Friday, February 02, 2007
School Board To Make Final Vote on Feb. 22 for 2007-08 Boundary Adjustments
The Fairfax County School Board will finally vote on Feb. 22 to approve adjustments to school attendance areas for South County Secondary School (SCSS) and Hayfield Secondary School (HSS) for the 2007-08 school year. Recommendations under consideration by the Board can be found in PDF format here. If you want to voice your opinion to the school board, NOW is the time to do it. You may find various methods to reach the board here. The comment thread on this post is the ONLY ONE that will remain open on this blog leading up to the school board's decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
911 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 911 Newer› Newest»Here is a link to the opinion pages. There are 2 letters with the words boundary or delay in the title. They were written by Lorton Valley parents who want to stay at SC as badly as the Fairfax Station people.
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/category.asp?paper=80&cat=110
Why is okay for the Crosspointe Crowd to ask for a delay but it isn't okay for the people who are WALKERS to SC!
crosspointe has not asked for a delay.
Very well written opinion pages with real names. Refreshing change to this tabloid blog.
I agree with the writers that Lorton Valley should stay at SCSS, but why do they think they were left out of the process? Participation was optional and no one was prevented from attending meetings or communicating with the board and staff. In fact, all of the official meetings were held at SCSS -- it was HF and LB that were left out and had to fight to be heard.
At least the board has agreed to no longer allow amendments to move anyone outside of the study. As tempting as it would be, it would certainly be unfair and wrong.
Crosspointe most certainly did ask for a delay to the western side of SC to be redistricted to LB.
902,
Why don’t you read this about how Lorton Station kicked out Hagel Circle from their elementary school.
http://www.desiwriter.com/clip_lorton.html
A Lorton resident said this about Hagel Circle:
"As a homeowner, I'd be concerned if a school that was part of my development was stigmatized as being for all the poor kids," said Gregory A. Schuckman, president of the Lorton Station Civic Association. "That would have a negative impact on our community."
They did not ask for a delay of the boundary in it's entirety. The #s at LBSS do not warrant a move at this time. Facilities took it off the table in Nov. The SB can do whatever they wish from there.
First of all, 4:47 -- don't shout. The Caps Lock key is our friend, but not for PARAGRAPHS at a time. (Utilizing spell check before posting wouldn't hurt either.)
Second, get off your high horse. I detest nobody nor any neighborhoods in this boundary study. If you had actually READ my earlier post, you'd see that I was slamming a small (but vocal) contingency that bad-mouthed Hayfield once they left for supposedly greener pastures at South County. I did not say ALL of Silverbrook nor any other community over there was collectively in on the Hayfield-bashing in recent years -- only that some were.
BTW, call me whatever you wish, but your manic "virtual shouting" and poor internet grammar won't hide the fact that there ARE seats available at Lake Braddock this year and even more in future years, and that the SC overflow should and must be split as evenly as possible -- over time and within reason -- between that school and Hayfield. SB'ers continue to display nothing but smoke and mirrors to deflect from the numbers reality at Lake Braddock. ("The gym and athletic fields aren't nearly big enough at Lake Braddock." -- Give me a break!) And you are naive, or outright lying, if you don't believe Silverbrook hasn't referred to specific communities being moved out of SCSS -- Liz Bradsher has gone on record in the Connection newspapers saying that Mason Neck should never have been included at SCSS in the first place.
BTW, 4:57, I noticed that in commending letter writers for including their real names in the Connection newspapers (while getting in a jab at the blog for good measure), that you neglected to include your own Blogger or real name on your post -- Pot? Kettle?
I think the school board should use both Hayfield and Lake Braddock. At least it would seem like the school board are tring to be fair. At the moment only students from the east side of SCSS are being moved and it really looks like they are being singled out. There is so much room at Lake Braddock. The school board should send students from the west side of SCSS to Lake Braddock now, so we don't have to go through this again next year. Hayfield should remember that they will not be left out next year. Sadly, they will be dragged into this and we will all be back doing this again next year.
Was not Mason Neck an amendment to the boundary in the final hours during the 2005 boundary process?
I believe it was.
One more thing, just because Hayfield is getting students is not reason enough for another school to get students. There must be available seats, enough to warrant a transfer of students. LBSS does not have that # yet.
The room at LBSS is only in this blog. Somewhat one sided don't you think?
6:14,
Do you deny the projections by Facilities and Mckibbon? I bet you believe in the tooth ferry as well.
Admit it. Room is coming to LBSS and it makes sense to plan on using it.
But I guess you don't plan for the future either.
8:21 get a sense of reality. The #s at LB are not there yet. Down the road they might get there, but not this year. You seem to have no problem jerking kids from school to school. I pray you don't have kids - what a great role model you must be.
Yeah, 8:40, having kids jerked between schools is alright for other neighborhoods, just not Silverbrook. Why don't you be a role model for the community and quit downplaying the reality of seats NOW at Lake Braddock with more on the way in the future?
Let's be clear, McKibbon said LBSS was an anomaly. (Anomaly means to deviate from the expected norm.) The area of LBSS regenerates itself and although it will loose students, some of this loss can't be explained and the additional unexpexted students were not calculated for as well. McKibbon said that LBSS is an area many seek out to live. It is known for its proximity to commuter routes and for good schools and services. The area will always be desired by homeowners, thus it will never really see a decrease to the extent of other schools with population fluctuations. Facilities needs to look at areas like this differently, hence their problems with projections on such an area.
Now let me ask you 8:21 were you at this Work Session when this was said or are you just repeating bad information because you just want to?
Having kids jerked between any neighborhood schools due to poor planning and projections is not alright for any neighborhood. Silverbrook knows the issues, they are aware of the #s, they also know 2300 seats lay empty to the east. If you want to clean up these empty seats then they all need to be reevaluated starting with Mt. Vernon pyramid.
And even though McKibbon said LB was a regenerative area, the report stated that LB STILL had seats. McKibbon also said that if LB was an area that regenerates itself, the empty seat # at LB would be even greater.
He said he would not place anyone in this school at this time and the school will dip in enrollment but will also regain in a period of 8-10 years.
Well if it is an anomaly then why do a projection for LBSS. Did McKibbon not have similar numbers or projections as Facilities for LBSS? I am not adovocating sending alot of kids to LBSS next year. You start with one class of 50-75 kids. Even if there is an anomaly 50-75 kids per year is not going to over crowd. How can the projections be off by over 700? Are you going to tell me that these 700 projected seats by 2011 will all be gone because of an anomaly? Gee I guess we got out moneys worth on this consultant. Now he projects 0-711 empty seats in 5 years. Thanks for clearing that up. By the way did you know the projections for Hayfield were off this year more then Lake Braddocks. Bet you didn't know that. Who is generating more? Burke or Alexandria. Oh and how close is Burke to a Metro, even one Metro. Last time I checked Hayfield was close to two, don't talk to me about commuter routes. Also did you know that McKibbon also said a buffer for Hayfield must be maintained otherwise it will be packed in a few years.
9:10
who do you want to send to Mt. Vernon?
Yes he did say a buffer for Hayfield would be wise. However, I was not talking Hayfield. So chill out for awhile no one was bashing your school or community. Such thin skin!
As for your comment about taking 50 -75 kids, why? Why would you upset a small portion of a community with such a small split for what? So you can feel a distorted sense of ill manipulated justice?
