Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
newgatedenizen
()
Date: October 23, 2010 10:42AM
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
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/index.htm
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
NewToClifton
()
Date: October 23, 2010 01:53PM
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??
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Stop the Boundary Study!!!
()
Date: October 24, 2010 10:21AM
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???
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???
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Maybe
()
Date: October 24, 2010 10:48AM
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???
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
fool me once
()
Date: October 24, 2010 12:38PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Say NO to FCPS SW boundary study
()
Date: October 24, 2010 06:53PM
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/
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Experienced
()
Date: October 24, 2010 07:44PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
newgatedenizen
()
Date: October 24, 2010 09:52PM
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.
London Towne is already 45% free/reduced lunch. Obviously someone has the projections but this will increase that percentage.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
fool me once
()
Date: October 24, 2010 11:20PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Reason
()
Date: October 24, 2010 11:39PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Experienced
()
Date: October 25, 2010 12:12AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Say NO to FCPS SW boundary study
()
Date: October 25, 2010 10:34PM
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
http://smallwoodhouselog.blogspot.com/2010/10/first-impressions-of-southwest-boundary.html
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
newgatedenizen
()
Date: October 25, 2010 11:03PM
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
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
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: October 25, 2010 11:47PM
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!
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
fool me twice
()
Date: October 26, 2010 12:16AM
if your neighborhood is redistricted to a less performing school district, expect your home value to go down about 13 to 15%.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
fool me once
()
Date: October 26, 2010 12:23AM
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Fool me for 200+ pages
()
Date: October 26, 2010 12:59AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Moved out, mowed over...
()
Date: October 26, 2010 01:54AM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
lizd
()
Date: October 26, 2010 07:14AM
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!
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!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: October 26, 2010 10:25AM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Experienced
()
Date: October 26, 2010 10:37AM
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).
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).
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
The Langley Doctrine
()
Date: October 26, 2010 01:08PM
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
"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
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Dumbfounded
()
Date: October 26, 2010 01:24PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: October 26, 2010 01:29PM
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?
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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
The Langley Doctrine
()
Date: October 26, 2010 02:04PM
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 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
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Redistricted
()
Date: October 26, 2010 03:05PM
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Option D for Democracy
()
Date: October 26, 2010 04:49PM
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").
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Duke Mom
()
Date: October 26, 2010 04:53PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Say NO to FCPS SW Boundary Study
()
Date: October 26, 2010 07:42PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Bluedeviler
()
Date: October 26, 2010 08:18PM
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?
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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
WestfieldDad
()
Date: October 26, 2010 08:48PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
KS
()
Date: October 26, 2010 10:35PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
The Langley Doctrine
()
Date: October 26, 2010 11:13PM
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
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
NoToLiz
()
Date: October 26, 2010 11:33PM
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!
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
ToNoToLiz
()
Date: October 27, 2010 12:11AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
unionmillistrashed
()
Date: October 27, 2010 05:38PM
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?
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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
oldtimer
()
Date: October 27, 2010 08:24PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Reality
()
Date: October 27, 2010 09:21PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
WoodsonH
()
Date: October 27, 2010 09:36PM
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.
------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
unionmillistrashed
()
Date: October 27, 2010 09:40PM
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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
unionmillistrashed
()
Date: October 27, 2010 09:41PM
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Speculator
()
Date: October 27, 2010 09:45PM
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 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
unionmillistrashed
()
Date: October 27, 2010 09:50PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Helpful Hints
()
Date: October 27, 2010 10:42PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
KeepOnTruckin
()
Date: October 27, 2010 11:22PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
snake bite
()
Date: October 27, 2010 11:41PM
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........
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
unionmillistrashed
()
Date: October 28, 2010 07:46AM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
hsparent
()
Date: October 28, 2010 03:28PM
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
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
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
KeepOnTruckin
()
Date: October 28, 2010 05:57PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: October 29, 2010 12:52AM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
aap and centers
()
Date: October 29, 2010 04:56AM
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: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
unionmillistrashed
()
Date: October 29, 2010 01:19PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
unionmillistrashed
()
Date: October 29, 2010 01:38PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
unionmillistrashed
()
Date: October 29, 2010 01:56PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
WestfieldDad
()
Date: October 29, 2010 07:40PM
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...)
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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...)
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
fool us no more
()
Date: October 29, 2010 10:07PM
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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
aap and centers
()
Date: October 30, 2010 07:05AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: October 30, 2010 10:22AM
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 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Just Curious
()
Date: October 30, 2010 09:14PM
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
snowdenscold
()
Date: October 31, 2010 01:47AM
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
historian
()
Date: October 31, 2010 08:43AM
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Done!
()
Date: October 31, 2010 09:54AM
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 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??
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: November 01, 2010 01:21AM
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
oddities from FCPS
()
Date: November 01, 2010 09:07AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
WestfieldDad
()
Date: November 01, 2010 10:50AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
long trips
()
Date: November 01, 2010 11:27AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Just Curious
()
Date: November 01, 2010 03:09PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: November 01, 2010 07:58PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Just Curious
()
Date: November 01, 2010 09:02PM
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.
Maybe it's South Reston High. Reston High? I don't think so.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: November 01, 2010 09:17PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES
()
Date: November 02, 2010 11:49PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES
()
Date: November 02, 2010 11:52PM
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
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/capacityadditionoptions.pdf
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
KeepOnTruckin
()
Date: November 03, 2010 04:11AM
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
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
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES
()
Date: November 03, 2010 09:48AM
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?
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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Handouts
()
Date: November 03, 2010 01:30PM
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 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).
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FCPS numbers are fluid
()
Date: November 03, 2010 01:38PM
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?
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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES
()
Date: November 03, 2010 02:03PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: November 03, 2010 04:27PM
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
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/communitydialogueforms.pdf
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
notsofast
()
Date: November 03, 2010 04:28PM
Anyone's guess...
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
speaking up
()
Date: November 03, 2010 07:37PM
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........
FCPS does not give a hoot what people say.....their plan was predetermined before the first piece of information hit the public's view........
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
. . .
()
Date: November 03, 2010 07:49PM
... SCAT porn ... it'll NEVER be transparent.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES
()
Date: November 04, 2010 07:25AM
But they don't post every question they receive through that link on their website.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
JEB77
()
Date: November 04, 2010 10:19AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES
()
Date: November 04, 2010 01:48PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: November 04, 2010 04:11PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Focused
()
Date: November 04, 2010 05:07PM
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.
Great political maneuver on their part.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES
()
Date: November 04, 2010 06:19PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
GBW RRMS Parent
()
Date: November 04, 2010 10:09PM
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%
"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%
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
edna
()
Date: November 05, 2010 01:47PM
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.....
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.....
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES
()
Date: November 05, 2010 05:59PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES
()
Date: November 05, 2010 06:21PM
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.
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: November 23, 2010 03:52PM
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
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
easyoption
()
Date: November 23, 2010 04:03PM
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
confused, again
()
Date: November 23, 2010 10:55PM
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
checkthenumbers
()
Date: November 29, 2010 09:30PM
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yo
()
Date: December 01, 2010 03:12PM
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
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: December 01, 2010 09:02PM
After looking over the latest option D information the following data is quite interesting:
Cost of Option D - in construction $$$ alone - $17,770,000 (ish)
Number of NEW classroom seats as a result of option D (with Clifton closed) - 484
Cost per new classroom seat of Option D - $36,716
Oh, and almost 30% of the 22 schools that remain after the boundary is implemented will be at more than 100% capacity.
