ZFG - if you haven't already done so, your post should be sent to the board and Dr. Ealy but it should also be sent to the media outlets. So many good points here. People aren't aware of these issues or are not fully understanding what has occurred
Grandfathering incoming freshmen (current 8th graders) at both CSISD high schools
50,635 Views |
338 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by AggieMom_38
The numbers shifting could have a variety of causes from parents informing the District that they will physically move (into their desired zone) to not really having a handle on how accurate their database is. *Note to parents: every once in awhile, stop into your child's school and have them pull up your student's file to check for accuracy. One year, the emergency contact listed for one of my children was another student because they linked the file incorrectly. Glad it wasn't needed before it was caught! So, these numbers may fluctuate by small amounts. But again, one or two students shouldn't be enough either way to not allow grandfathering.
As someone whose children are/were involved in a variety of extracurricular activities, the whole push/pull by school staff at both schools over certain students is shameful. As if the students and their families haven't been through enough, making them feel conflicted about their choice/or lack thereof is not professional. At all. I couldn't care less about Superior ratings, championships, or trophies. They are nice and all, but having one sure isn't the first thing I look for when assessing a person's character.
As someone whose children are/were involved in a variety of extracurricular activities, the whole push/pull by school staff at both schools over certain students is shameful. As if the students and their families haven't been through enough, making them feel conflicted about their choice/or lack thereof is not professional. At all. I couldn't care less about Superior ratings, championships, or trophies. They are nice and all, but having one sure isn't the first thing I look for when assessing a person's character.
Oogway, we tend to not agree on some things. The one thing I have noticed throughout this thread, is that you really care for these students. Any chance you would run for school board??? I think our kids need someone looking out for them, and I could care less about differing thoughts on obscure research at this point. It's become clear to me that these kids need help. After hearing and seeing these kids and families stories, I have been humbled. All the differing ideals or opinions are secondary to me now, I just want these kids treated how they deserve to be. It's not their fault the adults (school board and parents) disagree on things. It turned ugly fast, and I am as guilty as anyone for letting it get there. At this point I would be willing to put on a dress and stand on the corner of university and texas with a sign that reads "I was wrong and our school board is right" if it got these kids taken care of.
GIG 'EM
I think there are a lot of people in this community who care about others and especially children, so I am one of many. Even when we disagree, learning how to listen and respect another's point of view is how we can help our community become a better place for all of us to live. We may also learn new information that can help us grow as individuals. We ask this of our children all the time, but so often fail to do so ourselves.
This community is growing so fast, however, that sometimes the decisions are not as simple as they first appear, and the consequences may not be realized for several years. That may be some of what the board recognized during the zoning that I am not privy to nor capable of seeing but in doing so, perhaps they neglected (unintentionally?) the very issue that is in the here and now. So, here we are reminding them that while there is an obligation to the future, the present counts for something too.
I hope that anyone who feels the Board should revisit this issue attends the meeting. Regardless of its presence as an agenda item, anyone may speak during the 'hearing of citizens' portion.
This community is growing so fast, however, that sometimes the decisions are not as simple as they first appear, and the consequences may not be realized for several years. That may be some of what the board recognized during the zoning that I am not privy to nor capable of seeing but in doing so, perhaps they neglected (unintentionally?) the very issue that is in the here and now. So, here we are reminding them that while there is an obligation to the future, the present counts for something too.
I hope that anyone who feels the Board should revisit this issue attends the meeting. Regardless of its presence as an agenda item, anyone may speak during the 'hearing of citizens' portion.