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, 9:07. Let me ask you - have YOU been at the work sessions and community meetings for BRAC and its effect on the Belvoir area which, oh by the way, happens to be on Hayfield's doorstep?? It's easy to ignore that, at least as easy as picking and choosing (or ignoring) portions of the McKibbon projections to support one's case. Talk about bad information....
Yes, as matter I have.
18,000 workers on the EPG site which is off of Rolling Road and Backlick.
It will impact LBSS, WSHS, SCSS, transportation, LEE HS and perhaps Edison as well as Hayfield. The impact will be spread around.
Of course BRAC will be bringing jobs, we have yet to determine how many new residents.
Why is Mount Vernon brought into this. They are not in this study as are LB, H, SC.
Why is Mount Vernon brought into this. They are not in this study as are LB, H, SC.
I don't know why Mount Vernon is always brought up. That school is so separated by the Belvoir and Huntley Meadows that it would be a crime to send Lorton Station to that school. I agree the space could be better utilized but you don't do it by bringing kids in 20 miles away. They probably should look into making it a Secondary school relieving the middle schools population, but from what I understand Whitman MS is do so well with the kids they don't want to mess with a good thing. Anyway it is not part of this study and is only brought up to blow smoke.
The western boundary is very simple. On any map, they are a large protrusion into LB attendance area. It will not be affected by Laurel Hill. Furthermore, WS is at too high an enrollment and the areas sent there by the last change need to be addressd in an eastern domino. As far as I can see they can send eastern Silverbrook or parts thereof as well as some NF to Hayfield. There are a lot of ways to split this pie and some of them can go to Lee.
No walkers N S E or W of SC should be moved out. If they are not walking now then they cannot be called walkers. If they claim to be walkers then stop the bus access today and save some money.
10:03 on 2/8
Since you obviously did not read my comment carefully let me explain. I was not talking about a tiny split of 50-75 kids. I was suggesting you take a split of what ever area of SCSS to go to Lake Braddock but only for one grade next year like the rising 7th grade. Since we have been told over and over that LBSS has no room then you start slow and phase in overtime and use the room as it comes available. 50-75 7th graders next year then in 2 years 100 to 150 seats are filled,3 years 150 to 175 used so on and so on, so by the 6th year (2013) LBSS gets 300-450 kids spread out over 7th -12th grades. LBSS would still have a buffer of more 300-400 seats based on projections. Anamoly or not, that is plenty of room to help out with the situation. Hayfield will ramp up quickly as we all know the seats are there now. LBSS could help over the longer haul. It just makes sense.
9:55 2/8
5:58
Its either too early or I have not got my first cup of coffee yet because I do not understand what your saying. Are you suggesting they send part of the eastern portion of Silverbrook to Hayfield? and part of NW also? Talk about upsetting the apple cart! Did I understand that right?
558,
You are out of your mind!
Hey, I think 5:58 is Dan Stork.
615,
You were very clear the first time and even more clear the second time. 1003 probably understood you the first time and is only interested in blowing up a smoke screen. to cloud the facts
I don't really understand. The projections for LB and HF are both at 750-800 empty seats in 2011. I think that number is high and neither will have that many, but both schools should be part of the solution.
Lorton Valley should stay at SCSS -- - they are way too close to SCSS to be moved to Hayfield. It would be better to send a portion of Silverbrook to LB then to move Lorton Valley if that much space is available at LB.
You should be careful with what you say, you don't know who is helping you with this.
Is the Silverbrook gang trying to help Lorton Valley stay? Why would they do that? The more that stay now, the more that have to leave in two years.
Yes they would. And yes they know.
of course if it meant a swap with someone on the other side of I-95 ... like the dreaded Mason Neck.
What do the #S say?
What is the right thing to do with Lorton Valley?
Give you cynicism a rest.
How about all of Newington Forest to Hayfield and the North Silverbrook area to LB?
Lorton Valley should stay at SCSS. Hayfield needs Some students. Sending Lorton Station and Mason Neck back to Hayfield would: send less students, and help out Hayfield. Hayfield is a great school, lets do this and keep Hayfield out of the next boundary study.
I am 5:58. The western Silverbrook movement is not complex. Why should some areas in the eastern "barbell" not be considered for Hayfield? I want those 307 kids brken down into little boxes just like they did for everyone else. I also want to know where the 271 gtc kids are generated from each little piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
Why not parts of the Newington? Look at the big picture and other boundary studies. They are moving towards elemntary gtc's in base schools. Then look at the LH samples on the FCPS website and draw your own conclusions. If they move the gtc into base schools for Level 4 like is hapening everywhere else, this works just fine. Of course I am not Dan Storck.
IMHO Hayfield has been messed with for too many years and it is time that it gets a decent attendance area. The taxpayers have a big investment in that facility and I am sick of the absurd demands.
It is quite obvious you are not Dan Storck.
"Four score and seven years ago...."
LOL,
Forgive me 10:42 I just got back in and the Dan Storck reference had me laughing out loud. I am trying to understand your point of view and I do understand your frustration. I too am in the Hayfield district (I assume you are) and I too want this to end for Hayfield with a reasonable boundary and not one in which Hayfield is simply made the school which solves the problems for other communities. We want a community school just as much as Silverbrook and Lorton Station and I believe Hayfield has never had that because of its location. Now the county has grown up around Hayfield and continues to grow and Hayfield deserves too finally have a school with its own community identity.
You know I read several comments from South County that the ideal feeders for SCSS would be Halley, Silverbrook, Newington Forest and the new Laurel Hill ES. Now that would be a nice pretty compact district for them, well I want the same for Hayfield and it could have been done two years ago but it wasnt. Frankly the ideal feeders would have been Hayfield, Island Creek, Lane, Saratoga and/Or Groveton Elementary. Not that Hayfield doesnt want Gunston they are removed from the community and to me seem a better fit with Lorton Station and the rest of the south portion of the County. Maybe someday those boundaries will come about as the area here in Hayfield grows and the area South grows then by 2015 a new middle school will come and allow all of Gunston and Lorton Station ES to feed the new middle school and South County HS. But I guess I am dreaming of the ideal situation one which may never come or is still far off into the future.
There was a study (2b) in the last boundary study that put Saratoga at Hayfield. However, that study also left South Hunt Valley at Lee. Now that South Hunt Valley has been moved to West Springfield, to move Saratoga out of Lee HS would leave it about 400-450 under capacity, and Key about 300 under capacity. They won't move South Hunt Valley back, and they won't put any part of West Springifield at Lee. They will never put Newington Forest or any part of Silverbrook at Lee or Hayfield, as that would create an island. Because of the decisions made at the last boundary study, moving Saratoga to Hayfield will never happen. That leaves Lorton Station and Mason Neck as the only areas that will go to Hayfield.
Every school and neighborhood has been messed with far too long down here.
Here is the boundary study tally.
SCSS 2005, 2007, 2009
LBSS 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
HAY 2005, 2007
WSHS 2006
LEE 2006
Its hard for anyone to have a community school with a boundary study every year. Each of these schools deserves at least to be allowed to develop a community school.
Had the board/F&P done this right it the above would have looked like:
SCSS 2005
HAY 2005
LBSS 2005
We would all be done wherever we are or were moved. No community wants "ideal feeders", but rather for the board to do the boundary right with the long term in mind and leave us alone. The infighting is a result of a broken FCPS system and throwing stones at each other doesn't help.
Actually Lee HS was also part of the 2005 boundary study. West Springfield was also part of this study when they were dragged in at the last minute. Both Lee and West Springfield should read 2005, 2006. I agree with you, the amount of boundary studies that these schools have had to go through is out of control. Use LB and fix SCSS now!
