CSISD to Consider Allowing Out of District Students

16,268 Views | 166 Replies | Last: 12 days ago by TXUDDAS
CS78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 8:07a, 10/29/25
Since this thread seems to be more about housing than schools, I wanted to mention this since it hasn't been brought up.

There are other reasons that builders don't build here. They absolutely HATE working with the city of College Station bureaucracy! I have a family member that tried building here. We sat in a few meetings and they finally said to hell with this place and left to never return. The paperwork, inspection process, etc is extremely difficult and slow compared to other areas. It's not just about how much a builder can make on a house; it's even more so about how many months it takes to do it. If they can build and sell a house in Navasota in 6 months but the City of College Station drags the process out for 12 months, where are they going to build?

My personal opinion is, I'm ok with this. It has a decades long history of buffering our housing market against large swings up and down and keeps us on a healthier steady slow growth path. BUT, if you're pushing for more entry level homes, this would be the right tree to be barking up. I suspect it would be met with resistance from your colleagues though.
Reply Quote
8
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CS78 • 8:10a, 10/29/25
CS78 said:
Bob, if Im understanding you correctly, your belief is- by allowing out of town students, home prices will come down and be more "affordable" and attractive to families?

That may work if your goal is to simply make things cheaper so a different type of family can afford to live here. BUT you're completely missing the demand aspect of why young families do and dont want to live here. Your theory is you want young families to move here, while giving away the one main thing that they want to move here for? My opinion is, you are wrong if your goal is to bring in more total families. The MAIN reason families want to live here is because of the schools. There's many reasons people dont want to live here. TAXES, UTILITY COST, TRAFFIC, small lot sizes, congestion, the students, etc, etc. We all hear it all the time. MANY of us put up with those things so our kids can go to school here. Otherwise, we'd live outside of town or in one of the satellite communities. The schools are the number one incentive for a young family to live in College Station. Remove that and you're going to see less families, NOT more.

Focus on the things to make the city more desirable, not less desirable. This can be done while also making a home more affordable at the same time. Bring down taxes, reduce utilities to be comparable with BTU , Bluebonnet, etc. Reduce the fees on builders, etc. All of those things will do way more to incentivize young families to move here than giving away our number one attraction.



No, sir. I do not support nor oppose CSISD accepting out of district kids. I believe that's a policy decision that CSISD should make in concert with the bosses, the school board and their staff.

My whole point with this post was to highlight that our high performing, award-winning school district is having enrollment challenges thats forcing them to look at this measure- and that our broken housing market is a large part of the reason why.

When government interferes in a housing market, there are consequences. Those consequences can become so acute that quality of life, opportunity, education and prosperity are put at risk.

We decided to play command economy with housing. We vilified builders and developers. We pushed every legal boundary to exact a toll others don't charge. We've fundamentally remade the housing opportunity environment that made us who we are as a city, and it gets worse every day we don't act.

Ask yourself this- how can almost every measure of a city's growth be in the positive column, while the percentage of children and young parents in our population is shrinking?

It's housing. Pure and simple.

Respectfully

Yancy '95
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CS78 • 8:29a, 10/29/25
CS78 said:
Since this thread seems to be more about housing than schools, I wanted to mention this since it hasn't been brought up.

There are other reasons that builders don't build here. They absolutely HATE working with the city of College Station bureaucracy! I have a family member that tried building here. We sat in a few meetings and they finally said to hell with this place and left to never return. The paperwork, inspection process, etc is extremely difficult and slow compared to other areas. It's not just about how much a builder can make on a house; it's even more so about how many months it takes to do it. If they can build and sell a house in Navasota in 6 months but the City of College Station drags the process out for 12 months, where are they going to build?

My personal opinion is, I'm ok with this. It has a decades long history of buffering our housing market against large swings up and down and keeps us on a healthier steady slow growth path. BUT, if you're pushing for more entry level homes, this would be the right tree to be barking up. I suspect it would be met with resistance from your colleagues though.


I agree with you. Our staff enforce the regulatory rule book we have established. That rule book needs to be changed. There's a fine line between healthy regulation and fees, and market interference. We crossed it years ago, by design. Now, even the schools are feeling the result.

