Rezoning front and center in csisd election

25,667 Views | 209 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by CS78
missB
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Turf96 • 5:17p, 10/20/18
Gheez! Settle down. I didn't notice your first reply to me.

It was just a comment regarding looking at the big picture rather than individual interests. We obviously have different ways of seeing things. I have nothing to hide. I have no agenda. I know both candidates and I'm sure both have best interest of CSISD in mind
Reply Quote
1 edit
Expert Analysis
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 02skiag • 5:29p, 10/20/18
AG
In a simple sense, Money ----> teachers/specialists -----> smaller classroom sizes
One thing that is for sure is that rezoning students to balance test scores only masks deficiencies of the educational system.
Reply Quote
3
Turf96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:54p, 10/20/18
So how would having all areas of our school district represented be a bad deal? You have said twice what is best for all. How would we know what is best for all if we have only a small area represented?

To me this would be like saying we really only need electoral votes for Florida, Texas, and California. We don't need to hear from Nebraska or North Dakota.

The way this district is set up now we have the same voices being heard. With the new potential board do you feel that the whole district will be heard? Until we have a balance from each area on the board some of our students will be allowed to be just moved around for the numbers circus our district is fast becoming. That to me isn't what is best for all as you keep stating. Nothing and I say nothing from either side has been what is best for all. The level of play has been appalling and if I had it to do all over again I would have not have moved here. Don't hand me that some have to hurt to make this work. I get that to a degree but do you believe that our lack of quality numbers on multiple rezones have Helped anything? Do you believe moving the goal posts all the time is good for any of our district?

This board has a lot of smart folks on it. What I feel they need to do is get to putting their minds to how we make all our schools better. Not worrying how to please a group that is more worried about their property values above the kids in our community. Time to do what is best for the student before the adults. I for one don't think that is the approach that has been taken as of late. I'm sure you disagree.

I'll say this. If all of us wanted what was best for all, our board wouldn't be worried about lobbying the state to regulate the new charter schools. When I hear commments like this from our supt. I feel like we live in a dictatorship. What is wrong with more options in our community? Oh yes they don't have control of it all. To me this appears more of our whole issue. Controlled I for one am tired of being. You give me my options and I'll make what is best for my family work. If you keep moving things all the time you are just trying to control me. I honestly hope this board uses their minds to do what is best for all. What I saw was not that in the last rezone. I see some better things in the newest round but hold my breath. Forgive me for not having full trust just yet.
Reply Quote
8
Wicked Good Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Expert Analysis • 6:17p, 10/20/18
Expert Analysis said:
I never said anything about sending anyone to any school other than the one they live closest too. If a school is under performing resources should be allocated to address needs to improve student results.


You can't send the students to the closest school unless you want 160% full at one school and say 55% at another.
Look I honestly don't care about single member districts. I want the candidates that will work for the best of the school district and it's students. If they all live in the same area but are the best candidates I personally don't care as long as the entire district is looked at as a whole
Reply Quote
02skiag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Expert Analysis • 6:55p, 10/20/18
AG
Expert Analysis said:
In a simple sense, Money ----> teachers/specialists -----> smaller classroom sizes
One thing that is for sure is that rezoning students to balance test scores only masks deficiencies of the educational system.


I'd rather not pay anymore taxes.
Reply Quote
Ratsa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 02skiag • 7:56p, 10/20/18
02skiag said:
Expert Analysis said:
In a simple sense, Money ----> teachers/specialists -----> smaller classroom sizes
One thing that is for sure is that rezoning students to balance test scores only masks deficiencies of the educational system.


I'd rather not pay anymore taxes.


And even if there were the political will to pay more taxes, I don't think it would work. My understanding is that if the district raises the M&O tax rate any higher than the current rate, that almost all of it gets sent to the state to be given to a property-poor school district.
Reply Quote
1
Expert Analysis
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wicked Good Ag • 9:30p, 10/20/18
AG
Obviously there needs to be some leeway in boundaries to accommodate capacities at schools. What I am saying is shipping slivers of students across town to different schools doesn't make much sense.
I think they did a pretty good job with the elementary rezone, outside of the slivers. I think there are other options that could be explored.

