Maps illustrating the preliminary boundary changes that will be presented at the Southwestern boundary meetings next week have been posted at

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/index.htm

Great, if they're sending a bunch of Clifton ES students to Sangster, do those kids eventually go to Lake Braddock (which is Sangster's school) or Robinson, where current Clifton ES students go??

That's a very good question!!! The middle/high/secondary school boundaries WILL change with the elementary schools. Don't think for one minute that they won't.

As for Sangster students - you'll probably be at LBSS until SOCO middle school is done. Once SOCO is done, guess what?!? The SB MUST do a SOCO boundary study to fill THAT school. Where do you think those kids are going to come from???

Speaking of SOCO - why is a school being constructed for $50 million for 300 kids?!?!? SOCO secondary is over capacity by 300 kids this year. SO, that begs two questions:

1. Why/How was SOCO approved for construction when schools like WSHS are in DIRE need of renovations???

2. Why is it okay to build a new school for 300 kids, but it wasn't okay to renovate Clifton for 400 kids??????


What the hell is wrong with this picture???

Maybe this has something to do with that guy named Rob Robertory who gave money to Liz Bradsher's campaign and who lives in South County school area???

What is all the excitement....these are not kids....they are numbers.

FCPS slices off a set of numbers from one school. Shuffles this set over to another school. Slices off a set of numbers in that school and shuffles the set over to another school.

I would recommend that parents wrap their arms around their kids and say no.....my kid is not a number in the political game being played by FCPS and Bradsher.

FCPS plays one parent against another as in the case of WSHS over Clifton and now over Langley and TJ.

Parents pay dearly in taxes. We vote overwhelmingly for school bonds. Enough is enough. It is time to stop letting FCPS and some school board members kick the can in our faces.

Clifton is not the only community to be impacted by the boundary study. It looks as if FCPS is looking to reassign our little community to a lesser school and devalue our houses. http://smallwoodhouselog.blogspot.com/

Probably the single least effective argument to oppose a proposed boundary change is to complain about its potential impact on property values. The School Board members absolutely LOVE it when people make that argument. They are more than ready to tell any reporter who will listen that the opponents of a redistricting don't care about providing children with equal opportunities to get a solid education, but only about their own real estate values. Then others will jump on board and point out that you should have realized when you bought your house that the boundaries could be adjusted at any time, particularly in the fast-growing SW part of the county.

The good news for your area is that it may well be the case that the School Board favors the third option, which would involving building additions at three schools and moving fewer students. Rest assured that Kathy Smith and Liz Bradsher have probably already made a deal and decided what they are going to do to your neighborhoods.

There are a lot of interesting changes some rather small but yet will have an impact. For example, all 3 options will remove one of the last remaining single family home communities (Rocky Run - along Rocky Run Drive) out of London Towne.

London Towne is already 45% free/reduced lunch. Obviously someone has the projections but this will increase that percentage.

Okay, let me get this straight. The location of your house and the quality of education in a school do make a difference in the value of your house.

However, board members will argue that value of your home is not important in the boundary change process.

These same board members will thump their chest when they say the quality of schools in Fairfax County attracts big business.

Why then, can't sellers of homes thump their chest when they say the quality of a nearby school raises the value of their home and thus attracts buyers. The unfavorable quality of education in a nearby school negatively affects the value of a house.

fool me once Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, let me get this straight. The location of
> your house and the quality of education in a
> school do make a difference in the value of your
> house.
>
> However, board members will argue that value of
> your home is not important in the boundary change
> process.
>
> These same board members will thump their chest
> when they say the quality of schools in Fairfax
> County attracts big business.
>
> Why then, can't sellers of homes thump their chest
> when they say the quality of a nearby school
> raises the value of their home and thus attracts
> buyers. The unfavorable quality of education in a
> nearby school negatively affects the value of a
> house.

It is likely because saying that the quality of schools in Fairfax County attracts big business is a phrase that can help them when it comes time to try and siphon more money out of the County Supervisors.

They aren't going to say anything about unfavorable quality of education because they don't want people to know that some of their schools are failing and they don't know how to fix them.

fool me once Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, let me get this straight. The location of
> your house and the quality of education in a
> school do make a difference in the value of your
> house.
>
> However, board members will argue that value of
> your home is not important in the boundary change
> process.
>
> These same board members will thump their chest
> when they say the quality of schools in Fairfax
> County attracts big business.
>
> Why then, can't sellers of homes thump their chest
> when they say the quality of a nearby school
> raises the value of their home and thus attracts
> buyers. The unfavorable quality of education in a
> nearby school negatively affects the value of a
> house.

You can say it, and you may even believe it, but it won't matter one iota to the majority of the current School Board members. At most, they'll view it as a zero-sum game, and relish the idea that they've raised the value of someone's home and lowered yours.

I attended the first of the community sessions. Needless to say, it took me a while to calm down. My wife, being a far better writer than I, summarized our discussion of my experience.

http://smallwoodhouselog.blogspot.com/2010/10/first-impressions-of-southwest-boundary.html

Welcome to Fairfax County. If there is anything I have learned in my 20+ years here it is that whether it is the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or School Board, these kinds decisions are made in advance behind the scenes. Public hearings and community input sessions are merely window dressing to provide the appearance of openness and community involvement.

In stark contrast, the North Hills School District in Pittsburgh just completed a new elementary school boundary adjustment that involved closing several schools. I won't bore anyone with the details but the shenanigans of the planners were called out by the general public. All of the pre-planned canned plans ended up being scrapped after their public hearings BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. Instead, the school board there listened to the common sense of the community and implemented their own boundary adjustments. Something like that could never happen here.

http://www.nhsd.net/about.cfm?subpage=1005285
http://www.nhsd.net/about.cfm?subpage=192960

Say NO to FCPS SW boundary study Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I attended the first of the community sessions.
> Needless to say, it took me a while to calm down.
> My wife, being a far better writer than I,
> summarized our discussion of my experience.
>
> http://smallwoodhouselog.blogspot.com/2010/10/firs
> t-impressions-of-southwest-boundary.html

"Say NO", great blog entry by your wife.

So you area aware, your elementary school has been engagaed in this process since July of 2009 when the initial report from FCPS staff was published.

I hope you and others will continue to seek answers to you very valid question of how do these solutions solve overcrowding? The reality is that today 8 of the 23 schools in the study boundary have enrollments of over 100% of the facility program capacity. Guess what? Option A results in 15 schools over 100%, Option B results in 10 schools over 100% and Option C results in 9 schools over 100% capacity. And in Options B and C the Fairfax County taxpayers fund additions on schools that still result in a greater number of schools over 100% capacity than today. That's the best solution FCPS can come up with?

All I can tell you is to engage every taxpayer you can and see what their reaction is to just the macro level logic noted. Then ask them to speak up. Don't focus on your specific situation because the Board doesn't care. They want to do what is best for the greater Fairfax County community. I have a difficult time believing that the greater good is intentionally planning for more overcrowded schools than there are today.

Good luck!

if your neighborhood is redistricted to a less performing school district, expect your home value to go down about 13 to 15%.

I also attended a boundary study meeting. We were asked to answer questions and FCPS had failed in providing sufficient data. Exactly how much will the options cost.....this process is slicing and dicing our kids. To cause so much distress, one would think the results would be better....why displace hundreds of kids and still have over/under crowded schools. Also, don't be fooled.... need to examine figures for % of ESOL and Free and Reduced Meals. Lets say Option A, B, or C are not acceptable. We want Option D.

fool me once Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also attended a boundary study meeting. We were
> asked to answer questions and FCPS had failed in
> providing sufficient data. Exactly how much will
> the options cost.....this process is slicing and
> dicing our kids. To cause so much distress, one
> would think the results would be better....why
> displace hundreds of kids and still have
> over/under crowded schools. Also, don't be
> fooled.... need to examine figures for % of ESOL
> and Free and Reduced Meals. Lets say Option A, B,
> or C are not acceptable. We want Option D.


And thus we slowly begin another 200+ page thread, along the lines of the South Lakes HS redistricting thread. It will contain a lot of good food for thought (the wheat amongst the chaff).

The "upside" or "downside" to that previous South Lakes thread was that it exposed me to Fairfax Underground for the first time. Luckily, I was not in the unenviable spot of learning about this forum for the first time when Boo Taylor died/was left to die.

