(Contributed by an anonymous poster, 10/27/06)
Silverbrook is very organized and was able to get half of the Fairfax County School Board members, several members of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, as well as Congressman Tom Davis to attend an Oct. 26 meeting to discuss potential adjustments to the South County Secondary School (SCSS) attendance boundaries. The meeting was civil, with featured speakers touching on several important points, not the least of which was none of the three boundary adjustment options (Options 1, 2A and 2B) presented by FCPS Facilities & Planning Office at the October town meeting were acceptable to the Silverbrook community, and all affected communities in general.
Option 1 treats the 7th and 8th graders as "ping bong balls" bouncing them around from school to school and not allowing the kids get a sense of school pride, knowing that they will be bouncing back out to another school in a couple years – not a good option when dealing with developing teenagers. A Hayfield parent questioned the Board members about this option and what kind of feedback they received from teachers and administrators on this option and they answered that none of them liked it.
As to Options 2A and 2B, the Silverbrook community is dead-set against splitting Silverbrook in any fashion. Their passion is understandable, especially concerning Option 2B which would split off the northwestern neighborhoods of Silverbrook and send them to Lake Braddock Secondary School (LBSS). Because this was a Silverbrook community meeting, most of the concern expressed and questions offered up were directed at shooting down Option 2B, which is to be expected, but very little was said about Option 2A, which sends Newington Forest children to LBSS.
Liz Bradsher, the Hayfield Pyramid Solutions group leader that formed the public/private partnership that built SCSS, was asked to give a brief history of how SCSS came about and received a standing ovation when she finished. This was a nice gesture, but the time taken for Ms. Bradsher’s presentation might have been better spent on the pressing issues and questions for the busy officials attending the meeting.
The next major point made by several community speakers is that LBSS does not have the room to absorb the Silverbrook numbers. Again, little was said about Option 2A which would send
Later in the meeting, Mr. Dean Tistadt, superintendent of FCPS Facilities & Planning, disputed the numbers presented but he was going to look into the “core capacity” issue and hoped to have revised numbers at the Nov. 1 meeting. Hopefully, Mr. Tistadt will include Hayfield Secondary School (HSS) in that research. The bottom line message was that LBSS does not have as much room as Facilities & Planning says they do, and that LBSS will be overcrowded if Silverbrook is split off and sent there.
Another primary point driven home at this meeting was the need of a new
Not to be outdone, Virginia State Delegate Dave Albo, not only expressed his support of building a new middle school, but is serving on a task force to explore the creation of another public/private partnership to get it done. He also made it clear that it is the school board that must give the go-ahead to build a new school. The question arose about how long it would take to build a new middle school, to which Dean Tistadt replied that it would be at least four to five years if they got the go-ahead from the school board today.
By far, the primary message expressed by official panel speakers and audience members is that this boundary study and any related adjustments should be postponed or tabled for now. There are far too many unknown influences, such as the Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAC) that will bring up to 20,000 additional DoD workers to the
It was this writer’s observation that SOME school board members would support a delay in taking any boundary adjustment action at this time, BUT they need to hear support of that action from Hayfield and
172 comments:
Option #3 appears to be a direct result of the LBSS and Silverbrook community efforts to show that LBSS is near capacity now and will be over if they move more kids into the school. It makes sense to delay that decision until more BRAC info is available and the real impact of the renovations is known. At least delay the the decision until more information can be determined and spun as necessary.
Delaying the northern move on option #2 if fine, but it was not necessary to change boundaries in the southern portion for option #3. The SC to HF boundaries in #2 were fine. The southern portion of Option #3 sends too many kids too fast to Hayfield.
If the delay to phase #2 does not send enough kids out of SC with the option #2 boundaries then we need to take some other action (other than using HF). Perhaps part of SB or NF could go to LB for 7th and 8th grade until the Middle School is built? LB is at 81% so another 150-200 kids should be fine. The bus routes are there already as they support the GT program. I know this would not be popular at Silverbrook, but they could deal with it for a few years until the MS is in place.
9:49
You made your case for the CA Plan in a nutshell, thank you. I might add that I have been thinking of area of middle schoolers in the CA plan may come from. If only I had actual numbers to see if they would work. But if there were 150 middle school age kids from the area West of 123 that go to Halley that would make this an easier sell to the powerful Silverbrook lobby. Send them to ease the crowding at SCSS while giving Hayfield its boundry from the option 2 plan.
So 9:49 are you supporting Option 2 OR Option 1? It seems to be a hybrid.
Personally I like Option 1 in terms of fixing the capacities at each school. I am one of the ones who doesn't mind my kids having a longer middle school route if it means they can go to the nearby high school.
4:08
If you don't mind and live in the area near Lake Braddock, thats great, but I think we can put this to rest for Hayfield. Noone disputes that Hayfield can take kids back. Why not set the Hayfield boundaries now and wait and see for the kids near Lake Braddock. If you can get a school built in Lorton then you can come back to the SCSS boundaries. If not then in two years some high school kids will have to join the middle school kids. Lets end this now for Hayfield.
