More on BBMS vs. LOMS Zoning Problems (from FortBendTalk.com)
FBISD Rezoning: Baines Middle School & LOMS
Admin Feb 24, 2006 - 10:33 AM
This was passed along to me.
==================================
Some of you may not be aware that as a result of tremendous communication from parents of Lake Olympia students, the FBISD board may be readdressing the zoning to Baines Middle School for this upcoming year.
The enclosed letter from Cyndi Hernandez, Sienna Crossing PTO President explains the situation. She sent this to the members of the board.
If you have an opinion on this matter, we encourage you to communicate with the FBISD board and the interim-Superintendent. Apparently they have heard from very few members of our community on this topic.
There is also a Board Meeting this Monday, February 27th at 7 PM at the FBISD building across from the mall. It is very likely that the subject of rezoning will be addressed. You are welcome to attend.
=============================================
==============
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: FBISD Rezoning: Baines Middle School & LOMS
Dear Members of the Board and Superintendent Pedraza,
It is my understanding that the issue of zoning for Lake Olympia Middle School is again being raised. While I can understand the frustration that many Lake Olympia parents are feeling due to overcrowding, I must respectfully state that a 'knee-jerk' or immediate response is not what is needed here. What I hope that you will all consider is a much broader, long-term solution that will best suit all individuals throughout the district: parents, students, and administrators.
I was a participant on the ABC Committee that helped to determine the current zone, and I must tell you it was a difficult task; but it was one that we attempted to complete in the fairest manner possible, contrary to what you may have heard. With the numbers provided at the time -- approximately 1600 students, and capacity figures for Baines at 1200 and Lake Olympia near 1400 -- the proposed boundaries suggested opening enrol lment counts at/or near 75-80% for both schools,with virtually equal socio-economic numbers (31% & 33%). Of course, we now know that capacity figures for Baines will be closer to Lake Olympia (1329 vs. 1371). However, this does not mean that the boundaries should be changed rashly.
As a Sienna resident, I have been painted with a broad brush ranging from the devil incarnate (yes, I have heard the term to my face) to a person who does not understand the issues. I promise you, this is not the case. I am however, an individual who does not believe that the overcrowding at Lake Olympia can be solved by moving "a bunch of kids over to Baines." In fact, the only way to correctly resolve the problem is to reassess growth projections for our entire area, review the entire Fort Bend zone boundaries of nea rby middle schools (I can count 4 that are currently under capacity) as well as Baines, and move forward with an early bond referendum for another middle school in this high growth area. All of this may take a bit of time.
I ask that you recognize that the quote recently stated by a LOMS parent that Baines would open with only 700 students is incorrect. Even by the original ABC zone plan, that number is wrong. Current estimates project that Baines will open near 830+ students. I suspect this is a conservative projection. Sienna Crossing and Scanlan Oaks are both beyond capacity and will continue to be so, even with the exits of 5th and 6th grade classes. In addition, the current number of 6th grade students from Burton and Goodman (that are currently zoned for Baines) is higher than was originally estimated in late 2004.
Please also consider the following information when discussing any zone change in the immediate future: the metro study which was ultimately a key decision piece indicated that the entire zone area for Baines would reach 715+ single family homes during 2005. Sienna Plantation, on its own, surpassed this figure by over 75 homes. As a matter of fact, Sienna Plantation has outpaced its own sales projections by 25+% each year over the last two years. Conservatively, Sienna Plantation estimates that they will sell over 800 single family homes in 2006. While the northern neighborhood of Anderson Springs, in the front section of Sienna is rapidly growing (and is the only one visible from parts of Highway 6), so are the back sections of Shipman's Landing and Water's Lake, both which can not be seen without driving deep into Sienna. In addition, another new neighborhood, The Forest, in immediate proximity of Baines is rapidly building with homes scheduled to open before the end of April. These neighborhoods reflect a number of price point ranges, not just starter homes, and will likely yield even more middle school age students. In addition, two new neighborhoods are rapidly going up within the vicinity of Sienna-- one just north of Newpoint Estates along Highway 6 and one on 521 towards Sienna Point. Both are zoned to Baines and both are designed as high-density, single family homes.
I thank you for your time in considering the points I have enclosed. Zoning is difficult on everyone involved, most especially the students and their families. I only ask that you make the right decision for the entire district and our growing area, not just for one school.
Sincerely,
Cyndi H.
____________________
Comments posted to FBTalk.com on this thus far:
This was passed along to me.
==================================
Some of you may not be aware that as a result of tremendous communication from parents of Lake Olympia students, the FBISD board may be readdressing the zoning to Baines Middle School for this upcoming year.
The enclosed letter from Cyndi Hernandez, Sienna Crossing PTO President explains the situation. She sent this to the members of the board.
If you have an opinion on this matter, we encourage you to communicate with the FBISD board and the interim-Superintendent. Apparently they have heard from very few members of our community on this topic.
There is also a Board Meeting this Monday, February 27th at 7 PM at the FBISD building across from the mall. It is very likely that the subject of rezoning will be addressed. You are welcome to attend.
