Wendy 1990 said:

---

Why is this crazy? Because the majority of board members kids are already graduated (empty nesters) or are/will be upperclassmen in both schools. There is only 1 board member with young kids.

---

Exactly. This doesn't affect them or their kids. They can move other people's kids around however they want.

I'll just weigh in on the "let's explore if SES zoning works in GENERAL vs works in CSISD". You don't even need to go to Ealy for this info. Request the TAPR reports on the TEA website for our district for the past several years. In all years, our ED students consistently underperform the district average and the state average, with a variance of 8-10% more often than not. CSISD has ALWAYS zoned based on comparable composition, so I don't even know what year you would have to go to in order to find a year where we didn't zone for Comp Comp. It pretty much doesn't exist, but maybe in the 80s? Anyway, our low SES students consistently underperform. Then, go and compare to a district like Mckinney. They ALSO use comp comp to zone, right? Isn't that what we've discussed before? And what do you find? Mckinney ED students perform at the state average, or in some years ABOVE the state average. Then, look at Frisco ISD, which zones for proximity, with a low percentage of SES students. Guess what? ED students perform at the state level or above. SO. What do we conclude from these test scores? Other districts can do it but it DOESN'T WORK HERE IN CSISD. It never has. The supposed "research" that glorifies comparable composition is not us. It's not CSISD.

Now, let's move on and get real. If your children attend Oakwood/AMCMS/Consol, and sent the aforementioned emails, then you clearly have issues with the culture of those schools. You can blame it on the high % of low SES students there or not. If those emails from maroon track families are true, and you are upset at discipline problems in the schools, you need to acknowledge that adding MORE students (low SES or high SES) to the roster won't fix your problems. Your problems are with the administration of the individual schools, not with comparable composition or with capacity. Zoning won't fix anything. High SES kids in the school won't fix anything. A "full school" won't fix anything. The board perhaps needs to acknowledge that an administrative change will be the only thing to fix it. It's not the students, it's the leadership.

Tigermom84 said:

---

I'll just weigh in on the "let's explore if SES zoning works in GENERAL vs works in CSISD". You don't even need to go to Ealy for this info. Request the TAPR reports on the TEA website for our district for the past several years. In all years, our ED students consistently underperform the district average and the state average, with a variance of 8-10% more often than not. CSISD has ALWAYS zoned based on comparable composition, so I don't even know what year you would have to go to in order to find a year where we didn't zone for Comp Comp. It pretty much doesn't exist, but maybe in the 80s? Anyway, our low SES students consistently underperform. Then, go and compare to a district like Mckinney. They ALSO use comp comp to zone, right? Isn't that what we've discussed before? And what do you find? Mckinney ED students perform at the state average, or in some years ABOVE the state average. Then, look at Frisco ISD, which zones for proximity, with a low percentage of SES students. Guess what? ED students perform at the state level or above. SO. What do we conclude from these test scores? Other districts can do it but it DOESN'T WORK HERE IN CSISD. It never has. The supposed "research" that glorifies comparable composition is not us. It's not CSISD.

Now, let's move on and get real. If your children attend Oakwood/AMCMS/Consol, and sent the aforementioned emails, then you clearly have issues with the culture of those schools. You can blame it on the high % of low SES students there or not. If those emails from maroon track families are true, and you are upset at discipline problems in the schools, you need to acknowledge that adding MORE students (low SES or high SES) to the roster won't fix your problems. Your problems are with the administration of the individual schools, not with comparable composition or with capacity. Zoning won't fix anything. High SES kids in the school won't fix anything. A "full school" won't fix anything. The board perhaps needs to acknowledge that an administrative change will be the only thing to fix it. It's not the students, it's the leadership.

---

Are you kidding me? Now you are insulting the administration of our schools? Since those emails were sent there were changes made. Look at the number of referrals at both OW and AMCMS and look at how those numbers gone down dramatically. And yes, look further at which demographic those referrals mostly occur. You crossed the line here and are speaking about something you have no clue about. Josh Symank and Jeff Mann are FANTASTIC! Any school would be lucky to have either of them running their ship and they do the best they can to manage the discipline problems and more importantly their parents that don't want to do anything about it while trying to provide an excellent institution for those of us that have kids there to learn. But sure, send more discipline problems their way that's the answer. As long as you keep that box nice and tight west of hwy 6 it doesn't matter all the rest of us can figure it out and fend for ourselves.
I swear some of you are making me wish they just leave this alone. We will enjoy our smaller classes and good luck to all of you in your portables.

