TRUSTEES RECEIVE UPDATE ON BLUEBONNET HAVEN RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
There are still a lot of ifs and unknowns involving Brenham ISD’s possible involvement in the Bluebonnet Haven Residential Facility. Brenham School trustees received and update today (Monday) from administrators regarding the possible staffing requirements for educators at the facility if Brenham ISD were to become the District of record for it. The facility is under construction on Highway 36 South, across from the Brenham State Supported Living Center entrance. It is designed for 32 residents and if the state completes the licensing this summer, it could begin housing students as early as August.
Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum & Instruction Jamey Johnson talked about what effect the facility would have on the accountability ratings by the state. She said that the district currently serves 4 residential facilities; the Brenham State School, and 3 residential homes. She noted that Brenham has 13 percent of its students listed as special education, the highest of any district in the area. Director of Business and Finance Kim Weatherby said that if the facility had 30 students, it would require at least 12 teachers and specialists from the district to meet the state requirements. That would cost the district between $590,000 and $1.1 million per year, depending on if full time staff or contract employees were utilized. She estimated that if all of the students were categorized as special education, the state would cover only $525,000 of the costs. She said that the district served the educational needs for the Five Oaks facility in New Ulm from 2003 to 2011. She said that during that time the number of students would fluctuate between a hand full to a high of 26, making staffing difficult.
Board Vice-President Melvin Ehlert commented that his primary responsibility was with the current students enrolled with Brenham ISD. Board Secretary Susan Jenkins said there were too many “ifs” involved from a taxpayer’s point of view.
Bluebonnet Haven’s principal owner Randall Bryant attended the meeting and said afterwards that the district's staffing numbers were exaggerated. He said that the facility will open with only a few students and grow slowly. He expects that only 2 teachers and a principal would likely be required, and that he has never seen a facility with the number of specialists that the district is suggesting.
Information presented by Brenham ISD: Residential Facility
Based on the article written by Lois Kolkhorst and published in the Brenham Banner Press, I have some questions. It sounds as if the district has to agree to take on this facility. Why do that if it is going to cause such a problem? Also, the article states that a public meeting is required to be held before the license is granted. When will this meeting take place? As a community, do we have a choice in this matter? Hopefully Mrs. Kolkhorst is working to do her part to do what is best for our county. Please read the article and ask questions! The time to try to stop this from coming to our county is NOW – not when someone has escaped and burned down the nearest house or has vandalized a few of the businesses near by.
Do some research. State law requires that the school district agree to take the children before a license is granted for this type of facility. Also then IF a school agrees, a public meeting is required before a license is granted for this type of facility. To date, no license application has been received for this particular facility, because it must first be built and in existence before it could even try for an application. There is thankfully a local control aspect, because local control is best.. The school board can right now issue resolutions in support or opposition, which would be presented once an application is made and make it unsustainable.
From what I read, Senator Kolkhorst has stated that she is against the project when I heard her on KWHI in an interview and read her article in the local newspaper last week.
I support local control, so please stop trying to shift this to the state, because according to law, it is a local school board decision and I trust the board members to do the right thing. Brenham ISD School Board Member Melvin Ehlert is quoted today as having issues with this facility, hopefully he can convince the board president who has been very quiet. Ask questions to the school board, find out if any of them or any local official in city or county is in any way linked to the project. Remember that research is best tool to fight for your opinion.
We the silent majority will get trampled on as usual. We don’t March in the streets and get loud to get our way. This is NOT GOOD for our county.
The school board is the big issue here to me because it sounds like the facility business plan for these investors hinges on the school district saying yes to it. Please everyone talk to your local school board member and tell them how you feel about this …and ask them what they plan to do about it. Also who are the local investors in this project besides Randall Bryant? Let the local investors who live in our community be identified please, so we know what is happening and who is behind this plan.
