Are they really firing all these teachers? (Austin, Cove: insurance, schools)

[cBach]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

What exactly would you propose controlling expansion? Force people to live in dense areas against their preference? Living in the city is simply expensive as everyone here knows. Many, perhaps most, families want a reasonably sized home for a reasonable price.

The people who live in the suburbs by and large are part of suburban school districts, which tax their own residents. These people volunteer to pay these taxes.

As for schools being nicer - yes that is true. I don't have a problem with most of the campuses in the Austin area. They are better built, have bigger classrooms, and more technology than when I was in K-12. I'm glad.

As for expanding vs. build - that is a great alternative if the size is right. In LTISD elementary schools are built for 850 students. Most parents do not want them any larger. Expansion isn't always possible - the land may be too small, traffic patterns won't work, etc. The decision is probably best done campus by campus.

Look at google earth and just look at the land between Round Rock and Central Austin. There is plenty of land, yet development creeps northward into Georgetown and above. I'm not talking about putting everyone downtown. I'm talking about infill development - empty plots of land that are unused but close(r) to the city center.

[h886]

Originally Posted by cBach

Just look at Eanes SD. The campuses are all not "shiny new" but they emphasize what's important: education.

While I think highly of Eanes ISD and agree they provide a top-notch education, the fact that their students are successful has very much to do with the families they are coming from. The parents who pay to live in that attendance zone value education highly. Their children would likely be successful no matter what school they were in. I think it's misleading to imply that Eanes has a fundamentally different philosophy with their students versus other central Texas districts. They are extremely successful and do a marvelous job, but much of their success is because of their strong population and parent support base (and because the high cost of living in their attendance zone creates a situation where higher need families are unable to get in), rather than because they have some radically different emphasis on education.

Additionally, I had to smile when I read the comment that their campuses are not all shiny new. No, not every campus is shiny new, but goodness gracious, most are. That high school is nicer than some of the colleges I've visited. Their stadium is like none other. Their facilities for specialty areas like different sports, fine arts, etc, are better than others in the area, as are their various practice fields and secondary practice fields. They enjoy very nice facilities.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by h886

While I think highly of Eanes ISD and agree they provide a top-notch education, the fact that their students are successful has very much to do with the families they are coming from. The parents who pay to live in that attendance zone value education highly. Their children would likely be successful no matter what school they were in. I think it's misleading to imply that Eanes has a fundamentally different philosophy with their students versus other central Texas districts. They are extremely successful and do a marvelous job, but much of their success is because of their strong population and parent support base (and because the high cost of living in their attendance zone creates a situation where higher need families are unable to get in), rather than because they have some radically different emphasis on education.

Additionally, I had to smile when I read the comment that their campuses are not all shiny new. No, not every campus is shiny new, but goodness gracious, most are. That high school is nicer than some of the colleges I've visited. Their stadium is like none other. Their facilities for specialty areas like different sports, fine arts, etc, are better than others in the area, as are their various practice fields and secondary practice fields. They enjoy very nice facilities.

I was mainly referring to the elementary schools not being shiny new. Look at Eanes Elementary. The building is circa 1970's and not the best looking (but adequate) and the education is good. That's what I'm talking about.

http://renovateeanes.dzgdesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2010-Eanes-Elementary-0021.jpg (broken link)

Certainly you can't call the above building "shiny new".

[h886]

Originally Posted by cBach

I was mainly referring to the elementary schools not being shiny new. Look at Eanes Elementary. The building is circa 1970's and not the best looking (but adequate) and the education is good. That's what I'm talking about.

http://renovateeanes.dzgdesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2010-Eanes-Elementary-0021.jpg (broken link)

Certainly you can't call the above building "shiny new".

Right, but you'll also note that they're renovating one school at a time and that's one of the oldest building in the district.

Additionally, if you visit Westlake High, you'll note it's like a palace. Look at their new courtyard, auditorium, the 9th grade center, the secondary fields for freshman/sophomore/JV teams that are nicer than what most other high schools enjoy for the varsity teams!

And again, I agree the education is good, but that has more to do with the parents of these kids and the population base the schools draw from, rather than their approach to education being radically different from any other district in the area. They are also aided by the fact that the high cost of living in their attendance zone doesn't allow for most families with higher levels of need to live there.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by cBach

Because there would be new subdivisions in the "infill" lots in the city. For instance Mueller is a good example, but there is much land that is undeveloped in the city limits that could be used.

In other words, the developers would still be building afforable housing, just not 30 miles away.

"Affordable housing" at Mueller?

What, somebody's building $90,000 houses there?

[cBach]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

"Affordable housing" at Mueller?

What, somebody's building $90,000 houses there?

Prices start at $120,000 in Mueller. That is cheaper than any place in Round Rock, Cedar Park, Georgetown, and South Austin. Yes there are higher value homes but there's something for everyone.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by cBach

I was mainly referring to the elementary schools not being shiny new. Look at Eanes Elementary. The building is circa 1970's and not the best looking (but adequate) and the education is good. That's what I'm talking about.

http://renovateeanes.dzgdesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2010-Eanes-Elementary-0021.jpg (broken link)

Certainly you can't call the above building "shiny new".

Eanes ISD's enrollment is essentially static. They are NOT adding any student capacity. Their last bond package, defeated soundly, included a proposal to replace an existing elementary (the one above). The plan was stupid and the voters shot it down.

Leander ISD on the other hand is growing hand over fist. They have been adding more than one elementary school per year for many years now. So they can produce elementary schools like clockwork.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by Austin97

note that our education spending in texas per pupil is higher than most developed countries whose education rankings are higher than ours.

I dont know what the problem is, but Im skeptical that it is money. Most likely it is leadership. Leadership to help parents understand how important it is so that they actually help their kids to learn.

Exactly. We are throwing more and more of our hard earned money at the schools and the results are very poor.

We're definitely slipping in international rankings and no other country spends money on education like we do. Something is very wrong and more money isn't the answer.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by Topaz

Someone always brings up immigration as a reason to decimate schools.

How come there seems to be plenty of money for things that aren't education? $31M of taxpayer money for the Super Bowl, for instance, without a good documented ROI. And millions in tax breaks to corporations who are supposed to use that money to create U.S. jobs but the outcomes have been disappointing, thus making it a poor investment, too.

It's a little hard to ignore the problem when it's as massive as it is. Much of the problem is the fact that you basically have third world poverty taking over but they expect the best most expensive schools be built for them.

So now because the immigrants come here and have extremely large numbers of kids they couldn't feed back home, we're supposed to give up Super Bowls and things that benefit Americans?

Really it's going to get worse as there are proportionately fewer and fewer Americans left to tax, the minority cannot support a fast growing majority for long.

We need to face that the American standard of living is slipping, and much of Texas is going the way of Mexico. High birth rates, severe needs but no money for it.

[austin-steve]

30 years ago there was 1 admin employee for every 3 teachers in Texas. Today the ratio is 1:1. The admins are needed because school districts in Texas now have to produce something like 120+ reports annually for various measuring and metrics, much of it mandated by the Federal Government. All that red tape requires people.

The education industry has turned into the report generating industry. Kids have become numbers on reports - and the kids know it. Want to cut the budget?.. cut out the red tape and the employees who don't directly support what happens in the classroom. Get back to a 3:1 ratio of teachers:admin, problem solved.

Steve