So, leave SCSS as a Secondary school, send more of Lorton Station and the rest of Gunston to Hayfield for 7-12. If that is not enough to help SCSS, then send some of them to LBSS for 7th and 8th grade? hmmmmmmmmmm
I live in Halley. I want to see more kids redistricted out of SCSS but not at the expense of Hayfield. I think LBSS needs to utilized in this study this year as a stress reliever for SCSS. Hayfield cannot take all the students who make SCSS overcapacity. Between LB and H, SC can reach (slightly) below capacity without overcrowding any of the 3 schools. The School Board must be prepared to vote for an unpopular decision and not be swayed by certain factions.
9:34
The idea floating on the other blog of this web site is to use option 2 boundary on the Hayfield side, leave SCSS a secondary school, and make a boundary on the LBSS side but only for middle school age kids to go to LBSS and only enough to "hold the line" on further increases at SCSS starting next year. That would be approximately 155 to 165 middle school kids which would keep SCSS at the 113 percent capacity in the out years. Now the phase one and two of option 3 would be still in force but would leave Hayfield out of it for any future boundary study. What do you think, not perfect but at least it takes Hayfield out of the equation in the future as it will be full with enough room to take on more from
BRAC or whatever comes down the road.
The phase II portion of any option should not be limited to LB and SC. It should include several attendence areas -- most importantly Mt. Vernon.
We have seen the limiting factor in looking at only 3 areas. If a school is at 95% they could remain that way if someone is moved in and someone is moved out.
Someone on the other blog mentioned Saratoga to HF and NF to Lee. This is a good idea, but not availble because the SB limited F&P too much.
I think mixing Option 1 for LB and Option 2 for Hayfield will have a lot of opposition from the Silverbrook and LB side. Like Hayfield, LB has the same concerns regarding having middle schooler family loyalty/involvement.
Let's not kid ourselves, the SB may "promise" to keep Hayfield out of a future boundary study, but F&P can suggest any school it chooses for redistricting. Promises mean nothing in politics.
8:07
Who would you move to Mt. Vernon?
9:36
It seems to me that most folks in Silverbrook and Lake Braddock are happy with option 3 with little concern that this option would bring too many students back to Hayfield and overcrowding it possibly once again! They do not want to share the burden of relieving SCSS by any means and do not give a crap if Hayfield becomes overcrowded, despite the fact that LBSS is the only of the three to lose students over the next 5 years. At some point I think someone has to stand up and tell these communities that they are obstucting a solution to making a better situation for the majority of the students in this study area. The mix of option 1 is less students to LBSS then either Option 1 or 2. If SCSS is willing to wait and see if they can get a middle school built while remaining overcrowded then I propose we wait and see while avoiding creating an overcrowded Hayfield. Like LBSS, Hayfield has the same concerns about projection numbers and unknowns. Why is it ok to wait and see what happens to LBSS numbers and not wait and see what happens to Hayfield's numbers. Either do option 2, nothing at all for now, or the hybrid proposed as the CA PLAN!
9:58 - Well put. We have this wait and see for LB, yet 18,000 jobs are coming to the EPG and 5,000 to Fort Belvoir which will effect Lee, WSHS and Hayfield. WSHS is over capacity, Lee is slightly over capacity and not projected to go below capacity and Hayfield will be at 95% capacity under option 3. But never mind that, no need to worry about those schools, it is Silverbrook and the LB community that need to get their way, and the weak school board will give it to them.
How about if all the Middle School GT kids at LB stay there until they graduate for High School?
That could help fill in some of the capacity at LB, relieve some of the over capacity at surrounding schools (e.g. SCSS), and eliminate the split feeder affect of the GT program.
Of course, it would really help the LBSS "Its Academic Team", but who cares?
HF spends too much time focusing on what is fair for all. Few people really care about what is fair for all. Some say they care, want to care, and even think they care, but they can't see the big picture.
HF should focus on what is best for Hayfield and not worry about the others.
1010 THAT is why more schools should be this study. F&P could have moved Elem schools into MV and HF from schools that are near full and set things up to move Elem schools in closer to Lee, WSHS, and others later. SCSS is bumped up against the County border so F&P was restricted from the start.
2A and 2B both solved overcrowding at SCSS. We all know there will be changes later if a middle school is built. For now, why not go with 2A or 2B. It is not fair to "set" the Hayfield boundary and tell the LS community that they cannot go back to SCSS, while Silverbrook have options. If the middle school is built, all communities should be able to request to go. 2A or 2B!
I live in the Crosspointe part that would go to LB and I support 2B!
No one until FCPS gets serious about where it spends money on the elementary school level. Fort Belvoir is getting a net gain of almost 1000 new residences built by a developer on the base. Whitman the middle school feeding Mount Vernon does not fit the ratio of 2:1 ms:hs. Whitman while listed as 55 below capacity on the CIP showed 6 trailers for overcrowding based on it's programs. What should FCPS do with some of the physical space at Mount Vernon [site might be small for addition to make it a secondary school since it was originally used to be a middle school]? Sending more geographical areas to Whitman is not good. It isn't even in it's own attendance area. Don't slam me for this, but maybe it would make sense to split Fort Belvoir into a lower school and an upper school for primary grades with 5 and 6 at Mount Vernon.
Just looking at buildings and capacity as well as cip money it might make sense to explore using Fort Belvoir as the middle school , building a new elementary school and use Whitman as an elementary school [if it was in it's own attendance area which it is not.].