So.. the affected kids at Robinson (for example) for the last 3 years 7,8,9th would be moved to either CVHS or LBSS next year?? All the kids that grew up going to Clifton over the last 10 years (K,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) will be affected by either a new Elementary School, Middle School or High School. I understand that 11th and 12th graders will be allowed to finish at the school they are currently in.

Its amazing that the School Board would suggest such sweeping changes that don't create any long term solutions. The proposals put forth are not well thought out, fiscally irresponsible and not in the best interest of the children or communities affected. The favored Option C requires construction at 3 schools and leaves Colin Powell still with 10 "modular" classrooms or "portable trailers". These are not suitable long term learning environments. How are they going to move all 368 kids next year from Clifton? I suspect we'll see more Portable Classrooms in our future. Perhaps, they've already been ordered???

I understand they are trying to plan, but it seems that the School Board is set on their own path and rushing into a plan that's not ready. The closing of Clifton has become a vendetta for the School Board. The by-product of which is now beginning to ripple across other communities with this first boundary study.

This boundary study needs to be tabled until it can be thought out more clearly to provide better long term solutions. We are in an education budget crisis in this state - this type of knee-jerk proposal is just the type of spending that got here.

I am reposting my response from a smallwoods blog concerning the SW Boundary Study meetings:

I am not surprised by what is going on with the school board and the SW Boundary Study...what I do find ironic is that none of the other schools stopped for one moment to think about what would happen to their schools when Clifton ES was voted to be shut down...their attitude was lackadaisical to say the least. So, by shutting down our little school it will now impact 28 schools...Next time the board votes to shut down a little school in uncrowded area of the county maybe the support will be stronger with neighboring PTAs...

Right now, my biggest concern is keeping my child in her current middle/high school. She attends Robinson and is already been earmarked for the IB/AP programs...my questions are: what about the IB/AP programs? Will the high schools affected have to have a new curriculum for IB/AP students?

Remember...vote...vote...vote during the next school board elections...time to clean house and NO! new school bonds!

Additional input from meetings last night:

1) Transportation planner for FCPS at the Union Mill meeting stated that FCPS has not done the estimation of the cost reduction/increases associated with changes in any of the Options.
2) Same transportation planner stated that "Clifton is locked". Not sure if that meant Option A or Options B/C for Clifton.
3) At Union Mill FCPS had an employee that had been with facilities for only 3-weeks answering questions posed by attendees. And yes, that person had to ask other FCPS staff to assist. Might I ask why that staff member was there?
4) Many questions posed by members at all of the sessions last night were not answered or answers were, "we don't know". Examples include costs for transportation, costs of additions.
5) Inconsistencies in responses to questions were seen across all sites. One site the Clifton AAP students were going to Willow Springs as they do now an at another meeting the Clifton AAP students were going to the AAP Centers associated with their new school (Fairview, Union Mill, Sangster).
6) A Fairfax City Board member that attended the meeting at Union Mill called the email exchanges of information between FCPS Staff and School Board "highly unprofessional" and appeared shocked at the options being proposed.
7) Many new to the Southwestern Boundary Study indicated they had no idea their school would be impacted by new boundaries until the maps came out on Friday. My response to that is..."where the heck have you been, this has been going on since July of 2009".
8) A question was posed about High School / Middle School populations if boundaries shift and no information was provided in response.

For a transparent and open process, sure seems there are a lot of open questions. Oh, and if you are a betting person, my bet is on Option C being the option of choice for FCPS.

I also have the sense that Option C is what FCPS wants. The whole point of Options A and B is to get a bunch of people to support Option C, rather than Options A, B or "none of the above." Then FCPS can say there was widespread support for Option C.

I think "Clifton is locked" means that, under any scenario FCPS is currently willing to entertain, the school will be closed (and the doors will be locked).

All redistricting activities in FCPS should be guided by the 'Langley Doctrine'

"No neighborhood/family should be redistricted against their will to a lower performing school/pyrmamid"

Simple. Easy to apply. Focusses on building up, not dumbing down

I attended the meeting last night at UMES and am ticked off at the meeting methodology:
1) assigning tables to participants guarantees no table will share the same perspective or reach a consensus.
2) the very limited and loaded questions they asked each table to answer will almost certainly be used as justification for whatever decision is reached. (For each option: "rate this option on the basis of efficient spending/budgets", also "rate this option on the basis of minimizing overcrowding")
3) the "divide & conquer" process of assigning tables is a convenient way to dampen any strong feelings of an individual or eliminate any influence of a concerted group of parents.
4) ZERO insight was provided concerning the implication to high school boundaries (a chief concern to many parents)
5) IF the school board was truly seeking feedback, whatever results they got were muddled and useless. (The general feeling of the participants is that the school board actually does NOT care about feedback, they are just going through the motions)

The more I think about it today, the more I think I wasted my time and these meetings are a sham.

Here are the questions to ask at the meetings:
1) Which of the 3 options result in fewer schools out of the 23 in the study area at or above 100% capacity than there are today?
2) What are the capital costs and variances in operating costs from today for each of the scenarios?
3) What is the timing of these changes? All on September 2011, some September 2011, some later? When?
4) In 2015 how will the overcrowding at schools in this area be addressed as the FCPS figures show there will still be overcrowding? And likely more overcrowding than there is today?
5) How many temporary classrooms will be removed as part of each of the scenarios?
6) How many temporary classrooms will be required as part of each of the scenarios and where will they be needed (and at what cost)?
7) If high school/middle school boundaries are to change, is there space in the receiving schools for relocated students? If not, how will you address that? If not known, why not?
8) What happens if my child(ren) are currently in SACC at their school and they are redistricted to another school that has a SACC waiting list?
9) Will counselors be available to each of the school communities impacted by these changes both during the current school year and the 2011 school year?
10) Will there be a process for grandfathering students at the high school/middle school level? If so, what is it?
11) Will any elementary school students have the ability to remain at their current school for 5th/6th grade vs going to their redistricted school?

Dumbfounded Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I attended the meeting last night at UMES and am
> ticked off at the meeting methodology:
> 1) assigning tables to participants guarantees no
> table will share the same perspective or reach a
> consensus.
> 2) the very limited and loaded questions they
> asked each table to answer will almost certainly
> be used as justification for whatever decision is
> reached. (For each option: "rate this option on
> the basis of efficient spending/budgets", also
> "rate this option on the basis of minimizing
> overcrowding")
> 3) the "divide & conquer" process of assigning
> tables is a convenient way to dampen any strong
> feelings of an individual or eliminate any
> influence of a concerted group of parents.
> 4) ZERO insight was provided concerning the
> implication to high school boundaries (a chief
> concern to many parents)
> 5) IF the school board was truly seeking feedback,
> whatever results they got were muddled and
> useless. (The general feeling of the participants
> is that the school board actually does NOT care
> about feedback, they are just going through the
> motions)
>
> The more I think about it today, the more I think
> I wasted my time and these meetings are a sham.


Having sat through the south lakes debacle it seems fair to say - "you ain't seen nothing yet"

lessons learnt
- the rules of the game are skewed day one
- your schoolboard member will have no compunction in throwing your neighborhood under the bus as part of a deal if it suits them
- rival neighborhoods will throw you under the bus to protect themselves
- the board doesn't listen and won't learn
- if you show an concern for your kids education you will be branded a racist and an elitist
-fighting clean doesn't help
- if you're middle class and white, your kids are a resource to be allocated to make the performance of failing schools look good

welcome to redistricting

Vote Option D - none are acceptable. Don't close Clifton next year, what the hell is the rush? It can stay open until at least 2015, when there is a safety check.

I'm afraid that the politicization of education means the end of what was once a great system of public education. It is now a blood sport and our kids are the footballs to be kicked around. The end result can only be dismal---eventually those with the means will send their kids off to private schools or the "backlash" created by this "game" will be a very conservative one (as we are already seeing---"give us the vouchers because we can't trust the politicians to represent us and spend our money wisely"). They had best remember who is paying the taxes and whether those people will feel that paying more and more taxes is getting them more or getting them less. This is all going to get worse before it gets any better I'm afraid. Taxation without representation is back. They all need to go back to school---or maybe we can use this whole episode as a "teachable moment" for our children (Jack Dale likes all of these "teachable moments").

