Quote:

---

You would think if there was a pending lawsuit the local media would be all over it.

And still no good answers to address the parameters of our district. I'm sorry you can not go to the HS that is closest to you - this is true for families of all income levels all around CS. I too live closer to one HS, but zoned for the other. This town isn't that big. It's not a significant inconvenience for the majority of residents in this district to drive past one school to go to the other. There are low income kids rezoned to CSHS that are happy to be there - just as there are kids happy to be rezoned to Consol.

You can not have a majority minority HS with high numbers of low income students juxtaposed to an majority white HS with low to no low income students two miles away. That sounds like something you would see in the 1950's. There's your lawsuit waiting to happen. And in this national hyper charged political environment there will be someone or some political organization willing to take that suit on.

What would be a good use of time is figuring out how to allow the kids championed in this thread, but trashed in the free summer lunch program thread, a choice in schools without inadvertently setting up the scenario I just described. However, higher income kids wouldn't have the choice of schools. I don't think people who post on this thread would be in favor of that though.

The best post was Oogway's - she is correct. We need board members that do what is best for all taxpayers (purple, maroon, elderly, young, childless, etc) of the district.

---

Its really not that hard. I'm not sure why (everyone) makes it so hard.

Non SES or Summer lunch or whatever kids you call them attend the school closest to them.

SES or Summer lunch kids if that is the measuring stick (which also seems biased - but I didn't make that up), deserve equal treatment under the law, equal access to the same educational opportunity. Its the law. So follow the law. Divide them equally between the 2 schools. If there is a 100 kids, make a list and 50 go to X school and 50 go to Y school.

Half and half, access to the same opportunity. Its the law. Follow the law. You can't have one school that looks demographically different than the other. Its not right.

That is a win win.

And, Harris' view is we shouldn't have a policy because some future board could just change the policy. Ummm... What???? Ok, that's brilliant, let's get rid of all policies given the risk of a policy being changed

Wendy 1990 said:

---

The best post was Oogway's - she is correct. We need board members that do what is best for all taxpayers (purple, maroon, elderly, young, childless, etc) of the district.

---

Which we do not have right now.

I only remember the information for elementary and SCS is correct. It's 160 kids per grade at IL Texas.

I entered my daughter in the lottery for Kinder in the Fall 2019 and she was number 58 on the waitlist. I have friends at number 72. So, yeah it's about to be full. The zoning unpredictability is 90% of the reason I am praying to get in.

The way CSISD is zoning using "demographics", is not a law at all. That would explain why 99.99% of all the other school districts zone with proximity at the top of the list. the Texas Education Agency does not support zoning a school district according to "demographics" in any way. Give them a call and shoot them some emails if you would like to verify. Zoning for equal amounts of low income across schools is based on an idea a liberal Longhorn drew up, for what its worth. A very limited amount of research has been performed in the rust belt on this type of rezoning. All the research in support of this method occurred between schools of extreme SES disparity, so 90% low income at one school and only 10% low income at the other school. In these cases there was some evidence that it helped the low SES students perform better on some standardized testing. Thanks to oogway and some research I've done, I'm not completely against using it as a factor within reason. The shameful thing is the two CSISD populations are VERY close in SES and racial diversity to begin with. Consol only has around 15% or so more low income students than CSHS. The two schools are less than 10% apart in minority populations. They might have moved the needle 5% more SES to CSHS with the current rezone. I don't know anyone that could be convinced that a 5% move in low income students at these two already similar schools would "help" these low income students that live within walking distance of consol. It's pretty easy to see the maroon school board we have were able to zone the remaining high net worth neighborhoods to their school and bus off some low income students they did not want.

Big12Champ06 said:

---

I only remember the information for elementary and SCS is correct. It's 160 kids per grade at IL Texas.

I entered my daughter in the lottery for Kinder in the Fall 2019 and she was number 58 on the waitlist. I have friends at number 72. So, yeah it's about to be full. The zoning unpredictability is 90% of the reason I am praying to get in.