10:31
You are right that it is not fair, but don't think for one second that anyone from LS will be allowed back to SCSS in any scenario or option.
Sure we can say it will be addressed, but unless Hayfield is 115% capacity then there will be a strong argument not to "ping pong" the LS kids around.
That is why it is important for LS and HF to come together on what they want the boundary to look like.
Once the Laurel Hills ES is built, the kids left at Lorton Station ES can expect to be going to HF. This boundary change will have a strong impact on where that line is drawn.
The we will consider moving LS back to SCSS is a nice gesture, but it will never happen.
10:52 - I agree with you, but with BRAC and 24,000 jobs moving in, we must keep all options open. 2A and 2B put a band-aid on things for now, which is possibly the best we can do until we know the full impact of BRAC. I just don't agree with anyone telling a community of school to "set" their boundary with so much current uncertainty. We should go with 2A or 2B, then make changes once we know the full impact of BRAC and once we know if there will be a new middle school any time soon.
There is no way that LS is going to be allowed back into SC.
1110
I certainly agree that is the way is should be, but in reality I do not think there will be the will to move any LS back to SCSS.
That is why it is more important than ever to leave HF at 90-93%.
The option should remain open for sure. In fact, the option of moving more of LS should be open in case the numbers at HF fall short.
Is this a Silverbrook threat? Move even more LS kids to Hayfield...
I don't think it is a Silverbrook threat. F&P added more in Option #3 over #2. I don't think they care that much. As long as they can stay SCSS and get a Middle School they will be happy.
There is no need for Silverbrook or any other special-interest group to get its way at the expense of others. Kids need to be moved into both LB and Hayfield to alleviate the SC issue.
There is no need for Silverbrook or any other special-interest group to get its way at the expense of others. Kids need to be moved into both LB and Hayfield to alleviate the SC issue.
I find it amusing the schoolboard would accept the excuse of "uncertainty in the area" regarding BRAC!
At least half of them participate on comittees talking about BRAC.They heard this before in the WSHS/Lee study and debunked it then, why now after they have all the stats AND KNOW the students arent coming, can they bank on this excuse?
Relieve the overcrowding.
Because the traffic is coming and the students ARE coming because of BRAC. The numbers are not clear, but they will come. That impact will not be seen for 5-6 years, so we do not need to stress over it, but when making long term plans (like the CIP) it makes sense to make finding out information about it a priority.
Besides, BRAC is not the only thing that is not known and driving people to delay/slow the reboundary process. It is only one of many issues. Impacts of these options need to be seen in reality not just theory, impacts of previous changes need to be realized, impacts of renovation at LB need to be realized, even the full impact on renovations at HF need to be realized. Otherwise, we are just chasing our tails around.
F&P estimates have been off on the low side for so many years, that it is difficult to believe them now. Yea, I know McKibbon did a study, but even his data is suspect as he had to rely on some of the same base data and make assumptions about the future.
That is why it is important to leave room and flexibility in whatever we do. Go slow and see if the impact is what you expected. It is not necessary or prudents to make bold moves.
The key is not to overcrowd HF or LB as those boundary changes are not likely to be changed again soon. Leave some room so the impact of the changes can be seen. The real impact of the last boundary change has not be felt at Hayfield yet. Rose Hill ES students will just start attending High School in mass next year.
BRAC was not an issue in the WHSH/Lee study, because BOTH schools will be impacted by the EPG. The lastest news is that 18,000 jobs will go to the EPG (there are currently about 100 jobs there at the moment) and 5,000 to Fort Belvoir. They know about the serious traffic problems and the lack of new roads to handle the impact. With regard to students, how can anybody say that 24,000 jobs will bring zero students? You must be a Silverbrook parent.
No, Silverbrook parents think that everyone's going to move into LBSS for BRAC reassignments. Don't you know how generous they are to save space for the BRACers?
If I lived in Silverbrook I would want my kids to go to school at SCSS and I would not want it to be overcrowded. I don't blame them for wanting to have good schools nearby and I don't think they are evil.
We all want that for our neighborhoods and we are all fighting for that same end. Unfortunately, there will probably be winners and losers. I would prefer to be a winner than a loser.
The Silverbrook crowd is very good at organizing and stating their case. As a result they are more sucessful at getting what they think is best. We can all learn from them.
But there are a couple of Silverbrookers who would rather go to LB. I am one of them.
5:01 You should Pupil Place.
No, I believe in 2B.
As we all perform our patriotic duty today at the polls, don't forget to acknowledge your civic obligations and let the School Board and F&P know your opinion regarding the options.
Here is what everyone should tell the SB:
- Go slow. No bold moves. Allow faculty and administrations time to react to decsions the SB makes.
- Move the boundary to send more kids to Hayfield, but leave them at 90% for now.
- Drop Option #1
- It is ok for SCSS to be overcrowded for a couple of more years.
- Don't overcrowd Lake Braddock, but send them some kids.
Any one have an opinion on moving the GTC out of Lake Braddock to make room for more base kids? When the Silverbrook area moves to LB in phase II they might need the space.
Option 2b sends fewer SC kids to LB than does option 2a. LB can definittely handle the numbers from 2b with room to spare.
SB and LB would argue the room is not available. That have a point and their opinion should be given merit. I think it would be a useful discussion to consider moving the GTC out to ensure the room will be available.