Any news on grandfathering these kids? Last I heard the superintendent (mr. ealy) still has not given any answers as to how not grandfathering helps these students or any other students. Seems like the public relations spin is just to tell parents how much they are going to love their newly zoned school. They also seem to think the answer to parents and students pains is to attend their newly zoned schools as freshman. Problem with that is bussing is not offered as freshman. I can see some of the low income (free lunch) students they are sending from consol to CSHS having a really hard time making that happen. Seems like their PR spin is just making these parents even more angry with the district. I know they wanted to help Consols popularity by getting rid of low income students and trying to ship in higher income estate type neighborhoods far south of town. From everything I hear from the general public, I think this has hurt the publics feelings of Consol and even more for CSISD in general. Not only has there been a flight from CSISD to the new charter school, but I am already seeing homes come on the market that were zoned to consol. As this drags on with no response or care given to the incoming freshman, I am starting to hear a number of people even discuss moving out of College Station. I think our superintendent and school board really needs to do whats right for these kids. It would give our community some relief in this mess, and show the public that the school district is reasonable and actually cares for its students.
GIG 'EM
I really like this statement.Oogway said:
...perhaps they neglected (unintentionally?) the very issue that is in the here and now. So, here we are reminding them that while there is an obligation to the future, the present counts for something too.
I know many of us keep saying these are kids, not just numbers, but it is clear that the board and Dr. Ealy have lost sight of that. Doesn't mean they're bad or uncaring people (it's easy to get caught up in numbers, bonding, administrative processes when that is part of your job), but the truth is that the these kids mean a lot more than any hypothetical/speculated benefit to some future plan for the district (although I'm still looking for that benefit to the district/others to be articulated).
At some point, this board and administration must say these kids matter more than reducing CSHS by 58 (or 56) seats and that they now understand the pain this is causing throughout the district (not just to the families impacted). If they don't put an end to this and support these students and families, then I think we have a much bigger issue than even what we are currently dealing with.
I do worry that a lot of damage has been done. A group talking at church yesterday (and I don't think any in the group are actually impacted by this) was talking about the very poor (embarrassing) response from the district on this. Just seen as spin with no recognition of school programs, what has already occurred in prepping for high school, and the impact on the kids. The gist was they couldn't believe some of the things being said by the communication representative (Mr. Glenwinkle - I apologize if I have his name wrong) acting as if this is no big deal -- this is now being seen as CSISD vs. kids/families.
Same here. Church, 4H, Little League, FFA....
I don't know many people, from either school, that hold a very positive opinion about the school board right now. Most of the distrust is based on their lack of communication and what most people seem to consider underhanded practices.
Which is sad because the school district is why a lot of people chose to live here.
I don't know many people, from either school, that hold a very positive opinion about the school board right now. Most of the distrust is based on their lack of communication and what most people seem to consider underhanded practices.
Which is sad because the school district is why a lot of people chose to live here.
I am not sure it has been discussed, or maybe it has, but have they taken in to account the number of students graduating ( moving out) in May? What are those numbers? How will the numbers look then?
They include all such things in the projections.
The key point is that this small group of students has ZERO effect on anything for the district. No one can get an answer from anyone (the superintendent, any board member that voted against, even people on this thread who are for some unknown reason against grandfathering these kids) as to the benefit. It just seems to be some "principle" that people are digging in their heels about. "It just has to be done - sorry!"
All of their projections show CSHS remains over and AMCHS remains undercapacity for years to come (until they bond) even forcing these 58 (or 56) kids to relocate schools. The SES difference hasn't been shown for the grandfathering effects (no one has been given those numbers so you have to guess it's not in the benefit for the board's rhetoric).
It's just mindboggling why they are choosing to hurt these kids this way (and tear apart this district) for ZERO value to the other students, district, taxpayers...
The key point is that this small group of students has ZERO effect on anything for the district. No one can get an answer from anyone (the superintendent, any board member that voted against, even people on this thread who are for some unknown reason against grandfathering these kids) as to the benefit. It just seems to be some "principle" that people are digging in their heels about. "It just has to be done - sorry!"
All of their projections show CSHS remains over and AMCHS remains undercapacity for years to come (until they bond) even forcing these 58 (or 56) kids to relocate schools. The SES difference hasn't been shown for the grandfathering effects (no one has been given those numbers so you have to guess it's not in the benefit for the board's rhetoric).
