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 401 – 600 of 911 Newer› Newest»For anyone that wants a SC middle school, what do you propose to do with the space at LB and Hayfield? Any ideas? Woodson has a wing for DIT which is Dept of Info Technlogy along with its vehicles etc. Tisdadt wanted a transportation hub in Lorton but people like LizB complained. WS has an FCPS gas station on site.
The eastern boundary is not complex, just use I95 as the boundary. Everyone to the east goes to Hayfield. Rather than remove South Run Oaks and Barrington, send Mason Neck to Hayfield because they have more kids. The last minute amendment that sent Mason Neck to SC is part of the overcrowding problem. Capacity needs to be kept at LB because BRAC will have a large impact on the school because it's such a good school. BRAC won't impact Hayfield as much.
Lastly, the school board should consider closing Mount Vernon and splitting the kids between West Potomac and Hayfield.
very funny 744. go to work now.
7:44,
Did you get a head rush from shoveling snow this morning? Close Mt Vernon? What are you going to propose next, have the kids hike through Huntley Meadows to get to Hayfield? 95 as a barrier overcrowds Hayfield period. Why don't you go back to bed.
You think 744 is funny, I think 634 is hilarious. I think 634 is that slapstick comedian, what’s his name? Oh yeah, Dan Stork.
6:34 has no clue, either about the whole boundary process or life in general. Saying the eastern edge is simple while the western edge is not is assinine. Reverse the argument and the he might have some merit. Thanks for laugh.
7:44 had the gall to write: "Capacity needs to be kept at LB because BRAC will have a large impact on the school because it's such a good school. BRAC won't impact Hayfield as much."
What are YOU smoking this morning, friend? Do you actually mean to argue that BRAC will affect LB more than HSS?? Given Hayfield's immediate proximity to Fort Belvoir, you'd have a tough time winning that debate, at least in this part of the county.
What is more objectionable is your snide, "read-between-the-lines" implication that LB's capcity should be preserved over Hayfield's, because it is a better school than Hayfield. I know there are staff and parents from both SCSS and HSS that have worked to make Hayfield a great school over the years who would be offended by that statement.
VSOM: put down the pipe and calm down. The objection was to the "easy" decision for the western side, versus the "complex" issues surrounding the easterm side argument. Your side off county has become too defensive and needs to analyze the facts again before throwing false accusations around. HF is no better or worse than LBSS - my oldest went to HF for 2 years and loved it (except for the 5:15 wake-up).
744 did not imply that Lake Braddock was better than Hayfield. I guess the blogger forgot to put in the statement: Hayfield is a great school too. In fact, Hayfield is a great school. But I think 744 was defending the area that 634 was trying to put down. Removing subdivision from Silverbrook is wrong. Each subdivision has fewer students than Mason Neck, even if you combine two together. It seems 744 was trying to make a point about how the Lake Braddock issue is complex.
This boundary study is complex on all sides. The border between SCSS and Hayfield is complicated by the transportation barrier caused by Ft. Belvoir and the demographics in the Lorton Station area. In order to send more kids to Hayfield you have to create a larger imbalance of FRL/ESOL and you have to send kids closer to SC to Hayfield. Moving the boundary one block one way or another can create significant changes in student populations and demographics. It is difficult to discuss intelligently without singling out specific communities and that is uncomfortable. That makes it complex.
On the other side it is difficult because the Crosspointe and Newington Forest communities are nearby SCSS and have become quickly attached to it. Moving any of them forces they to tear at the roots they established and have them join a new community.
Throw in the Northern Silverbrook vs. Mason Neck feud for fun. Each is on the edge of the SCSS boundary and vulnerable to being moved out. Geography puts them at odds. Of course they go to board meetings and speak for them selves - what would you expect?
To make matters worse is the lack of confidence the board and the communities have in the facilities and planning student population predictions. Couple this with the smoke screens and misinformation about HF & LB capacity and utilization and this becomes VERY COMPLEX.
The staff reccomendation is about as good as it gets. I would like to see Lorton Valley stay at SCSS and I would like to see a plan to utilize LB, but that will come in time.
In a few years and when the LHES boundary is set Silverbrook ES will hopefully be at or below capacity. They can start sending all rising 7th graders to LBSS and they will fit fine. This will keep the community together and avoid a split feeder.
A middle school will probably still be necessary, but it will be for Halley, NF, LHES, and the Mason Neck part of Gunston.
How about that for simplicity 744. :)
Why renovate Mt. Vernon when the school board won’t send students to that school. Talk about taking money from tax payers and throwing it away. I know the arguments about how it is difficult to send students to that school, but the school board should do something with it. The capacity at Mt. Vernon is unbelievable. I think that is why the push to send students to Lake Braddock is such an issue, the school board messed up with the reno at Mt. Vernon and they want to OC Lake Braddock to make up for the mistake they made with Mt. Vernon.
953, that's true, but Mason Neck should go to Hayfield, and Silverbrook should stay at South County. Very simple.
Why renovate Lake Braddock when the school board won’t send students to that school. Talk about taking money from tax payers and throwing it away. I know the arguments about how it is difficult to send students to that school, but the school board should do something with it. The capacity at Lake Braddock is unbelievable.
Yes, I can see how you would compare Lake Braddock and Mt. Vernon’s capacity. Lake Braddock will be at 93% capacity next year, and Mt. Vernon will be at 66% next year. Good comparison!
If the school board decides to choose option 3, Hayfield capacity will be at 80%. Lake Braddock will be at 93% next year w/o students sent from South County. Wait on Lake Braddock until the capacity number are lower.
9:41
"each subdivision has fewer students than Mason Neck, even if you combine two together." Are you telling me that Barrington and South Run Oaks have less then 93 students going to SCSS. I find that hard to believe. The number of homes of Barrington (518) and South Run Oaks (309) equals 827. Throw in the 36 homes in the small subdivision of Woods at South Run and you have a total of 863 homes. I suspect Mason Neck has around the same amount of Households. But lets not even compare that to Mason Neck, how does that compare to Lorton Valley? Lets see the homes in the "Village at Lorton Valley" and "Lorton Valley" combined are about 309 homes, and that does not include "Shirley Acres" which are also being sent to Hayfield under the staff recommendation. To me it would ease the crowding more at SCSS if you move Barrington and South Run Oaks to LBSS then if you move Lorton Valley which is a mile closer to SCSS then is Barrington.
OK, let's do the comparison for real.
in 2011 (if we do nothing)
Hayfield will have 782 empty seats
Lake Braddock 752 empty seats
Mt. Vernon 925 empty seats
If we follow the F&P plan in 2011:
Hayfield will have 250 empty seats
Lake Braddock 752 empty seats
Mt. Vernon 925 empty seats
I don't really believe that all of these seats will be there in 2011, but these are the projections.
1018 – Lorton Valley should stay at SC and Mason Neck should go to Hayfield. I think you need to go back and read that blog. Where is Woods at South Run? Isn’t that in Lorton? I’m sure one of the bloggers will let me know. If the school boards send only SRO & Barrington to LB, that is just a handful of students. Probably less than Mason Neck.
1018,
It takes years for the impact of boundary changes to take effect. Next year numbers are important only for how fast you implement a decision. LB can take 400-500 students, we just need to start slow (rising 7). HF can take about 400-500, but we can go fast (7-8-9). It doesn't matter though -- using LB is no longer being discussed by the board.
I like option #6 for now.
Woods at South Run is a small subdivision closest to Rt. 123. Most people just considered it part of South Run Oaks but it is on the ADC maps and legally a separate subdivision albeit very small. I do not know the number of homes on the Neck but I bet it is about the same as this area of Silverbrook. Regardless I think SCSS would be served better if they would leave Lorton Valley and split Silverbrook at Barrington and send them to LBSS. That would decrease the numbers at SCSS even more then Staff Recommendation and leave a subdivision closer to SCSS then Barrington and Soth Run Oaks.
They could go to Sangsters ES. This could help the OC at SB and reduce the split feeder problem.
1037, - It’s hard to split Silverbrook up that way. If SRO & Barrington only would be sent to Lake Braddock, that is a very small % of the elementary school. Why would you do that to students? This would be hard on the community. Why is it so important to split up the Silverbrook E.S. I really don’t understand it.
Mt. Vernon was renovated as you know. The renovation was completed around 1999. The east will have over 2300 empty seats if nothing is done. And in 5 years they will have the same amount of empty seats.
Sending students west to fill schools is not the answer when the capacity is to the east. If you want to talk about LBSS then look also at the needs around LBSS. Be sure to look at the inmigration of students and the cyclical pop. growth of these core county communities.
VSOM talks about BRAC and impacts from BRAC. Let's be clear here, the major BRAC impact is happening at the EPG site. This is west of I-95 with 18,000 employees. Serious impacts on transportation will be felt and in the later years growth will take place with employee movement. However this will happen 8-13 years out from now due to current government occupancy contracts having to end at Crystal City and elsewhere. You want to keep 2300 empty seats at these schools for this amount of time without knowing the real factors?
