Count on Seeing Portables Within Two Years

If portables don’t return to Highland Park ISD campuses a year from now, you can be sure they’ll be back in two years. Superintendent Dawson Orr said so Thursday morning during the annual joint meeting of the HPISD Board of Trustees, the University Park City Council, and the Highland Park Town Council.

In 1990, the district served 4,225 students. Twenty years later, that number had swelled to 6,686. And 10 years from now, it’s projected to reach 8,574.

Orr assured the assembled dignitaries that the district does not plan to add a fifth elementary school — partly because it would be nearly impossible. Orr said Texas Education Agency guidelines call for a new school site to be a minimum of 5 acres, with an acre added for every 100 students. Armstrong Elementary, traditionally the smallest school in the district, has more than 500 kids on campus.

“Just the cost of the plot would be prohibitive,” Orr said.

So, expect portables to once again encroach on the green spaces you see on the various campuses. If the growth occurs as projected, Orr said, “we’ll be coming to our town councils and saying, ‘During the day, we need to be able to take kids to a park.’ “

By Dan Koller Oct. 17, 2011 | 8:40 am | 23 Comments | Comments RSS
23 comments to "Count on Seeing Portables Within Two Years"
  1. more kids? @ October 17, 2011 at 8:57 am
    Is this trend just reflective of more families moving to hpisd for the schools and fewer single/no kids couples doing so due to the cost? Or are family sizes increasing/more units being built?

  2. Charles @ October 17, 2011 at 9:42 am
    That’s a good question the first commenter raises. My understanding is that the overall population of the PC has remained pretty stable for decades, so where are all the extra kids coming coming from?

  3. MGBHStar @ October 17, 2011 at 9:48 am
    Once again, the failure to pass bonds back in 1997/98 that would have funded and built the 5th elementary school is coming back to bite HPISD. Let’s hope our school board comes up with something to permanently address this issue, because it is not going away.

  4. DemBones @ October 17, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    @MGBHStar.
    “Funded and built,” but not staffed and run. Those bond funds were just to take people’s homes and build the building. Regular Robin Hood funds, that we keep only 1/3 of, would have been needed for everything else.

    If we have trouble supporting our current schools now, with tax revenue based on our increased student population, how could we be supporting another whole facility as well?

    The school system exists to meet the needs of our community, not the other way around.

  5. virgogirl @ October 17, 2011 at 5:44 pm
    I have seen so many more multi-family dwellings that I think that HAS to be part of the rise in student-age population. Consider the town homes that can house 3-4 families on land that’s the same size as one or two typical homes in the PC…

  6. bm @ October 17, 2011 at 6:41 pm
    They could put a large building on the north side of 4200 Grassmere. Wait! The indoor FOOTBALL pratice facility is there. Friday Night Lights! Education should be 1st

  7. PlaNO! @ October 18, 2011 at 8:19 pm
    Hey, BM, you are free to move out of town. Don’t let the door hit you!

  8. DSquared @ October 18, 2011 at 9:05 pm
    Perhaps we can buy them back from Bonham ISD… for about $19,047.62 each. (That’s using the inverse of the formula for our property taxes going to Robin Hood). Seriously, perhaps the land on Preston/Oak Lawn/Turtle Creek that was to be developed for housing can be a school/signature entrance to the PC? It’s a bit under 5 acres, but the land across the street along Turtle Creek could be included and called a laboratory.

  9. Greenhill @ October 18, 2011 at 10:02 pm
    that’s why we chose private

  10. DemBones @ October 19, 2011 at 1:43 pm
    @PlaNO! Bm makes a valid point as far as spending money, though HPISD never could have put an elementary school in the middle of the high school campus. But Field of Dreams told us if we don’t build it, they will stop coming.

  11. XT @ October 19, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    This would be a good topic for a newspaper to research and report on…

  12. NFW @ October 19, 2011 at 4:39 pm
    @PlaNo!, it does seem ridiculous to use the last piece of significant land near the high school to build an indoor football facility. Have you been in the High School lately? Certain halls are extremely crowded and almost impassable at times. Wouldn’t that land have been better used for an extension of the school where real learning is supposed to happen? The indoor facility is a nice, unairconditioned facility that the kids hate. Ask any of them and they say it is worse than practicing outside in the heat. Did this shrine really accomplish anything? Are we waiting for someone to aircondition it and claim naming rights?

