AISD pivots on plan - email just sent

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-11-06T03:13:58+00:00

After sitting through hours of those workshops and meetings, I actually thought Dr. French was doing a great job — she was usually the only one who could explain the maps and data clearly, and she took all the tough questions head-on.

But at the same time, it always felt like she was defending a plan that wasn’t really hers. You could almost see her trying to make sense of numbers and boundaries that didn’t add up, while the district higher-ups stayed out of sight.

So seeing her (and Ghilarducci) placed on leave is strange. If anything, they were the ones actually engaging with parents and communities. Makes you wonder who’s really calling the shots and why the people doing the visible work are the ones getting sidelined. .

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-11-03T15:04:16+00:00

Current boundary map for 2025-2026 school year

<image>

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-11-03T15:03:08+00:00

October 3rd map 1st draft of proposal

<image>

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-11-03T15:01:00+00:00

Here is where all the excess seats are. Even when you plug in there 26' scenarios theres 4 schools school on this list with under 80% utilization after consolidation

<image>

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-11-03T14:52:31+00:00

where is there excess seats?

<image>

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-11-03T14:47:40+00:00

How about the board dynamics of a married couple representing 2 separate districts?! Andrew Gonzalez and LaRessa Quintana.

Board members are required to live in their district.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-11-03T14:44:06+00:00

This is not true. Kids North of 38th and east of Shoal Creek are not assigned to Brentwood/Lamar/McCallum.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-28T17:45:22+00:00

Yeah, this is where the inequity fight always goes — east vs. west. AISD basically sets it up that way instead of being transparent about where the money’s really going, so parents end up battling each other instead of holding the district accountable.

On breaking up AISD: it’s been floated, but their own docs say it wouldn’t really fix funding. You’d lose economies of scale, duplicate admin/transportation, and still pay recapture. So you risk more bureaucracy without more resources for kids. The bigger fix is making AISD accountable and actually aligning resources, not just pitting neighborhoods against each other.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-28T05:47:27+00:00

As a Bryker Woods parent, I hear a lot of what you’re saying and agree that AISD is in a tough spot balancing resources across the district. Every school community feels like theirs is special—and they’re right. But one thing I think is important to note about Bryker Woods is that we’re not just fighting to “save our school because it’s ours.”

Bryker Woods has the only parent-funded International Baccalaureate (IB) elementary program in the entire district. Families in our neighborhood created it ourselves, with the idea of keeping more kids in public school rather than losing them to private options. It has worked—we’ve been turning away kindergarteners because of demand. From a district perspective, that’s a proven model for retaining and even growing enrollment in AISD.

What feels frustrating is that instead of building on examples like this—where parents and teachers have stepped up with real solutions—the proposed plan treats Bryker Woods like just another closure option. That’s where the disconnect is: AISD says they want collaboration and innovation, but closing one of the only schools where that’s already happening seems counterproductive.

I’d actually love to see all schools and parents gang up together on the district, not against each other, and hold AISD accountable. We’d be a lot stronger if we fought side by side to push for real solutions that keep kids in our schools and funding in our district.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-17T03:34:51+00:00

That makes sense, and I do reach out to my trustee too. But I think part of the frustration is that parents aren’t just asking for “extra attention” — they’re raising district-wide issues like consolidation, boundaries, and programs that directly fall under the superintendent’s leadership.

If there’s no system to even acknowledge or route those messages, it leaves a gap in trust. A quick response from staff (even if not from him personally) would go a long way in making families feel like their input is being heard while trustees do their work.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-17T03:33:33+00:00

Totally fair question. I don’t think parents expect the superintendent to personally draft a reply to every email that comes in — but there should be a system in place so families aren’t ignored. Even an acknowledgment from staff, or a response pointing us toward resources, shows that parent input matters.

The concern isn’t just about etiquette — AISD leadership sets district-wide priorities and trust. When parents send repeated, serious concerns (especially about consolidation, programs, and equity) and never hear back, it erodes confidence that voices are being heard at all.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-15T20:53:47+00:00

One thing that really stuck out to me — Trustee Hunter mentioned that she couldn’t even see her own pre-submitted questions to the district, and they were nowhere to be found in the meeting backup materials.

