currently zoned for Consol and I feel like that raises it's own questions. Only 2 of the board members currently reside in the CSHS zoned area.
In response to the "board member in question", besides the fact that he has no kids enrolled at CSISD anymore, my findings have been that he owns WAY more properties outside of Indian Lakes than he does within and many of those are located in places that would be rezoned with either plan (ie. Creek Meadows). You can look up his name on Brazos CAD and see the list of all the property that he currently owns.
I have sat through every meeting so far and that same board member has been the ONLY one to consistently bring up his concerns about the drive time for any of the furthest south neighborhoods. He has also voiced his opinion in support of including Margraves and new developments into Consol zoning, so clearly the developers don't have him in their pocket. Seems to me that he might be in the minority of board members without ulterior motives.
I would guess that any builder in town (including the other one on the board) will see an increase in business as a result of this rezoning because you KNOW there will be people that move as a result of where the lines get drawn.
In response to the "board member in question", besides the fact that he has no kids enrolled at CSISD anymore, my findings have been that he owns WAY more properties outside of Indian Lakes than he does within and many of those are located in places that would be rezoned with either plan (ie. Creek Meadows). You can look up his name on Brazos CAD and see the list of all the property that he currently owns.
I have sat through every meeting so far and that same board member has been the ONLY one to consistently bring up his concerns about the drive time for any of the furthest south neighborhoods. He has also voiced his opinion in support of including Margraves and new developments into Consol zoning, so clearly the developers don't have him in their pocket. Seems to me that he might be in the minority of board members without ulterior motives.
I would guess that any builder in town (including the other one on the board) will see an increase in business as a result of this rezoning because you KNOW there will be people that move as a result of where the lines get drawn.
My fault, I meant 2b plus. It is just my gut feeling from watching all of the workshops.
Quick rundown and my read of the board as a whole:
Option 1, most community support per the board and the first one dismissed as it creates the impression of a super school at Consol. Any option for walkers in midtown has been destroyed. Walkers to CSHS will be preserved because the board prioritizes it over everything except balancing out low SES. That eliminates every option except 2b+. 2b+ has transportation but every option without walkers has that anyway.
Board briefly discussed having an option 3 with CG area thrown in instead of the midtown walkers. That option would include IL, Nantucket, and CG. There is zero chance they are taking CG away from CSHS in my opinion. When you add in IL and Nantucket with it, I would be shocked if that happens.
In summary, 2b+ has been presented as the best option with the least amount of community uproar. It fits all the criteria. The only issue I see with this is who goes to AMCHS when the 3rd HS opens? Most of the houses in the 2b+ neighborhoods would be zoned for the 3rd HS assuming they use the land they already have west of the RR tracks and don't buy more land somewhere else. Those families get to move again in 6 years (but the kids will be gone so it only affects families with more than 1 or 2 kids) and AMCHS is still left with a student deficiency problem (which is the real issue in my mind). Unless they present more options, (other than 3 with CG as a throw-in) this thing is done.
This is why I believe they are kicking this can a few more years down the road. The issue that I wish they would resolve is permanently zoning fully built out neighborhoods for AMCHS so any expansion in the future does not affect those neighborhoods. The current plan will mean everyone south of graham rd gets to go through this again in the next 2-10 years depending on the accuracy of Templeton's projected numbers.
Quick rundown and my read of the board as a whole:
Option 1, most community support per the board and the first one dismissed as it creates the impression of a super school at Consol. Any option for walkers in midtown has been destroyed. Walkers to CSHS will be preserved because the board prioritizes it over everything except balancing out low SES. That eliminates every option except 2b+. 2b+ has transportation but every option without walkers has that anyway.
Board briefly discussed having an option 3 with CG area thrown in instead of the midtown walkers. That option would include IL, Nantucket, and CG. There is zero chance they are taking CG away from CSHS in my opinion. When you add in IL and Nantucket with it, I would be shocked if that happens.
In summary, 2b+ has been presented as the best option with the least amount of community uproar. It fits all the criteria. The only issue I see with this is who goes to AMCHS when the 3rd HS opens? Most of the houses in the 2b+ neighborhoods would be zoned for the 3rd HS assuming they use the land they already have west of the RR tracks and don't buy more land somewhere else. Those families get to move again in 6 years (but the kids will be gone so it only affects families with more than 1 or 2 kids) and AMCHS is still left with a student deficiency problem (which is the real issue in my mind). Unless they present more options, (other than 3 with CG as a throw-in) this thing is done.
This is why I believe they are kicking this can a few more years down the road. The issue that I wish they would resolve is permanently zoning fully built out neighborhoods for AMCHS so any expansion in the future does not affect those neighborhoods. The current plan will mean everyone south of graham rd gets to go through this again in the next 2-10 years depending on the accuracy of Templeton's projected numbers.
Let's hope rezoning for the next HS makes that much sense! If this current zoning is any indication, it won't!
Frisco ISD rezones every year. They don't have the same demographics and numbers, but that must make things interesting.
True, but google images for "frisco isd high school zoning map" and look how different it looks from the CSISD maps. They build and zone for growth, in the area where the growth is occurring and they are NOT bussing ANYONE across town.
Yeah, I seem to remember hearing that some board members have mentioned Frisco's rezoning process as a model for CSISD to emulate. I think lots of people would be for emulating Frisco if the board also included the part where they prioritize proximity and neighborhood schools at all levels. Otherwise, not so much, thanks.ZFG said:
True, but google images for "frisco isd high school zoning map" and look how different it looks from the CSISD maps. They build and zone for growth, in the area where the growth is occurring and they are NOT bussing ANYONE across town.