AggieMom_38 said:

---

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?

---

Nope, that's why they look at socioeconomic status.

viejo said:

---

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.

---

Not an expert myself, just going on what little I've read. But this bring up another point--whatever "research" says, it's unclear to me how much of it is relevant to College Station. For example, it may be that moving kids from a 90% low SES situation to a situation where say 50% of the kids low SES would be beneficial to them. But our high school situation doesn't seem to be that, it's more moving kids from a 50% low-SES to 30% low-SES. When we heard that during last year's rezoning, my wife and I both immediately said we were pretty sure the high schools we graduated from would have been at the 50% mark, and we thought of them as decent middle-class high schools.

And we measure SES status with a very blunt instrument. When I read a bit of the research awhile ago, one of the first things I stumbled across was a statement that researchers should not use free lunch numbers as a proxy for SES when studying the issue because it doesn't really capture what causes kids to be at risk (something others here have pointed out as well in relation to the particular mix we have in CS). I guess it gets used in school zoning settings because it's convenient and could be hard to replace as a measure of SES status. But if free lunch status isn't a good measure of SES status when doing research, it probably also isn't doing a great job of yielding the best zoning outcomes for the kids who need help. Which, as I said in my original post, seems to be a pretty secondary concern of the board in all of this if you watch how they're actually carrying out the zoning.

scs01 said:

---

viejo said:

---

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.

---

Not an expert myself, just going on what little I've read. But this bring up another point--whatever "research" says, it's unclear to me how much of it is relevant to College Station. For example, it may be that moving kids from a 90% low SES situation to a situation where say 50% of the kids low SES would be beneficial to them. But our high school situation doesn't seem to be that, it's more moving kids from a 50% low-SES to 30% low-SES. When we heard that during last year's rezoning, my wife and I both immediately said we were pretty sure the high schools we graduated from would have been at the 50% mark, and we thought of them as decent middle-class high schools.

And we measure SES status with a very blunt instrument. When I read a bit of the research awhile ago, one of the first things I stumbled across was a statement that researchers should not use free lunch numbers as a proxy for SES when studying the issue because it doesn't really capture what causes kids to be at risk (something others here have pointed out as well in relation to the particular mix we have in CS). I guess it gets used in school zoning settings because it's convenient and could be hard to replace as a measure of SES status. But if free lunch status isn't a good measure of SES status when doing research, it probably also isn't doing a great job of yielding the best zoning outcomes for the kids who need help. Which, as I said in my original post, seems to be a pretty secondary concern of the board in all of this if you watch how they're actually carrying out the zoning.

---

Makes you kinda wonder about the research doesn't it? Not that I'd argue that government sponsored research has an agenda...Oh, never.

AggieMom_38 said:

---

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?

---

No it isn't, but to which forum are you referring? I watched the KBTX video of the Chamber of Commerce forum held at the Bush Presidential library and while zoning was the major topic, I did not hear that from either candidate. They are both articulate and pretty strong advocates for our schools.

Oogway said:

---

AggieMom_38 said:

---

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?

---

No it isn't, but to which forum are you referring? I watched the KBTX video of the Chamber of Commerce forum held at the Bush Presidential library and while zoning was the major topic, I did not hear that from either candidate. They are both articulate and pretty strong advocates for our schools.

---

Oops sorry - should have been clear. It was the forum last night ("Eastside"?). His discussion of "people of color" (his words not mine) and needing to balance them out. I thought that was illegal so was surprised to hear that stated.

It is illegal or at least extremely curtailed, based on a Supreme Court decision around a decade ago. That's why I asked about the forum, because I hadn't seen that mentioned in the one I saw. Thanks for clarifying.

1) Low SES/free lunch numbers includes all races. There are white low SES students in CSISD too. Go volunteer at Chrissy's Closet or the food pantry to make backpacks for kids to take home on weekends.

2) It's shameful - people here are throwing around the race card to insult a candidate.

3) You need to go to South Knoll in May. In your kids are in elementary school I bet you have seen a countdown calendar on the wall. Everyone is excited for summer break and it's a typical celebration in most classrooms in south CS. Teachers do not do countdown clocks at South Knoll because it causes angst and sadness for their students. School is where there is continuity for these kids.

4) You need to go to PTOs in other schools outside south CS. These schools don't earn $20,000+ on a fun run or $60,000 on a carnival.

1. How do you know who on here has or hasn't done that or some other type of volunteer work for kids in rough situations?

2.The candidate brought race into the discussion.

3. Unless it has changed in the few years since we lived in that area, that is not true. They have the same parties and count downs as ever other school.