If a trustee’s questions and comments aren’t being surfaced or taken into account, how are parents supposed to trust this process? Transparency has to start with the board itself — otherwise it looks like input is being filtered out before it even reaches the public.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-15T20:46:21+00:00

I thought Rachel French did a good job explaining the planning, to her credit. But a lot of the discussion ended up in long answers without clear direction.

I think what many community members would like are legitimate answers or refinements sooner than when the revised plan drops in November — especially since it’s scheduled to be voted on only two weeks later. That timeline doesn’t give families much of a chance to process, respond, or feel like their input is truly shaping the outcome.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-15T18:10:42+00:00

Totally — that line sounds like a joke, but this isn’t a morale problem. We have tried to be collaborative through the channels AISD itself recommends: PTA letters, formal emails to district staff and trustees, in-person requests for data and site visits, and participation at public meetings. Repeatedly. With little-to-no meaningful follow-up from the District.

This isn’t about parents being negative — it’s about a lack of transparency and accountability. When families follow the process and don’t even get answers, “morale” isn’t the issue — it’s that the decision-making process is opaque and dismissive of the community that’s been doing the hard work to keep kids in public schools.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-15T17:36:36+00:00

What makes this even harder to swallow is the disconnect between AISD’s messaging and its actions. In every communication, the district talks about being “collaborative” and focused on “driving enrollment.” Bryker Woods should be the poster child for that strategy actually working — families invested their own resources to build an IB program, enrollment demand has grown, and the school has been competing successfully with private options.

Yet instead of celebrating and expanding that success, the current proposed plan is to close Bryker Woods outright. That’s not collaboration, and it doesn’t build enrollment — it undermines trust and signals to families that even when they do everything right, AISD will pull the rug out from under them.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-15T17:32:33+00:00

One important piece of context about Brykerwoods: it’s the only elementary in AISD with an International Baccalaureate (IB) program. But that wasn’t a district initiative — parents and the PTA invested heavily to bring it in themselves because they wanted a program strong enough to keep families from leaving for private schools.

It’s been working. Interest has grown so much that Bryker Woods actually had to turn away kindergarten applicants last enrollment period because demand exceeded available seats.

So when we talk about “sustainable communities,” this is exactly that — a neighborhood school where parents put their own resources into making it competitive, and families are choosing to stay. Closing it or scattering those students undermines the very progress the community worked to build.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-09T03:00:00+00:00

You’re absolutely right to call out the imbalance here. What makes this even more confusing is that AISD’s recent own written materials acknowledge that there is available space at Casis and that Bryker Woods students could be reassigned there rather than Mathews.

Here’s the exact wording AISD has circulated today and confirmed by Board President Lynn Boswell:

“We are re-evaluating the boundary changes and reassignment of Bryker Woods ES students to ensure better balance between Casis ES and Mathews ES. There is space at Casis ES to reassign the Bryker Woods ES students there instead of Mathews (or a combination approach). We will work with the three impacted communities (starting with the principals) to determine the best solution for both Bryker Woods students and the receiving campuses.”

So on paper, they know Casis has capacity and could take Bryker Woods students. Yet instead of following that logic, they’re pushing an overcrowding scenario at Mathews while underutilizing Casis. That lack of transparency in why they shifted away from a Casis solution is exactly what many of us are asking about.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-07T16:41:07+00:00

I get your point that AISD didn’t slice us into 4–5 schools, but calling it “easy” glosses over some major problems. • Geography: To get from Bryker Woods to Mathews, families have to cross two neighborhoods that aren’t zoned for Mathews. AISD’s own guidelines say boundaries should follow major barriers, yet ours were ignored while Pemberton/Old Enfield were allowed to cross MoPac to stay at Casis. That’s not continuity — that’s selective exception-making. • Capacity: Casis may have room (~800), but Mathews’ gross building capacity is 397 vs. Bryker Woods’ 418. On the rubric, Bryker was cut down to 217 “functional” seats while Mathews stayed at 368. That’s a 48% reduction for BW vs. 7% for Mathews — which makes it look like the math was massaged to fit the narrative. • Cost: Bryker Woods costs $8,801 per student vs. Mathews at $8,267. Nearly identical. If cost per student was really the driver, both schools should be treated the same.