Actually, I think that this LB capacity issue is setting the stage for the GTC to be in the new SC Middle School.
The GT Center serves Robinson, LB, SC, and Irving MS. LB is the central location for these populations.
LB is not overcapacity now and it will have even more open seats when the renovation is finished.
Quite frankly I would rather have more middle school kids at our secondary school than additional high schoolers. It is tough enough for kids to earn spots on the high school teams, drama productions etc, let alone club and athletic leadership positions.
While WSHS is overcrowded, Irving middle school is not. Perhaps the GT could go to Irving. That would free up space at LB to take more SCSS students without the need for a new middle school. Just a thought.
I don't think Irving could handle the 250 kids extra kids that the GT Center comprises. They don't have that many empty seats.
Lake Braddock should retain it's GTC as a sending school while Hayfield should get a middle school GTC and be the receiving school for South County and Hayfield base school students.
Lorton Station GTC shows 177 students for grades 3-6 which averages out to 44 per grade level. If they are moved on avg 88 for grades 7 and 8 to Hayfield, Lake Braddock does have room for base school students.
Setting up a GT center at Hayfield makes sense considering transportation and the interconnecting boundaries for many schools in the southern portion of it's current or proposed attendance areas. Students would also be in the actual managerial chain of command for operations , the Cluster 6 Asst Superindendent. Every elementary school in the South County and Hayfield Pyramid should go there.
What are the expenses of establishing a GT center? Some in FCPS or on the board might consider them significant. But if there are no special classes going in like the Kilmer tech class, it should be a transfer betwen schools of textbooks and materials. After all, those kids are currently using the stuff at ther locations. Existing staff could also be transferred.
I guess I look at it as moving resources with the children which is something Dale seemed to address with staffing ratios last year. Does Halley really get 17:1 class sizes for all as well as full day K? I was talking to some people in the Vienna area and they were amazed that some might be gaming the system on that level.
I think the best way to reduce demand at SCSS is to eliminate the AP program and make it an IB-only program. That way the demand will be lower as people pupil-place to Hayfield and LB (both AP) so their students can study the AP curriculum.
IB is more expensive than AP. It has higher fees per student per course. There are "secret" FCPS numbers on class sizes for IB higher level classes that are not ditributed to the genral public. IB is offered at too many locations now and should be combined at specific schools. I for one do not feel like paying for any class of kids who might get into Harvard, Princeton, Virgina, etc to sit in a room with less than 15 kids for any subject.
10:20 - Nobody pupil-places out of the IB program. They just use it as an excuse to leave a more diverse school. If SCSS went IB, their numbers wouldn't change much at all. I think GT at Hayfield is a great idea. Also Saratoga GT kids could move from Lake Braddock GT to Hayfield GT and stay in Cluster 5, while Cluster 6 kids could stay at Lake Braddock GT.
All of this GTC stuff validates and supports much of what the school board paid to get from the enrollment and transportation studies. How mnay busses is FCPS now running for the same grade levels through Mason Neck?
I think a GTC at HF is only a good idea if the kids that come for 7th and 8th grade stay at HF. The "stand alone" Middle Schools should have the GT Centers. Seconday Schools should not split feed -- even GT kids.
LBSS isn't going to want to give up its GT Center!
Lake Braddock would keep the GT center for Cluster VI students, and a new GT center at Hayfield would accommodate Cluster V students. Lake Braddock has concerns about increasing GT numbers and this would solve that problem and make more space at the school for excess SCSS students.
Isn't most of Silverbrook GT anyway?
Hardly.
So let's make Hayfield a GT Center and force the uppercrust of Fairfax Station to slum with the commonfolk!
Great idea!
The sad thing is that I have heard my neighbors talk about the undesirable elements on the other side of I-95. :(
Who in particular?
Lake Braddock has some space and they will have even more space in the future. We don't need to overcrowd them now, but we need to increase the # of 7th graders now, so that the capacity is used in the future. Once they become Bruins I think they will find they want to stay Bruins.
Let's not wait and then send 3 grades all at once and put that kind of stress on the system.
2B is probably the best way to get there, but it might be worth delaying the SB to LB for a year or two.
Has anybody heard why the Meeting Notes on the FCPS site hasn't been published yet? Do we have to get them from Liz B.?
2B is a great way to add new students slowly as opposed to Option 3. The first year only has 7th and 9th graders getting redistricted. Year 2: 7,8,9,10 etc.
Option 2B will not put a strain on Lake Braddock and Hayfield.
2B is fine, but if you delay the SB to LB portion you may not relieve enough pressure off of SCSS in time.
I think Option 2B should be implemented for the 07-08 AY starting with next year's 7th and 9th graders.
There might have been a Clark Construction meeting with at least Newington Forest so I guess they all want to sit in a trailer park at the taxpayers expense. Furthermore, the parent enthusiasts for the public private partnership had to have been well aware of the Lake Braddock addition dollars and should have opened their mouths before the backhoe arrived.
I think we should all be voicing our objections to the SB, F&P and Board of Supervisors to put a stop on this unnecessary expense of trailers. This is truly a criminal waste of $.
