PUBLIC COMMENTS START AT 6:10PM
REVISED AGENDA:
I. CALL TO ORDER
6:00 PM
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
6:02 PM
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:05 PM
IV. PUBLIC HEARING: SOUTHWEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
BOUNDARIES
(90 Minutes)
6:10 PM
V. BOARD DISCUSSION
(60 Minutes)
7:40 PM
VI. ADJOURNMENT
8:40 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
meeting delayed 15-30 minutes due to Board members stuck in traffic.
ReplyDeletemeeting is starting
ReplyDeleteAlmost 200 people here. By the look of the signs, it is split roughly in half.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, there are 5 trustees here.
Corky : yes -
ReplyDeleteMike : yes -
Jenn: yes -
Pat : yes -
Erica : yes -
Candace : yes -
Benita : yes -
Judy : yes -
Brad: yes -
Matt , Clayton rep: no -
Matt : yes -
Ray: no - populations should be all equal, within 5%. Plan3 is incomplete, a fail.
Doug, OH: yes -
Stanley, Boone: no - I like Boone the way it is. Plan3 lacks fiscal responsibility, portables are expensive
Rebeca, Boone PTA prez: no - efficient, effective use
Molly , SV rep: no - complete failure for kids at SV/Boone. Lots of duplicity and double standards. Should just move TC to SV.
John : yes - submitting 300 signatures. Meets all 4 priorities for 7/9 schools. Other 2 need systemic solution. Close 3 of the central schools and the other 7 will still be <100%
??: no - financially irresponsible. portables are $$ to rent and operate. Unneccessary when neighboring schools have empty classrooms.
??: yes - I'm in OH somewhere, commute to SV would be longer commute than SWES. I took 45 minute tour of SV, and saw lots of PE
Casey, OH: yes - OH is diverse but unified school and change is hard. Also, what is the cause of underenrollment? Some want to blame this on race/class. But remember that Cowan resisted Boone, Patton resisted SV.
??, SV teacher: -no process was poorly run. reps didn't know what they were voting on, process changed all the time. Why was SV invited at all. SV lost students in Plan 3. Was someone forced to put SV at the table? When is underutilization be addressed? (she was pretty angry!)
kid1 SV: no - SV is fun with good friends, people follow rules, pleasant school
kid2 SV: no - reads a petition, 'students strongly disagree' 'SV loses student?' 'some SV kids will have to walk farther', 'why do some people not want their kids with us?
kid3 SV: no - SV is 'recognized' on TAKS. SV has 457 students, Plan3 gives SV less. This is not fair to me and my friends. You are responsible adults and should do what is fair for kids.
kid4 SV: no - Boone is our friends and we care about them too. Why are we building new schools if we have room.
kid5 SV: no - 'the power of us'.
kid6 SV: no - I have lots of friends at SV, we are a team, they don't judge me. Teachers are awesome. Please give more students the opportunity to experience SV.
kid7 SV: no - (spanish) We disagree with the plan.
kid8 SV: no - ?
kid9 SV: no - ?
/ Cobain, SV social worker: no - I can't understand how it can be that the Plan does nothing for SV. I object to the notion that the Western OH should be able to go to SWES, despite the long travel time, because 'they want to'.
?? : yes - balances school population in 7/9 schools.
Bob : yes - SWES is 10.5 miles, 1 mile closer than OH. Plan 3 meets expected targets almost exactly.
ReplyDeleteSaray 149N1: yes - I won't have to go on 71 to get to SWES, so Schneider is wrong. Drive time is the same
Dina , OH PTA prez: yes - if TC moved to SV, kids would track through different vertical teams, Austin/Crockett/Austin. SV kids did great. But all the schools have such kids.
Nevell??, SV? : no - throws ball to everyone. I think plan CP? by Cindy Peterson, and my plan nY are better. Distributed graphs and data, promoting other plans that are more efficient, and have fine tracking.
Susana , Boone: no - we have room and rooms, and are exemplary
Valerie, 49 TC:
Madelyn :
Eastwood: yes -
Guita , OH: yes - underutilized schools are asking other kids to move so theirs don't have to in the future. This is not fair.
Linda , OH 40: yes - OH is diverse and large, issue is very challenging, must retain character of school.