Single member districts does not preclude multiple members from a single district as there would be multiple at large spots. Its the best way to get fair representation geographically and get the best people.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Expert Analysis
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ratsa • 9:38p, 10/20/18
AG
No way taxes should be raised for anything right now. They could have hired a couple teachers with the money wasted on rebranding....
Reply Quote
9
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 Expert Analysis • 9:59p, 10/20/18
The budget for instructional salaries and the budget for "rebranding" come from different pools of money if I understand school finance correctly. The State of Texas may take money from one budget and move it to another, but your local school district is pretty good about not doing that. With respect to the two school board candidates, if they have been paying attention (and I think they have) they will have a decent grasp of how this works. If they don't, then they will pick it up fairly quickly.

Edit to add-another way of looking at it is recurring vs one time costs. Salaries plus benefits are recurring costs. The construction of a school (passed through a bond election) is a one time cost. Obviously the building has recurring daily costs to operate, and maintenance (often deferred) but once its debt is paid, it is done.

So, if you spend $100,000 per se and hire two teachers, are you firing them at the end of the school year?
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Tigermom84
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ratsa • 8:07p, 10/21/18
AG
Technically speaking, the district has 2 more pennies we could exercise on the m&o rate and have it not subject to the state recapture. But to get them, we would have to increase taxes by $.02 with voter approval (I'm pretty sure it requires a vote...I need to double check that though). This could then go straight to teacher salaries and classroom stuff, so I don't know why the board doesn't ask voters for it. Instead, they lowered the i&s rate this time around and gave us a tax break. I sense they needed to appease the community some after the rezoning and rebranding fiascos of late. Heart breaking for the teachers really. They had to take one for the team it seems.
Reply Quote
2
02skiag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tigermom84 • 9:09p, 10/21/18
AG
Property values have raised steadily every recent year, increasing total taxes being paid. You are suggesting to raise the amount we pay by even more?
Reply Quote
2
birdman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:16p, 10/21/18
The schools and state can set up as many budget pools as they want. They can set up their accounting anyway they want.

It all still comes from taxes. And we pay too much already.
Reply Quote
3
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 Tigermom84 • 9:18p, 10/21/18
Didn't they do that because the long term projection is that the Phase 2 bond for CSHS will be coming up and also because the District is still operating with a deficit?

I believe teachers should be paid a higher salary in this District, but the question the Administration and school board might have been pondering was: with such traditionally poor voter turnout, which side will show up and vote? The ones for an increase or the ones against? Even prior to the boundary adjustment, they were already discussing this (I would need to check the agenda/workshop minutes but I attended at least one of those last year where I seem to recall that under debate) as part of some preliminary budget discussions.
Reply Quote
Ratsa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tigermom84 • 9:31p, 10/21/18
Thanks for the clarification, Tigermom! I just did a little reading, and it does indeed require voter approval to raise the M&O rate over $1.04 per $100 of valuation.
Reply Quote
1
Tigermom84
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 02skiag • 7:43a, 10/22/18
AG
I'm not suggesting anything. Just providing information. IMO, if they did ask for that tax raise with 2 golden pennies, im not confident the money would get spent where it needs to be spent.

Edit: in rereading my post, it does appear like I'm suggesting they increase the taxes. In actuality, I just wondered why they reduced the i&s rate without then increasing the m&o rate at the same time, thus having no impact on our overall tax rate. Would've seemed like a win/win to me. But again, would the voters have supported it like oog brought up? I just don't know Bc it's confusing to the genpop. If the perception is that the new money be spent on new stationary with different colored cats on it, and bussing kids from north to south and south to north instead of on teachers and smaller class sizes, then yeah I think the voters would've said no thanks.
Reply Quote
3
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 Tigermom84 • 9:06a, 10/22/18
That is why I mentioned it, wanted to make sure I understood your post. I agree, it gets confusing because there is the overall budget and then there are the two different tax rates of which the interest and sinking is the smaller proportion.

