Wow, are we having fun yet?
I aparently ruffled some feathers tonight - I guess I got worked up about plans that accomplished little of the board's goals, and only benefited the school that was proposing them.
That being said - I heard from many parents tonight who are concerned about my push for additional relief for Mills beyond the 100 students who will be moved as a part of Plan "0".
Here's the thought process behind why we pushed for more relief:
1) Mrs. Butler said she needed additional relief to make the school function at its best. Currently, we are "functioning" at 131% of functional capacity and 124% of permanent capacity.
2) If we only move 100 students from Mills, the school's membership drops to around approximately 1000, but our school was built for 836. (That 1000 includes transfers - which is between 117-119%).
3) Impact on Special Areas: Mills would probably lose additional special area staff. Right now, we have 3 part-time teachers who come and teach special area classes, because we are so large. This prevents us from combining classes for art, music and p.e. If we drop our numbers just a little, we lose the staff and students will have to combine classes for special areas - and we will likely have 45 to a class again. Remember last year?
4) Moving only 100 students does little to offset transfers, which are likely to grow next year, as incoming 5th graders are grandfathered, along with their siblings. Transfers currently stand at 71. Once granted, a transfer is good for the life of a student's elementary career. So that number is not dropping.
5) Anyone see a tornado drill lately? The kids are stacked 3 deep on both sides of the halls - that's not likely to change much either.
6) With 100 students as relief, Mills is not likely to see the number of classrooms drop right away. Remember, Mills has no more room for portables.
Lisa and I weighed all these factors when asking for additional relief. However, we don't feel that asking for more relief opens us up to move across tracking lines. (and we know some of you disagree.)
So, we'd like you to weigh in:
- Should we only support Plan "0", which moves 100 students from Mills?
- Should we push for additional relief that is consistent with our existing tracking patterns to middle school?
The next boundary meeting is Wednesday, November 18.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an inherently contentious process that forces people to be self-interested at some level, blowing to bits the collegial atmosphere that the task force hoped to have. Fun was never a possibility.
ReplyDeleteAs a member of the task force you have some charge to pursue the best for the region and for the school. But methinks that your main obligation is to each parent in the current Mills boundary, to weigh all the desires and then, in your own way, to make tactical and strategic choices that push towards all these goals (no matter how disparate), and certainly prevents anyone from being completely thrown under the bus. Not a fun job! You have done admirably, I think, in all these areas. Keep listening and being open, and keep encouraging all of us to do our part.
Mike Fair
Michelle and Lisa,
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand and appreciate the need to manage student load at Mills, I'm quite disappointed that you all have chosen to back the plan put forward by Devlin @ Clayton. Under his proposal, students from the NW side of the Mills boundary (Heights of Loma Vista and other areas) would be forced into a situation where they have to travel quite a distance - further than it would be to Mills, Kiker, or Clayton in order to attend the new elementary school. For some of these students, Mills is (literally) visible from their backyard.
To be forced into a situation where they have to travel several miles to school when there is a school in their backyard and two close alternatives really does not make much sense.
The new elementary school is closer to both Clayton and Kiker. Why not shift some of those students into the new school and allow a small set of Mills students to attend one of those schools? Surely it's possible to shift students around in such a manner that they can continue to attend a *nearby* neighborhood school while alleviating overcrowding and maintaining tracking.
Please reconsider your support for Devlin's plan and consider alternatives that meet the objectives while absolutely minimizing the impact on students currently tracking to Mills.
Mike - If our main obligation is to each parent in the current Mills boundary, how do you reconcile that one neighborhood wants one thing, even at the expense of another?
ReplyDeleteThat's why we came up with the priority list. And that is why my own neighborhood was cut first. No one seems to have any consideration that I have cut my own neighborhood out of Mills. Do you know what that's like? Do you know what it's like to explain to your own kid that he won't be able to attend the school he's been going to since he was a year old - (older siblings) because his mother made that decision?
Randy, I encourage you to run the numbers on a plan that you think is workable - and give it to me, I'll look at any plan. But know that on the parent priority of "location" you're on the losing end of that argument - with a bus, you are the furthest commute from Mills. I'm sorry - everyone's close. Someone else is a tiny bit closer than you.
Neither of you are answering my question - push for more relief or back off?
The Mills community said 7:1 that they wanted to stay at Mills. I say keep with Plan 0. Plan 0 relieves Mills of 100 students and brings our percentages down to an acceptable level.
ReplyDeletestaci
My vote is for Plan 0, moving only the minimum of students necessary to get Mills population withing district guidelines. 100 students is 10% of the population. Plus the population is projected to slowly decline in the next few years. I REALLY don't like the idea of moving out more residents to make room for transfers.
ReplyDeleteI have to commend Michelle and Lisa for doing such a good job representing us. I attended the meeting tonight and was impressed with their knowledge and understanding of the entire process.
We have a BIG push from Boone to annex much of Mills boundary area. So Mills parents would do well to come to the last meeting next Wed.
I also have to commend Michelle for putting the greater good of the school over her own and her families interests.
ReplyDeleteTonight, the Boone reps suggested adding the areas slated to go to Kiker back into the Mills group and taking out a HUGE chunk of our Eastern border.
Michelle was the first voice I heard protest the plan. (or was it Lisa) Either way. It takes it takes scruples to put your own kids placement aside. THANK YOU!
Lisa,
ReplyDeleteYou say Mills is projected to decrease - but only 25 kids over 5 years. It's not much - I'd describe it as "stabilize" the population. You're going to be overcrowded for a while, if we leave it at 100 kids. (which is actually, technically 9%).
Thanks for chiming in.
My fear is that if we don't push for more relief now then we'll be back in this same position two or three years from now. It seems better to bite the bullet now and get all the kids at great, well-populated schools aligned with current tracking patterns rather than languish on the edge of bursting for a few years only to go through this painful process yet again. It's bitter medicine and it is sad to see it happen, but it is impossible to see the results of the overcrowding at the school and not feel something has to change it.
ReplyDeleteMichelle, good for you and Lisa for pushing for more relief for Mills (and by the way, as you know, we also live in Vintage Place and don't want to move, but will). I have my own thoughts about who should move, but whatever happens they should do something, in this process, to take care of this problem.
ReplyDeleteIt's been said, but should be said again that LIsa and Michelle are doing a great service to this community, and it's great to see them dedicate their time and energy to this process selflessly. To get right down to it, I would vote to keep Plan 0, as it does bring Mills relief in a way that is very logical but doesn't destroy tracking patterns and communities. It allows Circle C kids to go to excellent schools and Villages of Western Oaks/ Western Oaks kids to go to an excellent school. I also do understand the desire to modify the plan and have a few students go to the new SWES, which is going to open it's doors as an exemplary school, no doubt. THat is going to be an excellent school right out of the gate. Whatever we do, we all need to stick together to prevent tearing away sections of Villages of Western Oaks to go across town to Boone. There is very little logic in that in terms of proximity and tracking. So, stick with Plan 0, or a slightly modified version which keeps the focus on making sure everyone who used to go to Mills attends an equally great elementary school.
ReplyDeleteMichelle, first of all, thank you. I think you responded quite appropriately to an insulting bargaining position put forth by Boone. I think the permanent rep (was it Mauro?) was out of line with her hypocritical slap at your supposed lack of diplomacy. Sometimes you have to call them as you see them.
ReplyDeleteI spoke to Ms. Waites afterward and (somewhat non-diplomaticly) explained to her that her proposal made a hash of tracking. She did ask a few questions, so I'm pretty sure she absorbed the concept. I also pointed out to her that her proposal would have Legend Oaks people driving past Mills every day on their way to Boone. They did not take the care that you and the Mills team have done in respecting neighborhoods. Thanks again.
--Matthew
More relief now, where we have some semblance of control over where the children can go. Although I am sick at losing ANY of our Mills families, VP and PP going from Mills to Kiker and LV from Mills to Meridian means our kids would go to excellent schools and keep existing tracking. But moving Mills kids to Boone is not apples to apples, AND it screws up tracking. The northern boundary folks have been the go-to group to move around for many years, most recently the whole SWMS debacle. So that group needs to be left alone this go-round, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteCritical question: When Boone proposed to take away the neighborhoods west of Mopac, what was the reaction? Did it seem like Boone was going to get support for taking away any of those neighborhoods? One thing I fear is that if we keep raising the mantra, "More relief now!" that makes Boone's point. As another poster said, my neighborhood has already been the go-to group to move around and the last one was traumatic. (Kicking us out of the new middle school). We are very happy with Mills then Small then Bowie, and Boone just makes no sense. To everyone who went, thanks for the reports- swine flu is no fun! Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI say more relief NOW. 100 kids will not solve our overcrowding issues, it might hold it back for a year or 2 then we are right back where we are now. I hate the thought of losing any kids to another school but for us to function in our common areas at Mills we need the relief. It is unfortunate that we have so many transfers and we have to cut additional students out because of that. But it is what it is, there is nothing we can do about the # of transfers so we have to make the additional cuts. Yes i know it sucks!
