The demographer's numbers for Mills have changed. We are bigger than projected, as many of us suspected. This means that another neighborhood will be moved from Mills. (Believe me, Lisa and I would have much rather gone with Plan 1 and called it a day. But that door is about to close.)
**ANY neighborhood we move from Mills is within walking or biking distance - and will be asked to get on a bus to go to a neighboring school** There is nothing we can do about this.
Here are the numbers for Plan 1, the first chart shows the numbers we've been working with. And the second chart shows the revised numbers.
Please understand that Lisa and I will be working with the other representatives on the task force to come up with a solution. We heard your priorities during the last CAC meeting as to which schools are preferable. We will do our best to find a solution you will support.
Why the change in the numbers? I recieved an email from Joe Silva explaining some of the rational behind the changes. It occured when the demographer, Dr. Harner, began to divide up sections of the Mills attendance area. Here's the explanation from Joe:
Dr. Harner was making adjustments to the overall population due to an increase in Kindergarten students. His earlier projections were based on a decrease in K students from 183 in 2007 to 165 in 2008. His projection was that there would be approximately the same number of students in 2009. However, the number of K students actually increased to 184. So he has adjusted his projection for future students.
The FUBTF was told that we would be receiving updated population projections in November. Because each year Dr. Harner uses current membership data (kids actually at the school) and readjusts the population projections. Updated numbers were expected, but the amount of change was surprising.
Click on the image to make it bigger, so you can see the entire chart.
ReplyDeleteOh, and the numbers above do not include transfers.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the number of transfers into Mills for 2009-10? I forget exactly but it seems like I remember it being 72 or 76...something around there.
ReplyDeleteAlso, do you know what Mrs. Butler estimates the number of transfers for 2010-11? I'm curious if she thinks it will go up, down or stay the same.
I think it is 73, and it could go up next year due to 4th grade grandfathering and siblings from the boundary change.
ReplyDeleteI expected some unpredictability in the outcome of this whole mess, but even I was not so cynical as to think that AISD would change the rules on us mid-stride. What happen to 'trust the data'. Turns out they don't trust their own predictions, but throw out the old data and ask us to blindly accept new numbers.
ReplyDeleteThese large jumps in the demographic predictions cast doubt on the reliability of the algorithm, as well as on the fairness and wisdom of AISD's process in all this. It doesn't seem like it was a very good idea to ask us all to fight this out once with what is now irrelevant numbers, and then now ask us to all fight it out once more. It would've been better to simply wait until we had the real numbers, whatever that is.
As it is, I think we should insist that nobody be bludgeoned into a new plan with these numbers. If the task force can design changes that get unanimous approval, fine. Otherwise, tough luck with the new data.
Mike Fair
Mike,
ReplyDeleteLisa and I felt extremeely frustrated last week at the CAC meeting - because we had hints from the district that the numbers were changing. (Apparently this happened last year during the middle school boundaries too.)
That's why we had Mrs. Butler tell parents clearly that the numbers were changing and that Plan 1 would also likely change.
We don't like presenting a plan we know has a snowball's chance of hanging around. We don't like being handed completely new numbers 2/3rds of the way through the process.
But we can't just say no, we're not gonna....because that's not a choice. We are going to be forced to move another neighborhood and we are going to try to do in consistent with the priorities established by the September survey and with regard to the survey you filled out last week.
That being said, we have to work with the other schools - but we're working hard to try to come to a solution that Mills parents can live with.
I am not advocating that we put our heads in the sand, or that we pressure AISD to cease and desist. I am advocating that we cry foul for the purpose of slowing down the deliberations.
ReplyDeleteI predict that the chaos in the numbers will accelerate the manuevering in each school and open up the range of debate to more and more outrageous rationale. I can also prove that Dr. Harner's numbers will not be valid by 2014, making it pointless to hold to strict capacity targets.
So I propose that the task force adopt the following rules:
1. change the capacity targets by 5%, to 70%-120%
2. improve the keeping of the minutes so that all comments are taken seriously later
3. all plan changes will be scored by the same set of objective, numeric criteria prior to a vote
4. each change to Plan 1 must get unanimous approval before it is adopted, at least within a consideration period of 2 weeks after the change was proposed.