The Langley Doctrine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumbfounded Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I attended the meeting last night at UMES and
> am
> > ticked off at the meeting methodology:
> > 1) assigning tables to participants guarantees
> no
> > table will share the same perspective or reach
> a
> > consensus.
> > 2) the very limited and loaded questions they
> > asked each table to answer will almost
> certainly
> > be used as justification for whatever decision
> is
> > reached. (For each option: "rate this option
> on
> > the basis of efficient spending/budgets", also
> > "rate this option on the basis of minimizing
> > overcrowding")
> > 3) the "divide & conquer" process of assigning
> > tables is a convenient way to dampen any strong
> > feelings of an individual or eliminate any
> > influence of a concerted group of parents.
> > 4) ZERO insight was provided concerning the
> > implication to high school boundaries (a chief
> > concern to many parents)
> > 5) IF the school board was truly seeking
> feedback,
> > whatever results they got were muddled and
> > useless. (The general feeling of the
> participants
> > is that the school board actually does NOT care
> > about feedback, they are just going through the
> > motions)
> >
> > The more I think about it today, the more I
> think
> > I wasted my time and these meetings are a sham.
>
>
> Having sat through the south lakes debacle it
> seems fair to say - "you ain't seen nothing yet"
>
> lessons learnt
> - the rules of the game are skewed day one
> - your schoolboard member will have no compunction
> in throwing your neighborhood under the bus as
> part of a deal if it suits them
> - rival neighborhoods will throw you under the bus
> to protect themselves
> - the board doesn't listen and won't learn
> - if you show an concern for your kids education
> you will be branded a racist and an elitist
> -fighting clean doesn't help
> - if you're middle class and white, your kids are
> a resource to be allocated to make the performance
> of failing schools look good
>
> welcome to redistricting

I would also add that children are only numbers to the school board. I have been through 3 boundary studies in my 11 years in Fairfax County and I agree that the decisions have already been made and the whole thing is a sham. So glad my kids have graduated and I don't have to deal with it anymore.

DukeMom,

FCPS still has the power to shave 20% off of your house's value overnight. I encourage you to remain enagaged as these proceedings affects us all.

I have updated the blog with FOIA data obtained from http://savecliftonelementary.org/FOIA_emails_documentation.pdf.

http://smallwoodhouselog.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-is-really-behind-fcps-southwest.html

Read up and get to know who represents you.

It seems to me a variant of the statement "if you're middle class and white, your kids are a resource to be allocated to make the performance of failing schools look good" is accurate - that variant being that middle class and white kids are really resources to be allocated to keep schools from failing. Allocating white and asian students across as wide a distribution as possible makes sense if you are a school administrator. Of course, it may not make any sense from a parent's perspective, who by and large intuit that the value of diversity, well, is not worth much.

What I fail to understand is why the school administration and the school board refrain from openly admitting that a wide distribution of white and asian students - call it load balancing if you will - is simply necessary to keep schools from reaching a demographic tipping point from which they cannot recover. Of course this is hardly politically correct, but at the same time there is absolutely no secret as to the demographics behind student performance. Why not simply be open and transparent, and avoid all of the deception and meaningless massaging of public opinion? If this is the compelling rationale behind a school decision (as it often may be), why not be open and direct about it?

Say NO to FCPS SW Boundary Study Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

On NO -

Welcome to my world. As you will find out, there is no such thing as NO. The residents of Fairfax County, in their infinite, collective wisdom, created a School Board with nearly absolute power. Once they've decided to do something, there is no NO.

As a resident of Floris, with kids through GT, I've had the great good fortune to participate in about 8 redistrictings. They are all the same -

1) The selection of schools in the study limits the "rational" solutions to ones that Staff & the SB have already agreed on with the potential for very few adjustments. (E.g. Where's over crowded, adjacent Langley in the South Lakes redistricting. Langley's untouchable, so we're spending the public's money on an addition there instead...)
2) Staff and the SB point at each other as the responsible party.
3) Staff/SB limit your inputs to ones that are "germane".
3) The "public input" is largely an opportunity for each potentially impacted group to try to throw any other group under the bus they can find.
4) Staff/SB love "public input" as a "consensus" emerges as stronger groups gang up on weaker ones.
5) SB members collude with their favorite schools' PTA/PTOs/Principals to plan their "public input."
6) If you happen to reside in a high SES area, you're a racist.
7) Staff/SB's numbers are just numbers - Dean'll tell you, just because the numbers are in his CIP, it doesn't mean he believes them.
8) The At-Large members attempt to find sane alternatives (e.g. Clifton ES), but, given the construction of the board, always lose to the log rolling and parochial interests of the Magisterial District members (who can't find any HS but their own (let alone any ESes) on a map).

9) Stu sticks his tongue in Alan Webb's ear.
10) And, of course, Kathy cries.

None of what is proposed is shocking or "unconceivable" nor should it be amazing to discover how heartless the school board members really are, if you followed the South Lakes Boundary change a few years back.

Advice, don't bother fighting, it is not worth your time or angst. The rest of the county who you would beg to help fight the cause will ignore you. These people wondered where you were during their fight to save their school, to stop the carving up of neighborhoods, schools, long time friends, etc. The School Board doesn't care about how you feel. Take it from experience they have already figured it all out and besides showing their faces at the public meetings (if they feel like it) they will be on vacation the next 6 months with their emails turned to auto-reply.

Bluedeviler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to me a variant of the statement "if
> you're middle class and white, your kids are a
> resource to be allocated to make the performance
> of failing schools look good" is accurate - that
> variant being that middle class and white kids are
> really resources to be allocated to keep schools
> from failing. Allocating white and asian students
> across as wide a distribution as possible makes
> sense if you are a school administrator. Of
> course, it may not make any sense from a parent's
> perspective, who by and large intuit that the
> value of diversity, well, is not worth much.
>
> What I fail to understand is why the school
> administration and the school board refrain from
> openly admitting that a wide distribution of white
> and asian students - call it load balancing if you
> will - is simply necessary to keep schools from
> reaching a demographic tipping point from which
> they cannot recover. Of course this is hardly
> politically correct, but at the same time there is
> absolutely no secret as to the demographics behind
> student performance. Why not simply be open and
> transparent, and avoid all of the deception and
> meaningless massaging of public opinion? If this
> is the compelling rationale behind a school
> decision (as it often may be), why not be open and
> direct about it?

Because if you tell hard working educated parents of the typical 2 career fairfax professional family that their kid's new job is not to be educated ready to be a productive member of society but to cover up for a slice of the population that just can't be bother to learn - then they'll just move and take their skills/taxes to a county/state/country that will provide them with the services that they value and think they're paying for

I just don't feel there's a compelling rationale there - FCPS provides excellent opportunities for all - and if certain sub-communities just can't be bothered to put in the work then its not our kids job to fix that

Fix broken schools - don't waste hard working kids by using them to paper over the cracks - let them focus on being educated

KS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> None of what is proposed is shocking or
> "unconceivable" nor should it be amazing to
> discover how heartless the school board members
> really are, if you followed the South Lakes
> Boundary change a few years back.
>
> Advice, don't bother fighting, it is not worth
> your time or angst.

That is where you are wrong. If you tell everyone you come in contact with not to re-elect Liz Bradsher or Kathy Smith (in the case of Southwestern Boundary study), than that is worth your time. Their re-election is barely a year from now. To doing nothing at all simply makes you a part of the problem.

Liz Bradsher has thrown the kids in this part of the County under the bus by closing Clifton Elementary just so she can move West Springfield High School up the renovation queue and get votes (it's larger than Clifton). Since votes are what she holds most dearly - dedicate yourself to taking them away!

NoToLiz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > None of what is proposed is shocking or
> > "unconceivable" nor should it be amazing to
> > discover how heartless the school board members
> > really are, if you followed the South Lakes
> > Boundary change a few years back.
> >
> > Advice, don't bother fighting, it is not worth
> > your time or angst.
>
> That is where you are wrong. If you tell everyone
> you come in contact with not to re-elect Liz
> Bradsher or Kathy Smith (in the case of
> Southwestern Boundary study), than that is worth
> your time. Their re-election is barely a year
> from now. To doing nothing at all simply makes
> you a part of the problem.
>
> Liz Bradsher has thrown the kids in this part of
> the County under the bus by closing Clifton
> Elementary just so she can move West Springfield
> High School up the renovation queue and get votes
> (it's larger than Clifton). Since votes are what
> she holds most dearly - dedicate yourself to
> taking them away!

