Monday 26 January 2015

Katy ISD Board Approves Attendance Boundaries for New Schools

Before an overflow crowd of concerned parents at Monday’s school board meeting, Katy ISD trustees approved new attendance boundaries, but not without making a last-minute change requested by residents of one attendance zone.

The redistricting came about to accommodate three new elementary schools and one new junior high currently under construction in the western portions of the district, as well as to alleviate overcrowding at current campuses.

Trustees approved changes recommended by district staff with the exception of one zone.

Residents of attendance zone 68A had protested the staff recommendation because it would rezone their students to Griffin Elementary. Many of the parents, most wearing names tags with “68A” written on them, were in attendance at the board meeting to present a petition to trustees.

A number of them addressed the board during the “open forum” portion of the meeting, urging trustees to leave their zone as it is, primarily for safety and transportation reasons.

Following a review of the recommendation by Chief Operations Officer Tom Gunnell and Scott Dunlap, the district’s energy management coordinator and demographics assistant, trustees voted to accept the staff recommendation, with the exception of allowing zone 68A to remain unchanged.

For a complete review of the new attendance boundaries and related documents, click here.


  1. tbd says:

    Why did the school board revise the recommendation so that Griffin is projected to have 761 students in 2016 while Kilpatrick is projected to have 1206 students in 2016? The school board was given a perfectly good recommendation that balanced the enrollment leaving Griffin with 999 students in 2016 and Kilpatrick with 1025 students in 2016.

    What did the people at 68A have to say that was oh so compelling?

    This is pandering of the worst kind on the part of the school board. This kind of activity is the reason we have schools in the southeast side of the district that are way under capacity on paper.

    • TX2008 says:

      It’s a Fox at play. I was at the meeting. The administration presented the same exact recommendation on Jan 17 and was dismissed right at the meeting with the concern on Griffin’s attendance. In the Jan 20th press release, the administration presented its final recommendation that balanced the 3 schools in the next five years, yet a Fox single handily said during the meeting that she changed her mind and recommended the now board approved the ABM.

      I was sick to my stomach to listen to the Fox speaking at the meeting, and how the democratic process was abused and 3 months worth of hard work from the administration, the experts and the communities were completedly ignored by a Fox. What a joke and how said it is to have such a corrupted Board.

      Link to the Jan 20′s press release that is no longer listed at

    • katywestsider says:

      I don’t think this decision is surprising considering the fact that in 2008 the KatyISD School Board let a handful of vocal parents convince them not to balance the attendance zones prior to these Jr. High students moving on to Seven Lakes High School. Now all the students at Seven Lakes High School attend a dangerously overcrowded high school because of a “feel good” solution instead of a practical and balanced one.

  2. tbd says:

    This travesty cannot be the work of a single board member. Did Dibrell, Huckaby, Proctor and Howard all think it was appropriate to leave Griffin underutilized at 761 while putting Kilpatrick overcapacity at 1206? Both schools have a capacity of 1030. This really should be unacceptable and I hope someone has the sense to correct it.

    There has been so much criticism of the school administrators here and elsewhere. It is a crying shame when they get something right and the board mucks it up with politics.

  3. ycv1214 says:

    If you really want to know why 68A has to stay visit
    And if you want to talk about balanced numbers, the question is why the recommendation dated 12/12/11 was the one presented as final… Just a thought. You need to be involved in the whole process to understand some things. If you just look superficially it would look like nonsense.

  4. ycv1214 says:

    *^^ why the Dec 12 recommendation was NOT presented? That was the most balanced one.

  5. Underdog says:

    In this instance, I believe the political bandying about going on in the previous posts is most likely unnecessary, as I don’t think this had anything to do with the political games going on with the board right now. There are plenty of other issues that are obviously wrought with them. This is simply about the safety/traffic issue. I do not live in 68A, but 68C. I was not excited about the move to Griffin, since Kilpatrick is so close. However, after reviewing all the specifics, I understood and accepted it. But, the one area that not only didn’t make sense to move, but was going to actually create real problems for both the residents of 68A (Kings Lake) and for Kilpatrick. There is one way to get out of Kings Lake, and that is by exiting onto Gaston north of Kilpatrick, then traveling past Kilpatrick ON Gaston, which is where busses and other traffic enter Kilpatrick. This would have caused havoc for both Kilpatrick traffic, Kings Lake traffic, and Griffin bussing through that area.