=============================================
==============
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: FBISD Rezoning: Baines Middle School & LOMS
Dear Members of the Board and Superintendent Pedraza,
It is my understanding that the issue of zoning for Lake Olympia Middle School is again being raised. While I can understand the frustration that many Lake Olympia parents are feeling due to overcrowding, I must respectfully state that a 'knee-jerk' or immediate response is not what is needed here. What I hope that you will all consider is a much broader, long-term solution that will best suit all individuals throughout the district: parents, students, and administrators.
I was a participant on the ABC Committee that helped to determine the current zone, and I must tell you it was a difficult task; but it was one that we attempted to complete in the fairest manner possible, contrary to what you may have heard. With the numbers provided at the time -- approximately 1600 students, and capacity figures for Baines at 1200 and Lake Olympia near 1400 -- the proposed boundaries suggested opening enrol lment counts at/or near 75-80% for both schools,with virtually equal socio-economic numbers (31% & 33%). Of course, we now know that capacity figures for Baines will be closer to Lake Olympia (1329 vs. 1371). However, this does not mean that the boundaries should be changed rashly.
As a Sienna resident, I have been painted with a broad brush ranging from the devil incarnate (yes, I have heard the term to my face) to a person who does not understand the issues. I promise you, this is not the case. I am however, an individual who does not believe that the overcrowding at Lake Olympia can be solved by moving "a bunch of kids over to Baines." In fact, the only way to correctly resolve the problem is to reassess growth projections for our entire area, review the entire Fort Bend zone boundaries of nea rby middle schools (I can count 4 that are currently under capacity) as well as Baines, and move forward with an early bond referendum for another middle school in this high growth area. All of this may take a bit of time.
I ask that you recognize that the quote recently stated by a LOMS parent that Baines would open with only 700 students is incorrect. Even by the original ABC zone plan, that number is wrong. Current estimates project that Baines will open near 830+ students. I suspect this is a conservative projection. Sienna Crossing and Scanlan Oaks are both beyond capacity and will continue to be so, even with the exits of 5th and 6th grade classes. In addition, the current number of 6th grade students from Burton and Goodman (that are currently zoned for Baines) is higher than was originally estimated in late 2004.
Please also consider the following information when discussing any zone change in the immediate future: the metro study which was ultimately a key decision piece indicated that the entire zone area for Baines would reach 715+ single family homes during 2005. Sienna Plantation, on its own, surpassed this figure by over 75 homes. As a matter of fact, Sienna Plantation has outpaced its own sales projections by 25+% each year over the last two years. Conservatively, Sienna Plantation estimates that they will sell over 800 single family homes in 2006. While the northern neighborhood of Anderson Springs, in the front section of Sienna is rapidly growing (and is the only one visible from parts of Highway 6), so are the back sections of Shipman's Landing and Water's Lake, both which can not be seen without driving deep into Sienna. In addition, another new neighborhood, The Forest, in immediate proximity of Baines is rapidly building with homes scheduled to open before the end of April. These neighborhoods reflect a number of price point ranges, not just starter homes, and will likely yield even more middle school age students. In addition, two new neighborhoods are rapidly going up within the vicinity of Sienna-- one just north of Newpoint Estates along Highway 6 and one on 521 towards Sienna Point. Both are zoned to Baines and both are designed as high-density, single family homes.
I thank you for your time in considering the points I have enclosed. Zoning is difficult on everyone involved, most especially the students and their families. I only ask that you make the right decision for the entire district and our growing area, not just for one school.
Sincerely,
Cyndi Hernandez
InvolvedParent
Post subject: RE: Letter From Sienna Crossing PTO President Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 01:56 PM
Joined: Feb 18, 2006
Posts: 8
Status: Offline
Cyndi, I appreciate your apprehension about future growth in Sienna, but ask you to recognize that we all have the same concerns. The number of 700 students at BBMS came from Mr. Petros in FBISD; he has recently confirmed that, even with actual growth during the school year, the number today would be 754. In contrast, the number for LOMS would be 1150+. Given that we all now have accurate capacity data, I can't understand the justification for not levelling these numbers out. A 42-seat capacity difference can't be used to justify a gap of 400 students. By the way, I haven't heard any parents asking for a 'bunch of kids' to be moved to Baines.
InvolvedParent
Post subject: RE: Letter From Sienna Crossing PTO President Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 01:56 PM
Joined: Feb 18, 2006
Posts: 8
Status: Offline
Cyndi, I appreciate your apprehension about future growth in Sienna, but ask you to recognize that we all have the same concerns. The number of 700 students at BBMS came from Mr. Petros in FBISD; he has recently confirmed that, even with actual growth during the school year, the number today would be 754. In contrast, the number for LOMS would be 1150+. Given that we all now have accurate capacity data, I can't understand the justification for not levelling these numbers out. A 42-seat capacity difference can't be used to justify a gap of 400 students. By the way, I haven't heard any parents asking for a 'bunch of kids' to be moved to Baines.
Admin
Post subject: Re: RE: Letter From Sienna Crossing PTO President Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 03:43 PM
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 12
Status: Offline
You have learned that the number today would be 754? Where did you learn that? Mr Petros does not even have accurate growth numbers for the area.
What about in 6 1/2 months from now when the school opens? What about in 1 year when Sienna has over 900 apartments built near by.