You act like your school board member is special (or not so special in this case). Have you come into contact with any of the other school board members? They all do the same, act the same, for the most part. You really think that Liz and Kathy are the only two who do back room hand shakes? are they only two with nasty intents? They all do this. Everyone has a pre-assigned role in these boundary studies--good cop, bad cop, dumb cop, neutral cop. They will play these through the end and your kids will go where they want them to go. There was an election during the South Lakes redistricting and none of the knuckleheads got voted out. You believe your case is different, the anger--much more, your influence--much more, your proof of wrong doing--much more, but don't caught up in all of this. Energy is better utilized in fighting for change in how school board members come to be. How a superintendent is selected/approved. The rest of the county would join you on this fight. Until this change happens, the parents/students are pawns.

I've read everything here. I feel for everyone who has not been heard and has been through pain with FCPS's processes. But Union Mill's case seems especially severe. I'm sure many of you have been here, but hear me out.

Liberty was not an appropriate site for a new school to address overcrowding (the reason they gave, anyway), but it seems Union Mill, not even 2 miles down the street, is.

It is taking on some Clifton students as well as others - to the tune of a projected 112% "program" capacity in 2011 (w/Option C).

They project a decrease in enrollment to 927 by 2015 (Really? that's much larger than anyone else - how can that even be accurate). But that is still max capacity, WITH an addition that will probably remove the basketball court/only strip of asphalt. I've heard they will not enlarge the cafeteria, etc. Guess some will enjoy those 10:30 lunches.

To add insult to injury, we are a limited egress subdivision. So all those parents who come and drop their kids off, and the buses - they have to turn around to exit. You can't drive through the subdivision to the other side. Very unsafe for all the kids and parents who don't take the bus or do kiss and ride (this already happens, to a large degree). I'm bracing myself for the first injury or fatality out there. It also effectively doubles the traffic on this one street.

I asked Dean if there would be a traffic study, to see if this area can even take this school addition on, when it wasn't intended - and he said there hasn't been one, and he can't guarantee it (in other words, no).

I can see property values on this street drop just from the traffic alone. I already plan my schedule around their bell schedule, to the extent possible. I've seen the traffic at Colin Powell, with a similar number of students, on a thoroughfare with more ways to access. I just can't see how it can be done safely here. Guess it won't matter until someone is seriously hurt?

I remember when the Fairfax County School Board was appointed.

An elected School Board would be SOOOO much more responsive to parental concerns!

WHAT HAPPENED???

I'll tell yas what happened, when you have an elected board, you end up with a board of POLITICIANS, whom, as any stupid motherfucker knows, are responsive ONLY to their own personal interests and ambitions.

Dumb fucks.

unionmillistrashed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read everything here. I feel for everyone
> who has not been heard and has been through pain
> with FCPS's processes. But Union Mill's case
> seems especially severe. I'm sure many of you
> have been here, but hear me out.
>
> Liberty was not an appropriate site for a new
> school to address overcrowding (the reason they
> gave, anyway), but it seems Union Mill, not even 2
> miles down the street, is.
>
> It is taking on some Clifton students as well as
> others - to the tune of a projected 112% "program"
> capacity in 2011 (w/Option C).
>
> They project a decrease in enrollment to 927 by
> 2015 (Really? that's much larger than anyone else
> - how can that even be accurate). But that is
> still max capacity, WITH an addition that will
> probably remove the basketball court/only strip of
> asphalt. I've heard they will not enlarge the
> cafeteria, etc. Guess some will enjoy those 10:30
> lunches.
>
> To add insult to injury, we are a limited egress
> subdivision. So all those parents who come and
> drop their kids off, and the buses - they have to
> turn around to exit. You can't drive through the
> subdivision to the other side. Very unsafe for
> all the kids and parents who don't take the bus or
> do kiss and ride (this already happens, to a large
> degree). I'm bracing myself for the first injury
> or fatality out there. It also effectively
> doubles the traffic on this one street.
>
> I asked Dean if there would be a traffic study, to
> see if this area can even take this school
> addition on, when it wasn't intended - and he said
> there hasn't been one, and he can't guarantee it
> (in other words, no).
>
> I can see property values on this street drop just
> from the traffic alone. I already plan my
> schedule around their bell schedule, to the extent
> possible. I've seen the traffic at Colin Powell,
> with a similar number of students, on a
> thoroughfare with more ways to access. I just
> can't see how it can be done safely here. Guess
> it won't matter until someone is seriously hurt?

Don't assume their numbers have any basis in reality - check for yourself. When they made the decision to close Clifton they said it was because of declining enrollment. Clifton Elementary is supported by THREE zip codes: 22030, 22039 and 20124. However, projections for future enrollment were based on only 20124, which therefore excluded a large population of students. Look over at the FFU thread called Collusion by School Board Member Liz Bradsher for Political Gain.

unionmillistrashed Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> To add insult to injury, we are a limited egress
> subdivision. So all those parents who come and
> drop their kids off, and the buses - they have to
> turn around to exit. You can't drive through the
> subdivision to the other side. Very unsafe for
> all the kids and parents who don't take the bus or
> do kiss and ride (this already happens, to a large
> degree). I'm bracing myself for the first injury
> or fatality out there. It also effectively
> doubles the traffic on this one street.
>
> I asked Dean if there would be a traffic study, to
> see if this area can even take this school
> addition on, when it wasn't intended - and he said
> there hasn't been one, and he can't guarantee it
> (in other words, no).
>

Sorry, but they could care less about your traffic issues and might actually be laughing at you for bringing it up -- just take a look at what they said about the Woodson High School parents related to buses over on the other thread about Liz Bradsher. Brace yourself for when you read about what Dean Tisdadt said.

thnx, Reality. I know - as I was quickly drafting my first post, Clifton's situation came to mind as even more severe. I have recently read up on all they've gone through and am astounded. Wonder how I go about getting the detail on how they projected our future enrollment?

Also wonder how I could get info as to why certain schools along the route 50 corridor were left out of the study. I don't wish stress on anyone else, but closer to the route 50 corridor seems to make the best sense.

oldtimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember when the Fairfax County School Board
> was appointed.
>
> An elected School Board would be SOOOO much more
> responsive to parental concerns!
>
> WHAT HAPPENED???
>
> I'll tell yas what happened, when you have an
> elected board, you end up with a board of
> POLITICIANS, whom, as any stupid motherfucker
> knows, are responsive ONLY to their own personal
> interests and ambitions.
>
> Dumb fucks.

The appointed members were hacks as well who made partisan decisions where boundaries were involved. Unfortunately, it's the nature of the job and the types of people it tends to attract, rather than the method of selection.

I know. But I think it needs to be on record. We are not a thoroughfare. Every single car and bus that goes through here will go back out the way they came in. And it is lined with houses and a rec center. Seriously doubt they will take the much longer route out, with several stops signs and two speed bumps.

And so many parents park as close as they can to the school and pick their kid up, rather than hassle with kiss and ride or the bus. I get it. But with so many cars parked up and down a street with no median, and so much traffic - adding on to the school and increasing it beyond what engineers originally designed will be hazardous (they are putting on an addition, and then increasing capacity beyond what it should be even with the addition - to 112%). One kid was almost hit by a car backing out a few years ago.


WoodsonH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> unionmillistrashed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> >
> > To add insult to injury, we are a limited
> egress
> > subdivision. So all those parents who come and
> > drop their kids off, and the buses - they have
> to
> > turn around to exit. You can't drive through
> the
> > subdivision to the other side. Very unsafe for
> > all the kids and parents who don't take the bus
> or
> > do kiss and ride (this already happens, to a
> large
> > degree). I'm bracing myself for the first
> injury
> > or fatality out there. It also effectively
> > doubles the traffic on this one street.
> >
> > I asked Dean if there would be a traffic study,
> to
> > see if this area can even take this school
> > addition on, when it wasn't intended - and he
> said
> > there hasn't been one, and he can't guarantee
> it
> > (in other words, no).
> >
>
> Sorry, but they could care less about your traffic
> issues and might actually be laughing at you for
> bringing it up -- just take a look at what they
> said about the Woodson High School parents related
> to buses over on the other thread about Liz
> Bradsher. Brace yourself for when you read about
> what Dean Tisdadt said.