Birdman, I think you misunderstood what I was getting at regarding pools of money. While a school district can code a lot of different things: i.e payroll, transportation, contracted services, etc in their budget, the money that comes from bond elections (that you and I vote on) MUST be used for capital projects. It cannot be used for operations (day to day services like instructional salaries, transportation etc). That is the law. In other words, bond money can buy a bus but it cannot pay the bus driver. We can still debate the merits of what the money is spent upon, but prior to that, one needs to know the source of the funds or the discussion isn't really fruitful.

If we voted an increase in the maintenance and operations rate, those funds go towards the day-to-day operations of keeping the school running and yes, cuts can be made in one pool and be added to another. When the economy went south almost a decade ago, CSISD cut physical education positions, library positions, and so on. However, for every position they eliminated, the State said, 'oh wait, you need to fulfill this testing mandate' and so more personnel were often recruited to assist with that. It is a many headed Gorgon and I have spent many an evening trying to figure out how they can balance what the State requires (and will punish them for) and what is needed on a local level.
Reply Quote
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 Tigermom84 • 9:30a, 10/22/18
With respect to the budget for 2018-2019, though, the school board did approve a small raise for teachers, although they still make less than their counterparts elsewhere.

Per The Eagle:
Quote:
Also included in the district's appropriations is a raise of 1.5 percent of the midpoint for district employees and a $750 raise for teachers in the 2018-2019 school year. The district is also increasing its health insurance payments to where an employee can enroll at no cost.

The approved budget allots $3.43 million for new personnel, including $2.4 million for staffing of the new Wellborn Middle School.

Payroll accounts for a very large percentage of any school district's budget, especially when compared to some private sector positions. This District has something like a four million dollar deficit. Four million. (4.3 to be exact) That is pretty much due to the recapture part of school finance. Except some of it doesn't really go to needy schools, it goes into the general fund to balance the State budget. It gets more complicated from there, but I sure wish they would just trash it (Recapture) and start over.

Edit to add:

Some readers may think 'what does this have to do with rezoning and upcoming election?' It matters because while both candidates are IMO pretty informed on some topics (and actually I am quite pleased with their commitment to education) , the methods with which they hope to improve the quality of education differ and it is up to voters to decide which candidate best represents their own viewpoint. When a candidate states, "I want to do 'X' " then I like to examine what other dominoes will fall when that happens, both in the short and long terms.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
viejo
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TAMU1990 • 11:09a, 10/22/18
Wendy 1990 said:
viejo said:
I have no problem with rezoning....it just has to be done from time to time. What I have a problem with is the PROCESS they used for rezoning this last time. They put out two maps a couple of months before the final vote with the options they were considering. I quit paying attention, my neighborhood wasn't impacted, it remained zoned the same in either map. Then, 10 days before the final vote, a new map was produced unlike the other two and it's the one that got voted in. I had no idea until it was all over.

The right process SHOULD be to consider all the options, present the best 2 (or three, or four, whatever) two months before and vote on those presented to the public. Throwing a new map out there 10 days before the vote was just flat out wrong.


The board began the process with 4 maps. They started making additional changes over several meetings. The original maps were starting points. Remember the feedback meeting and emails? They had to decide if they were going to rezone the walkers around CSHS or the drivers from down wellborn. Those were two very distinctive forks in the road that, once that decision was made, led them to their final decision. They had meetings every 2-5 days before they decided on a final version. There were no real surprises if you followed the process from start to finish. You may not agree, but everyone was heard. Believe it or not, there are people that think the board wasn't aggressive enough and more neighborhoods should of been rezoned.

The same process happened with elementary rezoning. The original maps presented were also changed after meetings/feedback. That process is less controversial because there are 10+ elementaries schools verses just 2 high schools.

The board has obviously decided that rezoning decisions need to happen quickly because of the rancor. Make the decision and move on.
No real surprises? Only if you were involved in the process. When the initial maps came out, NONE included my neighborhood changing. I quit paying attention wrongly assuming those were the ones being considered. I had no idea that a totally new map would be made public 10 days before the vote. Why put maps out there if NONE of them would be seriously considered? Why not give ample time for feedback instead of releasing a new map 10 days before the vote? No, everyone was NOT heard.