With the many unknowns in the area, no boundary change should force another school to break the School Board mandated buffer of 10%. This buffer is important for Administrators a minimal level of flexibility to adjust for class size variations and future growth.
Can we do this for SC, HF, and LB? or do we need to include MV? I think it is VERY important not to break this buffer zone at HF and LB. If we cannot relieve enough pressure off of SC, it is even more important that we hold the line at 90% at LB and SC. FCPS should hold on to that mandate at as many locations as possible. It is better to have one school at 90% and another at %110 than to have two at 100%.
^^^^^So says the people afraid of Hayfield and Lake Braddock. If the kids are redistricted evenly, ALL the schools will be undercapacity.
So says the people AT Hayfield and Lake Braddock. Full Capacity = 90% capacity. It is too risky to push LB or HF over the 90% benchmark. We have seen what happened in the past when you do that.
LB cannot be left as is. Projections showing 80% usage is simply inexcusable especially when there is an adjacent school bursting at the seams.
ok, just don't push anyone over 90%. Send some of Silverbrook to LB.
"If we cannot relieve enough pressure off of SC, it is even more important that we hold the line at 90% at LB and SC. FCPS should hold on to that mandate at as many locations as possible. It is better to have one school at 90% and another at %110 than to have two at 100%. "
So 3:03, are you advocating that SCSS and LBSS be held at 90% capacity while Hayfield goes to 110% Seems to me that it would make more sense to take LBSS over 100% since their current attendance area is dropping they would eventually come back down below capacity.
11/09/2006 3:03 PM
Lake Braddock is at 94%. The planning is not good at projecting numbers! Putting more kids at Lake Braddock will put Lake Braddock over capacity. Hayfield has seats available Now, let's use them!
Lake Braddock is at 94% this year. We are not talking about this year. Lake Braddock will be at 81% by 2011 according to Facilities numbers and 78% according to the McKibben numbers. That seems like alot of empty seats. let's use them!
let's use seats at hayfield now, they are only at 71%, while lake braddock is at 94%.
Noone is saying don't put kids back at Hayfield, were just saying don't put to many back that would put Hayfield overcapacity if the projection are wrong and other unknown factors. 90% or about 500 kids would ease crowding at SCSS and leave room for unexpected numbers to come. What is LBSS willing to do for their neighbors at South County?
The board established the standard of 90-93% and I think they should stick to it. SC can move kids to LB and HF but neither should go over 90%. If that means SC is over 90% then we need to move them to MV or build another school.
LB is at 81% and expected to lose kids. If LB is really at 94% they have too many and should move some out. I would start with the GTC.
I think that 2B is the way to go, but doing it all in one year is probably is too much -- particularly when the impact of the LB renovations are yet to be realized.
FCPS can do the southern portion of Option 2B and save the northern part for another year.
We should move the Silverbrook community in a couple of years if a MS is not coming soon. If the SB community wants to stay together, they could move the GTC out of LB to make some room for them all.
Lake Braddock will be in the Low 80 percents in five years. Lets plan NOW to occupy that space.
636 If we start them out at 7th grade it will build up over 5 years.
636?
All of 2B needs to be implemented starting next year. LBSS will have its renovations completed this spring in plenty of time for AY 07-08. Why should the rest of South County and Hayfield have to suffer because Silverbook parents are whiny? There is plenty of room at LB even under current conditions of the renovation.
Hayfield doesn't suffer if they delay the SB/NF to LB move for a year or two. HF only suffers if they move too many kids. 2A is a little too many, but doable. Option 3 is too many and too fast.
Only those remaining at the overcrowded SC "suffer" and they have been clear that they are not suffering.
After the HF renovation/SC boundary move there was an increase in enrollment from formerly pupil placed and private school kids and that is still going on. The impact was much greater than F&P planned, but because too many kids were moved out there was plenty of room to absorb them and it was hardly noticed (although McKibbon picked up on it). The impact takes 4-5 years to fully show up. The same will happen at LB and it is ok to allow time see the impact.
Also, moving that many kids out of SCSS (or anywhere) is stressful on the entire system. Teachers have to be "let go" and hired at another school, teachers and staff have to set up new curriculms, learn new kids, etc. By phasing the move out of SCSS it allows the FCPS family to make these changes in a much more orderly fashion.
There was a 6 year time difference between the HF renovation and the initial SC redistricting. Exactly what were the populations of Hayfield from 98-2005?
Additionally, take into account that the 7th grade classes of 2000-2001 are comprised mostly of kids from birth year 1988, the largest birth year since 1964.
7:52
Your data is off, but that is ok because it is irrelevent.
HF feeders schools send consistent numbers to HSS and are predicted to continue. The population at HSS will remain the same or move up slightly (in fill) unless boundaries change.
Change the boundaries and increase HF another 500 kids and it will be full.
The rest of them need to go somewhere else or we are just moving them from trailers in SC to trailers at HF.
Can LB take some? Can they take enough? I don't know for sure. There is lots of information and misinformation.
The HF renovation was finished after the school year 2004-05, at the exact same time that South County opened. The renovation took place while HF had its maximum number of students, 4,100 (2004-05).
Birth year 1988 graduated last year. That was HF's last huge senior class, at least for awhile.
How many Middle School kids should go to HF? How many High School kids? How many are there now?