ReplyDeleteRandy, my neighborhood is slated to attend Small so I know how it feels to be cut out. I can see Gorzycki from my front yard yet my kids will have to ride a bus to Small. Is that fair? Maybe not but location doesn't seem to matter in these boundary processes.
I feel that we need to make cuts to keep with our tracking, to me, Boone is out of the question.
It's interesting to think about why a school's numbers become low over time, why they go under capacity. How should a district deal with that issue? Simply changing the boundaries to fix it seems like the classic way of avoiding the issue and just forcing a quick solution.
ReplyDeleteI'm in the northern boarder and strongly support plan 0 and oppose tracking alignment that would send us to Patton. Here are my reasons:
ReplyDelete- Tracking was given a very low priority in the Mills survey.
- The alignment of the northern section to Small was illogical and did not benefit those residents. Using it now as a basis to move them out of Mills adds more insult to the unfairness of that decision.
- Many other relief plans at least keep students in equivalent schools within the same community. Moving anyone to Patton (or Boone) would likely result in new soccer leagues, little leagues and the inability to visit friends without parents driving them.
I too agree that Lisa and Michelle have been great!
Michelle, I snapped at you after the meeting last night, and I shouldn't have. My emotions are high on this issue, and I apologize that I directed them at you.
ReplyDeleteYou described my concerns (fears?) in your post: "We don't feel that asking for more relief opens us up to move across tracking lines. (and we know some of you disagree.)." I talked with the Boone reps last night after the meeting, and their first comment to me was that they have heard Mills concerns about overcrowding and wanted to show through their proposal that the issue can be addressed on the Boone side as well. I know how you and Lisa feel about the importance of tracking, but I don't know how other task force members weigh that issue.
In answer to your question, I would support seeking additional relief with the caveat you included that it be consistent with existing tracking patterns. I would prefer Plan 0 over a tracking pattern change.
Michelle-
ReplyDeleteThank you for helping me to understand better what an additional reduction of 50-75 students means to the operations at Mills. I am supportive of seeking additional relief if it does not mean leaving a few kids at Mills or taking a few kids to another school that have a different tracking pattern than their peers. My hope would be to keep neighborhoods intact and tracking patterns aligned. I believe Plan 0 or Plan 2 accomplish that, with Plan 2 alleviating more of the overcrowding. If however the only alternative to reduce overcrowding that is acceptable to other Task Force members would disrupt feeder patterns and split neighborhoods apart, I would rather deal with the overcrowding.
I hope you know that many of us recognize that your family is greatly impacted by this and we appreciate your work for the whole community even when it is difficult for your personally.
@David - No problem. I was emotional last night too, and could have been calmer when dealing with Boone. It's very difficult NOT to get worked up. I feel like we are "threading the needle" on this - with few acceptable options for our parents.
ReplyDeleteBecca - Lisa and I agree, if we can't get Plan 2, or some version/compromise of it, then we will be satified with Plan 0, knowing that the Mills community would rather be overcrowded than have children move out of tracking. We get that and we made a decision a month or more ago that we would not support any child moving out of their established tracking. (which is one reason why we were moving that one section back to OH last night in Plan2)
We want you all to realize that there are consequences to all these decisions - positives and negatives. Lisa and I hope that the blog helps you stay informed as we work through these issues. We have to be of one voice, or we will lose.
Right now, what I'm hearing from you all is more relief, if we can accomplish it within existing tracking patterns. That is what we've been saying for the past 3 meetings, but maybe I didn't say it enough last night.
I didn't mean to whine about my own family situation but I'm guess I wanted to make the point that everyone's going to have to make compromises to solve overcrowding.
The sooner we agree on the cuts, the sooner we can talk about grandfathering, but we can't offer a comprehensive grandfathering plan with a reduction of only 100 students.
Great job Michelle & Lisa! Ya'll are catching it from every side right now and absolutely don’t deserve to catch stuff from within Mills. Don't let it get to you.
ReplyDeleteMy preference would be to reduce Mills by another 60-75 kids on top the 100 that shifted to Kiker -- PROVIDED that the reduction could be made within existing feeder patterns. Ideally, I liked the plan put forth by Clayton's rep last night. It hits our target reduction numbers right on the bulls-eye and maintains tracking patters for all of us. In addition, looking at the numbers for all the schools involved the Clayton proposal achieves every one of the goals put forth by the FUBTF. Only thing that raised a question was opening the SWES was a slightly high percentage over the target of 75%. BUT I think when you take into account 4th graders being grandfathered at their current school, that number will be reduced automatically and the target would be met.
As to the comment above about the Boone Principal's kids attending Mills.....it should be pointed out that the family lives in the Mills attendance zone about 1/2 mile from the school. They're a good family and their attendance at Mills should not be a part of the boundary discussions – it’s not fair.
Michelle, I completely agree with your summary: more relief, if we can accomplish it within existing tracking patterns.
ReplyDeleteMany have already said this, but we truly appreciate your and Lisa's efforts on behalf of our school. Let us know how we can help you thread the needle.
The term threading the needle is appropriate in many ways. For me personally, the goal should be for the Mills family to balance the needs appropriately. Clearly overcrowding is bad, and 100% would be perfect. But sending me to a school 2 or 3 steps down is also bad. For many, tracking problems are bad. For some, community cohesiveness is good. The desire of many to be at Mills, even if they have to stand in the halls, is perfect. Going to a school the are comfortable with is good.
ReplyDeleteAs you alluded to, the perfect is the enemy of the good, especially when there are bad side effects at stake. Thread the needle indeed, and this blog is a wonderful summary and measure of the many diverse thresholds that each of us have for change and pain. Airing these is good, and gives AISD some picture of the breadth of concerns.
It can't be said more clearly than the above, at least not without making inflammatory statements. Perhaps we are there already, indeed the underlying set of prickly issues is clear in all these comments, and has all of us (and the other neighborhoods as well) on edge.
ReplyDeleteBut I would like to make clear that, in my opinion, it is fair to move one street to help the whole, but only to the extent of paint that that minority is prepared to accept. As of this moment, Boone's reps have a proposal on the table that grossly violates this. Mike
Okay, I'm catching up quickly on this so my apologies if I have concerns that have already been addressed.
ReplyDeleteI live in the Heights of Loma Vista and have not been involved in these boundary meetings (aside from filling out the PTA survey). I didn't feel the need to speak up on my neighborhood's behalf because I never felt we would be in jeopardy of being moved due to our proximity to Mills. Apparently I was wrong.
Please do not confuse the Heights of Loma Vista with Loma Vista Estates! These are two entirely different neighborhoods in different locations and with different HOAs. While Loma Vista estates is bussed (I believe, not positive on that), the Heights is much closer and in walking distance to Mills. We are closer than many other neighborhoods that feed into Mills. In fact, it's a straight walk or bike ride down Davis. We do not cross Escarpment, have to get on Slaughter, or even go through other neighborhoods. In fact, to bus my children out of our neighborhood to another school, the bus would have to pass in front of Mills to even get out of our neighborhood.
The Heights of Loma Vista is less than 1 mile away from Mills. I am at least 5 miles away from Meridian. Why do I suddenly feel like this is not enough to attend Mills?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete@Shelly: all of our Mills boundary is within a 2 mile radius. Even though this is an important value of our school, it is not on the Task Force's criteria to consider. We, as Mills Reps, have been considering this in our suggestions. Granada Hills is closer to Clayton, but they are being moved to the SWES. We have to balance our schools.
ReplyDeleteMichelle & Lisa
ReplyDeleteFirst off I would like to say thanks for everything you have done so far. I too like Plan 2 and agree with your reply to Becca.
If I am not mistaken, Plan 0 does not have Cowan with a color on the map. If this is true, I would like to make a request that Cowan gets a color. I feel that by not having a color it gives the impression that they should not be included in the discussions pertaining to helping Boone and Sunset Valley. When in fact, I think Cowan should be the first section to look at when helping out Boone. If you look at taking section 395A and moving it to Boone, I believe that gives Boone 80% permanent capacity and Cowan 79% permanent capacity for the 2013 - 2014 year. Plus this area already tracks to Covington MS along with the rest of the Boone areas.
@Chad: Excellent point. Your right....they are not on there. We will let AISD staff know about this. Cowan has requested that their boundaries not changes. However, they are in the same tracking as Boone, and have kids that could be moved there. We haven't brought that up yet, but will if we need to. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know when Plan 2 will be made available to view? I have seen several referencees to it here, but have not seen the actual plan. Thanks.
ReplyDelete@Shelly: please see the October 20th, Archive blog post about Location. Michelle and I have been extremely upfront with the Mills community that any area could be considered to move, except the houses directly adjacent to Mills. We have spoken publicly and privately on this exact topic, and how difficult of a position Mills is in. Now the trick is to balance the needs of our parents while meeting the Task Force criteria. It will be impossible is the Mills community will not give at all.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they intend to make those public, since it was put to us as a brainstorming session. Basically, it would take 81 kids from Loma Vista Estates and Loma Vista Heights along with a handful of kids from sections bordering 1826 and send those to SWES (the new school). The plan also moves the 57 students from Oak Hill slated in Plan 0 to attend the SWES back to Oak Hill.