If you think the process that was used is appropriate, you're part of the problem.
Reply Quote
7
Ratsa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to viejo • 5:49p, 10/22/18
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I do see things differently than you do. I think the board did give a serious look at the original four maps that were published. After all of the feedback from the public hearings and the emails that were sent, they realized that there were real problems with the four original maps. They took the feedback they received and tried to improve the maps based on the feedback.

I think the real problem is that they started the whole process too late. They were rushing to get a decision made, and otherwise might have had time to hold an additional public hearing. However, I have no reason to believe that comments made in a public hearing have any more weight than comments made by email.
Reply Quote
4
TAMU1990
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 viejo • 9:59p, 10/22/18
AG
If rezoning mattered that much you should of paid attention the past SEVERAL YEARS. Have you replied either in person at a board meeting or via email the past 8 years? If you did - they heard you. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean your weren't heard. Your lack of knowledge and outrage is a part of the problem. There were severe problems with low income students concentrated in the maroon track, declining enrollments, and burdensome tax rates from the rapid expansion of new schools. Did you know when the 2016 rezoning began (the original zoning decision was in 2010) Consol's low SES numbers were at 50% (and increasing) and CSHS was at 18%? That trajectory wasn't going to change without rezoning. Consol has 2300-2400 seats, was at 1670 students last May, and was losing students every year since CSHS opened. So taxpayers are supposed to abandon an asset and not fully utilize it? Keep raising taxes and building new schools when we have space in several schools already on the ground?

The board started with 4 maps and they stated in their meetings that they would make changes to them. People yelling and screaming forced them to make decisions quickly because they wanted to get to closure quickly. They understand rezoning is kicking the hornets nest. I thought the board should of started the process last fall (instead of the spring) and they should of been even more aggressive to avoid future rezoning until the 3rd HS is built. I think they made changes in the rezoning process because elementary rezoning occurred this fall.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
birdman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44a, 10/23/18
Everybody that spoke to the board was absolutely heard. Then promptly ignored. Citizens that spoke at meetings were a nuisance to the board. They didn't care and haven't for years.
Reply Quote
8
viejo
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TAMU1990 • 10:57a, 10/23/18
Wendy 1990 said:
If rezoning mattered that much you should of paid attention the past SEVERAL YEARS. Have you replied either in person at a board meeting or via email the past 8 years? If you did - they heard you. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean your weren't heard. Your lack of knowledge and outrage is a part of the problem. There were severe problems with low income students concentrated in the maroon track, declining enrollments, and burdensome tax rates from the rapid expansion of new schools. Did you know when the 2016 rezoning began (the original zoning decision was in 2010) Consol's low SES numbers were at 50% (and increasing) and CSHS was at 18%? That trajectory wasn't going to change without rezoning. Consol has 2300-2400 seats, was at 1670 students last May, and was losing students every year since CSHS opened. So taxpayers are supposed to abandon an asset and not fully utilize it? Keep raising taxes and building new schools when we have space in several schools already on the ground?

The board started with 4 maps and they stated in their meetings that they would make changes to them. People yelling and screaming forced them to make decisions quickly because they wanted to get to closure quickly. They understand rezoning is kicking the hornets nest. I thought the board should of started the process last fall (instead of the spring) and they should of been even more aggressive to avoid future rezoning until the 3rd HS is built. I think they made changes in the rezoning process because elementary rezoning occurred this fall.
I have been paying attention to the rezoning. My beef, assuming your comment was aimed at me, was that this was a clear bait and switch. You put 4 maps out there, pick from one of the four or don't put 4 maps out there. Rather than a process which lasted a whole month and a half, they should have addressed the issue MUCH earlier. On that you and I agree. You seem to believe that the process they went through was proper.