I am "flooding the zone" on the housing issue, and I'm doing it on purpose. We must change our mindset. We've enacted detrimental policy, and then doubled down. It's got to be reversed and with urgency.

There are those who believe that, for city hall, houses "don't pencil" unless they approach half a million dollars in value. There's an anti-development mindset, an anti-growth ethos, that I as one member of council believes threatens our future.

Government isn't supposed to "pencil" profitably. Government's job is to provide safety and services that are conducive to an atmosphere of prosperity and opportunity for all. City hall's finances are just fine. Opulent even. This isn't a publicly traded corporation. It's government, using other people's resources. A healthy housing market, at all price points, is a prerequisite for a healthy city. Without one, I never would have achieved what this town helped me achieve. And now that I'm retired and "got mine" I'll not eschew future generational opportunity for the same. I won't. So I'll continue banging the heck out of this drum until it's fixed, or the citizens send me home. If yall do, I'll play more golf, spend more time on my tractor and enjoy more time with my grandkids.

I leave that to yall.

Respectfully and sincerely. As one member of council.

Bob Yancy '95
Reply Quote
4
3 edits
AgFan247
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 1:23p, 10/29/25
AG
I know this is off topic, but the mention of Mumford got me looking.

Mumford threw open their doors because it appears they wouldn't have a district otherwise.

For 2024-2025
Total Enrollment - 598,
Total transfers in - 563.
Assumed students actually living in the district - 35.

How is Mumford even a district if they only have 35 students living within their district? That's a lot of ADA coming out of other districts to go to another one that isn't even justified by their own local population.



Reply Quote
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgFan247 • 1:26p, 10/29/25
AG
AgFan247 said:
I know this is off topic, but the mention of Mumford got me looking.

Mumford threw open their doors because it appears they wouldn't have a district otherwise.

For 2024-2025
Total Enrollment - 598,
Total transfers in - 563.
Assumed students actually living in the district - 35.

How is Mumford even a district if they only have 35 students living within their district? That's a lot of ADA coming out of other districts to go to another one that isn't even justified by their own local population.




There are a lot of small districts in Texas. Ones in rural communities result from difficulties in travel decades ago.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgFan247 • 1:26p, 10/29/25
AgFan247 said:
I know this is off topic, but the mention of Mumford got me looking.

Mumford threw open their doors because it appears they wouldn't have a district otherwise.

For 2024-2025
Total Enrollment - 598,
Total transfers in - 563.
Assumed students actually living in the district - 35.

How is Mumford even a district if they only have 35 students living within their district? That's a lot of ADA coming out of other districts to go to another one that isn't even justified by their own local population.





That's actually back on topic. Fascinating. I wonder why so many are choosing to transfer their kids.
Reply Quote
2
tu ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 1:45p, 10/29/25
AG
The answer is HearneISD.
Reply Quote
5
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tu ag • 2:15p, 10/29/25
AG
tu ag said:
The answer is HearneISD.

A lot of their students are from Hearne but they draw from other districts as well.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
doubledog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:25p, 10/29/25
How about a compromise.
For each out of district student their home district should pay CSISD a convenience fee.
Reply Quote
1
birdman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 2:59p, 10/29/25
techno-ag said:
birdman said:
I hate this.

One of reasons that we picked College Station is the school quality. And we paid a premium for it. People pay more for good schools everywhere.

Rough example. I'm paying for my kid to have 20 kids in their math class. Now we're going to have 24 kids in there? I'm paying for buildings, sport fields, etc. Now we're going to cram more people in there?

When they need more teachers, bigger buildings, and more, who are they asking for more money?

You probably won't see as many as you imagine.

And point of clarity, the state sends funding based on enrollment. You won't be paying extra with additional enrollment.

Now, if a bond election occurs because of the need for more space, at that time you could vote against it.

If there is just one extra kid at each school, it's too many. If you want to attend CSISD schools, then move into housing within CSISD boundary. And pay CSISD taxes. And vote on bonds for CSISD.

