Long-Range Plan

The district is evaluating three potential paths:

• Path 1: Combining certain campus communities with a nearby school, allowing for repurposing to meet district space needs
• Path 2: Implement updated staffing models at low-enrolled campuses
• Path 3: Hybrid approach tailored to address unique circumstances

Associated repurposing costs will be part of the continued conversation, but when looking at the estimated cost savings for each path, the focus was on general fund costs. Repurposing would utilize portions of the 2023 Bond Funds allocated for these purposes, not general fund dollars.

Staffing adjustments, if needed, would primarily be managed through the district’s surplus process. Our goal is to support all employees with advance notice, clear communication, and thoughtful transition planning. No changes tied to paths 1-3 would be made prior to the 2026- 27 school year. The district will provide clear timelines and support. The district remains committed to providing stability and transparency throughout this process.

Engagement efforts include:

• ThoughtExchange (May 2025)
• Community Forums for those affected by consolidation or repurposing efforts (August 2025)

This is a data indicator, generated through the work of the Long-Range Planning Committee. It highlights underutilization that may affect program access, per-student funding, and resource allocation. It is used in combination with other data and community input to inform options.

The district utilizes the most common method for calculating “Functional Capacity”, based on the Maximum Capacity (Total number of classrooms provided in each school building multiplied by school district’s average elementary student-teacher-ratio (22:1)) and then by an efficiency factor (85%). This takes into account needs for specialized programs and principal autonomy.

Maximum Capacity X Efficiency Factor (85%) = Functional Capacity

To decide the best practice for determining this Functional Capacity, the district worked with an educational facility planning consultant firm, thinkSMART Planning Inc. This was reviewed by the Board at the February 15, 2024 Board Meeting, at 2:52:30 District Administration walks through the adjustment. This was all done for consistency purposes as requested by the Board. There were also two supporting documents which were part of that agenda. New Process and new Capacity Chart

It depends if you reside in a new neighborhood or a built-out community. There is a difference between new construction and regeneration when it comes to student enrollment trends.

• New Construction:
  Every time a new home is built and occupied, it typically adds new students to the system. This creates clear, measurable growth (+1 student). That’s why areas with ongoing homebuilding see steady enrollment increases.
  
• Regeneration in Built-Out Neighborhoods:
  In established neighborhoods where homes already exist, enrollment patterns shift as families move in and out. Four scenarios play out:
1. A household with students is replaced by one without students → net loss (-1)
2. A household with students is replaced by another with the same number of students → no change (0).
3. A household with no students is replaced by one with students → net gain (+1).
4. A household with no students is replaced by another without students → no change (0).

These mixed outcomes mean regeneration usually leads to stabilization, not growth. For enrollment to truly increase, the number of student-gaining moves (Scenario 3) must significantly outpace student losses (Scenario 1) and stable replacements (Scenarios 2 and 4).

Key Takeaway:
While communities may feel like regeneration (“new families moving in”) should cause schools to fill up again, the math shows otherwise. Regeneration prevents further decline but doesn’t generate the same level of new student growth that new construction does. In other words, regeneration sustains, but it doesn’t expand.

• May–August 2025: Community feedback and analysis
• October 9, 2025: Final Board vote on optimization actions
• Fall 2025 and Spring 2026: further planning and communication
• 2026-27 School Year: Implementation begins (if directed by the Board)

Support efforts would include, but not limited to:

• Orientation and welcome events at receiving campuses
• Transition teams, including student support services (e.g., counselors)
• Emphasis on continuity of care, positive culture, and relationships

For the 2025-26 school year, elementary campuses were available for intra-district transfers by grade-level. Meaning that a campus grade-level may be closed to transfers due to the projected students would efficiently maximize the current staffing without adding another section.

All required services will continue. We will evaluate where programs are housed and ensure students continue to have access, even if program locations shift.

We will provide appropriate transition supports such as professional development, collaboration time, and opportunities to build culture if campuses are consolidated.

Counseling staff and transition activities will be prioritized. Students will have opportunities to connect with new peers and establish traditions.

