I scanned this in this morning - it's from the latest Plan 0 map that you can download for yourself at http://www.austinisd.org/inside/2004bond/boundaries/docs/bond_SWES_Plan0_with_student_projections.pdf
These numbers are NEW, based on population projections for 2010-2011 (in relation to permanent capacity of the school) and DO NOT include Transfers. This is an UPDATED map since the last one I posted last week.
Here are the current transfers for schools from AISD: (+ is incoming, - is outgoing)
Mills: +73
Kiker: +62
Clayton: -9
Oak Hill: -63
Sunset Valley -74
Cowan +32
Boone: +40
Patton: +43
Personally, I'm trying to keep an eye on these numbers, but the task force hasn't even talked about them yet.
Is there any way we can post what constitutes our current transfer criteria? I know I've seen it elsewhere, but can't remember them all, but I'm thinking they were:
ReplyDeletestaff/teacher children
majority to minority
sibling tracking
educational needs
are these remotely in the ballpark?
Michelle, from your previous comments, I don't understand why Kiker is saying they can't take any more students when they are projected to be at 94% in 2013 and SWES is projected to be at 103% at 2013 if the Estates at Loma Vista and the Heights at Loma Vista attend. Also, Clayton is slated at 102% for 2013. Many points of been made about the distance by the people in the Loma Vista sections and Kiker would be 1+ miles closer than the new school. Why has this never been discussed?
ReplyDeleteAlso, in your posts you are clearly focused on tracking as well as the Clayton reps as evidenced in the boundary meeting Tuesday night. I am lost why this is your highest priority when that is not how I read the board's goals to the task force and the goals stated by Mills parents. For clarity, the board's goals are:
- 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
Based on this, tracking/feeder patterns is only to be balanced against other criteria, not as the top priority. The Mills parents stated their priorities are quality of education and location. I don't see how moving students 4+ miles away fits those criteria either when there are two closer schools that are going to be at a lower utilization.
Another point I don't understand is that you and the Clayton reps suggested that sections 149A-G, who volunteered to go to the new elementary school and are tracked that way in the district's plan 0, stay at Oak Hill or go to Patton. Again you are claiming tracking patterns, but the Oak Hill geographic members support plan 0 and the new school would be at 103% capacity if they went and not the Loma Vista sections.
In summary, moving the Loma Vista sections to SWES does not fit the capacity requirement because now it will be the most overcrowded elementary school in this area by 2013. And moving the Oak Hill sections would move less students, again another board criteria. I understand Mills needs relief and some students may have to move in addition to the 100 to Kiker in plan 0, but some things don't add up for me and would appreciate some clarification.
Yes, sorta.
ReplyDeleteMajority to Minority and Sibling transfers are considered Priority Transfers. We have about 20 of these
Teacher/staff children and education needs fall under "General" Transfers. We have about 50 of these.
As a correction to my previous post:
ReplyDeletethe SWES would be at 106% if the Estates of Loma Vista and the Heights of Loma Vista attend as opposed to the 103% if the Oak Hill sections attended instead.
Michelle, can you provide some clarity around the questions I have raised?
Thanks
@Randy:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the questions:
- All these pieces are "in play" if you will. We would ask for sections to be moved out of SWES in order to accomodate Loma Vista.
- Kiker's numbers are fluid, in that adminstrators have offered for some of the Clayton kindergarteners to stay if they want to at Kiker for their elementary school experience, thus their numbers may go up - in terms of transfers. They have 62 inbound right now.
- Clayton may be able to take a few more - I can ask. Is that a school you'd rather go to over SWES?
- Finally, we've been told that the priorities of the task force are in no particular order and are equally weighted.
@Randy - the SWES is also built with the possibility of having a wing added. Mills was not built with that in mind. FYI.
ReplyDeleteFor all the people interested in more detail about transfers see: September 27th-the post labeled Transfers in the archives. Michelle has already detailed all the information about this on the blog.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about the transfer numbers. The AISD report card (08-09) for Mills shows 57 transferring in and 32 out, for a delta of 25. What are the in/out numbers for Mills for the 09-10 year?