I don't care if the state pays for it. Relying on a government handout is a fool's errand. If you think CSISD is going to spend only what the state gives them, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Even if I'm still paying the same amount each year, I'm getting less value with my money. College Station residents will be paying the same amount but getting a lesser education for their children.

A bond? That will be voted in by the employees of CSISD. Let's pretend that CSISD needed just $5 million to handle the increased attendance. (I'm talking about carpet baggers, not natural growth in city limits). That's another $5 million that taxpayers will have to handle. And I guarantee that people will still be saying "Don't worry about it, the state pays the school district for these kids."
Reply Quote
5
Lone Stranger
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 3:57p, 10/29/25
As mentioned; Hearne ISD. Hearne got so bad a lot of parents started transferring kids to Mumford. The lawsuit from Hearne against Mumford was quit0e interesting. The Hearne agitators tried to make it about race but the courts eventually found their race argument had no merit and was a smokescreen for loss of dollars.

A classic example of make the dollars follow a student and not kept in a crappy district and you can start to see the really bad districts from the ones doing their jobs....even without bringing private schools into the discussion.
Reply Quote
3
TAMU1990
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 4:23p, 10/29/25
AG
According to the district's demographers, we are currently not growing but we are remaining steady in headcount. They show a small decline by year 10, but that's tough to quantify effectively. Too many variables to project correctly 10 years out.

I feel opening up the district is an overreaction. I personally do not want my taxes to increase to pay for students in Bryan and Navasota who will come here. Growth means expenses will also grow and our taxes will have to increase for people here who aren't paying - you'll need more teachers to handle more students at a minimum. I will NEVER vote for another bond to pass if they open the district.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lone Stranger • 4:24p, 10/29/25
Lone Stranger said:
As mentioned; Hearne ISD. Hearne got so bad a lot of parents started transferring kids to Mumford. The lawsuit from Hearne against Mumford was quit0e interesting. The Hearne agitators tried to make it about race but the courts eventually found their race argument had no merit and was a smokescreen for loss of dollars.

A classic example of make the dollars follow a student and not kept in a crappy district and you can start to see the really bad districts from the ones doing their jobs....even without bringing private schools into the discussion.


A lot to unpack there, and I won't. But closer to home…

My wife and I are strong believers in public schools. My wife spent 14 years volunteering on PTO, mostly as treasurer.

CSISD gave our kids an education second to none. I handpicked the former super to replace me as chairman of the board at Baylor Scott & White largely because of the ship he ran at CSISD, which was high and tight.

It's a fantastic organization and has served generations of our city well. I wish them the absolute best in all things and hope the quality of education that children receive there endures forever.

Respectfully

Yancy '95
Reply Quote
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TAMU1990 • 4:28p, 10/29/25
TAMU1990 said:
According to the district's demographers, we are currently not growing but we are remaining steady in headcount. They show a small decline by year 10, but that's tough to quantify effectively. Too many variables to project correctly 10 years out.

I feel opening up the district is an overreaction. I personally do not want my taxes to increase to pay for students in Bryan and Navasota who will come here. Growth means expenses will also grow and our taxes will have to increase for people here who aren't paying - you'll need more teachers to handle more students at a minimum. I will NEVER vote for another bond to pass if they open the district.


I'd love to see a breakdown on that static enrollment and I'd bet dollars to donuts it's the youngest grades that are losing ground.

But how does a city grow 3.1% per year and the school district not grow with it? Thats a rhetorical question yall know what I think.

Respectfully

Yancy '95
Reply Quote
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to birdman • 4:28p, 10/29/25
AG
birdman said:
techno-ag said:
birdman said:
I hate this.

One of reasons that we picked College Station is the school quality. And we paid a premium for it. People pay more for good schools everywhere.

Rough example. I'm paying for my kid to have 20 kids in their math class. Now we're going to have 24 kids in there? I'm paying for buildings, sport fields, etc. Now we're going to cram more people in there?

When they need more teachers, bigger buildings, and more, who are they asking for more money?

You probably won't see as many as you imagine.

And point of clarity, the state sends funding based on enrollment. You won't be paying extra with additional enrollment.

Now, if a bond election occurs because of the need for more space, at that time you could vote against it.