Read the BRAC studies, look at all the information and don't condense or spin a statement. The growth in this area will be gradual.
Finally, this blog's "hell bent" press to fill LBSS is due to spite and a false perception of LBSS and the Silverbrook Community. "Perceptions" are not the reason for splitting a community and sending students out of their school which is 1.7 or less miles away. This includes South Run Oaks, Barrington, Crosspointe, etc.
The issues regarding attending SCSS for the communities of MN and Silverbrook are vastly different. What is the same is that both communities now attend SCSS and wish to remain. That is the only similarity.
^^^That's not the only similarity. Let's talk back-room deals, shady donations....
People who are supposed to stay at SCSS under any of SB proposals don't care whether it's North Silverbrook or Newington Forest that gets redistricted to LB. It just needs to be somebody so that SC doesn't remain at 113% overcapacity.
There were no back room deals,donations, etc. with Silverbrook. I would suspect the same for Mason Neck. What do you have to substantiate your accusation. By the way, that is what it is, an accustation.
If the SCSS remains at 113+% capacaity then build a MS. They did so for Centreville, Chantilly, Westfields, etc. why should this area to be different. The pop. of SCSS remains dense around it's 2 mile radius of a border. South County was built to be High School, not a secondary school.
BRAC will certainly impact many schools in the area surrounding EPG and Belvoir. It will likely affect schools in Prince William as well. That is why it is important to leave a buffer of 250-350 seats at LB and HF if at all possible. The staff reccomendation uses Hayfield and leave 250.
I do not think we need to leave over 900 seats at Mount Vernon (although I can't figure out how to use them) nor do I think we need to leave over 750 seats at LB.
1047,
Where does the number "2300 seats in the east" come from? If you assume we do nothing in this study, in 2011-12 MV will have 925 and HF @ 780 for @ 1700 seats.
Where are the other 600 empty seats coming from?
How many empty seats will there be in the west?
6:34 here. I see my detractors have not offerd any ideas for what to do with LB open space. Simple western boundaries definition:
1. solid middle class communities in large HOA's.
2. numerous single family homes on suburban style lots [ie .25 acre].
3. closer to LB than much of LB's attendance area.
4. protrudes into LB area.
5. Silverbrook is a large elementary school when it is at it's bricks and mortar capacity. That as a split feeder equals 2 smaller schools some of which are splits.
6. The areas going to LB would be done since no reasonable person would consider them for LH.
7. Eastern boundary complications:
-choosing one area over the next
-boundary philosophies
-should Hayfield be a filler for anyone not in a nice neat proximity situation to SC?
-they messed up the first time by moving kids west ito WS etc then wasted more time and money last year with the Daventry debate
-FRPM
-ESL
-BRAC and other Army endeavors
-revitalization of Lorton/route 1 was the talking point for the EDA bonds that built the school
-potential changes in attendance areas or program allignments in Cluster 4 and 5 schools. None of which would affect western Silverbrook which will be the only Silverbrook after the expedited LH.
-using 95 as a boundary contradicts many other boundaries and wold not be in the best interests of this or any board to use as a precedent.
- not using this capacity will cause havoc for all other boundary changes since.
- moving out people on a perceived "wrong side of the tracks" creates bad pr for FCPS
- not using existing capacity could jeopardize future bond referendums
- FCPS has been in search of additional state and fed funding and such flagrant misuse of capacity/money does not aid it's case
We need to use Lake Braddock AND build a Middle School.
Woods at South Run is really Lee Chapel Grove. They are off of Lee Chapel Road and go to Sangster. They are not part of this study and wish to remain that way. Please get your facts correct before you put incorrect statements on this blog.
one idea for Mount Vernon - MV becomes a secondary school and boundary adjustments could be made within Clusters 4 and 5. The board would not have to add any new area to Mount Vernon - it would be removing HS students and replacing them with middle schoolers. Whitman would then be in it's attendance area. Note some members of the leadership team like the 6/7/8 grade configuration.
they built ms's around CHantilly etc because they had no where else to put those kids- take a drive from some of the Carson area to westfields. SC wants a boundary like South Lakes but it isn't surrounded by other attendance areas like South Lakes or the city of Falls Church. The radius doesn't work.
Agreed, 11:16. BRAC will affect Hayfield & SCSS, and to a lesser extent, LBSS. But I don't believe it will be as gradual as 10:47 thinks. BRAC is to be enacted by 2010, and while the process is running behind -- at least according to the Fort Belvoir commander -- more of those 18,000+ folks will be choking the roads around here sooner than we think, Crystal City leases be damned.
And, yes. I have posited that it is just as easy for SOME SC western neighborhoods (see, I didn't use names in a spiteful manner!) to use SOME seats at LBSS, as it is for other SC neighborhoods to move and utilize all *1,700* seats in the east, or at least ALL of Hayfield's ~700 seats.
It is a travesty that Mount Vernon's ~900 seats are so vastly underused, however, the school board created that problem and perpetuates all on their own, and Hayfield shouldn't have to be overcrowded AGAIN because of it. Complicating the MV matter is the large amount of military reservation and parkland that geographically splits the Hayfield area from Route 1. Unfortunately, I can't offer any solution to fixing the MV problem.
Newington Forest must be redistricted to LB.
Families with kids will start moving before BRAC moves the jobs. Families will want to move before the kids start 7th grade.
This will (probably already has) change the demographics in the area over time, but will start right away. MV is an older area that will likely become younger soon and start using the space. They need Middle School space now, so the MVSS idea has merit. I am doubtful that they will consume 900 seats however. I expect it will reamin under indefinitely.
Space needs to be where the students are, not the other way around. Just because MV has space does not mean it makes sense to use it.
Let's use Option #6 for now and push the decsion on LB utilization off to the next School Board.
11:23
I stand corrected, I thought the SCSS boundary went up to Lee Chapel Rd. Makes little difference to my point which is to say the staff recommendation is pulling Lorton Valley subdivision out of SCSS to Hayfield and that area has less homes then South Run Oaks and Barrington (which are more then 1.7 miles away from SCSS) This also is what someone calls a small split of LSES but in fact would be smaller then the one I propose for Silverbrook. Why is it ok to split LSES and not Silverbrook. Btw 11:23 please forgive me if you felt slighted, it was an honest mistake, I can understand why you don't want to be part of this study. How do you like Sangster and LBSS. I am sure you neighbors in Barrington would love it.
11:21 Let me alleviate your concerns;
1. Numerours single family, condo and townhouse communities in the Burke, Fx Station and WS area neighborhoods. This area is a "Hub" for families with direct line to downtown, Pentagon etc.
2. The Silverbrook community is not closest to LB than most of it's current communities. It is 7 miles from the school and less than 2 miles from SCSS.
3. Silverbrook ES will be below capacity in 2 years with the addition of LHES in the community. See Facilities LH Boundary Option on line.
4. Lake Braddock has an issue with core facilties and capacity that is being studied.
5. Lake Braddock is a core school filling a need for "core" communities in the county. The SC area is not considered a "core" county community with other large county communities surrounding it in totality, specifically to the south which is the county-line. LBSS does not show significant need for students today. Meanwhile MT. Vernon has been at 68% capacity for well over 7 years and boundaries have not been modified to resolve this.
6. The Silverbrook community is within a justified distance to attend SC as well as the future MS.
7. FCPS has a criteria for boundaries that should be followed and has not. This includes using major highways, etc. as boundaries for schools.
8. BRAC will have an impact on area schools which will most certainly include LBSS, WSHS and SCSS. This will be in the future, not now.
9. 2300 empty seats in the east includes: Lee, Edison, Hayfield, West Po, Mt. Vernon, Sandburg and Whitman. This will continue for 7+ years and on if nothing is done in the east to change boundaries.
10. Southern Lorton is full of new homes, town homes, 2 new town centers, etc. It has and is revitalized. What is with the wrong side of the tracks statement? Just don't see it and all those moving there don't either. A sad remark for those investing in homes there.
11. EDA BONDS did not build SCSS.
11:21 your statements are incorrect and opinionated. If you want to write something worthwhile please be factual. Tempted to leave my name but why bother...
12:08 Did you take a little nasty pill today? Don't see the love on Valentine's Day from you.
Such a shame. You have so much nastiness pent up inside you. Where do you live so we can send you a little something to cheer you up?
For the record. South Run Oaks is a vital part of the Silverbrook community. Sangster has a balance of only 3-4 empty classrooms. With the building of LHES, Silverbrook, a school that is about a mile from South Run Oaks will be well under capacity in 2 years. Why would anyone be sent to Sangster with only a 3-4 room balance?