---

I don't remember big12champ06 being on either side here yet they state zoning issues as their main reason to get out of CSISD yet CSlifer and Wendy1990 say that nobody in this community has a problem with what happened. It is just a small group of so called rich parents talking too much. Guess what I don't agree. I have talked to many people that have put off potential moves to CS due to school uncertainty. Much like marriage lose trust you have nothing. Keep a blinder on if you like but one group coveting what the other group was viewed to have had has set this school district on its end. If you don't believe it explain the charter waiting list. To listen to the board people are choosing a school that is in financial ruins over the utopia they have created. Maybe they should look at their utopia as it may have some dirty water in it.

Does anyone remember what measures were used in estimating how the new charter school would effect overall enrollment numbers during the last 2 rezones (high school and elementary)? I tried looking up the videos from the 2018 April and May meetings on this topic and they appear to be removed or taken down...not sure why.

"Too many people putting off moves to CS because of school uncertainty".....are you serious Clark?

That is an absolute fact.

There are parents that either want their kids at Consol or CSHS and the constant reshuffling that the school board does affects their decisions.

So now both of you have talked to "many" people from out of town that won't move here because of high school zoning?
How did that go? "I found my dream job and a beautiful house and it is a great town, but I read on the internet the school zoning got goofy last year, so I can't do it"?
This belongs on r/thatHappened

1. Quote the post where I said "many"
2. You don't have friends that decide that they are in a house that no longer fits their needs and decide to buy another house and move?
3. You don't know anyone that moves away and then decides to move back to B/CS?
4. You don't think school zones and stability are important factors for either set if they are parents?

That's a pretty small bubble to live in.

Judging by the real estate market here I would have to say the effect of that zoning decision on people buying houses is near zero. There will always be a few people unhappy about how a vote turns out. And as long as we have the internet they will always have a small bubble to complain about it in.

ripthebandaid said:

---

Does anyone remember what measures were used in estimating how the new charter school would effect overall enrollment numbers during the last 2 rezones (high school and elementary)? I tried looking up the videos from the 2018 April and May meetings on this topic and they appear to be removed or taken down...not sure why.

---

Can't fully answer the question off hand but I do know they demographers provided a low versus a high impact of Charter scenario and the board and admin chose to rely on the "low impact" in the rezone decision. I don't know if in reality the impact has been closer to the "high" impact scenario. It is interesting (as Tigermom noted I think) that on one hand they (the super for sure) talked about Charter not mattering and gonna be a flop (and no kids are going and all are coming back throughout the year - all of which is untrue based on reported data) yet now when/if the Charter goes under it'll be some huge "influx" back to CSISD that prevents us from giving our family assurances and consistency now (radio spot yesterday on WTAW) Just spin, which is so odd for a school district - not sure what the reason is for spinning stuff about a Charter. Just focus on making CSISD a great district and be thankful the Charter offers families (and teachers) choice, relieves some of the capacity, and is serving our community positively.

And correct about the videos --- a comment on a thread (also since taken down) noted the zoning 2018 workshops/meetings are all mysteriously gone (broken links). Interesting coincidence I guess?

Lifer I know in your mind you are always right so not sure why I try anymore. Yes houses in my comps are setting a lot longer after the rezone debacle than before. Yes charter school is gaining number daily. Some in CSISD some out. You would have to be blind to not see that a large portion of charter are from CSISD and many if not most are due to being tired of getting jerked around. That and a complete lack of trust for the current administration and board. You can tell people how you feel but you can't tell some of us how we should feel. I've never asked you to feel done wrong but my family sure has. There was a right way and a wrong way to go about rezone and in my opinion it was handled with an iron fist. Yes I do have friends that put off moves back to the "mothership" due to uncertainty in which high school they would attend. One even took a job in Missouri instead of the job in CS. I'll assume specifics probably won't help you see that yes we do know for a fact that it has put off some folks beyond our community.

Quote:

---

And as long as we have the internet they will always have a small bubble to complain about it in.