If there is just one extra kid at each school, it's too many. If you want to attend CSISD schools, then move into housing within CSISD boundary. And pay CSISD taxes. And vote on bonds for CSISD.

I don't care if the state pays for it. Relying on a government handout is a fool's errand. If you think CSISD is going to spend only what the state gives them, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Even if I'm still paying the same amount each year, I'm getting less value with my money. College Station residents will be paying the same amount but getting a lesser education for their children.

A bond? That will be voted in by the employees of CSISD. Let's pretend that CSISD needed just $5 million to handle the increased attendance. (I'm talking about carpet baggers, not natural growth in city limits). That's another $5 million that taxpayers will have to handle. And I guarantee that people will still be saying "Don't worry about it, the state pays the school district for these kids."

Hate to tell you this but there are already "carpetbaggers" in CSISD in the form of teacher kids who live OOD.

Look open enrollment is an easy way to earn money. It's only a matter of time. The big suburban districts are doing it. Let the district go ahead and make the decisions that are best for the district.

Here's a story on ISDs in the metroplex embracing open enrollment:

The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
2
TAMU1990
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 4:42p, 10/29/25
AG
Bob Yancy said:
TAMU1990 said:
According to the district's demographers, we are currently not growing but we are remaining steady in headcount. They show a small decline by year 10, but that's tough to quantify effectively. Too many variables to project correctly 10 years out.

I feel opening up the district is an overreaction. I personally do not want my taxes to increase to pay for students in Bryan and Navasota who will come here. Growth means expenses will also grow and our taxes will have to increase for people here who aren't paying - you'll need more teachers to handle more students at a minimum. I will NEVER vote for another bond to pass if they open the district.


I'd love to see a breakdown on that static enrollment and I'd bet dollars to donuts it's the youngest grades that are losing ground.

But how does a city grow 3.1% per year and the school district not grow with it? Thats a rhetorical question yall know what I think.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

The lower grades were projected to be lower compared to current HS populations, but those kids haven't even been born and it wasn't significant. I've sat in through the demographer presentations. They caution to not read too much into 10 years out numbers because of too many uncontrollable variables. For an extreme example - COVID. Imagine looking at a presentation for 2016-2026. That was junk after 2020.

The board is required to do a look at the district every Nov/Dec for balance of enrollment. The policy is called FC Local and it's posted in their monthly meetings via video.

I'm not saying we as a city don't need more affordable housing for families, but it feels like a knee jerk reaction to open the district. We have time to watch.

As for city growth - is this also tied to A&M student growth? We know for many years enrollment has been increasing until this fall.
Reply Quote
2
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TAMU1990 • 4:44p, 10/29/25
TAMU1990 said:
Bob Yancy said:
TAMU1990 said:
According to the district's demographers, we are currently not growing but we are remaining steady in headcount. They show a small decline by year 10, but that's tough to quantify effectively. Too many variables to project correctly 10 years out.

I feel opening up the district is an overreaction. I personally do not want my taxes to increase to pay for students in Bryan and Navasota who will come here. Growth means expenses will also grow and our taxes will have to increase for people here who aren't paying - you'll need more teachers to handle more students at a minimum. I will NEVER vote for another bond to pass if they open the district.


I'd love to see a breakdown on that static enrollment and I'd bet dollars to donuts it's the youngest grades that are losing ground.

But how does a city grow 3.1% per year and the school district not grow with it? Thats a rhetorical question yall know what I think.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

The lower grades were projected to be lower compared to current HS populations, but those kids haven't even been born and it wasn't significant. I've sat in through the demographer presentations. They caution to not read too much into 10 years out numbers because of too many uncontrollable variables. For an extreme example - COVID. Imagine looking at a presentation for 2016-2026. That was junk after 2020.

The board is required to do a look at the district every Nov/Dec for balance of enrollment. The policy is called FC Local and it's posted in their monthly meetings via video.

I'm not saying we as a city don't need more affordable housing for families, but it feels like a knee jerk reaction to open the district. We have time to watch.

As for city growth - is this also tied to A&M student growth? We know for many years enrollment has been increasing until this fall.