We deeply understand how important a school’s identity is to students, families, staff, and community. At this point, no decisions about consolidation have been made, and nothing is predetermined regarding campus names, mascots, or other traditions. Should the Board consider moving forward with consolidation, our focus would be on honoring the histories and cultures of both school communities. We would engage students, families, and staff in thoughtful conversations to explore ways to preserve meaningful traditions while also building opportunities for a shared identity. The goal would be to create a campus culture where everyone feels a sense of belonging, with any changes emerging from collaboration rather than being imposed.

Routes will be redesigned to minimize impacts. Some students may see changes in travel time, but efficiency and safety will be priorities.

Transportation costs are factored into all scenarios. Even with added routes, consolidation is projected to result in overall savings.

Extended care needs will be part of transition planning. We will work with campuses and community partners to provide coverage for families who need it.

Each potential consolidation, if that direction is chosen, would be unique. The use of a campus would depend on district needs, the surrounding community, and the facility. As of the May 29, 2025 presentation, the options currently being considered include:

• Faubion ES Campus – Repurpose to serve the enhancement of the New Hope High School Program
• Cypress ES Campus – Repurpose to support the development of a Professional Development & Administrative Support Center
• Steiner Ranch ES Campus – Repurpose to introduce a Pre-K Center, with potential for community partnership

These options reflect current considerations only. Final decisions would be made with further input and through alignment with long-term district priorities.  Any repurposing efforts would be accomplished utilizing current 2023 Bond Repurposing Funds.

Historically, our district has built schools when and where they are needed, particularly in areas experiencing new housing developments. Long-range planning involves continuously monitoring both housing growth and student enrollment trends to anticipate where future demand may arise. While consolidation efforts could help optimize our current facilities and reduce immediate pressures, it’s likely that future growth in certain areas may still require new schools. Our approach is to remain proactive: we aim to ensure that as neighborhoods grow, students have access to safe, high-quality learning environments close to home, while also balancing that with a thoughtful use of existing facilities.

District leadership will fully support our staff as they engage with students. We trust our educators to use their strong, meaningful relationships and professional judgment to respond in age-appropriate, thoughtful ways. Administrators will be available as a resource for staff who have questions or want additional support, ensuring they feel confident and supported as they guide students through these conversations.

After a decision is made, we anticipate continuing engagement with campuses and communities that may be affected. Different formats may be used to provide opportunities for participation and to share information as plans move forward.

The original Cypress School in the area that dated back to the late 1800s, is recognized by the Texas Historical Commission with a state historical marker. The marker (number 13872) commemorates the early log schoolhouse established in the 1860s and mentions the subsequent one-room frame school that ceased operations in 1937. The historic building no longer exists. Today’s Cypress Elementary was constructed in 1987 and only carries the name by tradition.  The Texas Historical Marker at the Cypress School site commemorates the long-gone 19th-century school, not the current building. 

While the site does have a Texas historical marker, this does not mean it’s designated as a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark (RTHL). Markers are educational tools, not preservation restrictions, they do not prevent remodeling, repurposing, or even replacement of modern facilities.  The marker does not limit the district’s ability to adapt Cypress Elementary for new purposes.

The committee’s matrix looked at:

• 2024–25 PEIMS Snapshot Enrollment (October 25, 2024)
• Percent of capacity filled as of the snapshot date
• Available seats at nearby campuses
• Projected percent capacity in 5 and 10 years
• General fund expenditures per student
• Total campus general fund expenditures
• Age of facility
• Campus acreage

Based on 2024–25 enrollment, the following campuses are under 60% utilization:

• Faubion ES – 42%
• Steiner Ranch ES – 47%
• Naumann ES – 55%
• River Ridge ES – 44%
• Cypress ES – 59%
• Laura W. Bush ES – 57%
• Giddens ES – 56%
• Block House Creek ES – 54%

The matrix scores provide a snapshot of efficiency but do not dictate outcomes. The next step was to evaluate whether a campus could support broader district needs, such as:

• Alternative education (e.g., New Hope High School)
• An Administrative complex, Police department administrative center,  professional development, and staff support hub
• A dedicated Pre-K center

No. Identification in the matrix signals a campus for closer study, not a predetermined closure. Repurposing is also an option if the campus helps meet a district need.

This is a step in a long-range planning process guided by input and community conversations. No final decisions have been made, and feedback will be part of shaping the outcomes.