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 601 – 800 of 911 Newer› Newest»9:29
Mentioning a new Road.(I'll believe it when I see it) from Telegraph Rd. to Rt. 1 as making it easier to get to Mt. Vernon. This proposed unfunded road would come out near Hilltop. You can't seriously imply that kids would be bussed from the Hayfield side of Ft. Belvoir and Huntley Meadows over to Mt. Vernon now would you?
The road has already been funded by the Army. As for kids being bussed, anything can happen. Again, look at those boundaries at Langley, McLean, Robinson, etc.
Suggesting that the area by Hilltop/Hayfield is untouchable would be unwise. After all if you are a proponent of sending Silverbrook to LBSS then why not that area to Mt. Vernon? No doubt it might be similar mileage.
You need to be careful what you say and how you say it on this blog or wherever. Arguments can be made and remade.
Hayfield needs more students not less as does Mt.Vernon. If Hayfield were overcrowded then sure I can see your argument but as of today busing from telegraph rd. to Mt. Vernon is just unnecessary. Besides the area near Hilltop walks to Hayfield, do you honestly think they are going to bus kids from a school that is not crowded to Mt. Vernon. The only use of Mt. Vernon is for the areas that border it east and north of Ft. Belvoir. At SCSS and LBSS you have the opposite situation. SCSS is overcrowded LBSS is not. Some are coming to Hayfield to relieve SCSS it only makes sense to eventually use LBSS as well.
As far as the road, it is funded but they are running into a problem with having to take property from Woodlawn. How long will this take? I wouldn't even guess
I like the idea of an outside consultant coming up with the draft plan, but I would never agree that our elected officials should be kept from final plan.
The board set guidelines for this study and for McKibbon and neither followed them. F&P didn't even really address them.
Of course it was impossible to balance population, balance demographics and leave a 10-15% buffer (these were the criteria), but the staff should have attempted to do so and then went back to the board and asked which was most important.
If we hire an outside consultant the criteria must be very clear and payment withheld until the prodeucts are delivered.
I agree 11:46, you have to make it clear and prioritized guidelines. But it will always be a political biased football if the politicians are allowed to ammend and change it. If demographics, distance, buffers or even using a school to it full capacity regardless of the distance to travel is most important then that is when the politicians need to hear from the public and the school board needs to set its wishes. I believe that was done but not made clear to facilities so now we end up with options covering various priorities and communities clamoring for what they think is best and noone standing up to offer what is best for the entire area and what is best for the majority of the kids that area effected. This is why someone from the outside that is not part of the communities involved should come in, take what the is prioritized by the citizens in there board and create a plan which can be voted up or down in its entirity without ammendments
Newington Forest will not have to suffer a split if they are redistricted to LB. Silverbrook would be ripped apart. Ergo, the obvious solution is to opt for 2A if the School Board truly wants what's best for all schools.
The only way to avoid a split feeder to LB you have to wait for the new LHES boundary. Don't worry though. The board is not going to use LB this go round
And the only ones to suffer from that decision are the SCSS students.
correction 8:21pm, the only ones to suffer from the decision not to look at LB this go around are children in Lorton Station.
5:45, we need to recognize that SB and NF are already split -- when Laurel Hill comes, part of SB and NF will go there.
Has anyone heard where the board is heading on this issue? Last I heard, they were leaning towards Facilities' recommendation?? Looking for an update.
9:08, Th SC students will be suffering due to the selfishness of the parents of the western portion of the boundaries whining about attending LB. If either NF or North Silverbrook are sent, SC will be slightly overcapacity, LB will be slightly under. If the SB caters to the anti-LB people, SC is overcapacity at 113% while LB hovers in the low 80s. Not only is this a waste of resource allocation, it also sends a message to the rest of the county that the SB only listens to monied consitituents.
That's what I was thinking... somehow, doesn't quite seem fair and I hope everyone recognizes that. Who is manipulating this situation? There are too many pieces of this puzzle that fit too nicely together if your on the "right side of the tracks." There has to be something personal in this for someone.
2/17/2007 9:21 PM
You must have ONLY been listening to the Silverbrook people. There's NO telling what will be done.
How I love the "wrong side of the tracks" argument. It's been played and isn't working - time to move on. Equating those that must attend HF as the "wrong side of the tracks" is demeaning and wrong.
Your phrase "must attend" says it all. Why is it that living on one side of the tracks is "must attend" while the other side of the track is entitled to stay at SCSS.
No one knows what will happen on 22 Feb. However, during the work sessions there has been little interest in using LB during this go around. Most of the work is focused on who goes to Hayfield.
The staff reccomendation is pretty solid except for Lorton Valley. I think that most of the board would like to find a way to keep them at SCSS. The problem is all of the options to trade them out are no better. I think that if they are going to leave SB and NF at SC they could leave Lorton Valley also. If they get to wait two years why not Lorton Valley also?
If I95 was a barrier like Ft. Belvoir or Huntley Meadows Park it would make sense to use it as a boundary. However, there are plenty of crossings -- it is not a "barrier". The folks in Lorton Station easily drive under it on Lorton Road.
There are no natural or man-made barriers between North Silverbrook and LB.
Lorton Valley and Mason Neck are about the same distance to Hayfield. Because of that the school board should only pick one to stay at South County, which should be Lorton Valley. They are much closer than Mason Neck. Mason Neck bus times to Hayfield and South County are about the same. The school board should send Mason Neck to Hayfield and keep Lorton Valley at South County. If both stay at South County, Hayfield may have to go through another boundary study, sending Mason Neck to Hayfield will keep them out of the next boundary study for sure.
2/18/2007 10:23 AM
Don't forget the that during the work sessions they were saying how LB is the most flexible and could possibly have more space for students then what they originally thought. LB could send the 7th grade NOW and still have some space left over. Go ahead and use it to help out SCSS.
The obvious solution for Lorton Valley is to leave them at SCSS and send portions of NF or Silverbrook to LB. The empty seats in the west need to be used.
Just like Option 1, both 2A and 2B are dead. Time to concentrate on the best option 3 hybrid.
1255
I think you are correct, but the board will not likely use LB this go round. Can LV stay now without using LB? It seems if they are going to be oc, another 150 can stay.