Okay, so if changes were made (I hadn't heard, I just heard less than 12 months ago that there were severe discipline problems and behavior issues, and the administration's "hands were tied" on solving it), and everything is fine at the schools mentioned above, and no one at CSHS complains about being overcapacity, there are also behavior issues at purple schools (I doubt any school is immune to this) and everything is hunky dory in the purple and maroon zones all the way around, then I pose the question why are we doing this??? What does anyone have to gain by this rezoning?? The answer is nothing. Forget FC Local, scrap the over/under triggers and let's not do this every year. What is the REAL ISSUE? Let's get out in the open. I still can't figure it out.

No one is complaining about being overcapacity yet at CSHS because they are just barely over capacity. I know this year at least one computer lab is used as a classroom, and I'm sure there may be other modifications that have been made to accommodate growth, but that is hardly a burden on students. But give it 2-3 years of similar growth, and the portables are full, and they need to add more portables, but if they place more portables, where do they build the classroom addition? If they get to that point, then people will be complaining that the school board didn't plan ahead. They're damned it they do, and damned if they don't. I don't have thick enough skin to be on the school board.

No one likes paying taxes, and I'm no exception. However, I do really appreciate all the amenities our taxes pay for, so I try to keep my complaining about taxes to a minimum. But if a time comes when people want to build a third high school, and both existing schools are not at capacity, I will definitely not have a problem complaining about that. Given that there's not much growth in the Consol zone, the under-utilization at Consol is not going to fix itself naturally. It seems obvious to me that a rezoning is necessary.

Yes, you are right, CSHS is okay right now, but we all know it's going to be bursting soon. I keep going around and around with people on this, and I guess at some point on this thread we will have to agree to disagree. I think if we can bond today WITHOUT HAVING TO RAISE THE TAX RATE and not expand cshs, build the 3rd high school, it will be ready in 3 years. That gives these supposed new developments like the speedway and margraves to get off the ground and start getting families, and the charter school impact can be properly assessed. Let the CSHS folks live in their portables for 3 years, they asked for it, right? Then, rezone in 3 years. Put proper growth neighborhoods at consol if it's still severely under capacity still, and work on fixing the other two also. But it will be a lot more palatable to the community bc likely all the west neighborhoods will go to the closer, newer school. I think that's what most people in this town want. Just wait, and plan better.

In the meantime, to HELP overcrowding at CSHS by stopping the supposed exceptions that are made, allowing transfers to CSHS. Go where you are zoned, no exceptions for dumb reasons. Apparently that happens A LOT.

Many on this thread have dug in their heels though, and many maroon track parents and homeowners won't pass a bond when there's empty seats. The board says that bonding now is the dumbest idea yet (I think that was nugent). So someone will have to give here, and I'm afraid it's the children. Mostly the 8th graders who have already made their plans and who's worlds will be shattered.

Edit-I should mention bc this ties in. Another reason voters may hesitate on a bond now is because of all the dumb stuff that the board spends money on. rebranding, college view, etc. There's a trust factor there, "will they REALLY do what they said they were going to do with this money?" Something to think about that has nothing to do with taxes or kids.

[If you are going to make allegations such campaign funding please provide facts. Thank you. -Staff]

kraut said:

---

Tigermom84 said:

---

I think if we can bond today WITHOUT HAVING TO RAISE THE TAX RATE and not expand cshs, build the 3rd high school, it will be ready in 3 years.

---

Where is this free bond money coming from?

---

You'd think the last 3 years of property value increases would cover 2 additional High School. I'm kidding but I'm sure not ready for an additional increase.

The last financial report said there was debt falling off the books soon. Possibly a tax decrease in the future followed by an increase when they bond in three years. So let's just skip the decrease and solve the problem now. I'm sure many parents would be okay with forgoing a tax decrease in favor of leaving kids alone. If memory serves (I need to check this) the last tax increase from a bond was for the 10th elementary school, which everyone was okay with even when we have elementary schools under capacity. Not sure why everyone is taking a stand now when it comes to high school.

Love that you can so easily discredit a scholar that doesn't fit your narrative. If you've looked at the book, you would see effect sizes are reported (and other data) which would answer many of your questions (or did you simply google "negative comments about Hattie" - and by the way, please don't make it sound like he's some kook that is only respected in a couple random other countries, many educators in the US respect him). It's also a meta analysis which is intended to address statistical flaws of any one single quantitative studies.

But, here is another article I found quickly by looking in the academic database for education rather than "googling" and relying on the internet (Grigg, 2012, Sociology of Education - shows that "school changes of all types are detrimental of student achievement... attenuates a student's expected gain in both reading and mathematics.") He also discusses other studies on this topic in his literature review, including research on disadvantaged kids (and how change negatively affect them). But you perhaps know Griggs and can discredit him too. Like you, I don't want to derail things but just wanted to help provide more information. It seems people have made up their minds that moving the low SES kids is gonna be just great for them (or is it just great for the high SES kids at Consol?)