    It definitely reduces the expected growth of Griffin, as Kings Lake is not densely populated, but is an area of projected growth. There is no clearly good way to leave 68A at Kilpatrick without Griffin being under capacity, with the possibly exception of leaving 68A & 68C and moving the more densely populated 75B, which is directly across from Kilpatrick as well. That was actually an adjusted proposal at one point, but I assume met with opposition from 75B, which is understandable. And, since that proposal was shelved several weeks ago, and they wanted to move on, it didn’t get raised as a possibility again. The proposal just before the final decision actually had Kings Lake back at Kilpatrick, and it was a surprise that the rezoning being voted on last Monday actually suddenly had Kings Lake (68A) back at Griffin. In that regard, I’m proud of those parents for being aware of it and showing up to make their concerns known.

    As for Kilpatrick being “overfilled”, that is not a real concern. They are currently at over 1300 students and have no real crowding issues. While it is listed at a 1030 maximum capacity, that is true for all the schools. And, though I’m not sure what kind of metric was used in determining the “1030″ number, and I’m not sure about the actual issues 1300 children might cause other schools, Kilpatrick is not affected negatively by that number. So, anything less than that, such as the projected 1206, should be more than fine.

    Those are the just observations from a very interested outside observer. While there are plenty of issues to jump on the board members for regarding their political posturing, ethics, tactics, etc., this actually seems to be a last second situation where people came somewhat to their senses regarding 68A.

  6. sugarrae says:

    If there was any “pandering” done, it was done for the residents of 75B, not 68A.

    75B feeds into Beckendorf. So does Griffin.
    68A feeds into Woodcreek, and so does most of OKE.

    For feeder pattern reasons alone, it makes more sense for 75B to go to Griffin than 68A.

    The traffic at that intersection where OKE is located is nuts. 68A has one way in and one way out – and we have zero choice but to hit that intersection no matter what. 75B has multiple alternate routes to get to Griffin that bypass that intersection.

    Moving 75B to Griffin reduces traffic at that intersection.
    Moving 68A to Griffin increases traffic at that intersection.

    For safety reasons alone, it makes more sense for 75B to go to Griffin than 68A.

    While 75B may be in closer proximity to OKE than 68A, it is also in closer proximity to Griffin that 68A. The “proximity argument” that 75B presented: “They are closer to OKE than 68A, so they should stay” contradicts itself, since they are also closer to Griffin than 68A.

    The numbers are more balanced with 68A and 68C at OKE and 75B at Griffin. This is FACT. The December 12th recommendation had the most balanced numbers of all the recommendations presented.

    Moving 75B to Griffin and leaving 68A + C at OKE means that after five years, the projected occupancy of the three schools (OKE, Griffin and 33) would be within 6.4% of each other as far as numbers go.
    Moving 68A + C to Griffin and leaving 75B at OKE means that after five years the projected occupancy of the three schools would be within 12% of each other.

    That’s fact, as presented by the ABM, without being clouded by emotion.

    Considering all of the above, the move that made the most sense, without taking emotions into play, was to move 75B. So if any “pandering” was done, it was to the emotions of 75B and not the facts of 68A.

  7. tbd says:

    While it is true that the December 12 “recommendation” was more balanced, it also so true that the approved ABM is considerably less balanced than the ABM recommendation that had 68A moving to Griffin. It would seem that the board was swayed by the information produced by 68A and 75B.

    Kilpatrick will be overcapacity at 1206 and it will affect instruction. It will also lead to increased costs due to portables. There will be more wear and tear on common areas. This is irresponsible on so many levels because Griffin will have 761 students with possibly no way in the future to address its underutilization.