Here's an important web site to ignore:

http://www.fcps.edu/about/choose.htm

Or you could follow the advice in this site, but then just assume you'll get the next school over.

unionmillistrashed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can see property values on this street drop just
> from the traffic alone. I already plan my
> schedule around their bell schedule, to the extent
> possible. I've seen the traffic at Colin Powell,
> with a similar number of students, on a
> thoroughfare with more ways to access. I just
> can't see how it can be done safely here. Guess
> it won't matter until someone is seriously hurt?

I think you are probably correct about the traffic issues. But it wont matter even if someone gets hurt. They will blame the driver; they must have been speeding or something.

The only way you are going to get The FCPS to understand this is if you sue them. This should be very easy to prove, since they are uwilling to do a safety study and it is clearly in a limited access community.

Good luck on finding a straight answer....you will hear, well, we did not depend on the zip codes, nor the housing numbers, but on the birth rates, permits to building more housing and the type of housing, the zip codes, the number of housing, but we really don't depend on blah, blah, blah, but we do take a bit of data from each, including the zip codes, birthrate, etc. Get the picture. Please post if you get a straight answer........

Thanks for the reality check and advice. I'd hate to wait until after the addition is done for any further action. I can't believe (even after everything I'd read) they won't do a traffic study. I started thinking too, about how congested union mill and braddock/new braddock road is at rush hour. They have had some grizzly accidents there, and this will only add to the mix. I do everything I can to avoid it.

The fact that our neighborhood is so very different from everyone else's w/regards to projected decline is suspect. No to mention that we have had many foreclosures here recently, which will probably mean more young families. I will certainly post if I get a straight (and documented) answer. I've already contacted a couple of politicians, but haven't heard from them yet. It is a big issue, but I contacted McConnell once about something, and she was on it in a day and it was resolved in a week. I do miss her.

Lessons learned from the SouthLakes/Chantilly/Westfield redistricting...

Do NOT try to persuade the SB with tales of woe that only your neighborhood will suffer from ....they will only tell you that it is for the good of the marjority.
Try to find a logical reason why the changes should not be made. Don't throw a different neighborhood under the bus for the sake of yours, the SB loves when neighborhoods fight against each other... it takes the spotlight off of them.

Grab the newbies and see if you can sway them. This is going to be very painful for everyone involved. You will live this 24/7.

FYI, with all we did for our redistricting, we still got screwed with a 6-6 tie at the SB meeting (oh yea, and tie means you lose!!).

still, when all was said and done (it's been 3 years now) the kids seem fine about everything.

Good Luck

unionmillistrashed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the reality check and advice. I'd hate
> to wait until after the addition is done for any
> further action. I can't believe (even after
> everything I'd read) they won't do a traffic
> study. I started thinking too, about how
> congested union mill and braddock/new braddock
> road is at rush hour. They have had some grizzly
> accidents there, and this will only add to the
> mix. I do everything I can to avoid it.
>
> The fact that our neighborhood is so very
> different from everyone else's w/regards to
> projected decline is suspect. No to mention that
> we have had many foreclosures here recently, which
> will probably mean more young families. I will
> certainly post if I get a straight (and
> documented) answer. I've already contacted a
> couple of politicians, but haven't heard from them
> yet. It is a big issue, but I contacted McConnell
> once about something, and she was on it in a day
> and it was resolved in a week. I do miss her.

Call Pat Herrity. He lives in Little Rocky Run and I guarantee he will have something to say.

I dont know what time Union Mill starts at, but traffic from Centreville HS backs up Union Mill Rd. until 7:45 at least. Then you have Liberty MS blocking up the other side. Now they are proposing sending more buses on the same road. Even people who have no children in the schools should be offended about this. THe only way to avoid it is to take Twin Lakes to Clifton rd, a very dangerous road.

Part of the blowback from the South Lakes redistricting is that many members will not be back on the School Board come January 2012.

Stu Gibson, Tessie Wilson and Brad Center are not seeking re-election. Phil and Kaye Kory left. Liz will not get the endorsement of her party. That's 6 new members.

Janie will be opposed both within the Democratic Party and by a Republican in November. Even money she decides to retire.

Raney will not get the Democratic Party endorsement again. He's gone.

Kathy may be opposed for the Democratic Party endorsement and will have a Republican opponent in Sully which is a strongly Republican district. "Don't cry for her Sully District."

That's 3 more for a total of 9 new members.

Their replacements are/will not gullible neophytes to be led around by the nose by the man with a tan and no plan. Wanna bet he's a goner when a new SB gets into office. Golum (aka Dean) is retiring.

Drag this exercise out just 6 months and it will be the middle of the SB election season.

Things could be very different this time around.

FCPS decided NOT to use the bussed in center numbers. I guess every kid in Willow Springs center is from the base school? Something in the water? Lots of sloppy work.

Re: Herrity, I hope so. I sent an email via their website on Tuesday, and left a voice mail today - no responses yet. Even a "We're looking into it" would be good. I realize it's a busy time.

Yes, the traffic is bad. Traffic is almost always pretty sluggish all the way from Braddock to Springstone when I leave around 8:00 am. And yes, Twin Lakes is dangerous. A truck went over the double yellow to get around a cyclist yesterday - I was coming around the curve from the opposite direction, and had to act fast to avoid a pretty nasty collision. It would have taken out the cyclist, for sure. Scary.


KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> unionmillistrashed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thanks for the reality check and advice. I'd
> hate
> > to wait until after the addition is done for
> any
> > further action. I can't believe (even after
> > everything I'd read) they won't do a traffic
> > study. I started thinking too, about how
> > congested union mill and braddock/new braddock
> > road is at rush hour. They have had some
> grizzly
> > accidents there, and this will only add to the
> > mix. I do everything I can to avoid it.
> >
> > The fact that our neighborhood is so very
> > different from everyone else's w/regards to
> > projected decline is suspect. No to mention
> that
> > we have had many foreclosures here recently,
> which
> > will probably mean more young families. I will
> > certainly post if I get a straight (and
> > documented) answer. I've already contacted a
> > couple of politicians, but haven't heard from
> them
> > yet. It is a big issue, but I contacted
> McConnell
> > once about something, and she was on it in a
> day
> > and it was resolved in a week. I do miss her.
>
> Call Pat Herrity. He lives in Little Rocky Run and
> I guarantee he will have something to say.
>
> I dont know what time Union Mill starts at, but
> traffic from Centreville HS backs up Union Mill
> Rd. until 7:45 at least. Then you have Liberty MS
> blocking up the other side. Now they are proposing
> sending more buses on the same road. Even people
> who have no children in the schools should be
> offended about this. THe only way to avoid it is
> to take Twin Lakes to Clifton rd, a very dangerous
> road.

How do we slow this very misguided train down? I'm a newbie at this, but trying my best.

Thomas More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Part of the blowback from the South Lakes
> redistricting is that many members will not be
> back on the School Board come January 2012.
>
> Stu Gibson, Tessie Wilson and Brad Center are not
> seeking re-election. Phil and Kaye Kory left. Liz
> will not get the endorsement of her party. That's
> 6 new members.
>
> Janie will be opposed both within the Democratic
> Party and by a Republican in November. Even money
> she decides to retire.
>
> Raney will not get the Democratic Party
> endorsement again. He's gone.
>
> Kathy may be opposed for the Democratic Party
> endorsement and will have a Republican opponent in
> Sully which is a strongly Republican district.
> "Don't cry for her Sully District."
>
> That's 3 more for a total of 9 new members.
>
> Their replacements are/will not gullible neophytes
> to be led around by the nose by the man with a tan
> and no plan. Wanna bet he's a goner when a new SB
> gets into office. Golum (aka Dean) is retiring.
>
> Drag this exercise out just 6 months and it will
> be the middle of the SB election season.
>
> Things could be very different this time around.