AMEN, 1:55 -- eloquently stated.
I bet within the next 5-10 years Saratoga will be in Hayfield and here is why.
Springfield Mall will undergo a redevelopement adding a few thousand condos and townhomes near the Springfield Metro. Guess what school is across the street from Springfield Mall. LEE is, and which feeder would be logical to leave Lee to make room for this redevelopment and the kids it will bring. Saratoga. Then by that time a new Middle school will be underconstruction and making South County only a High School. Guess what Hayfield will need to make room for Saratoga, so who should leave? Lorton Station and/or Gunston. Guess what school they will go too? and don't say Mount Vernon. The neighborhoods to the west should be nice to Mason neck and Lorton Station, because as much as they don't want it they will be back at South County someday.
The redevelopement at Springfield is a fair way off and no formal decisions as to the type of housing has really been made. Luxury condos don't bring in a lot of kids. So far, all the new construction around the mall has been 1-2 bedroom condos which attract singles more than families. If Saratoga is moved to Hayfield, it will be a long way into the future and does not help the situation now. If the school board had left SHV at Lee, west to east movement could have been possible.
No, they won't ever go back. They will just put trailers at Hayfield and Lee.
The Middle School will be built but there will be "no room" like there is "no room" at LBSS.
BTW, Saratoga should not be at Lee or Hayfield in the future. With BRAC putting 18,000 jobs at the EPG, and all the Parkway roadwork needed to be done in that area, those kids will never get to school in the mornings, past all that traffic. The school board didn't plan any of this out very well.
I don't know where you would put trailers at Lee. That school is already squeezed in a tiny spot. And if you don't think developement around a metro brings kids go over to Oakton and look how many trailers they have. They used to have a nice lawn out front, now it looks like military barracks.
I don't think the school board ever planned on dealing with Brac, not sure they are now.
2:55 - What if you are right? What if the redevelopment at Springfield puts so many kids at Lee that Saratoga ends up at another school. What year are we talking about? That is so far into the future, it does not help anyone now. SCSS overcrowing has to be solved now, this year.
2:55 - What if you are right? What if the redevelopment at Springfield puts so many kids at Lee that Saratoga ends up at another school. What year are we talking about? That is so far into the future, it does not help anyone now. SCSS overcrowing has to be solved now, this year.
2:36, When has the school board ever plan any thing well. Never.
Just thinking out loud, but don't think that it is that far away. I agree SCSS overcrowding needs relief now and LBSS should start to be used next year to help. This area we live in is the only area in the county with any room for growth and it is coming and the schools better prepare. South County will get a middle school someday and more boundary studies will be conducted.
Springfield will be redeveloped and it will happen within the next 15 years. In 2015 a new middle school will open in the South County area and South County will undergo a boundary change to relieve overcrowding at Hayfield and Lee. LBSS will help relieve West Springfield. You heard it here first. It is now in the internet time capsule.
Thanks for reading
Your Servant
Nostradamus
au revoir
Hayfield should get a new Middle School too!
Perhaps they could build a new secondary school at the EPG. Then Lorton Station, Saratoga & SHV and could go there and leave Mason Neck, Silverbrook and Halley at SCSS. They wouldn't need a middle school.
Where would Newington Forest go?
OOPS! Newington Forest would go to the new EPG school. They would be very close, just down Pohick to Rolling. SCSS would be for Silverbrook, Halley, Mason Neck and then the new LHES. The new school for Lorton Station, Saratoga, NF and SHV. If money is going to go into a new middle school, perhaps there is a better alternative.
I still say combine the H and SC boundaries. Turn SC into a LARGE middle school and H into a LARGE hs.
Silverbrook will never agree to that. I don't think Hayfield would want it either. Why should they do that? Why would Hayfield want to give up their school?
Neither would be giving up their school. One would be used for 7&8. The other would be used for 9-12. It would be the most healing,peaceful solution for all the communities.
How would that be healing for Hayfield? They don't have the problems, South County does.
Nobody could complain about split feeder issues. ALL of LS, Gunston, Silverbrook et. al. would attend SC for ms. ALL would attend Hayfield for hs.
Hayfield is too far to attend for Silverbrook and perhaps Newington Forest as well as southern portions of Halley. That time is over.
Although your imagination is commendable lets leave "IMAGINE" to John Lennon.
Even if you combine the two schools someone would need to go to LBSS.
1. There is not enough room to solve the overcrowding with just the two schools.
2. LBSS is losing students very fast and needs the kids to avoid dropping too low.
3. To make the numbers close (both would still be over 100%) one school would need to be 7-9 and the other 10-12.
LBSS is not losing students "very fast" and they sure as heck don't need kids now. Stop the spin.
LB can not remain competitive unless it gets an influx of students. Since there are already so many Fairfax Station kids at LB, Silverbrook is the more logical choice for redistricting.
For the next 2 school years, Lake Braddock will be at 90% capacity with out any additional students. The reno will be completed this spring and they will get a lot of students from home school, private school and other. The school board needs to wait and see what happens at that school before they send South County students there. Why OC that school too.
Stop the spin about Silverbrook, your wasted words are not helpful on any level.
LBSS is not decerasing in enrollment in any great speed. Unlike Hayfield it certainly does not have 925, nor 700 EMPTY seats available now.
You and VA STATE OF MIND, which is an oxymoron for NOTHING IN THE MIND aren't getting the full picture.
Some people need to "go back to their old School" If only it were in Annandale............
I know at least 10 8th graders LEAVING LB at the end of this year because they are going to prep or private school starting in 9th. Just as many kids LEAVE to go to private hs as there are kids coming in from the alternate education sector.
McGibbon and F&P know the percentages of kids opting in and out of FCPS at specific grade levels. They also have the historic records of bumps in attendance when a renovation is finished.
I find it ironic that Silverbrookers are accusing others of "spin" when in fact we are basing our numbers on evidence.
Here is a little help, 3:45
It is "McKibben".
I’m sure Lake Braddock will get more returning students once the renovation is completed. The school board should wait At Least 2 years before they send any additional South County students to that school. Hayfield can take about 400 to 500 next year and Lake Braddock can take 400 to 500 students in 2 years. Nobody from Silverbrook is saying not to use Lake Braddock, just wait and see what really happens at that school. I’m sure Lake Braddock students and parents would agree with this. Hopefully, 2 years from now Hayfield will not be in the boundary study and will not have to agonize about this at all.
Ouch, Steeley Dan -- I guess it's pretty lonely on Mount Olympus, eh? VAStateOfMind gets credit for standing up to you SB'ers who are so convinced that you don't need to move ANYWHERE (though the comments could be policed a bit better).
Trust me -- we folks outside of Silverbrook have the FULL PICTURE and the truth is out there. McKibbon confirmed it. There are SOME seats at LBSS now, with more on the way. And Silverbrook needs to take some of those seats. LBSS and its surrounding area isn't any more of an anomaly than the development and re-development (and BRAC!) that's ready to explode in the greater Hayfield area.
Just because Bradsher lives in your neighborhood doesn't mean that everyone else living there gets to attend SCSS by default...
Standing up to Silverbrook? Yes I suppose it easy to stand up to a community or even mention the name of someone and direct personal attacks. Yes, it is very easy when you are anonymous.
Students and other nonresidents of the impacted areas have seen this blog. We are teaching are children well aren't we?
6:56, learn to use homonyms correctly. We are teaching OUR children just fine.