ReplyDeleteWe're hearing from Loma Vista Heights that this is not something they would like, but any additional relief is going to take children who can walk to Mills and put them on a bus to another school. This plan is consistent with the priorities that the parents gave us in the survey, along with satisfying established tracking patterns.
The other option is to stay overcrowded with Plan 0, unless another neighborhood voluntarily asks to leave. Anyone?
The task force leadership initially insisted on establishing and honoring the 4 criteria. Since this included stability, Cowan got an automatic pass. Lisa can describe the history of how this happened.
ReplyDeleteNow, however, proposals have been formally made that do great injustice to the tracking criteria, as well as the criteria to not affect an unreasonable number of students (e.g. 300 from Mills, 200 from Travis Country).
In my view, this opens the door to Cowan being required to give some ground on the stability issue. Therefore, I think they should get a color. Shall we start with Sendera?
I have detailed notes of the proposals from the various schools, though I'm sure there are some missing and some errors. I will attempt to create a map showing what is currently on the table.
ReplyDeleteMike
Thank you Lisa for addressing my post. I will read back in the Archive and get up to speed. Again, I'm still trying to catch up as are many in my neighborhood. I had heard chatter around school about VP, PP and even other neighborhoods on the other side of Escarpment, but not ours. Should not have assumed. But given the forum here on this blog, and asking for feedback on the plans, here you go.
ReplyDeleteAnd by pointing out the HOLV's proximity of less than one mile (while others are closer to 2), I also wanted to point out how easy our proximity is to the school. We do not cross major intersections, or cut through neighborhoods. We pass Mills getting in and out of our subdivision. I just can't fathom passing an elementary school that's walkable, to attend another by bus that's so far away.
I hope you will consider those items as well. It is much easier to walk or bike to Mills from HOLV than some other neighborhoods that feed into Mills. My biggest concern is that people will assume that if Loma Vista is bussed (and I'm not sure they do, a post above seemed to indicate that), The Heights has a need for a bus as well, and that's just not the case. We have a very safe and direct route to school that many families in our neighborhood take advantage of.
Thanks for hearing me out and now I'll start catching up on archives!
The Estates of Loma Vista is divided into two sections, one of which is bused to Mills and one which is not. The closer section (Twilight Shadow) is less than 1 mile from Mills and is very easy to get to Mills. The kids can easily walk or ride their bikes from Twilight Shadow. Putting this section of the Estates of Loma Vista and the Heights of Loma Vista to the new school is nuts and it is not a durable districting. It begs to be redistricted again because it makes not geographic sense.
ReplyDeleteWe chose to live where we did partly so that our kids could walk/bike to Mills and Gorynski.
I appreciate what you're saying, William, but all of our neighborhoods are close - and all of our neighborhoods are in walking and biking distance of Mills.
ReplyDeleteAnd all of us chose to live here because we could easily walk/bike to local schools. Doesn't change the fact that we're overcrowded.
So, let us know your vote - Plan 0, and be overcrowded, or push for more relief, and yes, that relief is going to send a group of kids who can walk to school on a bus to another school. I know I'm repeating myself.
I vote for more relief. Again, thanks for Michelle and Lisa's efforts. Really appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteAs someone in an area that might be considered to move for a school that does not have as great a track record as Mills, I would cast my vote for any plan that moves Mills students (where ever they live)only to schools of equal quality, which likely includes the new school, as another poster mentioned. No one wants to leave Mills, but I would feel better about it if I knew I was going to another historically great school. In my situation, that is not an option. For those who might move to another great school, does it sound like I am throwing you under the big yellow school bus because I want to stay at a great school too? I am sorry if it does, but since we know that some Mills kids will go, let's support each other by making sure everyone stays or moves at an equally great school. So, to answer the initial question, I liked Plan 0, but Plan 2 sounds like a good option too, speaking for myself. It's SO hard not to be selfish! Especially when another option might send me to a school that does not have as good a reputation. (Yes, I know they all have their merits etc etc)
ReplyDeleteCan anyone post plan 2 map? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI suggest asking everyone in Mills the question: "if Mills had 1100 students each year for the foreseeable future, how many years would you choose to send your kid there?" Or: "at what attendance level would you request a transfer out of Mills?"
ReplyDeleteMy answer is 6 years, and 1300 kids.
That is to say, in the current state of the FUBTF discussion, I have to vote PlanZero.
The best solution is for 300-500 families in Mills to be active in pushing proposals that are mutually acceptable.
We need to be creative and honest, and it is refreshing to me that many of the comments here have been.
Michelle, I would like you to stand pat on Plan 0. While it is incredible what Principle Butler has had to do to keep all of our kids in a seat at Mills, Plan 0 will achieve the long term goal of eliminating overcrowding at Mills. Grandfathering does delay the ultimate goal of student reduction but it is only a delay. Look at Kiker. It was once overcrowded but is now looking for numbers.
ReplyDeleteOnce all possible development around a school is complete student numbers will eventually stabilize and then decline. Plan 0 correctly anticipates the peak population at Mills and provides a sustainable middle and long term population. You need to consider the numbers without any grandfathered students; that will be the situation in 6 years with peak rates of reduction happening in as little as 3 years.
The reason Mills got into the trouble it has found itself with student population after the boundary debate of Clayton, had to do with the fact development was still going on within the boundaries. We all managed to underestimate what that development would mean to the Mills population. But that was then. Mills should now look like Kiker. With Plan 0 Mills will be placed on a trajectory with peak numbers that are high but acceptable in the short term with declining numbers in the long term.
I think a consideration for all of the various Loma Vista subdivision, if moved to SWES, is the fact that they can be bussed out through the neighborhood to 1826. It's true that certain portion of the Heights at Loma Vista are well within walking distance to Mills, but as pointed out, the majority of our attendance area is walkable.
ReplyDeleteIt must be understood that Michelle and Lisa have the unenviable position of acting in the best interest of Mills. The question on the table is whether to stop at plan 0 - which requires sacrificing a portion of our Mills family, in exchange for which Mills receives little discernible relief, and loses valuable teaching and volunteer resources - or push for further, deliberate cuts determined by Mills in order to make the sacrifice Plan 0 requires actually worth it.
I understand that no plan is perfect, but Plan 0 looks like a very reasonable map.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear: I support Plan 0.
Yes, there will be some overcrowding, but that may be a necessary evil.
The comments of chipdoctor and Fairdealer above are quite cogent!
put simply, I support plan 0 as well.
ReplyDeleteMichelle and Lisa, thank you for all your hard work! I would also would like to see relief at Mills, if tracking could stay intact. We are in our last year at Mills, and still have 3 years until our little one starts Kindergarten, so I am prepared to start over at a different school. I would not support a move to Boone at all.
ReplyDeleteI support Plan 0, but would support a plan that relieves a little more overcrowding WITHOUT breaking tracking to send kids across town to Boone.
ReplyDeleteMichelle and Lisa - First, I'll chime in with everyone else that I think you guys are doing a wonderful job of informing us and representing Mills in this process. Unfortunately it looks like from reading all the posts, you are getting a very divided answer to your question but I will offer mine up.
ReplyDeleteI vote for more relief for a couple of reasons. 1) I still don't know that I buy that over the next 5 or so years that the population of Mills will decrease as they predict. While I do see alot of the kids in my neighborhood moving out of elementary school, there seem to be an equal number of younger families moving in. So I think that while there is no new development, as older families move out, younger ones move in and this will keep the population numbers just as high as they are now. 2) I think the number of transfers at Mills will grow for the next several years. Not only will you have 4th graders and their siblings who will get grandfathered, you will have a good number of people currently at Mills who qualify for a priority transfer who will likely apply to stay at Mills. So while there are 70ish transfers this year, I think you could see well over 100 transfers next year. So moving out 100 students really has done no good since they will have been offset by a good number of transfers. So I would support finding more relief provided that it honors tracking and keeps all our kids at high performing schools.
The dialogue and comments have been great. Michelle and Lisa, this is a difficult process you have undertaken and would not wish to trade positions with you, as someone is going to left out or placed at the edge (pun intended) of decision, but I feel with fairness and logic this problem can be finalized. Good Luck
ReplyDeleteMy $0.02 worth....I live in Heights of Loma Vista and have to strongly agree with Randy's logic in that it makes no sense to make someone drive a long distance to attend a particular elementary school so that children in Kiker and Circle C schools that are closer to the new elementary school can stay where they are currently at. The common response in this blog I hear to this argument is... well it happens all over, in that I live close to a school and I have to drive a long distance is a irrelevant conclusion to the proximity argument and should not be a excuse to keep perpetuating this fallacy. The schools are set up such that they fulfill the educational requirements of the local populous. That is why we continue to build new schools in growing areas and close down others. The possible legal precedence here is that it could be argued that when someone who lives close to a school is forced to drive long distances so that someone who lives further way can stay within the school boundaries, can and has be found to be an arbitrary or capricious action. No one has even touched upon the costs of busing children....no wonder my property taxes are so high! I am all for relief, but if children are to be moved then all the boundaries need to be addressed and those that live closest to a particular elementary should go to that elementary. As a possible suggestion, draw on a map a 1 (2, 3 or whatever) mile loop around the school and children within that circle will displace those that are outside that circle. Those outside the circle then have to fit into other school boundary circles or they get bused. This seems the most fair and non arbitrary or capricious process. I fail at the present time to find any valid argument that allows for someone who lives 5 miles away from a school to displace someone who lives 1 mile from the school.
