[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Texas Jeff

Thanks for the response. What I meant was that there are projects in this bond that are not needed.

Some examples:

Awesome. I was hoping you'd provide examples. I wanted to know how you viewed the bond.

LASA and LBJ are being split into two campuses, so that LASA can expand to somewhere around 2,000 students. So they took Eastside's campus for that purpose. Eastside gets a new building as compensation. This means we will spend $80 million so that we can have one tiny high school (Eastside, at 800 kids), another tiny high school (what is left of LBJ, maybe 800 kids) and a new expanded LASA.

That means that you have one more set of coaches, band directors, admins, support staff to support a new high school so that LASA can grow. Ten years from now, AISD is projected to have fewer kids in high school than they do now, but may have two more campuses than they do now (proposed new Eastside plus the new Southwest HS).

As an example, today you are paying 11 high school football coaches and tomorrow you may be paying 13 coaches to coach a smaller population. To me, that does not make sense. They should be thinking about consolidating or adjusting population to a smaller number of campuses, and putting money into each campus to bring them all up to modern standards.

LASA, by expanding, may be a lower rated school than it is today. If you assume that the top 5% of kids are at LASA today, and LASA expands while AISD shrinks, then you may have the top 11% of kids attending LASA in ten years. LASA's ratings will drop compared to other magnets across Texas, and all of the other high schools ratings may drop because they contributed more kids to LASA. I am assuming that those extra 6% of kids were helping the ratings of their "home" schools" but might lower the ratings of the "top" kids currently at LASA.

They could have moved LASA to Eastside, combined the current Eastside and LBJ and put all of the new Eastside money into the LBJ and current eastside campuses. But ... politically it would have been tough to academically segregate those schools.

A couple of things in response...

I'm not certain LASA will have athletics. They very well could, but I just haven't seen it mentioned. If you have, can you please provide a link? I'm not saying you're wrong.

I agree that the high schools in East Austin are shrinking fast. It doesn't make sense to have 3 of them open (now 4 with LASA). But I don't think Eastside can be combined with LBJ. They serve two different parts of the city, and aren't all that close. I'd be ok with combining Reagan and LBJ since they are right next to each other. But the problem is always political. People will howl over the "injustice" of their school being closed.

It's a tough problem with lots of landmines.

Also, the Eastside new campus deal is combined with the East Austin neighborhood wanting the old LC Anderson campus renovated and used. Eastside is moving into that campus after it's renovated. Your point still stands, though.

The Mueller folks want a school, so there is a "Northeast MS" in the bond for Mueller. There is plenty of middle school capacity in East Austin, but it's not in Mueller. But, Mueller has voters and so a middle school in Mueller helps pass the bond. Will we close other middle schools around Mueller and move those kids to the new school? I predict all will remain open.

I agree with you on this one. This is an example of a project in this bond that is an attempt to curry favor in order to get the votes needed. It's Politics 101.

Bowie is overcrowded but it is going to peak and drop down. Crockett is not crowded. Bowie has a lot of transfer students from Crockett. If overcrowding at Bowie is a problem, why not just move some transfer students back to Crockett? I know Bowie is considered to be a "better" school than Crockett, but why not spend the money to repair or replace Crockett and make it a better school, taking some pressure off of Bowie?

I'm sure Bowie needs some repairs but how many high schools in Texas have a parking garage? I looked and could find only one example.

Actually, the Bowie campus is closed to those transfers now. I believe they initiated it last school year. There are no more majority-to-minority transfers allowed into Bowie. And Crockett sent few transfers to Bowie compared to Akins. If you take away Akins and Crockett transfers, Bowie is a lot closer to the 2,400 physical capacity of the campus. Even with the transfers frozen, they still see Bowie peaking around 3,100 in a few years, then shrinking back to a steady 3,000. That's still more than they have now. They're holding steady currently between 2,800-2,900 with transfers.

They also think having LASA closer to South Austin, and able to accept more students, will take pressure off Bowie. A majority of LASA students are from south of the river. Many Bowie students attend LASA instead. They are expecting even more to transfer to LASA.

Bowie does need repairs and expansions, but I'm with you on the parking garage. I'm not sure where that one came from. It just popped up on their vision, and I'm not sure who came up with the idea. I know they are more than bursting at the seams with regard to parking. They don't just fill their spots. They have people parking on grass, on the concrete around the school that was not made for parking, along Wolf Trap, and they fill the church parking lot next door. I know someone here said just make them take the bus, but let's be realistic. Kids will drive. And this neighborhood seems to be able to afford having a car for their kid. And they see Bowie getting more crowded.

I will say that this expansion of Bowie is another political bone to get votes. SW and SE Austin have been in a battle for years now over the new HS. SE Austin won and will be getting a HS sometime in the future. The large, wealthy voting bloc of SW Austin had to be appeased in some way. This is what the board came up with.

There is no guarantee that the people who get a benefit this time will turn around and vote for others to get a benefit in the next election. I wish they would have mapped out the entire thing with specific times to call for replacement of all of the schools, with approximate tax rates along the way to ensure that long term this was all sustainable and that the entire district would eventually get an uplift.

I feel they partially did that and they did set up a rough map to follow, but some "special" projects did get in the bond with no guarantee that those that were not included would see their school upgraded in the future.

I think they're being pretty calculated about this concern. They didn't give Bowie everything in this bond. They're saving some for a future bond. They are doing that for other areas of town as well. It'll help with that problem you mention, which is a legitimate one, of people getting theirs and not voting for others to benefit.