The School Board must pursue Option 2A. It doesn't unfairly strain Hayfield or Lake Braddock AND it reduces the SC population more than any other option other than Option 1.
The SB is under political pressure and influence now. Why else would all those politicians show at a neighborhood meeting?
Come on. Give us some credit.
We voted years ago to elect our own Schoolboard. The idea was to free educational decisions about our own kids from political motivators.
Back to the drawing board gang!
I want to know who from the SC area bought off (I mean made campaign contributions) to the SB members at the last election?
Mason neck!
below is info about the "gifts" the school board got!
Minutes of the March 14, 2005 Board Meeting
Of the West Springfield High School PTSA
Cathy was asked about the lobbyist involved with the South County boundary issue. She said the School Board was not involved with the lobbyist. Any gifts received were from the Mason Neck community and not the lobbyist
11/10/2006 5:36 PM
My mistake, I thought you wanted to know "who" gave "gifts" to the School Board during the last boundary study.
I want to see addresses of the donors to SB campaigns. I heard that Liz Bradsher is already compiling a warchest.
Good for Liz! If you want to know campaign contributions, they are all public.
Apparently a few SB members are using this as a stepping stone to higher office..Olesezk and Center to start with.
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/library/internet/politics.htm#campaign%20contributions
The only SB member who has any hope of election to a higher office is Hunt. Since he is an at-large member and has no kids of his own, he has no personal gain in terms of how he would solve the SC overcapacity crisis. He is the one SB member who thinks logically in a fiscally responsible manner for these boundary issues.
Wow, so the Mason Neck community gave gifts to the SB. Is that how they go into SC?
Hunt is a Republican in a heavy Democrat area.
Hunt doesn't just serve his section of Annandale. He is At-Large for the entire FCPS and is more prone to think of the big picture.
All Hunt thinks about is what a democracy is and that we are a republic...he was elected and what he says is what we have to deal with.
This was straight from his mouth in the last 2 studies.
I checked the link above and this guy is well funded.
Republicans are still the majority around here, we are moderates and dont always choose based on party affiliation..besides, the SB is non-political, remember?
The one thing it appears that EVERYONE (just about) seems to agree to is that Option #1 is terrible and should never be implemented. Anyone think they will use it anyway?
Option 1 is not the best choice in terms of an educational standpoint, but it is the only one that gets all 3 schools below capacity.
Education should be paramount. Option #1 DOES NOT get all schools undercapacity. It will overcrowd the Middle Schools at LB and HF. HF Middle School will be at 100% with 250 students and Option #1 sends 500. #1 requires the use of LB and HF High Schools to make up the difference, and takes schools beyond the School Board mandated buffer. You still have overcrowding.
What schools in FCPS are under the 90% besides MV? If it's under 100%, it's undercapapcity.
Hayfield is undercapacity now!
Hayfield is under and should get @500 middle and high school kids to bring it to full capacity.
I just don’t get it! Right now Hayfield is at 71% capacity and Lake Braddock is at 97% capacity. We know the School Board is not good at projecting numbers, and yet they want to send more kids to Lake Braddock than Hayfield. Yes, I know what they said at the meeting – Lake Braddock will go down in numbers. I guess people in Burke have stopped having babies!
There is a margin of error in the projections and that should be taken into account when putting kids in Hayfield or Lake Braddock. But all the projections have Lake Braddock losing numbers over the next decade. LBSS will be in the low 80s capacity overtime. Deal with that fact! and the School board should plan accordingly to use that space in a newly renovated building just as they should at Hayfield. Why are the folks in the Lake Braddock community ignoring the facts?
They don't actually want to send more kids to LB as compared to Hayfield. The SB just want to use empty seats that are available at both schools to solve the SCSS crisis. This is the sound and responsible thing to do.
The Lake Braddock argument of no room is crazy. Look if you take the projected numbers for the year 2011-2012 and placed numbers such that SCSS and HSS were at 100% that year, that would leave 182 students. If you put those 182 at LBSS they would still be at 85% capacity in the 2011-2012 year. Shift another 163 students for a total of 345 student to LBSS and that school would be at 90% capacity in the 2011-2012 school years. Bottom line is Hayfield cannot and should not have to relieve SCSS by itself and become overcrowded. If you shift 500 students to Hayfield and 500 to LBSS over the time span of 5 years, Hayfield and LBSS would be in the 91-93 percent range and SCSS would be around 98 percent capacity range.
If Lake Braddock is not utilized, Hayfield and SCSS will be overcrowed.
So shift 500 kids to HF over the next 5 years starting AY07-08 and start shifting to LB in 08-09.
or use the CA plan.
Why isn't the newly renovated building at Mount Vernon being used? They have a 68% capacity, and need students. Deal with that Fact! All I hear is Lake Braddock needs to be filled up! O.k. let's bring in Mount Vernon to help out with the load!
Mount Vernon was not part of this study and should have been. They should be considered in Phase II.
Option 3 with its various phases is weak and innefectual. It clearly panders to the Crosspointe et. al. crowd. Option 2 B is the way to go.
Mt Vernon could take highschoolers ONLY. So, your kid would go to Hayfield for MS, then to MV for highschool? That is ridiculous. There is no room in the feeder schools to MV per Gary. He also said the neighborhoods never turn over and the student aged kids are full grown and gone. So, you would have to put kids on the bus for 45 minute to get them there.
