Keep Original NISD Proposed Boundaries for Ellison Elementary

Contact the author of the petition

This discussion topic has been automatically created of petition Keep Original NISD Proposed Boundaries for Ellison Elementary.



2013-12-12 02:28

Why the change to the original proposal?



2013-12-12 02:29

Let's do what makes sense.



2013-12-12 02:55

How did this happen? I saw the vain protest emails with the invented reasons for opposition to the boundaries under the guise of not wanting to "split up" a community but assumed everyone realized it was just a few misguided people with an irrational fear of "apartment" kids. I don't think any of us in the rational majority actually believed that this illogical crusade could result in a change. Now we find ourselves the victim of an unannounced vote that splits a neighborhood in half, and does nothing but delay and confuse the inevitable split of the middle school boundaries. Don't give in to these people. Let the natural freeway boundary stand.


2013-12-12 05:13

I'd like to ask each of the eleven NISD School Board members to take a moment and reflect on the vote they made last night to act on the irrational desires of a vocal minority. The original boundary decision was seen by most of us affected by it (i.e., those of us West of Interstate 10) as a thoughtful, deliberate decision by a hard-working school board looking at what's best for its students, and we supported it! But rather than stick with their original, well-made decision that was based on sound research and hard work by a respected boundary committee, the board has now made themselves appear wishy-washy, capricious, and subject to the whims of an elitist and vocal minority. I'm personally appalled and shocked. Those of us in the "silent majority" that consist of the families in the neighborhoods West of I-10 actually trusted the school board to stick with their original decision to align the neighborhoods West of I-10 with Ellison Elementary School. We are apparently guilty of placing misguided and blind trust in a complacent school board. I sincerely hope the eleven members of the board can look back on last night's vote and realize they were swayed into making an emotional decision based on irrational arguments. If they changed their mind once, they can surely change it again to right this sinking ship and salvage their reputation as a board capable of being trusted to make decisions that are in the best interests of their constituents.


#5 Re:

2013-12-12 13:44

#4: S.Myers -

Well said!



2013-12-12 15:32

I support the original boundry proposal for Stonewall Ranch children to attend the new school.

#7 Re:

2013-12-12 16:32

#4: S.Myers -

For the sake of accuracy, the school board member count I stated in my comment above is not correct. I wasn't at the meeting, but I've since learned that the seven NISD Board of Trustees members voted 5-2 to disregard the proposal submitted to them by the Boundary Committee, and instead selected an alternative option that was favored by the vocal minority we all thought would be heard as noise. Again, 5 NISD Board of Trustee members chose to disregard a proposal that was unanimously approved by the Boundary Committe in an 11-0 vote as the BEST option. I would ask those 5 members to reflect on why it is they voted to ignore the recommendation of a panel they trust to devote an enormous amount of research into considering all the alternatives and present them with the best option.

Nancy Perez

#8 Change of board meeting Date

2013-12-12 17:08

Next Board meeting with public comment period is Jan. 28, not the 14th. The 14th will not have public comments. Please pass this information far and wide. Including steeple Brooke and crown ridge. Support has been overwhelming for us. Jan 28 meeting should be at 7. Thanks for all that you are doing!


#9 I agree with S. Myers comments

2013-12-12 17:45

Beautifully articulated, S. Myers! I feel guilty for being silent about these border changes. When they were asking for petition signatures to change the original decision and sending emails, I expressed that I would not sign or participate in their argument. Unfortunately, it didn't come to my attention that the boundary committee needed our vocal support at the meeting until it was too late. We are the silent majority. Change is scary. I'm sure there are families in Steeplebrook and Stonewall Ranch that are nostalgic and somewhat frightened to leave LSE as much as the Dominion residents are to lose them. When faced with the long-term goals and planning from the committee, however, it is my expectation that most will see that sometimes change is necessary for the greater good. Unfortunately, LSE will lose a lot at first. To think that they will fail to thrive and find no gains, is unreasonable. Dr. Dodge-Clay is a fantastic leader and I have faith that she will keep LSE strong and capable. What we need now, is to evaluate the foresight used by the committee that looked at feeder patterns, community, and expected future growth patterns. Those things matter more than fear of change. Creating a new, exciting, successful school is just as important as our nostalgia for LSE. Allowing a few families to emotionally hijack the board is disheartening. We trusted you to do the right thing. I don't think that is what you accomplished at all.