Sangster should be part of the LHES boundary study along with Halley, Lorton Station, NF, and Gunston to help balance utilization in the region. Those students that get to go to Sangster should go to LBSS.
12:09 - Where did you get empty seats at Lee and Edison? Those schools were way over capacity and needed relief at the first SCSS boundary study. They are still going through their phase-out. Lee, in two years time, at the end of the phase-out will still be 50 kids over capacity, Edison will be at capacity. BRAC (EPG) is in the Lee school district, and that will put more stress on that school. Get your facts straight!
12:25 - You make too much sense. The school board can't handle it.
Sangster space is being reserved for the Orange Hunt overcapacity. They are in the same subdivision of Orange Hunt Estates. Since Halley and Silverbrook are both in Crosspointe, Halley should take some of the Silverbrook overcapacity. Then ALL of Silverbrook can go to Lake Braddock.
There are tons of kids who are in the current LB boundaries that live significantly further away from LB as compared to North Silverbrook or Newington Forest.
Why is OK to split LHES???
Well, let's look at the fact it is split now due to LS's wishes in 2005.
Now no one to my knowledge has acknowledged it was OK to send Lorton Valley to Hayfield. All can see the issue appears to be unfair.
Busses from Mason Neck and other areas east will pass Lorton Valley on their way to SC while LV travels to Hayfield. Gives one a moment to wonder and question.
I live in Lorton Valley, a little love coming this way is much needed. As far as Sangster fine stay at Silverbrook just go to LBSS. Why is my community being targeted to leave when other communities could relieve SCSS much more effectively then Lorton Valley. Oh and I am sure Silverbrook would do fine without South Run Oaks, this idea of a "vital part" is a bunch of Hog wash design create simpathy. I guess your all are up there in rocking chairs on your front porches sipping lemonade waving to the milk man as he delivers door to door. This is Fairfax County not some Rockwell fantasy painting. Happy Valentines day, I am done, I need to get busy connecting with my kids new school. BTW, is some of the booster money going to come with our kids back to Hayfield. You know the money we also helped with to create good Stallion Programs. I bet noone thought about that. Bye, I am done with this blog.
For capacity information on Lee and Edison look at the CIP.
In 2011:
Edison 154 empty seats
Lee 179 empty seats
West Po 392 empty seats
Mt. Vernon 925 empty seats
Hayfield 781 empty seats
Sandburg 213 empty seats
Whitman 63 empty seats
They must do something to Whitman and Sandburg so that the HSs in the east can address the capacity situations. This may include building modifications to make a school a Secondary school if this is more efficient.
1209
- There is no FCPS policy that says it should use major hiways as boundaries. It mentions "barriers, natural or man made" and some have misinterpreted that to mean I-95 is a barrier. I-95 is not a barrier to the Lorton Station community as they easily drive under it to get to school.
You could just as easily use US1, Lorton Road, or even Silverbrook road as boundaries.
- While the Lorton Station and US1 area is full of new homes, it remains the region that both SCSS and HF get their share of FRL/ESOL students. Any change in the boundary in that area makes the imbalance between the two schools greater. Using I-95 just goes too far.
- The issue of Lake Braddock core capacities is a myth perpetrated by Rob. F&P will study the issue, but actually expects the capacity at LB might be LARGER than 4075, not smaller.
You might be better off using LB now than in the future. If you want to wait, fine. But don't think you can spout "2300 in the east" nonsense without being challenged.
Bitter person 12:30. You need to understand that those you denigrate have been helping you. Albeit not on a blog but in other ways.
Care to meet?
Combining the 2 boundaries adn creating South County Middle School and Hayfield High School would solve everybody's issue.
12:40 check the CIP and look at the what was sent out regarding core facilities by a certain school. You are off your mark on this one. I believe the person you spoke of does not speak of myths. Sounds like you know him personally, will be sure to mention to him you send your regards.
1230,
You make a good point on booster $. The Hayfield booster clubs sent $ to SCSS. This was the right thing to so as many of the families at SCSS were part of HF clubs. I suspect that SCSS will be just as grateful to Hayfield (and Lake Braddock two years from now) when we determine how many students are returning.
So who's a bigger liar, Rob or Liz?
1244
Can you be more specific about where to find information in the CIP? I don't find the word "Core" anywhere and when it discusses Lake Braddock it only mentions that the additional capacity could be used by South County.
Neither are liars. They really believe what they say.
I would love to hear the arguments if Dean and Gary come back and say they were wrong about LBSS capacity. What if they have MORE room then first thought. Be careful what you ask for.
Core capacity is currently being studied. It will take about 6 months to publicize the findings.
The CIP #s used by 12:38 are in the CIP data in the appendix area of the document.
And true always be careful what you ask for. One never knows.
12:56
It is takes quite a bit of courage to use other's names and leave your's as anonymous doesn't it?
from 11:21 to 12:09
Thank you for your editorial which twisted my statements. There is no getting around it that the potential areas for LB from Silverbrook are nice middle class developments.
Here is a convenient link on SC financing.
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dmb/archives/FY_2004/Citizen_Guide.pdf
excerpt on p 4
"School Debt Service $120.90 million
The FY 2004 transfer for School Debt Service is $120,896,733, an increase of $7,291,952 or 6.42 percent over the FY 2003
Revised Budget Plan. In FY 2004, the County has included bond sales of $130 million for new construction and school renewals.
Funding for Public School construction was $130 million a year in FY 2000, 2001 and 2002, and $136.4 million in FY 2003. The
Board of Supervisors agreed to increase the annual bonding level from $100 million to $130 million in FY 2000 and again in
FY 2001 contingent on FCPS paying the debt service from School Operating revenues. However, to help meet FCPS operating
needs, the Board of Supervisors agreed to fund this additional debt service in FY 2003. The $5.6 million cost is addressed in the
FY 2004 budget. The Board of Supervisors and the School Board also approved a proposal to accelerate the construction of the
South County High School by leveraging the proceeds from the sale and development of adjacent County-owned property in the
Laurel Hill area. As part of the proposal, the County will sell an adjacent site for development as a senior graduated care facility
and use the proceeds of $18.2 million to partially fund the construction of the high school. Construction funding will be provided
through a bond issue of the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority and secured through an Installment Purchase
Contract with the County. Debt Service payments are expected to begin in FY 2007. In addition, the Park Authority has agreed to
participate in the financing and will construct a golf course on adjacent park property. No appropriation is required in the FY 2004
Adopted Budget Plan for capital or operating expenditures as a result of this proposal."
Another link:
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dmb/advertised/FY2007/pdf/Volume2/debt_service.pdf
On p 326 one again sees the role of the EDA.
The Silverbrook people should get out every boundary map and look at school locations and attendance areas. LB wanted that addition and several citizens did not think it was necessary after analyzing CIP and statistical reports on enrollment. Given the unique access of those working on SC as well as Brady being on board, those people should have been screaming then. They knew that NW Silverbrook stuck out into LB's area. SC exists via public money and these people are in essence are asking for double capacity.
1:10
Oh you are baiting certain people to respond aren't you??? I will be sure to tell those people of your remarks...I am sure they will just shake their heads and go on with their day.
Liz and Rob, among others from Silverbrook, have become public figures. You don't see anyone from LS, MN, NF, H that personify the attitude of entitlement that is spearheaded by these 2 for the Crosspointe Crowd.
137, actually I have. I will not post the names, but many have become public figures for their community. Hayfield for example.
Neither of them stated "entitlement."
You have made them a public figure.
Don't believe they are getting the salary of a public figure. It appears you just want to use their previous civic activism for their communities and for SC in an negative manner. What have you done for your community beside use other people's names negatively?
Sad on such a day of love.
I think she choosed to use the term "earned the privilege" insead of "entitled".
It appears that the utilization of Lake Braddock is on hold for now. The issue is the specifics of where the line is drawn between Hayfield and South County.
It will be interesting to watch the maneuvering over the next two years to see how Crosspointe vs. Newington Forest to Lake Braddock discussion plays out.
Stop the bickering. Build the Middle School and in the meantime select Option 1. It's what's best for the SCSS kids and families. The kids at HF and LBSS would not be moved, so it wouldn't affect then negatively at all. It's the truth.
1:37 is from the "wrong side of the tracks" intellectually. What nonsense. You seem to have the sense of entitlement to denegrate anyone you wnat withoyut any supporting facts. Stop the nonsense please!
OK, 12:38 – Lets use the CIP numbers for the western part of the county, just like you did for the eastern part of the county.
West Springfield 89 empty seats
Lake Braddock 631 empty seats
Robinson 223 empty seats
Centreville 107 empty seats
Westfields 265 empty seats
Oakton 99 empty seats
South Lakes 798 empty seats
Herndon 355 empty seats
Marshall 53 empty seats
Mclean 60 empty seats
Falls Church 832 empty seats
Next time, give out all the information, not just the part that justifies your position. Here is the link to the document for anyone who would like to check it out. http://www.fcps.edu/fts/cipbook2008-2012.pdf
Option #1 is dead and buried. Drop it. There is a LONG list of negatives for all three attendance areas.