InvolvedParent wrote:
Cyndi, I appreciate your apprehension about future growth in Sienna, but ask you to recognize that we all have the same concerns. The number of 700 students at BBMS came from Mr. Petros in FBISD; he has recently confirmed that, even with actual growth during the school year, the number today would be 754. In contrast, the number for LOMS would be 1150+. Given that we all now have accurate capacity data, I can't understand the justification for not levelling these numbers out. A 42-seat capacity difference can't be used to justify a gap of 400 students. By the way, I haven't heard any parents asking for a 'bunch of kids' to be moved to Baines.
concerned
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 03:45 PM
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Posts: 2
Status: Offline
Cyndi, I would urge you to stop listening to rumors about numbers and verify your facts with FBISD. I wouldn't call waiting over 10 years (the amount of time LOMS has been overcrowded) to address the issue as "knee-jerk". I also participated in the original ABC zoning and my thoughts on that were that the best was done with the information provided, but unfortunately, the design capacity of both schools was misreported. When you make a zoning decision based on incorrect information, the result is bound to be less than optimal. I don't see the need for everyone to make personal attacks here - this is a situation where the district must do what is right for the children...all of the children. How you can sit there and say that a 42 seat capacity difference justifys a 400 student gap? It defies all logic. As for projected growth numbers, there is currently growth on BOTH sides of Hwy. 6 (when is the last time you drove through some of the new neighborhoods on this side of the street?). I can't believe that anyone would think leaving LOMS overcrowded and opening Baines with many open seats for children who may or may not move into your area at some time in the future is doing what is right for all of the children. The parents that are asking the board to re-visit the zoning are not trying to do something "bad" to Baines, we are just trying to level out the numbers so that both schools will have a chance to succeed - surely you can't oppose that. In fact, if you were at the final ABC meetings, you know that Dr. Baitland promised to re-visit the numbers on a quarterly basis and revise the plan if the numbers didn't pan out. Well, the numbers don't pan out any way you look at them, so the issue should be revisited. I agree with you that the entire district needs rezoning, but with the requirement of the demographic study (this time from a non-biased source), this can't happen in time to give some necessary relief to LOMS. This is a community school that is in serious trouble...it is my community school that is in serious trouble and I will not sit idly by and watch it happen - I have asked the board to look at the situation. The children that attend LOMS deserve a chance to succeed just as much as the children who are set to attend Baines. As communities, we should stop fighting and unite in an effort to address the long term overcrowding that both of our middle schools are projected to experience in the short term future.
concerned
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 03:46 PM
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Posts: 2
Status: Offline
Cyndi, I would urge you to stop listening to rumors about numbers and verify your facts with FBISD. I wouldn't call waiting over 10 years (the amount of time LOMS has been overcrowded) to address the issue as "knee-jerk". I also participated in the original ABC zoning and my thoughts on that were that the best was done with the information provided, but unfortunately, the design capacity of both schools was misreported. When you make a zoning decision based on incorrect information, the result is bound to be less than optimal. I don't see the need for everyone to make personal attacks here - this is a situation where the district must do what is right for the children...all of the children. How you can sit there and say that a 42 seat capacity difference justifys a 400 student gap? It defies all logic. As for projected growth numbers, there is currently growth on BOTH sides of Hwy. 6 (when is the last time you drove through some of the new neighborhoods on this side of the street?). I can't believe that anyone would think leaving LOMS overcrowded and opening Baines with many open seats for children who may or may not move into your area at some time in the future is doing what is right for all of the children. The parents that are asking the board to re-visit the zoning are not trying to do something "bad" to Baines, we are just trying to level out the numbers so that both schools will have a chance to succeed - surely you can't oppose that. In fact, if you were at the final ABC meetings, you know that Dr. Baitland promised to re-visit the numbers on a quarterly basis and revise the plan if the numbers didn't pan out. Well, the numbers don't pan out any way you look at them, so the issue should be revisited. I agree with you that the entire district needs rezoning, but with the requirement of the demographic study (this time from a non-biased source), this can't happen in time to give some necessary relief to LOMS. This is a community school that is in serious trouble...it is my community school that is in serious trouble and I will not sit idly by and watch it happen - I have asked the board to look at the situation. The children that attend LOMS deserve a chance to succeed just as much as the children who are set to attend Baines. As communities, we should stop fighting and unite in an effort to address the long term overcrowding that both of our middle schools are projected to experience in the short term future.
InvolvedParent
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 03:53 PM
Joined: Feb 18, 2006
Posts: 8
Status: Offline
Admin: No one can agree on the growth numbers, which is why we can't base zoning decisions on them! 754 is the number in place today that will attend BBMS; same for the number for LOMS. You can lump a couple hundred more kiddos on top of both numbers, but the gap stays the same. Fear of future growth is a weak argument in an area where homes are popping up on both sides of Hwy 6. I am not asking Baines to take a disproportionate share - I just want it to take a fair share. If growth explodes on either side of 6, we rezone. There's no other option until a new middle school gets built.