ReplyDeleteMike
Believe me, we understand your confusion and not understanding the transfer piece. Michelle and I have been pushing on this transfer idea for a year now. We can give you all whatever numbers you want, but the transfers are not in our power to change. This is a board of trustee decision that is district wide. It's not just our school, but it's becomes more of a problem when a school is overcrowded. When I first looked at this, I thought a frozen school (which Mills is) could not have any transfers. Well, I was wrong. They can, and we do have 73, and have had about this number for the past 3 years.
ReplyDeleteThe post that Lisa is referring to was written by another CAC boundary committee member.
ReplyDelete@Fair Dealer, I think you're reading out of date numbers - those numbers are for 2007-2008. The latest numbers the task force was given related to transfers for 2008-2009, and showed we have a NET migration of 73 students INTO Mills.
The numbers we received from Mrs. Butler for 2009-2010, showed a NET migration into Mills of 71.
Those are the numbers I'm using.
Thanks for the reference to the Sept. transfer post. I liked the following paragraph.
ReplyDelete(posted by Ceryta)"Another policy of the district is to allow children of teachers and staff to attend the school where their parent works. There are many reasons for this, and they all benefit the school. When a teacher shows confidence in a school by having their own children attend, you can count on the quality of students education to be heightened. We currently have sixteen children of teachers and two children of staff members attending Mills."
Looking at those numbers, it does appear that Cowan could safely lose some students to Boone, which would help Boone's numbers somewhat. There are neighborhoods--or partial neighborhoods--north of Davis and west of Brodie that are close to Boone. Obviously they don't want any change, but it would be good if that possibility were back in play.
ReplyDeletefrom AISD site:
ReplyDeleteAustin Independent School District 2008-2009
Mills Elementary School Campus Report Card
Inbound Transfers: NCLB: 0 Choice: 57
Outbound Transfers: NCLB: 0 Choice: 32
The only way these questions are going to go away is by giving lots and lots of data.
Mike -
ReplyDeleteI'll ask about that, but I think those are only a portion of our total number of transfers. I would go with what the district provided the task force members, which is a net migration of 73 students INTO Mills for 2008-2009.
I was glad to see that Cowan has a color.
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing these numbers up, Mike. There's quite a difference between 23 students and 73. Either way I still think slightly over crowded is preferable to the other options (breaking up communities and tracking), so I support Plan 0.
ReplyDeleteI was impressed with AISD's follow through in posting the minutes from the Nov 3 FUBTF meeting. Indeed this transparency is crucial.
ReplyDeleteThe Nov 10 agenda including an approval of the Nov 3 minutes, starting at 5:45. Was this done?
From Nov 3 minutes:
(pg 4) Staff stated that the Board’s decision was that the transfer of the Clayton kinders was only for 1 year, ... research (pg 11)showed that While the Board did not formally approve the option for students and following siblings to remain at Kiker ES, AISD administration has committed to this option.
(pg 6) Boone is an exemplary school and no one should be concerned if they are
moved to Boone.
Now why would they bring this up?
FairDealer wrote:
ReplyDelete"(pg 6) Boone is an exemplary school and no one should be concerned if they are
moved to Boone.
Now why would they bring this up?"
Bear in mind that one of the board's goals is:
"Achieve capacity targets that ensure efficient operation of facilities"
Boone is obviously underutilized; and from a simple financial perspective, it doesn't make sense to spend money building and maintaining portable buildings when you've got a nearby school that has lots of spare capacity...
Looking at this map it seems obvious that if Boone requires more students they should come from 395A first, then possibly 83B1 then 395E. Reaching clear across Cowan's area to punch a peninsula into neighborhoods right by Mills seems strange. The students there would have to be driven across Mopac, though Cowan school zoned neighborhoods, into the Boone area.
ReplyDeleteTo Mat's point, if you add the facts that Cowan is projected to be over capacity and both Boone and 395A track to the same middle school, it seems even more obvious.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should be more explicit.