To me it seems sloppy for a reason. I know $35,000 a year analysts who would get chewed out for this quality of work. I do hope their reason not to use the bused in center numbers is documented somewhere on fcps' site for Willow Springs.

The numbers seem to be all over. A person in power at UM stated that enrollment there declined by 50 this fall. Funny, a doc on fcps.com shows a decrease, as of 9/30/10, of just 2. That person also said we have a capacity of 900-plus at UM already, without an addition. Funny, even the new way of calculating capacity, "program capacity" on the docs fcps handed out just this week, shows a capacity of 771 (I've also seen 783 on fcps' website, but this is nowhere near 900.) Are they planning to drop special programs so they can accommodate a projected increase to 1,066 in 2011?



aap and centers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FCPS decided NOT to use the bussed in center
> numbers. I guess every kid in Willow Springs
> center is from the base school? Something in the
> water? Lots of sloppy work.

aap and centers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FCPS decided NOT to use the bussed in center
> numbers. I guess every kid in Willow Springs
> center is from the base school? Something in the
> water? Lots of sloppy work.

FCPS had related issues during the Coates redistricting, including not counting the kids who'd been permitted to outplace from McNair due to McNair missing NCLB (who'd clearly be coming back in any redistricting that was on the table) and the Oak Hill AAP/GT Center.

AAP/GT is literally considered a completely separate item - it's a Program. Somehow Program capacity is considered completely independent of area capacity. The area-based people who run redistrictings assume no change in Programs when they cook the numbers. From discussions during Coates, the area-based redistricting people literally never talk to the AAP people. The area-based people recompute AFTER the SB approves Program changes but assume Programs are constant when they generate their alternatives.

During the Coates redistricting, FCPS was eventually pushed into considering AAP changes in their alternatives, but it was literally the first time they'd ever done so.

FCPS never considered McNair NCLB returnees in their calculations, somehow claiming that they had no idea how many there even were... (I know, I know, never attribute to malevolence that which can be attributed to incompetence...)

Thomas Moore....are you simply posting about the potential changes in order to distract folks who are mad as you know what,.....after reading the emails documenting the tacky behavior of Bradsher and her team of players....Gibson, Wilson, and Dean?

unionmillistrashed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me it seems sloppy for a reason. I know
> $35,000 a year analysts who would get chewed out
> for this quality of work. I do hope their reason
> not to use the bused in center numbers is
> documented somewhere on fcps' site for Willow
> Springs.
>
> The numbers seem to be all over. A person in
> power at UM stated that enrollment there declined
> by 50 this fall. Funny, a doc on fcps.com shows a
> decrease, as of 9/30/10, of just 2. That person
> also said we have a capacity of 900-plus at UM
> already, without an addition. Funny, even the new
> way of calculating capacity, "program capacity" on
> the docs fcps handed out just this week, shows a
> capacity of 771 (I've also seen 783 on fcps'
> website, but this is nowhere near 900.) Are they
> planning to drop special programs so they can
> accommodate a projected increase to 1,066 in 2011?
>
>
>
>
> aap and centers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FCPS decided NOT to use the bussed in center
> > numbers. I guess every kid in Willow Springs
> > center is from the base school? Something in
> the
> > water? Lots of sloppy work.


Sure it's malicious and just stupid. These are school buildings and buses paid for with public money.

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/optionb.pdf

What is all this movement around GBWest? As of Sept 2010 there were 390 in AAP grades 3 through 6 out of 943 students in the entire building. Take out k through 2 and sped this school has 390 out of 645 students in the AAP. 60%.

Very relevant .

Some boundary studies have shown population clusters.

fool us no more Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Moore....are you simply posting about the potential changes in order to distract folks who are mad as you know what,.....after reading the emails documenting the tacky behavior of Bradsher and her team of players....Gibson, Wilson, and Dean?<

Given that I share the anger at the outrageous behavior of those cretins, the answer to your question is "no."

My point is that there is a school Board election next year. There will be a significant number of new school board members. The identity of those new members is evolving at this very minute. There is reason for hope but this is now the time to act to assure that the next School Board is better than the current failures.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2010 10:30AM by Thomas More.

Thomas More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fool us no more Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thomas Moore....are you simply posting about the
> potential changes in order to distract folks who
> are mad as you know what,.....after reading the
> emails documenting the tacky behavior of Bradsher
> and her team of players....Gibson, Wilson, and
> Dean?<
>
> Given that I share the anger at the outrageous
> behavior of those cretins, the answer to your
> question is "no."
>
> My point is that there is a school Board election
> next year. There will be a significant number of
> new school board members. The identity of those
> new members is evolving at this very minute.
> There is reason for hope but this is now the time
> to act to assure that the next School Board is
> better than the current failures.

Aren't you in Reston?

Why do you feel that way given that the School Board bent over backwards to pump up the fortunes of South Lakes?

Just let me know if any high schools actually get moved around in the renovation queue at the end of this. If the needed/established/fair/whatever order is screwed around with for political gain, I won't be amused.

WestfieldDad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> aap and centers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FCPS decided NOT to use the bussed in center
> > numbers. I guess every kid in Willow Springs
> > center is from the base school? Something in
> the
> > water? Lots of sloppy work.
>
> FCPS had related issues during the Coates
> redistricting, including not counting the kids
> who'd been permitted to outplace from McNair due
> to McNair missing NCLB (who'd clearly be coming
> back in any redistricting that was on the table)
> and the Oak Hill AAP/GT Center.
>
> AAP/GT is literally considered a completely
> separate item - it's a Program. Somehow Program
> capacity is considered completely independent of
> area capacity. The area-based people who run
> redistrictings assume no change in Programs when
> they cook the numbers. From discussions during
> Coates, the area-based redistricting people
> literally never talk to the AAP people. The
> area-based people recompute AFTER the SB approves
> Program changes but assume Programs are constant
> when they generate their alternatives.
>
> During the Coates redistricting, FCPS was
> eventually pushed into considering AAP changes in
> their alternatives, but it was literally the first
> time they'd ever done so.
>
> FCPS never considered McNair NCLB returnees in
> their calculations, somehow claiming that they had
> no idea how many there even were... (I know, I
> know, never attribute to malevolence that which
> can be attributed to incompetence...)

Bradsher and Robertory certainly are/were aware of AAP/GTC ...Silverbrook got in house AAP I believe. The first school in the massive construction for their area was Lorton Station. Complete with GT Center and movement of kids from Silverbrook?


Coates was not the first time AAP [prior GT Centers] were considered in boundary studies. A few new schools were opened in 2002 [?]and FCPS presented numbers from each base school.

http://www.fcag.org/documents/gtac/gtac_2003.pdf


"In late 2002 FCPS was tasked with
setting boundaries for new elementary schools. In keeping with recommendations made
by the GTAC last year, new GT Center selection was an integral part of this process.
FCPS also implemented the GTAC recommendations to establish additional centers in
both underserved and overcrowded areas. In fall 2003, GT Centers will open at the
following schools: Clearview, Colvin Run, Mosby Woods, Oak Hill, Riverside, and
Lorton Station. "


The people in the SW boundary process might not be aware of the precedent set in that large boundary change year. Closing a school and all these domino changes is odd. What if there are 50 to 100 Clifton kids at an AAP center?

snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just let me know if any high schools actually get
> moved around in the renovation queue at the end of
> this. If the needed/established/fair/whatever
> order is screwed around with for political gain, I
> won't be amused.


You won't be amused? Moving HS around on the renovation queue has already been done! WSHS was "moved". SOCO MS was bumped ahead of Langley and TJ because SOCO HS is SOOOOO overcrowded! Bull! According to FCPS, there are 300 students too many at SOCO HS this year. ALL OF THIS IS FOR POLITICAL GAIN!!!

So it's perfectly acceptable to build a NEW school, to the tune of $50M for 300 kids, but it's not okay to spend $9-10M on renovating a school for almost 400 kids??

Just Curious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aren't you in Reston?

Yes

> Why do you feel that way given that the School Board bent over backwards to pump up the fortunes of South Lakes?<

Because Langley should have been part of the process and should not have had an addition. Because the folks in Floris were totally screwed. Because Reston was unnecessarily partitioned. Because Gibson, Straus, Regnier, Testadt et al lied and treated the citizens with derision and contempt, etc., etc.,etc.