It's just mindboggling why they are choosing to hurt these kids this way (and tear apart this district) for ZERO value to the other students, district, taxpayers...
We ran into this problem years ago in Bryan with the addition of Rudder. My oldest was too old to attend Rudder and my daughter who was at that time in 8th grade was fortunate in that they allowed siblings to be grandfathered. Now when it was time for my youngest to enter high school, I was in a pickle, because he was not going to be a legacy because my oldest was going to graduate. My youngest couldn't be a legacy under my daughter because she was already a "grand fathered" student. Lucky for us it worked out in that my son was enrolled in a class at BHS during his eight grade year so he was able to "grand father" in because of that. But if my memory serves me correctly, BISD was not going to make siblings attend different schools.
My hope is that the trustees will have a change of heart and not "punish" these 8th graders. Good luck to you all.
My hope is that the trustees will have a change of heart and not "punish" these 8th graders. Good luck to you all.
It seems crazy to me that the board would rather have a potential PR nightmare on their hands than just help these 8th grade kids! Especially when you consider the actual number will end up being less than 58 when you consider all of the exceptions, waivers & moving that will undoubtedly take place.
Isn't it easier to just do the RIGHT thing for these kids??? It would make so many people happy and make them look better in the process (like they actually have a heart for the kids they are supposed to be putting first)! It would also be a great way to unite the community that has been divided as a result of this rezoning.
I think the board just thinks this is just going to die down and go away, which is even more reason for people to keep emailing.
Edit- keep in mind that 2 board members did support these kids from the beginning...if we could encourage just 2 more to see the importance of this, that would make a majority vote and this decision could potentially be reversed!
Isn't it easier to just do the RIGHT thing for these kids??? It would make so many people happy and make them look better in the process (like they actually have a heart for the kids they are supposed to be putting first)! It would also be a great way to unite the community that has been divided as a result of this rezoning.
I think the board just thinks this is just going to die down and go away, which is even more reason for people to keep emailing.
Edit- keep in mind that 2 board members did support these kids from the beginning...if we could encourage just 2 more to see the importance of this, that would make a majority vote and this decision could potentially be reversed!
Does anyone know what the rationale was on the part of the board members who voted against this? Honest question, I haven't heard the reason, but I assume there must be a compelling one, because the optics on this whole deal are just really bad.
Tailgate88 said:
Does anyone know what the rationale was on the part of the board members who voted against this? Honest question, I haven't heard the reason, but I assume there must be a compelling one, because the optics on this whole deal are just really bad.
This. I just want to know why as well. My opinion has always been they should have grandfathered. They choose not to so I would like to know why
The net effect of these 58 students really is a lot more. If they say the cutoff we made was 8th grade because of reason X then we can debate reason X.
I am curious and hope to one day find out exactly why. I can guess as to why but would rather know the reason.
This is a thankless job that comes with a lot of hate personally for the board which I don't understand. I can understand anger, I can understand frustration but the personal attacks on board members was for a while embarrassing.
They were avoiding the "Slippery Slope" scenario they felt would be in play.Wicked Good Ag said:Tailgate88 said:
Does anyone know what the rationale was on the part of the board members who voted against this? Honest question, I haven't heard the reason, but I assume there must be a compelling one, because the optics on this whole deal are just really bad.
This. I just want to know why as well. My opinion has always been they should have grandfathered. They choose not to so I would like to know why
The net effect of these 58 students really is a lot more. If they say the cutoff we made was 8th grade because of reason X then we can debate reason X.
I am curious and hope to one day find out exactly why. I can guess as to why but would rather know the reason.
This is a thankless job that comes with a lot of hate personally for the board which I don't understand. I can understand anger, I can understand frustration but the personal attacks on board members was for a while embarrassing.