    I believe that this is a case of the board allowing politics (in the form of patrons armed with slick videos and packets) to adversely affect the rezoning process such that we will continue to have schools that are underutilized.

    • k n says:


      Your ignorance and distortions of what is really going on at Kilpatrick is mind-numbing. Obviously you have NEVER stepped foot into that school to see the overcrowded conditions. Can you not see the portables?

      These parents in 68A need to understand that there are other considerations regarding safety that go beyond traffic. Yes, traffic is a concern but it affects most schools and 68A shouldn’t have a monopoly on their grievance. The solution would be to hire permanent crossing guards at the busy intersections. They have this problem near Beckendorff and MANY other schools as well. Two children hit this year? Sounds like the residents in that area need to start paying attention to the road and get off their cell phones. Yes, this means YOU!

      One thing I have yet to see from the slick documents presented by 68A is how increased numbers are going to negatively affect the learning environment. Studies show over and over again how smaller schools and class sizes are one of the key ingredients to effective learning. Isn’t that what it is about? If Katy can employ some crossing guards, I think their argument would be seen as rather trivial and be exposed as an overreaching convenience tactic.

      Katy ISD Board – grow a set and don’t be fooled by those who shout the loudest. They aren’t looking at the whole picture, just their own little narcissistic world view.

  8. Underdog says:


    Again, Kilpatrick is at 1300+ now. They are not feeling pressures due to overcrowding, as there is no overcrowding. They have plenty of classrooms, teachers and space. They do not have portables. They are fine at that capacity. An “eventual” 1206 will be much lower than they are at now. And, again, I’m not sure where the 1030 generic number comes from, nor do I know how accurate it is for other schools, but for Kilpatrick, it appears that it’s more an attached standard number rather than an actual max capacity, considering that they are fine at 1300.

    By the way, isn’t the board SUPPOSED to listen to the “patrons” concerns? And, if they are armed with slick videos and packets produced because they have legitimate concerns and points… well, doesn’t that speak well of the residents being aware of and taking a direct interest in what the board may be trying to do to their community? They are presenting info to do just that, inform the board. It seems that it had an impact. How is that anything other than how it’s supposed to work?

    To be clear once again, I do not live in 68A, but 68C. We are moving despite my wishing we weren’t, but understanding it. However, 68A had a legitimate beef.

  9. rlt says:

    Underdog – Your comments are why I don’t believe half of what is on the internet. You state that Kilpatrick does not portables. We do infact have numerous portables. The entire 4th grade in the portable “compound”. They have 11 classrooms of approximately 22 kids in each class.

    • noydb says:

      Unless your child is in 4th grade, the portables are easy to miss. I’ve had a child at Kilpatrick since it opened, and we’ve seen much high attendance than 1300. Bottom line is that Kilpatrick can handle the load so there is no “travesty”.

      This is a case of the board actually listening to the concerns of its constituents and responding with a workable compromise.

      • rlt says:

        If Kilpatrick can “handle the load” then why can’t other schools do the same? In that case Griffin should also have it’s attendance set at the 1200 – 1300 mark along with Stanley, Woodcreek, etc.

        • k n says:

          other schools have indeed had to contend with high numbers. It’s not about that. If 68A gets their way, Griffin will be down to about 800 students next year which throws the balance out of whack. This is NOT about Griffin wanting less enrollment than the other schools. In fact, Griffin has been on an enrollment roller coaster just about every year of it’s existence. They just want relative stability and I don’t blame them for that. All this jockeying around, IMHO, is focusing on your own little tree and ignoring the forest. Think bigger people, not just about your own little world.

      • tbd says:


        The travesty is that we have two schools each with a capacity of 1030 and one has a projected enrollment of 1206 while the other has a projected enrollment of 761. You and others assure us that Kilpatrick is and will be just fine, but being 20% overcapacity will affect instruction regardless of what you say. It will also affect lunch periods among other things. It is irresponsible to have one school at 20% overcapacity while another is 25% undercapacity. The arguments offered from the various factions that bear some responsiblility for this outcome are simply unconvincing.