". . . . bent over backwards . . . ."? How exactly?

Thomas More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just Curious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Aren't you in Reston?
>
> Yes
>
> > Why do you feel that way given that the School
> Board bent over backwards to pump up the fortunes
> of South Lakes?<
>
> Because Langley should have been part of the
> process and should not have had an addition.
> Because the folks in Floris were totally screwed.
> Because Reston was unnecessarily partitioned.
> Because Gibson, Straus, Regnier, Testadt et al
> lied and treated the citizens with derision and
> contempt, etc., etc.,etc.
>
> ". . . . bent over backwards . . . ."? How
> exactly?


http://www.fcps.edu/images/boundarymaps/southlakeshs.pdf

Then guess how far some non SL's people are bussed and to where.

Thomas More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Because Langley should have been part of the
> process and should not have had an addition.
> Because the folks in Floris were totally screwed.
> Because Reston was unnecessarily partitioned.
> Because Gibson, Straus, Regnier, Testadt et al
> lied and treated the citizens with derision and
> contempt, etc., etc.,etc.
>

Agreed on every single word, including the etcs.

oddities from FCPS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then guess how far some non SL's people are bussed and to where.


Langley students are bussed 17 miles each way every day at FFX taxpayer expense. Can't think of a longer trip.

Thomas More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because Langley should have been part of the
> process and should not have had an addition.
> Because the folks in Floris were totally screwed.
> Because Reston was unnecessarily partitioned.
> Because Gibson, Straus, Regnier, Testadt et al
> lied and treated the citizens with derision and
> contempt, etc., etc.,etc.
>
> ". . . . bent over backwards . . . ."? How
> exactly?

Got it - School Board didn't adopt your preferred solution to make South Lakes into "Reston High." However, it still cherry-picked neighborhoods that other Reston parents had identified for redistricting into South Lakes.

Just Curious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Got it - School Board didn't adopt your preferred solution to make South Lakes into "Reston High." However, it still cherry-picked neighborhoods that other Reston parents had identified for redistricting into South Lakes.<

Earth to Just Curious, South Lakes already is Reston High.

Maria Allen cherry picking Flores and Fox Mill to reduce ethnic and FRM ratios @ South Lakes was disgusting.

If South Lakes is "Reston High," why do some North Reston residents attend Herndon and Langley instead and fight like hell to stay out of South Lakes?

Maybe it's South Reston High. Reston High? I don't think so.

Just Curious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If South Lakes is "Reston High," why do some North Reston residents attend Herndon and Langley instead and fight like hell to stay out of South Lakes?<

You'd have to ask them and, while you're at it, ask if they still want to go to Herndon and Langley. Many, who fought it then, have changed their mind.

Its "South Reston" only if the north-south boundary is Baron Cameron. Most of Reston already goes to South Lakes. Only Aldrin and part of Armstrong are in Reston and don't go to Reston High.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2010 09:18PM by Thomas More.

Heads up. FFX Co posted their potential plans for the additions. http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/capacityadditionoptions.pdf

Interesting to note that all plans seem to have more new classrooms than they stated as possibilities on their meeting handouts last week. (UMES will have 12, rather than 8, with the potential for even more in the future with their preferred option. see the yellow highlighting on option 2)

What happened with keeping all elementary schools at 950? (as stated in the answers to the questions they just posted on their site too?) UMES will already be at a projected 1,066 in 2011/2012.

Trying again to get the full url here. If it just takes you to their main page, go to the boundary page, halfway down, and look for "Southwest Boundary Study Capacity Addition Options (pdf) NEW"

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/capacityadditionoptions.pdf

So they want to build additions at all those schools?

Is is really cheaper to do all of this rather than do a minor renovation at Clifton?

Surely the necessary capacity must exist already and could be used by redrawing the boundaries on the entire western half of the county

I think they have too much pride to back down and do what makes most sense, logically and financially, for now. Their misrepresentations continue to shock.

Per the 2015-2016 projections, as provided by Facilities Staff, 10 of the 23 schools will be over capacity if nothing is done to address the overcrowding. Depending on the option implemented, 9 – 15 of the 23 elementary schools will be over capacity after implementation.

Even more will be over capacity with these options in the years 2011 and leading up to 2015, unless they truck in trailers - which they've told some parents they won't do, and told others they will.

As it stands, I don't think I can even trust their projections.

GROSS MISREPRESENTATION: They misrepresented anticipated additions on the handouts at the meeting last week, as follows:

Fairfax Villa - handout: "capacity indicates a future 10 classroom additions" (only 8 for option B- but we know C is what they want)

capacity options pdf on their site: proposed 12-15 classrooms.

Greenbriar East - handout: "capacity indicates future 8 classroom additions"

capacity options pdf on their site: proposed 15-17 classrooms.

UMES - handout: "capacity indicates future 8 classroom additions"

capacity options pdf on their site: proposed 12 classrooms, with the potential for yet another addition of very similar size on option 2, indicated as their preferred option.

It's not like this capacity options pdf was just completed. They've known this information for some time - just chose to misrepresent it at the meetings. Further, many of these options send the enrollment soaring far above 950, which is supposed to be their target for elementary schools.

Aren't there any checks and balances on these people?

UMES Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think they have too much pride to back down and
> do what makes most sense, logically and
> financially, for now. Their misrepresentations
> continue to shock.
>
> Per the 2015-2016 projections, as provided by
> Facilities Staff, 10 of the 23 schools will be
> over capacity if nothing is done to address the
> overcrowding. Depending on the option
> implemented, 9 – 15 of the 23 elementary schools
> will be over capacity after implementation.
>
> Even more will be over capacity with these options
> in the years 2011 and leading up to 2015, unless
> they truck in trailers - which they've told some
> parents they won't do, and told others they will.
>
> As it stands, I don't think I can even trust their
> projections.
>
> GROSS MISREPRESENTATION: They misrepresented
> anticipated additions on the handouts at the
> meeting last week, as follows:
>
> Fairfax Villa - handout: "capacity indicates a
> future 10 classroom additions" (only 8 for option
> B- but we know C is what they want)
>
> capacity options pdf on their site: proposed
> 12-15 classrooms.
>
> Greenbriar East - handout: "capacity indicates
> future 8 classroom additions"
>
> capacity options pdf on their site: proposed
> 15-17 classrooms.
>
> UMES - handout: "capacity indicates future 8
> classroom additions"
>
> capacity options pdf on their site: proposed 12
> classrooms, with the potential for yet another
> addition of very similar size on option 2,
> indicated as their preferred option.
>
> It's not like this capacity options pdf was just
> completed. They've known this information for
> some time - just chose to misrepresent it at the
> meetings. Further, many of these options send the
> enrollment soaring far above 950, which is
> supposed to be their target for elementary
> schools.
>
> Aren't there any checks and balances on these
> people?


Am I understanding your post correctly? Are you saying that the handouts they gave out at the different meetings were different? Before the meetings, I thought I saw on the FCPS website that the information would be the same at each meeting (it was in red as I remember).

I think that UMES is saying that the handouts at the meetings were different than the information posted on the FCPS site.

As someone that has been involved in the Southwestern Regional Planning Study from the very beginning, I can tell you that the numbers presented by FCPS are in constant motion. They are completely fluid and will change daily depending on the agenda that the School Board wants to accomplish. The SW Boundary Study is Phase II of the SWRPS. Phase I was a joke. Why should phase II be any different?

The last poster is correct - the handouts from last week, with regards to additions, are drastically different from the proposed plans on their site with regards to size.

This really impacts UMES, as a limited access subdivision. GBE is drastically impacted too - 15-17 classrooms instead of 8? Wonder if constituents are paying attention.

In a true show of an "open and transparent" process, FCPS posted the RAW comments from the community feedback sessions. Not surprisingly the general tone of "not enough information to make a decision" runs throughout most of the feedback forms. See, those of us that attended were NOT losing our minds....

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/communitydialogueforms.pdf

Anyone's guess...

FCPS can pretend to be transparent....but don't let that blind you.......

FCPS does not give a hoot what people say.....their plan was predetermined before the first piece of information hit the public's view........

... SCAT porn ... it'll NEVER be transparent.

But they don't post every question they receive through that link on their website.

speaking up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> their plan was predetermined before the
> first piece of information hit the public's
> view........