4. Do you really think that you are the only person that ventures outside of their street, cul de sac, or neighborhood? Or that everyone that lives in what you consider "rich" neighborhoods always had extra money? Or any money? Or weren't on free / reduced lunch programs at some point?

You seem to be a highly intelligent and caring, but you are starting come across on the forum as if you are the only person that does stuff for kids that don't have much and it's becoming pretentious.

I don't think anyone in power would admit it, but testing and ratings has a lot to do with it. A portion of the STAAR rating system is calculated by breaking down scores into sub-categories by race, SES level, migrant, limited English proficiency, bilingual, special education, ESL (English as a second language), GT, and at-risk. In theory, if you even out the categories in the schools around the district, then it levels out the school and district ratings.

Unfortunately, I do not think this really helps those kids that need extra help and support. I wonder what would happen to the ratings and scores if the admin. did not try to balance out the numbers for the sake of numbers? I wonder what would happen if they invested more in helping those kids who might not have the tools they need to succeed? I know that there are programs in place, but if the ultimate measure is test scores and ratings (which is an entirely different conversation), then the progress will never truly be shown in the numbers, imo.

Wendy 1990 said:

---

1) School is where there is continuity for these kids.

---

It's funny to hear you say this given your stance on rezoning. Continuity was a top complaint heading into the high school rezoning. Every student in any district deserves continuity.

TaterTot_09 said:

---

Wendy 1990 said:

---

1) School is where there is continuity for these kids.

---

It's funny to hear you say this given your stance on rezoning. Continuity was a top complaint heading into the high school rezoning. Every student in any district deserves continuity.

---

not to mention they seem to completely dismiss continuity for the students shipped to south CS...

missB said:

---

Stupe said:

---

The candidate brought race into the discussion.

---

He may have discussed issues concerning race but being called a racist is uncalled for. A poster earlier in this thread eluded to as much

---

Given today's world why would race be brought up in any public setting? Are we worried about a students skin color or about the student as a person?

As much work as the guy has had with other organizations I don't know that I would call him racist. What I can't figure out is why POC as he says is even needed to be a part of a school conversation. Why would a potential school board member seperate any group out on ethnicity? Poor judgement in my book. After all of this I think Green is the choice for my family.

Stupe said:

---

1. How do you know who on here has or hasn't done that or some other type of volunteer work for kids in rough situations?

2.The candidate brought race into the discussion.

3. Unless it has changed in the few years since we lived in that area, that is not true. They have the same parties and count downs as ever other school.

4. Do you really think that you are the only person that ventures outside of their street, cul de sac, or neighborhood? Or that everyone that lives in what you consider "rich" neighborhoods always had extra money? Or any money? Or weren't on free / reduced lunch programs at some point?

You seem to be a highly intelligent and caring, but you are starting come across on the forum as if you are the only person that does stuff for kids that don't have much and it's becoming pretentious.

---

I haven't seen any evidence that shows the candidate did bring race in a discussion or a callous manner. Only someone saying stuff on a message board. Green's candidacy was driven by rezoning. If Green wins I think she will be disappointed in the day to day functions of a school board and the headaches public service can bring. Rezoning doesn't happen every year unless people are being elected to bring it up (which I believe is Green's real motive). At least that is the rumor - lack of evidence cuts both ways.

I've seen maps of F&R lunch homes and they are in every neighborhood. Anyone who fosters also has a F&R lunch student. People go in and out of these programs due to many reasons - temporary loss of job, divorce, illness, etc.

There are thousands of volunteers in the Brazos Valley. We are lucky to live in a very giving community.

Maybe I sound pretentious to you, but we shouldn't be a town where in a 5 mile radius there are schools with 80% plus low SES (and everything that entails) vs a HS with $500,000 accounts and Elementary/Intermediate schools with $60K+ fundraisers, with virtually no low SES students. CS is so small we can't zone for location only without creating the above scenario. There also seems to be little concern here with increasing tax burdens to keep building schools out south to avoid moving students in south CS (when schools already on the ground have space). I don't think the community at large supports increasing taxes for that.

Continuity exists for most elementary students because it is the only level where proximity is the main factor in decisions for rezoning. The kids rezoned from AMCHS to CSHS live by A&M. It's not a leisurely walk.

There still haven't been any good arguments against the decisions made this past spring - only the process. The board needs to start future rezoning discussions in the fall and not the spring. I also believe that people seeing the process created confusion and anger in the end. What you saw is what happened in committees behind close doors. Neighborhoods are moved in and out of rezoning possibilities at every meeting. Maybe future boards should "make the sausage" behind close doors, present a map, take recommendations then make a final decision to avoid as much rancor as possible.