#10 Agree w S Myers

2013-12-12 18:30

The original boundary configuration that was proposed for Ellison and LSE makes much more sense than does the haphazard response to opposition. When you consider the feeder alliance into the middle schools that is based upon IH 10 as the delineation point, it seems reasonable and rational to keep Steeplebrook, Stonewall Ranch, Stonewall Estates and Crownridge as the main composition of Ellison. In turn, these same neighborhoods all feed into Garcia MS. Conversely, the Dominion feeds into Rawlinson. It seems awkwardly manipulated and contrived to pull Steeplebrook and Stonewall Ranch from that middle school feeder alliance.

It also appears like a back-room deal was made when a vote was executed on a boundary that had not before been publicly distributed or made known. It seems like the vote would be yes or no to the proposed boundary and then if not agreed to, an alternative would be proposed and subsequently voted on. #didn'tseethatcoming



2013-12-13 01:48

It is criminal what has occurred and has been allowed to occur at LSE. The initial petition was administered with the help & support of LSE staff. Moms of the opposing initial zoning, were allowed on school premises interrupting with my children's education and creating a toxic environment for our children. This is unlawful and should be unaceptable! Shame on the adults that witnessed these actions and did nothing to intervene for the sake of our children.


#12 Above statement

2013-12-13 03:56

#11: - We did intervene, there were several complaints to the front office of LSE and the NISD board.  Which was good to hear, at least we know other parents cared enought to call.




#13 #13

2013-12-13 04:46

As a new parent to the community, I must simply say that I am quite disappointed to see the actions of the adults from a community deemed as "reputable". My initial intent was to sign this petition, however, the statements being made visible online depict the character of some adults involved in this process and is quite unfortunate. Who are ANY of the parents in this entire community, from both sections of I-10, really advocating for? Why is it not for the best interest of ALL children? If parents do not wish to attend LSE, why not request for a waiver such as those being provided to the parents of McAndrews Elementary who are given the option to opt out of attending Ellison and remain in McAndrews? Not all parents of these neighborhoods find this final decision conflicting. It's also quite disturbing to see an initiated comment about the "apartment kids" in this process and in public eye's view; since that is such the case-wouldn't it make the most sense that they attend a school nearest to them (Ellison)? That comment itself would deem for just as much backlash as the comment made about staff and/or any other parents creating an unfit environment. Witnessing disgruntled parents voicing their rights on campus grounds while picking up my own child in front of the school today is what is toxic. Parents who want their child to attend Ellison should indeed have a choice; however, the push for the first proposal seems a bit telling as well of the parents on this petition. Suggesting that an established school may fail at first because of the removal of a significant portion of the student population-a school for that matter that parents in ALL involved neighborhoods once took much pride in is even more telling. Careful with the idea of flirting with segregation- it is quite unconstitutional and a petition is not needed for that. What a shame it is to see adults portray themselves in this light and manner. What a disheartening thing to witness; for our children to witness. #faithinpublicschoolsshattered


#14 Re: Above statement

2013-12-13 05:12

#12: - Above statement

I am glad to know other parents cared enough to make their concerns heard. What is most disheartening is that the individuals leading the petition on the initial school zoning were allowed on campus to infiltrate LSE and included our children in this matter. It is inexcusable for my children to come home discussing the initial proposed school zone because they heard it from a group of moms that were against it. Where was the school administration to protect our children? How were they allowed on school campus collecting signatures even though that is against board policies? How can they tell my children the new school will not be successful just because they have their own personal views? As a concerned parent, those are the questions I would like to be highlighted to show this change was manipulated at the expense of our children. I thank you for voicing your concerns to LSE & NISD. It is unfortunate our current school staff couldn't do the same to prevent this madness from interfering with our children's education. That is what we need to keep in mind, our children's best interest, throughout these discussions.