Even if you make the assumption that a Middle School is coming, we need to send some MS and HS kids to Hayfield.
Option 1 is dead and yes it would negatively impact HF and LBSS kids not to mention the kids being moved. I suppose HF and LBSS could segregate the future Stallions in their own Coral.
So let's talk 2:18
Robinson 223 empty seats? Not likely with 18 trailors quoted in the CIP.
WSHS has 10 trailers to handle their capacity
Annandale has 12 trailers
Oakton 11 trailers
Westfield 18
In some instances trailers become part of capacity such is the case of modulars which are at Robinson.
Westfield just received a new wing for $8 million + dollars.
The West will be having a boundary reconfiguration next year due to empty seats.
If the west is doing this due to the seats at South Lakes then why not the east? That is questions.
McLean, Marshall, Oakton do not have a significant # of empty seats to warrant any movement of students in their boundaries.
Falls Church, Hayfield, Mt. Vernon do at this specific time.
LBSS seats have yet to actually materialize.
My intention was to show the east had seats. If you want a total presentation on the county, then pay me.
, just got an 18+ room modular to handle an OC situation. Did they need that modular??
Westfield just got a $8 million wing to handle a 500+ OC situation
In an ah ah moment after hopping over to the CIP I realized Langley is getting an addition but shares extensive boundaries with Herndon and South Lakes.
modulars are not the same thing as bricks and mortar core capacity.
"LBSS seats have yet to actually materialize."
Looks like you just want to pick and choose the parts of the document you want to believe, and make excuses for the parts you don't like. BTW, you quoted Hayfield as having 781 empty seats and the CIP document says 521. That is less than Lake Braddock at 631. You believe the document or you don't. Make a choice, but don't pick and choose.
No one wants to go to South Lakes.
229,
You got caught spinning facts! That is what is great about this blog. When someone spins, they are immediately caught. Way to go 218.
Well next year Hayfield will have less then 300 empty seats so away goes the use Hayfield argument. Go ahead keep harping on Mount Vernon and try as hard as you may to move MN and Lorton Station to Mount Vernon. It won't happen your just wasting your time. If you don't get that middle school it will be time to gear up for send Newington Forest to LBSS, they don't do anything to help with SCSS.
I don't know what is in the Robinson trailers but I can definitely tell you that some schools have unused trailers on the CIP. They just sit there like old cars in a driveway. That happens when population goes down or they get a modular. Robinson might use some or all of them since it has IB and runs double progrmas. Those IB highr level classes can have very small enrollment. Huge per pupil costs.
Some schools with trailers atually use them beause they have chsen to have other stuff in rooms. Then there are schools with open flex space that is as big as a gym. I'm sure you have all read about the DC schools without heat and such is the case in some old FCPS school classrooms.
The problem with ths discussion is that info on buildings for LB, Hayfield, and SC is accurate. The older schools are where it gets confusing.
Maybe I missed it, but Woodson will be over capacity along with its middle school, Frost. Look at the CIP, both will be 1.18 or above. Robinson H/M will be at high 90% for the next 5 years. West Springfield looks pretty near capacity too. It seems the school to the west could use some help, don’t you think.
I forsee a boundary study between HF and MV in the near future. That way we can push HF kids to MV and free up more space at HF. MV is a good school and the HF kids would be "lucky" to go there just like the SCSS kids would be lucky to go to LB. MV has tons of space and the displaced HF kids would be "king of the hill". No competition for sports or academic teams. Think of all the new friends they would make by being moved.
Woodson has Falls Church just to the north of it with 826 empty seats. Woodson is only 198 over, so that is easily fixed. That leaves 854 empty seats at Robinson and Lake Braddock. If Hayfield takes some students next year, then students on the west side of SCSS could easily go to schools in the west where there is a lot of extra capacity. Look at the document, there are only 4 high/secondary schools in the county over capacity, one is Madison by only 20, the other is Chantilly by only 2! The other two, Woodson and South County need relief, but this can be easily solved by using Hayfield in the east and Lake Braddock in the west.
300 MV-HF study,
I think that you are trying to bait this one. I shouldn't but I feel I must comment. .......
Ft. Belvoir, the Coast Guard Station, and Huntley Meadows Park provide a formidable barrier to that sort of movement. There really isn't an Elementary School boundary that could be moved from HF to MV. A few years ago the board moved Ft. Belvoir ES (then there were three of them) from Hayfield to MV and that worked fine, but ... it would get very silly moving Hayfield ES students to MV.
2:33
Add those HS seats and MS.
Last I saw Hayfield was a secondary school
Sorry 3:35, I was going off the HS numbers. So I better do the same for Lake Braddock. Add in the middle school capacity from the CIP and that puts Lake Braddock at 753 empty seats and Hayfield at 781 empty seats.
Also, 3:35 - if I add in the MS excess capacity at Robinson using CIP numbers, the combined excess capacity at Robinson and Lake Braddock totals 1,071 empty seats. Sorry for the mistake, glad you picked it up.
Again, you are so quick with those projections and we know projections can be so wrong, don't we??
Sorry, but you were the one who started quoting the CIP. Now it look like you don't like the CIP numbers as much as you thought you did.
Ok if you feel projections are wrong then next year after Hayfield gets students from the Staff projections are you also going to ignore further projections for Hayfield or are you going to harp on "actual seats" at Hayfield in 2007/2008?
I meant staff recommendation
Is anyone concerned that the staff recomendation will create a nightmare for the Administrative staff? Hayfield will have kids feeding from Gunston, Lorton Station, Halley, Island Creek, Hayfield, Lane, Rose Hill, and eventually Laurel Hills - four of the six are split feeders. Did I miss any? Is that crazy or what?
Four of the Seven ...
I thought the bloggers on this blog liked split feeder schools, especially when they want to split up Silverbrook ES.
Actually, I think 5 are split-feeders. Gunston, Lorton Station, Halley, Lane and Rose Hill. Then Laurel Hills could be a split-feeder too, making it 6 of 8.
Silverbrook is way over capacity, it needs to be split up. The portion of Silverbrook that should go to Lake Braddock, should also attend Sangster Elementary.
No one likes split feeders. Splitting Elementary Schools is not a terrible crisis, but it should be avoided where possible. The board is looking at proposed LHES boundaries now for a reason. If you take the LHES Option #3 we could send all of the future Lorton Station to HF and all of the future SB to LB.
I have no expectations that the board will use LB this go round, but they might in phase II. The ES boundaries will come into play as they look to avoid split feeders.
Sangster does not have enough room to send all of the kids through there that LB needs.
What's the difference between sending Newington Forest to LB vs. splitting Silverbrook? It seems as if that would be more logical.
Maybe they should just close South County and turn it into a community center and send the kids to LBSS and Robinson.
There are only 1,071 empty seats at Lake Braddock and Robinson, not enough for SCSS. However, by using Hayfield and Lake Braddock, SCSS overcrowding could be solved. The CIP shows an overall excess capacity in the county, which does not justify a new middle school.
Fixing the Gunstin slit feeder is easy. MN to HF where they should have stayed during the last boundary discussion. Silverbrook should not be split, nor should any additonal splits be created. Option 1 is still the best for the SCSS kids.
What is that big groan I hear? Did someone mention option 1?
3:15 just like its silly moving any SB kids to LB. Just doesn't make any sense. . I appreciate your honesty. Thanks for making my point.
Send North Silverbrook. Send Newington Forest. Just send somebody to LB so South County can get below 113%!
The school board never said not to use Lake Braddock, just wait and see what the capacity # will be in a few years.
The problem is the east wants Silverbrook moved to Lake Braddock now, because the east side has to move to Hayfield. And they think the school board will not use Lake Braddock later. So Silverbrook will stay at SCSS.
If the student population drops at Lake Braddock, then the school board should and will use Lake Braddock to help the OC at SCSS. Then they must choose bewtween Silverbrook or Newington Forest. The capacity is not at Lake Braddock at this time, we need to wait. And yes the school board will use that school if it has capacity.
5:50 Let's send you to LB, shall we?
I agree, Send 5:50, his kids, and everyone in his neighborhood to LB. He seems to love it there. Who's next to volunteer.
Why don't you think 5:50 isn't someone from Silverbrook who wants the kids of the neighborhood to be redistricted to a school with a proven academic track record, excellent college prep and matriculatioion, and great athletic teams?
If 5:50 is from SB then go ahead go to LB. If that person is from another area then go ahead and go. It seems many on this blog prefer LB. It is talked about in almost every blog statement at nauseum. Go if you like it so much, those from Hayfield who speak about it so openly, you too, go ahead and go. Your commute will be close to that of Silverbrook's and hey you will be going against traffic. You might even get there faster.