Sorry meant "our" and no I don't think we are teaching OUR children fine, not with such nastiness and "an eye for an eye" rendition from someone like yourself. By the way you are very quick to criticize. It must be so terribly difficult to be so perfect?
Yes, CSN&Y, students from all of the affected schools are visiting and reading this blog. But unfortunately, much of the damage was done years ago. Children living on both sides of I-95 learned and observed several years ago the level of nastiness that can be achieved in these boundary studies, saw first-hand how much more immature some parents can be than their offspring. I saw Hayfield students at 2003 working group meetings in near-tears because of the judgmental comments made by former Hayfield SS parents who were about to become SCSS parents. I have no doubt there were some SCSS students who felt betrayed from the other side as well. Remember those days? I do.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and sure enough, here we all are again. Despite the fundamental differences I have with my Silverbrook brethren -- I have LESS of a problem with those and other SCSS parents on these current boundary issues, and MORE of a problem with those school board members who created this nightmare three years ago and are perpetuating it even now.
I see you are finally on the way to enlightenment Va State of Mind. It still does not excuse this blog that our children read and you personally populating it with divisiveness and judgment, but it is good to see you work toward credibility and start to understand the real problem.
If you don't want to read this blog, don't link to the site. If you have a problem with your kids reading it, block the site from your computer.
The real problem is the fact that noboody wants to go to LB.
Hey kids! If you think you know the numbers going to TJ, prep, or private schools you are wrong. The FAT v SKINNY envelopes have not been mailed yet. The only sure things would be if FCPS in an underhanded fashion decided to admit more SC ers to TJ to get some out of the building. Now there would be a perfet solution to the most vocal since the TJ most vocal are getting things done-who else lives here but SC/Silverbrrok/TJ? This board has a history og neglecting the rest of us. The other would be if the kid is an AAU basketball superstar or a stellar multiple sport candidate with good grades and character.
Once again, leave your imagination to someone who has one 6:35 AM.
VA STATE OF MIND:
Your disapproval and disgust with Silverbrook has to deal with the fact that few wanted to stay at Hayfield during the orginal boundary process.
You don't get it. You don't understand what is was like to travel 11+ miles to a school not in your community, to pass at the very least through 3 other HS and MS boundaries knowing your kids couldn't go to those schools because of lack of space, lack of programs, lack of need. You want to know about being used by the system, ask a Silverbrook or Newington Forest parent. Once again it was never really about "YOU" persay. All we wanted was our own school, one we were not bussed to because of need. If you love Hayfield so much then enjoy it, be a part of it, volunteer. We all did and tried to make it better, tried to make it a school to be proud of. It is a great school, good teachers, administration, great facility. Just too far and too difficult to get to for those of us living west of Hayfield.
In this blog you have degraded Silverbrook, you wish to belittle those who worked to build SCSS and those same that workd and volunteered for Hayfield and were a part of Hayfield. Check those former PTSA positions and volunteer lists. You will see a tremendous amount of support from those living west of Hayfield. I just don't think you get why SCSS is so meaningful. It is not just a building, a sense of a school, it formed a community.
Your statement about the School Board and FCPS is correct. The problem at SCSS and Hayfield was created by these 2 entities and we rely on them to solve it. Only they are not solving it in a manner that best suits the SC coummunity and perhaps the Hayfield community. The School Board is an elected entity, we can change this as voters, perhaps all School Board members should be At Large? I wonder if our friend with the great "imagination" on this blog thought of that?
938, I could not have said it better myself, thank you!
I appreciate that 9:49.
9:49 speaks for all of us who's children were bused half way across the county for Middle and High School. I remember getting my oldest child up at 5:15 every morning for the long ride to HF. My child loved HF, just not the long commute. SCSS has changed everything for my oldest and now youngest child. A neighborhood school means the world to my family and it's definitley what we want to keep.
True. Shame on Mr. Mind for making this about alleged isolated incidents three years ago. I went to their Silverbrook meeting this year and their community didn't speak like this. Someone even posted here what happened.
A small amount of people behave badly and the whole community shouldn't be blamed. I don't want our community blamed for your blog.
Silverbrook behaved extremely badly over the last 10 years! You don't see Newington Forest families acting like this...
Fine, lets stop talking about bashing and feelings and so forth and get back to the issues. The way I see it all the communities at SCSS want to stay at SCSS and each have good reason to stay and good reason not to have to leave. Lets put them out without getting all emotional about and make your best argument.
My argument is simple. SCSS is crowded. Relief of South County cannot be reasonably solved by using only Hayfield. I agree some students East of 95 should go to Hayfield. If LBSS's numbers are in question next year then wait, that is fine. If the projections are correct then students from the west area of South County should be sent to LBSS in 2009. If LBSS projections are not correct then I would support moving up the MS construction on the CIP, however if the projections are correct then the MS construction stays where it is. I feel for all the communities at SCSS and understand the argument, but one argument is not better then the other in my mind. If you only send one side of the boundary out of the school and if it is predominatly a demographic area that historically does not excel in public school then this whole process will appear to be targeted at the less fortunate amoung us and that would be wrong. If Silverbrook truly believes that all of South County is a community together they have to be willing to sacrifice going to the closest school as much as the communities to the East will have to sacrifice.
Thank you 12:50.
We have good memories of being at Hayfield. My children and friends made great acquaintences there. VA STATE OF MIND, although one or perhaps consisting of several people, have poisioned the issue with caustic remarks about people and the certain western communities.
Some of the people this blog has spoken about have gone back to life as they once knew it. All this blog is doing is accusing them personally and singleling out a specific community because they cared to challenge the system and gave personal time to make a change.
As for 1:53, you don't fix a flaw with a system or a perceived flaw by using another community because you SIMPLY want to. Sending any one child to LBSS is WRONG. That is right wrong! If you look at Lorton Station the new housing consists of Townhomes above $400,000 and single families at around $600,000. I don't call that poor or socio-econmically deprived. There are pockets of distressed areas but Silverbrook should not be responsible for the educational success of such areas. You don't spread preceived harm, intended harm or even change because of PERCEPTION.
Silverbrook sacrificed for years as did Newington Forest and other western communities. Our schools have been OC and we worked like no other community to get SC built. When I say "we," I mean all the older communities in the SC area. So don't spin the argument on the flawed sentiment of spreading pain.
If an area does not excell in school then find out why, what is missing in the system to make this students successful--don't place this burden on Silverbrook or any other community. The burden is on our educational system to educate all students no matter what a child's background. This burden is not dependent upon a particular community.
I am tired of hearing how Silverbrook sacrificed for years to attend Hayfield. It was only about 10 miles away, and a direct shot down the parkway. Is that sacrifice? There are children in the county still traveling that far to school and they travel much further in Loudon. Sure, I am glad they built SCSS and the kids don't have to travel as far, but sacrifice?? Come on!
Yes, sacrifice. You wouldn't know because you didn't live in our shoes, so to speak. The Parkway came later, before that kids traveled up I-95 and Pohick and Hooes Rd to get to Hayfield.
Don't belittle what we went through. SCSS has made a huge difference in our lives. Those who live in Clifton, Great Falls etc., live there because they like the remoteness, they chose remoteness over schools. We live in communities and passed closer schools for years. We were sent to Hayfield to fill it up and no doubt for other reasons.
You should think better than to write what you did 2:31, your words can't diminish what we went through.
This is just an ugly blog.
2:48 doesn't want to hear the truth. We live in Crosspointe, albeit in the Halley area. I want North Crosspointe, Barrington etc to be redistricted to LB in addition to kids to Hayfield to solve the OC at SC.