In closing, it makes no sense financially or location wise to have any children bused when then can walk, ride their bike or have their parents drop them off. What happened to the green movement...we are spending money and generating green house gases...LOL... busing children when they can walk/bike. Please provide the relief to the schools, but please make sure that people that live the closest to the school are allowed to displace those that live further away. Move the boundaries for everyone to make the proximity to schools the deciding factor. Everyone who is in walking/biking distance should go to that particular school and move all the boundaries to facilitate this logic, because without this pathway of logic, in opinion, it is left to emotion and wasted money.
I support the Plan 0 option.
With many of these comments being made about staying over crowded these comments must come from people who are not up at school very often to see how the over crowded situation affects the daily running of Mills. Right now all 1100 kids are squished in the gym and cafeteria for the Veterns Day sing a long. Let us hope there is no emergency that would cause the school to evacuate.
ReplyDeleteI do not want my child to be in a special area class that has 35 students, or even a classroom that is maxed out at 22 with 8 additional classes in that grade. Children are falling through the cracks with classes this large and that is a shame. Lunch starts at 10:25 and ends at 1:15 and the cafeteria can barely keep up with the demand. Our children only get library class time every other week because we simply have too many students/classes.
So yes I will say again, I vote we reduce our numbers more then Plan 0 has as long as we stay within our tracking.
If Mills is still over crowded when this boundary process ends doesn't make much sense. If it's OK to be over crowded then let's keep our Vintage Place and Park Place kids.
ReplyDeleteI agree with further reduction in the Mills population provided that those students who are moved will stay within our tracking and also will also attend schools of the same caliber. Boone clearly does not fit this category.
ReplyDeleteI vote for Plan 0 and for giving Cowan a color!
ReplyDeleteI just spent some time on the TEA website looking at school ratings history.
ReplyDeleteWithout seeing being able to see the alternatives to Plan 0, it's hard to say whether I support Plan 0 or looking to more relief. But if any alternative to Plan 0 involves moving Mills kids to Boone or Patton, I say let's stand pat. If there is a reasonable solution that allows more Mills kids to access to SWES, Kiker or Clayton, I would support that.
Well, here I go. As I said earlier, our family is in Vintage Place and, although we don't want to move to Kiker, we figure we will have to. So in a way it frees me up to speak more freely, because there's less self-interest.
ReplyDeleteMills need more relief than Plan 0 will provide. I support moving more kids out of Mills, regardless of tracking. That would mean sending about 100 kids from the Villages to Boone, in addition to sending VP and PP to Kiker.
I know that's very unpopular and not what our reps plan to advocate, but to me it makes a lot more sense than having kids from Loma Vista go to SWES. Boone needs kids and the Villages are only about a 5 minute drive away from it. It's an Exemplary school and tracking was one of the whole Mills community's least important criteria.
I don't think the tracking issue should be the dispositive criterion in this discussion. To those of you in the Villages, my apologies, but I don't want it thought that everyone at Mills agrees with one of those two plans.
Let's keep in mind that this is a place to discuss ideas. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but let's not get personal or drag individual families into the fray. Thanks in advance for keeping this a mature discussion about what's best for our school.
ReplyDelete@John - what you say is extraordinarily sensible and I'd be the first to say of course someone 1 mile away should have precedence over someone 5 miles away. Unfortunately AISD has shown repeatedly that proximity is not a primary concern. This became abundantly clear during last year's contentious MS boundary issue.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Judy. If we say we are okay with our present situation, then we should also say we want to keep VP and CCN and the other areas currently slated to be moved.
At today's assembly the children were seated from the edge of the stage to within 5 feet of the back wall of the gym. It took almost 30 minutes to clear the room completely. This is not something that can be fixed by losing 100 kids. If we are really interested in relieving Mills, more cuts are needed. And I say that knowing that the next cut will be my neighborhood and that I have no recourse for transfer back.
Question: Cowan has 2 members serving on the FUBTF, their boundaries are not colored in on the map, and none of the proposals have changed their borders in any way....Does Cowan have 2 FUBTF votes on the final map that's produced?
ReplyDeleteJust two cents from a Vintage Place mom who's already beginning to dread the likely loss of Mills in her family's life ... Our 100 (from VP and Park Place) simply isn't enough. Something (someone, really) else is going to have to give in order to give Mills the overcrowding relief it desperately needs.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a *huge* deal for our family to have to leave Mills -- our 5th-grade daughter has been there her whole elementary career, so we're devastated to have our 1st-grade son facing the possibility of switching schools. But we do understand why it may be necessary.
That said, if our sacrifice (and it is one) is in vain because other moves aren't made to really solve the problem, then why not just keep us all at an already overcrowded Mills - where we may be squooshed, but happy??
I vote on Map 0 or 2. I feel part of the Villages of Westen Oaks has a lot to loose if our kids are sent to Boone. I wish my choices were Kiker, Clayton or the new school. Dividing up our neighborhood does nothing but breaks up our community and drive down our home values. Who can tell me this will happen to your home if you are zoned for another school besides Boone?
ReplyDeleteThe Villages of Western Oaks takes great pride in our togetherness as a neighborhood. Annually, the HOA will host a 4th of July parade which starts at Mills Elementary and ends at Dick Nichols Park. The HOA also assists with the Karst Preserve Cave Day, which is held every October in our community. Most importantly, our association is committed to Mills Elementary as our neighborhood school. Our Board has spent thousands of dollars over the years for safety improvements and aesthetics around the Mills Elementary area. What other neighborhood has stepped up to this task? We are proud to have Mills Elementary call the New Villages at Western Oaks its home.
I could be persuaded to agree with Hank, in that it might be fine if the 200+ Mills kids represented by all the various proposals ... went to Kiker.
ReplyDeleteMike Fair
Thank you Lisa & Michelle for all of your hard work.
ReplyDeleteI support pushing for more relief. Plan 0 does not, in my opinion, provide sufficient relief to keep Mills functioning most effeciently. I do not support a plan that would send any of our Mills' students to Boone or Patton due to the distance of travel and the historical performance of those schools. I believe that Mills can get the relief that it needs by relying on Kiker, Clayton and SWES all of which academically perform as well as Mills.
As much sense as "drawing a circle" seems to make, it will not help as all of Mills' current student population falls within a 2 mile radius of the school. The students who currently ride busses to the school do this due to the safety of the roads that they must travel to get to the school not because of distance. Unfortunately, there is no way to meet the needs of Mills as a whole without causing pain to some.
If the consensus is to NOT push for additional relief then I believe that we may as well not make any changes to Mills' boundaries at all. It seems unfair to me to ask our VP and PP students to make the sacrifice of moving to a different school when it will not be enough to achieve the needed relief.
Clearly it makes more sense to get more relief by sending Loma Vista kids to the new SWES than our northern border kids to Boone. How could anyone ever argue otherwise? We're not fine as crowded as we are. Come to school sometime and see how unsafe the firedrills are. Talk to your kid about how hard it is to get any time in the library. PE is in the hall. Reading lessons in the stairwell. I don't understand why it sounds so awful to go to a nice new spacious school almost guaranteed to open exemplary. Anyone would have to be bused... Anyone. 100 sacrificial lambs from your Circle C brethren (VP & PP) isn't going to do it.
ReplyDeleteI know it's hard to see anything more than what you think will be the absolute best for your kids but you have to see how it looks to say that your kids can't get on a bus to go to another exemplary school but someone else's kids should get on a bus to go to Boone.
I'm a VP parent with no dog in this hunt (5th grader) but I'd like to see more eyes toward the common good.
I vote for additional relief - the 100 students from Plan 0 is not enough to relieve the overcrowding at Mills.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBut why The Heights of Loma Vista? Are you saying that the only way to keep some students out of Boone is by sending HOLV to SWES? Of all the neighborhoods that feed into Mills, why should this one go to the new school and not those that are further from Mills, or have easier access to the new school?
ReplyDeleteWhile some have stated that all schools are within 2 miles or are a walkable distance, I'm betting that most of the students from VP, PP, or the homes on the other side of Beckett from Mills do not walk or ride bikes. HOLV has one of the safest and most accessible walks/rides to Mills. Again, these kids do not cross intersections, cut through other neighborhoods or travel over 1 mile to get there. Why take them and put them on a bus on 1826/Hwy 45 as opposed to other neighborhoods that are further from Mills or have easier/safer access to SWES? I'm not trying to pick a fight or point fingers at other neighborhoods. I'm just trying to understand why HOLV?
I do get the overcrowding. I am in the school on a regular basis to see it firsthand, and I was there at the assembly today. I just think there should be other options than the neighborhoods that have the easiest access to Mills. One of the reasons I can be there often is because I'm so close (for goodness sakes I hear the morning announcements in my backyard). That will not be as easy of an option if we are moved to the Meridian.