Shelly, Mills: yes - Plan3 provides the right relief. AISD has often said 105-115% is idea. 100% was never an appropriate goal. I agree that underutilization should be addressed seperately and specially.
Alecia , Mills: yes - best plan so far to meet stated criteria. 7/9 are within capacity ranges. I understand that Boone/SV should be remedied, but this is outside the scope of this process, and should be combined with the other under schools. And any fix now would be a 'cup in the swimming pool'. TRacking is related to social well being
Adrian, Mills: yes - Plan3 achieves capacity targets for 7 schools, moves smallest possible # of students. Don't use kids W of Mopac as a band-aid. Be creative with the under schools. Make one a magnets (AISD 5year plan sections 1.1.3 & 1.1.5 ) Why are some students in AISD requesting transfers to Eanes School District?
Charla , Boone, no - FUBTF has not completed the task, Plan 3 meets none of the goals. Not a long range sustainable plan. Some schools are above 100% capacity. When transfers and grandfathering are considered, membership will break the AISD limits. It is bad to have students in overcrowded (10:30AM lunch, class in hallways, are unnecceptable). There are better plans out there.
Peggy , : no - efficient capacity not met, existing facilities not being fully used. Please override Plan3 and set boundaries
roughly 25 yay, 23 nay so far.
ReplyDeleteSaul , Boone : no - don't sweep underutilized under the rug, and opportunity to relieve overcapac should be done now. Send Plan 3 back.
ReplyDeleteJoannette, Boone 2nd grader : no - I use special needs resources. Plan 3 will make me lose this (little extra help). Don't pass plan 3. I am going to be a veterinary astronaut and study animals in space.
??, : no - I've heard all contradictions from supporters, their arguments don't make sense. What's our goal? Boone is an equal and important part of the district. Long term capacities are much too high, 140-160% in 5 years?
Byron, TC: yes - forcing people to SV and Boone at this point would bring hard feelings and destroy sense of community
Shana , TC 49: yes - Plan3 adequately addresses overcrowding. TC makes up much of the OH parent involvement, science fairs, fundraising, etc. Please do not break a great school like OH by sending TC to SV, in order to put a band aid on a problem
Lucy , Boone: no - exemplary schools. Closure is reason enough for us to take this issue on immediately. AISD should start getting efficiency now. Kids will broaden friendship base.
Jill , Patton: yes -
??, : yes - allows AISD to have fresh take at all the underutilized schools.
Jerome, Patton : no - but concerned about 249F expanding while my neighborhood is flat.
Lindsey, Boone: no - Boone is exemplary. I'm at UT and doing great.
ReplyDelete??, OH 149: yes - travel time is improved (we can avoid the Y via Circle Drive).
Heather Sanchez, Boone rep: no - does not provide for stability or capacity. With Grandfathering, Mills will be way to high. Look at these numbers before passing, regardless of deadline.
Susan Haddad, Clayton rep: no - I think a plan could meet Boone/SV needs without breaking tracking. OH students should not break tracking.
Dianne, Mills PTA: yes -
?? : no - I don't think tracking is an important issue. Moving kids actually Convenience of parents (driving) is not legitimate.
Leslie: ?x?
Meredith: yes -
Scott Wright, 149: yes - Plan3 moves fewest # kids, travel is fine, don't have to go through y
Zeeron Zuffeleta, Cowan: yes - FUBTF worked countless hours. Plan 3 is logical
Sorry, my battery died there.
ReplyDeleteThe trustees asked very few questions, and then adjourned around 8:30. Evidently the plan to discuss on Feb 22 for 30 minutes, and then vote yes or no, still stands. Carstarphen was not there tonight, but will watch the tape of it.
Torres asked for confirmation that SV was losing 10 students.
Schneider asked for confirmation of the notion that SV students were either a) asking for annexation to Westlake {answer was no}, or b) some of them commonly transfer to Eanes ISD (Westlake) {answer was yes, this is a known phenomena, unknown how widespread}
Schnieder also asked when the board would have a chance to ask specific questions of Dr Carstarphen about underenrollment, and when she could explain her plans to address the overall, systemic issue (or specific to Boone). Answer was, on the 22nd. The agenda for that night will probably be stretched to accomodate more of this discussion. (though this is dependent on the public comments for that night being short)
I only trusts my own notes in the vague sense that speakers basic rationale is recorded. There is some chance my notation of yes/no is wrong.
