Grandfathering incoming freshmen (current 8th graders) at both CSISD high schools

50,673 Views | 338 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by AggieMom_38
thatguy2
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:27p, 5/3/18
The reason is because AMCHS has a lot of room in the building for more students, and CSHS will have to add portable buildings each year the next 5 years with the growth. Or they will have to ask the taxpayers to pass another bond to build more classrooms CSHS.

Plus, CSHS will go 6A next realignment if they don't adjust. Trust me, nobody wants that. We don't have enough of anything to be "Good" at the 6A level.

My 2 cents.
Reply Quote
5
shoulder tap
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to scs01 • 2:27p, 5/3/18
Quote:
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.

I listed 2 reasons here.

The overcrowding is an issue at CSHS. They need less kids to go there.

They were looking to move a certain "net" number to Consol. This helped meet that goal.

Disclaimer**This is my 3rd post on this board after joining only 3 days ago.
Reply Quote
3
Agmaker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to shoulder tap • 3:00p, 5/3/18
shoulder tap said:
Quote:

problem those 58 seem like 2 classrooms.


The overcrowding is an issue at CSHS. They need less kids to go there.

They were looking to move a certain "net" number to Consol. This helped meet that goal.

Disclaimer**This is my 3rd post on this board after joining only 3 days ago.


Well koodos for getting the reason correct, in part. The Board emphatically also stated the need to rezone was to effect the timing of when they need to bond again (delay it) so public would be willing to approve next bond. Grandfathering 8th doesn't change that. Noted on their own grid detail. Also we say net 58 but the number will drop. It already has. So grandfathering 8th, no effect on existing portable/overcapacity, no effect on undercapacity, no effect on next bonding.
Not an opinion, facts from looking at Board's presentation.
I expect next workshop will be entertaining if nothing else.
Reply Quote
3
MTTANK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:25p, 5/3/18
AG
It will be a dog and pony show. Last meeting the board said they had hundreds of emails for grandfathering, and only one single email against it. Then they voted against it anyways. Now a certain neighborhood has been sending a bunch of copy and paste emails saying do not grandfather these. It will be interesting to see if all of the sudden the emails matter when it supports their agenda." Sorry folks, we got a bunch of feedback to dump on these kids and not grandfather them. our hands are tied, so sorry. In my mothers heart I cannot see grandfathering these students, they need to be toughened up".........
GIG 'EM
Reply Quote
5
AggieMom_38
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to shoulder tap • 3:27p, 5/3/18
I appreciate people finally listing reasons to negatively affect these kids. Now we can have an adult conversation. So, CSHS will have portables regardless (remains 100+ over capacity) with these kids moved. So, that doesn't help. And, AMCHS remains 350 under capacity.

And, as prior poster said, bonding remains exactly the same with/without grandfathering. So no value to taxpayers.

But, thank you for putting it out there even if rationale is a false narrative.
Reply Quote
7
Wicked Good Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:39p, 5/3/18
The numbers will change over the course of the next few years. While CSHS will still be over capacity it should be better soon and the plan has always been to build it out more when necessary which I don't think anyone thought would be at the rate it has happened. Regardless of the future the net 58 would have been a small drop in the bucket so I am curious as to the reasons as well
Reply Quote
2
Oogway
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieMom_38 • 3:45p, 5/3/18
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by AMCHS will be 350 under capacity. Regardless of the grandfathering issue, students will be moved to Consol (in 2019) unless every parent from 7th on down picks up and moves or goes charter/private. By moving those students (note: I am not talking about the 8th graders) Consol goes up in numbers and CSHS goes down slightly. CSHS will still have more students, but not as many as if they hadn't rezoned at all. If the CSHS 8th graders stay put and the Consol 8th graders stay put, doesn't it work out to about the same # in total student population? (about 2000?) Once 2019 kicks in and the seventh graders are rezoned, don't both campuses grow a little in numbers each year, with CSHS outpacing Consol by a portion? Consol is under capacity even with the rezone seems somewhat do to it being almost an entire class year size larger in capacity. Almost as if you took the entire seventh grade cohort and placed them in one school.

They have plenty of room at CSHS for portables, though, so 58+ shouldn't be all that hard for the basic classes. They may have to encourage students with certain electives to pick a school or change their schedule.
Reply Quote
AggieMom_38
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oogway • 5:22p, 5/3/18
My numbers were off (was trying to do it based on memory of the tables). Based on board's own numbers (table they showed at the meeting), if they grandfather the incoming freshman, they will be 500 under capacity in 2019. If they don't grandfather them, they will be 444 undercapacity in 2019. The year they expect to bond, the numbers change to 150 and 100. It's of course always a difference of 50 (well 58 assuming no teacher kids in that area, no movement, etc.). My point is that, substantively, in terms of capacity across the two schools and bonding, these kids don't change anything. CSHS remains over capacity, AMCHS remains under, and board plans to bond in 2021 is all scenarios. So, let's just do the right thing for the kids since it makes no difference on other things of supposed benefit to the taxpayer/community/district
Reply Quote
5
ZFG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:26p, 5/3/18
Just out of curiosity, has anyone else realized that if something doesn't change, under the new FC Local policy that this will happen to eighth graders every time there is a HS rezoning?