InvolvedParent
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 03:54 PM
Joined: Feb 18, 2006
Posts: 8
Status: Offline
Admin: No one can agree on the growth numbers, which is why we can't base zoning decisions on them! 754 is the number in place today that will attend BBMS; same for the number for LOMS. You can lump a couple hundred more kiddos on top of both numbers, but the gap stays the same. Fear of future growth is a weak argument in an area where homes are popping up on both sides of Hwy 6. I am not asking Baines to take a disproportionate share - I just want it to take a fair share. If growth explodes on either side of 6, we rezone. There's no other option until a new middle school gets built.
Admin
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 04:19 PM
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 12
Status: Offline
Cyndi does make a point that there are schools that are under utilized. If there is an adjustment to rezoning FBISD needs to look at the whole picture and rezone all the Middle schools to balance things out.
schoolwise
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 04:31 PM
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Posts: 1
Status: Online!
Long term planning is a band-aid approach, but one that should be part of the long range goal. The big picture is school finance and more specifically how new campuses are funded. It should not be just the locals supporting and funding the schools. The mega-developers can afford to kick in and become part of the longterm solution too since they directly benefit from what is left of the districts reputation. They are a stake-holder that have gotten a free ride far to long! I also think it's important to note that Cyndi, the PTO pres., who sent this letter also works for the SJD company and does the newsletter for them. Why haven't we as residents read about this on our resident funded website (SiennaNet.com) and/or the resident funded newsletter she coordinates? Can you really wear that many hats and claim no one has spoken up. I know several non-sanctioned area websites run by concerned residents who spoke up quite some time back---long before this letter! Come on SJD lead the way and kick-in on additional schools (out of your pocket, rather than someone elses).
-My opinion!
Admin wrote:
Cyndi does make a point that there are schools that are under utilized. If there is an adjustment to rezoning FBISD needs to look at the whole picture and rezone all the Middle schools to balance things out.
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Friday, February 24, 2006
16 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Comments on this from FBNow.com:
1 maized&cornfused - Feb 17, 08:18 am
“The school was built to relieve Lake Olympia overcrowding as well as accommodate continued growth in the area…”
Sending the LO students to Baines is only a band-aid fix. Where will the children go when Sienna children come of age and need a school? Not to even consider the new Sienna Apartments are built and those students need to go somewhere too?
I don’t understand why they don’t build bigger schools in the first place.
2 siennaresident - Feb 17, 03:30 pm
With this mass addition of new students thrown on BBMS and an additional 2700 apts. slated by our developer for this zoned area isn’t FBISD just transferring the problem?
Not a good start for BBMS or the children.
3 maized&cornfused - Feb 17, 06:20 pm
I read on another site that Baines was built smaller than LO anyway so the numbers don’t add up.
Added to the problem is that the school looks like it is in the “fly zone” for the airport so if/when that expands there will also be jets flying over the children.
Not so safe either.
4 siennaresident - Feb 18, 06:34 am
Not sure if the county (Hebert) is that concerned about the safety issue, just in helping the private airport owner by diverting that McKeever road so he can make his run-way extensions.
It would be nice if FBISD would build smaller MS and just more of them. What good is it cramming that many kids that age into such a large campus (other than Petros just trying to save $$$).
I think we’ll just see the problems spread from LOMS to BBMS without a real solution at either campus as long as the area is undergoing such rapid growth stress the school system will be feeling it. It’s too bad the developers who benefit from what’s left of the district’s reputation through increased home and land sales aren’t required to kick some of that money back into the start-up costs of the much needed new campuses!
Good luck!
5 Raquel Margolis - Feb 21, 01:48 pm
Sienna continues to grow and will need every desk at BBMS in the next few years. Moving LO kids there does not solve the problem. Doing so would only confirm FBISD’s continued short-sightedness.
more:
6 siennaresident - Feb 21, 03:00 pm
Raquel,
Although I agree FBISD needs long-term planning I think the problem is one of over-development of the wrong kind of land use (apartments—2700 courtesy of our developer).
The addition of that many housing units over a relatively short span of time without the kick-in of the developers to build more schools (to accommodate these children) is the real problem.
Maybe a letter or a few hundred to our legislature to sponsor some much needed support! Remember the apt. renters do not directly fund the schools through property tax.
7 Susan - Feb 21, 04:14 pm
The much maligned “old guard” trustees tried to get some relief for fast growing districts such as Fort Bend. They joined a coalition of other districts in Texas with similar problems and attempted to get help working on problems caused by these large master planned communities. You see how responsive our legislature has been to the needs of public education! If they refuse to deal with that, how can we expect them to deal with the developers—especially when many of them are giving large donations to campaigns? How many regular and special sessions and still no finance plan?
Shame on the legislature for ignoring the needs of children and sticking their heads in the sand over growth issues.
8 siennaresident - Feb 22, 04:54 am
Susan,
We had one of those “old guard” reps living in our neighborhood and receiving those funds too, so I don’t think it’s an old guard vs. new guard thing. The problem is pervasive throughout TX politics. It goes all the way to the state house and governor’s mansion. Real campaign finance reform is whats needed. Perhaps if we could get those same companies that spend so much time manipulating the processes with the contributions to contribute those dollars to school start-up then we could really do something for the kids.