"Okay, you caved on grandfathering these "58", now that my 8th grader is going to CSHS, he has 3 younger siblings that I need grandfathered as well"
"Oh, you caved on Grandfathering... well I don't have an 8th grader, but I currently have a 9th grader and he/she has 2 younger silbling so I want all siblings of current CSHS students grandfathered as well"
Siblings should be grandfathered if they are enrolled concurrently. That's the only reason.91_Aggie\ said:
They were avoiding the "Slippery Slope" scenario they felt would be in play.
"Okay, you caved on grandfathering these "58", now that my 8th grader is going to CSHS, he has 3 younger siblings that I need grandfathered as well"
"Oh, you caved on Grandfathering... well I don't have an 8th grader, but I currently have a 9th grader and he/she has 2 younger silbling so I want all siblings of current CSHS students grandfathered as well"
Example:
Current freshman student has siblings in 7th grade and 3rd grade. 7th grader should be grandfathered to the high school because they will be there at the same time.
The 3rd grader should not because they will be the only student in high school when they start.
I'm not saying I agree with their reasoning. They are setting a precedent now to avoid fights later. They know they'll be here again in a few years with another rezoning issue. Now they have the precedent set of a hard line on grandfathering, and if you watched "Wild Wild Country" on Netflix, they can tell those parents the same words Sheela told the Oregon local govt. "Tough Titties"Stupe said:Siblings should be grandfathered if they are enrolled concurrently. That's the only reason.91_Aggie\ said:
They were avoiding the "Slippery Slope" scenario they felt would be in play.
"Okay, you caved on grandfathering these "58", now that my 8th grader is going to CSHS, he has 3 younger siblings that I need grandfathered as well"
"Oh, you caved on Grandfathering... well I don't have an 8th grader, but I currently have a 9th grader and he/she has 2 younger silbling so I want all siblings of current CSHS students grandfathered as well"
Example:
Current freshman student has siblings in 7th grade and 3rd grade. 7th grader should be grandfathered to the high school because they will be there at the same time.
The 3rd grader should not because they will be the only student in high school when they start.
I don't disagree Stupe, but that's actually what the board is likely worried about... it ends up being a slippery slope (prior poster) and potentially a lot more kids grandfathered if you go down the grandfather sibling route. To me, this needs to be about the incoming Freshman - those are the kids that are being negatively impacted. The timing is horrible for these kids! The parents with younger kids (including 7th graders) have time to figure things out and can ultimately make the decision if they want to drive their kids to separate schools (one would have bus transport since they'd be attending their "zoned for" school) - that's their family choice and they can figure that out (and they have time). But these kids - the 8th graders - are the ones being yanked out of their HS path at the last minute. To me, it's not about the inconvenience to the parents, it's about these kids being negatively impacted (and at such a vulnerable age). It will have detrimental affects on many of them - the research is pretty darn clear on this. There's already been some cyber-bullying (I've seen the Instagram post). These kids to be supported by our community even if you support the board on other decisions.
Precedent was they had grandfathered Freshman last time. They just changed the timing of the rezoning so that they could pretend this is different. But regardless, they can do the right thing for the kids and help heal the community.
When a plan has this many negatives compared to the positives and the fact that you'll have to fix it again in a couple of years it should tell you that it's a bad plan.
I'm starting to buy into the opinion of a lot of people that there are two reasons that they are rushing this: Booster Club money and athletes.
I'm starting to buy into the opinion of a lot of people that there are two reasons that they are rushing this: Booster Club money and athletes.
Quote:
To me, this needs to be about the incoming Freshman - those are the kids that are being negatively impacted.
This^^^^.
As stated before, we are Consol zoned, but as the workshops, etc continued and I listened and learned, this was one thing that stood out as being paramount. If they (Admin/SB) were so concerned about capacity, then perhaps they should have moved even more of the undeveloped neighborhoods for 7th on down. Because this decision has the smaller groups (8th grade) of students feeling cast off (no matter their SES) for no good reason other than 'we didn't plan this very well.'