---

The internet is a small bubble.

I feel kind of foolish. I always assumed something called the World Wide Web would have the potential for a large audience.

Of course it is a small bubble. People tend to gravitate to small groups that have the same opinion. This board is a prime example, almost nobody else in the entire world cares about the rezoning, the few that do have found this small bubble. Pretty simple concept really.

Wait...I thought everyone agreed that BOTH schools were pretty great. Now you are saying people wont move here because they may attend a specific school. Which school is so bad that it is keeping people from moving here?

Try going to Youtube to the CSISD channel and looking for them there. The district website changed this school year and so some searches don't work the same as previous if you use Google, etc. Rather than individual links, you may have to watch the board meeting video and pause it when it gets to whatever you're seeking.

I'm really not on a side. I do think both schools are good and that we are all fortunate to live in CS. But what I value from decision makers for my children is consistency, fair treatment, good judgment and transparency. The way the board handled the last rezoning and the way they treated families was appalling. So, my family is hoping for the charter school. It is absolutely an issue of distrust in the board.

cslifer said:

---

Of course it is a small bubble. People tend to gravitate to small groups that have the same opinion. This board is a prime example, almost nobody else in the entire world cares about the rezoning, the few that do have found this small bubble. Pretty simple concept really.

---

You disproved your own premise with that statement. Take a look at any of the rezoning threads and then say that "everyone has the same opinion".

Oogway said:

---

Try going to Youtube to the CSISD channel and looking for them there. The district website changed this school year and so some searches don't work the same as previous if you use Google, etc. Rather than individual links, you may have to watch the board meeting video and pause it when it gets to whatever you're seeking.

---

Thanks Oogway but that's not correct. The rezoning forums/workshops are the ones (only ones) with broken links. Other videos including this past week and ones around the time of the rezoning meetings are there. So the explanation that "it's a website change" doesn't fly. I'm sure CSISD will fix the mistake though now (right?)

I don't know; I haven't had the time lately to go and look. The last time I did a search (for something unrelated) though, the link was broken on that as well and so I doubled back and went to the main portal. That's when I saw the whole site was using a new interface.

So, they may have taken them down, they may be there and need some extra sleuthing, I don't know.

If I am able to locate anything I will be happy to post it here.

Oogway- When you do more sleuthing and find these specific "rezoning" videos let us know. They're the only videos missing from the entire list of meeting minutes. Also not available if one goes to directly YouTube. This doesn't seem to be a technology issue.
5-4-18
4-19-18
4-9-18
4-4-18
4-2-18
3-28-18

The videos are back up. My apologies for the inconvenience and thanks for pointing it out.

Not making an excuse here, but this actually was a case of content not being migrated over from the old site and it took me a little bit to figure out why. Because we were trying to get the meeting videos posted to the site as fast as possible during the 2018 high school rezoning process, we skipped the step of uploading them to YouTube, waiting for them to be verified, etc., and then linking them to the site. Instead, we uploaded them directly to our old web server. When we changed websites, all those links were broken when migrated over because the videos were housed on the old website server and not YouTube like all the other meeting and workshop videos.

We have recently partnered with a company to scroll our webpages and help us find these types of errors, which are fairly common on large websites like ours.

We will continue to work to improve the current website and I can be reached at chuck@csisd.org or (979) 764-5477 if you have questions related to the transparency of the College Station ISD website or related issues.