9 Robert Cocheu - Feb 22, 07:01 pm
Perhaps one possible solution until a new middle schoool can be built in the area with the next bond issue is to redesignate Baines as an intermediate school housing 5th and 6th grade only while continuing 7th and 8th graders at LOMS. This would relieve the overcrowding and accomodate growth as well as help out in the elementary school area. Instead of using a band-aid this would at least give some mid-range solution to the problem experienced by this end of the district.
More:
10 kjoe - Feb 23, 03:48 pm
Sienna residents need to get off their high horse in thinking that this new school should only accomadate them. It is a FBISD school; not a Sienna school.
11 maized&cornfused - Feb 23, 05:39 pm
The school, Baines, also wasn’t built only to be a reliever/overflow school for Lake Olympia. There will be a majority of “Sienna people” making up the students and PTO. I don’t think having concerns on the school where their children will attend is being on a “high horse”.
12 siennaresident - Feb 24, 09:59 am
I still wonder what purpose kjoe had for posting such a comment. Was it to reignite the zoning wars and what was his motive? I know dozens of communities served by BBMS.
Who benefits from residents turning on each other in a zoning battle that takes the heat of the real problem (over-development)?
13 maized&cornfused - Feb 24, 11:24 am
“I know dozens of communities served by BBMS….”
Communities like the following I found on another site?
“Sienna, Olympia Estates, Lake Shore Harbor, Teal Run, Winfield Lakes, and Arbor Oaks are still growing. Cambridge Falls hasnt built one home yet, but the infastructure has been layed, and David Weekley is pre-selling homes now.
Additionally, Perry Homes is building a new community on highway 6 right off the overpass over the FT Bend tollway to be named Creekside, and Trophy Homes has started building homes in their new development, Southern Colony, located on FM 521, just north of Sienna Point.”
To keep on top of all the issues at both schools and to see that the children get the best education our(yes, “our”-all of us in FBISD) taxes pay for, I think we should all stay on “high horses” and not sink to turning on each other or zoning wars with our neighbors.
BTW, Has anyone found out if Baines is in/under the landing/takeoff/flyway(whatever they call it) area of HSW airport? That is something that is a concern if you are going to be sending a child off to that school in the morning. .
14 Matthew Feinberg - Feb 24, 12:38 pm
BBMS was not built to relieve over-crowding at LOMS. It was built to serve the surrounding community it was built in. Those who have this ‘anti-sienna’ kick should stop, it is hurtful and damaging to the children.
Facts are that they zoning data used was from late 2003 early 2004. The area south of Hwy 6 has grown far more than expected. The bottom line here is that we are all screwed. Both LOMS and BBMS will be overcrowded by the 2007/08 school year.. If not sooner.
15 Susan - Feb 24, 02:26 pm
Unfortunately, children often wind up paying for the folly of adults. Fifteen years later, we are STILL paying for the actions of former BOT president Delores Roberts and friends (wasn’t Linda Howell’s husband Chuck on that board?) that decided to build LOMS within spitting distance of QVMS. Had that school been build in a proper location, much of the curent grief would have been avoided.
Unfortunately, the actions of the current board do not inspire us to trust them with additional bond funds. Most put the odds of a bond election passing under the current leadership about the same as a blizzard in August in Houston.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Is anyone even counting in the up to 2700 apts. the developer is bringing here or the impact that will have on BBMS? I noticed that was left out of the letter to the BOT--Why?
More from FBTalk.com:
Concerned+,
The problem in Sienna, Silver Ridge I & II, Waterbrook & Waterbrook West, West Point, New Point, Plantation Oaks, Sienna Pt., Oyster Creek, Oakwick+ etc. is obvious, we see a new school being rezoned to capacity before it even opens. This does not take into account the up to 900 apartments coming and already being advertised and the additional 1800 coming soon courtesy our developer. Yes it would be nice if they would kick-in and help build another campus or if another $1 million was donated to the foundation that wasn't being spent on more T-buildings by Petros (the devs. best friend).
Our 2 area elementarys already have multiple T-buildings and growth here according to one of the developers employees (and PTO pres. of a local school here) is well ahead of growth projections used by the district when this was decided. The district needs to adjust to the new figures and not act on old data.
They also need to see the bigger picture and work on the longterm growth problems which can't be done unless the developers are brought to the table. This can't be done without the legislators--start calling them or we will just continue to pass the problem up the line to whatever new development is going on and the district will continue to suffer.--Use the corrected data (and make sure it is accurate).
concerned wrote:
Admin: Why would you have a problem with concerned parents trying to make a difference in their children's education? All that we have done is request that the board review the zoning plan (as was promised). We have worked hard to find the true and accurate facts and use them to make some informed suggestions. I would also like to point out that this is not just LOMS parents - several other schools are also affected. Again, check your numbers...when BBMS opens, there will still be t-shacks at LOMS and the numbers will be well over 1000 kids (with continued growth expected on this side of Hwy.6). We would be more than willing to send the t-shacks to the BBMS campus so that your capacity numbers can increase. I think it is appalling that you can even suggest that the current zoning plan for LOMS and BBMS is equitable. Clearly LOMS needs immediate relief and there is going to be capacity at BBMS. These children deserve better!