I agree that HF will be in the next one if MN and LV stay at SCSS. BUT, I think that there will be efforts to inlcude HF no matter what happens.
Staff recommendation will be adopted and we will be back here next fall to discuss the SCSS boundary with Lake Braddock and the LHES Boundaries for the school year 2008/2009. At that time Lake Braddock will have shown the drop in attendance and someone will have to go. If I had a kid in the 7th grade next year and live in the western part of SCSS I would look into pupil placing him/her next year so that they will not have to pulled out of SCSS after attending South County for two years. Glad I'm not in that boat.
I think that in two years that the numbers at LB will continue to be questioned. At best they will start sending rising 7th graders.
Also, the Middle School will be two years closer to reality -- probably even closer. At some point the board needs to accept that and plan for it.
To 10:13 and 10:07 PM
Sorry, but the whinning being done was made by the bloggers of 10:07, 2/17/07.
To these Lorton Station bloggers 10:07 and 10:13--You want the Silverbrook community to split their community? A split that they do not wish for, and have stated as to why in various meetings. Secondly you act as if you are entitled to attend SC. Now isn't that something? HMMM..
Then you both want to make a statement about an area you perceive as being on the "wrong side of the tracks." Now if that is not plain dumb. Look at that "side of the tracks" new homes, new school, new shopping areas, revitaliztion funding for Rt. 1. So do tell where is the wrong area?
Your statements have demeaned your own neighborhood. What the heck were you both thinking other than poorly intended spite?
Let's be clear if it weren't for the community you so clearly detest then there would be no blog, you would be at Lee (if you are in North Lorton Station) and Hayfield would be way OC.
Give it a rest and get over yourselves.
Blogger 11:33
I think you get the picture. If Mason Neck goes back to Hayfield in Option 5 the Hayfield boundaries will not be reopened again. It is a clean boundary.
However if LV is left to go back to Hayfield then in 2 years time the boundaries to Hayfield will be reopened and communities will be reviewed again for certain area schools. The boundary language has been changed per Facilities and the SB. It is a somewhat generalized scope. No doubt a smart move on the School Board.
Or they could amend the staff recommendation leaving LV at South County and in two years send an even larger portion to LBSS because the capacity at LBSS was understated. How bout that possibility.
yes. In two years they will also have the new LHES boudaries and all of NF or all of SB will make more sense then it does now. The choice at that time could be best settled with a coin flip.
Get real, not going to happen.
New School Board.
will they just leave SCSS oc? that is an option.
They will build the MS under much public duress.
How about in 2 years we send both Silverbrook (whatever's left after redistricting to LHES) AND Newington Forest to LB. There will be so much obvious space at LB that kids who could have matriculated easily for 7th grade in 07-08 will be forced to readjust from SC to a new secondary in 09-10.
8:40 Huh? I think if LB has room 2 years from now, only rising 7th will be sent. This time around they will not pull out kids that have been at SCSS for 2 or 3 years.
8:40 has a good point. If only 7th graders were sent to Lake Braddock starting next year, it would ease the transition. If the SB waits for 2 years, the SC overcrowding situation will be so drastic that 3 grades will have to get redistricted.
The only way to send both NF and SB to LB is if you send them for Middle School only and then back to SC for HS. I would not wish that on anybody.
The "obvious space" will not be that obvious yet. Staff estimates are usually low, so you have to factor that in. Also, the next two years will have attempts to lower the "capacity" at LB form 4075 to 3900 and I suspect they will suceed. Finally, the GT center will absorb more space makeing even less room.
HF will grow faster than projected, but the impact of the last two boundary changes will not be fully phased in at HF and we will still appear under.
Now how will they attempt to lower capacity? I know they are looking at how capacity is calculated but facilities has never said they expect capacity to be lower, more likely LBSS capacity is higher. The GT center should be moved.
If they are wrong on the SCSS numbers and that school is over capacity by more than 113%, that will leave the kids there in an awful situation.
^^^Precisely why some of SC needs to redistricted to LB for the 07-08 AY.
That's right 12:47. It is interesting to read all those blogs for people saying LB has no room and the numbers are wrong, yet they believe the numbers for SCSS. That school could go way over 113% next year.
and I believe it well, as will then numbers for Hayfield will be higher.
The numbers for all three schools may be higher than projected by staff. That has been the trend. that is why only 400-450 (or less) should be sent to HF and LB. That leaves 300 empty seats at both schools.
As for LB capacity, there was an argument made that the "core capacity" of LB was only 3900. Staff rejected that claim, but in two years Gary C will be gone and the board will be new. I suspect the argument will be made during the reeval of capacity. I would not be surprised if that argument wins out.
Why would facts lose to conjured-up figures?
There is space RIGHT NOW. We're technically SCSS, but my oldest is in the GT Center at LB. I'm at that school twice a week as a volunteer.
Let us not confuse the story with facts.
Dean Tistadt will remain and he is Gary's boss. I assume he is the one that ultimately determines the capacity calculations as he seems to be the one that speaks to that issue when ever it comes up, be it at a Silverbrook community meeting or a School Board meeting. From the tone of his comments at both those meetings in which I witnessed he did not seem convinced that anything was wrong with the capacity numbers for LBSS. Mr. Tistadt's is obviously held in high regard for his experience in school facilities and if he is not swayed by the smoke blowing from the Lake Braddock and Silverbrook communities, the core capacity argument will fail now and in two years.
As it should.
Oh and too add, Mr. Tistadt said that even if funding for a new MS came this year, it would be at least 4-5 years before it could open. Lets see that would be the year 2012-2013. The darn MS is on the cip for 2015 two to three years later then if they got it funded now. I think even the cry for a new MS is blowing smoke. If they do nothing with a promise of a new school in 4-5 years are the kids supposed to stay packed in while the school is constructed. What a shame for the kids, they could enjoy being Bruins instead being coraled in pin with too many Stallions. I wouldn't do that to my kid.
Let’s hope the school board votes to send about 400 students to Hayfield this phase. If not, then they will no doubt over crowd South County. The school board should send Mason Neck to Hayfield and keep Lorton Station at South County. This way Hayfield will not be in any study next go around. If Mason Neck and Lorton Station stay at South County, the school board will only be sending about 200 students to Hayfield. This is not good, as it keeps South County over crowed, and Hayfield under capacity, keeps them in the 80% capacity range. Next phase, if and when Lake Braddock has the space, send Newington Forest or Silverbrook. That way South County will be under capacity and no middle school is needed.