Now, what was one of the reasons of not renovating Clifton Elementary....cost too much. Based on FCPS's own estimates the MOST EXPENSIVE Clifton renovation that included an addition had a cost per seat of $35,287. And that included a massive DECREASE in program capacity from 382 to 312 students.
This is fiscal responsibility?
Cost of Option D - in construction $$$ 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?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Edna
()
Date: December 01, 2010 11:42PM
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......
Remember closing Clifton was a business deal......
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
reader
()
Date: December 02, 2010 08:20AM
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.
Very little of Kathy's district is affected by Option D. Just a few token moves.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
You mean Cassie???
()
Date: December 02, 2010 08:45AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
VA Run can't be touched
()
Date: December 02, 2010 06:10PM
I went to the community boundary study meeting at VA Run. After months of us Union Mill area parents telling other to watch out. The VA Run parents finally got involve when it was clear that their boundary were going to be expaned to include in their words " a trailer park from Rt. 50". All these proposals stink. Including this new D. Clifton folks, keep your lawsuit going so the school board will be force to put real numbers with accurate enrollment out in front of all of us.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
reader
()
Date: December 02, 2010 07:05PM
http://annandale.patch.com/articles/annandale-committee-looks-for-solutions-to-overcrowding-in-schools
Southwestern Committee members urged the Annandale Committee to remember that the process involves everyone.
"It has to be a big-picture process," said Cassie Eatmon of Virginia Run Elementary School in Centreville. "It can't be about just looking out for your own school. Leave your school at the door."
Southwestern Committee members urged the Annandale Committee to remember that the process involves everyone.
"It has to be a big-picture process," said Cassie Eatmon of Virginia Run Elementary School in Centreville. "It can't be about just looking out for your own school. Leave your school at the door."
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: December 02, 2010 07:46PM
reader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://annandale.patch.com/articles/annandale-comm
> ittee-looks-for-solutions-to-overcrowding-in-schoo
> ls
>
> Southwestern Committee members urged the Annandale
> Committee to remember that the process involves
> everyone.
> "It has to be a big-picture process," said Cassie
> Eatmon of Virginia Run Elementary School in
> Centreville. "It can't be about just looking out
> for your own school. Leave your school at the
> door."
The article just as easily could have cited that quote as being from Stu Gibson, Tessie Wilson, Liz Bradsher or Kathy Smith. Remember folks, taking ownership of your school community is NOT in the best interest of FCPS. They know better than you what is best for your community and your children. Heaven forbid a parent have any clue as to what is in the best interest of the child(ren) they raise.
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://annandale.patch.com/articles/annandale-comm
> ittee-looks-for-solutions-to-overcrowding-in-schoo
> ls
>
> Southwestern Committee members urged the Annandale
> Committee to remember that the process involves
> everyone.
> "It has to be a big-picture process," said Cassie
> Eatmon of Virginia Run Elementary School in
> Centreville. "It can't be about just looking out
> for your own school. Leave your school at the
> door."
The article just as easily could have cited that quote as being from Stu Gibson, Tessie Wilson, Liz Bradsher or Kathy Smith. Remember folks, taking ownership of your school community is NOT in the best interest of FCPS. They know better than you what is best for your community and your children. Heaven forbid a parent have any clue as to what is in the best interest of the child(ren) they raise.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Time to Unite
()
Date: December 09, 2010 08:49AM
For all of you following this issue, it is time to send one UNIFIED message to the School Board. We need all of the schools impacted by these changes to say loud and clear....NO!
It is not acceptable to displace students at so many schools when only 5 are overcrowded.
It is not acceptable to displace so many students and not actually solve the problem of overcrowding. Their 5-yr projections have historically been wrong. They will be wrong again...projections always are...and then we will be right back where we started with some schools below capacity and others well above it.
It is not acceptable to move children learning in classrooms today to trailers tomorrow.
It is not acceptable to move students to a school if that school does not have the capacity in place.. CAPACITY BEFORE KIDS!
It is not acceptable to move students from schools with full day kinder to schools with half day kinder.
It is not acceptable to build additions on to schools WITHOUT meeting the Fairfax County Educational Specifications for other spaces. This was the Board's basis for closing Clifton ES. They claimed they couldn't renovate it cost effectively and meet the Ed Specs. If the $17.7 million were adjusted to include the expansion of spaces such as the cafeteria, gym, hallways, common areas, library, etc. than the costs of these additions would be much higher. Why is okay to not meet the Ed Specs at other schools but not at Clifton?
None of this is acceptable. Unite and tell them so. We should all be advocating for construction of a new school along the Rte. 29 corridor where it could really address the problem. This is truly the most cost-effective, long-term solution.
It is not acceptable to displace students at so many schools when only 5 are overcrowded.
It is not acceptable to displace so many students and not actually solve the problem of overcrowding. Their 5-yr projections have historically been wrong. They will be wrong again...projections always are...and then we will be right back where we started with some schools below capacity and others well above it.
It is not acceptable to move children learning in classrooms today to trailers tomorrow.
It is not acceptable to move students to a school if that school does not have the capacity in place.. CAPACITY BEFORE KIDS!
It is not acceptable to move students from schools with full day kinder to schools with half day kinder.
It is not acceptable to build additions on to schools WITHOUT meeting the Fairfax County Educational Specifications for other spaces. This was the Board's basis for closing Clifton ES. They claimed they couldn't renovate it cost effectively and meet the Ed Specs. If the $17.7 million were adjusted to include the expansion of spaces such as the cafeteria, gym, hallways, common areas, library, etc. than the costs of these additions would be much higher. Why is okay to not meet the Ed Specs at other schools but not at Clifton?
None of this is acceptable. Unite and tell them so. We should all be advocating for construction of a new school along the Rte. 29 corridor where it could really address the problem. This is truly the most cost-effective, long-term solution.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Cassie
()
Date: December 16, 2010 04:10PM
Interesting that all those who are so critical don't post under their own names while feeling free to personally attack a fellow citizen who doesn't share their opinion on an issue. If you'd like to criticize private individuals you would be wise to learn their true positions before commenting. Options C and D both leave Virginia Run untouched. Those who know me, know I am not in favor of either Option C or D because of the cost and the short- vs. long-term benefits and challenges. I have commented on the SW Regional issues, because I was on the committee representing my school. I attended the public hearing in June because I feel strongly that the ed specs need to be consistent across the county and that the per child expenditures should be comparable across the county. If you disagree with my position on capital projects in the county, then challenge it on the facts, not on some assumed allegiance to elected officials. I have not asked Kathy Smith or any other SB member for special consideration for Virginia Run (my neighbors may wish I would) because I don't believe any one school should receive special consideration. I think all would agree that it is possible to be acquainted with someone and still hold your own opinions.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
more cost effective
()
Date: December 16, 2010 05:14PM
Time to Unite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For all of you following this issue, it is time to
> send one UNIFIED message to the School Board. We
> need all of the schools impacted by these changes
> to say loud and clear....NO!
>
> It is not acceptable to displace students at so
> many schools when only 5 are overcrowded.