Lorton Station, you are so concerned about demographics and diversity and what it adds to a school, well you too go, go to LB and spead the diversity you are so concerned about and also speak so openly about. It doesn't seem to matter with respect to your own arguments how close a community is to a school. So take a load off, enjoy the ride and go to LB.
Ridiculous don't you think? That is how Silverbrook feels about the accusations in this blog and suggestions for a split of Silverbrook to LB.
People who are to remain in SC according to the SB under any option don't care if it's NF or NoSil that gets redistricted. 113% overcapacity is just too much for South County or any other FCPS school when there are surplus seats at an adjacent school.
We do not know what the ES boundaries will be in two years. Any argument based on current ES
boundaries is a waste of time. Stop the argument on splitting SB unless you want to talk splits in the east.
Split feeding Elementary schools does put an increased burden on admin staff, but it is not a crisis. If we really care about split feeding Elementary schools we need to delay this decision until the LHES boundary process is ongoing.
That is exactly what we are doing on the SC-LB border, but we seem to ignore the issue on the SC-HF border. Gunston is a natural split, but Lorton Station, Halley, and LHES do not need to split between HF and SC. The staff reccomendation splits them all.
732,
FRL population doesn't add to a school, it creates a burden. Clubs and booster organizations take on an obligation to help out their students with financial difficulty. This is the right thing to do, but it is a burden that the non-FRL population picks up.
This burden needs to be shared across schools where possible. Pushing out LS puts a larger burden on HF and decreases the burden on SC. Shame on you.
Boosters don't pay for FR&L, federal and state funding does.
7:45 I don't see the natural plit at Gunston. Not when Mason Neck residents drive through a Hayfield boundary (Mason's Passage and areas around Colchester Rd. to get to SCSS.) I don't see that as a "natural" split. I see that as pulling a fast one on the silent part of their community.
7:50 per you suggestion what population do you want at Hayfield? What community do you want to assit with your empty seats? You want to pick and choose?
They have no shame. They want what they want and be damned to the rest of em.
Gunston has no natural split. Reunite Gunston at HF for the sake their kids. No matter how hard the SB haters try, they are not going to split SB. The capacity is not at LB yet, and probably never will to accomodate all of SB.
It’s funny how all the communities wanted the school board to wait and delay this boundary change knowing that it would keep South County well over 113%. Lorton Valley even has on its web page to write to the school board and tell them “no change is the best option” Hayfield has even come out and said “tell the school board to delay this process”. But now when the school board will choose to move some students to Hayfield and wait to see what the true capacity will be at Lake Braddock, many are now saying “113% overcapacity is just too much for South County”. It seems many want to OC Lake Braddock too at this time, just for spite. The school board needs to send some students back to Hayfield at this time for many reasons. For example, South County is over capacity and needs some help now and Hayfield had too many students removed from that school the 1st boundary study. They need students; it will be a good thing for that school. Hayfield is a great school; this move of students to their school will only make it better. The school board will take advantage of Lake Braddock when the student population drops. For now, moving students out of South County in two phases is the best option. One school has capacity now, and needs students and the other will have capacity later. When and if Lake Braddock has capacity, the school board will choose between Newington Forest and Silverbrook. It’s not just a move of Silverbrook; Newington Forest may also be moved. So stop trying to move Silverbrook to Lake Braddock just out of spite, it’s not good for any of the schools.
One more thing, Hayfield and Lake Braddock are great schools. When the communities are moved to the schools they will be happy. It is hard now because all communities are attached to South County and like that school, but all will adapt and will be happy once in they are in the new schools.
The End.
Well said.
I agree
507
I would still like to have a delay, but that does not appear possible. The OC as SC is just too much. No one has ever advocated that we should OC LB. LB and HF are BOTH PROJECTED to have 750-800 empty seats in 2011. Both schools should receive 400-450 SC students to relieve the OC. If you don't believe the projections then don't use either school. Let's wait and see. If you do believe them then let's have a plan to use the seats in both schools.
842
Government funding does not cover all of the costs of educating students, particuarly extra curricular. Parents (and boosters) pick up the slack. Every booster org I have been a part of works to help families that cannot pay this additional costs.
The families down on the Mason Neck are certainly geographically separated from the rest of the families at Gunston ES. jeeesh, you can't really argue that one. Make another argument on why not to split, but not that one. It makes you sound stupid.
Picking and choosing communities is dangerous and should not be done by either SC or HF communities. However, F&P and the board need to look very closely at the demographics and attempt to balance them as much as possible. It is impossible to achieve perfect balance, but they can minimize the imbalance.
5:07 -- fair enough assessment, IF you believe the school board will indeed move SCSS students to LBSS in a later phase. I've never argued against Hayfield getting more students back, and the only reason I've advocated for a portion of SB (or NF as you suggest) to be moved from SCSS to LBSS is -- again -- I don't trust the school board to act on this in the future. I wish I shared your confidence in their ability to act rationally in this or any other FCPS boundary study...
8:06
#1 Booster clubs help reduce costs for sports programs, etc. and also assist with certain needs of the school per FCPS. Gov. and State funding does pay for F&R lunch per your original statement.
The $$ Booster Clubs are able to raise are discretionary to an extent and expenditures depend upon the PTSA and Principal.
However, you somewhat allude that certain populations are needed to rasie this $$$ and as such you are suggesting FCPS gerrymander the boundary for such funds. I would hope the day of gerrymandering boundaries is over. This does very little with respect to building a community school and causes hardships on all.
#2 The Gunston Boundary certainly does split the community and the bus for SCSS does go through the Hayfield boundary. This split was unnatural, done as an amendment to the orginal boundary. It was done on the "quick." It is a split of their ES and the Gunston community.
#3 Your last statement is farily solid. However there will never be a perfect balance of socio-ecomomic students at any schools unless you want to bus students. I don't think anyone would agree to that possible situation.
While the board had the goal of balancing population and FRL/ESOL percentages it will not meet either goal in this study. It was impossible to achieve both anyway. We could have done better using LB, but maybe that will come in a couple of years.
HF had a higher percentage of FRL/ESOL than SC before this study and after this study HF will increase the number and percentage of FRL/ESOL and SC will go down. Without some real crazy gerrymandering this was inevitable.
The staff reccomendation is fine, as it minimizes the impact. But I expect there are those working amendments that are dangerous.
I know that it is uncomfortable to discuss, but you cannot trade Lorton Valley for Hagel Circle.
VSM-
Why do you prefer SB to LBSS over NF?
You are correct it is uncomfortable to discuss. All residents should be discussing the options and how it effects them, etc.
Lorton Valley is however, 1.1 miles from SC. For them not to go to SC would be blatantly absurd, wrong and a total effort at gerrymandering.
No one has suggested a trade. But if 156 students come back into SC then somewhere 156 need to go out. Busses are passing Lorton Valley on their way to SC from elsewhere east. This should not be.
Review the other additional Options and surely one must come close to appeasing the majority.
The decision of SB or NF to LB should be based on the future ES boundaries, not the current ones.
916,
If they can make room to keep all of Silverbrook at SCSS they can make room for Lorton Valley's 156 kids. Just leave a couple of more trailers. Option #6 works for now.
VSOM,
Thank you for your comments and your honesty.
I do not trust the school board, but I think the communities will make sure they do the right thing. I do feel LBSS will be near/over capacity if students are moved to that school next year or a few years after that. I know it has been said, just move the students next year and they can live with the OC for a few years But I believe if the students are moved from SCSS now, then they will be in an OC Lake Braddock for the entire time they are at that school. Maybe some don’t feel 98 to 99 in bad, but I don’t think it is good for the school. They still do not know what other students will be going back to LBSS when the reno is finished. Any additional students could over crowd that school. Hayfield would like to keep a 10% buffer, why can’t Lake Braddock have the same buffer. Lake Braddock will be at 93% next year, w/o any students. They will be at 90+ the following year. I think the school board should wait until the LHES boundary study and see what happens to LBSS. I still do not understand why so many feel splitting Silverbrook is a good thing. I am not a bad person, honest! The next boundary process will be between Silverbrook and Newington Forest. Not just Silverbrook.
Splitting Silverbrook is not a good thing and should be avoided if possible. Splitting Halley, Lorton Station, Gunston and LHES is bad as well.
I just have a feeling that in two years when South County continues to be overcrowded that a push will come move more to Hayfield from the East side of 95. I wish we could have an amendment or some statement from the board that after this study Hayfield will not be revisted for future alignment. I would like to hear a statement from the leading folks in the Silverbrook and Newington Forest communities annouce that Hayfield has done their share of relieving South County as much as reasonably possible and we no longer will look to our former school for help in relieving South County any further. That would be nice.
I agree! SB parent.