#15 Wow

2013-12-13 17:25

It's quite shocking reading these comments. I want to believe y'all actually care about these kids, but your words say differently. Do you realize this is all PUBLIC? No, you are not in your home where you can spew your ignorance to people who don't tell you no. No, you are not on Facebook where everyone "likes" your comments because they are your friends. I will tell you no. No, it's not okay to look at people as less than human beings. No, it's not okay to be ugly. No, it's not okay to cry about something because you didn't know you "should be vocal". I guess it's hard when you just *assume* things will fall into place because *you* want it. You may want to read some autobiographies of some Civil Rights leaders. They could teach you a thing or two about being vocal.

"Silent Majority" = Lazy majority who thought they didn't need to act if they wanted to change
"Apartment Kids" = term is used as a derogatory ....why exactly? I would be afraid to show my ignorance if I used this term but this group is loud and proud. Looks like $ can't buy class.
"Vocal minority"= the only people who did any work. (An Aesop tale comes to mind, the grasshopper and the ant?)
"Crazy moms allowed on campus"= what?!? So now in your mind, the teacher allowed moms to come and teach a lesson on the boundaries to sway your!

For the record, I believe the school board did this with the best of intentions, came to the conclusion after listening to the constituents present that night and petitions, and finally did what was best for ALL students.

Y'all need help.

And Jesus.


#16 #13

2013-12-13 17:47

Of all the comments I have read, yours seems to be the most telling. I am so disappointed to see grown adults complain at pick up with other parents around, blast parents who where opposed to the initial zoning on our blogs because they disagreed and wanted to see a change, make statements about "Apartment Kids", and stereo typing "Dominion" parents. Wow, true colors really come out!  I don't see any difference in what Stonewall parents who are NOW opposed, wanting to make changes, petition and get the word out. Initial concerned parents or Dominion parents as some of you call them, started doing this at the onset of this boundary issue. I think everyone who sees a problem should stand up for what they believe and it looks to me that both sides of 1-10 are now doing this. So stop putting down parents that cared enough to try to get parents involved to sign their petition, you are now doing the same things. I commend the NISD Board for rolling up their sleeves and looking at as many options as they could for the good of all. NISD is a wonderful school district and they have very highly educated and committed people on their board. They were not swayed by ANYONE! They looked at a proposal and all the comments that had come in and disregarded a boundary that would take 1 in 5 students to a new school. That kind of statistic doesn't work, so the board looked at other options for 4 hrs. Some of you leaving comments have know idea what you are saying. It's so easy to voice an opinion, but to actually see and understand the process that took place by the committee and NISD board, was exhausting. I respect the process, and ask that upset parents who are in opposition of the vote be respectful to all.  Everyone has an option, but please keep your negativity out of the school.  I heard the few parents petitioning and they never said anything negative about anyone.  I don't even think the petition they got signed even helped them.  I think the letter sent home by NISD asking for comments is what the BOARD looked at.  NISD was accepting comments for two weeks.  EVERY SINGLE PARENT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE AT CLARK, THE BOARD MEETING, CALL THE DISTRICT AND EMAIL.  Never assume things will go your way if you arent' involved.


#17 Re

2013-12-13 19:05

I hope that this interruption that's being claimed about signatures for petition was addressed immediately by staff members. I would only hope that the same had been done for the parents who initially thought they were slated for Ellison when it was noted that a group of parents interrupted several classrooms during instruction to "recruit" LSE teachers and tried to convince them in transferring to Ellison. It's unfortunate that these teachers were intentionally being addressed and misfed information to sway them in leaving to what it sounding like a school for "elitists". Poor teachers who have to deal with this nonsense. As for NISD board, hats off to a decision that emphasizes community and equality for all our children. A negative connotation would have definitely been attached to the public school system that you have urged our city to advocate and promote for in contrast to charter schools. It would have been a travesty if the public had witnessed the act if seeing children who are being addressed as "apartment kids" being bussed and passing two elementary schools to attend a third school. Thank you for thinking logically and accounting for the most important voices in this matter-the children!



2013-12-13 21:02

We have gotten 185 signatures. Wow. That's impressive. Please don't pay attention to the negative people who take time to insult parents on this petition. This battle is not over. That's how the system works, when you don't agree with something you do something about it. The numbers on this petition and the amount of overwhelming support for the FIRST PROPOSAL is obvious to everyone who takes the time to come to a public forum and insult parents. They are scared.