10 days advanced notice of major changes in rezoning before a vote is not due process. If you think it was, then you and I are never going to agree on this subject.
Reply Quote
3
viejo
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TAMU1990 • 10:59a, 10/23/18
Wendy 1990 said:
If rezoning mattered that much you should of paid attention the past SEVERAL YEARS. Have you replied either in person at a board meeting or via email the past 8 years? If you did - they heard you. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean your weren't heard. Your lack of knowledge and outrage is a part of the problem. There were severe problems with low income students concentrated in the maroon track, declining enrollments, and burdensome tax rates from the rapid expansion of new schools. Did you know when the 2016 rezoning began (the original zoning decision was in 2010) Consol's low SES numbers were at 50% (and increasing) and CSHS was at 18%? That trajectory wasn't going to change without rezoning. Consol has 2300-2400 seats, was at 1670 students last May, and was losing students every year since CSHS opened. So taxpayers are supposed to abandon an asset and not fully utilize it? Keep raising taxes and building new schools when we have space in several schools already on the ground?

The board started with 4 maps and they stated in their meetings that they would make changes to them. People yelling and screaming forced them to make decisions quickly because they wanted to get to closure quickly. They understand rezoning is kicking the hornets nest. I thought the board should of started the process last fall (instead of the spring) and they should of been even more aggressive to avoid future rezoning until the 3rd HS is built. I think they made changes in the rezoning process because elementary rezoning occurred this fall.
On another subject, why is socioeconomic status so important in these decisions? It seems it was the deciding factor. There was an imbalance prior to the rezoning. Both College Station and A&M Consolidated have outstanding academic records. The imbalance didn't change that fact, so why does it matter?
Reply Quote
2
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 viejo • 11:10a, 10/23/18
https://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/103475194.html

This is why. Read Bairrington's direct quote from kbtx. It's also typed below if you don't want to click. He feels his family can't achieve success if the percentage is too high at his family's school.

"The real struggle that we have from a family perspective isn't the school itself they go to but also making sure that they have the best opportunity for success and I don't think that's going to be achieved if I have one daughter who's in College Hills or South Knoll with almost 60 percent low socioeconomic status when there's other schools campuses in the same district at 20 [percent]," said Kyle Barrington, a CSISD parent
Reply Quote
6
Turf96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:34p, 10/23/18
More that gets dug up from the past the more I wonder if both candidates are really running for what is best for all of the students. I don't find comments like this one above at all encompassing for all as some here have stated. Seems like changes that he wanted for his family. Also just his perceived ideas of socio economic qualities. I myself grew up low income but seem to have plenty of drive. I also don't like being tagged a lessor due to my financial upbringing. If he gets voted in I hope he doesn't vote like this comment reads.
Reply Quote
4
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 Agmaker • 2:06p, 10/23/18
Agmaker said:
https://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/103475194.html

This is why. Read Bairrington's direct quote from kbtx. It's also typed below if you don't want to click. He feels his family can't achieve success if the percentage is too high at his family's school.

"The real struggle that we have from a family perspective isn't the school itself they go to but also making sure that they have the best opportunity for success and I don't think that's going to be achieved if I have one daughter who's in College Hills or South Knoll with almost 60 percent low socioeconomic status when there's other schools campuses in the same district at 20 [percent]," said Kyle Barrington, a CSISD parent
In contrast to his views, I wouldn't change the number of low SES and diverse classmates my own children have been around over their school years I assume he is equating problems with low income kids and that he doesn't want his kids around those types of kids (his own kids can't be successful????). Why do we keep framing a group of kids as a nuisance and a burden? That's pretty stereotypical and borderline racist given the high number of low income minority families (that keep getting uprooted). I do feel rezoning this way in our district makes it pretty clear how some people like this guy feel about a group of kids - that they feel their kids would be better off not being around "so many." That's a sad message to send.