I am not playing brinksmanship. I am simply saying that I will not roll over and accept a never ending state of chaos and apprehension. There is no predictability to this process and that is not fair.
Knowing that the middle school process generated its most disturbing result in the last few days of its process, the volatility of this process pushes me toward exactly the posture that you seem to suggest I should not have. So the solution is to take concrete steps to fix the process before it is too late.
Mike
"Updated numbers were expected, but the amount of change was surprising."
ReplyDeleteNo one is insisting that demographics must be an exact science. But I have looked at the past 4 years of Dr. Harners 'predictions', and 75% of the time, he is off by 8%. Half the time he is high, and half the time he is low.
It is precisely the size of the variability that is the problem. It violates the entire basis of the boundary process, which has been drilled into our head as 'trust the data'. Hogwash.
The problem with this is that it assumes that Lisa and Michelle are working in some sort of vacuum, which they are not. No matter how logical new criteria seems to you or us, presenting it at this late stage in the game isn't going to work. The other 20 some reps on the FUTFB aren't simply going to concede and say, "Well, damn. That makes total sense, and even though it counters my own agenda, we should certainly re-assess every single bit of work we've done to date and use this criteria instead." It's just not that simple. If any other school represented suddenly brought a list of new criteria contrary to our own interests to the table, we wouldn't just roll over and accept. To assume that anyone else would do the same for ours is naive.
ReplyDeleteDoes it suck that the demographer was so off? Yes. Did most of us know, from experience, that he was going to be that off? Yeah, we did. If the reality is that we are about to lose another chunk of students, then the process now needs to be how we determine that chunk in such a way that it provides the best academic solution for the students disrupted.
Regardless of the district throwing out new numbers to muddy the picture, we are still obliged to respect and follow the initial criteria established. If every school could suddenly present new criteria at this stage in the process, everything would devolve into complete chaos.
I didn't mean new criteria, i meant an orderly, disciplined, numeric process of evaluating proposed changes against the existing criteria.
ReplyDeleteAnd I've made so such assumption. Michelle and Lisa are both doing an excellent job of precisely what I've been advocating: face to face engagement with each of the other school reps, one on one, in order to make clear headed proposals, defendable according to the existing rules.
ReplyDeleteIt is the out of the blue junk proposals that get plopped on the table in the task force meetings that have threatened to undo all of Lisa and Michelle's hard won, well crafted solutions. And now AISD itself is throwing a wrench into the mechanism of the process itself.
You say you knew it would change this much? Why didn't you say so?
The need for a common-good solution is clear. But it seems clear to me that we will not achieve this without more clarity from the authorities on the predictability of the process. Not the outcome, the process.
Also, the whole reason AISD gave this task to the FUBTF is for them to use judgement and statesmanship in crafting a solution. This implies exactly what I've been saying, that we are not obligated to forge a plan that is exactly what AISD wanted in the beginning. Lisa and Michelle, and the other reps, have been given authority to make a plan. So, in the end, they certainly are allowed to submit a plan that ignores, in small and balanced measure, some of the data or some of the criteria. This is all the more clear, now that AISD has unraveled its own process.
In my opinion, Michelle and Lisa have to keep working within the confines of the current FUBTF process; a process adopted by the Board of Trustees. They simply cannot propose something different, even if it does make more sense. If anyone disagrees with the process adopted by the Trustees, they need to take their complaints to the Trustees and the District.
ReplyDeleteAISD tried to take definitive steps this time around to make sure it didn't appear that this boundary process served their (the District's) purpose of gerrymandering the boundaries--as we saw during the middle school boundary process. But no matter what, there's no way around the "majority consensus".
Michelle and Lisa could lay out the most thoughtful, insightful criteria and processes known on the planet. Everyone will vote on whether to accept their proposal or whether they should continue operating under the directives laid out by the Trustees. The majority consensus will be to continue with the Trustees directives.
Case in point, take the simple proposal Michelle and Lisa made several meetings ago to track/document the votes by each FUBTF member -- who was voting for what plan. It was defeated by a majority consensus. Tracking the votes of all the FUBTF members makes perfect sense to me. But the majority consensus disagreed.