Lorton Station needs to go to Hayfield and Newington Forest needs to go to Lake Braddock starting next year. They are the most northern communities of the SCSS area.
Stu Gibson's Option 5 is not an even trade of Mason Neck for Lorton Valley. Option 5 sends the entire Route 1 corridor to Hayfield. I find it hard to believe that the demographics are unchanged if they do that.
The staff reccomendation is fine. If they insist on keeping LV at SCSS, fine. Make up the difference later with LB. HF will be growing more that projected anyway.
Or just leave SCSS overcrowded. They seem to want and like it that way.
We do. So please take your blog and your F&P wannabees and go away.
I thought this was a Hayfield blog?
As a Hayfield parent, yes, I started this blog, but I think it's grown beyond just the Hayfield perspective. I'm trying now to create a place for folks from the eastern and western communities to discuss and debate these issues. Was going to shut it down following the school board action (whatever that may be) in 3 days, but will be keeping it up and running, with more changes/updates coming to the blog in the very near future. I think these boundary issues will keep coming back to haunt all of our communities for several more years...
No I think our friend in Barrington is the Facility wannebe. He knows the true capacity at LBSS doesnt he?
As a Hayfield parent, I hope you do keep this going through the different boundary efforts -- its the only way I find out what's going on -- thank you. And, I'm sure, regardless of what neighborhoods are sent here now, the western SCSS neighborhoods will lobby hard to involve Hayfield next go around so they can argue not going to LB again.
I just found out about this "Option 5" and am terrified that this could even get more than a laugh by the School Board members. Do you know what this does to Hayfield?
Not only does it send all of Rt. 1 to us (which I agree, has to make our demographics higher), but it makes a crazy boundary -- have you looked at it on the map? On the other hand, it leaves SCSS's boundary a nice little, compact circle.
I'm all for fairness, but I don't think we should be willing to accept a situtation that is not in the best interest of Hayfield and harm's our sense of community.
In this case, with what was recommended by Facilities, I think we've done more than our share if they're not going to include LB.
If people in the SCSS community don't like the recommendation, then we need to open up LB so that we can appropriately adjust all three boundaries. How we were even put in the position to take all the kids from SCSS, I'll never know... but we have to have limits.
Obviously, the folks in the western part of SCSS know more about the LBSS capacity than the HF folks. The HF folks need to stop pretending and stick to the HF numbers and we'll all be fine. Stop pretending to know the LBSS facts until you live it every day.
10:13pm, TRUE is the operative word there -- there is a difference between the truth and what "they" want you to believe. The masters of spin!! And the result....? That everyone else get's screwed. Including Hayfield.
How is Hayfield getting "screwed"? I don't see the school OC. The only Option being looked at are those that leave a sizeable buffer at Hayfield. So tell me again how you are getting screwed?
10:55PM.... unfortunately, if we are to only look at HF, then we subject ourselves to being taken advantage of by others who do not have Hayfield's best interest in mind and are not looking within in their own SCSS and LB backyards... before you know it, Hayfield will be overcrowded again, our demographics will be off, our sense of community lost, and parent involvement nil. Needless to say, I'm alittle more than worried here.
Let's talk about a community that got screwed. Silverbrook worked hard for years to get a school. They did the ride to Hayfield, endured the OC there, finally got to SCSS which was to be a smaller school and found that in year their kids again were looking at trailers. Trailers because the SB and Facilities played games about the actual #s in this area. These games then inturn hurt the very people who lobbied for a school here to relieve Hayfield capacity.
So Hayfield got screwed how??? Because too many people left?? Well whose fault is that? Certainly not the communities in the west who had the fartherst to drive to Hayfield. The situation happened because of poor politics.
You know what I would say to 10:57?
"YOU WANT TRUTH, WELL YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"
Does Hayfield PTSA have a president?
11:30, its not all about you.
Maybe you suffered while the school was overcrowded at Hayfield, but so did we... and so did other communities other than Silverbrook who are now also at SCSS. South County was needed and still is -- we all know you need your middle school too.
But, what I'm saying is that we have to protect Hayfield's boundary too... and we shouldn't be willing to compromise what's right for Hayfield, especially when the School Board isn't willing to look at the full picture here.
I don't think some of the options being discussed are in Hayfield's best interest... Option 5, for example.
Lake Braddock should have been used from the first boundary study. Silverbrook and Newington Forest helped overcrowd SCSS because they were unwilling to go to LB. Priority at SCSS should be given to those with a Lorton address. Silverbrook is Fairfax Station, NF is Springfield and Lorton. Perhaps the Lorton portion of NF stays at SCSS and the Springfield portion goes to LB.
Read a reference above to Stu Gibson and Option 5 - heard he was very interested in this at the most recent work session. Also SG was talking about 95 being a manmade barrier. His area doesn't have that and he busses kids over the toll road and route 7 to keep them out of South lakes or Herndon. That gives SC a nice boundary but makes Hayfield a general cachment area. Wasn't Gibson the one that opened the door via an amendment to move people into West Springfield on the last go round? Out of all these studies and meetings paid for by the taxpayers the only significant movement will be to Hayfield and kids leaving the gtc system to go back to Thoreau. What a waste of money.
Stu Gibson needs to be removed.
They all need to be removed if Hayfield and LB aren't used as part of the SC OC issue. People will be campaigning against the incumbents far beyond their district memeber and at large members.
If I recall Mr. Gibson was the only SB member that had the courage to say in 2005 the boundary for SCSS was faulty and it would provide too many students in too short of a time. No one listened. Storck went ahead with it and even added Mason Neck as a last minute amendement.
I believe Mr. Gibson wants to do the right thing for this area, always has and has made it clear it is about the students.
It is a disgrace that after 1 year there are 20 trailers at SCSS. The growth in the immediate area of SCSS was evident 2 years ago and now. The empty seats are at Hayfield now, not in 5 years but now. Those communities within a reasonable distance need to return to Hayfield. It is a tough situation but this is the reality.
If you want to talk about removing a School Board member then you are looking at the wrong member. He was the only one that said this boundary was faulty and he was right.
Just looked at the #s for Option 5 they are no worse than Option 3.