Chuck Glenewinkel

Champ is right. The way the board handled the latest high school rezoning was appalling. But it goes back even further than that. Yes, Wesson was caught writing disparaging comments about parents in our community during a public forum in 2018. But on March 31, 2016, during the previous rezoning process, Wesson sent an email to the superintendent (Ealy) to recommend some of his friends to serve on the boundary adjustment committee. In his email, Wesson wrote, "If you want me to send you a list of stupid people that are completely self-centered, that would be a much easier list for me to create....just let me know." That is a word-for-word, verbatim quote of what Wesson wrote to the CSISD superintendent. The level of contempt, disdain, and sheer arrogance regularly displayed by Wesson (and Harris, too, for that matter) should embarrass anyone with an interest in CSISD's success. Everyone who thought Wesson's disparaging notes in 2018 were a "one off" incident needs to be aware that Wesson has viewed the parents in CSISD with disdain for much longer than that. Imagine the arrogance of not just having those opinions, but actually having the audacity to put them in writing....in an email to the superintendent!! Then Wesson has the gall to get on the radio this week and talk to the other board members like he is the expert and all his experience on the board means he knows what is best when it comes to decisions about rezoning. This is just another example of why so many people in this district are eagerly awaiting big changes in the school board this fall.

Turf96 said:

---

Big12Champ06 said:

---

I only remember the information for elementary and SCS is correct. It's 160 kids per grade at IL Texas.

I entered my daughter in the lottery for Kinder in the Fall 2019 and she was number 58 on the waitlist. I have friends at number 72. So, yeah it's about to be full. The zoning unpredictability is 90% of the reason I am praying to get in.

---

I don't remember big12champ06 being on either side here yet they state zoning issues as their main reason to get out of CSISD yet CSlifer and Wendy1990 say that nobody in this community has a problem with what happened. It is just a small group of so called rich parents talking too much. Guess what I don't agree. I have talked to many people that have put off potential moves to CS due to school uncertainty. Much like marriage lose trust you have nothing. Keep a blinder on if you like but one group coveting what the other group was viewed to have had has set this school district on its end. If you don't believe it explain the charter waiting list. To listen to the board people are choosing a school that is in financial ruins over the utopia they have created. Maybe they should look at their utopia as it may have some dirty water in it.

---

Contrary to your opinion, I want a charter school option. I'm happy that the charter school has a waiting list. Maybe they will make it bigger - anything to keep my taxes down. I am against unnecessary school builds and waste of assets currently in use. At least the charter school should slow down the pace of building new schools. I hope we don't need a new HS until 2030 (which is a possibility if the charter school's HS is successful). We have built and remodeled many schools over the past 13+ years.

And as for people having a problem with the rezoning - it's a vocal minority.

In my own little circle I'm aware of kids coming back to CSISD from the charter, families having 1 in the charter and 1 in CSISD, families attending from Bryan, etc. Don't forget the charter draws many kids from Bryan too, which is definitely more of a challenging situation than CSISD.

Wendy, isn't the charter school 100% taxpayer funded? If my understanding is correct (big if), I'm not sure how the existence of the charter school affects our taxes. For all I know it could be causing our taxes to rise.

I believe that many more would be livid about the rezone if they actually understood what occurred, who was involved, and what a flop it was. CSHS will still be over capacity this fall, even as the zoning is implemented ( CSISDs own numbers = 2081 projected for 2019, and capacity is 1950. Actually it's 1850 but they fudged it up to 1950 last year). Board as spinning it as "yes it sucked but it was effective." No, it sucked and you didn't "fix a darn thing" (except getting some some low income minority kids out of Consol, which we now know was the goal). You really want to fix it? Castlegate needs to be moved to Consol to make a dent in the capacity issue.

I too wish we would be able to wait until 2030 for a new HS. I sense most affected would have taken one for the team if the rezone fixed something. But BOTH high schools will be over capacity in a couple years (again CSISDs own numbers) in 2022. They will need to bond this year to address that. Should have bonded earlier. Costing more and now money as they wait

[Please post your opinion without being insulting on this board. -Staff]

Conceivably, they could begin work on a bond and then wait until the snapshot day in October to see what those numbers are. Those are not projections but actual registered students per campus IIRC. That would give them the opportunity to weigh tabling the bond til spring or later or putting it on the ballot in November (except I can't recall if that is feasible or not). If Consol is way undercapacity (2300 is around what it will hold?) then some hard discussions need to take place.