Boundary adjustments seldom are without some angst and discomfort, some of which is temporary (as befitter noted for his family) but due to the late start, this had a 'we rushed through this,' feeling the whole way through even though it took a month.
Edit-clarity
I listened to the board discussion and don't remember this type of slippery slope being much of a motivating factor. I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the back of some minds for sure, though.91_Aggie said:They were avoiding the "Slippery Slope" scenario they felt would be in play.Wicked Good Ag said:Tailgate88 said:
Does anyone know what the rationale was on the part of the board members who voted against this? Honest question, I haven't heard the reason, but I assume there must be a compelling one, because the optics on this whole deal are just really bad.
This. I just want to know why as well. My opinion has always been they should have grandfathered. They choose not to so I would like to know why
The net effect of these 58 students really is a lot more. If they say the cutoff we made was 8th grade because of reason X then we can debate reason X.
I am curious and hope to one day find out exactly why. I can guess as to why but would rather know the reason.
This is a thankless job that comes with a lot of hate personally for the board which I don't understand. I can understand anger, I can understand frustration but the personal attacks on board members was for a while embarrassing.
"Okay, you caved on grandfathering these "58", now that my 8th grader is going to CSHS, he has 3 younger siblings that I need grandfathered as well"
"Oh, you caved on Grandfathering... well I don't have an 8th grader, but I currently have a 9th grader and he/she has 2 younger silbling so I want all siblings of current CSHS students grandfathered as well"
The issue most of the board focused on in their public discussion was what the numbers at the schools would look like 3-4 years down the road. If the demographers' numbers hold up exactly as predicted, everything is fine then for bonding, capacity, etc. Last time around they got burned because the demographer's numbers were so far off (which is why we're here again so soon...). So they want to compensate by putting more kids than seem to be necessary at AMCHS to buffer against again having to rezone or go for a bond sooner than overall capacity in the district would dictate. My recollection is that that was the gist of the discussion from those voting in favor. But, other motivations such as slippery slopes are probably there too.
I wish they would've at least tried to understand better why the demographers' numbers are off before going through this whole debate. Is the shift towards CSHS that the demographics people missed coming from a few neighborhoods, or is it district-wide? That should be easy to see by looking at neighborhood-level predictions from 2016 vs. what actually happened, and might give a better feeling for the best way to compensate. Systematic bias in their statistics shouldn't be that hard to figure out, I would think. The demography estimates put the board in a hard situation. If they go with the numbers they're given and they turn out wrong again, then people are upset a few years down the road because the board didn't get it right the first time. If they cause more upset now than the predictions say are necessary, people feel they're being harsh.
Having said that, I think the board is showing an unfortunate pattern of screwing some kids and neighborhoods over in exchange for very vague and uncertain gains for the collective. It gets a lot harder to take one for the team if it's highly unclear that the team is going to benefit much from your sacrifice, and that's exactly what's happening with these 8th graders. I think that's just going to cause more resistance in the community to rezoning.
Beyond the current grandfathering issue, the way the middle-to-high school splits has been handled has left us a little confused. During the debate Ealy said that a benefit to grandfathering the 8th graders is that the feeder pattern, rebranding, etc. will have been fully implemented next year, so moving current 7th graders won't be such a big deal. But, there are already some current 8th graders at CSMS zoned to AMCHS next year and vice versa with AMCMS to CSHS due to the 2016 rezoning. The same was true of current freshman, I believe. This seems to have escaped the notice of some in the district. My wife called AMCHS about something concerning my CSMS kid who'll be attending AMCHS out of zone next year. She expressed some confusion about why we were only receiving announcements about tryouts, physicals, etc., for CSHS, and she was told: "We don't talk to CSMS". Pretty strange for a district in which feeder patterns were broken a year ago. And, it leaves me a little skeptical about all of the promises Ealy has made about accommodating the non-grandfathered 8th graders.