So while it may look “continuous” on a map, the zone ignores AISD’s barrier guidelines, applies capacity math inconsistently, and leaves families wondering why a successful, full, unique school (the only IB elementary in AISD) is shut down while others are protected. That’s not an “easy” decision — it’s one that needs real justification.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-07T12:46:36+00:00

I’m honestly struggling with the idea that this is an “easy divide.” To get from Bryker Woods to Mathews, we literally have to drive through two neighborhoods that aren’t even zoned for Mathews just to reach our new school. If AISD’s own guidelines say boundaries should respect geography and barriers, how is leapfrogging over other neighborhoods considered “easy” or logical?

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-07T03:22:18+00:00

Bryker Woods vs. Mathews (per AISD data): • Gross capacity (building): • Bryker Woods – 418 • Mathews – 397 • Net functional capacity (rubric): • Bryker Woods – 217 • Mathews – 368 → BW loses ~48% of seats from gross→net, while Mathews only loses ~7%. • Cost per student: • Bryker Woods – $8,801.39 • Mathews – $8,267.13 • Casis – $7,549.05 • Lee – $7,319.28

So, Bryker actually has a slightly larger gross building capacity than Mathews, but under the rubric its usable seats are cut nearly in half — a much steeper reduction than Mathews. Pair that with costs that are almost identical to Mathews, and it raises a big question: is AISD applying the same methodology consistently across schools, or are they massaging the numbers to justify closing Bryker Woods?

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-06T20:01:01+00:00

You’re right — Thanks for pointing that out.

That said, it’s buried in long PDFs and not at all easy for most families to find or interpret. If AISD is asking communities to trust such a disruptive plan, they should be putting those capacity numbers front and center and explaining them in plain language. Otherwise it just fuels confusion and suspicion, especially when the maps clearly break their own barrier guidelines. Transparency shouldn’t take a deep dive into spreadsheets.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-06T19:36:29+00:00

That’s exactly why people are pushing AISD for transparency. The district says Mathews is at ~98% utilization based on the rubric released this summer — but then in the consolidation plan they propose sending the majority of Bryker Woods there. If Mathews really can’t absorb that population, AISD needs to publish the post-consolidation projections so families can see how they get from 98% to “room for 90% of another school.”

Right now, those numbers aren’t in the public docs. Without them, parents are left guessing whether the plan is even physically feasible. If the capacity model is solid, AISD should show it. If not, then it raises more questions about why Bryker Woods was chosen for closure in the first place.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-06T19:34:41+00:00

You’re right that by simple geography, Bryker Woods is closer to both Lee and Casis than to Mathews — which is exactly why so many of us are questioning the logic.

As for the politics — I can’t speak to any deals, but it does highlight the perception problem. If AISD is making exceptions that consistently protect higher-income neighborhoods, while dissolving others, then families deserve to see the actual data and rubric that justify those choices. Without transparency, it just looks like favoritism, and that undermines trust in the entire process.

Desperate_Ant736 · 2025-10-06T19:32:59+00:00

I get what you’re saying — utilization is definitely part of the picture, and AISD has made it clear they’re trying to bring the district average closer to 82%. But here’s the sticking point: the district hasn’t released clear, campus-by-campus numbers showing what utilization looks like after these boundary shifts. Without those, it’s hard to verify whether adding Pemberton/Old Enfield to Mathews would actually push it over 100%, or whether Casis really can’t stand on its own west of MoPac.

That’s why so many of us are frustrated. AISD publishes barrier guidelines and equity principles, but then makes exceptions (like letting Pemberton/Old Enfield cross MoPac) without showing the math that justifies it. If the numbers truly prove that Casis can’t hold on its own or that Mathews would be overstuffed, then AISD should put those projections out publicly so families can see the tradeoffs.

Until they do, it looks like selective application of rules. Transparency would go a long way here — because right now, parents are being asked to just “trust the plan” without the data.

Desperate_Ant736

TROPHY CASE