This seems a bit harsh.
Of course the school will still be over capacity this fall. Changing zones is never an overnight fix, unless no one is grandfathered at all.
For the record, I was against the decision to not grandfather the 8th graders last year. However, I did understand that if they did not then the plan to help with capacity was a year closer to being in full effect - which I would imagine will be in 3-4 years when the school is full with the new zones - not just one class. Or two.
If this going on again in a year or two then it's a flop. See the previous one!
Not looking up the numbers now but from what recall from a few months ago, the next few years look good. I will be surprised if we see this again anytime soon.

I too would be somewhat surprised if we see this again anytime soon. That being said I bet there is at least one thread a month complaining about it until the next rezoning.

I'm confused as to what's harsh. I'm not making a judgement, I'm just posting the facts. These are their own enrollment numbers (oogway is correct, I shouldn't have said "projection") CSHS stays over capacity and Consol remains well under (rezone didn't resolve any of that). False claims by the board. 2081 is greater than 1950 (my Consol education taught me that!) I suppose a bunch of families could move out of town in the next couple years and enrollment actually go down, but really? BTW, rezoning Middle and Int School this past year was "triggered" to rezone by FC Local this year (based on comparable composition) but CSISD chose to ignore that. Seems they will only use their Fc local policy when they want to.

Edit to add: numbers do NOT look good next few years. They continue to rise at CSHS each year. And Grandfathering didn't make a difference one way or the other (except to those families affected of course)

I'll try again.

I do believe calling rezoning a flop because CSHS is still over capacity is harsh. When a rezone occurs it is never considered to be an overnight "fix". Just because it comes into effect in a certain year, the older classes are still, for the most part, unchanged.

There is no way I am going to look up every set of numbers from the last few years, but the numbers from December was very easy to find.

My premise going in is that CSHS was over capacity and growing at a rate that was far more than AMCHS, That's pretty easy. One was over capacity. One was under.

I am NOT talking about the process or grandfathering. But, to say that the result was a flop seems disingenuous.

Going strictly off numbers - and my weekend is much worse for looking this up.

18/19
AMC - 1763
CSHS - 2009

19/20 - first year supposedly implemented
AMC - 1991
CSHS - 1946
\
20/21
AMC - 2060
CSHS - 2014 - I can hear it now. The numbers have gone up. +5 in 2 years. AMC?+300

21/22
AMC - 2180
CSHS - 2098

22/23
AMC - 2283
CSHS - 2194 - the first year that it is shaded red - didn't dig deep enough to see when a bond would asked for but bet it's around here.

23/24
AMC - 2396
CSHS - 2246

According to those numbers, it seems to accomplish what they wanted. Use the room at AMC. I never heard they wanted to gut CSHS.

As far as the 5-8 numbers that "trigger" a process, it's really 5-6.

I'm not posting 7-8 but they looked excellent.

The issue with 5-6 was SES. As I've heard it explained, it does not mean they have to do anything in particular. I'll lean on Oogway on that one.

Having seen enough rezonings around here I also know they are always more concerned about ses in the older grades than younger. I would bet we don't see 5-8 rezoned for many years as well.

Some in this thread talked about hopefully not needing to open another high school until 2030. At first glance I thought that was very wishful thinking. Looking at the numbers. Maybe. If a second part of CSHS is built around 2024 I can see that date maybe happening. Much would depend on the success of the ILT high school as well. Certainly, it will not speed up the process.

With that said, I can not wait to watch the video from this week. Sarcasm does not communicate well here, also. I typically watch within a few days but this was much longer than normal and looked quite boring. Gladly passed. Looking forward to seeing the controversial comments in context.

Edit: to add that I'm not sure how grandfathering does not matter. Of course, as mentioned, to the families.
I think the 8th graders should have been grandfathered. But, if they were, the first class to enter the high schools would be the 8th graders now, or from last week. That maters to the numbers.
The 58 number everyone was throwing around was the difference between attendance numbers in te two schools if they waited a year.
In the numbers posted, the biggest jump in attendance numbers is next year. Each year after, they both creep up, with AMC going up a little bit more each year.