IMHO, the School Board has shot itself in the foot by allowing (or, more accurately, causing) the boundaries to take on the attributes of "gerry-mandered" Congressional districts over the past 20-25 years. The current boundaries already reflect a large number of favors that School Board members have done over the years for their friends, neighbors and political supporters, so any changes that are now proposed are presumed to reflect more of the same. In addition, the rationale that School Board members have provided to justify redistrictings often doesn't hold up under scrutiny. For example, the School Board will assert that a redistricting is needed to provide students at a smaller school with course selections comparable to those available at a larger school, but then do nothing to increase the enrollment at other smaller schools. Or, alternatively, the School Board will assert that a redistricting is needed to relieve overcrowding at larger school, but then release a new study after the redistricting that concludes that the larger school was never overcrowded.

Obviously, if one wants to mitigate the chances of being redistricted, it helps to live close to a particular school; however, under the current boundaries, there are many students who attend schools that are further away from their houses than other schools. There are, however, probably some areas that are immune from a redistricting, at least at the high school level. In particular, students living in the Town of Vienna (as opposed to portions of Fairfax County with a Vienna mailing address) probably will always go to Madison High and students living in the City of Fairfax (as opposed to portions of Fairfax County with a Fairfax mailing address) presumably will always go to Fairfax High. Many also believe that students who live in the affluent neighborhoods that feed into Langley High will never be assigned to another school.

Don't get me wrong - I think the Fairfax schools, overall, remain excellent and compare favorably with the other DC-area public schools. However, it is a very large, and very political, system.

Good summary, although I'd argue that its size makes it easier to hide the not so great parts. What has been done with Clifton, and now other schools proposed as mega schools (and then some) goes over the top though.

Under and over estimating projections by large percentages - who knows what is behind that. But misrepresenting plans for expansion at the three schools, as outlined above - I lack the adjectives for it at the moment. They are putting Fairfax County at great risk.

I personally like the latest additions to the FAQs located at:

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/faq.pdf

Question 1 from October 22 (on page 7 of the document) is a lot more specific than what was asked at the feedback sessions and online.

Online and Community Feedback Question:
For Your Additional Consideration
To avoid or minimize the creation of split feeders at the elementary level, should middle and high school realignments shift students from Robinson Secondary to either Lake Braddock Secondary or Centreville High and its feeder Liberty Middle be included as part of the School Board actions in this boundary study

Response in FAQ:
Will any of this affect Centreville High School?
The elementary boundary options propose reassigning Clifton Elementary students to three elementary schools in different high school pyramids. The community has been asked to comment on whether or not it would be advisable to allow these students to remain at Robinson Secondary or be reassigned to the high school serving the new elementary school they would be attending. For students reassigned to Union Mill Elementary School the consideration would be to remain at Robinson or be reassigned to Liberty Middle and Centreville High School.

So, many took the question at the feedback sessions and online to mean ANY realigned elementary school could have high/middle school boundaries reassigned while clearly the FAQ response is focused solely on the Clifton Elementary students. That is quite interesting considering a number of other schools have significant changes in their boundaries proposed but are not considered for re-alignment of high schools.

Everything FCPS is doing right now is about re-directing the public's focus. They are directing everybody to focus on the what-ifs of boundaries so they don't spend time asking the bigger question of why is this being done in the first place? Why are they going to spend all of this money on additions when they could have left Clifton open for zero dollars, etc.?

Great political maneuver on their part.

I had to take some time to think about all this (we've a lot going on at the moment), then thought I'd highlight the following gem from you, in case anyone missed your point.

That is quite interesting
> considering a number of other schools have
> significant changes in their boundaries proposed
> but are not considered for re-alignment of high
> schools.




I'd have to emphasize, especially with the potential increases, like 15 new classrooms at GBE. Seriously? this increase won't affect any middle or high schools?!

And yes, Focused, I'm not sure how much is tactical, and how much is "we'll do whatever we like, no matter if it makes sense or not, and we're not going to listen". Regardless, their conduct has not been professional, to say the least. I'm ready to move to Montgomery. Fairfax's days are over, IMO.

Surveys had typos and errors with data.

"Option A reassigns 29 areas from one school to another within the
region to balance enrollments, could impact up to approximately
2,500 students by the 2015 school year, results in only one school
exceeding 105 percent building utilization (Eagle View Elementary
at 108 percent)"

Actually 6 schools are over 105% (and 9 more are over 100%) in option A

Capacity data for the schools has also changed over time with out explanation - every school changed up to 10%

UMES...don't move from Fairfax ....

Help identify good school board candidates for the 2011 campaign. There will be a lot of vacancies..

What about starting in Sully with Smith's position.....

Yep - I don't give up a fight this easily. Besides, it will take time to get ready to sell.

I think a change in culture is desperately needed. Perhaps we should ask Tina Hone who would be good.

It's hard to know what a person will be like, until we see them in action. Cleaning house is a good thing - that's the silver lining.

We should ask for press clips re: recent jobs/positions/accomplishments. And googling is always a good idea. Then we have to filter through it - and hope someone good is interested.

Just wanted to add - before I possibly get flamed here. Forgive me if I sound naive and idealistic. I'm new to all of this, and am finding it time consuming, frustrating, and opaque.

I do think availability of info on the internet will help in making choices for who is next on the board. We have to be mindful of clever marketing though.

Further, some local education advocacy groups seem helpful for distilling and providing info - some, perhaps not so much. It takes a fairly big time investment on everyone's part to sift through it all, and think through it and make decisions for themselves. Here's hoping everyone is up to the task. And is willing to, objectively, educate their neighbors and friends on what they learn.

cheers, and happy Friday.

Option D has just been published by FCPS. Shows 4 elementary schools with additions now. Read more at: http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/optiondfactsheet.pdf

I've got the best option...move the teachers and the trailers to the schools that need them the most. That's the move that least impacts the children.

Justataxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Option D has just been published by FCPS. Shows 4
> elementary schools with additions now. Read more
> at:
> http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy
> /optiondfactsheet.pdf


okay, the bunnyman must be active again in Clifton, because suddenly kids are disappearing again.

Why are only 292 kids moving from Clifton to different schools when the current enrollment is 367?

I'd bet they have some outrageous prediction that Clifton will lose that many kids due to declining enrollment. Whatever works for them to make their numbers work. I wouldn't be surprised to see all kinds of discrepancies among the various options.

at least the deaf kids are not put in this crazy situation. So parents of deaf children should be thankful their kids are safe in good schools

After looking over the latest option D information the following data is quite interesting:

Cost of Option D - in construction $$$ alone - $17,770,000 (ish)
Number of NEW classroom seats as a result of option D (with Clifton closed) - 484
Cost per new classroom seat of Option D - $36,716

Oh, and almost 30% of the 22 schools that remain after the boundary is implemented will be at more than 100% capacity.

Now, what was one of the reasons of not renovating Clifton Elementary....cost too much. Based on FCPS's own estimates the MOST EXPENSIVE Clifton renovation that included an addition had a cost per seat of $35,287. And that included a massive DECREASE in program capacity from 382 to 312 students.

This is fiscal responsibility?

The real reason is that Bradsher wanted to can Clifton so she could pull West Springfield High School into the 2011 bond process. Bottom line......

Remember closing Clifton was a business deal......

Please note that option D leaves Virginia Run untouched. (Kathy's friends?)
Very little of Kathy's district is affected by Option D. Just a few token moves.

reader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please note that option D leaves Virginia Run
> untouched. (Kathy's friends?)
> Very little of Kathy's district is affected by
> Option D. Just a few token moves.


By "Kathy's friends", do you mean Cassie Eatmon? Funny that she lives in VA Run, is "friends" with Liz Bradsher, and was appointed to the FPAC committee by Kathy Smith.

Aside from all of that, Option D still doesn't solve anything, and will cost taxpayers more in the long run!

Kids are going to end up in trailers while waiting for additions to be built, and all of these schools are going to end up overcrowded instead of the handful of that overcrowded now.

We NEED REAL SOLUTIONS that address this problem for the long term, not a temporary band-aid that ends up costing more and creating more problems down the road.

Nov. 2011 can't come soon enough. We need competent people running our school system; that aren't in it for their own political gain.