2:48 doesn't want to hear the truth. We live in Crosspointe, albeit in the Halley area. I want North Crosspointe, Barrington etc to be redistricted to LB in addition to kids to Hayfield to solve the OC at SC.
308, are you really from Crosspointe? I know for a fact the Crosspointe community as a whole wants to stay together at SCSS. You must be from a different community or you don’t feel connected to Crosspointe.
2:48 - You knew where the schools were when you chose to live in the Crosspointe area before the Parkway was built. If your child had to get up at 5:15am to go to Hayfield, that was your decision! You could have moved, but you chose that for your child. Now, you expect the rest of us to feel sorry for you because of what you have had to "suffer". Unbelievable!
Why is it that every time a Crosspointe person like 3:08 posts their preference for LB, someone accuses them of outright lying about where they live, or not really being “connected” to the community. Is it possible for a Crosspointe person to express their desire for LB, without being attacked by one of their own neighborhood? Surely they have a right to speak too?
3:31
This area was on the CIP in 1990 for a HS. Don't tell me or anyone here about knowing about the issue of a school. SCSS was a long awaited school.
Our area needed a school due to pop. growth. Growth in both the Mt. Vernon Dist. and the Springfield District.
Hmmm you knew about buying a home in your district, most likely Hayfield, let's see what would happen if your were redistricted to Mt. Vernon, soon to be an easy shot with the opening of the new road financed by the Army?
But you knew that right?
Where's the easy road from Mount Vernon to Mason Neck? That's right, we're supposed to have our kids swim across the bay. The western side of SCSS had been advocating for decades for our kids to not attend the same schools with theirs.
5:24 - This is not about your area needing a school. This is about your claim of "sacrifice". A little far-fetched, don't you think? I would not "sacrifice" my child for anything. If Hayfield was too far for you all those years, you could have moved. You knew the bus distance and travel time when you bought your house, didn't you? Don't know anything about a road being built by the army. I would never view going to Mt. Vernon as a sacrifice or a problem. Mt. Vernon is a far better school than South County - nicer parents.
3:08 wants other people's kids to go to LBSS, not their own. Why not send South Crosspointe to LBSS. If so, I'd bet their preference would change.
No one should be sent to LBSS until we see how much its enrollment will increase due to the new construction. Simple but true.
5:32 you are so misguided, sad very sad. 5:24 was not talking about you. You need to get over youselves. If anything you did know where you were living and you knew that your area was removed from all others. There was no school on the CIP in your direct area due to growth. You begged to stay at Hayfield in 1999 and so you stayed, you begged out of Hayfield in 2005 and so you got out, and now you attack and beg again. Swimming is a good sport. Albeit the river is a bit cold this time of year. Bet you would add to the swim team at Mt. Vernon or any school your children attend.
OK that's it I am sinking to your level--not good
A lesson for the kids:
http://www.trivia-library.com/a/educational-stories-two-monks-and-the-beautiful-woman.htm
17 more days
6:10 - I think you sank all by yourself. Get some help.
And who was fighting to kick MN out of Hayfield in 1999? That battle continues today.
The school board will approve the staff recomendation and Va State of Mind will have to retitle this blog fairboundaries 3, because until someone from the western side of the SCSS boundary goes to LBSS, South County will remain overcrowded. A new middle school will not be built before it is scheduled in 2015. Get ready for this continue next fall.
Why does part of Lorton Station have to leave? Will Silverbrook or Newington Station leave if LBSS has room? or will more of Lorton Station be removed from South County two years from now. Would that be fair? I don't think so. Lorton Station has as much right to be at South County as does Newington Forest and Silverbrook. Parts of Lorton Station are just as close or closer then Silverbrook and Newington Forest. I want to stay as well but if I leave next year and SCSS is still crowded then some from the West should leave next time.
According to F&P, if Newington Forest is redistricted to Lake Braddock, they go in their entirety. No split feeder is formed. The F&P plan for Silverbrook would split Silverbrook between SC and LB. Therefore the SB should vote for Newington Forest to attend LB.
No one is leaving to go to LBSS, the room is not there. The core capacity issue is a question that even Facilities has admitted must be reviewed for LBSS and other schools before sending any additional students to a school with limited seats. 925 empty seats is not considered limited.
NO. Facilities said that LBSS has some room and is MORE flexible than any other school. Listen to the audio files from the meetings. All reports say that LBSS has some room now and will have more in the future. These are the experts. Not the Silverbrook parents or LB parents. The EXPERTS. LB can receive students next year. It's a fact.
Lake Braddock has been included in the last 3 boundary studies because they have room. It does not look good to only pull eastern neighborhoods out of SCSS. The school board needs to use Lake Braddock too, otherwise it really looks like they are caving in to Silverbrook. This delay excuse will not work for them, we all know what they are doing. If this school board wants to get re-elected, they need to use Lake Braddock now.
The School Board will do what's best for all involved. Not some perception of trying to "screw over" Silverbrook like all on this board seem to want. LBSS does not have the room this year or next. HF needs to stop the spin about all the imaginary seats at LB - its not working.
11:10 You only heard what you wanted to hear. They also said that they are doing a study on core capacity due to the issues of renovations and impact on core. This study was going to review LBSS and others. Despite LBSS being flexible, core capacity needed to be studied to look at true school capacity.
It is not a fact LB can and will recieve students next year.
You better tell Dean Tistadt and Gary Chevelier LBSS does not have room, they are the ones that said LBSS has room and will have more. In fact Mr. Tistadt said that the capacity numbers for LBSS (and other schools) are conservative and after reviewing the calculation for capacity for LBSS he would not be surprised if Lake Braddock has even more room then first calculated.
Lets look at the projections again. If nothing were done to LBSS by the year 2011 they would have 753 empty seats and 936 empty seats in 2015. Those numbers are in black and white from the Facilities and Planning Handouts last fall. That is not spin that is fact, so who is spinning again? Oh and "do what's best for all" I think you meant what is best for Silverbrook. Noone is trying to "Screw over" anyone, why do you consider it ok to move Lorton Staion but when it comes to Silverbrook you call it "screw over" I think you protest too much, could it be that the facts are against you and doing what is right may not be what you want?
If you want to talk about buffer, LBSS has less buffer for capacity than Hayfield. You want to talk fair, then why would you send any students to a school with a 94% buffer? Hayfield has a buffer of 73% now, with the addition of Option 3 or a similar Option it will have 90-92% capacity buffer. Still less than LBSS. So if you want to talk buffer and keep a 90% buffer per the Hayfield Lee District SB member for schools then you don't add anyone to LBSS.
Let's do talk the issues and if you want to be consistent about this with the facts at hand then you send no one to LBSS due to their issues of capacity, buffer and core facility.
7:21 Your statements don't even deserve a comment at this time.
Mean, nasty and rude.
7:23,
Do you plan for anything? These studies are all about planning. The fact is Hayfield will get students back, their numbers will rise with a surge of students next year and will increase slowly over the next five years. It is smart to plan for errors in projections and keeping Hayfield at 92 percent will allow for more students that will probably come.
LBSS could also have a buffer at 92 percent in the OUTYEARS! Do you get it OUTYEARS. We know the population this year and next but we are trying to plan for the future. The numbers are going down for LBSS over the next 6 years if you do nothing. If you plan on taking LBSS to 92 percent by 2011 then SCSS would be near capacity when you also add the numbers to Hayfield. Why is that so difficult to understand? I know you understand as I am sure you are intellegent therefore I think you need to get you head out of the sand and admit that LBSS could be used to relieve the crowding at SCSS. Or do you not believe SCSS will be grossly overcrowded in 2011. I suppose you don't if you also don't believe LBSS will have room.