The School Board elections should prove interesting. I have read that Ramona Morrow, FCCPTA/Sangster/Lake Braddock intends to run for the Springfield seat. I read awhile ago that Liz Bradsher was running - perhaps this will be at-large. Considering the LB position in this boundary change I guess SC MS is a done deal. The current board seems to take this approach.
I think the MS is far from a done deal. Tom Davis et all will have to find a way to get a free school built because I don't think the School system could possibly justify spending money they really don't have.
Especially when there is so much empty space in the west.
9:16, despite some of my more emotional outbreaks in past weeks (for which I've apologized), I don't necessarily mean to target and single out part of Silverbrook over Newington Forest to move to LBSS or vice versa. What I've meant to push for is for some SCSS students to return to both Hayfield and to LBSS during this study, if it was reasonably possible to maintain expansion buffers at HSS and LBSS based on current and projected numbers. 5:07 is floating the possibility of the school board considering the movement of a portion of Silverbrook or Newington Forest (couple years down the line) to LBSS. 5:07's proposed plan of action works IF the school board does act to move some SCSS kids to LBSS within the next few years.
9:19 and 9:35 both make a very good point, too, about basing any SCSS student movement on future ES boundaries and not current ones. But Laurel Hill's boundaries won't be decided for what, another year or two? I know SCSS wants some relief now, and as a Hayfielder, I can empathize. Truth be told, 9:48 -- I abhor split feeders. In fact, I argued against creating any new split feeders in the 2003 SCSS boundary study. But is it possible NOT to create new ones in this or future SCSS boundary studies without relieving overcrowding? How possible is it to get the MS built in the same way SCSS was built with a public-private partnership? Is that or has that been in the works, or is that kind of arrangement off the table this time?
10:06, in a couple years' time, we will hopefully be closer to knowing what kind of impact BRAC will have on our communities and schools, and hopefully have better projections on student pops at HSS, SCSS and LBSS. It would indeed be a nice gesture for a contingency of SCSS parents to make a future statement that Hayfield has done its part in THIS study to help alleviate overcrowding at SCSS. If nothing else good comes out of this current study, I've at least spoken to a bunch of SCSS parents who worked to make HSS a good place when they were there despite the overcrowding, and I've learned NOT to put all current SCSS/former HSS parents in the same box as the few bad apples who made disparaging remarks about HSS during the last boundary study.
Finally -- thanks very much, 9:35, and to all other commenters this morning for discussing and debating all of this in a neighborly manner. THIS, truly, is the kind of environment I want to maintain on FB 2.0.
This blog is a wonderful opportunity to continue to debate and discuss the challenges -- and opportunities -- that we face in the growth of the southern fairfax county community (notice that I didn't say South County). One problem as I hope that we can all agree is that the SCSS was designed as a high school with a program capacity of 2500 students (unlike the other three secondary schools that each have capacities hovering around 4000 students -- 2 of which have been recently renovated at significant expense).
When you consider that there is no middle school south of the Fairfax County Parkway until you get to Librty MS which is located north of Pope's Head Road (NW of Clifton), you begin to see why parents are clamoring for a MS in this part of the County. Why some parents like me would prefer that the SB redirect the planned $25M for the 'Laurel Hill' ES to instead be spent on a new grades 6-8 South County middle school is to address the comprehensive needs of this community. If you built a large 6-8 middle school that could service all five ES feeder schools (Gunston, Lorton Station, Silverbrook, Newington Forest, and Halley) to SCSS, then you would alleviate the serious overcrowding problems that Silverbrook and Lorton Station ES currently have through a slight realignment between all 5 of those schools. Admittedly, those 5 schools would be at capacity but you would be able to eliminate all of the split feeders, allow for growth that will occur around LBSS and Hayfield, and perhpas most importantly, give these kids a chance to have a school pyramid that is balanced and preserves their collective sense of community.
Looking at the CIP, the numbers work IF you built a large middle school (probably upwards of 1800 students) but again, that size reflects the successful revitalization of Lorton more than anything else (which includes the Laurel Hill, Lorton Valley, and Lorton Station communities). To deny any of these students -- old or new, east or west, white or black -- to embrace this SCSS pyramid as their own is a travesty that I hope the SB will avoid by substituting the middle school for the elementary school on this fall's bond issue and the CIP.
The truth is that if there is capacity in the FCPS as a whole than a county-wide boundary study needs to be done to rebalance the whole system but I don't think we will ever see that barring a revolution on the SB.
Amen, 11:51 -- I've felt like a lone voice in the wilderness for several years now calling for a COUNTY-WIDE boundary rebalancing and/or redistricting. But as you imply, that will certainly require resourcefulness and courage on the part of the current (or future) school board...
I don't think building a 6-8 MS with capacity of 1800+ students is very harmful for 6th graders. These kids need the one maturing more year of elementary school nurturing before heading off to middle school and all the socialization issues that come with it. I much prefer that my children remain in a 6th grade ES split-feeder than to go to a 6-8 grade middle school.
Correction: I DO think a 6-8 MS is detrimental to 6th graders well-being.
I have asked about that idea of a 6-8 middle school of board members and was told an additional 40 million on top of what is budgeted would be needed to do something like that. That size middle school seems extreme and would be a first. I just do not think it has chance of possibility, althought I like the thinking outside the box.
The national trend and recommendation of educational policymakers is toward 6-8 middle schools and I believe that Dr. Dale has spoken in favor of that as well. Given the adolescent issues that 11/12-year old children have, I think it is better to have the 11-15 year-olds mix than to have children as old as 12 sharing a school that has children as young as 5, don't you?
Correction: 8th grade students are traditionally 13/14. Major correction, actually!
No, I think it's much better for the 6th graders and their parents to be dealing with adolescent issues (body development, awakening interest in the opposite sex, etc) in a elementary setting where there is less freedom for students. You don't have to fight the hallway crowds, etc.
Whose school puts their kindergarten classes next to the 6th grade classes? Whose school has the K-1s eating lunch/ having recess with the 6th graders? Elementary passing periods going from classrooms to the specials (music, art, PE) aren't for the entire school at the same time.
Take a look at the scores of the middle schools of FCPS. The ones that are 6-8 have terrible scores compared to the 7-8.
1:11
I would agree, although I have not done the research into it. It does seem like at some point between 10 and 12 years old the kids make a jump in attitude and physical maturity missing in kids younger then 10, so I would not think it would be a problem for the 6th graders to be with 8th graders. I believe in Falls Church, they have such over crowding problems in Elementary schools that 5th graders are over at the middle school, but I don't think that is anything they wanted to do. As far as the size though I think that is big. I wonder, given the location of LHES across the street from South County, I wonder if they could work out some type of sharing of the two buildings. Maybe open LHES for rising 4th,5th and 6th graders and allow the 7th and 8th graders share a dedicated portion of LHES and SCSS. They could build a pedestrian bridge or tunnel over Silverbrook.
To add to my 1:22 statement, I have not seen the plans for the new LHES but I assume like other ES it will have two floors. Like Hayfield ES they have the 4th, 5th and 6th grade on the second floor.
You could dedicate the 2nd floor for 7th and 8th grade and leave 5th and 6th grade on the 1st level. Obviously this would split the elementary schools or at least some between 4th and 5th grade.
There is DEFINITELY a jump in attitude somewhere between 10 and 12, judging from my experience of living with an 11-going-on-12 year old boy. I love to look him square in the eye and ask, "Who are you and what have you done with my son??"
LoL
I am one year behing you on my boys
I think 6th grade children are too young to catch the school bus so early in the morning. I know SCSS students start later due to the staggered schedule, but I think this would change with a middle school.
No matter if it serves grades 7-8 or a 6-8, it is fiscally irresponsible to build another school when there are empty seats at Hayfield AND Lake Braddock.
So, VSOM, does that mean you are not in favor of having 11/12 year old kids hanging out with kids who are 13/14? I have a daughter who is 11 now and would like to see her model good behavior from older students rather than have her regress into her younger self. I suppose that once she starts dating I will feel differently but I don't see her maturing as much as she needs to given the students that she rides the bus with, etc.
Yes, 1:45, but how do we get the school board to use the available space? A county-wide boundary study is needed so we can make better use of the empty seats throughout the county. Only two schools in the whole county need relief, SCSS and Woodson. The SB needs to solve this by using the available space.
1:48 Are you for real? You want your daughter to model her behavior from teenagers?
The SB will never agree to a county-wide boundary study. Steve Hunt told me that none of the SB would ever would have a shot of re-election if a countywide was done, because voters from all over the county would be angry vs. just voters from one section of the county.
How does Woodson affect the ugly overcrowding situation at SC? Silverbrook needs to stop dragging in other communities that are not in this study.
Note that I said "model good behavior" for a reason. I know that there are a lot of bad apples out there but I can't cocoon her forever. That's where good parenting comes into play so that we can teach her right from wrong.