Very little difference with respect to Free and Reduced Lunch and ESOL.
With that in mind Option 5 it appears to be a cleaner boundary for the future of the area. .
LB wil not be used during this phase. The staff stopped studying it last December and the board has spent little or no time discussing it during the work sessions. This became a HF-SC study with the single mission of relieving OC at SCSS. There has not been enough interest in LB for them to use it now. I suspect that the Board members and staff simply did not want to deal with the fall out from the communities involved in a SC to LB move. Can you blame them?
Option #6 is the best as it sets things up better for the LHES study.
#6 is the only option that keeps Halley from becoming a split feeder.
#6 has the best chance of keeping Lorton Station ES from staying a split feeder.
#6 is the only option that has a chance of LHES not becoming a split feeder.
#6 gives the options of choosing all of SB or NF in two years to avoid a split feeder in the west.
All that said, the board will probably approve the staff reccomendation or #5 and then we will be back here again with a complete mess during LHES.
I know that #6 does not send as much to HF as some want, but it is not all about capacity. A MS will be here eventually. We need to plan for it. All of these split feed ES creates a big burden on staff and faculty.
#6?
Option 6 leaves SCSS with a capacity of 129%!!!
Option 6 leaves Hayfield with a capacity of only 83.2%.
Problems are not solved with either school with regard to Option 6.
This is about capacity right now and it is about correcting a poor boundary and going on from there.
7:53
So should the SB cater to one whiny community that doesn't want to go to LB or should it look at the overall picture and do what's best for all 3 secondaries and their feeders. If the SB members are worried about fallout, they shouldn't be in politics.
Anyone involved in politics MUST be concerned about public opinion. Politically it is more effective to move one area now (Lorton Station) and deal with the other next year. That way they only upset a portion of the population on either side of the election. Once they move SB or NF (if they move them) there will be another five years until the next election. The delay is just smart politicians -- being poiticians. The delay is purely political and that is ok.
The SB, NF, and LB areas have been very effective in communicating their concerns to the board. As have Mason Neck and Hayfield. The board knows what is truth and what is spin -- they have heard it all and are not stupid.
Lorton Station and Valley just recently came onto the scene claiming "they just heard about it". As a result they are the ones left holding the bag and they are the ones getting moved against their will. Sorry about that.
I absolutely want my elected officials listening to community concerns. You can call it whining if you want, but they need to listen.
I agree it would be best to use all three schools. It is the only way to solve the problem until the MS is built. But my main concern is my school and my community.
Getting redistricted to Lake Braddock is not exactly a losing situation. Bruins are attending a school with great scores, an excellent Challenge Index ranking, superb college/university choices for its seniors, fabulous sports teams, Model UN, marching band and other ECs. Not to mention that they are in a freshly renovated stat-of-the-art facility.
8:40 - You may think it is ok for this to be political, but don't forget, this is about kids. SCSS will be left way over capacity. You may not care about that, but a lot of other people do. The fact that Lorton Valley is down the street from SCSS, yet are being bussed to Hayfield is a disgrace. They will pass the Mason Neck kids on the way. Both LB and Hayfield should be used now. The neighborhoods on the outer edges of the SCSS district, both east and west, should be the ones to go.
8:40 - capacity is not the only thing that matters here. You're right, it is the kids that matter most and with what's in their best interest. Allowing kids to go to their community school (even if it will be manageably OC until a MS is built is fine - the Principal even says he can deal with that) - so Lorton Valley and Mason Neck should both go to SCSS.
Politically, that makes the most sense, it sends some kids to Hayfield, allows the west to wait on Lake Braddock - and most importantly is what is best for those communities and their children.
To take the view that this is only about capacity this go around is irresponsible!
The School Board should take the recommendation and add Lorton Valley.
from 6:07
Gibson should not be removed from the school board. I would rather see him as an at-large member. Each of the at-large members should have produced clear amendments in all boundary processes. With the number of middle/high schools across this county involved in construction and/or boundary chnages in a 3 year period, the at-large members should have looked at the big picture and advocated jointly for a county-wide process.
Dear 7:46am, what area? For the Silverbrook area?
Certainly not for Hayfield -- the SB has been sensitive to the desires of LB and SB -- they also need to be sensitive to us. You can shove it all on us and destroy are boundary.
I don't believe that the demographics in Option 5 are what they say by sending all Rt. 1 kids to Hayfield (they will be higher) and did you look at the map? No one in Hayfield can support that kind of boundary -- its criminal. You have to ask yourself, is it all because they don't want to send kids to LB to appease SB? If so, why should we pay?
I'll second that 9:34am
7:42:
If Gibson thought the South County boundary was faulty he could have just as easily ammended the proposal to remove some areas and send them to LBSS. Just because Stork amended the recommendation to add MN did not by itself overcrowd SCSS. Again your assumption is that only the east side should be kept out of SCSS and it is the east side that overcrowded SCSS. Well I can make the assumption that the West side should not be in SCSS and they are responsible for the overcrowding. Whose to say Gibson is more right then Stork?
Blogger 8:48AM - someone thinks its a losing situation or they wouldn't be fighting so hard to stay out of LB - at the expense of other kids in Lorton who should be allowed to attend their closest school - they're trying to take our kids' seats and force us to endure hardship because they think we don't know any better or won't care. It's OK for us to be disadvantaged and bussed all over, but not for them...... OK, I get it - I'm sure that is fair.
Silverbrook will never go to Lake Braddock.
If Stu Gibson wants to be so involved in the South County area, he should run for Mt. Vernon SB rep or an At-Large seat. Otherwise, he needs to stick to his own district. Funny that you don't see him medling in the Lake Braddock area issues. Only advocating to take the east out of South County.
Then we better get a MS ASAP, for all of our sakes.
No need for a middle school if the northeast and northwest areas of SOUTH County are redistricted to H and LB.
No need for a middle school if the northeast and northwest areas of SOUTH County are redistricted to H and LB.
If you get a MS money today when do you think it would open?
Keep the staff recomendation, but leave LV at SCSS for now. Fix the rest of it in two years.
I would like HF to be out of the next one, but I do not see how it can be possible. Assuming HF will be involved, they should not send anyone to HF that could potentially be going back to SC in two years. That is why option #6 or staff reccomendation minus LV is good enough for now.