Wendy 1990 said:

---

Stupe said:

---

1. How do you know who on here has or hasn't done that or some other type of volunteer work for kids in rough situations?

2.The candidate brought race into the discussion.

3. Unless it has changed in the few years since we lived in that area, that is not true. They have the same parties and count downs as ever other school.

4. Do you really think that you are the only person that ventures outside of their street, cul de sac, or neighborhood? Or that everyone that lives in what you consider "rich" neighborhoods always had extra money? Or any money? Or weren't on free / reduced lunch programs at some point?

You seem to be a highly intelligent and caring, but you are starting come across on the forum as if you are the only person that does stuff for kids that don't have much and it's becoming pretentious.

---

I haven't seen any evidence that shows the candidate did bring race in a discussion or a callous manner. Only someone saying stuff on a message board. Green's candidacy was driven by rezoning. If Green wins I think she will be disappointed in the day to day functions of a school board and the headaches public service can bring. Rezoning doesn't happen every year unless people are being elected to bring it up (which I believe is Green's real motive). At least that is the rumor - lack of evidence cuts both ways.

I've seen maps of F&R lunch homes and they are in every neighborhood. Anyone who fosters also has a F&R lunch student. People go in and out of these programs due to many reasons - temporary loss of job, divorce, illness, etc.

There are thousands of volunteers in the Brazos Valley. We are lucky to live in a very giving community.

Maybe I sound pretentious to you, but we shouldn't be a town where in a 5 mile radius there are schools with 80% plus low SES (and everything that entails) vs a HS with $500,000 accounts and Elementary/Intermediate schools with $60K+ fundraisers, with virtually no low SES students. CS is so small we can't zone for location only without creating the above scenario. There also seems to be little concern here with increasing tax burdens to keep building schools out south to avoid moving students in south CS (when schools already on the ground have space). I don't think the community at large supports increasing taxes for that.

Continuity exists for most elementary students because it is the only level where proximity is the main factor in decisions for rezoning. The kids rezoned from AMCHS to CSHS live by A&M. It's not a leisurely walk.

There still haven't been any good arguments against the decisions made this past spring - only the process. The board needs to start future rezoning discussions in the fall and not the spring. I also believe that people seeing the process created confusion and anger in the end. What you saw is what happened in committees behind close doors. Neighborhoods are moved in and out of rezoning possibilities at every meeting. Maybe future boards should "make the sausage" behind close doors, present a map, take recommendations then make a final decision to avoid as much rancor as possible.

---

I find it interesting that the only factor you cite for rezoning is income levels. Why is that? Do income levels of parents dictate the quality of education offered by particular schools? Is there evidence that the educational quality at a high SES school in this community is unequal to that with a low SES percentage? Are the outcomes different?

Schools are here to educate children, not serve as social experiments. Unless someone can prove to me that equalized SES numbers enhances the educational outcomes of ALL students, heck even the SES students, then I won't be convinced that zoning based on SES is a worthwhile idea.

What is barringtons and the school boards deal with the charter school? Just noticed on his facebook page a post about him being very concerned with losing numbers to the new charter as it may be first year in a while that numbers of enrollment have gone down.

I thought overcrowding at CSHS was the big issue? So you lose a few to the charter school. Makes less need to keep rezoning the way I see it. Seems like an easy out to a bad problem to me. Now I think it isn't so much the issue of CSHS being overcrowded to some, as much as needing numbers to force to consolidated.

Maybe I am seeing it wrong but seems if you run for or represent CSISD that you would need to focus on making your district the best it can be. Don't see how focusing and asking to lobby against the charter looks good at all. Do they worry this much about Brazos Christian or Allen Academy? I wonder why the charter school bothers them so much?

Keep reading that post of his about the school numbers. Doesn't sound to me like green is the one wanting to rezone agian. See it does work both ways as you stated. Keen observation. Maybe first thing we have agreed upon in a while.

I understand your point so don't think I am trying to be hard with you here. But if my kid goes to Brazos Christian or charter doesn't matter. They still don't have that tail in the chair for them to count. If you want more tails in seats, so they get paid, don't yank customers around. Pretty simple that the charter took off due to distrust of our school district leadership during rezone. It was so obvious they knew that, they even lied about the number and had to come back and correct later.

6 weeks after one of my kids has been gone a friend of theirs texted to see why they called there name on the roll. That will make a person wonder about a few things. Not sure why but I have 2 thoughts and neither are real good.