>
> It is not acceptable to displace so many students
> and not actually solve the problem of
> overcrowding. Their 5-yr projections have
> historically been wrong. They will be wrong
> again...projections always are...and then we will
> be right back where we started with some schools
> below capacity and others well above it.
>
> It is not acceptable to move children learning in
> classrooms today to trailers tomorrow.
>
> It is not acceptable to move students to a school
> if that school does not have the capacity in
> place.. CAPACITY BEFORE KIDS!
>
> It is not acceptable to move students from schools
> with full day kinder to schools with half day
> kinder.
>
> It is not acceptable to build additions on to
> schools WITHOUT meeting the Fairfax County
> Educational Specifications for other spaces. This
> was the Board's basis for closing Clifton ES.
> They claimed they couldn't renovate it cost
> effectively and meet the Ed Specs. If the $17.7
> million were adjusted to include the expansion of
> spaces such as the cafeteria, gym, hallways,
> common areas, library, etc. than the costs of
> these additions would be much higher. Why is okay
> to not meet the Ed Specs at other schools but not
> at Clifton?
>
> None of this is acceptable. Unite and tell them
> so. We should all be advocating for construction
> of a new school along the Rte. 29 corridor where
> it could really address the problem. This is
> truly the most cost-effective, long-term solution.
Why is no one calling attention to the elephant in the room? The whole reason these schools are overcrowded in the 1st place is because of the overwhelming influx of illegal immigrants in recent years. And no, this isn't about race. It's a fact. The schools became overcrowded because of a shift in the population from one county to the next. If the illegal immigrants had all been from Iceland, we'd still be having the same problem. Too many people scrambling for too few resources. The fact that the ovewhelming majority of illegal immigrants seem to be from South America is trivial at this point.
Sorry, but the only 'truly most cost-effective, long term solution' would be to impose a law similar to our neighbors in PW County. As long as Fairfax County officials continue to ignore the root of the "problem", it is going to continue. We can build a new school, and in a few years, it will be overcrowded and all of the surrounding schools will be overcrowded as well. All of the schools will have tremendous diversity, and all of them will be failing miserably. Not because of the diversity - kids see beyond color - but because all of these schools will be beyond their capacity and there will simply be no room left in the County to build anymore new schools, so more schools will receive more additions. Before you know it, we have elementary schools larger than some current high schools, and high schools larger than many colleges. Do we really want our kids in elementary schools approaching 1500 kids? Many of the schools in the SW Boundary Study will be at almost 1000 kids after the study. How many kids do you think are going to be at these schools in 5 years when growth in the County continues at the current rate?
-------------------------------------------------------
> For all of you following this issue, it is time to
> send one UNIFIED message to the School Board. We
> need all of the schools impacted by these changes
> to say loud and clear....NO!
>
> It is not acceptable to displace students at so
> many schools when only 5 are overcrowded.
>
> It is not acceptable to displace so many students
> and not actually solve the problem of
> overcrowding. Their 5-yr projections have
> historically been wrong. They will be wrong
> again...projections always are...and then we will
> be right back where we started with some schools
> below capacity and others well above it.
>
> It is not acceptable to move children learning in
> classrooms today to trailers tomorrow.
>
> It is not acceptable to move students to a school
> if that school does not have the capacity in
> place.. CAPACITY BEFORE KIDS!
>
> It is not acceptable to move students from schools
> with full day kinder to schools with half day
> kinder.
>
> It is not acceptable to build additions on to
> schools WITHOUT meeting the Fairfax County
> Educational Specifications for other spaces. This
> was the Board's basis for closing Clifton ES.
> They claimed they couldn't renovate it cost
> effectively and meet the Ed Specs. If the $17.7
> million were adjusted to include the expansion of
> spaces such as the cafeteria, gym, hallways,
> common areas, library, etc. than the costs of
> these additions would be much higher. Why is okay
> to not meet the Ed Specs at other schools but not
> at Clifton?
>
> None of this is acceptable. Unite and tell them
> so. We should all be advocating for construction
> of a new school along the Rte. 29 corridor where
> it could really address the problem. This is
> truly the most cost-effective, long-term solution.
Why is no one calling attention to the elephant in the room? The whole reason these schools are overcrowded in the 1st place is because of the overwhelming influx of illegal immigrants in recent years. And no, this isn't about race. It's a fact. The schools became overcrowded because of a shift in the population from one county to the next. If the illegal immigrants had all been from Iceland, we'd still be having the same problem. Too many people scrambling for too few resources. The fact that the ovewhelming majority of illegal immigrants seem to be from South America is trivial at this point.
Sorry, but the only 'truly most cost-effective, long term solution' would be to impose a law similar to our neighbors in PW County. As long as Fairfax County officials continue to ignore the root of the "problem", it is going to continue. We can build a new school, and in a few years, it will be overcrowded and all of the surrounding schools will be overcrowded as well. All of the schools will have tremendous diversity, and all of them will be failing miserably. Not because of the diversity - kids see beyond color - but because all of these schools will be beyond their capacity and there will simply be no room left in the County to build anymore new schools, so more schools will receive more additions. Before you know it, we have elementary schools larger than some current high schools, and high schools larger than many colleges. Do we really want our kids in elementary schools approaching 1500 kids? Many of the schools in the SW Boundary Study will be at almost 1000 kids after the study. How many kids do you think are going to be at these schools in 5 years when growth in the County continues at the current rate?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: December 16, 2010 09:34PM
Just browsed through the feedback from the December 10 "Option D" forms and find it hysterical that so many Sangster families don't want their school overcrowded.
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/swsurveyresults121510.pdf
To those with children at Sangster, you have Bob Larsen to thank for the influx of students. He stated "Sangster could take all of the Clifton students and we would welcome them." He represented your school and pushed the agenda quite hard on closing Clifton and moving the students to Sangster. After all, your students at Sangster participate in "all of the same sports teams" as the students from Clifton. Oh, wait....Sangster goes to Lake Braddock and Clifton went to Robinson. Yeah, those are the same sports teams....sure enough. Get the picture?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2010 09:34PM by Justataxpayer.
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/swsurveyresults121510.pdf
To those with children at Sangster, you have Bob Larsen to thank for the influx of students. He stated "Sangster could take all of the Clifton students and we would welcome them." He represented your school and pushed the agenda quite hard on closing Clifton and moving the students to Sangster. After all, your students at Sangster participate in "all of the same sports teams" as the students from Clifton. Oh, wait....Sangster goes to Lake Braddock and Clifton went to Robinson. Yeah, those are the same sports teams....sure enough. Get the picture?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2010 09:34PM by Justataxpayer.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
question for Cassie
()
Date: December 16, 2010 11:19PM
Cassie -- How many times have you spoken before the school board before the time you spoke in June of this year, and what were your reasons each time?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Clifton Dad
()
Date: December 16, 2010 11:46PM
I keep hearing the "not up to Specification" argument. It doesn't hold water for me.
Having a large computer room rather than a small computer room, or a digital white board in every room,or a large media center, did it make those schools achieve as highly as Clifton ES did?
If not, then what is the point of your specification?
You use that Spec as if it is the end in and of itself. My kid can't read well but he loves the new computer room...
I do not see the specification argument as meaningful at all. What I do see as meaningful are all the dollars and cents that are getting discussed and re-routed.
I see problems with stuffing 900 kids into a huge school, and raising the teacher to student ratio 20-30% like I have seen in the past 10 years. It mioght be cheaper to operate, but will it be more effective?