Send the rest to LB and clean up the east boundary in two years. DON NOT create a messy boundary that stretches all around Ft. Belwoir for HF right now. Wait until we have more information. What is good for the west is good for the east. LB and HF have about the same number of seats projected.
If it is more about community than capacity, then don't change the boundaries at all. The SCSS principal won principal of the year. I am sure he can work with the numbers. Everyone seems to want to stay even with terrible overcrowding. Let them stay. Why single out Lorton Station/Valley?
hear hear 10:11
In two years Hayfield may need to relieve Edison and Lee. I say let Hayfield take all of Rose Hill so that school is not Split fed. Or take Groveton ES so that West Pot. does not become overcrowded. or send Saratoga to Hayfield so Lee can asorb more coming to the Springfield area. Why is Hayfield have to reach all the way down to Lorton to be utilizied. At least these other areas schools are close to Hayfield. Let the kids in Lorton go to a school in Lorton, if they are bussed back to Hayfield, the revitaliztion of the Lorton Rt. one corridor will be stopped in its tracks just when it got going. The Western areas enjoy a vibrant economic stable area before South County was built, and they will do fine without getting to go to SCSS. The school board should do what is right for Lorton, and let them stay at SCSS.
Silverbrook and Lorton only want what they perceive as good for their specific sundivisions. Persuasive arguments need to be made that benefit the largest number of schools.
Everyone wants what they perceive as what is good for them. I think that it would be good for LB and for SC if the board used the empty space at LB. But, the reason I want them to use LB is that it takes the pressure off of using HF and creating a crazy boundary for HF again.
I think that 1035 is 100% correct. HF is better used by surrounding schools and not reaching all the way down to Lorton and possible to the Neck. If we can delay in the West, we can delay in the east.
I wish the at-large members would do something now about LB. They are not doing their jobs. Hunt is trying to work and I guess it would be productive to sit Gibson and Hunt together to hash out all boundaries. Nothing is meddling since we all have to pay for it and there are domino effects financially as well as operationally. The whole mess makes FCPS look ludicrous when it complains about school funding at the state and federal levels.
I do feel for Hayfield, the school board removed way too many students from that school the last boundary study. It would be nice if South County and Hayfield could work together to get this boundary fixed. Lake Braddock will not have capacity until 2 years, I hope, that is when students should be sent to that school. It will be either Newington Forest or Silverbrook. If the school board removes Silverbrook, they really should try to remove the entire school. Right now, Hayfield has capacity and it should be used, not all, but some of it. Both Hayfield and Lake Braddock should have a buffer of 10%. Unfortunately, that can not be said for South County – they will continue to be over capacity for a long time. I agree with the argument that is foolish to send students way down south to Hayfield, and Hayfield could help out with school that are closer, but South County is the school with the over crowding condition. This boundary fight will go on for a long time, and the students will suffer. I read in one of the local papers that students were trying to get a later start time for high school, maybe Hayfield could have a later start time and this may help. Students having to commute to that school could sleep in a little later, it may attract some other students and maybe Hayfield could get a proper student population back. I am sorry if this may insult some of the bloggers that is not my intent. I think we should really try to focus and try to come up with the best solution for now. Remember, Lake Braddock will have capacity later. Look at Lake Braddock’s capacity; they are at 93% with the new reno. They will continue to be in the 90+% up to 2 years. Putting students at that school now and the next to years will over crowd that school. It is best to wait until the boundary study for LHES take place.
^^^^ sorry about the typos!
to 11:11
you stated LB is at 93% capacity with the new renovation. None of that is modulars. Specific developments in the western portion of Silverbrook will not change as a result of Laurel Hill. The only other place for them would be Sangster unless in a peculiar maneuver of gerrymandering they leave Silverbrook and end up at Halley or some other school. Weirder stuff has happened here. Where do the 241 GTc kids at lorton come from? The GT centers are being put baclk into base schools evrywhere else so that is a big area of GIGO in Chevalier's Laurel hill work-up.
I have looked at LB numbers and they certainly do have room to start taking rising 7th graders now. Staff shows it and McKibbon confirmed it. Don't worry though, the board will not use LB this time. Perhaps it is better to wait and do the LHES boundaries at the same time and avoid split feeders -- but thoses issues are the same in the east.
Don't kid yourself, LB and HF have about the same amount projected space available to rising 9th graders (look at 2011 numbers) and have the same issues with split communities and split feeders. The only reason that one community was chosen over another is that one was better at stating their case. Silverbrook was more effective than Lorton Station and Lorton Valley at communicating with the staff and the board. Lorton did not engage until it was too late. Silverbrook was not anti-Lorton, just pro-Silverbrook. NF and LB were the beneficiaries of the Silverbrook work.
LB is at 93% now (that is under capacity folks) and the renovation is finished in 2 months, assuming the April '07 finish is still valid. Why are we (the taxpayer) paying for the empty seats at LB and the traillers at SCSS? Use LB now. Start with rising 7th graders only.
Lake Braddock is at 1.03% now and will be at 93% when the renovation is completed. If Hayfield needs a 10% buffer, so should Lake Braddock. They can not start accepting students until 2 years+ from now, maybe. That is why it is best to wait until the LHES boundary takes place, and then the school board can look at Lake Braddock again.
LB is projected have over 300 empty seats next year. They have plenty of room for some rising 7th graders. They can take 50-75 additional student for six years AND STILL have 250 empty spaces!
The issue is almost dead though. Neither staff nor the board is interested in using LB this time. They have accepted that SCSS can continue to be OC for a bit longer if they can at least stop it from getting worse. I disagree, but I understand the desire to avoid moving students too soon - especially those so near to SCSS.
If the board really feels a need to amend the staff recc to create more relief for SCSS next year they can and should use Lake Braddock.
The staff recc takes HF to 92%, leaves LB at 81%, and brings SCSS down to 117% in 2011. Personally, I think that all threes schools will have a higher utilzation than projected, but we cannot continue to put this off forever.
We need a dictator running the schools. To many factions have it all fragmented and nothing gets done. Get Joe Kennnedy to call Chavez, we don't need his oil we need his organization.
Ann Coulter would be a much better choice than Chavez.
Nah, those legs would be too distracting, we need to focus.