Under FC Local, the board gets the numbers in January and then reviews and discusses if rezoning is necessary, which puts rezoning decisions in the spring. With HS registration, tryouts, etc as they are currently scheduled in EARLY Spring, this could very well happen to the eighth grade class when the next rezoning is "triggered".

Obviously, this is the first time to rezone under FC Local policy. That being said, something about the timing going forward is going to need to be adjusted to prevent this in the future.

Hopefully the board will recognize this "flaw" and not make the eighth graders suffer for the "growing pains" of the new policy!

Edit- in the future it probably wouldn't be as hard on the kids because they will then be attending "mixed path" schools but could still affect planning, schedules, tryouts, etc.
The current group of eighth graders would definitely be hit the hardest.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Oogway
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ZFG • 8:24p, 5/3/18
That timing issue is a very very good point and I agree that it should be addressed, sooner rather than later.
Reply Quote
7
Agmaker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:57a, 5/4/18
FC Local does not state when recommended changes go into effect. The Sup/Board actually proposed the rezone timing (effective 2019-20) as is normally done (the following academic year). However, that announcement usually comes in Oct/Nov at which time 8th/Freshman would have already started school and the 7th grades get a year in advance notice. This time they jammed it in before school started leaving incoming Freshman in a horrible predicament.

Edit - to add, I don't see much disagreements about the need to rezone or the map/plan just the incoming Freshman issue.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
CS78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Agmaker • 12:04p, 5/4/18
Agmaker said:
Edit - to add, I don't see much disagreements about the need to rezone or the map/plan just the incoming Freshman issue.
A very well executed diversion.
Reply Quote
3
ChiefHaus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:08p, 5/4/18
Any news from the meeting?
Reply Quote
2
Three Twenties and A Ten
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CS78 • 1:11p, 5/4/18
AG
CS78 said:
Agmaker said:
Edit - to add, I don't see much disagreements about the need to rezone or the map/plan just the incoming Freshman issue.
A very well executed diversion.
The Board has scripted and executed their playbook very well...it's actually pretty impressive if you look at it from a pure business standpoint. I guess we shouldn't expect anything less when it is led by a Harvard-educated president.
Reply Quote
2
befitter
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:12p, 5/4/18
They voted to keep things as they are.
Reply Quote
3
gettingitdone
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:13p, 5/4/18
They are sticking to their original plan.
Reply Quote
3
EVA3
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:13p, 5/4/18
AG
Scripted dog and pony show, as expected. No change. Wesson confirmed that he cares more about numbers than children.
Reply Quote
6
Tigermom84
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:26p, 5/4/18
AG
Geralyn Nolan and Carol Barrett made the motions to affirm the non-grandfathering. They moved almost immediately after the meeting started. It was purely business for them. Wesson's best line was "we have to make decisions based on numbers." Gag me. He also said that there was "no room for sitting anywhere at CSHS" or something like that. The parents in the room practically shouted that one down as a pure and total fabrication. The first 2 rows were nothing but children. After it was over, they were crying and hugging each other. It was the worse display of acting like a trustee that I've ever seen.
Reply Quote
8
thatguy2
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:29p, 5/4/18
58 this year, 40-70 the next three years, and your are looking at a 200-300 swing in population.
Glad to see the board has some backbone. I am sorry for those with strong feelings the other way.
Both school are really good schools, academics are great in both schools, CSHS is a lot newer building and closer.
Reply Quote
14
CS78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:31p, 5/4/18
Remember to vote come Nov. How many people normally vote on these seats? Guessing it wont take much of a movement to see the needed result.
Reply Quote
5
gettingitdone
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:32p, 5/4/18
People keep using this 58 number but there were 144 students affected. The 58 was only the "net" difference between the shift of students. I think the board got it wrong but I don't have a dog in this fight.
Reply Quote
EVA3
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thatguy2 • 1:33p, 5/4/18
AG
thatguy2 said:
58 this year, 40-70 the next three years, and your are looking at a 200-300 swing in population.
Glad to see the board has some backbone. I am sorry for those with strong feelings the other way.
Both school are really good schools, academics are great in both schools, CSHS is a lot newer building and closer.

Hi Dr. Wesson.