The more resistance the charter gets form CSISD the faster it will fill. Their best play is to let it lay but doesn't seem like that is what they plan to do. To me one candidate is alarmed by it and the other says we will need to learn to work together as a community. Which one seems to get all the students needs?

Barrington claims to be an expert on charter schools Bc he started one years ago. The research I did on it is that it's no longer in existence and didn't serve many kids to begin with, so I'm just not sure if his expertise. He claims it's an easy fix to compete, just make a part of one of the schools a "magnate" part, and specialize in something and that will magically pull all the kids back to csisd? But in the meantime, rezone, rezone, rezone. He wants to rezone the southern wealthy neighborhoods to consol, even though they "hate consol" (his words at the forum tonight, not mine). He just doesn't get it...you rezone, and you lose kids to charter. It's as simple as that. He's ironically emphatically recommending the ONE THING that will drive more families away from the district.

Oogway said:

---

Turf96 said:

---

What is barringtons and the school boards deal with the charter school? Just noticed on his facebook page a post about him being very concerned with losing numbers to the new charter as it may be first year in a while that numbers of enrollment have gone down.
Snip

Maybe I am seeing it wrong but seems if you run for or represent CSISD that you would need to focus on making your district the best it can be. Don't see how focusing and asking to lobby against the charter looks good at all. Do they worry this much about Brazos Christian or Allen Academy? I wonder why the charter school bothers them so much?
Snip

---

They don't worry about the private schools because those schools do not take away tax dollars. CSISD receives funds based on attendance numbers of enrolled students. Charter schools receive tax dollars, albeit a smaller share of the same pie. Since CSISD is considered a property rich school and is operating at a deficit, they stand to lose a fair chunk of change.

CSISD must educate all who enter and have different constraints than a charter might when it comes down to it. I don't see them (charter schools) going away any time soon, however. Choice is not a bad thing, but I am a little troubled by some of the trends with respect to how the State funds education and in one respect, charter schools seem to be similar to public schools in that some are really pretty sound while others are not.

---

While there is a disparity between charter schools, just as with public schools, the difference is you can move your kid out of a charter school and put them in another charter school (in big cities with more choices anyway). Can't do that in a public school system. I'm more concerned on how my tax dollars are spent by schools than I am how the state funds them. The new charter school here in town is going to excel.

That was my point. Turf96 asked why the District was so concerned with lobbying etc and essentially the answer is 'follow the money.' At the time, I wasn't sure if his question was rhetorical or not and he explained further in his reply. I understand his point as well and I agree that a large number of the students enrolled in the charter school are there due to the unhappiness with the boundary adjustment process. Yes, the charter school here seems to be fine and that is a good thing. It is not in the best interest of our community or State for any school to be 'not fine.'

As far as how the tax dollars are spent locally (or statewide for that matter), all of this information is published by the District. If you so choose, you can inform yourself: read about how schools are funded, what state and federal mandates they must abide by, and examine what goes on at a local level. Ask yourself, what is essential to a free (not really) public education? If I proposed, say, get rid of extracurricular activities and spend the $5,269,408 on something else, that would be an extreme 'no go' for most parents. And before someone raises a hue and cry, I am not advocating for that, but if you want to drill down to the nuts and bolts, then you have to look at the budget and realize when you (they) spend over half of their budget on instruction (payroll for teachers), teacher development (is that state mandated?) and areas that support that, then stand up and have a dialogue with your elected trustees and school officials during the Hearing of Citizens and ask them. Keep in mind before you say, 'axe the leadership,' that a neighboring school district discovered that finding a solid dependable leader is harder than you might think.

That money doesn't grow on trees, and more and more of it is coming directly from your pocket and mine as the state reduces funding for schools. I think Mr. Martindale does a good job overall and I am hoping whoever wins the race in the upcoming election becomes a champion for getting the most out of each dollar.

Quote:

---

At this point, maybe the last rezone got it right but we will not know for sure for another year or so.

---

There are families that are going to have to take currently enrolled kids to two different high schools because they didn't allow the sibling grandfathering that they did last time.

There is no way that they "got it right" by doing that.

Had the board allowed grandfathering this likely would not be as hot of a topic now. It's really the least they could've done after pulling a bait and switch on certain neighborhoods. As screwed up as their rezoning policies are they really missed an opportunity to make themselves come out looking somewhat like a hero to the kids they traded between the 2 schools. That no mercy tactic along with a number of other shenanigans by the board are the reason that everyone, with the exception of their fan club, has lost trust in them and they've only just begun.

