Because the Board will have another workshop before voting on feeder and boundary shifts, as well as adopting a longterm framework - - anyone who is concerned about the projected over-enrollment at Austin, Travis, Bush, Kempner, Clements and Elkins may want to submit the following email to the Board (many folks from many communities have already emailed their concerns): We are active community members who have watched many iterations of Band-Aid zoning through the years. While we can all agree that the process leading up this newest plan is the most comprehensive to date, we feel there is a crucial piece of long-term planning currently absent from the framework/plan that will be adopted, assuming the majority of the Board agrees to do so, on January 26. We ask that you consider adding the following, in the vicinity of page 15, for your long-term guiding framework to be complete: ADDITIONAL HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY As the table above indicates, we will be closely monitoring enrollment at Austin, Clements, Dulles, Elkins, Kempner, and Travis high schools. The overall projection for the Austin, Bush, Travis, Kempner cluster - assuming district recommended feeder and boundary shifts are approved and implemented - will be 95% live-in (not including GSA and Business Academy students who will be housed at Travis) utilization for 2019-2020, and increasing because of a trend for families to buy homes in FBISD with secondary school-aged children. The overall projection for the Clements, Elkins, Dulles feeder cluster will be 94%, not including the Math and Engineering academy students who will be housed at Dulles. Due to this high school squeeze, coupled with our knowledge based on extensive work with DeJong Richter that an ideal capacity to ensure a high school serves its students adequately is 85%, the Board and Admin will review the possibility of adding high school capacity, either in the form of classroom additions on existing buildings or in the form of a stand-alone campus, in the northern/central part of the district to ensure we are meeting our goals of: * maintaining neighborhood concept ** preventing and eliminating overcrowding ** allowing for future growth * keeping travel distances as short as possible * minimizing the need for transportation ** allowing campuses to house students safely and provide adequate services. To further illustrate the importance of the addendum of an “Additional High School Capacity” clause, we think it is wise to look at each overcrowded school independently of its feeder cluster, as clustering data can blur the important information (please note since we have not been given most up-to-date PASA numbers, this breakdown is based on the numbers given for scenarios A/B): SCHOOL 2014 2015 2018 Austin 96% 86% w/o Lofts 88% w/o Lofts Bush 82% 101% 105% Travis 91% 62% w/o GSA &Biz 67% w/o GSA& biz Kempner 110% 97% 97% Clements 85% 101% (per admin) 101+% (per admin) Dulles 73% 91% w/o Math,Eng 90% w/o math, eng Elkins 100% numbers not avail bc of LOMS switch If you prefer to look at the schools in clusters, we would then like to point out some information taken straight from the existing admin-recommended framework set to be adopted on January 26: The plan states that the Austin, Bush, Kempner, Travis “cluster” has a combined utilization of 95%, projected to be at 104% in 2019-2020. Meanwhile, the Clements, Elkins, Dulles “cluster” is said to have a combined utilization of 83%, projected to be 87% in 2019-2020. The plan says this shows a “need to increase enrollment within these (Clements, Elkins, Dulles) feeder patterns while also being mindful of projected growth within Riverstone.” Board policy says schools that are between 80% and 120% utilized are acceptable. So, why is there a need to shift populations from a cluster that is within range to another cluster that is within range. The truth is, both clusters are too high. There is a need for additional high school space that can be shared by populations in these clusters. We hope you will seriously consider this request. As already stated, when the board adopts this framework, it is not approving every piece. “This plan is a working document to be updated to memorialize changes, including, but not limited to, student enrollment, projected enrollment, building capacities, and construction timetables.” Instead, like the Facilities Master Plan, the board is accepting the plan as a roadmap to guide future decision-making. We feel it is prudent and necessary to include the possibility of additional high school capacity as part of that future roadmap. To do otherwise ensures high schools in the Northwest and Central parts of FBISD are doomed to remain overcrowded indefinitely.
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 22:34:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015