  10. Just Wondering2 says:

    The fair, proper, and prudent way to rezone begins with a review of the entire district from pre-K to 12 grade.

    Taxpayers foot the bills for the construction and staffing of these schools. When it comes to elementary schools we think there should always be one in sight of our front yards. We run buses to them everyday and at many of our elementary schools, they arrive close to empty. Meanwhile the parent drive is backed up with mini vans and SUVs both dropping off and picking up students. The process is nuts and needs to be changed.

    Our district is in debt and as far as I know there is NO projection when we will be debt free. NEVER, EVER, seen one item showing this as a possibility.

    Kids move, kids are adaptable, kids “get over it” and it seems parents need to do the same. My own kids got rezoned. We didn’t like it, but it worked and after a few weeks of class at the new school all was well.

    The BOT must bite the bullet and do the fair and honest thing by starting at one end of the district filling all schools to a manageable capacity and move to the next one. If we start on the east side by the time we arrive out west we might have some classrooms to spare eliminate the need or slow down the demand for a new school.

    In all cases it will be fair, it serves the interest of the community, educates our children, and provides the best value for all our taxpayers. It will also eliminate politics from the process.

    • k n says:

      You are spot on. There are way too many cooks in the kitchen with opposing agendas. The board needs to “man” up and be willing to make consistent decisions that are good for the overall population and not pander to the loudest voice.

    • westsidebill says:


      Rezoning the entire school district at all levels is an old, tired idea. You are thinking WAY too big picture. Why can’t you just worry about your own 6-block radius and stay out of everyone’s business?

      In reality, that’s the most logical, well-reasoned post to date about rezoning yet. If only we could convince those with the power to do employ such a plan we truly could create REAL savings in the district instead of the faux savings that’s claimed now with bond money…….

      Well done, sir!

  11. lost my mind says:

    Amen, why haven’t we done this before? Construction is underway on a new and bigger Wolfe elementary, lets fill it up, scrap IB once and for all and get the wheels turning on this bus.

  12. VSOM says:

    It’s easy to say fill up the schools that are under attendance. If that is what you insist then just move to an old neighborhood where these schools are. Oh… but no one wants to do that, everyone wants a brand new home. Let’s face it, people are staying in their homes longer as their kids get older but then aren’t moving out and the result is the attendance numbers will get lower and lower. The only true way would be to re-zone the entire district but then it might affect those who were not affected by the most recent ABM and I wonder how many, like those who were affected this time, would also get up and make a stand.

    To really understand what happened you need to look at the entire 3 month process. The ABM original presentation is almost the same as the one that it was changed to at the 6:00 hour on Friday night the 20th. This is different then the one the BOT saw just 4 days earlier on the 17th. Why the last hour change and a change that disregards the safety of not only the students but all the community in the affected area and the last month of feedback from the public workshops. The ABM presented on the 17th had the unbalanced numbers so it was changed but not for the better and the BOT realizing this did the right thing in making the exception for 68A. Again, look at the reason why 68A felt it was important for them not to be moved and you will better understand.

    Now what I strongly question is WHY did the ABM committee not revert back to their December 12th presentation that actually did BALANCE the numbers for all three affected schools and kept everyone safe and would have prevented splintering when moving onto Junior high. Look at the numbers over the next five to ten years for yourself and ask why. This would leave 68A and 68C at OKE and move just 75B to MGE which would have used a more natural and common sense divider as Cincro Ranch Blvd instead of Gaston.

    Years 12-13 12-14 14-15 15-16 16-17
    MGE: 1057 1046 1042 1038 1057
    OKE: 907 950 1001 1030 1032
    ES33: 866 957 1049 1076 1098

    • csm says:

      Stanley currently has over 1500 students and next year will open 1300. Balanced numbers just aren’t the goal, I guess.