I can't answer your last question - but everything else you wrote wow that's incredibly informative and quality feedback. Thank you.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Reply Quote
1
JP76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 9:09p, 10/29/25
techno-ag said:
tu ag said:
The answer is HearneISD.

A lot of their students are from Hearne but they draw from other districts as well.


You would be surprised of the make up. Some come as far as Navasota and many are from Bryan and College Station.
Reply Quote
2
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JP76 • 9:10p, 10/29/25
AG
JP76 said:
techno-ag said:
tu ag said:
The answer is HearneISD.

A lot of their students are from Hearne but they draw from other districts as well.


You would be surprised of the make up. Some come as far as Navasota and many are from Bryan and College Station.

Yup. Up to 9 other districts.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
2
birdman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 7:22a, 10/30/25
techno-ag said:
I Hate to tell you this but there are already "carpetbaggers" in CSISD in the form of teacher kids who live OOD.

Look open enrollment is an easy way to earn money. It's only a matter of time. The big suburban districts are doing it. Let the district go ahead and make the decisions that are best for the district.

Here's a story on ISDs in the metroplex embracing open enrollment:

It appears that you have the issued talking points.

It really comes down to two simple questions. Go ahead and answer them.

1 - Will the current children in CSISD schools benefit from an increased attendance from out of district students?

2 - Will the current taxpayers in CSISD benefit from an increased attendance from out of district students?

An honest answer to both of those questions is no. Not debatable. Furthermore, both groups will be disadvantaged by this.

Out of district students and their parents love the option. They don't get a vote.

This is about power. More students mean more control and power for CSISD administrators. More power means more money in their pockets. That's it.
Reply Quote
7
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to birdman • 8:32a, 10/30/25
AG
birdman said:
techno-ag said:
I Hate to tell you this but there are already "carpetbaggers" in CSISD in the form of teacher kids who live OOD.

Look open enrollment is an easy way to earn money. It's only a matter of time. The big suburban districts are doing it. Let the district go ahead and make the decisions that are best for the district.

Here's a story on ISDs in the metroplex embracing open enrollment:

It appears that you have the issued talking points.

It really comes down to two simple questions. Go ahead and answer them.

1 - Will the current children in CSISD schools benefit from an increased attendance from out of district students?

2 - Will the current taxpayers in CSISD benefit from an increased attendance from out of district students?

An honest answer to both of those questions is no. Not debatable. Furthermore, both groups will be disadvantaged by this.

Out of district students and their parents love the option. They don't get a vote.

This is about power. More students mean more control and power for CSISD administrators. More power means more money in their pockets. That's it.

I would most definitely disagree. All districts will eventually go this way. See my news story posted above. Your suburban Dallas districts are very happy to take OOD transfers, it doesn't hurt them at all, quite the contrary.

As for current taxpayers benefiting of course it will benefit them. The district is getting more income from average daily attendance.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
Aggieland Proud
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:16a, 10/30/25
AG
The high performing, or preferred, ISD's will cherry pic the "good" students and the losing district is left without their top performers. Discipline problems then become even more of an issue. You see that already with the impact from home schooling and private schools. This makes it even harder to elevate the low performing districts.

I am truly torn on this. I understand parents wanting best for their kids which means give them choices, but it also the worse thing to happen for many public schools.
Reply Quote
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggieland Proud • 9:29a, 10/30/25
AG
Aggieland Proud said:
The high performing, or preferred, ISD's will cherry pic the "good" students and the losing district is left without their top performers. Discipline problems then become even more of an issue. You see that already with the impact from home schooling and private schools. This makes it even harder to elevate the low performing districts.

I am truly torn on this. I understand parents wanting best for their kids which means give them choices, but it also the worse thing to happen for many public schools.

"Cherry picking" is not really nuanced. Districts accepting OOD students don't get to choose who applies. They do get to kick those students out if they're troublemakers though.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
1
CS78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 12:08p, 10/30/25
techno-ag said:


As for current taxpayers benefiting of course it will benefit them. The district is getting more income from average daily attendance.


If that was all it took to educate a student, there would be no need for bonds.

You know like the ones that were just shoved down our throats because everything was overcrowded and the children were suffering.
Reply Quote
3 edits
Aggieland Proud
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 12:11p, 10/30/25
AG
Cherry picking may not be right term but they do have criteria that must be met before they are accepted.
Reply Quote
1
lwd78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 1:38p, 10/30/25
AG
During the last bond election, I pulled CSISD enrollment figures for the past several years. There was one year of negative growth, and 4-5 years of little growth. Definitely an average of less than 2% growth. SOME schools may be crowded, and one of the CSISD Board members told me that the least utilized schools are on the Bryan side of town.
The schools need kids for the state funding. The school teachers also need affordable housing, as most new teachers can't buy a home here.
On the bond issue, I predict we'll see extensions of the current hiring freeze at CSISD, or even layoffs, once bond payments start to kick in. People are upset with property taxes. I'm mad that 42% of our property taxes go to debt repayment, but I'm just as mad that this is also happening with school taxes (debt), yet the schools keep asking for more, School taxes are almost twice the city property taxes, and while I love athletics, I don't think we needed a digital scoreboard. I think A&M Consolidated needed a new track, but why did we resurface both tracks, when both weren't in need? I doubt that Superintendent Harkrider will last three more years here, but we'll see.
Reply Quote
1
EriktheRed
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 2:54p, 10/30/25
AG
techno-ag said:
"Cherry picking" is not really nuanced. Districts accepting OOD students don't get to choose who applies. They do get to kick those students out if they're troublemakers though.

the district does not get to pick who to accept, but the standards they set pretty much accomplish the same thing.

From CSISD on what students they would accept:

B or higher grade avg
Passed all STAR tests
95+% attendance
0-2 disciplinary referrals

safe to say they would only be letting in "quality" students
Reply Quote
2
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EriktheRed • 4:47p, 10/30/25
TAMU1990
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lwd78 • 9:31p, 10/30/25
AG
lwd78 said:
During the last bond election, I pulled CSISD enrollment figures for the past several years. There was one year of negative growth, and 4-5 years of little growth. Definitely an average of less than 2% growth. SOME schools may be crowded, and one of the CSISD Board members told me that the least utilized schools are on the Bryan side of town.
The schools need kids for the state funding. The school teachers also need affordable housing, as most new teachers can't buy a home here.
On the bond issue, I predict we'll see extensions of the current hiring freeze at CSISD, or even layoffs, once bond payments start to kick in. People are upset with property taxes. I'm mad that 42% of our property taxes go to debt repayment, but I'm just as mad that this is also happening with school taxes (debt), yet the schools keep asking for more, School taxes are almost twice the city property taxes, and while I love athletics, I don't think we needed a digital scoreboard. I think A&M Consolidated needed a new track, but why did we resurface both tracks, when both weren't in need? I doubt that Superintendent Harkrider will last three more years here, but we'll see.



I see the following on the last demographer report:

2018-19 - 13,540
2019-20 - 13,936
2020-21 - 13,664 (covid)
2021-22 - 14,187
2022-23 - 14,464
2023-24 - 14,366
2024-25 - 14,318

Ten year demographer report - essentially no substantial change or growth:
2024-25 - 14,318
2025-26 - 14,252
2026-27 - 14,241
2027-28 - 14,234
2028-29 - 14,296
2029-30 - 14,321
2030-31 - 14,396
2031-32 - 14,476
2032-33 - 14,538
2033-34 - 14,626
2034-35 - 14,688
Reply Quote
1
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TAMU1990 • 9:46p, 10/30/25
TAMU1990 said:
lwd78 said:
During the last bond election, I pulled CSISD enrollment figures for the past several years. There was one year of negative growth, and 4-5 years of little growth. Definitely an average of less than 2% growth. SOME schools may be crowded, and one of the CSISD Board members told me that the least utilized schools are on the Bryan side of town.
The schools need kids for the state funding. The school teachers also need affordable housing, as most new teachers can't buy a home here.
On the bond issue, I predict we'll see extensions of the current hiring freeze at CSISD, or even layoffs, once bond payments start to kick in. People are upset with property taxes. I'm mad that 42% of our property taxes go to debt repayment, but I'm just as mad that this is also happening with school taxes (debt), yet the schools keep asking for more, School taxes are almost twice the city property taxes, and while I love athletics, I don't think we needed a digital scoreboard. I think A&M Consolidated needed a new track, but why did we resurface both tracks, when both weren't in need? I doubt that Superintendent Harkrider will last three more years here, but we'll see.



I see the following on the last demographer report:

2018-19 - 13,540
2019-20 - 13,936
2020-21 - 13,664 (covid)
2021-22 - 14,187
2022-23 - 14,464
2023-24 - 14,366
2024-25 - 14,318

Ten year demographer report - essentially no substantial change or growth:
2024-25 - 14,318
2025-26 - 14,252
2026-27 - 14,241
2027-28 - 14,234
2028-29 - 14,296
2029-30 - 14,321
2030-31 - 14,396
2031-32 - 14,476
2032-33 - 14,538
2033-34 - 14,626
2034-35 - 14,688


CSTX had a population of 116,000 in 2018. Today it's basically 130,000. That's 11% growth. Student population, had it held steady, would equate to 15,550 if I mathed the math correctly.

AI just told me the population growth hit the brakes, essentially, in 2023. I don't know the exact boundaries of CSISD. If it includes area beyond the city limits, etc.

Respectfully

Yancy '95
Reply Quote
CS78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 6:55a, 10/31/25
Bob Yancy said:

CSTX had a population of 116,000 in 2018. Today it's basically 130,000. That's 11% growth. Student population, had it held steady, would equate to 15,550 if I mathed the math correctly.

Respectfully

Yancy '95


Do we know the age of these new residents? We've added a number of new apartment complexes that are specifically going to bring in singles or young couples with no kids or kids too young for school. This type of housing is fairly new for us. In the past its been mostly young family SFRs or student apartments. The more urbanized we become, the more these people will find CS attractive. Just because a person moves here and doesn't have kids, doesn't automatically mean they're old and retired.

Something to keep in mind going forward.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CS78 • 8:03a, 10/31/25
CS78 said:
Bob Yancy said:

CSTX had a population of 116,000 in 2018. Today it's basically 130,000. That's 11% growth. Student population, had it held steady, would equate to 15,550 if I mathed the math correctly.

Respectfully

Yancy '95


Do we know the age of these new residents? We've added a number of new apartment complexes that are specifically going to bring in singles or young couples with no kids or kids too young for school. This type of housing is fairly new for us. In the past its been mostly young family SFRs or student apartments. The more urbanized we become, the more these people will find CS attractive. Just because a person moves here and doesn't have kids, doesn't automatically mean they're old and retired.

Something to keep in mind going forward.


Here you go. The below occurred in 5 years up to 2023. The builder / realtor community tells me the exodus of 25-35 year olds has accelerated since.

Respectfully

Yancy '95


Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Charpie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 8:39a, 10/31/25
AG
This chart is quite telling
Reply Quote
3
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Charpie • 8:45a, 10/31/25
Charpie said:
This chart is quite telling


Indeed. It's not usual to see such dramatic changes in a population pyramid in just 5 years. And, by piecing anecdotal data together it appears possible these trends accelerated since 2023.

Apartment construction is way off. Single family detached numbers are way down inside CS city limits- but way up in surrounding jurisdictions.

It's pretty apparent what's happening- and in the annals of our city's history, it's happening very fast.

Respectfully,

Yancy '95
Reply Quote
3
CS78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 8:59a, 10/31/25
Thanks for the info. Im not a stats person but that chart seems to have some odd anomalies. Why would 25-35 year olds have such a sharp dip while 5-10 year olds have such a sharp increase? Those two should correlate better than that.

Some of the crazy large swings in the other age groups make me question the validity of the data all together. 28% change in 75-79 year olds? Almost 50% change in 50-54 year olds? My suspicion is the sample size used for these five-year estimates, is entirely too small to be reliable at all. Or neighborhoods and areas of town are inconsistently measured. How else could a 50% change be explained? Thats not realistic.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.