More:
schoolwise
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 07:01 PM
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Posts: 3
Status: Offline
Concerned+,
The problem in Sienna, Silver Ridge I & II, Waterbrook & Waterbrook West, West Point, New Point, Plantation Oaks, Sienna Pt., Oyster Creek, Oakwick+ etc. is obvious, we see a new school being rezoned to capacity before it even opens. This does not take into account the up to 900 apartments coming and already being advertised and the additional 1800 coming soon courtesy our developer. Yes it would be nice if they would kick-in and help build another campus or if another $1 million was donated to the foundation that wasn't being spent on more T-buildings by Petros (the devs. best friend).
Our 2 area elementarys already have multiple T-buildings and growth here according to one of the developers employees (and PTO pres. of a local school here) is well ahead of growth projections used by the district when this was decided. The district needs to adjust to the new figures and not act on old data.
They also need to see the bigger picture and work on the longterm growth problems which can't be done unless the developers are brought to the table. This can't be done without the legislators--start calling them or we will just continue to pass the problem up the line to whatever new development is going on and the district will continue to suffer.--Use the corrected data (and make sure it is accurate).
concerned wrote:
Admin: Why would you have a problem with concerned parents trying to make a difference in their children's education? All that we have done is request that the board review the zoning plan (as was promised). We have worked hard to find the true and accurate facts and use them to make some informed suggestions. I would also like to point out that this is not just LOMS parents - several other schools are also affected. Again, check your numbers...when BBMS opens, there will still be t-shacks at LOMS and the numbers will be well over 1000 kids (with continued growth expected on this side of Hwy.6). We would be more than willing to send the t-shacks to the BBMS campus so that your capacity numbers can increase. I think it is appalling that you can even suggest that the current zoning plan for LOMS and BBMS is equitable. Clearly LOMS needs immediate relief and there is going to be capacity at BBMS. These children deserve better!
concerned
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 07:14 PM
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Posts: 6
Status: Offline
Admin: Why would you have a problem with concerned parents trying to make a difference in their children's education? All that we have done is request that the board review the zoning plan (as was promised). We have worked hard to find the true and accurate facts and use them to make some informed suggestions. I would also like to point out that this is not just LOMS parents - several other schools are also affected. Again, check your numbers...when BBMS opens, there will still be t-shacks at LOMS and the numbers will be well over 1000 kids (with continued growth expected on this side of Hwy.6). We would be more than willing to send the t-shacks to the BBMS campus so that your capacity numbers can increase. I think it is appalling that you can even suggest that the current zoning plan for LOMS and BBMS is equitable. Clearly LOMS needs immediate relief and there is going to be capacity at BBMS. These children deserve better!
concerned
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 07:55 PM
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Posts: 6
Status: Offline
Schoolwise: BBMS will NOT open at capacity. There is not one plan on the table that would make that reality. That is not even what is being advocated. Again, we are only asking that the student population be leveld at the two schools (with some growth built in). I appreciate the growth in your area, but, there is also growth on the other side of Hwy.6. (the people in Teal Run have to live with the fact that their children attend an overcrowded elementary school that feeds into an overcrowded middle school and to a high school that is fast approaching the same situation...where is the relief for them?) As the areas build out, we will have to look at zoning going forward - for both schools. Again I say it is unfair to leave LOMS in the state it is in and leave open seats at BBMS just in case some additional students move into your neighborhood - can you not see how unbelievably ridiculous that sounds? The last time I looked, there were NO apartments in Sienna. The solution that is being proposed is something that will be used to relieve the overcrowding at LOMS until the district-wide rezoning can happen.
Admin
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 08:07 PM
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 14
Status: Offline
c/i-p I think you are both wrong on your numbers. There will not be portable schools at LOMS next year. I agree.. the children deserve better. But you both think your LOMS issues will be solved by shifting numbers around.. Let me ask you a question.. Would you let your children go to BBMS for three years to relieve LOMS?
InvolvedParent
Post subject: Posted: Feb 24, 2006 - 08:33 PM
Joined: Feb 18, 2006
Posts: 11
Status: Offline
Admin: That's called an IDT and they get turned down. Trust me, there are plenty of folks here that would love to be able to head your way. I notice you forgot to answer my question before posing your own: Why is 400 more kids okay for us but 150 more kids isn't okay for you?
Schoolwise: Remember, your elementaries had to add portables to keep the 6th graders behind. Not sure you can fairly count those in an "apples to apples" comparison since they're only for one year and were added to keep your 6th graders out of the LOMS environment. However, we're in complete agreement - the district should use current, verifiable data to drive decisions, not old data. That's what we've been asking for all along.
schoolwise
Post subject: Creative numbers- Posted: Feb 25, 2006 - 05:17 AM
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Posts: 3
Status: Offline
Whose numbers anyway? I think to continue with the circular arguments is a waste of time. However you can check on the status of the up to 900 apts. approved for our area and are already being advertised by contacting the developer here at 281-777-7777, ask for Susie Mahoney (Cyndi's boss). The ground breaking for them has already been scheduled (and this doesn't address the additional 1800 coming or how many are already in the South Sienna plan). They are reluctant to talk about them, but were very proud of their growth facts they released recently in one of the local papers. Those numbers are accurate and I would make a guess that the districts numbers are old.