HOLV consists of about 40 children that currently attend Mills. Is the tradeoff of removing these 40 children going to make that much of a difference? Enough of a difference to pull this small section out and bus them on highways past two other elementary schools? To have these 40 children attending school with kids who don't live near them? To attend another neighborhood's school?
I feel like this goes against everything we fought for during last year's middle school boundary meetings. We were initially against taking a small section of our population and sending them alone off to Small. Then we were against putting our kids on busses along 290 to get to Small.
I guess I just feel confused.
Just want to say we live on the other side of Beckett (and it is not 5 miles, it is less than 1 mile from Mills) and we walk 3 times a week. Our neighbors bike and walk as well. As someone said earlier, we are ALL close, we all walk and bike and skateboard and travel to school in an enviromentally conscience way.
ReplyDelete@Shelly: I don't think that anyone is saying that you don't have good points. I do believe that there may be no options, however. Sending HOLV to SWES keeps the entire neighborhood together and does not disrupt tracking patterns. What other suggestions do you have? What other neighborhood(s) can be moved to another school and still meet these criteria? I'm sure that Lisa and Michelle are open to hearing all possible options.
ReplyDelete@ Benita, I'm not sure if you are referring to me or not, but just in case I didn't say that the houses on the other side of Beckett are 5 miles away. I said that HOLV is at least 5 miles away from SWES.
ReplyDelete@Tracy - thanks for the response. I thought proximity and quality of education were much higher on the priorities submitted on the PTA surveys than tracking? I'm so conflicted with this because I feel like in order to prove that one neighborhood deserves to stay, you have to point out that another doesn't because that's just not the case. I guess what I'm looking at is safety and accessibility. LIke I said before, I feel our neighborhood has one of the shortest and safest commutes to Mills. Bussing us on 1826, then 45 turns that into the longest and most dangerous. What about neighborhoods that have easier access to 45 (ie closer to Mopac) going to SWES? Or neighborhoods north of our boundary going to Kiker where they can stay of highways altogether? I'll give it more thought, but off the top of my head, there you go. Quite honestly I didn't think anyone within our current boundary would be sent off to SWES. I didn't think AISD was interested in bussing people around like that anymore.
Oops I meant to say south of our boundary, meaning closer to Kiker, not north. Sorry I'm all flustered. I should just go to bed!
ReplyDeleteWelcome to politics, everyone!
ReplyDeleteMike
@Shelly You mention neighborhoods south of our "boundary" going to Kiker. There are neighborhoods being moved to Kiker - Vintage Place and Park Place are slated to move to Kiker - a total of about 100 children. That was included in Plan "0" that AISD staff proposed last week. Because you said you were late to the conversation, I just wanted to make sure you understood that had already happened. Kiker indicates they are happy with that move, but could not accomodate more children - certainly not the 70-80 Mills needs to reduce by in order to see real relief.
ReplyDeleteHere's how the numbers work out:
We're at a current population of 1100 students (yes, really). Our projected population without transfers for next year is: 1015 If we are able to reduce by 181 students, that moves us to 834 students (or just at 100% of capacity) but when you add our substancial transfers, you go back up to 905 (which is 108% of our capacity) and within the ideal range of our school. If we lose 25 kids over the course of 5 years, we still are in the range.
Now, if we were only to loose 100 kids - this is how the numbers break out. Our projected population would drop to 915 (or 109%) but then you add transfers and you're back up to 986 (116%) ((personally I think that number will go up next year, instead of down)) And if you lose 25 children over the next 5 years (due to population projections, and assuming transfers are the same) you're down to 961 or (114%) So, Mills will stay really full under Plan 0. Even if you subtract ALL transfers, Mills would stay at 106% of capacity.
The SWES plans to open at 75-81% - plus it's a small school built for 650 kids. Can you imagine how nice that would be?
I know the move is unthinkable for you - just as it was for me when we first started looking at this map. I moved into my neighborhood in order for my kids to attend Mills. Now, last week, I had to tell my second grader that he's going to change schools. He was fine. They will go to other great schools.
As Mike pointed out earlier, everyone has their own personal threashold for "pain" resulting from overcrowding before moving out of Mills. Frankly, I think our school is way too crowded.
@ Shelly - one more thing - read the boundary task force priorirties that I posted last month. They detail the priorities the task force is supposed to consider - these are DIFFERENT than the priorities set by Mills parents (which we are trying to honor.) But these are what all the boundary task force members are trying to abide by.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the slide show presentation from AISD, the projections for the 2013-14 school year under Plan 0 show Mills at 106% of capacity and SWES at 103% of capacity. It doesn't look like moving HOLV's 40 students out of Mills into SWES would make that significant of an impact. Why would AISD want to pull children out of a small neighborhood so close to a school only to bus them so far away to a school that is similar in capacity percentages. That makes no sense. And, it was my understanding that AISD does not take transfers into account when doing boundaries because the numbers are so volatile.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I don't think the trade-off is worth it in this scenario.
Also, I realize this is difficult for Park Place and Vintage Place. My daughter has several close friends (and so do I) in these neighborhoods and it's upsetting to see them go to another school. But, I can't compare that move to what you are asking HOLV to do. VP and PP are moving into Kiker that is nearby (possibly just as close to PP as Mills?) and within their neighborhood. They are moving with a large group so their chance for having friends move with them is likely, and they probably have a lot of friends at Kiker already through shared neighborhood ammenities, proximity, etc. But the HOLV are such a small group, passing up three elementaries and traveling along major roadways and highways by bus each day. We sure thought the Meridan seemed far away when we were trying to keep all our kids in nearby Goryzki, but now to send my kids off to SWES is supposed to be an acceptable solution?
What needs to be remembered is that PROXIMITY is a constant, and can't be used as an argument against cutting any specific areas. I've said that before, but let's re-emphasize it. I am 4 blocks over from the "dry creek bed" that currently constitutes Mills' southern boundary and a little less than half a mile from Mills. I can hear the bell and the announcements and children during recess. And I'm sure houses 4 blocks up that go to Patton can too. There is no easy way here and arguing that any one neighborhood is closer and therefore deserves to stay more than another is painful. Because of the nature of our boundaries EVERYONE in them can travel to Mills on small neighborhood roads that are well controlled by traffic lights and signs, and ALL of us have the option of safely walking or biking to school. Simple as that.
ReplyDelete@ Shelly - The numbers I posted are the latest ones we have received from AISD staff. The ones you site - which are included in those presentations are based on this year's projections - now the staff has moved on to another data set, which looks at next year's projections.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the map I have in my hand as Plan 0 has different numbers on it than the map they showed us last week. The data changes from week to week - it's crazy. And a little troubling, but frankly I have to go with what they give us.
Our latest map shows Loma Vista Heights with 59 students next year, and 62 in 5 years, not 40 as you say. The Estates section makes up about 21 kids. Just so you're comparing apples to apples, VP is 72 kids, PP is 23 kids. If VP and PP are not too "small" to move, then the Heights isn't too small to move either. (sorry.)
I have to "trust" the district's latest numbers, because that's what the task force as a whole has voted to do.
At the same time, I understand where you're coming from. I can try to put my Plan 0 map up on the bulletin board at Mills today to show you all the latest numbers - or at the very least, I'll try and get an electronic copy of it, so that you can see the same numbers I'm looking at.
Everyone - they've posted the most recent Plan 0 map - with the updated projections. The last map was wrong. Find it at -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.austinisd.org/inside/2004bond/boundaries/docs/bond_SWES_Plan0_with_student_projections.pdf
I do not support any plan that has children sent to schools where the tracking is different from the one we have at Mills (i.e. Boone). I think Plan 0 is the best alternative because it keeps neighborhood communities together and doesn't isolate small sections or force any illogical commuting for families.
ReplyDeleteThe pain everyone is expressing is a result of the planning for Clayton’s boundaries. The statistical variation in demographic numbers is higher while development is still occurring and that was what was happening when the Clayton boundary decisions were made. Add that in with the political process and you get what we currently have. As was stated by Shelly earlier the AISD projections for the 2013-14 school year under Plan 0 show Mills at 106% of capacity and SWES at 103% of capacity. Michelle herself states if you subtract ALL transfers, Mills would stay at 106% of capacity.
ReplyDeleteThe fact Michelle was able to compute the same numbers as AISD has done for plan 0 is exactly how the demographics work. Unfortunately demographics is a statistically-based science clothed in all the complexity statistics bring. What we need to do is caution against making decisions based upon feelings. While our current overcrowding is a disaster (I have watched my now 4th grade daughter at Mills endure the benefits of our last boundary efforts) if we over do the student reduction to Mills then Principle Butler gets to decide which teachers are let go a few years from now. As I stated earlier, we need to correctly project the peak and let the demographics work. As Michelle and Shelly point out plan 0 does exactly that but takes 3 years more where our children in Mills will be overcrowded but much better than they are this year.
I would also like to point out a significant error in thinking with regard to HOLV and half of LV children going to the SWES. None of these children take a bus. If you moved them to the SWES you would be forcing them to take a bus. That would increase the bus population and cause children to go from 10 to 20 minutes of commute time a day to over 2 hours (this is to get to and from SWES). Further, in going to the SWES you would pass by Clayton and keep on going. If you were to consider instead sending HOLV and LV to Kiker, you would end up driving past Mills on the way. There is no rationale in any of this.