Can we teach out kids the three R's without all the gadgets?
No , really, I still believe in books. They work surprisingly well and are not that expensive in comparison to a computer that will be obsolete in 4-5 years.
Why does the County think that cramming all these kids together is a good thing for their learning environment. I don't believe it is. If they have a credible study that shows that it improves achievement I'd love to see it, along with their plan.
Having a large computer room rather than a small computer room, or a digital white board in every room,or a large media center, did it make those schools achieve as highly as Clifton ES did?
If not, then what is the point of your specification?
You use that Spec as if it is the end in and of itself. My kid can't read well but he loves the new computer room...
I do not see the specification argument as meaningful at all. What I do see as meaningful are all the dollars and cents that are getting discussed and re-routed.
I see problems with stuffing 900 kids into a huge school, and raising the teacher to student ratio 20-30% like I have seen in the past 10 years. It mioght be cheaper to operate, but will it be more effective?
Can we teach out kids the three R's without all the gadgets?
No , really, I still believe in books. They work surprisingly well and are not that expensive in comparison to a computer that will be obsolete in 4-5 years.
Why does the County think that cramming all these kids together is a good thing for their learning environment. I don't believe it is. If they have a credible study that shows that it improves achievement I'd love to see it, along with their plan.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Spartan parent
()
Date: December 17, 2010 06:51AM
Justataxpayer: Sangster ES is in West Springfield. The the high schools the students attend are determined by where the sutdents live. Live in West Springfield-go to WIMS and WSHS. Live in BurKe or Fairfax Station-go to LBSS.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: December 17, 2010 08:03AM
Spartan parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justataxpayer: Sangster ES is in West
> Springfield. The the high schools the students
> attend are determined by where the sutdents live.
> Live in West Springfield-go to WIMS and WSHS.
> Live in BurKe or Fairfax Station-go to LBSS.
Thank you Spartan parent. So after all of this shifting Sangster will have 3 options for middle/high school. Robinson, Lake Braddock and WIMS/WSHS. I wasnot aware tht population was already split at Sangster. My point was more to what Mr. Larsen sold to the School Board and members of the ad-hoc SW committee.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justataxpayer: Sangster ES is in West
> Springfield. The the high schools the students
> attend are determined by where the sutdents live.
> Live in West Springfield-go to WIMS and WSHS.
> Live in BurKe or Fairfax Station-go to LBSS.
Thank you Spartan parent. So after all of this shifting Sangster will have 3 options for middle/high school. Robinson, Lake Braddock and WIMS/WSHS. I wasnot aware tht population was already split at Sangster. My point was more to what Mr. Larsen sold to the School Board and members of the ad-hoc SW committee.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Someone said an option E is coming
()
Date: December 17, 2010 09:36AM
I have filled out all the forms on the options and someone said on option E form is coming out? What a waste of time and money. If you read the last and new forms filled out most people want Clifton to stay open.
PS And not just Clifton parents. Sangster and Union Mill do not want ANY kids from Clifton to come to their school since they have no room.
PS And not just Clifton parents. Sangster and Union Mill do not want ANY kids from Clifton to come to their school since they have no room.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
voting
()
Date: December 17, 2010 10:42AM
One reason why our schools are so overcrowded is because that jerk Gerry Connolly welcomed all the illegals to leave Prince William and come to Fairfax. Guess what? They came and now we are paying millions to teach them to speak English.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: December 17, 2010 10:48AM
The majority of Sangster currently goes to LBSS. A very small portion of Sangster goes to WIMS and WSHS.
Regardless of where the kids at Sangster go to MS and HS now, as soon as SOCO MS is done, they'll be sent to SOCO.
How else are they going to fill that school?!?!!? It's currently being built for 300 kids, even though the surrounding schools have more than enough capacity to relieve the overcrowding at SOCO.
So, build a new school (that we don't even need!) to the tune of $50 million for 300 kids, but don't you dare suggest $5-7 million to maintain CES for 370 kids. Yeah, that makes sense!
Heaven help us until Nov. 2011 when we can vote these idiots off the SB.
Regardless of where the kids at Sangster go to MS and HS now, as soon as SOCO MS is done, they'll be sent to SOCO.
How else are they going to fill that school?!?!!? It's currently being built for 300 kids, even though the surrounding schools have more than enough capacity to relieve the overcrowding at SOCO.
So, build a new school (that we don't even need!) to the tune of $50 million for 300 kids, but don't you dare suggest $5-7 million to maintain CES for 370 kids. Yeah, that makes sense!
Heaven help us until Nov. 2011 when we can vote these idiots off the SB.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Where's the outrage?
()
Date: December 17, 2010 11:32AM
herewegoagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The majority of Sangster currently goes to LBSS.
> A very small portion of Sangster goes to WIMS and
> WSHS.
>
> Regardless of where the kids at Sangster go to MS
> and HS now, as soon as SOCO MS is done, they'll be
> sent to SOCO.
>
> How else are they going to fill that school?!?!!?
> It's currently being built for 300 kids, even
> though the surrounding schools have more than
> enough capacity to relieve the overcrowding at
> SOCO.
>
> So, build a new school (that we don't even need!)
> to the tune of $50 million for 300 kids, but don't
> you dare suggest $5-7 million to maintain CES for
> 370 kids. Yeah, that makes sense!
>
> Heaven help us until Nov. 2011 when we can vote
> these idiots off the SB.
In agreement with the above.
Where is the outrage over this new South County Middle School--that isn't needed--while existing schools are falling apart? Clifton Elementary has become the sacrifice of a vengeful school board, as if to say "Look how powerful we are." If the school board is truly interested in conserving resources and IMPROVING education, they would allow Clifton Elementary to remain open for another year or two and NOT build a SoCo Middle School until they see how many BRAC families with student they actually get. Mount Vernon and Hayfield are under capacity, from what I have read.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The majority of Sangster currently goes to LBSS.
> A very small portion of Sangster goes to WIMS and
> WSHS.
>
> Regardless of where the kids at Sangster go to MS
> and HS now, as soon as SOCO MS is done, they'll be
> sent to SOCO.
>
> How else are they going to fill that school?!?!!?
> It's currently being built for 300 kids, even
> though the surrounding schools have more than
> enough capacity to relieve the overcrowding at
> SOCO.
>
> So, build a new school (that we don't even need!)
> to the tune of $50 million for 300 kids, but don't
> you dare suggest $5-7 million to maintain CES for
> 370 kids. Yeah, that makes sense!
>
> Heaven help us until Nov. 2011 when we can vote
> these idiots off the SB.
In agreement with the above.
Where is the outrage over this new South County Middle School--that isn't needed--while existing schools are falling apart? Clifton Elementary has become the sacrifice of a vengeful school board, as if to say "Look how powerful we are." If the school board is truly interested in conserving resources and IMPROVING education, they would allow Clifton Elementary to remain open for another year or two and NOT build a SoCo Middle School until they see how many BRAC families with student they actually get. Mount Vernon and Hayfield are under capacity, from what I have read.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
cassie is a hypocrite
()
Date: December 17, 2010 05:56PM
Cassie Eatmon, I had a legitimate question for you that you haven't answered.
How many times have you spoken before the school board (before the time you spoke in June of this year), and what were your reasons each time?