The Sup and SB have demonstrated they have know idea what's going on with 8th graders regarding their transition to HS. It's no surprise that the MS splits aren't utopia as promised. Mark my words, when we eventually have three HSs (and three MSs) the board will want to split each individual MS up to feed to three HSs instead of doing the obvious.
IIRC though, the former supe said that there would be four int/middles so maybe they are just getting the skids greased for that rezoning because if the community gets feeder patterns back for a few years there will be a rough transition back to a four to three split.
Just saw on csisd a special meeting called for Friday.
cwood15 said:
Just saw on csisd a special meeting called for Friday.
Quote:
CSISD Board calls special workshop for Friday
The CSISD Board of Trustees will hold a special workshop this Friday, May 4, at noon in the CSISD Boardroom to discuss attendance boundary adjustments and grandfathering.
Quote:
CSISD BOARD CALLS SPECIAL WORKSHOP FOR FRIDAY
The CSISD Board of Trustees will hold a special workshop this Friday, May 4, at noon in the CSISD Boardroom to discuss attendance boundary adjustments and grandfathering.
A board member requested the board revisit the grandfathering decision from the April 19 boundary adjustment workshop. CSISD board operating procedures allow for a board member to request an agenda item.
In lieu of waiting until the regularly-scheduled board meeting on Tuesday, May 15, the board will meet this Friday ahead of activities scheduled at the high schools for the 8th graders impacted by boundary adjustment.
LINK: May 4 special workshop agenda
Statement from CSISD Board President Jeff Harris regarding the special workshop:
"Even though the Board of Trustees made final decisions concerning the boundary adjustment process on April 19, there has been a formal request to have the matters placed on a future Board agenda so that the Board can revisit its decisions. Due to the importance and timing of upcoming events designed to assist students affected by the boundary changes, it is important for the Board to make its intentions on these matters clear as soon as possible. We want to limit uncertainty and confusion so that our students and their families can make the best possible decisions moving forward. Accordingly, I have called a special meeting of the Board for this Friday at noon, instead of waiting until our regularly-scheduled meeting on May 15."
Harris' comment sounds like this is to just clarify for everyone fighting for these kids that we won't change our mind (decision is "final"), we don't care how the community feels, and we will make that very clear to you at this workshop. Also sounds like we will clarify for the parents who aren't following along what our intentions are with your kids - that these scheduled events will solve all your problems.
This is a joke. I'm so angry that someone like this (and the majority of the board and superintendent) have any say in kids' education and well-being.
This is a joke. I'm so angry that someone like this (and the majority of the board and superintendent) have any say in kids' education and well-being.
I hesitate to post here because the subject has been so contentious. I have kids. They were not re-zoned. I understand and believe that a parent has the right to speak up when they don't like something that is happening which involves their child.
That said, here are my thoughts (for what they are worth):
The School Board was tasked with fixing a problem with one high school being OVER capacity and one high school being UNDER capacity. They wanted to fix that issue. They chose a way to fix it that they thought was best.
Some parents of those affected didn't like the decision. I am not sure what all was done to try and be heard or to make an appeal, but the initial reaction was to go on social media and local forums and to say how stupid the decision was and to question the board member's character and ethics. I keep thinking that if you want someone to listen to you and hear your side (and then take action) it doesn't seem attacking them is the best way to be heard.
Some in the community feel like the overcrowding at CSHS is not a big deal. The School District thinks it is. I am not an expert, so I am going to have to defer to the experts (who I believe to be the School District Administration).
I think the School Board was looking for a certain number of students to move to fix the capacity issue. I do not know enough to know exactly how many students that was, but I am think it was less than 400-500. So the "net" 58 students is 12% to 15% (possibly more) of what they are trying to accomplish. If classroom space is a problem those 58 seem like 2 classrooms.
When CSHS opened, there was a re-zoning. The kids that always thought they would be Tigers, had to move and be Cougars. Students that started at Consolidated for 9th grade had to go to 10th grade at CSHS. I think it probably worked out for all of them.