The only group of people in LV that take a bus and would be potential candidates to go to Kiker or Clayton (SWES is simply not rationale by the same argument in the previous paragraph) make for a total of 15 children. In so doing you would split up the community of LV. Let me emphasize again that taking half of LV to SWES should be out of the question as you would pass by Clayton on the way. It would also add on at least 1 hour of additional commute time. Therefore any plan to move half of LV to SWES is flawed.
I will conclude with the items the board will use to resolve the boundary issue. Michelle brought up that her guiding principles gleaned from our survey response actually do no align with the priorities of the board. For reference here are the board’s guiding principles:
- Achieve capacity targets that ensure efficient operation of facilities
- Affect the fewest students possible
- Attend to the alignment of feeder patterns, as reasonable, and balance against the other criteria
- Prevent multiple reassignment of students among schools by developing stable, long term assignment plans
Note that tracking (feeder patters) is the third priority and is only a consideration when reasonable.
@chipdoctor: Just as I told Randy on another thread, these task force priorities are not ordered with ANY preference. We are told to weigh them equally.
ReplyDeleteANY additional relief beyond Plan 0 would require children who can now walk to school to get on a bus. IF you choose to have additional relief that is what would be required. Period. The end.
Mrs. Butler has said to the boundary reps that she would like additional relief beyond 100 children. We are trying to accomplish that.
None of these decisions are easy.
Michelle I fully agree with your statements above. Simply acknowledge that bussing to SWES has no logical basis. That means your support of Plan 2, proposed I believed by Clayton, needs to be reconsidered.
ReplyDeleteIt would also be instrumental to the rest of us to have Principle Butler of Mill’s explain why she believes Plan 0 does not sufficiently address the overcrowding at Mills. If Principle Butler cannot point out a flaw in Plan 0 then I believe the work you need to do ends at Plan 0.
@chipdoctor - Bussing ANY of our children to another school has no logical basis. Proximity cannot be used as a negative argument. There are children living within walking distance of Mills in Legend Oaks and VoWO that are bussed to Patton. Simply because they don't pass Mills on their route doesn't make getting on a bus to get to Patton any more logical for them or their parents. The reality is that taking the entire group of LV neighborhoods and moving them intact to SWES is a more logical solution in terms of numbers, relief - and yes tracking - than is further fracturing the VoWO and Legend Oaks neighborhoods that have been hit by every recent boundary change except the one for Clayton.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that we will have many opportunities to correct the over-crowding at Mills. I think that we should push for additional relief, 100 students is not enough.
ReplyDelete@chipdoctor, @Randy, @Shelly:
ReplyDeleteLoma Vista (as one neighborhood) has the same issue as Granada Hills. The residents there are also closer to other schools. Actually, they are closer to Mills but were moved 4 years ago to Clayton and will be moved (under all Plans) to SWES. They are a growing area with good students who must be bussed past other schools in order to attend SWES. There's no way to evenly apply location/proximity to this problem, because no matter what, someone gets the short stick. (actually, I would argue that VP is probably equidistant to Mills as the Heights, but we're moving.)
There are no perfect outcomes in any of these scenarios - and believe me, we've been looking at this map for more than a year.
If your neighborhood has specific wants, for example, that you prefer being moved to x school over x school, that would be helpful.
At the end of the day, Lisa and I are challenged to find a solution that works for everyone - the question is, if we leave Mills at 116-117% of capacity, IS THAT good for everyone?
Michelle, these are the official and newly released demographic numbers released for Plan 0 (from you earlier pointer to http://www.austinisd.org/inside/2004bond/boundaries/docs/bond_SWES_Plan0_with_student_projections.pdf)
ReplyDeleteSchool 2010-11 2013-14
Boone 62% 61%
Clayton 89% 102%
Cowan 97% 102%
Kiker 93% 94%
Mills 109% 106%
Oak Hill 95% 101%
Patton 97% 94%
Sunset V. 70% 76%
SWES 77% 103%
Note how Mills is at 109% next year falling to 106% 3 years following. This is in contrast to your 116% to 117%. I believe 109% trending slowly downward is acceptable and sustainable for Mills. Adopting Plan 0 allows us to stop further fracturing our community while resolving our currently critical overcrowding at Mills. Until Principle Butler can refute the demographic numbers, complaints of insufficient relief provided to Mills under plan 0 are baseless.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the table. No way to format it without trying a bunch of experiments. I already did one try that did not work and deleted it above.
ReplyDeleteChip, If you read my post today, which addresses these numbers, you would have read that the 116-117% includes transfers. Those are children that aren't going away, unless district policy changes. I believe you must plan for them. The district doesn't account for them in their projections - which I think, is wrong. But that's another discussion.
ReplyDeleteAnd just FYI, It's Principal Butler(although, she is a woman with principles.) While we are asking her for some numbers, most of the ones we are looking are being provided by the district.
I know you're upset - and I'm sorry.
@Chip....trying to put your head around the district numbers not showing transfers is extremely frustrating. As Michelle stated, Mills numbers don't look too bad based on just population, but when you add transfers back in, we are still way overcrowded. Sorry this is so frustrating. It's taken Michelle and I awhile to fully understand our dilema, so we know that this discussion we are having on the blog is part of our job of explaining it to our families.
ReplyDeleteJust for the record: our capacity should be between 75%-115%. With transfers we are at 116%-117%. Lots of portables....
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMichelle wrote: "you would have read that the 116-117% includes transfers. Those are children that aren't going away, unless district policy changes. I believe you must plan for them. "
ReplyDeleteIf I recall correctly, by policy, AISD does not include transfers as part of their counts since they tend to be quite volatile. Assuming that's the case, then you're not following their guidelines if you include them...
Thanks for providing the minimum and maximum data Lisa, it is most helpful. With 75% <= Mills <= 115% we are talking about being only 1% to 2% over using Michelle’s and your peak of 116% to 117%. While you may not agree with the mathematics used by demographers they are as correct as 1+1=2. In a few years Mills will be at 106% and continue to trend downward.
ReplyDeleteFighting over 1% to 2% certainly does not seem to be worth doing do you not agree?
Let's not attack anyone personally. I will remove any posts that do.
ReplyDelete@Chipdoctor, I disagree with your assumptions on transfers. We still have transfers from the Clayton boundary change, which was 4 years ago, and we don't expect our level to drop at all next year. In fact, it will increase, because of the 4th graders going into 5th grade.
ReplyDeleteThe district isn't using the transfer piece in their numbers because it is a variable number. But, for Mills we have had 3 straight years of 7% transfer into Mills. Those are actual children that show up the first day of school, and go into a classroom. The path we are currently on, we don't have ANY MORE room to put any more children on our campus.
Please understand that Michelle and I are truly thinking about the kids at Mills and their learning environment. We know this is not pleasant, but the discussion has to take place.
Michelle, I would like to thank you and Lisa very much for you hard work in this difficult process. Also, thank you for your tireless efforts in keeping us informed via this forum.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that any workable solution may require bussing children that live within walking distance of Mills to other schools. While I hope that my children are able to continue attending Mills, I understand that the best solution may involve my children attending another elementary school. However, the potential length of commute to SWES brought up by chipdoctor in an earlier post is something that concerns me. What is unclear to me is whether such an apparently long bus ride is the best solution if the LV and HOLV neighborhoods must be moved to another school.
At least for me, there are two separate questions here: (1) does my neighborhood need to be reassigned in order to address the overcrowding at Mills, and (2) if so, does the proposed commute provide the correct solution. Your comments regarding the reassignment of VP are well-taken with respect to question (1).
Your comments regarding Granada Hills as an analgous situation to LV go to question (2). Can you please comment on why it is that Granada Hills and the neighboring areas are assigned to SWES instead of, for example, Clayton? Is it that the bus ride from Granada Hills or LV/HOLV is estimated to be a shorter commute (with respect to time) than one from these neighborhoods to Clayton? If that is the case, then I think this may somewhat clarify for some of us the reasoning behind this part of the proposals.
On the other hand, if it happens to be that the actual time to bus from Granada Hills or HOLV/LV to Clayton is shorter, then I question whether it would be possible for these proposal to also readjust the Clayton lines to allow a better solution. I understand that Clayton cannot absorb more net students, but there appear to be areas assigned to Clayton (e.g., 195E2, subdivide 195R1, subdivide 195R2) that might be appropriate candiates for reassignment to the SWES in order to make more room for Granada Hills, Loma Vista, or other areas to make a shorter commute to Clayton (if it is indeed shorter). Because Granada Hills and the neighboring areas were previously assigned to Clayton, this doesn't seem to adversely impact the criteria of minimizing the numbers affected.
Best Regards,
Eric
No, I do not agree. You stated: "In a few years Mills will be at 106% and continue to trend downward." What about those few years. An elementary school sitting with over 1000 kids in a facility built for 836? Being at 116%-117% is not where the district would prefer us to be at. At 115%, the district starts looking at ways to reduce overcrowding. And guess how they would do that? Redraw our boundaries!!! They can redraw the boundaries any time they want, and it doesn't have to be only when a new school is being built. I feel they have been patient with us sitting at the numbers we are at, but it can not continue.