You stated that you "feel strongly that the ed specs need to be consistent across the county and that the per child expenditures should be comparable across the county." So, how many times have you fought for this from the School Board?
What, you mean this is the first time? Where have your concerns been before now? Or, did you just enjoy the power that Bradsher promised you if you would speak in from of the board, in exchange for a seat on FPAC? Where you one of the Va Run parents who wrote on the questionaire at the bounday meetings to make sure that no trailer park kids come to Va Run? Why aren't you speaking up for them, so that they can attend your school?
How many times have you spoken before the school board (before the time you spoke in June of this year), and what were your reasons each time?
You stated that you "feel strongly that the ed specs need to be consistent across the county and that the per child expenditures should be comparable across the county." So, how many times have you fought for this from the School Board?
What, you mean this is the first time? Where have your concerns been before now? Or, did you just enjoy the power that Bradsher promised you if you would speak in from of the board, in exchange for a seat on FPAC? Where you one of the Va Run parents who wrote on the questionaire at the bounday meetings to make sure that no trailer park kids come to Va Run? Why aren't you speaking up for them, so that they can attend your school?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Cassie Eatmon is a hypocrite
()
Date: December 17, 2010 06:48PM
From Page 164 Online Community Dialouge Feedback Forms on FCPS website, a Va Run parent/resident wrote the following comment. And you think Clifton Elem parents are elitist????
BTW, Cassie Eatmon is the PTA President, the one who "stands up" for all students in Ffx County...HAHAHA
"As a Virginia Run resident I was very concerned to see option B, where it is proposed to send children from Polar
Tree (a low cost housing community and low scoring school system) to Virginia Run ES. Why would the School
Board propose changes that would detriment the quality of education at Virginia Run ES in such a manner?
Shouldn't Fairfax County residents who pay proportionally higher property taxes have a school system accordingly?"
Page 164
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/communitydialoguefeedbackforms.pdf
BTW, Cassie Eatmon is the PTA President, the one who "stands up" for all students in Ffx County...HAHAHA
"As a Virginia Run resident I was very concerned to see option B, where it is proposed to send children from Polar
Tree (a low cost housing community and low scoring school system) to Virginia Run ES. Why would the School
Board propose changes that would detriment the quality of education at Virginia Run ES in such a manner?
Shouldn't Fairfax County residents who pay proportionally higher property taxes have a school system accordingly?"
Page 164
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/communitydialoguefeedbackforms.pdf
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Cassie is PTA pres?
()
Date: December 17, 2010 08:49PM
Cassie Eatmon is a hypocrite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Page 164 Online Community Dialouge Feedback
> Forms on FCPS website, a Va Run parent/resident
> wrote the following comment. And you think
> Clifton Elem parents are elitist????
> BTW, Cassie Eatmon is the PTA President, the one
> who "stands up" for all students in Ffx
> County...HAHAHA
>
> "As a Virginia Run resident I was very concerned
> to see option B, where it is proposed to send
> children from Polar
> Tree (a low cost housing community and low scoring
> school system) to Virginia Run ES. Why would the
> School
> Board propose changes that would detriment the
> quality of education at Virginia Run ES in such a
> manner?
> Shouldn't Fairfax County residents who pay
> proportionally higher property taxes have a school
> system accordingly?"
>
> Page 164
> http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy
> /communitydialoguefeedbackforms.pdf
What a repugnant comment. This Cassie Eatmon is the PTA president?
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Page 164 Online Community Dialouge Feedback
> Forms on FCPS website, a Va Run parent/resident
> wrote the following comment. And you think
> Clifton Elem parents are elitist????
> BTW, Cassie Eatmon is the PTA President, the one
> who "stands up" for all students in Ffx
> County...HAHAHA
>
> "As a Virginia Run resident I was very concerned
> to see option B, where it is proposed to send
> children from Polar
> Tree (a low cost housing community and low scoring
> school system) to Virginia Run ES. Why would the
> School
> Board propose changes that would detriment the
> quality of education at Virginia Run ES in such a
> manner?
> Shouldn't Fairfax County residents who pay
> proportionally higher property taxes have a school
> system accordingly?"
>
> Page 164
> http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy
> /communitydialoguefeedbackforms.pdf
What a repugnant comment. This Cassie Eatmon is the PTA president?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: December 17, 2010 10:37PM
Yes, Cassie is the PTA president.
What's more disturbing is that in June, FCPS STAFF said:
"the staff recommendation is clear but also states that we believe the only other ‘viable’ option (other than closing and building a new school) is to renovate Clifton and build several school additions to address classroom capacity deficits - so, renovating is viable … (the email is below)
So, a new school is out of the question according to the SB now, and yet the only other viable option was to renovae Clifton and build several school additions. What happened? Now we're just stuck with several additions and overcrowding at EVERY school! And, oh yeah, while you're waiting for those additions to be built, your kids are going to be stuck in trailers. Nice! Can't wait for that!
Love Liz's spin on Clifton ES, too. Comparing renovations at Clifton to man made islands in the Aegean Sea and ski slopes in Thailand. Don't forget about that contaminated water and the ever ominous CLIFF!! Heavens to betsy, how many children have fallen off that cliff in the past 100 years?!?!?!?!
Obviously, I'm being sarcastic. This nonsense about the difficult topography is ridiculous. It's a hill for goodness sake! There didn't seem to be a problem building on it originally, or doing an addition in the '80's. So, please, someone explain the "difficulties" now? After all, if FCPS is capable of properly containing natural occuring asbestos, then surely they can handle a hill!
Just one more example of the ridiculous excuses used to close a perfectly fine building in order to further Liz Bradsher's personal agenda. (though Liz, I gotta say, I think that back-fired. whoops!)
From: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member) [ETBradsher@fcps.edu]
To: James, Denise
CC:
BCC:
Sent: 6/4/2010 10:19:27 AM
Subject: RE: June 14 work session
Attachments:
Anything is viable and anything can be done, they have built a series of luxury islands in the Agean Sea (?)---middle east somewhere, they even have an indoor ski slope—buildings in Thailand can reach the clouds. Here we just have contaminated water and a cliff to deal with—minor concerns. Then again we have limited CIP funds and every dollar counts.
The issue is fiscal responsibility along with education --- oh an of course soothing baths for skin ailments, wine to decrease the stress and a garden to weed to the let the mind wander!
Elizabeth T. Bradsher
Fairfax County School Board
Springfield District
Phone: (571) 296-1875
Debora L. Cain, Executive Administrative Assistant
Phone: (571) 423-1070
________________________________
From: James, Denise
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 10:05 AM
To: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member)
Subject: RE: June 14 work session
Do that – I have hives enough for both of us today! The agenda item with staff recommendations have been posted – along with a power point presentation – the staff recommendation is clear but also states that we believe the only other ‘viable’ option (other than closing and building a new school) is to renovate Clifton and build several school additions to address classroom capacity deficits - so, renovating is viable …
Denise
What's more disturbing is that in June, FCPS STAFF said:
"the staff recommendation is clear but also states that we believe the only other ‘viable’ option (other than closing and building a new school) is to renovate Clifton and build several school additions to address classroom capacity deficits - so, renovating is viable … (the email is below)
So, a new school is out of the question according to the SB now, and yet the only other viable option was to renovae Clifton and build several school additions. What happened? Now we're just stuck with several additions and overcrowding at EVERY school! And, oh yeah, while you're waiting for those additions to be built, your kids are going to be stuck in trailers. Nice! Can't wait for that!