#19 Apparent confusion

2013-12-13 21:06

I would like to clarify something for all those throwing blame at this group for using the term "apartment kids" and calling us segregationists. I think you misunderstand. Do you realize we are IN FAVOR of a zoning plan that would include multiple apartment complexes into the school we would like our children to attend? The one we are opposing would not include as many, if any at all, apartment complexes in our assigned school. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO ABOUD BEING ZONED WITH APARTMENTS. One comment above supporting this petition referred to "apartment kids" but was upset about the use of the term by the other side. S/he was complaining about its use.

And for the record, if we are rezoned to Ellison, upset parents could try to get a waiver to LSE. That would make it equal to the situation at McAndrews, not the reverse.

Seems to me there's a lot of pot/kettle on BOTH sides, including from those who came here for no other reason than to apparently chastise us.

#20 Positive example

2013-12-13 21:35

I am not here to judge or take a stand on either side. I only ask that everyone here remain positive and encouraging. We are all looking out for our children's best interest and we are all entitled to our opinion. Nothing will come from name calling or placing blame. Plain and simple, be kind!!! How will our children ever learn respect and understanding? Or how we must work with others and find a compromise? Many of the comments above are NOT helpful and certainly many are hurtful. Remember the "think before we speak" rules (that ALL of our children have learned at LSE)? PRACTICE IT!!!

#21 Clarification

2013-12-13 23:05

I also interpreted the mention of "apartment kids" to be a third person reference from the view of the original opposition to the I-10 boundary. The reason I assumed that was because one of the original emails in opposition implied as much. That email, while kicking of the crusade against the I-10 Boundary, mentioned a decline in property values, as one of many reasons to fight the proposed borders. There were several other reasons listed, but I was finished with their crusade after reading that one, as it seemed to show the true reason. I immediately wrote an email in support of the original I-10 boundary as it kept a stronger feeder system for my child. She would not have to worry about making the transition to a large middle school, while moving with such a small class, that was split among two feeder systems.


#22 Re: Wow

2013-12-14 03:16

#15: Guest - Wow 


My children didn't need to be lectured about the new school with biased & negative views! "For those slotted to attend Ellison, it may seem easier just to let things happen and go to a brand new facility to start "fresh." Realize that based on experienced educators, it takes 2-3 years to get a school off the ground with all of its ancillary programs. It takes time for teachers and administration to establish a rhythm. It takes time and money to build a library from the ground up. Although we all desire for Ellison to be outstanding, it will not immediately have the depth of experience, maturity, and established programs that our children enjoy at LSE on a daily basis. Additionally, Ellison is projected to be a much larger school; this contrasts with the smaller, more close-knit sense of family at LSE where teachers and staff know students outside of their classroom on a first name basis, and vice-versa. Rachel Beck"


#23 Re: Wow

2013-12-14 06:41

#15: Guest - Wow

"No, it's not okay to cry about something because you didn't know you "should be vocal"."

Interesting choice of words, I guess one is only allowed to cry in front of the school board while holding up a blanket.


#24 How could they mess this up?

2013-12-14 18:11

I was fortunate to grow up in a very small town in Texas where there was only one school system. I really enjoyed the opportunity to grow up with my friends and I want the same for my daughter. The option that makes the most sense is one that keeps our children together throughout the duration of their education, or at least as much as possible. The board made a mistake in NOT making the obvious and best decision. It’s true that I didn’t make my voice heard at the board meeting, because I was told about the School Boundary Advisory Committee’s recommendation and assumed the NISD surely couldn’t mess this up. Well, they did and now we know where that got me.


#25 So Sad

2013-12-15 16:35

This whole situation saddens me. NISD which I trust with my three most precious treasures has let me down along with so many others. The perceived underhanded process which took place last Tuesday has torn a once tight knit community apart. For that I place blame on what is claimed to be the best school district in San Antonio and perhaps the whole state of Texas. Had we had due process, a chance to voice concerns about an alternate option and given proof that this is indeed the best option, I would accept it. To say the lack of communication by NISD or perhaps the board, that alternate boundaries would be discussed or voted on at the last meeting, is an understatement. We are all fighting for what's best for our children and we each have very different needs. In the end, life will go on, our children will succeed and we all need to be mindful when talking about this in front of our children. We need to assure them this will all work out for the best, and we can all learn that this is all part of life.