Wow, it is good to see the blog got fired up this weekend!
I think the board will approve the staff reccomendation. It is not perfect, but the best they can do in the short run.
In November, a few members of the board will be replaced (at least two are retiring).
The elected officials (non board) will figure out a way to send enough $ to FCPS that it forces FCPS to build a Middle School much earlier than 2015. It will not be free, but close enough that a board 5 years away from elction will send it through.
7:24
mean and nasty? please! how was that mean and nasty?
7:35
if that is the case do you think Lorton Station will be put back in the South County Boundary when a Middle School opens?
Why move kids to LBSS if a Middle School is coming anyway?
That is the rub, will a new MS be coming? I would think that if a MS is coming then noone will move to LBSS, I would also expect that those moved to Hayfield next Fall will be returned to SCSS if a MS is built.
738,
No, once the Laruel Hill boundary is set ALL of Lorton Station ES will attend Hayfield. Those Lorton Station kids that go to LH will go to SCSS. If you are in LS and want to go to SCSS your next fight is to get into the LHES boundary.
Two years from now when/if this is relooked, the decisions will be made with the assumption of a Middle School coming sooner and with more definite ES boundaries. The overcrowding at SCSS will be seen as temporary and more tolerable. LS will be pushed out, but the official excuse will be "eliminate split feeders" not OC.
LBSS will have reduced its population, but not by as much as predicted and still not enough for them to appear undercapcity. The LB and SB communities will yell "I told you so". Gary C will be retire and the new guy will want to "wait and see" if the predictions come true.
HF will have grown more than predicted, but no one will notice (or care) because the full impact of the boundary changes will not have taken effect and they will still be under capacity.
I don't think the school board cares much about split feeders. I think that will be a sorry excuse to keep Lorton Station out.
Maybe in two years from now more info on BRAC and development in the Hayfield boundaries will have its projected numbers going up faster then predicted. If given a new middle school is approved by then, we could be looking at Lorton Station having to go back to SCSS (where they belong) to relieve overcrowding at Hayfield, and since the middle school would be under construction they would have room. Now wouldn't that be a twist.
VA state of Mind.
You must maintain this blog after this round is over and into after the boundaries are debated for Laurel Hill ES. I would like to see all the arguments about LBSS, Hayfield, and the numbers vs. capacity noted on this site so that two years from now we can see how the numbers did or did not pan out. I believe facilities numbers are pretty accurate, others don't it will be interesting to see how the arguments change as reality sets in.
VSOM
can you save the pdf handouts from FCPS to this site as a link or something. I wish I still had the handouts from the first boundary study.
If Silverbrook thinks they can get the school board to build them a new middle school and keep Lorton Station out as well, they underestimate Dan Stock. He will make sure Lorton Station goes back. One thing is for sure, build a middle school, and Lorton Station will return.
Sorry, Dan Storck, not Stock.
Well, if you ask them now they would say they don't want anyone in the South County "Community" to leave. How you define community in South County depends on who you talk too.
I am not saying that Silverbrook will try to keep Lorton Station out. I am just saying that the students at Lorton Station ES will end up at Hayfield to balance enrollment. Those in the Lorton Station area with influence will be able to draw their community into the LHES-SCSS boundary. So, the Lorton Valley area may go back (especially if Stork gets re-elected), but those that remain at LSES will go to Hayfield --- even those that stay at SCSS after this change.
Dan Storck is the SB member that drove the Boundary in 2005, he caused the opening of WSHS with another member. Where are we now as a result of all this? Of course other members assisted with all this as well.
Facilities numbers are incredibly inaccurate. SCSS and Hay are both clear examples of that.
Wow, if what 9:08 says happens the fight over the boundaries for LHES will be nasty. Looking at the options already thrown out in public by facilities brings into question the location of the GT center at Lorton Station. 241 GT kids from outside the boundaries of Lorton Station currently attend Lorton Station. That many GT students really skews a schools population and if Lorton Station keeps the GT center will require that Halley and/or LHES will have to take kids East of 95. I can see the fight now for moving the GT center from Lorton Station to one of the ES West of 95 so the boundaries for ES can be redrawn to exclude East of 95 ES from feeding South County.
8:31 & 8:34 -- I used to link directly to the meeting notes and handouts from the first SCSS boundary study on the FCPS website, but those resources are no longer posted. I may save backup e-copies of the meeting notes and handouts from the fall 2006 boundary meetings so that we'll have them for future reference and posting.
FairBoundaries 2.0 grew out of a need -- a need to be heard that a group of Hayfield, Island Creek and Lane parents felt existed over a year ago. We felt that same need during the 2003 SCSS boundary battles. We felt, rightly or wrongly, that the school board (here again, it comes back to THEM) was paying more attention to the needs of other communities over the needs of the Hayfield SS community. We felt that Hayfield was in danger of turning into the "St. Elsewhere" of secondary schools, a dumping ground that the school board would use at whim to throw overflow students regardless of future, unknown impacts (BRAC, etc.) in the Hayfield area. And while we did not, and do not, necessarily AGREE with opinions coming out of Silverbook or Crosspointe or other SCSS neighborhoods over the years -- we nonetheless ADMIRED and were INSPIRED by level of organization of folks living in those neighborhoods, and have tried to emulate their efforts in creating a united Hayfield voice.
Ironically enough, I think nearly all of us on either side of I-95, started out this latest debate telling the school board, "WAIT!" before engaging in another boundary study. SCSS parents were/are willing to wait out overcrowded conditions to see how/if the SCMS could be accelerated, and Hayfield parents wanted to wait to see the impact of BRAC and further development. Am I remembering that correctly from a year or so ago? The school board didn't wait, however, and here we are again at each other's throats. And I'm afraid some of us will be at it AGAIN soon enough, when Laurel Hill Elementary's boundaries are to be drawn.
For the record, I'm sorry for some of my recent hot-headed responses here. The truth is that most of us here have succumbed to emotion in our comments at some point or another, due to the inherently divisive nature of this issue. I won't apologize for taking a pro-Hayfield perspective, though -- that was the original intent of this blog, after all. HSS parents have only ever asked that the school board ramp up the HSS student population at a reasonable rate and to TRY to maintain some expansion buffer. We're not fighting against getting more students, or only getting certain students. We want to work with the school board and other schools involved, but still try to avoid at all costs becoming an overcrowded facility again.
Having said all that -- if there is to be a "FairBoundaries 3.0" in the future, or even an upgraded version of this current blog following the Feb. 22 school board decision, I will be looking for a fellow blog admin (preferably an SCSS parent) to make some format changes, and a moderator or two to help out with policing comments. I did not, and do not, have the personal time to comb through and approve every comment that comes through here, but it's clear that we need someone to do that now.
I certainly never anticipated the intense level of interest in FB 2.0. In the interest of fairness -- and to change the minds of those who are convinced I have a vendetta against the western communities -- I believe it's possible to maintain this blog so that fundamentally different perspectives are covered and debated in a civil manner. I'm willing to help rebuild FB 2.0, and any future version of this blog, to achieve that goal. But I can't and won't do it alone.
If the GTC moves out of Lorton Station then the whole idea of all of Lorton Station going to Hayfield goes out the window. All of LS to Hayfield will only fit if
LS population is reduced to below its capacity AND the GTC stays.