I'm pretty sure bonds are rolling off. So no increase. No decrease either but problem solved. Generally, I think voters in CS would normally provide what CSISD asks for regardless of available capacity. That's how we ended up with College View. However, I agree, at this point the voters may have a trust issue. But hey, with all the spiderweb re-zoning every other year some are saying they get a home value reduction. That translates to a tax reduction. Really, why wouldn't people want that? Glass half full!

AgGirlCO95 said:

---

I swear some of you are making me wish they just leave this alone. We will enjoy our smaller classes and good luck to all of you in your portables.

---

I agree with you on this. Why are we maroon track folks so ambitious to change our great thing? We have smaller class sizes, more merit scholars, fewer referral issues, everybody says both schools are great. Seems like we/maroon has the advantages. Why are we doing this?

Tigermom84 said:

---

In the meantime, to HELP overcrowding at CSHS by stopping the supposed exceptions that are made, allowing transfers to CSHS. Go where you are zoned, no exceptions for dumb reasons. Apparently that happens A LOT.

---

I am with you on transfers to CSHS for dumb reasons. I really don't know how many of those there are.

However, I wouldn't want to take away the option for teachers to transfer their kids. I think that is a big perk for teachers that helps us draw in experienced, better teachers, which is part of what makes CSISD better for our students. I went back and looked at the report presented at one of the workshops, and it shows 60 teachers transferring their kids to Consol, and 59 teachers transferring their kids to CSHS. What that shows me is that teachers don't think one school is better than the other, but one school is more convenient for their particular family. Letting teachers transfer their kids is a perk offered by other districts, too. I'm not sure how common it is, but I know it was allowed in the school district I grew up in. If you take that option away, I think it hurts our ability to attract top-notch teachers.

And there are currently 45 non-employee transfers from Consol to CSHS. Some of those are valid transfers for CATE programs, but unfortunately, I don't know how many those are. While getting rid of the some of those transfers will help, I don't see it making much of a dent in the overpopulation problem.

If you take the time to look back at the report, there are many mistakes on the numbers. Do you really trust the numbers our school board has manufactured for them? Poor planning and leadership is what put us in the situation in the first place. They used 40 some odd students as the draw for the new charter school. The charter school is already full at some grade levels and all grade levels have well over 100 students with the max being 160 per level. Also, 75% of the students enrolled in the charter school live in College Station. They are getting 4-6 new student applications every 30 minutes right now. They will have a high school next year. The numbers and maps we are given are manufactured to meet an agenda.

The transfer issue was adressed on earlier posts. Bottom line, why we allow any transfers (with exception of CATE and programmatic transfers) into a school that is over capacity makes no sense. 60 is a big number and impactive relative to the rezoning numbers. And again, eliminating it would have zero impact on recruiting.

I agree Wendy, at this time it is good news to tax payers. Its really a shame that csisd gets the local school taxes when families chose to attend the charter school. At least in this case, where the majority of people I have talked to are switching to give their family continuity that CSISD refuses to provide. I was at the Indian Lakes meeting last night, and there was a tremendous showing. They are not even getting rezoned, but are tired of the "demographics" games and want whats best for their kids. Nothing like watching a school board destroy a community over "creative" zoning.

This topic has been a really interesting read, and is obviously a hot one. I made the mistake of reading the research posted here on both sides to try and sway my thoughts on this subject. My child is too young for any of this to have skin in the game. As a mother I do hate hearing all the stories of families being ripped apart by our school board. I'm pretty sure my child will not attend csisd, if I have anything to do with it. Either way, in the middle of looking at research I found one that said chewing bubble gum increases your working IQ by an average of 10 points. When I looked into it there were not many variables to argue, it was clean research that proved itself.



My Opinion for what its worth(probably nothing)-

Rezoning is a very serious thing. it effects the lives and families of many people. I cannot get behind using free lunch demographics so heavily that you throw proximity out the window. For me to use free lunch to zone I would have to know that it was a 100% slam dunk in helping these kids to base ripping families apart over. Is there a study I am going to reference?? Not at all. How do I know its not a slam dunk? That would imply everyone else is wrong that zones. If it was a slam dunk why would all these districts be hurting kids with proximity? I believe there is a reason almost every single school district in the state of texas zones for proximity. I think its a common sense method that removes the ability for as much bias. Simply, it makes sense. So I have to ask, have we at least tried giving these kids some bubble gum to chew while testing? Is this the only way to really help students anymore, because it seems our district has spent way too much time and money on this and hurt way too many families. Imagine the damage that has already been done to CSISD here in god's land.

TaterTot_09 said:

---

My child is too young for any of this to have skin in the game. As a mother I do hate hearing all the stories of families being ripped apart by our school board.

---

You are the type of parent that we need getting involved NOW. Changing the status quo takes time. If we can start working on electing better representation now, things have a chance of being righted by the time your kids would be influenced by it. Please don't be afraid to get involved, just because it doesn't currently affect you.