ReplyDelete@chipdoctor - please post your actual name as others on this blog have done. This forum is for people with a true interest in Mills Elementary school and what is best for it. You are being very vocal and somewhat antagonistic. I think it is only fair that we know who you are.
ReplyDeleteMichelle, someone is censoring this site. Can you find what happened to my post on November 12, 2009 11:52 AM.
ReplyDeleteYou threatened above "Let's not attack anyone personally. I will remove any posts that do." I have not attacked anyone. You on the other hand have used language like “I know you're upset - and I'm sorry.” I am not at all upset (until someone starts to trample on freedom of speech). I trust that you are indeed sorry. If you cannot get my post restored please let me know.
One more thing - the actual numbers we are using to make this decision are posted under a new thread I started today. Please look at them. The district has PROJECTED Mills at 109% in 2010-2011 with 915 students, not 106% as some have said.
ReplyDeleteMills is PROJECTED to reduce to 106% in five years with 890 students.
These numbers do not include transfers, or new babies or moving households or any of that.
If the majority of parents want to stay as is in Plan 0, that's what this discussion is all about. Neither of us have a personal stake in this anymore (I've been zoned away and Lisa has a 4th grader this year). We're really just trying to do what's best for Mills. And be sensitive to those who are staying.
@chipdoctor: This is a blog that Lisa and I are moderating. We live in this community and have friends and neighbors here. Our children are friends with the children who attend Mills. This will be our community, long after this discussion is over.
ReplyDeleteWe are trying to treat this very emotional subject with some semblance of civility. We hope that posts here will maintain that.
Michelle and Lisa, you guys are doing a tremendous service. Thank you for keeping everyone up to date. There's no way to prevent this from getting emotional as we all have our children's futures at stake (not to mention the value of our homes and quality of neighborhoods). But I think in general everyone's done a good job at maintaining courtesy, I don't detect a flame war here. Just passionate opinions being expressed. Anyway thank you again.
ReplyDeleteNo problem Neva. The web site uses our google account names. My name is Dr. Shawn Searles. I am the President of the Loma Vista HOA. My son completed Mill’s grade 5 last year. My daughter is currently attending Mill’s in grade 4.
ReplyDeleteMill’s in specific and Oak Hill in general are a fantastic school and community. I am trying to refrain from conjecture and use only factual data. I am pointing out flaws in logic not anything else. We need to be able to argue over the basis for our conclusions in order to separate fact from conjecture as Eric has just done.
I think a flaw in the "logic" is that AISD doesn't view this as we do, and we are not likely to change their views. It seems illogical to us to send a child on a bus past other schools, but this is a reality throughout AISD. A boundary change that causes this to occur to OUR neighborhood makes it personal and emotional, but doesn't make our neighborhood targeted out our special in any way in the grand scheme of things.
ReplyDeleteSo to get back on point, Plan 0 does NOT provide sufficient relief for Mills over 5 years (as noted by AISD's new demographic figures), thusly the sacrifice of losing the children and resources of VP and PP is not in truth a beneficial solution to meet the needs of the school. Additional cuts should be pursued now, or we will be forced to go through this ugly mess again not to far down the road.
I have a 3rd and 5th grader at Mills, and so far in all of the plans put out there, my neighborhood will stay at Mills. As a parent who will likely be staying at Mills for 2 more years I still say that Plan 0 does NOT offer enough relief. Additional relief is a necessity in order to keep Mills functioning optimally. Given this, it seems to me that HOLV and LV are the most logical neighborhoods to go as they can go together as entire neighborhoods. This prevents the fracturing of neighborhoods and causing them to go to different schools. It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) that Clayton can not manage more students than it is already being assigned. Kiker says that it can not take any more students than it has already been designated to receive through Plan 0. That leaves SWES. I know some have expressed concern about having to ride a bus to SWES, but it seems to me that no matter which of the schools (Kiker, Clayton, or SWES) any of the remaining Mills' students are assigned would require bussing.
ReplyDeletePlease know that I am not trying to be insensitive to LV or HOLV, but these neighborhoods just seem to be the most logical to be re-assigned in order to give enough relief to Mills.
We, the Mills community, need to be having this discussion to negotiate among ourselves who might leave. Being on the very eastern edge, I am willing to be part of the solution, but there are limits.
ReplyDeleteBut we also need to be committed together, even with disparate personal opinions, to the push and shove between schools. This weeks meeting shows that nothing is sacred. I would think that everyone in Mills would be willing to push together to see where all the other schools can flex. This includes Kiker, as well as Cowan and Clayton.
In other words, why should we, on the Mills blog, give in to the notion that no more of us can go to Kiker?
Mike Fair
@FairDealer: That was part of my initial argument. I'm willing to make changes, however, its only appropriate that other schools be willing to make changes as well. Both Clayton and Kiker are closer to the SWES. Why aren't they willing to send some of *their* students to the new school in order to free up space for some of our students that are close to their school?
ReplyDeleteI mean, if Clayton wants us to support their plan, then why can't they share in a bit of the relocation madness? We're all in this together...
Let us for the moment assume the demographic data is optimistically low. That will allow us to establish a lower bound on how overcrowded a school will be. Let us focus on the SWES. In 2013-14 the demographic data says they will be at 103%. That means the lowest the SWES overcrowding will be is 103%. If for nothing other than example let us consider LV and the HOLV with a total of 85 students in 2013-14. The SWES has seats for 704 people at 100%. If we transfer LV and HOLV to SWES we increase their population by 85/704 = 12.1% putting the SWES at 103% + 12% = 115%. And that is a lower bound. That makes the proposed solution of Plan 2 untenable.
ReplyDeleteWithout trying to say where numbers would come from, we should be able to unemotionally look at other alternatives using the above methodology. Clayton will we at 102% in 2013-14. Transferring 85 students to Clayton amounts to 85/880 = 9.7% (lower because Clayton is much bigger than SWES). That would put Clayton at 112%.
As a third example, let us look at Kiker. Kiker will be at 94% in 2013-14. Transferring 85 students to Kiker amounts to 85/814 = 10.4%. That would put Kiker at 104%.
Without drawing conclusions of how to do this, there is one convincing solution and that is to utilize Kiker further. The mitigating factor against this will be that Clayton and the SWES are still developing meaning the demographic data has a wider distribution. As such, any error in prediction for Clayton and the SWES populations will first and foremost look to Kiker as relief. If the board uses Kiker now it faces moving people multiple times and they will not do that.
That takes us full circle to arguing if the demographic data is flawed. Right now the demographic data for Plan 0 says Mills is at 106%, Clayton at 102% and SWES at 103%; a very balanced situation. If we in the Mill’s community say that the demographics is unduly low then righteously the same must be applied to Clayton and SWES; leading to equal but higher numbers that are still balanced for all three schools. That leaves us back at Plan 0 with Plan 2 eliminated.
Michelle and Lisa it may be helpful if you can propose a solution that does not overcrowd SWES. Plan 2 will overcrowd SWES and I suspect will be rejected.
Thank you, Lisa and Michelle, for taking on this difficult task for the Mills community.
ReplyDeleteI share Shelly's concern that the accessibility of HOLV to Mills is overlooked. I too live at Heights of Loma Vista, 0.6 miles from Mills. My husband and I both volunteer at the school on a regular basis. That will obviously have to change if our kids are bussed miles away.
I cannot imagine a sensible proposal in which Loma Vista goes to SWES. The boundary map would look like an apple that someone took a bite out of. And seriously, would relocating Loma Vista really provide that much relief to Mills? Loma Vista is tiny compared to other neighborhoods.
@chipdoctor: Something to consider when looking at the projections for SWES is that the school was built with plans for expansion of an 8-room wing (approximately 160 students). The capacity numbers for SWES are more flexible than Mills' where we are maxed out every which way you look. With regards to the logic of busing neighborhoods past schools to reach another school...I would propose that there are some logical arguments for it. If Granada Hills is one of the few neighborhoods riding a bus to Clayton it makes sense that to put them on a bus for another couple of miles isn't such a big deal. So, if a bus is going to be right across the road from LV it could easily swing into the LV neighborhoods and pick up those students along the way. Any neighborhood being zoned out of Mills is going to have to be bused and while efficient use of buses is not a stated priority of the task force, it does have a certain logic to it as opposed to sending a separate bus to the neighborhoods closer to Mopac and busing them down to SWES.
ReplyDeleteAs a Loma Vista resident who would like her kids to stay at Mills, I can also honestly say I have my eye on the prize of my kids going to a less crowded school, whether it is Mills or SWES.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, Bubble Girl, I respectfully challenge your comment regarding the bus. The bus is of no consolation to me. I will be hard pressed to believe that a bus can easily swing into another neighborhood simply because it is going in the same general direction. The bus will potentially mean that our kids will start their day much earlier than they do now, in order for the bus to make the full round and pick up everybody. Just 2 cents. I repeat... The bus prospect is not sweetening the deal for Loma Vista. At least for me...