You are correct in stating that a district-wide solution is needed and continue to ignore passing the buck down hwy 6. I too blame the mega-developers for the problems and not LOMS. I do not think these fights are beneficial or that they solve any real longterm problems. The issue is a financial one that needs to be addressed at the legislative level. You've already read my suggestion. Anything else is just a pass-the-buck solution that plays people off each other like pawns.
Admin wrote:
c/i-p I think you are both wrong on your numbers. There will not be portable schools at LOMS next year. I agree.. the children deserve better. But you both think your LOMS issues will be solved by shifting numbers around.. Let me ask you a question.. Would you let your children go to BBMS for three years to relieve LOMS?
more comments from FBNow.com:
17 maized&cornfused - Feb 25, 08:22 am
I agree that maybe we should look into a shift in what grades the elementary and middle school should hold.
I would hate to have the kids change schools so many times in just a couple of years. BTW 5th graders are still on the elementary school campus.
This year, I know SCE and SCO kept their 6th graders on campus (I don’t know if any other schools did the same I’m sure some did) and it seemed to be a very easy fix to overcrowding LO. It also worked to keep the students from having to change schools, from LO to BBMS when Baines opens.
IMHO I have always thought that 6th graders were too young to be placed in Jr High/Middle School. I feel that if they are left at the elementary school (like we did in the “old” days) it would give them a chance to be more mature before moving to the Middle or Jr. High level. The current middle schools would only take the 7th and 8th grades. The kids would only have to make 1 transition before high school. The fewer transitions the better for the students.
I know that there were logistics to overcome but the principals did a great job in making the changes. Yes, there were shacks, but with our growth rates on both sides of Hwy 6, shacks are going to be with us until more schools are funded and built.
As a resident of Sienna I am troubled, as are many parents in all communities in the area, that new schools open to capacity. SOE has T-bldgs one year after opening and it is not due to keeping 6th graders as prior comments haave suggested. The T-bldgs will be there next year as well.
My main concern is the lack of discipline in existing schools. Althogh much of this results from overcrowding, the main cause is parents failing to properly discipline their children.
I know how bad this sounds, but the problems continue to come predominently from one area (name unmentioned). I was hopeful that whatever zoning arrangement is finalized removed the "bad" elements from an otherwise disciplined group.
Bottom line is there are simply not enough schools in the plans to accomodate so we will have to continue to adjust annually.
Comments from SOS:
vwg said...
This was passed along to me.
==================================
Some of you may not be aware that as a result of tremendous communication from parents of Lake Olympia students, the FBISD board may be readdressing the zoning to Baines Middle School for this upcoming year.
The enclosed letter from Cyndi Hernandez, Sienna Crossing PTO President explains the situation. She sent this to the members of the board.
If you have an opinion on this matter, we encourage you to communicate with the FBISD board and the interim-Superintendent. Apparently they have heard from very few members of our community on this topic.
There is also a Board Meeting this Monday, February 27th at 7 PM at the FBISD building across from the mall. It is very likely that the subject of rezoning will be addressed. You are welcome to attend.
=============================================
==============
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: FBISD Rezoning: Baines Middle School & LOMS
Dear Members of the Board and Superintendent Pedraza,
It is my understanding that the issue of zoning for Lake Olympia Middle School is again being raised. While I can understand the frustration that many Lake Olympia parents are feeling due to overcrowding, I must respectfully state that a 'knee-jerk' or immediate response is not what is needed here. What I hope that you will all consider is a much broader, long-term solution that will best suit all individuals throughout the district: parents, students, and administrators.
I was a participant on the ABC Committee that helped to determine the current zone, and I must tell you it was a difficult task; but it was one that we attempted to complete in the fairest manner possible, contrary to what you may have heard. With the numbers provided at the time -- approximately 1600 students, and capacity figures for Baines at 1200 and Lake Olympia near 1400 -- the proposed boundaries suggested opening enrol lment counts at/or near 75-80% for both schools,with virtually equal socio-economic numbers (31% & 33%). Of course, we now know that capacity figures for Baines will be closer to Lake Olympia (1329 vs. 1371). However, this does not mean that the boundaries should be changed rashly.
As a Sienna resident, I have been painted with a broad brush ranging from the devil incarnate (yes, I have heard the term to my face) to a person who does not understand the issues. I promise you, this is not the case. I am however, an individual who does not believe that the overcrowding at Lake Olympia can be solved by moving "a bunch of kids over to Baines." In fact, the only way to correctly resolve the problem is to reassess growth projections for our entire area, review the entire Fort Bend zone boundaries of nea rby middle schools (I can count 4 that are currently under capacity) as well as Baines, and move forward with an early bond referendum for another middle school in this high growth area. All of this may take a bit of time.
I ask that you recognize that the quote recently stated by a LOMS parent that Baines would open with only 700 students is incorrect. Even by the original ABC zone plan, that number is wrong. Current estimates project that Baines will open near 830+ students. I suspect this is a conservative projection. Sienna Crossing and Scanlan Oaks are both beyond capacity and will continue to be so, even with the exits of 5th and 6th grade classes. In addition, the current number of 6th grade students from Burton and Goodman (that are currently zoned for Baines) is higher than was originally estimated in late 2004.
