|
Post by rtxc1 on Oct 22, 2015 11:42:48 GMT -6
I seem to remember the logic behind that neighborhood being zoned to Guyer was to increase diversity there... IIRC that's one of the poorest neighborhoods in Denton. I thought that may have something to do with it. But they can't keep that up forever. If there is a lot of growth on the south side, it doesn't make a ton of sense to not move some Guyer kids to the other schools. However, they gotta do what they gotta do, so oh well.
|
|
|
Post by catfromwayback on Oct 22, 2015 11:57:26 GMT -6
I hear Calallen is opening up a new tech program that will be open open enrollment to all potential welders. All prospective students just need to bring a birth certificate, 3-minute highlight video, and verified 40 time with notary stamp to apply.
|
|
|
Post by rtxc1 on Oct 22, 2015 12:03:04 GMT -6
I hear Calallen is opening up a new tech program that will be open open enrollment to all potential welders. All prospective students just need to bring a birth certificate, 3-minute highlight video, and verified 40 time with notary stamp to apply. Well at least they would be learning a trade!
|
|
|
Post by ogoba on Oct 22, 2015 12:06:03 GMT -6
I hear Calallen is opening up a new tech program that will be open open enrollment to all potential welders. All prospective students just need to bring a birth certificate, 3-minute highlight video, and verified 40 time with notary stamp to apply. Now that's funny right there
|
|
|
Post by rtxc1 on Oct 22, 2015 12:12:38 GMT -6
www.leanderisd.org/users/0001/docs/AZ/Scenario-R-map_1617.pdfThe approved zone for Leander ISD. There were other options that would have kept every school under its core capacity for a few years, but the one they chose has Vandegrift exceeding core capacity as early as 2016. Every HS is expected to exceed core capacity by 2022, with the next HS not expected to be built until 2023. I understand not wanting to alter attendance zones too much or too often, but if every school can be under its core capacity for a number of years, why not go with that plan?
|
|
|
Post by rtxc1 on Oct 22, 2015 12:28:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rtxc1 on Oct 22, 2015 12:49:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rtxc1 on Oct 22, 2015 13:02:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rtxc1 on Oct 22, 2015 13:09:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 22, 2015 18:36:49 GMT -6
www.leanderisd.org/users/0001/docs/AZ/Scenario-R-map_1617.pdfThe approved zone for Leander ISD. There were other options that would have kept every school under its core capacity for a few years, but the one they chose has Vandegrift exceeding core capacity as early as 2016. Every HS is expected to exceed core capacity by 2022, with the next HS not expected to be built until 2023. I understand not wanting to alter attendance zones too much or too often, but if every school can be under its core capacity for a number of years, why not go with that plan? There are a lot of factors in play. For one thing, the goal is not to keep the schools under capacity but to keep them right around 100% capacity. Being under capacity is hardly ideal as it means you've got facilities that are not being used. Now in a fast-growing district you do have to allow for room for growth but sometimes projections can be off, particularly if you're trying to project more than a couple of years out. E.g. with the oil price crash, a district like LCISD should probably be skittish about whether they're really going to grow that much. Being over capacity really just means you may have to get some portable classrooms, but this really isn't that bad as a temporary solution... hell, my high school had portable classrooms.
|
|
|
Post by rtxc1 on Oct 22, 2015 19:54:26 GMT -6
www.leanderisd.org/users/0001/docs/AZ/Scenario-R-map_1617.pdfThe approved zone for Leander ISD. There were other options that would have kept every school under its core capacity for a few years, but the one they chose has Vandegrift exceeding core capacity as early as 2016. Every HS is expected to exceed core capacity by 2022, with the next HS not expected to be built until 2023. I understand not wanting to alter attendance zones too much or too often, but if every school can be under its core capacity for a number of years, why not go with that plan? There are a lot of factors in play. For one thing, the goal is not to keep the schools under capacity but to keep them right around 100% capacity. Being under capacity is hardly ideal as it means you've got facilities that are not being used. Now in a fast-growing district you do have to allow for room for growth but sometimes projections can be off, particularly if you're trying to project more than a couple of years out. E.g. with the oil price crash, a district like LCISD should probably be skittish about whether they're really going to grow that much. Being over capacity really just means you may have to get some portable classrooms, but this really isn't that bad as a temporary solution... hell, my high school had portable classrooms. True, but on the other hand, you don't want some to be well under capacity, with others well over. Portables still cost money. My school had to keep adding portables (20 !!!), and enrollment was to the point where the hallways were so crowded you could hardly get through. Most schools won't have to worry about that, but it is still problematic.
|
|
|
Post by brodiescomics on Oct 22, 2015 20:23:41 GMT -6
My son played against the new CC Veteran's Memorial Freshman team this evening. Final Score was St. Joseph JV 32 - CC Veterans Memorial 0. STJ plays in TAPPS Division II with an enrollment of about 300. The JV is mostly Freshmen with about 4-5 Sophomores.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 22, 2015 20:39:33 GMT -6
There are a lot of factors in play. For one thing, the goal is not to keep the schools under capacity but to keep them right around 100% capacity. Being under capacity is hardly ideal as it means you've got facilities that are not being used. Now in a fast-growing district you do have to allow for room for growth but sometimes projections can be off, particularly if you're trying to project more than a couple of years out. E.g. with the oil price crash, a district like LCISD should probably be skittish about whether they're really going to grow that much. Being over capacity really just means you may have to get some portable classrooms, but this really isn't that bad as a temporary solution... hell, my high school had portable classrooms. True, but on the other hand, you don't want some to be well under capacity, with others well over. Portables still cost money. My school had to keep adding portables (20 !!!), and enrollment was to the point where the hallways were so crowded you could hardly get through. Most schools won't have to worry about that, but it is still problematic. There's also the concern about transportation; e.g. with Denton ISD, like I brought up before, to rezone away from Guyer you'd probably either be sending kids who live right by Guyer HS to another school (adding needless transportation costs) or you'd be sending kids from the southern part of the zone literally over 10 miles to school. Plus there are political concerns, particularly if the different schools are disparate in terms of quality and (let's come out and say it) demographics. I.e. with Fort Bend ISD, you have Willowridge and Marshall being at around half their capacity while other schools are close to being overcrowded... but see what happens if you bring up the possibility of rezoning neighborhoods to those schools. And there can be very real concerns about the possibility of being overbuilt once the growth slows down or even reverses; see: Spring Branch ISD in the 1980s, when they actually had to close a couple of high schools because they weren't needed any more.
|
|
|
Post by rtxc1 on Oct 28, 2015 19:28:50 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 19:33:17 GMT -6
Like our original better but It does look good. Just rather go with something original.
|
|