Reply Quote
8
TaterTot_09
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 • 3:10p, 10/23/18
I'll echoe that, AggieMom. The message I get is he has no preference on which school his kids go to as long as it doesn't have a high concentration of poor students. So disperse the burden to dilute the low ses numbers and claim that it makes kids more "cultured." That mentality is very troubling and I will never understand how people can convince themselves it's ok. That should not be the number one factor in the rezoning process. FC Local needs help.
Reply Quote
7
02skiag
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 • 3:39p, 10/23/18
AG
His views seem to line up well with the existing board. If you like the status-quo vote for him. If you are all about proximity then vote the other candidate. There's no right or wrong though, only different opinions and perspectives. Your extreme stretch to paint a candidate as racist shows you may not be very objective.
Reply Quote
2
4 edits
scs01
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 02skiag • 4:39p, 10/23/18
02skiag said:
His views seem to line up well with the existing board. If you like the status-quo vote for him. If you are all about proximity then vote the other candidate. There's no right or wrong though, only different opinions and perspectives. Your extreme stretch to paint a candidate as racist shows you may not be very objectionable.
The board has argued that it's better for low-SES kids if they aren't too concentrated, and from what I know there is plenty of research to back that up.

That isn't the argument Barrington made. He argued that he wanted the low-SES kids distributed more evenly so his own high-SES kids weren't in schools with too many low-SES kids. My understanding is that research shows that high-SES kids generally do fine even in schools with higher concentrations of low-SES-kids (but, I don't know the research that well and am open to correction). In fact, I've SES-balancing proponents argue it's better for high-SES students to be in schools with a socioeconomically diverse population, although the research on the topic is still "emerging".

I'm personally quite open to the argument that we should balance SES numbers, but I am also very unconvinced that we're really doing it in CSISD in a way that looks out for the best interests of the low-SES students. For example, if you watched the board debate during the last high school rezoning, there was a point where somebody brought up the fact that (some of?) the low-SES kids being rezoned to CSHS could currently walk to AMCHS, and that it was inconsistent to protect higher-SES walkers in the CSHS zone as the board did but move the AMCHS walkers south. Ealy offered to look for other low-SES populations to move in order to protect AMCHS walkers, but there was little discussion by the board or attempt to really look into that. Wesson mentioned that he'd heard that attendance from low-SES students was higher if they were bussed (something that arose out of the situation at AMCMS--the middle school, not necessarily the high school--a decade or so ago from what I've heard), Ealy said he didn't really have data to back up that idea or something to that effect, and they moved on. So now those kids will have a harder time getting to extracurriculars, etc., especially those that have parents that can't handle transportation as early. Is it really better for them to be moved to a "higher-SES" school under those circumstances?

Barrington's comment about why he wanted SES balancing should make crystal clear that a lot of this is driven by the interests of upper middle class parents. The overall idea of SES balancing isn't necessarily wrong, but the interests of those pushing it also don't always align with what is best for the low-SES kids that we're supposedly helping.
Reply Quote
4
Ratsa
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 • 6:23p, 10/23/18
I think balancing the low-SES numbers benefits all students. One thing that I have noticed is that kids with traumatic events going on in their life seem to be found in higher proportions among low-SES kids. I'm thinking of kids with an incarcerated parent, kids whose parent has an addiction problem so bad that they can't keep a consistent job, kids living with grandma because both of their parents are incarcerated, kids who have been evicted and have to move in with grandma in a different town for a few months, and then return to College Station (and thus are at 3 different schools over the course of a school year).

But of course, not all low-SES students have those kinds of backgrounds. Some are kids of graduate students, others have stable two-parent homes where both parents earn low wages.

And middle- and upper-class students can have trauma going on in their life, but a smaller proportion of them do.

A kid who has major trauma going on in their life does not come to school ready to learn in the same way that other students do, and understandably so. They tend to be less in control of their emotions and have a harder time fitting in successfully into a group environment.

When you have a few kids with a serious problem in their life in one classroom, a good teacher can handle all of the out-of-control emotions and behavior. But if you concentrate such kids in a classroom, it becomes more than just about any teacher can handle. And the other kids (many of whom are also low-SES, but with a stable background) are the ones that lose out because their teacher is spending an inordinate amount of time helping the out-of-control children get back in control. And the out-of-control children lose out too, because they are more likely to be set off by another out-of-control child.