Love Liz's spin on Clifton ES, too. Comparing renovations at Clifton to man made islands in the Aegean Sea and ski slopes in Thailand. Don't forget about that contaminated water and the ever ominous CLIFF!! Heavens to betsy, how many children have fallen off that cliff in the past 100 years?!?!?!?!
Obviously, I'm being sarcastic. This nonsense about the difficult topography is ridiculous. It's a hill for goodness sake! There didn't seem to be a problem building on it originally, or doing an addition in the '80's. So, please, someone explain the "difficulties" now? After all, if FCPS is capable of properly containing natural occuring asbestos, then surely they can handle a hill!
Just one more example of the ridiculous excuses used to close a perfectly fine building in order to further Liz Bradsher's personal agenda. (though Liz, I gotta say, I think that back-fired. whoops!)
From: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member) [ETBradsher@fcps.edu]
To: James, Denise
CC:
BCC:
Sent: 6/4/2010 10:19:27 AM
Subject: RE: June 14 work session
Attachments:
Anything is viable and anything can be done, they have built a series of luxury islands in the Agean Sea (?)---middle east somewhere, they even have an indoor ski slope—buildings in Thailand can reach the clouds. Here we just have contaminated water and a cliff to deal with—minor concerns. Then again we have limited CIP funds and every dollar counts.
The issue is fiscal responsibility along with education --- oh an of course soothing baths for skin ailments, wine to decrease the stress and a garden to weed to the let the mind wander!
Elizabeth T. Bradsher
Fairfax County School Board
Springfield District
Phone: (571) 296-1875
Debora L. Cain, Executive Administrative Assistant
Phone: (571) 423-1070
________________________________
From: James, Denise
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 10:05 AM
To: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member)
Subject: RE: June 14 work session
Do that – I have hives enough for both of us today! The agenda item with staff recommendations have been posted – along with a power point presentation – the staff recommendation is clear but also states that we believe the only other ‘viable’ option (other than closing and building a new school) is to renovate Clifton and build several school additions to address classroom capacity deficits - so, renovating is viable …
Denise
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Cassie
()
Date: December 20, 2010 11:12AM
The amount of misinformation being bandied about here is almost comical if not so hateful. For the record. I am the PTA President at VRES.
The comment attributed to me on the community feedback, is NOT mine. I don't live in VA Run -- more misinformation. I would be thrilled to have the Dulles Meadows community come to VRES. I have been sickened by the comments made by VRES parents during this boundary study and have spoken out about it in PTA meetings.
Yes, this was my first activity with a school board issue. I'm thinking everyone has had a first time to get involved, yes? I was asked by my principal to participate in the SW Planning Study, so I did. After spending 6 months looking closely at the issues regarding overcrowding in the region and the Clifton renovation issues, I developed my own opinions about how I thought the SB should act. So I spoke out. I wasn't promised anything for it. I'm not in Bradsher's district. While she and I spoke a couple of times about doing business, we have not discussed it in months and I'm not pursuing it now.
It is laughable that you think a position on the FPAC is a "power position." There are 13 of us and we have no decision-making authority, so I can't imagine to what "power" you're referring.
You'll have to forgive me for not responding to you sooner. I don't check these blogs every day and don't care to read all the misguided attacks. Please verify your information before accusing me of making "repugnant comments" while making your own vicious attacks.
Cassie is PTA pres? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cassie Eatmon is a hypocrite Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > From Page 164 Online Community Dialouge
> Feedback
> > Forms on FCPS website, a Va Run parent/resident
> > wrote the following comment. And you think
> > Clifton Elem parents are elitist????
> > BTW, Cassie Eatmon is the PTA President, the
> one
> > who "stands up" for all students in Ffx
> > County...HAHAHA
> >
> > "As a Virginia Run resident I was very
> concerned
> > to see option B, where it is proposed to send
> > children from Polar
> > Tree (a low cost housing community and low
> scoring
> > school system) to Virginia Run ES. Why would
> the
> > School
> > Board propose changes that would detriment the
> > quality of education at Virginia Run ES in such
> a
> > manner?
> > Shouldn't Fairfax County residents who pay
> > proportionally higher property taxes have a
> school
> > system accordingly?"
> >
> > Page 164
> >
> http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy
>
> > /communitydialoguefeedbackforms.pdf
>
>
> What a repugnant comment. This Cassie Eatmon is
> the PTA president?
The comment attributed to me on the community feedback, is NOT mine. I don't live in VA Run -- more misinformation. I would be thrilled to have the Dulles Meadows community come to VRES. I have been sickened by the comments made by VRES parents during this boundary study and have spoken out about it in PTA meetings.
Yes, this was my first activity with a school board issue. I'm thinking everyone has had a first time to get involved, yes? I was asked by my principal to participate in the SW Planning Study, so I did. After spending 6 months looking closely at the issues regarding overcrowding in the region and the Clifton renovation issues, I developed my own opinions about how I thought the SB should act. So I spoke out. I wasn't promised anything for it. I'm not in Bradsher's district. While she and I spoke a couple of times about doing business, we have not discussed it in months and I'm not pursuing it now.
It is laughable that you think a position on the FPAC is a "power position." There are 13 of us and we have no decision-making authority, so I can't imagine to what "power" you're referring.
You'll have to forgive me for not responding to you sooner. I don't check these blogs every day and don't care to read all the misguided attacks. Please verify your information before accusing me of making "repugnant comments" while making your own vicious attacks.
Cassie is PTA pres? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cassie Eatmon is a hypocrite Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > From Page 164 Online Community Dialouge
> Feedback
> > Forms on FCPS website, a Va Run parent/resident
> > wrote the following comment. And you think
> > Clifton Elem parents are elitist????
> > BTW, Cassie Eatmon is the PTA President, the
> one
> > who "stands up" for all students in Ffx
> > County...HAHAHA
> >
> > "As a Virginia Run resident I was very
> concerned
> > to see option B, where it is proposed to send
> > children from Polar
> > Tree (a low cost housing community and low
> scoring
> > school system) to Virginia Run ES. Why would
> the
> > School
> > Board propose changes that would detriment the
> > quality of education at Virginia Run ES in such
> a
> > manner?
> > Shouldn't Fairfax County residents who pay
> > proportionally higher property taxes have a
> school
> > system accordingly?"
> >
> > Page 164
> >
> http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy
>
> > /communitydialoguefeedbackforms.pdf
>
>
> What a repugnant comment. This Cassie Eatmon is
> the PTA president?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
To Cassie
()
Date: December 20, 2010 11:38AM
Is the email correct about what was said between you and Bradsher? Or is that another lie? We cannot trust anyone from the SB to our local PTA. Tell us how you really feel about closing Clifton once and for all.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Cassie
()
Date: December 20, 2010 02:01PM
Responding to "To Cassie"
Not sure to which email you're referring. I don't see it here. I have had several emails with her as the representative to the SWRPS. I think my position on Clifton was made clear in my comments to the SB. I don't believe it is a good use of resources to make the necessary renovations to this particular school with so few children. Clifton is not the only one I could make this argument about -- it's just the one that was being looked at as part of the study. I also don't feel that changing schools is detrimental to children. With the exception of some special populations, I think it's harder on the parents than the kids. I will also repeat that I don't think any one school should get special consideration. In a county the size of Fairfax, with 175,000+ students and @200 buildings to maintain, you have to take single interests and emotions out of the equation. It's a public system and VRES doesn't deserve any more or less consideration than CES or schools in the eastern end of the county.