Woodson does not affect SC. Woodson could be solved by using Falls Church. SCSS could be solved by using Hayfield and Lake Braddock. I am glad to hear that Steve Hunt admits this is all about being re-elected. That is why we are only seeing Hayfield being used and not Lake Braddock. I hope this whole school board get voted out next election.
Lorton Station is way over capacity, Silverbrook is way over capacity, Gunston is over and can't go any farther, and Halley and NF are pretty full. We need relief in K-6 and need Laurel Hills to be an Elementary School, not 6-8. Taking all of the 6th graders out (and the restructuring of ES boundaries) will not create enough space regardless of whether it is good for them or not.
Also, it creates a huge mess with the split feeder Elementary schools. Where would the 6th graders that will go to Hayfield from Gunston, Lorton Station, and Halley go to school?
I think that 6-8 would be fine, but it is a not a good solution to the OC at SCSS.
I'm actually on the fence, 1:48. I wouldn't have a problem with my currently 6th grade son kibbutzing with 13-14 year olds because (despite his occasional attitude), I trust him to stick to his moral guns. Hayfield ES's 6th grade team (an EXCELLENT team, I might add) has prepped the kids well so far this year for the MS environment by revolving them around to a different teacher for different subjects.
In fact, I REALLY look forward to my son crossing the street to HSS where he can make new friends from other HSS feeders. Sports has helped with "widening his horizons," but beyond that, I can see the merits of moving someone his age beyond the rather insular environment of the primary grades. (I say this with some level of confidence, as HSS keeps the MS and HS kids mostly separated!)
Halley is not overcrowded. For the split fed schools the 6th graders would remain at there ES while the kids in the LHMS boundry would move on. I didn't say it was perfect.
2:10: The proposal to create a 6-8 MS at Laurel HIll eliminates all of the split feeders for the South County pyramid so that all 5 elementary schools (Gunston, Lorton Station, Silverbrook, Newington Forest, and Halley) can attend a South County MS and HS. If you look at the CIP, the numbers work for relieving the overcrowding of the elementary school IF they agree to build a MS that would be designed for about 1800 students. It would be bigger than the MS components of existing secondary schools, but not outrageously so.
ok, 6-8 might work, but it would take come creative bus scheduling and other efforts. I just think the need for K-6 is too great right now. The area is long overdue for another Elementary School.
We (FCPS) can use the space at LB and HF to relieve the pressure off of SCSS until the MS is built in 2015 (or whenever).
btw, The Hayfield max capacity is 3225 (1100 MS and 2125 HS), not 4000 as someone mentioned earlier. SC will need a 7-8 MS that holds @ 1200-1300.
If they did a county-wide boundary study I'm not sure how angry all voters would be. If voters were given a range of savings on their tax rate from cleaning up boundaries and programs many would be very happy. we all can look at boundary maps and the CIp and know who would be ticked. One issue that is near and dear to the hearts of parents is start times. If boundary situations and grandfathering as well as gt double capcity and bssing were cutetc etc FCPS should be able to improve the quality of life for students. They could put the whole thing on the shoulders of consultants.
2:41 - Are you saying all split feeders would be eliminated from the SCSS pyramid? That would mean the portions of Gunston and Lorton Station elementary schools currently attending Hayfield would go to SCSS.
There is no need for a middle school until 2015. Until then use the undercapacity availability at H & LB.
Yes, all 5 ES would be part of SCSS so no more split feeders to Hayfield. I can't say that I agree that the area is "long overdue for another ES" since Lorton Station ES opened only a few years ago. Now, let's see when the last middle school opened in this area. If you guessed never, you're right.
Don't kid yourselves, once east-of-95 neighborhoods are redistricted OUT of SC, the Silverbrook folks will never allow them back in even if a middle school is built.
337,
I thought that a middle school opened in 2003 as part of South Sounty Secondary School. It is a pretty good one from what I hear.
The building design was for a High School, but it was modified and staffed as a Secondary School.
3:43...that's the point, which is why we who live east of 95 don't want to be set up for what will be the permanent segregation of the Lorton community. Folks can use all of the euphenisms that they want but this has less to do about who should go to SCSS than who shouldn't. There are 'those people' who apparently don't belong in the SCSS and the fact that 'those people' are closer to Hayfield than anyone else (even though it's a factor of 4 in some cases by distance and by 8 in travel time) isn't -- or shouldn't -- be the overriding factor in setting the boundary. How about fairness to a community that has been overlooked since the prison was closed. We are the ones who have lived with the Lorton stigma for all of these years and now we are supposed to accept a proposal that would shuttle us away from a school that is closer to us than most of the students that attend from the west side? Hayfield is a great school...but it's not our community school. SCSS is. We provide the diversity. We provide the heritage. And WE are the ones that have had to live with the fact that no one wanted to live here for close to a century until Congress (not SB parents) did the right thing and closed the prison and made all of this possible. Carving out the people who lived here -- the foundation of this community -- is grossly unfair and borders on ourtight discrimination.
This is about South Lakes and Oakton but could be descriptive of South County as well.
From the Times Community Newspapers:
Parents fear redistricting
By: Claire Compton
01/23/2007
Nearly 300 residents packed Fox Mill Elementary School the night of Jan. 17 to meet with Fairfax County school officials about possible high school boundary changes.
An audience of nearly 300 packed the cafeteria of Fox Mill Elementary School the night of Jan. 17 to meet with Fairfax County school officials about possible high school boundary changes that could affect the Fox Mill community.
Fox Mill Elementary School's PTA invited county staff to address concerns that neighborhoods would be redistricted from Oakton to South Lakes High School.
School Board members Stuart Gibson (Hunter Mill) and Vice Chairman Kathy Smith (Sully) and Cluster VIII Assistant Superintendent Betsy Goodman attended the meeting.
Fox Mill PTA president Rona Ackerman said she helped organize the meeting so parents could understand the redistricting process.
Advertisement
"We knew [redistricting] was happening, and we wanted to get more correct information for parents," she said. "There is a lot of concern about South Lakes."
Indeed, many audience members expressed apprehension that their children would be going to the Reston high school.
Local residents created and distributed a flier highlighting the differences between Oakton and South Lakes in areas such as safety statistics and SOL test scores. The numbers cited were from the most current years that appeared on Fairfax County Public Schools' Web site; for test scores, that was 2005-06, and safety numbers were from 2004-05.
Gibson said his intent was not to speak about South Lakes but was prompted to address the flier.
"Be careful what you say about someone's school. Because there are people in this room whose children go to that school," he said.
The School Board, which has the authority to determine school attendance areas, has not formally begun the redistricting process.
Speculation over redistricting the area has grown in communities over the past year because of capacity issues in several Fairfax County high schools, Gibson said.
South Lakes and Oakton are both currently under capacity and, in a study commissioned by the county, are projected to remain so for the next five years. Gibson cautioned against speculation before the School Board has even begun the redistricting process.
"We have not finalized which high schools will be involved," he said.
Gibson said the process to determine what boundaries will change will begin in November. After a series of community meetings, the board will vote in either February or March 2008, and changes would take effect that fall for the 2008-09 school year.
"We are committed to having an open process that involves the community in these discussions," Gibson said.
Joachim Ramsey, whose wife, Maryclaire, created the flier, said many of his neighbors are fearful that their children will be sent to South Lakes. The Ramseys have four children, two of whom are currently at Oakton.
"Our first and foremost concern is safety," Ramsey said.
The Ramseys, with other neighbors, have created keepoakton.org, a Web site that opposes redistricting the area. Several audience members said they were motivated to move where they did because of the school district.
"South Lakes clearly has a perception problem. I moved into my community because my kids would be going to Oakton High School," said one man at the meeting.
Gibson said that, though perception was a problem, there was a lot of misinformation about South Lakes. Gibson pointed out that his two daughters graduated from South Lakes.
"The notion of perception, in some respects, comes from a lack of knowledge about what's going on," he said, a statement that was met by loud boos from the audience.
Parents also showed concern over the difference between South Lakes' International Baccalaureate program and Oakton's Advanced Placement program. Both programs offer students the chance to earn college credit.
Gibson said he was disappointed by the concern over South Lakes.
"It breaks my heart to hear parents who simply run down the school," Gibson said. "I think all of our schools have something special to offer."
307, I think Fairfax County is way overdue for a county wide boundary study. Many communities would get very angry, but I think a county wide boundary change would be good overall. I think I read on this blog, school board members agree we need a county wide study but they are scared because they won’t get re-elected, too bad. They should do it anyway. The boundaries are so messed up now.
343, the east of I95 would be back at South County if and when the Middle school is built. I would hope if Newington Forest or Silverbrook is sent to Lake Braddock, they would also be able to return. I don’t think Silverbrook has that much power to keep out certain communities. The school board would not allow it.
3:54
Are you saying your are entitled to go to SC just because you are a native of the area?