That is true about Mt. Vernon, but West Potomac (the school next to Mr. Vernon) and its feeder middle school are way under capacity. Mt. Vernon, West Potomac and West Springfield should have been included in the first boundary study. Perhaps we would have not been in this mess now if they had. Unless we start a new study from the beginning and include all schools in the area, we must go with 2A or 2B.
And that's not a bad thing^^^^^!
Why bump current Hayfield kids out of Hayfield to MV and bump current MV kids out of MV in WP all to make room for SC? That's more disruptive than any other plan.
SC can get the overcapacity issue solved immediately by using empty seats at LB and H.
And that's not a bad thing^^^^^!
Why bump current Hayfield kids out of Hayfield to MV and bump current MV kids out of MV in WP all to make room for SC? That's more disruptive than any other plan.
SC can get the overcapacity issue solved immediately by using empty seats at LB and H.
11/12/2006 4:36 PM,
I guess its o.k. for the LB kids to be on the bus for 45min or longer. Just as long as your kids don't go to MV!
The problem with both Mount Vernon and West Potomac is that Huntley Meadows Park and Fort Belvoir form a massive natural barrier between Telegraph Road and Route 1.
During a previous boundary study to alleviate overcrowding at Hayfield SS, parents from Fairfax Station argued that some neighborhoods from Hayfield Elementary and Lane Elementary ought to be redistricted to West Potomac. In the end, Fort Belvoir students were moved to Mount Vernon, but it was determined that Huntley Meadows and Fort Belvoir were too much of a barrier to move other neighborhoods.
And that was BEFORE 9/11, before Woodlawn Road through Fort Belvoir was closed. It is quite a haul from Hayfield to either Mount Vernon or West Potomac now. And BRAC is on the way.
Now that Hayfield SS takes in students from Virginia Hills, it's clear that both Telegraph Road and South King's Highway can't handle more traffic. These roads are going to be serious problems after BRAC is implemented.
The only students who could possibly be transferred to Mount Vernon would be the ones who live south of the point where Route 1 and Telegraph Road split.
Also, Mount Vernon's middle school is not under capacity. And Mount Vernon is in line to get more students from the new housing being built on Fort Belvoir. And new development is on the way all up and down Route 1. Mount Vernon needs to be left alone until BRAC and related developments shake out.
Nobody's neighborhood that is proposed to be redistricted from SC to LB would have a longer ride than any other LB student that is currently there. There are many students in the current LB boundaries that live further away from LB than the neighborhoods of Crosspointe and Barrington.
2B is fine, but what is so terrible about waiting a year to implement the Silverbrook to LB portion?
Why should there be any wait for any of the implementation?
By implementing only the SC to Hayfield part of 2B, the SB is sending a message to the rest of Fairfax County that money talks and if you squawk loud enough, they will leave your neighborhood alone, whether or not it's for the betterment of the school system and its students.
Just doing 2B East is not going to alleviate the SCSS overcapacity enough. 2B needs to start with both the east anad west sides of SC being redistricted to H and LB respectively
I think the SB/Superintendent should promote the SCSS principal and make him superintendent of some cluster in another part of the county. Then bring in some guy that will do exactly what the superintendent wants.
If you wait for implementation is gives us the opportunity to find the $$ for the Middle School that is desperately needed and the SB seems unwilling to fund. It also allows us the opprotuntity to elect new SB members that will understand the need for a Middle School in South County.
As long as the number of empty seats at Hayfield and LB exceed the number of overcapacity students at SC, there is no desperately needed middle school in South County. The taxpayers have spoken.
AThe taxpayers may have spoken, but the only ones being heard are in the SB area. All of the boundary meetings have been held in the SC area (one in SB elementary!) and this has skewed the opinions being heard by the taxpayers. The HF and LB communities are being drowned out. Fortunately for LB the SB community is carrying their water.
As a result The HF (and Lorton Station) community is being hung out to dry in option #3.
I hope there will not be any more public/private partnerships. They just mean that rich neighborhoods can design their own schools, push poorer or more diverse neighborhoods out and control school boards. If the Silverbrook community is allowed to build a middle school (which is not needed) they will control who attends the school like it was a private school and not public.
So true, so true.
After LHES is built can we make Lorton Station a Middle School?
LH is not being built to take the place of LS. LS and Silverbrook are already vastly overcrowded and LHES is being built to alleviate the conditions.
The LH-Halley-Lorton Station boundary study will be fun to watch.
Don't forget Newington Forest, another border school which is over crowded. Better sharpen your claws.
I thought NF was right AT CAP.
oh no, they are about 50 or more over now and into the next five years.
Does anyone have the stats (or at least the link to the stats) of NF, LS, Silverbrook, Halley, Gunston? Those are the current SCSS feeders (some are splits).
go to the FCPS site and do a search of "CIP" You can get the historical and project numbers as well as current boundary maps for every school.
Cant anyone see the delay that Crosspointe is seeking will only allow them the opportunity to elect Liz?
Then guess who gets the boot?
That's exactly why there should be no delay regarding the Silverbrook area going from SC to LB. It will increase Bradsher's chances of election if she endorses this option 2b.