I hear this more and more about filling consol and then letting CSHS fill with new development. I would have to look at the numbers a bit but that would mean CSHS would be 400 or so light I believe. I just don't believe CSHS was built with the intensions of being an overflow high school. I believe if you try that you will see the property market tank. It is already on a bubble why would you want to shove it over the edge? Why wouldn't you just zone every new development to consol and leave as many kids displaced as you can?

End of reply start of more ideas.

No matter if the disparity in high schools is real or a imaginative thing, look at the passion of the fight. I have said this numerous times. I don't see the other school as bad but why are the people that are there so darn determined to tear down this community to get help for the "burden". Remember their words not mine.

When we moved here we looked at all school options. I don't mind a drive. We chose CSHS as it had the programs that best fit what my family likes to do outside of education. We spent extra money on a house as many famailies do for their kids. I will not say what activity but they are nowhere near apples and oranges at both schools. If I had a child that loves Ag mechanics I would love to have my child at Consolidated. If I wanted my kid to study meats I would love to be at CSHS. For me it isn't as much about good school bad school as it is what is best for my family as we see it. Both schools are not created equal and they shouldn't be. Heck One of my biggest friends in this school mess wants to retire on an island. I want to retire on an orchard. It's ok to be different. It's not ok to try to force all to be equal. Are we losing our community trying to make all equal?

Let me say I know something needs to be done about capacity numbers. I know all the board isn't bad or mean spirited. I know it is a thankless job and is hard on their families. All that being said the moving numbers, the sneaky appearing actions don't set well. If you look at my history I have stated many times I like some of the board very much. Not just 2.

I also don't think if you dig and educate yourself you would feel that everything is above board here. For some reason, in my opinion, this board has let the mob campaigners opinion show take over their motives. Just look at the low SES numbers moving to hit a target. Some called it moving goal posts. To me it looked like they tried to lay goal posts flat on the ground. Educated people see this and say why. Then distrust sets in.

Who hires a PR firm and screams at the board? Who tries to pack the committees and dictate its path? Who comes to a special board meeting and applauds 100 kids lives getting turned upside down and looks at all the kids and points at them that they should all be ashamed of each and every one of theirselves? Yes this happened from a 50 year old bitter hag and a 50 year old fat slob. They had CSDS and caused a complete scene for their victory at the expense of others. By far the most disgusting thing I have seen in any school setting. 13 year old kids berated by 50 year old bitter people. Notice I didn't say adults?

Folks we are toying with a lot here. Our communities future depends on how we move forward. People moved here for a reason. I don't know why you did. I know why I did.

I moved here to be closer to aggieland as I hope my kids go there. I moved to CSISD over others as CSHS had the EC programs we wanted. There is a smaller school district up the road that offers that as well. If the school system keeps on pace as we are, we will move. We are not the only family that feels that way. Is the goal to run people out of town? Is the goal to slow growth because that is what will happen? A huge part of a community is its churches and schools. Right now the schools are being really watched from outside as well. I have 1 family member and 2 sets of friends that have put a potential move her on hold to see what happens with the schools. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

If this doesn't want to be the norm we had better get this election right no matter which way you lean. We had better get the board and administration to start playing for all sides and not the bitter east side mob because they screamed the loudest. It's time for some serious reflection of where we are and where we are headed. For me the choice is clear after the last few events and I've stated my choice here. If we continue this quest to make some happy the future may not be what it could have been.

I ask all involved to stop using poor kids or less fortunant kids as a playing card to have a power struggle at the table. Let's call a spade a spade. Some of you are not wanting to move low SES for their own good. You want them moved for your own good. I believe if you read past news articles on this thread you may find one of just this.

Financial standing, gender, race, and anything else you can add should never be alright to divide. Life will never be fair or even. My island friend has more money than I do but I don't take one moment to be jealous of them. We live in a free country. Forcing somebody to do sonething you want doesn't seem right.

The school board has the power to do as they like. I have the power to fight or move. The power one way or another isn't good. As most on this thread are greatly involved in both sides we know it.

I say it is time we get back to balanced representation, balanced voice in a transparent processes, and represent what is best for the kids not the parents property values. If the mob doesn't want to be only ones at consol and the cSHS doesn't want to go, maybe we need to see what the issue is and fix the issue, not try and shift chairs on the titanic deck. Let's elect a board that will do this and let's hold all our elected board members to the fire to do what is right not what one or another group lobbies for. Stop moving financial numbers. Stop moving capacity numbers. Stop stating charter school numbers and then coming back and saying we missed it by a lot. This is out of control and needs to be fixed. Trust has to come back or all of CS loses. For me at this point there is only one of the two candidates I trust. You are free to feel different.