ReplyDeleteBoone's reps were the first to point out their exemplary status. In their statement, they correctly predict that many people are worried about transferring there, precisely on quality grounds. Granted, this is not a criteria for the board, but they brought it up, not me. Elsewhere, they have claimed that the exemplary status is synonymous with being equivalent to Mills, as though I should not feel any qualms about sliding quietly into the night.
No thanks.
But they go to a different high school. FYI. Plus, look at Cowan's numbers - what does removing 165 students do to their overall population?
ReplyDeleteThis is true they will go to a different high school, but I think they are going to do that anyway when they split from Covington?
ReplyDeleteIf my numbers are correct it puts Boone at 81% capacity and Cowan at 78% capacity.
But they go to a different high school? You mean just like Small?
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of policy, AISD does not include transfers in their numbers as they tend to vary widely from year to year.
If you roll the transfers into your calculations, it makes it more difficult to do an "apples to apples" comparison relative to other schools and goes against AISD's guidelines.
I ask that you follow AISD's policy with regard to this matter.
The Boundary Task Force is considering whether underutilization of Boone and Sunset Valley can be addressed in the process of establishing boundaries for the new elementary school. Boone has proposed a plan that would transfer a substantial number of Mills and Oak Hill students into Boone and Sunset Valley.
ReplyDeleteIt’s important to know that Joslin and Cunningham, the two elementary schools immediately adjoining Boone and Sunset Valley, are also underutilized. All four of these schools feed to the same middle and high school.
As shown in the chart below, the combined current membership of these schools is 67% of permanent capacity. The combined projected population is expected to be 71% in 2013. 909 students would have to be added to these schools to bring their current membership up to their capacity. That’s more than the permanent capacity of any one of the four schools.
Consolidation of these schools rather than a mass transfer of students is more consistent with all four of the district’s priorities – efficient operation of facilities, affect the fewest students possible, attend to the alignment of feeder patterns, and develop stable, long-term plans.
While such a consolidation is beyond the scope of this boundary task force, I think the data merits consideration in the plans that are currently being developed.
Becca, good research and good point. I agree that this should be a consideration.
ReplyDeleteBecca, well said. Instead of doing the quick fix (which doesn't make any sense in terms of all the priorities of the task force) by breaking up communities and tracking, why not make a more serious attempt to address the problem. Furthermore, if the schools in question do not improve / reform themselves, families with children will NOT move into the areas zoned for that school, and you'll find yourself right back where you were, trying to steal from quality schools in order to boost your numbers. Make no mistake: communities that are rezoned to schools that are not well regarded will- over time - lose families with children. They will move away and won't be replaced, because prospective buyers will look at the schools and decide to look elsewhere. So the whole thing will play itself out and you'll keep having to expand the school's boundaries wider and wider to force families to go there. Does not seem like a good long term solution does it?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't the first time use of underutilized schools have been questioned by Mills representatives during boundary re-draws. I even asked the new Superintendent about the issue in an online chat she had at the beginning of the year. It's a huge issue and not something that will even begin to be addressed with this re-draw.
ReplyDeleteAISD's note taker at the Nov 3 meeting failed to record a significant statement, but all of us there heard it. The facilitator stated that an acceptable outcome of the process would be for the underutilization to go unsolved. It is merely one of many considerations.
ReplyDeleteI would like to note that I drove to SWES from my home in the Heights of Loma Vista early this afternoon to check out the commute. I misspoke in my earlier statements. It's not a 5 mile drive, it's just under 9 miles. This is a completely unacceptable solution only to remove an additional 52 children from Mills. Plan 0 please.
ReplyDeleteWhich way did you go? 1826 is much closer than driving through Circle C. Also, the number is 81 kids including the Loma Vista Estate section. If you add the 100 from VP and PP, our total reduction would be 181. Oak Hill is moving 314 kids out of Oak Hill. Our number is not an unreasonable number to reduce the largest elementary in Austin ISD.
ReplyDeleteShelly wrote: "This is a completely unacceptable solution".
ReplyDeleteBingo! Clayton wants us to support their plan, which would allow them to continue to track to their school, even though the SWES adjoins their boundary and its closer to them. And what do we get in return? A 9 mile commute! Some would call that a one-sided trade.