  13. MGBHStar @ October 19, 2011 at 4:54 pm
    @Dembones – There are separate and distinct issues to consider. If the district grows, staff still has to be hired. Yes, we might save on a few administrators, janitors etc. if we don’t build a new school, but do we want our kids starting lunch at 10A and finishing at 1P because the existing elem schools are so crowded? Building permanent structures vs. bringing in portables also has a very different impact on the district’s budget. A permanent structure, funded by bonds, adds a few cents/hundred to tax rate and improves the financial status of the district. Portables have to be paid for out of operating revenues which come from a combination of state dollars and tax dollars. Since the state continues to cut funding, the only way to pay for them would be to increase taxes. This increase will be more than the cents/dollar from a bond issue. The school system is the community in the PC, so you can separate one from the other.

  14. Sam Tamborello @ October 19, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    If being landlocked is an issue then….

    1. Go vertical. Add additional floors to what the Park City schools already have;

    2. Have the Dallas residents who attend HPISD simply go to a Dallas school. How many are currently enrolled now?

  15. goldengal @ October 20, 2011 at 9:54 pm
    I agree about the football facility. I’m a HP grad and I thought it was ridiculous. The campus looked much better w/o it too…there was/is way too much emphasis on football. It’s great to have school spirit and everything, but football is not what school is about.

    Academics should be a priority as well as the arts, journalism, etc. The art department couldn’t even afford separate classes for art 2 & art 4 so we had to share, which was ridiculous. Would they ever have an algebra and a geometry class shoved into the same room? We only got 1/2 of the teacher’s time and had to listen to the other class being instructed. It was very annoying and I hate to think how much funding the fb team gets when other areas of the school aren’t doing so well. ugh

    btw @PlaNO: Why don’t you leave? There are more important things than football. A lot of more important things.

  16. former scott #24 @ October 21, 2011 at 8:45 am
    we just want a school our football team can be proud of.

  17. DemBones @ October 21, 2011 at 8:53 am
    @Sam. Not so easy. The Dallas city residents who attend HPISD schools are in the HPISD district and pay HPISD taxes. They are just as much entitled to our schools as the W.HP residents in DISD are not entitled to our schools.

  18. DemBones @ October 21, 2011 at 9:02 am
    @MGBHStar. We won’t be purchasing land for portables or adding on more space than needed. To build another school, HPISD was going to use eminent domain against a bunch of our neighbors, involving legal fights and the expense of purchase.

    Let the market decide. A family can choose whether the schools we have are too crowded for them before they decide to move here. They can weigh that against the DISD, Plano, and private schools. The taxpayers of HPISD are not obligated to keep building school buildings to make local realtors and home sellers happy.

    Then there’s that whole issue of 4A vs. 5A.

  19. Sam Tamborello @ October 21, 2011 at 12:12 pm
    @Dembones,
    Thanks for the reply. Though I realize it is a process, (but because I believe nothing is impossible), would it not seem reasonable to begin a process to place W-HP into the school district, pay HPISD taxes, and initiate the process for the Dallas folks who pay HPISD taxes, then pay DISD taxes and attend Dallas schools.

    I attended a private high school similar to St. Mark’s in Houston, and it was fantastic. On the other hand, I realize the excellence of HPISD. Any ideas?

  20. DemBones @ October 21, 2011 at 1:57 pm
    @Sam. Good luck convincing those Dallas homeowners whose home values drop to DISD levels. I don’t think you ease overcrowding either after you add in W.HP. HP/UP and HPISD are, as Herman Cain would say, apples and oranges.

  21. old story @ October 21, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    @Sam, here’s why the school district boundaries will not change: Section 13.051 of the Texas Education Code.
    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.13.htm#13.051
    The trustees of both districts must agree to the change, and the petition requesting the change must be signed by a majority of registered voters living in the “territory.” DISD would be against “detaching” West HP because it would not want to give up the tax money. Dallas residents in HPISD would never vote to be annexed by DISD.
    That’s the way it is, and that’s the way it’s going to stay.

  22. Sam Tamborello @ October 21, 2011 at 5:52 pm
    Thanks Old Story….Interesting.
    Can you or anyone tell me about the time W. HP residents were enrolled in HPISD. I’m not sure how it happened?

  23. PlaNO! @ October 23, 2011 at 10:15 am
    Vote with your feet carpetbaggers – We don’t want you here anyway.

Leave a Reply