I'm a parent volunteer who finds herself being attacked for having opinions that differ from those who want to keep Clifton open. I respect your desire to keep your school. Change is not easy and you don't think the SB acted properly. What I don't understand is why those of us who volunteered to serve on the study committee are maligned as we are for disagreeing. Does it make the attackers feel better to call me a hater (and other names that are worse)? What did I gain from Clifton closing? Do my kids get a "better" school out of it? No. I spoke my opinion because I felt it was right. Crime? I'm not picketing Clifton. I'm not filing motions against the lawsuit. My committee work is done, I spoke my opinion and now I am a spectator, like the rest of us. Do I call the CES supporters idiots and haters? No. I can disagree with you without hating you.
I applied to serve on the FPAC because I found the process interesting. I am hardly an activist I just like being involved. I grew up in this county, have kids in the schools, I'm the PTA president at my kids' school, and substitute teach occasionally for the schools (not a contract employee, just subbing). I was selected for the FPAC by my representative, Kathy Smith, not Liz Bradsher. Liz did express interest in hosting a party with me last summer, but it has not happened with her or her friends. Not a big deal, just an idea that was put out there. It certainly wasn't the reason for my speaking out about Clifton. To my recollection that didn't even come up until late July/August.
I hope I've answered your questions. I also hope that some of this vitriol can be channeled in a more productive direction. Attacking the volunteers who disagree with you isn't furthering your cause. I wish you well.
Not sure to which email you're referring. I don't see it here. I have had several emails with her as the representative to the SWRPS. I think my position on Clifton was made clear in my comments to the SB. I don't believe it is a good use of resources to make the necessary renovations to this particular school with so few children. Clifton is not the only one I could make this argument about -- it's just the one that was being looked at as part of the study. I also don't feel that changing schools is detrimental to children. With the exception of some special populations, I think it's harder on the parents than the kids. I will also repeat that I don't think any one school should get special consideration. In a county the size of Fairfax, with 175,000+ students and @200 buildings to maintain, you have to take single interests and emotions out of the equation. It's a public system and VRES doesn't deserve any more or less consideration than CES or schools in the eastern end of the county.
I'm a parent volunteer who finds herself being attacked for having opinions that differ from those who want to keep Clifton open. I respect your desire to keep your school. Change is not easy and you don't think the SB acted properly. What I don't understand is why those of us who volunteered to serve on the study committee are maligned as we are for disagreeing. Does it make the attackers feel better to call me a hater (and other names that are worse)? What did I gain from Clifton closing? Do my kids get a "better" school out of it? No. I spoke my opinion because I felt it was right. Crime? I'm not picketing Clifton. I'm not filing motions against the lawsuit. My committee work is done, I spoke my opinion and now I am a spectator, like the rest of us. Do I call the CES supporters idiots and haters? No. I can disagree with you without hating you.
I applied to serve on the FPAC because I found the process interesting. I am hardly an activist I just like being involved. I grew up in this county, have kids in the schools, I'm the PTA president at my kids' school, and substitute teach occasionally for the schools (not a contract employee, just subbing). I was selected for the FPAC by my representative, Kathy Smith, not Liz Bradsher. Liz did express interest in hosting a party with me last summer, but it has not happened with her or her friends. Not a big deal, just an idea that was put out there. It certainly wasn't the reason for my speaking out about Clifton. To my recollection that didn't even come up until late July/August.
I hope I've answered your questions. I also hope that some of this vitriol can be channeled in a more productive direction. Attacking the volunteers who disagree with you isn't furthering your cause. I wish you well.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
to Cassie
()
Date: December 20, 2010 02:41PM
Thank you for taking the time to write back. I also want what is best for ALL the students. I think closing Clifton is wrong since it will NOT solve the overcrowding issue.
I hope the SB will take into account how many parents feel. The Sangster, Fairview, and Union Mill parents also express concern with closing Clifton.
I hope the SB will take into account how many parents feel. The Sangster, Fairview, and Union Mill parents also express concern with closing Clifton.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
that proves it
()
Date: December 20, 2010 02:42PM
Well if these committees are filled with idiots like Cassie then it is no wonder we are in the pickle we are in.
I guess Cassie thought the "process" was fair and ethical....haha..what a joke.
The water "problem" was a lie.
The renovation number for Clifton was a lie.
The birth data/enrollment decline projections are lies.
The statement that Liz made in her editorial in October saying no renovation dollars would be needed is a lie.
The claim that closing Clifton would save money is a lie.
The claim that 400 stduents could easily be absorbed by neighboring schools is a lie.
Lies, lies, lies.
You are oh so honorable Cassie for serving on this committee. What a superb job you guys did.
Bravo!
I guess Cassie thought the "process" was fair and ethical....haha..what a joke.
The water "problem" was a lie.
The renovation number for Clifton was a lie.
The birth data/enrollment decline projections are lies.
The statement that Liz made in her editorial in October saying no renovation dollars would be needed is a lie.
The claim that closing Clifton would save money is a lie.
The claim that 400 stduents could easily be absorbed by neighboring schools is a lie.
Lies, lies, lies.
You are oh so honorable Cassie for serving on this committee. What a superb job you guys did.
Bravo!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Responding to Cassie
()
Date: December 20, 2010 03:08PM
to Cassie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for taking the time to write back. I
> also want what is best for ALL the students. I
> think closing Clifton is wrong since it will NOT
> solve the overcrowding issue.
>
> I hope the SB will take into account how many
> parents feel. The Sangster, Fairview, and Union
> Mill parents also express concern with closing
> Clifton.
You're welcome. Unfortunately, I think some of the rational arguments you may have are being drowned out by the hateful "mob-like" voices. No one responds the way you want them to when they are being attacked.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for taking the time to write back. I
> also want what is best for ALL the students. I
> think closing Clifton is wrong since it will NOT
> solve the overcrowding issue.
>
> I hope the SB will take into account how many
> parents feel. The Sangster, Fairview, and Union
> Mill parents also express concern with closing
> Clifton.
You're welcome. Unfortunately, I think some of the rational arguments you may have are being drowned out by the hateful "mob-like" voices. No one responds the way you want them to when they are being attacked.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Another one for Cassie
()
Date: December 20, 2010 03:30PM
Hi Cassie:
For what it's worth, I think your responses on here do at least help some to understand where you are coming from.
I appreciate and respect that you formed your own opinions about what should be done with CES, and I believe that your heart in is the right place. I am sorry that you've been verbally attacked; it serves no purpose and doesn't help matters in the least. People are venting, though that anger may be directed in the wrong place.
I would ask however, that you keep an open mind, and at least consider that the process was flawed, and the "facts" purported by the FCPS School Board were often not correct, never consistent, and often biased to support the closure of Clifton Elementary.
The water turned out to be fine, the enrollment has not started to decline as predicted for this year and in fact has increased, and closing CES is not going to save any money. I know you believed all of those reasons to be true from what you were told by the School Board, but surely now that you've seen that they are not true, you can at least understand the anger most Clifton parents and residents feel about the decision to close this school.