It makes *no* sense for us to support their proposal under the current conditions.
I want to see us manage student levels at Mills as well, but I honestly believe that we should say 'No!' to Clayton's plan unless they (and Kiker) are willing to work *with* us to shift students around in a manner that makes more sense.
Lisa, I drove through the Estates, 1826 to Slaughter, and then 45 to the construction site. If you think our bus will go a different route, that's fine. But it still won't be within 2 miles like everyone else's commute. As I stated originally on this blog, please don't lump our numbers with Loma Vista Estate. Our neighborhoods are completely separate - different developers, different HOAs, and distanced from each other. We are 1/2 mile from Mills, they require a bus.
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you look at the projected numbers, Mills at 106% under Plan 0 is well within AISD's guidelines. Clayton and SWES are also predicted to be at 102-103%. People should not be bused so far out of their community from a 106% school to a 102% school.
If it is so important to remove more kids from Mills, are you saying there are no other options in our boundary line that are closer or have easier access to other elementary schools?
The only suggestion is to pull us out and bus us passed Mills, Kiker, and Clayton to get SWES? I think every neighborhood bordering Slaughter is closer and more accessible to Kiker, Clayton and SWES.
Shelly, it doesn't really make sense to split out LV from the HoLV. LV consists of two separate sections, which together will total only 23 students by 2013. Of that number, only about half of them ride of bus today. The other half is connected to the HoLV and can walk to Mills.
ReplyDeleteBy itself, LV isn't large enough to make much of a dent in Mill's numbers. And in that scenario, not only would the those kids have a silly long commute, but it also wouldn't solve the Mills overcrowding...so it's a lose/lose of sorts, not to mention the fact that LV is vehemently opposed to moving away from Mills.
HoLV, on the other hand, is projected to have 62 students. At nearly triple the size of LV, it would make a much bigger impact on Mill's numbers to change their tracking.
Thanks to Michelle and others for representing Mills so well. This blog is tremendous; I've read nearly every post, a lot of comments, and feel much better informed.
ReplyDeleteLike many, I'm torn between Plan 0 and sending the two LV neighborhoods to SWES (I'm a Mills parent unaffected by proposed boundary changes).
One thing I've yet to see discussed is Circle C North. I'll come back to that in a second.
I was talking with my wife, and we both agreed that there SHOULD be some type of "great shift south", where some of Circle C Clayton went to SWES, some of Circle C Kiker went to Clayton, and some of Mills went to Kiker. That has happened to a considerable degree.
At the same time, I remember reading about the hollering of Circle C West residents, and how they were adamant about not crossing SH45 to send their kids to Meridian. "Uh oh", I thought. Somebody's gonna have to placate Circle C West.
Well, it looks like LV is having to do just that. LV kids are going to be bussed 5 miles to Meridian because families on and around Spruce Canyon don't want to traverse the short distance across SH 45?
In my ideal world, Circle C West neighborhoods south of Spruce canyon go to SWES. Some southern Kiker neighborhoods go to Clayton. Circle C North (which has less direct Mills access than LV) joins VP & PP and goes to Kiker.
I haven't looked at the numbers of course, but this seems like a plan that is a more egalitarian "great shift south", with neighborhoods like LV not having to bear too much of the sacrifice.
But I suspect that Circle C West families wouldn't like it, and we know how much weight they can throw around.
At any rate, since I'm not a huge fan of Plan 0 nor a huge fan of the LV write off, I wonder whether some more equitable "great shift south" as mentioned above is not still a possibility.
Thanks again for all of your hard work.
Marc
Good Job to you Michelle and Lisa on being boundary reps for our Mill's. Please make us more small with moving enough students. One hundred not enough because of grandfathering of 4th graders and too, their younger siblings. That make it more like only 75 reduction. Thank you very much.
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
ReplyDeleteUnder the FUBTF meeting post, you mentioned to Randy on Nov. 10 at 8:40PM that you would be willing to look at any proposal. I think I may have some options, but I need more demographic detail on some of the Clayton sections, specifically 195E2 splitting along Spruce Canyon and 195R1 specifically the residents living on Magenta Lane and Coalwood Lane. Also, I would like more information on section 95A8 west of Needham and Back Bay Lane as well as Needham and Walebridge Lane. Can you request this information or can I as a non-task force member?