1:51 - When is LB renovation finished? I was told it was this year. That would put LB under capacity next year.
I mean next school year, 2007-2008.
I heard the renovation will be complete this spring. Then facilities will recalculate the capacity which will probably be more then 4,100 which means more room for Lorton kids when the western boundary is reconfigured.
So all those seats go empty at LB next school year.
Yep
What seats are you talking about?
The 300 empty seats that should be filled with surplus SC students.
Those supposed seats aren't there yet, and if they were, they would be the 10% buffer that HF is screaming for. The hypocricy just kills me.
This is a Hayfield blog. It appears we should not expect any sense from it, only degradation and misinformation.
Fact #1:
Without Silverbrook there would be no SCSS now.
Fact#2:
Lake Braddock will have over 700 empty seats by 2011
FACT #3
LB empty seats are Projections for 2011.
SCSS has building capacity for 2500, the school currently has 3100 students, Hayfield has 925 empty seats now.
This is not "brain science".
6:36
The only misinformation on this blog comes from people who would have us believe that LBSS will never have room for more students when all the experts say they will. Denying the fact will not make that change. Questioning the capacity will not make the school suddenly shrink. As far as degradation, what goes around comes around.
6:36 - Well said!
Sorry, I meant 7:12 - Well said! I agree, 6:36 comment has no substance and not a hint of truth.
Ok mr. Brain Science, how many seats does Hayfield have next Fall? Or do you want to move 925 students today? You are short sighted. I am not saying projections are perfect but 700 seats within 5 years is a big number I am pretty sure that number is within a margin of error of at least 200 seats. Plan to use them is smart unless you want to overcrowd Hayfield which you see to want.
I will run naked around Hayfield if in two years LBSS does not have at least 100 empty seats. Why is it so difficult to see that LBSS is losing population. Hayfield and LBSS would have the same number of empty seats by 2011 if nothing is done. But Hayfield will and should get students back so that by 2011 it will have less then 300 empty seats. Will LBSS look like Hayfield today?
LB is projected to have space next year and more the next. But the staff and the board are not yet willing to plan to use it. They have said that they will look at it in two years and re-evaluate. Let's hold them too it.
Watch the effort to re-assess the capacity of LB after renovation. The capacity is currently 4075. What will that number be next year? How much does the GTC consume?
7:39 This is why this blog must continue. It is a good resource as it continues to add links and folks post Connection articles etc. Continued attempts by Western South County to keep LBSS out of the solution for the crowded conditions at SCSS will make Hayfield the only target for a solution creating a crowded school again. I am here for the long haul to watch what happens and to remind the school board that we are here and we care what happens to Hayfield.
632
Both Hayfield and Lake Braddock can take in more students AND project a 10% buffer. The current plan takes HF to 92% and LB to 81% capacity. I am willing to wait two years and see what happens at LB, as I suspect staff has underestimated how many students will be there. But I also suspect that the number for HF is underestimated (and SCSS maybe overestimated).
Be careful of those (like Mr. Brain Science) that use today's numbers to fix timmorow's problems. They are potentially dangerous if given any credibility. Fortunately, the board is not fooled.
HF should not take any more kids during this phase when the current projections for both HF and LB are relatively the same.
However, in two years HF will not be at 92% (if it is we are really in trouble). The phasing in of students from this study AND the previous study will not be complete. Our population will still be growing.
Everyone in this county who follows the issue knows that the School Board is not changing the western boundary due to political influence. That is a fact and freely admitted by staff and board members so there is no need to present dummy numbers.
Staff's work on core facilites analysis is targeted towards old schools not those which have had benefitted from mega-millions in expenditures. Any school board member who votes for anything other than a version of 2A/B needs to be out of office.
The budget is not yet approved by the Board of Supervisors. Strategic Governance is a crock. If SC was not in existence now perhaps they would have been forced into a massive domino into Mount Vernon involving all area schools.
Gibson will use the renovated South Lakes and I never thought people would refuse Lake Braddock. People send their kids to schools out of their immediate community all the time here - even for elementary school.
LBSS is a good school. And so is Hayfield. I hope to keep it that way. I think SCSS is going to go down hill if the projections are correct.
Well, Hayfield it looks like Option 5 may prevail as Stu and the western side of SC have been working hard to make it so. Unless you start screaming to the SB ASAP, you'll be paying so that LB is untouched and SC can be a private school. Congratulations!
Stu was barking about 95 being a manmade barrier. In his own district he busses kids over the toll road as well as 7. Look at his Wolftrap Island that he sends to Madison instead of South Lakes. The ones going over 7 to an elementary school had the nerve to say they were across the street. He complains about Glasgow which he is right to do but yet wants an addition at Langley [benefits his constituents]. The board allowed that when people could have gone to herndon or South Lakes.
Stu is only one board member. What info do you have that says option 5 is the likely option?
Could someone please explain what exactly is option 5? Is there also an option 6?
Option 5 amends the staff reccomendation to leave Lorton Valley at SCSS and send Mason Neck and more of the Rt 1 corridor to Hayfield. Total numbers are about the same as the staff reccomendation. The demographics increase the imbalance slightly (more FRL and ESOL to HF). It is a good option for LV, bad for Mason Neck, bad for Rt. 1, and tolerable, but not great for Hayfield.
Yes, there is a 6 (and a 7 and an 8), but 4-8 were just the board playing around with boundaries to see how the numbers work out when you draw the lines in different places. All of the options are on board docs.
None are better than the staff recc unless you are LV (they would like them all better). I like #6 better for HF, but it does not send enough students out of SC - a problem when you don't use LB.
Well if whoever said option 5 is all but a done deal is true, then I guess SC West succeeded in picking and choosing the neighborhoods they will accept in their school. Lorton Station North of Lorton Rd. will be the next area to be picked off and sent to Hayfield. This will not end until they reach the goal of sending all of East of 95 to Hayfield. Thanks neighbors and school board, your on your way to recreating the Berlin wall.
Guess Option 1 wasn't so bad after all.
No option 1 is bad.
If option 5 is the option then the folks (other then Mason Neck) did not speak up or fight to stay at SCSS. I wonder if they will even know after tomorrow that they are coming back to Hayfield. Welcome back Mason Neck.