There is no way to overcome the majority consensus. The Trustees consider it to be the most democratic method available to the in these situations. AISD won't change anything at this point in the process unless the majority consensus tells them they should change.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe district has a history of using flawed demographics; many of us spoke on this point vigorously during last year's debacle and have brought it up several times this year.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong - I'm unhappy with the district, and have been since last year. I've spoken loudly at several public meetings letting them know, lining up in the wee hours to sign up in order to do so. My neighborhood has been on the chopping block before and is again. The introduction of new data is obnoxious and insulting, particularly to those of us who continually press the Facility department on the very issue. But I think we should remember that AISD doesn't have to include us in the boundary process. That they do so is a courtesy. It could be presented to us as fait accompli as in most other districts.
Changes to the process itself are not going to fly. "To cry foul in an effort to slow down the process," is how you put it. We TRIED that last year in a systematic and rational way, utilizing statistics, demographics and organizing multiple schools in the effort, and it failed. However, because of those efforts, the process has changed in many positive ways. I can tell you from hard-won personal experience, that questioning the process is not appreciated by the ultimate deciders of our fate - the Board. This is not a tack that won Mills and our allies (Baranoff, Bailey, etc.) any supportors on the Board.
Last year was emotionally devastating for me and the others that worked ourselves to exhaustion on the MS boundary issue. My comments come from the experience of that battle, and it was a battle. Questioning the process is not something that will work specifically because the district instituted changes, good changes, due to us pushing on the flawed process in place last year.
The bottom line is that the new numbers push the membership figures up again. The district is not going to change the new demographics, no matter how we argue it. Additional students will be disrupted to meet the stated capacity goals. Those are facts. Instead of wasting precious energy, time, and possibly creating rifts in established school alliances trying to change those facts to suit our wishes, Lisa and Michelle need to remain focused on determining the best academic solution to the affected children. Academics were the number one stated priority of the responding Mills parents, and that hasn't changed.
Clearly, one or more Mills neighborhoods will be on the chopping block. I will support a plan that would move current Mills children to 1) another exemplary school - Kiker, Clayton or the new Meridian elementary and 2) follows existing MS tracking.
ReplyDeleteGood luck, Lisa and Michelle. We appreciate you so much.
I deleted the post above to rephrase something a bit:
ReplyDeleteAISD did not impose a 51% rule for voting, but that is currently the way the facilitator is running this. But majority votes are not the only way to structure a democracy. Higher percentage requirements are a good way to reduce the volatility of a debate.
So if Lisa proposed a more collegial process, like 80% or 95% requirement for changes to Plan1, the FUBTF could vote (using a majority rule) to impose this requirement on all new ideas (perhaps only applicable on the night a proposal is made).
This would accomplish two things: it would force each representative to negotiate their favorite ideas face to face over coffee with the other reps affected. Reps not affected by a particular idea would not care and would vote yay. Reps who are being sandbagged (not consulted about a drastic measure that risks their children) could basically table the idea until the next meeting. Which is the other advantage, slowness. Do you remember when Boone suggested to take all kids North of Davis and between Mopac and Escarpement? We barely escaped this naked political move, simply because the facilitator had not called it a night.
I know we need to tread lightly and accept the basic structure of of this process, but I think it can be improved now, precisely by having this conversation and bringing to light how we feel about being on the chopping block with one arm tied behind our back. Thank goodness we have involved parents and capable reps that are out there analyzing the options and negotiating in good faith.
Without some sanity preventing my kid from being a pawn in a last minute chess move, I am forced to be less collegial throughout the whole process.
I want to think I can trust a smooth transition from one proposed plan to another, and that everyones concerns with each proposal are at least discussed. Implement some discipline in the process, starting with stable data, and I will feel this trust again and will refrain from overheated arguments in public against particular possibilities. Short of that, and this will all get out of hand. Again.
Michelle & Lisa - thank you for your work and the work that is yet to come. I am angry, but not surprised, that AISD has put us in this situation again. Having said that, I guess the question is how many students will not have to be moved in order to make the numbers work? Also, given that the capacity numbers for the "preferred" schools are already high, will we be able to move kids into those schools or will we be forced to move the kids into the less desirable schools simply because there is more room?