      • tbd says:


        Stanley will continue to grow as is the case with schools in the middle of growth in a growing district. It will be relieved as new schools are built. This is one more reason why locking Griffin in undercapacity is so irresponsible. It leaves less room to relieve Stanley in the future. This is bad for kids and it is bad for finances.

        • csm says:


          We agree that schools should not be under capacity, big waste of tax payer dollars. But if a school that opens next year (within a mile) of Stanley doesn’t give Stanley relief the year it opens, I highly doubt another school will be built any closer to Stanley over the next several years, if ever as Stanley is/will be land locked and always large. 3200ish seats open this fall and only 1800 or so get filled. Stanley remains larger than every elementary and all but one junior high. Why rezone at all? Just sad…

          • tbd says:


            Stanley is being relieved this coming year by Elementary 35 in Cinco Southwest. Stanley is projected to have 1275 next year and should be more or less stabilized although more schools are likely to come in the Southwest should Stanley need relief later. You can check the numbers here.


            I am glad that you agree that it is ridiculous to have two schools populated in the way that Kilpatrick (1206) and Griffin (761) are going to be. This would be the case whether or not the enrollment at Stanley was properly balanced for the future.

            We have more rezoning to come and there will always be people who resist change with specious arguments. I hope the board can correct this mistake and avoid future mistakes like this one in the future.

          • csm says:

            Let me assure you that 250 is NOT relief and 1275 is a low estimate. 35 opens with 600 or so. We are fully aware of the numbers. As I said before, balance in numbers was not the goal and no future relief will come. History is an excellent predictor of the future. Just so sad…

          • kisdparents says:

            Love those that can’t see the forest for the trees. If you will look at the growth around 35 in the years to come you will see that 35 will surpass Stanley within 3 years. This is what it is supposed to do as the area around it is built out. I guess you would have students change schools on an annual basis so as to even out the population of both schools? I also assume you will volunteer your children to be first in that line?
            Get a grip. If the area around a new school has open, developing land, would it not play out that the population wojld start slow and build up?
            Look at all of the facts and numbers before entering into the conversation.

  13. lost my mind says:

    I am sorry you don’t like the idea of asking for proper across the board utilization of our schools. Please realize the problem reaches further than the four campuses you list.

    I have trouble with the “you owe it to me” attitude your note conveys. I pay my taxes, and they are HIGH. In everyone of those under utilized schools nearby taxpayers pay their taxes too. So do you! So lets get full value for the money and even out the load across the board and maybe save $25 million!

    Maybe your kids won’t be rezoned at all, but so what if they are? What bad thing will happen to them by associating with the kids on the other block? Why should the other guy’s kids be in portable buildings and eating lunch in a cafeteria with A-M lunches? Grow Up!

    P. S. I hope someone likes used houses; otherwise, you need to prepare yourself for a very, very long stay in your current digs.

    • VSOM says:

      @Lost my mind… You’re missing my point. I’m all for district wide re-zoning and balancing attendance at schools. I think that IS needed as we’ll be going through all this again very soon for HS#7 and then JH#14 and I’m sure more ES in the coming years. I don’t feel anyone owes it to me but what I do expect is when a presentation such as the one on December 12th DOES balance the numbers for those being affected by the ABM why did they not go with that one… I didn’t even add the 5th though 10th year which continued to have the attendance at those schools very well balanced.

      ALL schools in Katy ISD are great schools and would have no problem going to any of them but when you single out one neighborhood (68A) that has one way out and propose that they drive right by OKE towards MGE and then have those from 75B cross in the opposite direction through the same intersection adding to the already busy intersection that is a problem. Everyone, not just students safety is put at risk not to mention 75B has several access point for which they could have easily made it to MGE and that is another reason why the board made the exception. But again all this could have been prevented had they just gone with the December 12th recommendation.

      As for the other schools further than the four campuses I’m assuming you are referring to schools to the east, of those most are an older footprint that have lower capacity so there number are not that out of balance as you’d imagine.