Please also consider the following information when discussing any zone change in the immediate future: the metro study which was ultimately a key decision piece indicated that the entire zone area for Baines would reach 715+ single family homes during 2005. Sienna Plantation, on its own, surpassed this figure by over 75 homes. As a matter of fact, Sienna Plantation has outpaced its own sales projections by 25+% each year over the last two years. Conservatively, Sienna Plantation estimates that they will sell over 800 single family homes in 2006. While the northern neighborhood of Anderson Springs, in the front section of Sienna is rapidly growing (and is the only one visible from parts of Highway 6), so are the back sections of Shipman's Landing and Water's Lake, both which can not be seen without driving deep into Sienna. In addition, another new neighborhood, The Forest, in immediate proximity of Baines is rapidly building with homes scheduled to open before the end of April. These neighborhoods reflect a number of price point ranges, not just starter homes, and will likely yield even more middle school age students. In addition, two new neighborhoods are rapidly going up within the vicinity of Sienna-- one just north of Newpoint Estates along Highway 6 and one on 521 towards Sienna Point. Both are zoned to Baines and both are designed as high-density, single family homes.
I thank you for your time in considering the points I have enclosed. Zoning is difficult on everyone involved, most especially the students and their families. I only ask that you make the right decision for the entire district and our growing area, not just for one school.
Sincerely,
Cyndi Hernandez
Friday, February 24, 2006 10:27:09 PM
rcocheu said...
Lets review a few things.
1. "The first zoning using the ABC Committee and the Metro study was a fair and complete zoning" (paraphrased from vwg). The reality is this. The ABC Process was flawed for many years and actually resulted in the situation we have now that exists across the district. The Metro study was partially funded by Johnson Development and therefore has a natural bias towards Sienna Plantation. The North Side of Highway 6 is experiencing rapid growth as well. In actuality it is growing at 1-1/2 times to 2 times the pace of the South Side of Highway 6. Hence the reason that Burton Elementary is the second largest elementary school in FBISD with over 1,000 students.
2. ALL elementary schools on this end of the district are overcrowded and the reality is that in the next 10 years we are probably going to need at least three more elementarys, two more middle schools and another high school. This a long term problem that has been perpetuated by the former administration and BOT and borders on neglect, elitism towards a certain area, and just a just plane failure to actually plan.
3. The letter enclosed is correct moving one set of kids from one school to the other is not the solution, but only puts a band-aid on the problem. The difference is this. At the time it was agreed that if things change, the zone would be revisted prior to the school opening. Things did change. Rapid growth is occurring across the entire east end of the district, not just south of Highway 6.
That is why the proposal to make Baines an intermediate school housing 5th and 6th graders while leaving LOMS a middle school that houses 7th and 8th graders makes sense. It puts both campuses at around 1250 students. It relieves overcrowding at the elementary school level. In additon, TAKS scores have shown considerable improvement in this environment because the student groupings are closer and you do not have the entire 6th through 8th grade in one place with the huge disparity in maturity levels that occurs at a middle school. This is the only proposal for zoning that makes sense to give some mid-range relief to the east end while the board works towards a long range solution.
Saturday, February 25, 2006 8:31:34 AM
I think without all stakeholders involved in the finance and support of schools (taxpayers, developers, families, etc.) we aren't going to see this standard over-development problem resolved anytime soon.
"That is why the proposal to make "Baines an intermediate school housing 5th and 6th graders while leaving LOMS a middle school that houses 7th and 8th graders makes sense."
No is doesn't!!
This idea is outrageous and ill conceived!
It doesn't make sense at all. An average family in LO or Sienna could have 1 child at each school-Elem, intermediate and middle, for many years.-not counting having a child in high school. Wasn't this the concern about sending children to BBMS they didn't want to have families sending children to multiple schools?
No LO or Sienna person would want this. The bussing would be a nightmare. If you had a 4th grader, a 6th grader and a 8th grader you would be running around all afternoon or waiting for bus drop off's all afternoon.
The double changes within 4 years would be bad for students.-check the info on multiple transitions for students prior to High School.
I would not bus my child past "our" middle school to go to an "intermediate" school. I think this idea is from someone that wants us to accept the new zoning or take something worse.
Very fuzzy math going on here. If between LOMS and BBMS (no matter how you zone it) there will be overcrowding of 6th, 7th, and 8th graders within a couple of years, how could it possibly help to throw 5th graders into the mix of students attending those schools?
Could the elementary schools that feed into the two middle schools keep their 6th graders on campus.
I know the elementary schools are crowded too but this way the students staying will be accustomed to the campus and the rules. It seems better than tossing them into a new, overcrowded situation and might help with disipline. Just an idea.
What do the principals that kept the 6th grades this year say about the experience? Where there more disipline problems because of this?
Was this idea brought up years ago when LO became so overcrowded?
For me the problem is the proposed 2700 apartments that in FB county usually bring about a 60% family rate (many with kids). As you know apartment dwellers do not pay their fair share of the school taxes thus leading to additional over-crowding. The district does not have a plan or even include these numbers in the zoning projections but ground breaking on these are soon (they are already advertising these).
Post a Comment
<< Home