ReplyDeleteOthers more carefully tallied yes/no/vague, and came up with a number something like 38-24-4 (from memory, feel free to post your impressions or numbers)
On another note, my apologies to anyone whose comments I misrepresented. Feel free to correct them, though I feel like my notes on this matter are only vaguely interesting, in conveying the general vibe and listing some of the repeated themes. The sound bites or the exact rationales have already been heard by the board, and nothing said here will really matter that much. All the same, my apologies if I made errors.
Also, to each their own on the matter of determining how strongly each yes or no should be 'counted'. I suppose it could be argued that the content of some speakers is or is not within the areas of discussion that can be thought of as illuminating, and those that are ancillary. Also, it could be argued that task force members have already been adequately heard and counted, or at least that some members didn't feel it appropriate to speak (but otherwise would've been counted 12yes-7no, the final vote on Plan3).
In case anyone is interested in the plans that Nabil Yazdani presented to the board, I have them. Plan CP (Cindy Petersen) is the one that assigns area 49 to SSV. Boone then picks up areas from SSV. Plan NY (Nabil Yazdani)is the "butterfly plan" he presented at Clayton. It assigns all of the Mills/Small areas to Boone. It also sends Vintage place to Kiker. It leaves Mills at 96% projected capacity in 2014-2015 and leaves Kiker at 85%. I can't quite make out what happens to the 196 areas. Plan NY would have a lot of people drive right by Mills on their way to Boone.
ReplyDeleteGood work to everyone who was there tonight! Am I correct that we need a showing on the 22nd as well? It would be nice to have some different faces.
ReplyDeleteMore about Plan CP...It also sends 96A2 and 96H3 to Patton. It is the same as Plan Y at http://sites.google.com/site/swaustinelementary/home
ReplyDeleteMatthew, please send me plan NY. mwfair@yahoo.com
ReplyDeleteAlso send me Cindy Peterson's email address. I think it would be helpful if all the analytics ended up in one place. If she doesn't want to post everything, I'll figure out somewhere else, once this is all over. There will also be map drawing tools that will be helpful for the next group that have to go through all this.
ReplyDeleteI've updated the excel file a few days ago. Added Plan 3, deleted Plan X, revised Plan Y so that everything south of 290 and west of Mopac is the same as Plan 3. Plan CP must be the old Plan Y. Mike Fair, I'll pm you.
ReplyDeletenew article at Community Impact
ReplyDeletehttp://impactnews.com/southwest-austin/258-recent-news/7126-public-comments-on-proposed-southwest-elementary-school-boundaries
ReplyDeleteHere at the Feb 22 board meeting, hopefully the final decision will be rendered.
ReplyDelete11 people spoke about the boundary issue. For the most part, the comments were general, high level rationale for either accepting (6 people) Plan 3 or sending it back (5 people).
The basic rationales used during the hour (not neccessarily reflective of numbers of people for/against):
ReplyDelete-lots of effort, time, honest discussion have formed the basis for Plan 3
-it is too late to start the process over
-Boone has been overlooked
-alternative plan is ok for tracking, better for capacity
-long term, plan 3 is unstable due to capacities over 100%
-tracking is a subtle thing, and Plan3 gets the definition correct and actually restores vertical teams
-moving Travis Country is not a viable alternative to Plan3
-low capacities don't seem logical when some capacities are over 100%
-Plan3 makes Mopac into a Berlin wall.
Keep in mind that the board listens to all the comments patiently but with a blank face. It is my assumption that they judge the merit of each argument the same way any of us would, which is to say your opinion of the rationale is probably what they will think too. In addition, of course, they also think about the potential impact of the advocated idea on their fast-moving AISD business, on their own position on the matter, and with some sensitivity to public opinion and a future election.
ReplyDeleteHaving said all that, from my perspective, it appears that the arguments had no impact at all. They all know what they want to do, and are not in a position to be swayed by my comments as a citizen. On the other hand, I do think that they will utilize some of the rationales as they discuss the issue in a few minutes, trying to influence each other.