ReplyDeleteThank you again!
Oops - it was supposed to say "...the question is how many students will NOW have to be moved . .." Sorry for the typo.
ReplyDeleteKids are going to have to leave Mills. That is what the Board has said and any more talk of how we can stop this is moot now. We need to figure out how to get the kids who must move into the best possible school; Kiker, Clayton or Meridian.
ReplyDelete@Tracey:
ReplyDeleteor the New Elementary school.
I'm calling the new elementary school "Meridian." Sorry for any confusion.
ReplyDeleteNothing is moot. The discussion at the task force meetings have clearly shown that any and all notions can be raised.
ReplyDeleteNow it is true that the reps take some things with greater interest than others.
One issue over which our parents, our principal, and our reps will have effective influence is the exact degree to which Mills needs to reduce numbers.
The demographic changes do not have to be obeyed to the last single student, especially since the numbers one year from now will likely change again. Therefore reduction of 50 would be sufficient. Split the difference and compromise.
Mike
@RDD: we are still reviewing the data, but we are thinking around 100 more will have to be moved. So sorry to have to even tell you that.
ReplyDelete@FairDealer and Momthecoach: Both of you bring up excellent points, and we appreciate the frank and honest discussion. Michelle and I have had issues about the process, the numbers, the meeting structure, the voting system, and the TIMELINE since the 1st meeting. We will take into consideration all the points you have brought up here on the blog. However, the TIMELINE does restrict which items we can bring up, and expect to complete the process before Christmas break. We could argue every point, but our main focus needs to be getting 100 more of our students placed in the best possible educational school in our tracking. I'm sure at the end of this, Michelle and I will put together something to express how we feel the process went, and areas to be improved in the next boundary process. The Facilities staff (Joe and Beth) have been extremely helpful in this situation. For example: the new projections in previous boundary processes would have been presented to the Task Force at the meeting on Tuesday. Michelle and I asked if we could please have all the data and maps prior to the meeting to give us a chance to review and come into the meeting prepared. Joe and Beth worked extra hard to make this happen, and even hand delivered our packets to our home school, which we really appreciated. All the schools received the new info, and it is a simple change that will hopefully help the meeting on Tuesday night. Even though the process seems rigid, small changes have been implemented and have been positive. We need to just keep working...
ReplyDeleteLooks like the current plan has Oak Hill sending some students to the new elementary school, which is not in line with MS or HS tracking. Perhaps they could send those children to Patton, which keeps tracking intact. Then Mills could send the children who will go to Gorzycki to Kiker, Clayton or the new elementary, which IS in line with MS and HS tracking.
ReplyDeleteAny feedback from the other CACs? Any idea where there might be room at Kiker, Clayton, or the new Elem.? I know the Clayton reps were not keen on the Oak Hill sections going to the new Elem. because they track to Small Jr. and then Austin High. If they went back to Oak Hill that would make room for a shift West. Maybe then there would be room for Mills Kids at Kiker or Clayton?
ReplyDelete@Mills_Mama: Actually, the Oak Hill piece tracks to Small, and then Bowie, not Austin High. They would be out of their tracking, and it seems to be a concern from the Clayton CAC. About the room: click on the chart and you can see based on Plan 1 where there is space based on the new numbers.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMoving 100 students from Mills to Kiker puts Mills at 109% and Kiker at 108% in year 5 - both under the 115% AISD recommendation (also Joe Silva said the 105% to 110% range for Mills and Kiker is ideal). Since Kiker was overwhelmingly the preferred choice at the Mills CAC meeting, it seems that focusing on 100 students to Kiker is the most simple, most logical, and probably the only solution that Mills will accept.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, since all other schools are below 104%, we would expect that no other schools will recommend any further changes to Plan 1. Therefore, this one solution (100 from Mills to Kiker) could be the final change and we could then put the whole issue to rest.
Actually, I believe moving 100 kids from Mills to Kiker puts both schools at 107% in year 5. Joe Silva of AISD did say 105-110% is a good range for both Mills & Kiker. There would be 4rth graders at Mills that would be most likely be grandfathered in so it wouldn't be 100 Mills kids going to Kiker next year.