We need some healing in this community about this issue. If you're on one side of this argument, look for the good in the other side. It is there. Most everyone involved are saying/doing whatever with good intentions.
That said, here are my thoughts (for what they are worth):
The School Board was tasked with fixing a problem with one high school being OVER capacity and one high school being UNDER capacity. They wanted to fix that issue. They chose a way to fix it that they thought was best.
Some parents of those affected didn't like the decision. I am not sure what all was done to try and be heard or to make an appeal, but the initial reaction was to go on social media and local forums and to say how stupid the decision was and to question the board member's character and ethics. I keep thinking that if you want someone to listen to you and hear your side (and then take action) it doesn't seem attacking them is the best way to be heard.
Some in the community feel like the overcrowding at CSHS is not a big deal. The School District thinks it is. I am not an expert, so I am going to have to defer to the experts (who I believe to be the School District Administration).
I think the School Board was looking for a certain number of students to move to fix the capacity issue. I do not know enough to know exactly how many students that was, but I am think it was less than 400-500. So the "net" 58 students is 12% to 15% (possibly more) of what they are trying to accomplish. If classroom space is a problem those 58 seem like 2 classrooms.
When CSHS opened, there was a re-zoning. The kids that always thought they would be Tigers, had to move and be Cougars. Students that started at Consolidated for 9th grade had to go to 10th grade at CSHS. I think it probably worked out for all of them.
We need some healing in this community about this issue. If you're on one side of this argument, look for the good in the other side. It is there. Most everyone involved are saying/doing whatever with good intentions.
I am worried you are right AggieMom. When the community and parents initially showed concern for these kids, the district refused to answer how this was good for these students or any students for that matter. Instead of giving an answer, they rammed how great the newly zoned school was going to be down parents throats. This only made everyone more angry about the poor timing and decisions of our school board. They also have tried to force students to attend the school they are not zoned to as freshman, to keep them from having to change schools as sophomores. All this instead of just doing whats right by these kids. My understanding is Harris stands strong against doing anything for these students. If you read his statement about the workshop on Friday, it reads like we are going to get to hear more "creative" ways to help these 8th graders without doing whats right and grandfathering them. Lets all pray this is not another underhanded PR stunt by our district.
GIG 'EM
Shoulder Tap, I see this is your first post and you joined texags today. Welcome. I think you have some good points about people make it personal and both sides escalating this mess. I have personally admitted to being wrong and a part of the problem with some of this. I think the angle of the school board is trying to help tax payers money and fill an under capacity school was lost long ago. Once everyone noticed they were moving a large number of kids from the under capacity school to the "over capacity" school, it was pretty easy to see there was more at play. If we really are trying to help under capacity problems, they would have started with the college view campus. This campus is under capacity by over 50%! Has anyone researched the amount of tax payer dollars waisted on this campus? I don't know anyone that has followed this subject and researched it that thanks they fixed anything. I do know everyone I have talked to agrees that they need to grandfather these 8th graders. The only time I have seen anyone against grandfathering, it was on a forum and they refused to explain why. In the last meeting where they decided against grandfathering the school board said they only had one emai that supported not grandfathering out of hundreds of emails.
Also to help with the rough math: 58 net more students at the overpopulated school is not a 10% difference. The student population is roughly 2000 at that school, so 58 is roughly 2.5% difference in solving over population. Honestly, for the coveted FC Local comparability demographics it should be both schools population of closer to 4000 by the 58 net change. This would be closer to roughly a 1% difference in their "numbers" to do whats right by these 8th graders.
Also to help with the rough math: 58 net more students at the overpopulated school is not a 10% difference. The student population is roughly 2000 at that school, so 58 is roughly 2.5% difference in solving over population. Honestly, for the coveted FC Local comparability demographics it should be both schools population of closer to 4000 by the 58 net change. This would be closer to roughly a 1% difference in their "numbers" to do whats right by these 8th graders.