If Bradsher wants votes from the Sprinfield District beyond Barrington and Crosspointe, she needs to support Option 2B.
Good news! 2B is back on the table.
How do you know 2B is back on the table? Was something announced?
2A and 2B never were OFF the table. Chevallier said at the Nov meeting that the SB can consider any of the options or even come up with their own amendments like the 3 that were added at the original h/SC/LB boundary study 2 years ago.
Option #1 should be off the table. When you read the community comments that are posted it is clear. There was a strong community objection to it. My favorite was someone said the way to improve the option was "Have Gary make a public apology for presenting it"
Facilities is no longer considering 2A or 2B -- this would be now up to the School Board to consider. Someone on this blog please offer the correct information to the readers!
Well, if you support 2A or 2B, tell FCPS pwers that be!
Does Lake Braddock prefer to receive Silverbrook or Newington Forest kids?
The school board and FCPS Facilities planning services are clueless jokers. Expect them to redo boundaries every year because they listen to loudest people than using reason or concern for children. Look at last SC boundary map, the last minute Dan Storck amendment created two islands in mason neck area. Mason neck children who are closer to SC school go to Hayfield and children who live way far go to South County. That is SB justice. I am sick of the entire process.
Chevalier has 4 options now: 1,2A,2B, 3. For his second town meeting it would seem that he would have refined 2A and/or 2B, made more MS base school space by setting up a GTC at Hayfield. GTC at a ms costs less than 100,000 if there isn't a bizarre new position called GT Middle School Coordinator. When questionned publicly on why they were scrapped for fiscally irresponsible option 3 he said they are still on the table but POLITICIANS were involved. I read that one area, Newington, even had a meeting with Clark Construction.
2A and 2B are off the "facilities'" table, it is not because of the policticians. It would be a gross miscalculation to send students to a school like LBSS when it is at such a current capacity. You don't split neighborhoods for such a situation, you don't send kids who are so close to SCSS and so far from LBSS and you look for other options or opportunities.
LBSS will have less students in the coming years though. It is time to start sending rising 7th graders in small numbers so they can be Bruins now and not jerked out of SCSS after 8th grade.
If LBSS still is at capacity the GTC should be moved out.
11/16/2006 8:22 AM
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!
LB is going to be at 80% capacity within 5 years. Just like Hayfield, we need more students to maintain the gamut of AP classes and other academic programs. We need more students to field our athletic teams and ec activities.
I definitely have a preference for which area I want added to Lake Braddock. This would be Crosspointe, Barrington, et al. We live off of Hampton Rd. If my kids can have a very long bus ride to LB from Fairfax Station, so can Silverbrook. The bus that serves my area takes drives right past these neighborhoods on the way to Lake Braddock.
Sounds great!
11/16/2006 9:57 AM
What about the little area of Hampton that will still stay at SCSS. They feed into Halley, I guess that's o.k.!
Halley should go to SC. Silverbrook should go to LB.
8:22
what are the other options? a new middle school? Great another expense for the school system while in 5 years Lake Braddock is at 80%. Hey if we can't leave Hayfield undercapacity, why is it ok to leave LBSS undercapacity?
It's not okay to leave LB UC when SC is OC! Hayfield can't be responsible to cure the entire problem.
Silverbrook should not go to Lake Braddock, they are pretty much at capacity NOW! Putting Silverbrook at Lake Braddock will put them way over capacity!!!!!!!!!!!
LB needs to be able to compete against Robinson and other big powerhouses. We need a larger student body than what we have now. I want Silverbrook added to the LB boundaries.
I remember the old days of Bruin powerhouses back when the school had close to 4500 students. In five years if LBSS got to 4500 that would take care of SCSS all by themselves.
LB is not going to have 4500 students. It's amazing how 4500 kids DID fit in a 4000-seat capacity school and yet now certain people claim it can't even fit the 3700 it has now.
I know, could you imagine the parking. Of course back then most kids didnt have cars like they do now. I tell you they are renovated that school with extra thick walls which reduces capacity, that is why 3700 can't fit.
Hayfield has plenty of parking spaces these days. You don't see many Lexus and Mercedes like we used to either.
Nobody uses the big yellow limo for school anymore?
7-10 graders use the big yellow limo, but 11-12 often drive. If a kid is involved in extra-curricular stuff it makes it much easier on the parents if the kid can drive home an/or get to the next event.
Read in the Springfield COnnection there is an upcoming meeting with the SouthCounty federation..are any of you involved in this? 5 schoolboard members are attending. It sounds like another otion proposal to me...
My Connection didn't arrive on my driveway. Can you post a link?
Federation can't take a position on boundaries. The meeting is being held by Lorton Station.
Time and Place of Meeting????
http://www.fcps.edu/schlbd/requests.htm
12 Dec
School Board update at South County Federation meeting, Lorton Station Elementary School, 7:30 p.m.
See you all there!
Thanks!
Here's the FCPS to LHES address and directions.
http://www.fcps.edu/maps/lortonstationes.htm
Don't forget to sign up and support Option 2.
Dec. 22: The January public hearing speakers list opens – sign up to speak at http://www.fcps.edu/schlbd/requestspeak.htm or by phone at 571-423-1060.
This is a test, the other blog is slow, I wonder if this one is better since it is smaller.
On my end that was much faster
Post a Comment