The communities west of 1826 (Granada Hills included) are outside of the Austin City limits and are treated as rural. I personally think the way AISD has treated them has been heavy handed but that does not change the facts. Pointing at a community that has historically been treated poorly as justification to do the same to other communities is certainly an argument.
ReplyDeleteYou make an interesting argument that SWES could be expanded in the future but until it is the capacity will be at 103% under Plan 0 when Mill's is at 106%. Any arguments that increase Mills numbers beyond what the demographics predicts would equally apply to SWES and Clayton. That leaves Plan 0 with a homogeneous balance of students at Mills, Clayton and SWES. Plan 2 is unbalanced with SWES at the 115% upper limit while Mills would be at 96%. If you could have AISD commit to increasing SWES then that would open up further options.
People who want a plan different than Plan 0 need to look at solutions that work with the demographic numbers. Right now that means those groups need to formulate a plan around expanded use of Kiker or other schools projected to be under utilized.
What about Circle C North (the area by 1826, north of Vintage Place and south of Loma Vista)? That is a well-established community that would track well to another Circle C school. It is bigger than Loma Vista as well, so it would likely take a bigger chunk out of Mills and would keep Circle C kids together. As far as I can tell, it would be the only chunk from Circle C left on plan 0.
ReplyDeleteSeems like a great idea, Maria. Keep Circle C kids in great, high quality elementary schools (Kiker, Clayon, new SWES) and keep Western Oaks/ Villages kids in a great school (Mills) that was built to serve that area in the first place. It's a win-win. The over riding goal here should be that if everybody gets to stay in high quality schools, we all benefit.
ReplyDeleteYes, but then CCN would be subject to the same issues HoLV are vehemently opposed to - being bussed "past" other elementaries to attend SWES. CCN is also within walking distance of Mills, also connected through neighborhood roads to Mills, and if you accept the argument chipdoctor keeps pressing on as valid (which I don't) then saying cutting CCN would relieve Mills better than cutting HoLV because they have more kids would mean that much more overcrowding at SWES.
ReplyDeleteThe plans the FUBTF present aren't made in some vacuum, and Michelle and Lisa aren't there to purposely cause pain to any particular Mills' area. No one WANTS to leave, but if we really and truly want relief for Mills, then more children will have to be rezoned. "Why MY kid, MY neighborhood?" is a valid question - I know I screamed it a million times last year, and cried for hours when the final MS boundaries were decided. The answer is sometimes it just IS because the decision is made by a group looking at the whole and making decisions that cause the least pain to the most people.
I think mat is saying, and I certainly am, that we should advocate for Mills kids to go to Kiker, in addition to SWES and even Clayton.
ReplyDeleteThis AISD led process has clearly shown that nothing is sacred, nothing off limits, no bad ideas will be rejected, no pain is too great to be forced on someone not paying attention.
I would rather be altruistic and help ensure that other schools don't pay too high a price. But that is not possible in this process. We should push for whatever we can get, since that is being pushed on us. I advocate respectful quid pro quo with other schools, as well as diplomatic effort and friendly language.
However, Clayton needs to be asked about the kinders that press Kiker. Kiker needs to asked why they can't go to 110% like everyone else. Patton needs to be asked why they can't go over 100% (give me a break!). And I need to be asked why I can't leave Mills (the answer is I can and will, but I have an explanation for the limits of my flexibility ... does Kiker? does Clayton? does Patton? ... lets hear it.)
Mike
Well said Maria & Mat. I don't think sending HOLV is a probable solution due to their proximity to Mills. CCN is the furthest from Mills & for them to go to the SWES would make a heck of a lot more sense than HOLV. Isn't it more feasible for the area closest to Goryscki to get to the SWES? Additionally, they'd be attending a school of the same neighborhood, again the sharing of amenities, ect. & it doesn't interfere with their tracking to Goryscki or Bowie. Wasn't CCN attending Kiker when the neighborhood was built? As Circle C grew & their schools began to overfill, they were reassigned to Mills, is that accurate? CCN has plans for more homes. Why the need to move HOLV, only to replace them with students from a newer development in CCN?
ReplyDeleteNot all of Circle C North is walkable. Are kids really walking from Barstow & the area west of Barstow? What if we look at that area? How many Mills students live west of Barstow.
You can see a preliminary plan here: https://www.ci.austin.tx.us/devreview/a_queryfolder_permits.jsp
Enter this reference number: C8-2009-0089
This is the lot on the left side of Barstow as you enter CCN. You can see a proposed plan on page 21 of the attachment to the preliminary plan.
You can read more at this link:
http://circlecowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1190
The preliminary plan link is in regard to new development at Barstow. AISD is well aware of these plans as are residents of CCN.
ReplyDeleteBy now, everyone understands that there is lots of pain to be endured by all of us (within Mills and within SW Austin)
ReplyDeleteQuestion: how to equitably distribute pain?
My Answer:
a) vote on our community (not task force) priorities
(this is the minority subjecting itself to the majority)
1)Quality of Education
2)Location
3)Grandfathering
4)PropertyValue
5)Overcrowding
6)Tracking
we are obligated to each other to keep this in mind, in order.
b) be determined not to hurt anyone more than seems reasonable to everyone
(this is the majority being careful with each minority)
Obviously this is subjective (and by way of disclaimer, I'm in a minority). The point is we need to keep in mind that when it seems like something is being pushed too far, we need to reconsider other options, like c)
c) push back against other schools. Regardless of what another school has said, or even what the consensus on the task force has been up to this point, each school needs to continually answer, "we have too much pain, why can't you take more". It is not our responsibility to defend the interests of Cowan or Kiker or Clayton or Patton.
d) our obligation is to each other (after our own kids), to all push in the same direction. Our reps have done a good job strategizing, but the task force process has gotten away from us. Together we must figure out how to reduce our communal pain by arguing at the meetings in the most effective way. Either in accordance with the meeting rules (task force criteria), or outside the meeting by putting pressure on all involved.
I understand that CCN would endure the same distance pains as Loma Vista if they were the ones targetted for the rezoning. The question I have is whether or not relocating CCN would bring more relief to Mills versus relocating Loma Vista. If a entire group needs to endure the pains, it should be the one that will ultimately bring the most relief. And then there's the idea of tracking... CCN as a long established community would track better together than the relatively new Loma Vista community.
ReplyDeleteInstead of sending CCN to the SWES, I believe it would be better to push Kiker and/or Clayton to free up space by sending some of their southern students to SWES so that CCN or another suitable set of current Mills students can attend Kiker and/or Clayton.
ReplyDeleteBy doing that, tracking would remain consistent and everyone would have an opportunity to attend a nearby school.
This is consistent with my original argument.
Hi momthecoach and all,
ReplyDeleteOne thing that is unclear to me is the reason why ANY reassigned children (from HOLV, LV, CCN, or anywhere else) would have to be sent to SWES instead of one of the closer schools.
I'm not necessarily opposed to SWES if it makes the most sense, as I am confident it will be an exemplary school. But as I questioned in my 11/12 12:16 PM post above, is the reason for reassignment to SWES based on the assumption that the ride to SWES is shorter timewise than the ride to Clayton (or Kiker)? If so, that seems reasonable. On the other hand, *IF* this is not the case and the reason that we may be asked to bus kids unnecessary far to SWES is because some of neighborhoods outside of the current Mills area would simply prefer that Mills makes this change so that the other schools do not have to consider any further shifts in their lines, then maybe it is not so reasonable and we should look at whether the non-Mills neighborhoods could also make some further changes.
I realize that Clayton is not able to take a *NET* increase in students, and Kiker also may not be able to take a significant net increase. However, that alone wouldn't rule out shifting the borders for each of SWES, Clayton, and Kiker to accommodate a reasonable solution for Mills if it turns out that bussing kids from Mills to Kiker or Clayton allows our children to have a shorter time on the bus. For example, shift additional kids from Mills to Kiker, Kiker to Clayton, and Clayton to SWES.
From some of the older postings, I think Michelle and Lisa foresaw some of these problems when they advocated against a multi-step approach of setting the SWES boundary first, treat it as a draft, and then balance the schools (see "Task Force Meeting, October 20" blog post). Michelle and Lisa voted for considering all the school lines at once because they thought it would give a better chance of treating all schools equally. Unfortunately, the vote went the other way.
Thanks,
Eric
In complete and total agreement with Eric and Randy. If re-shuffling the Circle C community as a whole will serve the task goals and keep everyone at exemplary schools, then that seems to be a lesser evil than having some people commute 9+ miles.
ReplyDeleteActually, on Nov 3, the facilitator explicitly rescinded the multistep policy that she herself had advocated in October.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about the 9 mile measure. Google Maps says 4.5 miles from Twilight Terrace Drive 78749 (is there any Mills folks farther north) to SWES at 12200 Meridian Park Blvd 78739.
ReplyDelete@FairDealer - my guess is the 9 mile is a roundtrip figure (4.5+4.5=9)
ReplyDelete@maria - Re-shuffling Circle C as whole is not going to happen, it's just not. Last year's boundary debacle lends complete credence to that fact.
@Eric - a south of Slaughter restructuring does seem viable, but again, a complete reshuffling of CCR boundaries is not going to fly. "Share the pain" is not something the permanent members of the FUBTF respond to.