Glad to know my child is a number to you. "It is what it is."
Reply Quote
3
JR Ewing
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:36p, 5/4/18
AG
The Board never intended to change their minds...
Reply Quote
5
EVA3
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JR Ewing • 1:47p, 5/4/18
AG
JR Ewing said:
The Board never intended to change their minds...

Of course not.
Reply Quote
2
curry97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JR Ewing • 1:56p, 5/4/18
AG
Did you really think they would?
Reply Quote
3
ChiefHaus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thatguy2 • 2:44p, 5/4/18
I hope for everyone's sake that the board got it right. I have not agreed with anything they have done.
However, if they are right then no more of this rezoning for high schools until the 3rd HS is built and everyone can take 7-10 years to calm down before we go through this again.

If they are wrong, and I believe they are. I hope we remember this as well as 2016 rezone and put new members on the board.
Reply Quote
3
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:49p, 5/4/18
AG
http://www.kbtx.com/content/news/College-Station-ISD-school-board-votes-to-keep-rezoning-plans-481767141.html
Reply Quote
thatguy2
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:19p, 5/4/18
There was never a win/win situation, but this saves the district and taxpayers money.
When the third HS is built a lot of people will want to go to that school, and with the way they split things up now, it is going to be weird zones to keep the schools somewhat equal.
Reply Quote
1
Agmaker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thatguy2 • 3:27p, 5/4/18
Well that's just flat out incorrect. Not grandfathering incoming freshmen does NOT save one taxpayer dollar. Good grief! Anyone that uses that as an argument needs to provide detail on how. Bonding timing is the same regardless. Expansiion bonding for CSHS and bonding for HS 3 is the same regardless. Again, their own data from the Board presentation showed that.
Edit - spelling
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
CS78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thatguy2 • 3:30p, 5/4/18
thatguy2 said:
There was never a win/win situation, but this saves the district and taxpayers money.
When the third HS is built a lot of people will want to go to that school, and with the way they split things up now, it is going to be weird zones to keep the schools somewhat equal.
The third highschool will be here much quicker than they predict. Just wait until people have to send their kids past two schools so everyone can be equal. Not going to be an issue though. We will be voting leadership in that handles things just like the rest of the state. Proximity first, then demographics.

Reply Quote
8
MTTANK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:43p, 5/4/18
AG
Wesson commented on the overpopulation at CSHS. He said there were kids that had to sit on tables in classes they were so overpopulated. The board never addressed the numbers or savings involved. That's because there was no such thing. There has not been a single complaint of overpopulation by CSHS parents, teachers, or admin. The board projects it to be at 110% capacity in two years. 130% capacity is where districts typically try and intervene with expansion or another school. The 56 additional students that would be at CSHS if they grandfathered, has no material impact. But again, Wesson is trying to keep students from having to sit on top of tables in class. Truly a disgusting display by those in charge of our kids. Even our superintendent Clark Ealy never said a word to defend his students. These poor kids involved were turned upside down by the people that are supposed to be taking care of them. They never even saw it coming.
GIG 'EM
Reply Quote
8
AggieMom_38
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thatguy2 • 3:45p, 5/4/18
thatguy2 said:
There was never a win/win situation, but this saves the district and taxpayers money.
When the third HS is built a lot of people will want to go to that school, and with the way they split things up now, it is going to be weird zones to keep the schools somewhat equal.
Stop saying that. The board isn't even pretending that anymore. They're just saying numbers over kids. ZERO savings (actually a cost of 100k for busing.

Why doesn't the moderator delete that comment for being a total lie?
Reply Quote
6
Oogway
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:57p, 5/4/18
I was surprised by the Board's affirmation of their final decision. I really thought they might discuss it further in light of some of the issues that have been discussed here and elsewhere.

As far as complaints of overcrowding, I haven't heard any, but to be fair, I wouldn't know if a teacher complained unless they said it to me personally or it is through an official channel of some sort and obtained via FOIA.
Reply Quote
MTTANK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oogway • 4:10p, 5/4/18
AG
I told you what they were going to do Oogway. I was surprised they could not come up with a more compelling lie for it than kids sitting on tables at CSHS. Fraudulent and shameful. So we are less than 50 students away from kids having no room to sit anywhere other than desks? Over population is that rampant at CSHS? If we are 50 kids away from that, it would completely negate their entire rezoning premise. If we are truly in such a dire situation, we should not be busing poor students from consol to CSHS to "help" them.
GIG 'EM
Reply Quote
5
Oogway
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:24p, 5/4/18
Does anyone know how many portables they plan to put in?


MTTANK: you did; I really thought when the one Board member proposed it as an agenda item that the rest might consider it beyond $$. I am all for fiscal prudence, but I didn't think this was going to be the tipping point.

Edit-punctuation
Reply Quote
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.