ReplyDelete"Kiker currently has 6 portables (12 classrooms) on site & can accommodate up to 7 additional portables (14 classrooms)."
See Slide 14 on the following link:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5362433/Clayton-Elementary-Relief-for-2009-2010
I doubt Kiker would need additional portables, but they do have the ability to add more portables unlike Mills.
I would like to ask that posters put their real name, first and last at the conclusion of their posts. For example, if your blogger name is "Fred" then please sign your full name at the end of your post or change your blogger name to include your real first and last.
ReplyDeleteCurious.....Do we know why, or have we asked why, Oak Hill is so against moving Travis Country to Sunset Valley? That would then allow for a filling effect down the line for Boone as well. Travis Country tacks to O'Henry and Austin High by choice. Then there'd be more room at Clayton/Meridian which IS within our tracking. No rush on responding. I'm just curious since Reavis Country hasn't seen a boundary change in 20+ years while the rest of the neighborhoods seem to experience changes every 3 years.
ReplyDelete-Judy Bienvenu
Blogging on an iPhone results in lots of typeo's. Sorry about that!
ReplyDeleteJudy Bienvenu
momthecoach = Traci Anderson
ReplyDeleteSending good vibes to everyone at the Boundary meeting. Aren't we fortunate to live in a place where parents care so much and want to be part of the process! Love and peace to all....
ReplyDeleteLisa and Michelle are doing a fantastic job of speaking into all the various issues coming up right now at the meeting. But there is a lot of chaos, and it is difficult to navigate how the meeting is being held. Mills is at 112%, but many comments have been made about it being a further target for meddling.
ReplyDeleteMike Fair
Boone just proposed to take 96A2 & 96H3.
ReplyDeletecheers, Mike Fair
It passed 12 to 6
ReplyDeleteLooks like there will be a lot of for sale signs in the neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteReally? Wow...
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable. In complete shock. What options are left?
ReplyDeletePlease correct me if I get any of this wrong. The proposal going out to the Jan 5 meeting removes the following from Mills (omitting areas with 0 population)
ReplyDeleteFormatted (2009 pop : 2014 projected pop)
To Kiker:
96F1 68: 63
96F2 104:102
96E 5: 0
To Boone:
96A2 32: 29
96H3 85: 94
For a total of:
289:288
Mills current "population" is 1037, so the new map removes 27% of our population base. This brings population below 90% of capacity next year. Given the uncertainty in the projections, especially since they reflect current economic effects which might be temporarily inflating the numbers, that puts Mills at risk of having insufficient population in several years.
--Matthew Markert
Is this in addition to VP and PP going, or is this a new proposed total?
ReplyDelete-Maria Bodoh
Oops... never mind... I think I just figured it out.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the updates. What a difficult process that must have been.
I lost track of all the numbers and details in the chaos of the meeting, especially at the end. But I think Mills now(can we call it Plan 2), is at 98% (Boone is at 81%). I'm not sure about the numbers now, I'll have to wait for the pdf from AISD (or perhaps someone here could type up all the numbers. I have them in spreadsheet form, correct up until today.
ReplyDeleteOptions? ...
ReplyDeleteAs is evident from tonights shenanigans, new data or changing 'process' or broken agreements or even sunspots, can trigger new proposed changes. Evidently he Jan 12 meeting will entertain some revisions. So the window is now open to give feedback to all the officials on our impressions of the process and of the outcome. And to discuss and publicize some new proposals that can readjust the map to a more fair arrangement.
Lisa and Michelle,
ReplyDeleteYou guys are champs for going through all of this on our behalf. I am grateful for your hard work and perseverance. You deserve our thanks, and certainly have mine.
Mike
Mike:
ReplyDeleteRegarding the numbers, the 98% number you cite is for five years out in a somewhat uncertain projection. I was looking at next year since it is more predictable.
--Matthew
Very true point about the uncertainty in the data, especially the new set of projections.
ReplyDeleteThere was not a single mention in the meeting last night about next years numbers. The debate relied entirely on the 2014-2015 year for the purpose of moving the pieces around. One reason given for this is that AISD couldn't get the GIS software (ArcView) to handle different sets of numbers.