Are you saying your are entitled to go to SC because you lived with a self-imposed stigma?
Are you saying you are entitled because you believe you provide the only diversity when other areas have diversity as well?
Are you saying your are entitled because you have a perception that others are less deserving?
Are you saying you are entitled because Congress closed Lorton and there was not a community and county push to make that happen.
Hey are you talking entitlement here?
Silverbrook does have the power. In the original SC studies 2 years ago, several F&P options were presented in which they were slated to attend LB. Obviousl a little muscle was flexed as they are still at SC.
413, Silverbrook again. What do you want? Do you want all of Silverbrook out of South County? Why do you dislike Silverbrook, please tell me I want to understand.
3:43 stop mentioning Silverbrook as the root of your problems. Ypur comments are petty and misinformed. SB is just another SCSS feeder elementary. No more, no less.
1/2 of Silverbrook can go or all of NF can go. SC must be kept to manageable levels. The SB can decide who should be redistricted to LB.
403,
The article was interesting, but at least our study involves schools that everyone general likes. The families that don't want to go to LB and HF are not concerned about the quality of LB and HF, they just don't want to travel that far when a school is nearby.
HF had problems when it was way OC and undergoing renovations at the same time, but it is fantastic now.
424, that was a cheep shot at Silverbrook.
VSOM, well I thought this blog was getting better and then someone like 424 says something like that. I guess that is why Silverbrook is so upset. Good luck with the blog, I think I am finished with it.
This is way too much fun. Does this have to end on 22 Feb or can we delay the decision and fight over this another year or two?
4:24 Just sunk your blog. This will now go to a higher source and you can bet those with influence will let this be known in their own way.
The remark was disgusting.
Sorry, folks, have been in meetings. 4:24's comment was inappropriate and I have deleted it. I know there's plenty more where that came from -- that's why I sure would like to have help with this going forward.
Thank-you VSOM. Glad to see that post gone, and I am not a Silverbrook parent.
Hello (echo)
6 more days till the board votes.
I think we have all done our best. The board will move some kids to Hayfield. It appears it will be enough to help Hayfield and not too many to hurt it. SCSS will remain OC, but still manageable (marginally).
We will start over again in a year or two so don't destroy your notes and copies of slides.
Yes, it's been pretty quiet here the last 18 hours or so, but I attribute that to the really ugly and tasteless comment aimed at Silverbrook that someone left yesterday afternoon. I deleted it as soon as I could but it was still out there for a short while. Sorry.
Somewhere between work, coaching and other personal commitments in the coming weeks, the blog will get a facelift and a spring cleaning. I'm thinking that this issue won't go anytime soon for a number of us, and I intend to keep the blog going for now. I would appreciate receiving copies of ANY handouts, notes, etc. that folks are willing to share, and I will archive here somewhere. And again, I gladly welcome admin and/or moderator help, from folks in the western or eastern neighborhoods. Please consider...
Yes, the 4:24 post was a bad one, but it does not mean this blog has to shut down. Too much work to be done.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing." --Edmund Burke
I read it an didn't understand it. What was the connection between those people and SB? I guess I am not smart enough to be offended?
There is a large difference between doing something and doing the right thing. An anonymous blog is not the right mechanism nor forum for Hayfield parents to accomplish their goals and certainly does nothing to make the larger community better.
I question 3:03 as to who "evil" is in their eyes.
I for one was no more offended by the previous deleted post than I have been at the constant and mindless community and person bashing done anonymously.
There is a good reason why the Post shut their blog down after failed attempts to censure it.
3:47 - It has nothing to do with Hayfield. It is simply this. Someone posts a very nasty post against Silverbrook, then the blog shuts down. The fact that you would bring Hayfield into this says something about you.
3:30 -- there IS no connection, period. At best, yesterday's 4:24 comment was a cup of acid thrown in face of Silverbrook residents; at worst, it was offensive on many levels to readers just about anywhere in the world.
3:47 -- from your choice of tone and words, I think you and I might have traded words at some point in the past. I've apologized for my own past vitriol, and for letting the rest of the bashing go on unpoliced for weeks. I will be taking time in the coming days to edit/delete some of my own past comments, and other questionable ones that have been posted.
Comments are inherently problematic and there are several options to policing them here; first line of defense is comment moderation, but that takes time and I require help with that. A bit stronger is to require folks to type in the "secret word" in the window before posting, and the most stringent is to require folks to register with Blogger before posting. That last option does remove some of the anonymity that exists now. Of course, I can shut down commenting altogether. Maybe it's time to move from a blog BACK to a full-blow website again, and I'm weighing that decision too.
My intent is to turn FB 2.0 into an improved forum for debate/discussion for folks on both sides of I-95. I'm trying to turn the ship around but it will take a little time. I've never kept my goals nor Hayfield's a hidden agenda here, but this has grown beyond that now. It's clear that Hayfield parents share MANY goals with South County parents and Lake Braddock parents. I want this to be a better blog not just for Hayfield BUT for the larger community as well. I welcome your help, or anyone else who's willing to throw their hat in the ring.
VASM-
Yes we have conversed. Did not intend this posting to be about you (Sorry!) and welcome your efforts to clean this up for all involved and know you are trying.
I would recommend a website as many other communities have done and will contribute, but needs to be objective and focused on the problems/issues/ideas with the process and not the people/community bashing.
4:50, I didn't take offense at your previous comment (as I so quickly do sometimes!), and really appreciate your input and suggestions -- that goes for the rest of you, too. I'm still surprised at the level of participation here, but will strive to make a useful resource for all visitors.
4:50
You mention other Community Websites about this issue. I would like to view them, would you care too share?
4:50
You mention other Community Websites about this issue. I would like to view them, would you care too share?
boundary in general\
www.keepoakton.org
www.lortonvalley.com
west springfield had one last go around but took it down
thanks I will take a looksy.
Just looked at Lorton Valley . com and took a look at the standard letter they are putting out to send to the board. A couple things jump out. While I feel for them and agree they should be at SCSS, how can they say they were not notified. Is Lorton VAlley in a cave? The letter also lumps Hayfield's capacity with LBSS and Robinson as around 4,000 while it is much smaller at around 3,200. They should correct that because if they come to Hayfield with others it may get to the point someday that Hayfield will also be overcrowded.
3 high school pyramids are in flux now- Hayfield, South County, and Lake Braddock. Last year -West Springfield/Lee with the first 3 like a volcano ready to explode. That South Lakes boundary process will involve South Lakes, Oakton, Centreville, Chantilly, and possibly Westfields and more. That is a domino.
That is 10 out of 24 schools. Seems the whole thing would be better if they did a county wide study. The only thing precluding that is the fact that some board members have protected geographic areas from changing boundaries.
What they should do is take it out of the School Board's hands and hire a consulting firm to do a countywide boundry recommendation and go with that. They could give them firm guidelines to follow as best they can then a vote up or down could be done with no amendments allowed. This would get all the bias out of the system and keep whatever influence that may occur from infiltrating the creation of sensible boundaries that best utilizies the school facilities.
The lorton site has no forum for discussion. It is just a community site with information not a forum like this. VSOM is the only place I can find that allows open discussion about this issue, whats wrong with that?
8:09, They did hire an outside consultant. Western SC ie North Silverbrook still refuses believe the projected numbers.
The Silverbrook community is well aware of the #s. They also are aware their homes are no more than 1.7 miles from SCSS.
The Silverbrook community understands the picture in totality. So I would not try to minimalize their knowledge on any of this. Seems to me they have studied the #s longer than any community on this blog.
As an outsider looking in if you all really want to do your homework pull out the FCPS boundary maps. Look at McLean HS, Langley, Robinson, Woodson, Madison, and Lake Braddock. The boundaries of these schools set the poor boundaries for the rest of the county.
Silverbrook should not be going to any other school but SC, nor should Lorton Valley for that matter. The Boundaries on the east need to be cleaned up with the MSs. Not saying that your Lorton Station or or Mason Neck should go to Hayfield just saying the eastern boundaries need revision, as do the western boundaries in this county. I read the Army is paying for a 4 lane road from Rt 1 to Telegraph. This will make getting to Mt. Vernron easier if need be. However, the MS problem in the east still needs to be resolved.
FCPS can't continue to prey on communities without addressing the real blatant county boundary problems first. It is a dominoe effect and the core of the problem must first be identified and mneded. Check out Langley, McLean, Woodson, Robinson, etc.
Excellent points, 9:29, especially regarding the cobbled-together school boundaries for the other secondary/high schools you mentioned. While I hate to see MORE taxpayer $$$ spent on such things, I also support 8:09's proposed solution of hiring more outside consultants to study and clean up ALL FCPS school boundaries on a county-wide basis. Despite the efforts of some current school board members, I just don't think we can depend on the entire school board to make the hard decisions without allowing bias and political sensitivities to creep in.
Post a Comment