@Marc, I don't know the numbers from the Circle C North area either, but I like the sound of your suggestion. Michelle & Lisa would Marc's plan provide enough relief? Is it even a possibility? I'm not sure how many children this would affect.
ReplyDeleteTracy
The ultimate goal needs to be to relieve overcrowding, but to keep Circle C kids and Villages of Western Oaks kids both going to excellent schools with logical tracking. To me, as long as everybody gets that, we should all be happy. It is absolutely unacceptable to break a huge chunk of Villages of Western Oaks off and send it across Cowan's district to attend Boone. Let's all try to stick together toward the goal of getting everybody into great schools, whether they are Mills, Kiker, or Clayton. I think you especially have to consider the history of what happened to Villages of Western Oaks last year and how they completely got shafted at the last minute with regard to the new Middle School and tracking. Please let's all do the right thing for everyone here.
ReplyDeleteAnd one more thing -- the new Southwest Elementary School is going to open as an exemplary / high quality school, make no mistake. They are going to have involved parents, great teachers, and a great principal and staff. Right out of the gate, that school is going to be fantastic and enviable to others.
ReplyDeleteWell said Marc. 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 for the development at CCN - Barstow 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.
AISD is well aware of these plans as are residents of CCN. If we're going to keep calculating in transfer numbers (even though AISD says don't), then we cannot ignore future development in CCN.
You can read more at this link:
http://circlecowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1190
Thank you Michelle and Lisa for all of your great work. None of these options will be easy.
ReplyDeleteOne quick question - I've seen a few references to grandfathering 4th graders. I thought AISD would only grandfather those students going into the last grade at a given school. (In other words, only kids going into 5th grade would be grandfathered at the elementary level.) Is it a real possibility that kids going into 4th grade would be allowed to stay at their current school?
I believe grandfathering the 4th graders means current year 4th graders.
ReplyDeleteWith plan 0, we tend to focus on just our boundary, but you can also view it from a higher level for the entire southwest area.
ReplyDeleteThe total number of students for all the elementary schools being considered in this decision, Mills, Oak Hill, Kiker, Clayton, SWES, Patton, Boone, Sunset Valley, and Cowan, compared to the total permanent capacity is 100.3%, 5,654 capacity with 5,673 students. Mathematically, it is not possible to have all schools below 100%. Therefore at least one and probably more will be over 100%. Plan 0 meets all the board of trustees' criteria and cannot improve upon the capacity numbers when looking at the overall balance among the schools.
For reference, the 2013 numbers and capacity percentages with Plan 0 for Mills, SWES, Kiker, Clayton, Patton, and Oak Hill are:
Mills 890 106%
SWES 727 103%
Kiker 766 94%
Clayton 895 102%
Patton 808 94%
Oak Hill 868 101%
If you move sections 96C1, 96D1, and 96D2 which is 85 students in 2013 to SWES then the Mills and SWES change to
Mills 805 96%
SWES 812 115%
If you were to move students, it would be to schools at less than 100% in plan 0 for 2013.
Why aren't we allowed to comment to the most recent posts?
ReplyDeleteIn Michelle's post titled, "Nov 18 Meeting" she announced "space has been freed up at Patton". I think what she is referring to is Oak Hill's last minute attempt to hang on to Covered Bridge, which is going to Patton on the current plan. They offered us up to Patton in an attempt to balance the numbers.
If we are still looking to move more people from Mills why would we just forget moving Loma Vista and look North? Because Oak Hill suggested it? If Mrs. Butler thinks we have moved enough people why are we "look(ing) at moving some students north"? Do we need to scream louder than Loma Vista?
Also, tracking is a good reason NOT to pull kids from the North. If you take out kids from the Small track. That leaves a smaller subset of kids going to Mills that track together to Small. Please don't let Oak Hill throw us under the bus, just so they can hang onto Covered Bridge.
FYI There is a yahoo group created for the boundary discussion: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundaryprocess/