Print this page

One New School Would Have
Accommodated Growth Rate for 14 Years

by Alden Nellis

Cleburne ISD just built three new 600-capacity elementary schools based on their projection of a growth rate of 155 new students per year. This year there were only 42 new students, according to information CISD provided to the Times-Review. At this growth rate, one new school would have accommodated the growth rate for 14 years. That’s 600 capacity divided by 42 new students equals 14.28 years. This does not even take into account the fact that when CISD was presenting their misleading information, the district already had an excess capacity of 472 students.

Three new schools of 600 capacity each will accommodate the present growth rate for 42.8 years. Part of this is cancelled out by the closing of the old Adams and Irving schools, but students from both these schools only fill one new school. Even then the extra 1200 student capacity will accommodate the growth rate for 28.5 years.

In the brochure distributed by CISD promoting the “$36 million” bond election (which will cost taxpayers about $69 million), CISD projected a growth rate of 155 students per year for 10 years from 2004. This year’s actual growth rate fell short of the projection by 75% or 113 students. In other words CISD’s actual growth rate was only 25% of the projected amount.

Where did CISD get this projection? Certainly not from the past growth rate. In looking at the 10 years preceding 2004, the average growth rate was 73 students per year, with the three years preceding 2004 being only 30 students per year. So why did they expect the growth rate to jump by 500% suddenly?

Could the error have been deliberate in order to get the bond election passed?

At a public hearing on the bond issue where CISD was presenting its sales pitch, I along with a small group of concerned citizens voiced opposition to the bond. It was our contention that we did not need three new elementary schools. We felt that based on actual growth rate, one new school and remodeling the old schools would meet our needs at one third of the cost that CISD was proposing. We took exception to the projection of 155 more students per year based on actual figures for the past 10 years.

Now, three years after the bond issue was rammed through using several shady tactics and untruths, I take some satisfaction in saying “We told you so.”

With the present growth rate report, it is obvious that CISD, in pushing for the bond issue in 2005, was at least intentionally misleading the voters. At worst, it was downright fraud. Misinformation or fraud? What do you think?

Alden Nellis