Eventually the GTCs will probably go away and each school will have its own program.
I think that LHES and/or Halley will draw from east of I-95. They will have to to keep the demographics to have all day kindergarten.
The sooner GTC's go away at the middle school level, the better. All middle schools offer an honors program anyway, and these programs could be expanded. GTC's skew numbers like at Lake Braddock and are very expensive. No child should have to travel away from their home school at the elementary and middle school level for these programs. We would save on travel/busses too.
1040. I agree. Getting rid of Middle School GTCs would be somewhat easier and more practical then getting rid of ES GTCs. However, could you imagine the county-wide fight over the new boundaries that would have to be established?
Some people push their children into the GT program so they can go to a "better" middle school. On the other hand, some people turn down the opportunity for their kids to be in the GT program, because they don't want to leave their home school. The GT program should not be used this way. Lake Braddock parents have an easy decision, because they have a GT center at their school. Our kids should have the opportunity to be in the GT program at their home school.
Ok let me get this straight. SCSS parents want all of their students to stay at SCSS. They don't want their kids to return to HS even thought their school is over crowded. They say the bus ride is too long and that they want their kids in a community school. Ok, I get all that. Why then, when it comes time to apply to TJSHS, do so many of the SCSS parents all have their kids apply to TJ? Or why are so many eighth graders from the combined HSS before SCSS applying to Catholic schools far away?
Hayfield parent
And what happens when these kids go to college? Is George Mason too far from SCSS? This is all about the perception of SCSS being a "better" school. In the future, there will be many SCSS parents with regrets.
1108, that is a good post!
Great post VASM!!!
We all have learned a lot and just like the monk (2/11 7:01) must learn to leave some things behind.
Yes, the "2 monks & a woman" tale is very enlightening, indeed.
See we aren't all bad to the West. We spent too much energy making Hayfield great to want to see it fail in any way. The comments of the few do not change the affection of the masses who called Hayfield home for many years.
let me add "helping" before "making" lest I offend anyone as it is a community effort...
ok. I read 2 monks and it is very enlightening. I wish that after this is over we could "put the women down at the river". Unfortunately this will not be over for a few years. This study is a continuation of a few others and has a phase two built into it.
SCSS is overcrowded. Children need to move out. Who is willing to "put the women down at the river?" Who is willing to say, we will go to Lake Braddock and Hayfield?
During Phase two of this study and we are deciding who goes to LBSS, could we relieve enough pressure off of SCSS by sending Silverbrook and NF to LBSS for 7th and 8th grade only? Would that yield 400-500 students? LBSS will have room for @750, but can they reconfigure? I hate the idea of a split Middle School and I am convinced that LB will need and want HS students, but if a new Middle School is coming in 2015 maybe that will be a short term solution in 2011. It is certainly a BAD idea right now, but when a Middle School is almost a reality ...
That would leave an awfully small Middle School at SCSS. How about if you make SC the GTC and send all of SC to LBSS for Middle School. SC Middle School would be GT only. With the GTC out of LBSS they will fit easily.
4:33 – that sounds like a good idea. Lake Braddock could take 7 & 8 graders from SB & NF until the new middle school is built. After that, Lake Braddock could help out with surrounding schools over capacity issue WS, WH, & RS. These schools will be at or over capacity in a few years.
I know they don't believe it, but Lake Braddock risks becoming a place the board uses as a temporary place to deal with overcrowding if they do not figure out a way to use the space. They can only play the shell game with the Silverbrook community for so long. MV can get away with it because they have a river, Ft. Belvoir, and Huntley Meadows in the way. LBSS can pull it off for two maybe four more years tops.
459 - That will not happen to Lake Braddock. LB is a top school, and new families continue to buy homes in that area just to go to that school. They may have to worry about being over capacity on day.
Unlikely
You don't need to actually use the capacity. Just continue to create the perception that it does not exist. As long as LB can show the GTC uses up space in the Middle School, the High School will be perpetually under capacity.
Be careful. Once the Middle School is built in South County your allies in Silverbrook will argue the the extra space in Lake Braddock is "real" and should be used.
Hopefully the school board will use Lake Braddock this year and spare us all from another boundary study next year. Leaving SCSS at 113% is just silly, the school cannot function properly at that level. Going into another boundary study again next year is just too much. It will push too many people too hard. School Board, give us all a break for a few years, please! Use both Hayfield and Lake Braddock now, and let’s pick this up again in about 3 years.
if you want them to use the capacity at Lake Braddock I think you need a petition. They are spending a lot of time agonizing over who to send to Hayfield when who would go to LB is an easy decision. Did anyone go to the work session on 2-12? That was about boundaries.
Unfortunately there is no interest on the school board to use Lake Braddock this coming fall for SCSS students. Silverbrook, Newington Forest and LBSS communities succeeded in making the argument against using LBSS now. If someone tries to push more to Hayfield then the staff recomendation then I can almost gurantee the LBSS will be relooked at for use next fall. I agree, leaving SCSS overcrowded is irresponsible of the board. They should have made the tough call and sent some to LBSS. That choice will be passed on to the next newly elected school board.
Lake Braddock should not be used next year or the 2 years after that. Maybe by the next boundary study the school will be able to take students from SCSS, but until then the school board should not send any students to Lake Braddock.
Well, if they do pass on Lake Braddock, there will be a new board, because many, many people will be uspet and vote them out. Silverbrook are outspoken now, but the School Board needs to remember, many are watching and waiting to see what they do.
It is amazing that anyone would worry about Lake Braddock being at 97-100% capacity for one to two years, while SCSS remains at 113% and above.
At least Hayfield will not have to go through the next boundary study. They will get some students now and that will help out the school. Hayfield is a great school and this will be the end of boundary studies for them. Lake Braddock is a great school, but the school board should not over crowd that school right away, they need to see what the true capacity will be and then send students from SCSS to Lake Braddock. It is the right thing to do.
I don't think this will be the last boundary study for Hayfield. Silverbrook will never agree to use Lake Braddock to solve their problems, and will always want Hayfield available for them to use. Silverbrook wants Robinson students moved to Lake Braddock, and they have even had a go trying to move some Annandale (Ravensworth) students there. They know Lake Braddock is under capacity, and want it filled by Robinson or Annandale, so the east side to SCSS can be moved to Hayfield, and Mt. Vernon, if they can get the school board to agree.
It’s funny how bloggers can make up stories. Hayfield will not be in the next boundary study, because they will get SOME students now. They need some students returned because the last boundary study the school board removed too many students. This hurt the school. Lake Braddock can not take students next year or the year after that; it will put them over capacity. The school board knows this. Maybe in a few years LB will have capacity and then the SB can send students to that school.
So, 10:46, where are you getting your facts from?
11:00, the FCPS CIP, boundary handouts, etc….
And those handouts said that Hayfield will not be used in the next boundary study?
1st phase Hayfield will get students, about 400. 2nd phase if no middle school Lake Braddock will get about 400 students. Where is it that Hayfield will be in the next boundary study?
Where is it that it won't? That is the recommendation to the school board. There is no guarantee that the school board will accept it, no guarantee that it will be voted in, and no guarantee that even if it is voted in, changes won't be made to the scope of the next boundary study.
Well, then that is true for all schools. But I know Hayfields SB rep (I think it is Brad C.) will not let that happen to Hayfield. He wants that school to be at 90% capacity, and he will make sure that happens. I agree Hayfield should not be over capacity, and Lake Braddock should not be over capacity.