I support the facility and think its a great idea, so I’ll be sure to tell the school board. I’m not an investor or connected in any way, but I believe that there are plenty of children out there that need help. Brenham used to be proud of itself and efforts like the State School and Miracle Farm, but if folks around here can’t get behind another project that helps children, then perhaps shame is more appropriate. I’d also like to remind folks that they seem to be cherry-picking; the facility in Austin county might have had problems, but Miracle Farm has been in operation for decades without any problems that I’m aware if. And how can the school board justify denying this facility if BISD supports Miracle Farm?
Compassion and charity are an individual choice, not a taxed mandate that has your name attached to them.
I think a better term for your title might be, “Socialism is not a Miracle”.
As far as an investment and private enterprise, this just allows these unknown investors to make money off of the property tax payers backs. With the ISD now providing everything except a bed to sleep in at night, the investors have little to pay for in terms of care yet still get “paid” as they say. This behavior is more like that of a welfare queen than investor. Way off the mark of compassion, this will be an embarrassment.
I know it’s easier to name-call than to actually honestly discuss an issue, but it doesn’t solve any problems. Disagreeing with you doesn’t make anyone a ‘socialist,’ and shouldn’t make them a target for juvenile antics, but your motivation is obvious and your words speak for themselves. As a Christian, I’m embarrassed that you claim to honor God, yet fail to honor Christ. Good luck explaining to St. Peter how he’s “WRONG!” to have compassion.
I would like to offer clarification on the instructional support of students at Miracle Farm. According to the Miracle Farm website (http://www.miraclefarm.org/Site/About/FAQs.aspx):
“Miracle Farm has an on-campus, accredited public charter school program staffed with certified teachers. The boys attend classes year-round each weekday morning in a multi-classroom school equipped with computers, a science lab, and a library. They receive public school transcripts and can receive a Texas high school diploma if they successfully complete their requirements while in residence.”
Brenham ISD does not provide educational services to students at Miracle Farm.
Is there a law requiring that all citizens are made aware publically of who all the investors are for any project? I’m not understanding why you think you have the right to demand this info.
Almost all government contracts are subject to open records laws because the recipients are receiving public tax dollars. Also… because this proposed facility must by law hold a public hearing it can be granted a license, the public could at that meeting demand to have owners and investors identified at the meeting. The heat is growing on this story because it is said that some big local names may have links to the investors. Please keep up the hunt. Learn about Five Oaks in New Ulm, because this one will be right next to Brenham.
Two of the other local investors are Shannon Mitschke and James Hanath. This can be found out by simply doing a little “googling” Just look up Hm&B Investments, LLC.
“…if Brenham ISD were to become the District of record for it.” – sounds like we have a choice, so don’t become the District of record.
“…13 percent of its students listed as special education, the highest of any district in the area.” That statement speaks volumes. Sure would like to know the “why” of that statement. What is it that the ISD or county or even city is doing or not doing that causes Washington to have such large numbers? When you see unusual stats like that, you may be seeing lax application of requirements, ignorance of rules, incompetence, or some sort of social engineering going on.
Good article.
Why? That would be because we have the State Supported Living Center here in Brenham ISD.
These are children good Christians not aliens from another galaxy.
What keeps 10 or more of these places from moving into the district? Why doesn’t this facility have to hire its own teachers, like a private school? The facility owners will already get paid by the state for each resident, then we cover their education bills. What a great business model… or scam!
Just like the state to grant a permit knowing it would place a burden on an already underfunded school district and overtaxed property tax payers. But then given the current state House war against public education, not really unexpected. Maybe it’s time to turn to the ONLY representation we currently have at the state House, Senator Kolkhorst to fix this issue.
Senator Kolkhorst wrote an excellent article on this facility last week in the local paper. It explains her opposition but also explains how the local school by law must decide if they want to accept the facility… so the law allows for local control! She has said on the radio and in newspapers that it’s a bad idea but per the licensing process and Current Law the local school holds all the cards right now.
So this new, private facility will cause an increase in taxes for the taxpayers?? There should be a taxpayer vote on allowing this in our community!
Did anyone ask about additional security at schools? If the facility is fenced and required to have security cameras, then what about additional security and cost required at school???
This was asked at the meeting today. The district believes they will be required to provide additional security using school resource officers. Very frustrating!!!