I am not so sure #5 will win out over staff reccomendation. However, this is a Mason Neck vs. the quietedly outspoken Lorton Station area (not all of it just the north of Lorton road portion). Lorton Station north of Lorton Road will be safely at SCSS in the future in #5. They are part of the chosen E of 95 who can stay to keep our Mason Neck.
The nice thing this does for them also is it keeps Hagel Circle with them during ES to keep full day K and other benefits, but sends them to HF when the value to them is gone. It will certainly make the ES boundary study interesting.
The fight shouldn't be between the communities on the east side of I95. We all know the fight is between the eastern side and the western side ie the Crosspointe crowd.
When staff took LB out of the study the entire focus weny to what happens on the east side. It became a matter of who stays and who goes in the east. I guess the term "fight" is probably not the best term I could have used.
Nonetheless, the staff reccomendation and options 4-8 are all focused on where the line is drawn between HF and SC. Dan Stork has a difficult situation to deal with as he will keep someone happy and make others disappointed.
Those that spoke up are most likely to get to stay. I suspect that Friday morning many of the "disappointed ones" will not even know that it happened.
What is amazing in all this, is that we go through meetings to supposedly get the communities involved so that the board and facilities hears from concerned involved parents then a board member from the HUNTER MILL DISTRICT! comes up with an option that is nothing like the previous three option or his own Staff Recommendation! Why have we done all this if Stuey is going to take over and put out something that noone in the community has had a chance to comment on or explain the positives or negative on.?
The majority of the people at the last public board meeting supported the Staff Recommendation. The people are not going to get what we want if option 5 is adopted. I will remember this when Stu goes through his boundary student for his constituents. If he wants a nice neat boundary for SCSS and not for HSS then I think South Lakes,Oakton, Herndon, and Langley should have a nice neat compact boundary.
Tell the board to support the staff reccomendation -- especially Brad and Dan. Stu has probably already made up his mind.
Has the SB offically taken LB off the table? Why isn't Dan Storck fighting to use LB now. The SB should leave LV at SCSS and send portions of NF to LB (rising 7th graders). The portion of NF that will go to the new LHES should stay at SCSS. The board could work this out now, so when the new elementary school is built, NF would no longer be a split-feeder.
Apparently LB is off the table till the next boundary meeting. If option 5 is adopted then Hayfield should be left out of the next study, this is crazy.
I believe Brad is supporting the Staff recommendation. Dan is in a rock and a hard place. I don't see how he could support any of the options base on his constituency.
Dan wants to keep SCSS overcrowded to justify a middle school. That way, he will get Lorton Station back in later on. Silverbrook will fight to keep them out, but I hope Lorton Station wins. Silverbrook claims they built the new school, but it was built it in Lorton Station's neighborhood. Silverbrook needs to realize that Lorton Station will be back.
All Lorton Station ES (after LHES is up and running) should end up at HF. The portion Lorton Station that goes to LHES and/or Halley should go to SCSS.
Right now it appears all three will be split feeders to HF and SC. Too bad. The only option that can result in no splits is #6.
You know if option 5 wins out the areas furthest away from Hayfield are going to be bussed past Lorton Station. Lorton Station kept Hagel Circle out of their ES now it looks like Hagel Circle may be out of the new SCSS as well. Look at the Option 5 map, it smacks of elitism and dare I say racism?
How do you know who lives in Hagel Circle?
Lorton Station is screaming they are being treated unfairly, read this:
http://www.desiwriter.com/clip_lorton.html
The hagel circle and other island issues will be fixed during the LHES study.
304 That article is from 2003.
I am in a business that makes me away of who lives in Hagel Circle. I welcome them back to Hayfield and hope they will be happy to be back, but I fear they may be unhappy with the move and will take it out at our school.
"aware" is what I meant
Are any of us suprised that Silverbrook is going to win? Never seen anything like it. The SB is completely under their control. I thought the Staff recommendation was the worst option I had ever seen until I saw option 5.
3:04 -- that is an OLD Washington Post article from four years ago, when the Lorton Station ES boundaries were being fought over. Actually, reviewing that article was a sickening ride down memory lane, reading some of the treatment of and comments about Hagel Circle residents and kids.
3:17 using the proverbial "they" is never a good thing. What do you mean by "take it out at our school"? Sounds like you're being an elitist with your fears. Give all kids a chance - the Hegel Circle kids have been at HF before and didn't cause any problems then. Why would these kids start now?
Hagel, MN, LV, LS who ever comes back may not be happy being sent away from SCSS is what I mean. I hope they will be happy coming back to Hayfield but we have to be prepared for kids being upset that they started at one school and now have to go to another no matter where they come from. And it will be the same for LBSS in two years. We at Hayfield are planning a welcoming party that I hope will be a good example for other schools to use when they have to go through this awful turmoil.
4:56 - You Hayfield parents seem so nice, yes I hope others follow your good example. The truth is, no child that has started at SCSS should be removed. This process should start with 7th grade children only, even to Hayfield. If the SB would use LB too, this could work out. If they don't want to use LB, then SCSS remains just a little higher in numbers during the phase-out. How cruel the school board is. They send these kids to a brand new school. There is always something exciting about "new", like a "new" car or a "new" house. They ask them to show pride in their new school and support it. Now, after 2 years they yank them out and say "sorry, no room"! Very cruel school board! Send 7th grade children only. Show a little compassion for these kids, please.
5:50 – you are correct. The school board should show a little consideration to the students who are at SCSS now. They should stay at that school no matter where they are going. Start with the 7th grade class and grandfather all the students at SCSS. I know the students would want that.
Unfortunately that will not happen. SCSS just will not have the room if only 7th graders are sent next year. As much as I would like to see that too I do not think the board has even thought about that.
Its ok, when the new middle school comes in 2015 then Mason Neck and southern Lorton Station will be able to return to SCHS and Middle School.
If 7th and 8th eastern SCerswere sent to Hayfield and 7th graders from the west side of SC were sent to LB, there woould be more room.
That is simply not true - refer to 10:02 am - this boundary for Hayfield will not be "fixed" next go 'round - we will simply be put through this torture again in 2 years - speak up now this is permanent, period.
No one on the school board has the guts to go up against Stu.
Above post was refering to 7:36
Nobody has the guts to go against LIZ. :)
Stu - Liz, what the differnce?