      • tbd says:


        Here is what happened as best as I can tell. Frailey’s team came up with a good recommendation on 12/12/11 which was set aside by the board due to the response by the interest group from 75B. Frailey’s team came up with a less perfect, but still reasonable and workable plan which the board scuttled due to the response by the interest group from 68A. As a result of the board falling for the assortment of anecdote and political pressure tactics issuing from these two groups we ended up with the most unreasonable plan of all the ones presented. The board had two chances to support a reasonable plan offered by Frailey’s team, but failed to do so by opting to pander to interest groups. Representative government does not work as well when leaders eschew making the right decision because it may be unpopular.

  14. lost my mind says:

    I am pleased I did not lose my mind after all. So let me understand, you SUPPORT a district wide rezoning effort and are only taking your position until such an event takes place?

    When do you suggest we get serious and take this step?

    There is no forecasted terminal date for growth. However common sense tells us we will be like Spring Branch in a few years. They have shut down campuses, sold off property and by some standards are in a state of decline in large portions of the district.

    At this rate, we will be following them soon and I doubt anyone wants that. Of their high schools there are two glaring exceptions, Memorial and Stratford, who are still slugging it out, the rest are circling the drain.

  15. tbd says:


    How is taking on 626 students (will be 942 in just two years and over 1600 in five years) at Elementary 35 all of which would otherwise go to Stanley putting it at over 1900 “NOT relief”? How is dedicating a whole new elementary school to provide relief for Stanley “NOT relief”? Are you suggesting that more land use zones be moved out of Stanley to Elementary 35 and then moved back in a year when Elementary 35 is overcrowded due to growth? We can see how well that strategy worked with 68A and 75B in Kilpatrick (which was probably closer to a 5 year plan and should have worked, if not for the politics). They have not been moved even though the numbers clearly show that is the best move.

    Being overcapacity is part of the package on the edge of a growing district.

    Should some of the Stanley kids be moved to Griffin since 68A and 75B aren’t going?

    One thing is sure. It will be more difficult to provide future relief if the board keeps leaving schools underutilized for political expediency rather than making responsible, albeit tough decisions.

    How do you think the district should have provided relief to Stanley?

    • csm says:

      Are you suggesting that rezoning 5 years down the road is somehow effective when it didn’t happen at year 3? Only 250 students leave SSE next year. The relief 35 is giving is to Woodcreek. 975 at 35 in yr 2 is still way less than 1300/1400 at SSE in the same timeframe.. Isn’t this the very argument you are making about MGE and OKE? The rezoning should provide relief now to SSE and then the next schools built provide relief to 35. Why should SSE (which went 1200in its second year) continue to be the largest elementary and larger then every JR High except one? Think about how that affects programs/offerings at an elementary school. A new school will probably be be built in Cross Creek giving relief to 35. The lines will never be redrawn at SSE. Your “relief” isn’t for Stanley, it’s for Woodcreek. The history with OKE/MGE is our future.

      • tbd says:


        Rezoning 5 years down the road can be effective if done well once growth has occurred in an area and enrollments are stable. It is impossible to do it perfectly on 1-3 year timeframes with the growth rates that we are currently experiencing.

        You need to get your facts straight. Elementary 35 (Cinco Southwest) is providing exclusive relief to Stanley. Stanley would be at over 1900 next year without this relief.

        Woodcreek is being relieved by Elementary 34 (Firethorne). You can find those numbers here.

        OKE will be at 1206 and MGE will be at 761 (with no chance for proper utilization with students living in the area unless students are moved from Stanley or somewhere else). Do you honestly consider that an acceptable outcome, when the enrollments could easily have been balanced and stabilized next year with students from nearby land use zones?

        Stanley (SSE) is completely different because the enrollments are nowhere near stable at this time. The notion that Stanley Elementary is entitled to optimum enrollment at this stage is impractical nonsense when there is much growth in the area. If optimum stable enrollment is your ultimate goal, then you should move to one of the more built out areas of the district or consider a private school.