Reply Quote
1
AgGirlCO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:59p, 10/23/18
How is being an advocate of balancing low SES borderline racist? Look at the discipline referrals for any given time frame, for any given school in our district and look at where those kids live. Sadly, those are facts. I've also seen many of those kids do a 180 because of the school, because of the teachers/adminstrators and because of the peers despite the home life not changing. Balance is good for ALL kids because that is the real world. I don't think Mr Barrington's comments are self serving at all. He's right.
Reply Quote
5
viejo
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 • 9:13p, 10/23/18
scs01 said:
02skiag said:
His views seem to line up well with the existing board. If you like the status-quo vote for him. If you are all about proximity then vote the other candidate. There's no right or wrong though, only different opinions and perspectives. Your extreme stretch to paint a candidate as racist shows you may not be very objectionable.
The board has argued that it's better for low-SES kids if they aren't too concentrated, and from what I know there is plenty of research to back that up.

That isn't the argument Barrington made. He argued that he wanted the low-SES kids distributed more evenly so his own high-SES kids weren't in schools with too many low-SES kids. My understanding is that research shows that high-SES kids generally do fine even in schools with higher concentrations of low-SES-kids (but, I don't know the research that well and am open to correction). In fact, I've SES-balancing proponents argue it's better for high-SES students to be in schools with a socioeconomically diverse population, although the research on the topic is still "emerging".

I'm personally quite open to the argument that we should balance SES numbers, but I am also very unconvinced that we're really doing it in CSISD in a way that looks out for the best interests of the low-SES students. For example, if you watched the board debate during the last high school rezoning, there was a point where somebody brought up the fact that (some of?) the low-SES kids being rezoned to CSHS could currently walk to AMCHS, and that it was inconsistent to protect higher-SES walkers in the CSHS zone as the board did but move the AMCHS walkers south. Ealy offered to look for other low-SES populations to move in order to protect AMCHS walkers, but there was little discussion by the board or attempt to really look into that. Wesson mentioned that he'd heard that attendance from low-SES students was higher if they were bussed (something that arose out of the situation at AMCMS--the middle school, not necessarily the high school--a decade or so ago from what I've heard), Ealy said he didn't really have data to back up that idea or something to that effect, and they moved on. So now those kids will have a harder time getting to extracurriculars, etc., especially those that have parents that can't handle transportation as early. Is it really better for them to be moved to a "higher-SES" school under those circumstances?

Barrington's comment about why he wanted SES balancing should make crystal clear that a lot of this is driven by the interests of upper middle class parents. The overall idea of SES balancing isn't necessarily wrong, but the interests of those pushing it also don't always align with what is best for the low-SES kids that we're supposedly helping.
I'd sure like to see that research. I'm more convinced by what my own eyes see, which is two High Schools with disparate SES numbers but with equal academic records. I'm not sure what research is out there that would counter why my lying (apparently) eyes see.
Reply Quote
1
viejo
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgGirlCO95 • 9:19p, 10/23/18
AgGirlCO95 said:
How is being an advocate of balancing low SES borderline racist? Look at the discipline referrals for any given time frame, for any given school in our district and look at where those kids live. Sadly, those are facts. I've also seen many of those kids do a 180 because of the school, because of the teachers/adminstrators and because of the peers despite the home life not changing. Balance is good for ALL kids because that is the real world. I don't think Mr Barrington's comments are self serving at all. He's right.
Really? "Balance" is the real world? How many people beneath, or above, your own socioeconomic level live on your street. Or the street next to yours. Or the one next to that? How about we "balance" that and move you and everyone on your street to a lower socioeconomic neighborhood? After all, that's the real world.

I won't argue whether or not his statements are borderline racist, but they are without question prejudiced. I've heard enough from Mr. Barrington to know I'll be voting for Amanda Green.
Reply Quote
4
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 AgGirlCO95 • 9:21p, 10/23/18
Advocate for low SES. Good.
Barrington at tonight's forum said we can't have a bunch of people of color at one school and none at the other. I guess people will Interpret that in a way that fits their specific position.
Reply Quote
3
AggieMom_38
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:48p, 10/23/18
Heard a recording from tonight's forum. He now has moved beyond zoning for SES and wants to zone based on race. Is that even legal?
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.