Rather have someone like those 2 fighting for a community than someone who sits back with indifference and follows someone elses lead.
There are alot of fighters out there simply trying to do what's best for their community. It's a shame that the intimidators are winning the battle.
They did fight hard didn't they for the community and the issues?
Who are the intimidators?? Don't know them because intimidators don't win----You can't win an issue on intimidation. You win it on facts.
What happened to their unified front that they had two years ago Silverbrook, Halley & Newington Forest must stay at SC. I guess they don't have a problem with Halley being a split feeder?
Halley was always a split feeder. Gary C. and others made that happen with help from LS.
On Halley's website it says all students attend SCSS for grades 7-12. I guess that will change after tomorrow's vote. Those poor kids are going to be blindsided.
Are you suggesting if they go to Hayfield they will have not have the opportunity to a good education?
If option 5 passes it will be permanent. No one from Hayfield will return if/when a Middle School is built.
No, but they are closer to SCSS than Hayfield and have significant challenges that are only added to by going to a school further away from home -- puts them at an even more disadvantage.
They'll be blindsided, b/c they don't even know there being considered to move to Hayfield.
Let's not forget too, that in order to maintain demographics at the ES level, LH will have to pull from Rt. 1 -- are you going to pull those kids back again?
Both school are balanced with demographics. That is not really the issue at this point in time.
Storck made it very clear in all the public meeting the SB will decide and can decide on what they want to do including amendments. Storck has set the situation up. It goes back to 2005.
7:53
I don't understand what you mean. Please explain your last comment. What did Storck do to set up the situation?
Both schools are balanced on demographics??? Are you kidding? South County and Hayfield are not even close! Hayfield has a much higher FRL/ESOL numbers and percentages. After this move (regardless of the option) there will be a greater imbalance.
The only way to balance demographics is to split the FRL/ESOL communities up and spread them around. That is what is happening in Lorton Stations. Two years ago some went to Lee, then SCSS, now Hayfield. What will happen two years from now?
He overloaded the initial boundary by moving towards further inlcusion in a Study 4 "option" and then with the amendment. He would not compromise on the # he wanted in at SCSS. He depleted Hayfield and caused this situation with SCSS.
The previous study and this one was complicated by the refusal to use Lake Braddock or study any other schools in the area.
Too many kids for the resouces of those two schools. Throw is a border area that both schools draw on for FRL/ESOL and you have an explosive situation.
Oh I see, 8:20 it is your position that Storck's constituents have less claim to be included in the SC boundary then the constituents in Springfield and Fairfax Station. Did you ever think of looking at this from his position?
All 3 boundary processes up for votes were not as productive as many would expect in a county-wide school division. Hunt appears to be the only at-large member actually doing the job of an at-large member. Olezak is running for state senate and has not contributed anything to this boundary process. Same for Moon. Remeber Tessie Wilson beat him for local rep and he is now at-large which is a better slot since perhaps his main focus is TJ.
Henceforth you have Gibson stepping into the fray in an attempt to at least use capacity and exercise fiscal responsibility. HHis only work session challenger on proximity and the 95 barrier in Option5 was Strauss who pointed out various boundaries where that isthe case [ie her and Gibson's Langley escapades. He's as big a duck in that puddle as is the Dranesville rep].
IMHO that guy would have used Lake Braddock - after all you are talking about someone who WILL USE SOUTH LAKES. He was the Hunter Mill board member when Daniel Domenech did an administrative boundary chnage for an entire Toll Brothers development from Langley to South Lakes. Gibson thought Mason Neck should have stayed at Hayfield for the first SC go round - but it turns out the Mason Neckers are far from the worst problem at SC. Gibson is still mentionning the farce of the addition on the Glasgow replacement building - 500 more seats than needed.
Gibson's credibilty is zero with me.
1. Claims to speak for those that don't speak and then offers and amendment that hurts them.
2. Claims to be fiscally responsible in reducing overcrowding at SC while at the same time will not use Lake Braddock.
3. Claims that I-95 is a barrier and should be used as a boundary in the South, but in his district it is "just crossing the street".
4. Has the audacity to offer Option #4 and claim to be looking our for all of FCPS $ at the same time.
8:43
You are right on all points. It is pointless to even talk with Gibson because his priority is to fill Hayfield as much as possible by using 95 as a boundary. I suspect that since he won't get that this time around he will try next time around and continue to leave LBSS off the table. This is why he must be removed from the board. I will be watching the boundary study in his district.
This I95 barrier excuse is lame. Take a school like Lee HS. Its boundaries cross the Beltway, The Parkway and I95. There are many other examples in the county. The school board needs to consider distance to the school and diversity. Lorton Station and Lorton Valley, both Lorton communities, have to leave their secondary school in Lorton, because Fairfax Station and Springfield residents won't move to LB. LB is in Burke, but already takes in much of Fairfax Station and portions of Springfield.
I've had it with the "Springfield" district. Lorton -- its time to take your school back!
Springfielders are making a mess of SC's and Hayfield's boundaries and think we don't care or are too dumb to know what they're doing. Talk about bullies. They have bullied and manipulated their way.
So South County should just be for Lorton residents?
Lorton and Mason Neck
1107 - YES!
In a hallucination world!
11:07 - You seem upset about SCSS being for Lorton residents, but not a word about the east of I95 people getting pushed out. Nobody has ever asked that all the Fairfax Station and Springfield residents leave. Option 2B would have left all the Springfield SCSS families at the school and only taken out some Fairfax Station and some Lorton.
What a bunch of dreamers. SCSS for Lorton residents (and of course MN) only?? On that thought, I think LBSS should be for Burke residents only. When will we build Fairfax Station High? This blog has become meaningless. Good luck to everybody tonight during the SB vote.
11:40 - You are making stuff up.
Silverbrook should have built Fairfax Station High in Fairfax Station, if that is what they really wanted. Instead, they helped to build SCSS in Lorton. Don't build a school in someone else's neighborhood, and then say they can't attend. It was your mistake, live with it.
I thought Mason Neck was Lorton? Why do they insist on being called Mason Neck and not Lorton?
Are you for real?
1146 what are you smoking. SCSS is in our neighborhood - no mistake at all. We are living with it quite well and will continue to do so. Thnaks for your inane commentary.
Post a Comment