        Griffin and Kilpatrick had a chance of achieving optimum enrollment 6-8 years after being built, but the board kicked that can down the road. I still hope that this can be corrected. The history of OKE and MGE will be your future if the board continues to pander to pressure groups, but maybe that can change.

        I am no grand fan of the Frailey administration, but they were technically correct on this rezoning and the board bowed to patron pressure rather than supporting the administration when it deserved it. They should have listened patiently to the complainers and then educated them about rezoning by approving the 12/12/11 recommendation or the subsequent recommendation by a unanamious vote since that is what it deserved.

        This district, like so many, has many complex challenges, but rezoning is one of the easier ones to tackle. It just takes an ability to count and stand by good analysis when the political pressure comes.

        • csm says:

          Well gollly, I just don’t think we are gonna agree on the math. You are using projected numbers and I like to use actual numbers. If 600 (currently enrolled) kids were reasoned from SSE then I’d be a rezoning fan. We lose 250 current students from one neighborhood and the numbers stabilize between 1300 and 1400 for the next 5 years. We remain the kargest elementary for the next 5 years with no relief in sight. No, I don’t find that acceptable and find your assertion that a school with those kinds of numbers sustained over 5 years as just fine, laughable.

          Hey, if stable and optimum enrollment is YOUR ultimate goal maybe you should move to a more built out area or consider private school. Oh wait…your areas of complaint have been built out for several years and your still hoping this zoning will be corrected, hmmm. FYI, this is probably a good time to stop giving advice. It is certainly the time that I am going to stop reading it.


  16. tbd says:


    We cannot possibly generate actual numbers for the next five years so we must use projected numbers to figure out the best options for rezoning.

    I did not mean to imply that Stanley topping out at 1300 or 1400 over the next five years would necessarily be acceptable (after all, I am the one who has pointed out that leaving Kilpatrick at 1200 for the forseeable future while Griffin is close to 750 is wrong because it is completely unnecessary and wasteful-Did you know that these schools are within 1.5 miles of each other?). I was just pointing out that much of the coming growth in the Stanley land use zones had been rezoned to other schools. There will almost certainly be new elementary schools built in the southwest corner of the district within the next five years so more relief will come.

    We live in a growing district so rezoning is going to be a fact of life for the foreseeable future. None of us should become too attached to the schools to which our kids are zoned. We can only hope that the board will be more thoughtful in rezoning decisions to come.

    Good night.

  17. Underdog says:


    Sorry about that. There are 4th grade portables. Several years ago, the portables took over half the playground area. Those disappeared, and I don’t walk back that far, so believed they were gone. “E” me. Regardless, I’m just saying that the teachers I’ve spoken with there do not feel overcrowded or pressured or any of that. So, with it dropping significantly from the current levels, it shouldn’t be an issue.

    And, as VSOM or TBD, I believe, mentioned, it’s strange that they didn’t keep the most balanced one (12th). I don’t have a problem with rezoning. I’m just pointing out, like others, that the most legitimate issue with the rezoning was to be had by 68A. Hey, I would have prefered 68C stay as well. But, if it changes, so be it. Like someone else mentioned, the kids will be fine, and either school is great. The 68A thing was just going to cause problems of the ridiculous and avoidable nature.

    As for Kilpatrick: Do they have too many kids now? Yes. Will 1200 be too many at some point? Maybe, maybe not. Will there be rezoning again by then? Possibly (since the entire district rezoning issue has been brought up by the BOT now). Does the staff at Kilpatrick feel like they or the school are overtaxed (figuratively, as literally, probably so)… No… at least not the probably 25 – 30% I could get that info from… but that seems like a good percentage to get a fairly accurate poll. It’s possible 4th grade feels differently. :)

    I wish it was balanced for both schools as well. I believe they could have (is “can” still an option?) balanced it. They didn’t. Now what? What, if anything, can be done about it at this point? That’s a real question, not one of resignation.

Comments are now closed for this article.