GIG 'EM
You can listen to the board meeting online but the main claim is that the board believes that a bond will be easier to pass in 2 years with this 50 or so less kids at CSHS. Money over kids. I would hope our community would say no bond will be passed until the people making these horrible decisions affecting our kids and community are all gone.
I don't believe the net difference is going to be that big a deal. Do I think CSHS will be way over capacity in the next few years if the demographers are *correct? Yes, yes I do. But, students can transfer if they wish. Does that spell a problem if your students are in athletics? Probably, but the parents who stay at CSHS when given the opportunity to move to Consol, have to live with the consequences either way, so give them the opportunity and then wait until 2021 and expand.
The main problem with the bond is that while a lot of us were focusing on rezoning, the City of College Station quietly issued $55 million dollars in certificates of obligation; those little items that are debt that we taxpayers don't get to vote on. So, you thought your property taxes were high before? Guess the delay in the impact fees for new development wasn't coming online fast enough. That was five or six days ago and I would be shocked, shocked I tell you if there wasn't more of that type of debt taken on by the City within the next two years.
So, let the 8th graders and their families decide what is best for them, but at the same time, remember that residents already pay a higher proportion of property tax dollars as compared to commercial property tax dollars and there are probably citizens who will not understand the situation the same as those of us with school age children. We vote, but so do they.
Edit- for clarity
*Hard to say regarding the charter #s but that could affect the enrollment #s within the next few years if the class sizes filling up stays on trend.
The main problem with the bond is that while a lot of us were focusing on rezoning, the City of College Station quietly issued $55 million dollars in certificates of obligation; those little items that are debt that we taxpayers don't get to vote on. So, you thought your property taxes were high before? Guess the delay in the impact fees for new development wasn't coming online fast enough. That was five or six days ago and I would be shocked, shocked I tell you if there wasn't more of that type of debt taken on by the City within the next two years.
So, let the 8th graders and their families decide what is best for them, but at the same time, remember that residents already pay a higher proportion of property tax dollars as compared to commercial property tax dollars and there are probably citizens who will not understand the situation the same as those of us with school age children. We vote, but so do they.
Edit- for clarity
*Hard to say regarding the charter #s but that could affect the enrollment #s within the next few years if the class sizes filling up stays on trend.
One interesting thing I did notice and it is a small thing:
back during the last rezoning, the one that brought us to this point in time, the two middle schools plus the one forecast to open had a percentage of each cohort going to either high school. While controversial, it does mean that at the very least, if a student decides to go to their 'new' school, they should see some familiar faces from middle school unless they only associated with students with whom they thought they would be attending high school. While I don't have a problem with grandfathering, I did think that might be a small bright spot if the SB digs in their heels. My very oldest child graduated prior to two hs and one thing we noticed was how many new friends had attended the other middle school and how that expanded the original group of friends and how well they all got along.
It may be a small thing and different for everyone, but I hope that we can all work through this together.
back during the last rezoning, the one that brought us to this point in time, the two middle schools plus the one forecast to open had a percentage of each cohort going to either high school. While controversial, it does mean that at the very least, if a student decides to go to their 'new' school, they should see some familiar faces from middle school unless they only associated with students with whom they thought they would be attending high school. While I don't have a problem with grandfathering, I did think that might be a small bright spot if the SB digs in their heels. My very oldest child graduated prior to two hs and one thing we noticed was how many new friends had attended the other middle school and how that expanded the original group of friends and how well they all got along.
It may be a small thing and different for everyone, but I hope that we can all work through this together.
Can the public attend the special session on Friday?
I don't see why you couldn't. It is being held in the Board room according to the agenda, like all the other workshops and it doesn't say anything about being an 'Executive session,' so while they don't have a place for the public to speak like they do at regular meetings or public forums, the public ought to be able to observe from the audience. You can always contact them to be sure.