11:33 - You accuse others of making up stories, yet you have no facts, and are only going off your own opinion. There are no guarantees for Hayfield. Brad C. may want Hayfield at 90%, but the recommendation to the board is already way above that and Brad Center is only one vote. You are right about one thing, all schools risk being dragged into this mess. Robinson, West Springfield (again), Lee (again), Hayfield (again), Mt. Vernon etc. The school board needs to use Lake Braddock now so we can all have a few years to settle down and get away from this thing for a while.
1141, are you from Hayfield?
Lake Braddock should not be used now; it will put them at or over capacity next year and many years out. Why make Lake Braddock OC too. The SB needs to see what the true capacity is at that school. Hayfields school board rep will make sure they are not in the next boundary study, if they are then they should vote out their school board rep, but I think all school board members will agree that Hayfield should be left out of the next study. You are right, there are no guarantees, but I would HOPE Hayfield is not in the next study.
Well, at least we can agree on one thing, Hayfield has no guarantee that it will not be dragged into the next boundary study.
They wont be in the next study. So don't worry about it.
There should not be a next study. Once this is done it should be finished. The community needs to heal and get one with the businsess of the day.
The school board should not OC Lake Braddock too.
That's right 11:52. The fact that the school board could even suggest another boundary study next year is outrageous. That would put Lake Braddock into its fourth boundary study. The school board should have the courage to use Lake Braddock now, and give us all a break for a few years.
I mean 11:53, not 11:52.
One of the option twos would have ended this for sure. Now it goes on and on. I think LBSS, although at near capacity now could have handled being a little over capacity for a couple years. Facilities has said that school is the most flexible school in the county in terms of reconfiguration because it was designed that way at a time big schools were thought to be a good way to build a school. Even with an option two boundary for Lake Braddock it would have come back down to under capacity at around 92 percent. Yes it would have been an adjustment for a couple years but one that could have been done. That opportunity has been lost now and this boundary mess will continue and I fear it will continue for Hayfield as well. You see the forces to the West will never agree to go to LBSS if there is any hope of getting a new middle school sooner then scheduled or unless Hayfield is packed to the gill. If the decision about boundary was taken out of the hands of elected school board like it used to be, facilities could have done their job and used the schools to the best of there capacity for the areas closest to the school and this would be done and we could all move on.
I agree that they should not OC LB -- or even get close. That would be too risky in that area. LB rejuvenates itself so it is important to leave a buffer for planning error, BRAC, etc. However, there is a limit to how much buffer we can afford
They should only send 400 (over six years) to LB and leave a 350 seat buffer. The board should start now by sending 50-75 rising 7th graders/year. To wait a couple of years and then jerk them out of SCSS as rising 9th graders is mean and unnecessary. There is no interest from the board in using LB this go round unfortunately.
HF and LB are BOTH PROJECTED to have 750-800 seats in 2011. Are these really going to be there in 2011? Who knows? But this is the best prediction we can come up with.
Making the argument that the space at HF is more likely to be there than LB does not fly with me. We used the same methodology to determine utlization for all three schools. Why do we believe the east numbers and don't believe the west?
222,
NONE of the options would but LB overcrowded for any amount of time. They will have over 300 empty spaces next year and it grows to over 750 by 2011. They could have phased in rising 7th grade students next year and STILL had a declining student population. However, the board wants to wait and see. So be it.
2:37
Is that correct? I thought option 2 would put LBSS over crowded the first couple years. Maybe I was reading all the comments on this board about LBSS and began to believe it. Then why are they waiting to use LBSS if that school as room? Is this purely political? Again this decision may not be something an elected official can handle
I guess the board does not care about the kids as much as the votes. The ones who really suffer here are the SCSS children squeezed into a school with traillers and a staggered schedule. Perhaps they could run evening classes as well. That would create more room. Very sad.
Or they could do year round secondary school!
315
In option 2A/2B, you send 7-9 and LBSS is never overcrowded - but it would not be wise as it gets them close and these predictions are historically off a bit. It would be a safer bet to send only rising 7th graders.
However, LB is off the table this year it appears. F&P did not reccomend it and there seems to be no push on the board to use them.
The rub is that SCSS in near the northern part of its boundary. The families that would move to LB are much closer to SCSS then LB and have successfully lobbied their politicians to stop the move. You can call that "political" if you want, but the people hire politicians to represent us and ... be politicians.
Those in the Lorton Station area are in the same boat, but have so far not been sucessful in convincing the politicians they should stay.
I think it is just fine that this is political. I would not want the board making decisions without listening to the people. I am not sure why with LB and HF having the similar amount of avaialable space one get used and the other not used, but that appears what the board is going to do.
The problem is, they are listening to Silverbrook more than anyone else.
No. They're listening to Mason Neck more than anyone else.
The truth is the SB sent too many students to SCSS in the first place. But now that those students are there, it is not fair to move ANY of them - to LBSS or Hayfield. I think expediting construction of a middle school works for ALL parties - HF, LBSS, and SCSS. And in the meantime, middle school students could be split equally between LBSS and HF. I've heard the arguments against option 1, but I just don't get it.
542, I know, option 3 is the option the school board is going to vote for, and that keeps Mason Neck at SCSS.
Someone remind 5:49 of the arguments against option 1, I can't do it again. For one Hayfield's MS would be larger then the High school. Then no new High school students would continue the problems they have now with a low attendance. Someone else add to this.
I can’t, its too exhausting.
Don't worry about it, option 1 is dead. The big problem with option 3 is that nobody is being sent to LB, and I don't think Mason Neck is responsible for that. The Lorton Valley situation does need to be resolved, and I am not sure who is responsible for that.
Ok I take the blame I did it.
Get the F&P mp3 of the meeting.
play it backwards...
it says "1 is dead...1 is dead...I am the walrus"
I thought it was more like Helter Skelter.
6:22 did you see the public hearings? Did you hear Mason Neck lobbying for themselves? They're the reason were in this mess in the first place. They should be ashamed of themselves.
6:22
Your right all those kids from Mason Neck are responsible for the overcrowding at SCSS.
The really odd thing about this boundary process is the lack of information given by FCPS as well as inconsistent analysis. There was a number given of 55 SC GTC at LB. But that is not a complete picture since no info was given on projected GTC or middle school LB GTC opt-outs currently attending SC. The number of opt-outs could be significant and that coupled with projected GTC should justify moving SC GTC out. LB then has better proportionality for MS/HS and could take in at least 180 base school students 7-12. That is a big chunk of South Oaks Run and Barrington which protrude into LB area and averages 30 kids per grade level. [Hunt has an amendment to only send Jackson base school students to the new Jackson GTC next year. The cost to set up Jackson might be less than operating budget costs for any trailers or busses for the overcrowding. Secondary schools can offer any level of math for GTC since the kids can take it with 9th graders.] There also are not neighborhood break-downs on numbers for very large areas. If there are 200-400 kids at South Oaks and Barrington they should go now with no grandfathering.
The eastern boundary is complex while western Silverbrook is not. Hayfield and LB are renovated facilities which have had solid capacity analysis. Some board members might regard 95 as a boundary and go for proximity but that can't be done for areas that border other jurisdictions.
Hunt seems to be the only actively engaged at -large member. Those 3 should be looking at the big picture and have had amendments for the 2-12 meeting.
With strategic governance there will be public management reports and going strictly by the numbers, the school board could fire Dale, etc. Perhaps they are afraid that a western Silverbrooker will be elected to the board. How can a portion of one large elementary school be such a drain on this system and the tax payers? What is next?
Post a Comment