I'll post the basic flow of the discussion, and the votes.
9:45 pm - They need to vote on the amendment to the amended motion. Then vote on whether to amend the motion, then vote on the motion (possibly amended.)
ReplyDeletePlan 3 is approved 7-2 (Torres and I think, Guzman opposed.)
ReplyDelete????AISD board discussion
ReplyDelete9:28 Moya motions to 1) approve Plan3, 2) accept grandfathering, 3)accept staffing budget 4) accept position recommendations (she did not motion to accept the idea of crafting changes to the FUBTF at this time)
9:29 Williams seconds
Schneider asks Superintendent to explain her plan for addressing underutilization.
Super. says that assumes FUBTF has been the main driver for this
so she says is sticking to the plan she has shared before, in a structured and transparent manner,
we need a full assessment of facilities: conditions, overall system usage,
collect data about all of our schools
put together a master facilities plan
address systemically: underutilization, portables,
however, these studies are not close to being completed
so I can't give a near term plan, but we are working on a global plan
Schnieder: I think it is unfair to make a minor fix to Boone/SV when there is a bigger plan coming later.
Schneider: I am uncomfortable with the way the process pits neighborhoods against each other.
Guzman: I am concerned about what I heard (outside this room), that Mopac doesn't become a barrier to divide children.
Guzman: I feel that opponents of Plan3 had the most compelling arguments
LoVoi: I am sympathetic to speakers defending underutilized schools.
LoVoi: I wonder why parents aren't transfering to these exemplary schools
LoVoi: I would like to explore a variet of magnet ideas for these schools (e.g. engineering)
Moya: ammend my motion to remove 3) and 4) above
Smith: Many great schools have low enrollment, ddue partly to the way we develop housing areas in Austin.
Smith: FUBTF is volunteers, they've puts lot of time and have done the best they can with what we gave them.
Smith: we need to accept the plan in order to have a border structure soon.
Smith: we need to ensure that parents don't leave tonight thinking that
Bradley: I think we should guarantee to support the staffing levels at the schools.
Bradley: let me be clear, I was bussed, and to a neighborhood that didn't want us. For us it was a fight
Bradley: so I don't like the idea of moving out of your neighborhood to go to school, you should feel comfortable.
Bradley: so I think we need to change the motion
Williams: lets remove all motions and start over, too many amendments
Schneider: I motion to accept 1) 2) 3)
Torres: I object to the wording of underutilization when we know Boone/SV not helped.
vote: 7-2 , PLAN 3 PASSES!!!!!!!
????board votes
yes Mark Williams
no Vincent M. Torres
yes Lori Moya
yes Cheryl Bradley
no Sam Guzman
yes Christine Brister
yes Robert Schneider
yes Annette LoVoi
yes Karen Dulaney Smith
I had forgotten that Hignight was Torres' appointee. Hignight was always the one advocating for capacity numbers being the end-all and be-all. In light of that it is less surprising that Torres voted against Plan 3. I'm unhappy that Guzman bought the story about Mopac being a new Berlin wall. He obviously didn't listen to what Mills was saying. He would have understood that the "wall" was an artificial line that the District created when they set high school and middle school boundaries.
ReplyDeleteI am very happy that the school board, and Robert Schneider in particular, wants District staff to study best practices in boundary setting. Robert (and I suspect others) wished for a process that did not set neighborhoods against each other.
ReplyDeleteKaren Dulaney-Smith paid us all a big compliment by saying that she was amazed at how thoroughly prepared Southwest Austin parents were with very well-reasoned arguments.
On that note, I'd like to compliment everyone at Mills for keeping the tone of the debate civil and intellectually honest. Our opponents have made racist/classist charges against us, but I have not seen any evidence to support their charges. Thanks to all for your hard work, dedication, and faith.
I applaud everyone who put their time and effort into this process. I found that I used up all of my energy back in the MS boundary debaucle, and was so happy to see other people taking up the gauntlet here, and so effectively! Now the Board can move on to addressing the underenrollment issues east of Mopac as well as the urgent need for a new high school. Well done, everyone!
ReplyDelete