You've alluded that Clifton wanted special treatment in keeping their school open, but why do you consider it special treatment? The parents were/are willing to forgoe any renovations until they are necessary. The building is not in disrepair as so many seem to think, nor is it sitting on a cliff. It's a hill, which my children and I have walked up many times. At one time, there was even a hand rail there for the children to use that walked to school. Unfortunately, rush hour traffic through the Town prevents many of the Town children from walking to school now. But the hill is hardly what most would consider a cliff as Ms. Bradsher has called it many times. So why is it special treatment to want to maintain an excellent school and NOT spend any money on it until necessary? Because it doesn't meed Ed Specs? How many schools in the County meet Ed. Specs. now? Is CES the only one that doesn't? If not, then why are those schools allowed to continue educating children? Because the population is higher? There are many schools in the County which are smaller, and more expensive to operate than CES. Are those school receiving special treatment?
I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm truly not. There has been more than enough bickering amoungst the posters on here. And maybe I'm wasting my time even writing this, but you seem to be a reasonable person. So I ask you to please look at all of the information that has come to light since July 8th, and honestly ask yourself if you would still agree that closing CES was fair and right not only Clifton parents and residents, but for the County as a whole. Closing the school is not solving anything, and creating unecessary overcrowding at neighboring schools. Is closing CES really the BEST option to solving the overcrowding and saving money for taxpayers? If you can honestly answer yes to that, I would love to see some honest, consistent data that proves it is the BEST answer.
For what it's worth, I think your responses on here do at least help some to understand where you are coming from.
I appreciate and respect that you formed your own opinions about what should be done with CES, and I believe that your heart in is the right place. I am sorry that you've been verbally attacked; it serves no purpose and doesn't help matters in the least. People are venting, though that anger may be directed in the wrong place.
I would ask however, that you keep an open mind, and at least consider that the process was flawed, and the "facts" purported by the FCPS School Board were often not correct, never consistent, and often biased to support the closure of Clifton Elementary.
The water turned out to be fine, the enrollment has not started to decline as predicted for this year and in fact has increased, and closing CES is not going to save any money. I know you believed all of those reasons to be true from what you were told by the School Board, but surely now that you've seen that they are not true, you can at least understand the anger most Clifton parents and residents feel about the decision to close this school.
You've alluded that Clifton wanted special treatment in keeping their school open, but why do you consider it special treatment? The parents were/are willing to forgoe any renovations until they are necessary. The building is not in disrepair as so many seem to think, nor is it sitting on a cliff. It's a hill, which my children and I have walked up many times. At one time, there was even a hand rail there for the children to use that walked to school. Unfortunately, rush hour traffic through the Town prevents many of the Town children from walking to school now. But the hill is hardly what most would consider a cliff as Ms. Bradsher has called it many times. So why is it special treatment to want to maintain an excellent school and NOT spend any money on it until necessary? Because it doesn't meed Ed Specs? How many schools in the County meet Ed. Specs. now? Is CES the only one that doesn't? If not, then why are those schools allowed to continue educating children? Because the population is higher? There are many schools in the County which are smaller, and more expensive to operate than CES. Are those school receiving special treatment?
I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm truly not. There has been more than enough bickering amoungst the posters on here. And maybe I'm wasting my time even writing this, but you seem to be a reasonable person. So I ask you to please look at all of the information that has come to light since July 8th, and honestly ask yourself if you would still agree that closing CES was fair and right not only Clifton parents and residents, but for the County as a whole. Closing the school is not solving anything, and creating unecessary overcrowding at neighboring schools. Is closing CES really the BEST option to solving the overcrowding and saving money for taxpayers? If you can honestly answer yes to that, I would love to see some honest, consistent data that proves it is the BEST answer.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Quoted
()
Date: December 20, 2010 03:42PM
Quoted directly from an email written by one Cassie Eatmon:
"Shouldn't Fairfax County residents who pay proportionally higher taxes have a school system accordingly?"
This perspective goes against what the Fairfax County School Board claims motivates their decisions. Although we all have seen that lies and politics are about all they really employ when going about their business affairs. Oh...and the deodorant and booze.
So people who pay higher taxes get more services than those who pay less? How about the illegal immigrants? Who is paying for their truckload of services?
"Shouldn't Fairfax County residents who pay proportionally higher taxes have a school system accordingly?"
This perspective goes against what the Fairfax County School Board claims motivates their decisions. Although we all have seen that lies and politics are about all they really employ when going about their business affairs. Oh...and the deodorant and booze.
So people who pay higher taxes get more services than those who pay less? How about the illegal immigrants? Who is paying for their truckload of services?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Misquoted
()
Date: December 20, 2010 03:49PM
This is so tiring. That quote was not from me, Cassie. It was attributed to me, but it was a comment on the FCPS site from a "Virginia Run Parent/Resident." I haven't posted on those sites at all and I am not a VR resident. Can't say it any clearer than that. You're not quoting Cassie Eatmon, you're quoting an anonymous person on the FCPS feedback site.
Quoted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quoted directly from an email written by one
> Cassie Eatmon:
>
> "Shouldn't Fairfax County residents who pay
> proportionally higher taxes have a school system
> accordingly?"
>
> This perspective goes against what the Fairfax
> County School Board claims motivates their
> decisions. Although we all have seen that lies
> and politics are about all they really employ when
> going about their business affairs. Oh...and the
> deodorant and booze.
>
> So people who pay higher taxes get more services
> than those who pay less? How about the illegal
> immigrants? Who is paying for their truckload of
> services?
Quoted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quoted directly from an email written by one
> Cassie Eatmon:
>
> "Shouldn't Fairfax County residents who pay
> proportionally higher taxes have a school system
> accordingly?"
>
> This perspective goes against what the Fairfax
> County School Board claims motivates their
> decisions. Although we all have seen that lies
> and politics are about all they really employ when
> going about their business affairs. Oh...and the
> deodorant and booze.
>
> So people who pay higher taxes get more services
> than those who pay less? How about the illegal
> immigrants? Who is paying for their truckload of
> services?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Responding to Another One for Cassie
()
Date: December 20, 2010 04:10PM
Thank you for respecting that my opinion is different, but I am not an enemy.
Some items regarding the water quality issue have come out that have made me re-look at that particular issue, but overall I'm still leaning toward the need to close Clifton. I am not closed-minded about the topic. I know that this is not making the overcrowding situation any easier to solve, but the cost to renovate a school for so few students is still a concern. There is also anecdotal information amount numbers, etc., but I'm not sure of its validity. Too many people present this "factual data" that they can't back up any more than they think FCPS can. I can honestly tell you that most of us on the committee tried every possible scenario to see keeping Clifton as practical. I had so many conversations that started with "How can we bring the costs in line with other recent renovation costs?" I know the community thinks we had decided before we started -- that's just not true. We tried hard to see all the possibilities and we challenged every piece of information that came from FCPS staff.
Consolidating resources is, in general, more efficient. I am not in favor of the options presented that have multiple additions for just that reason. We still have space at some schools that will not be used for trying to move the least children. It's not pretty any way you look at it.
I was not stating that CES families expected special treatment. (I know many have.) I was responding to the charge that I had received special consideration for my school in this process and that's why we are not being impacted as much as other schools. I think just looking at a map would explain why my school is not effected much. I haven't requested, nor do I think any school should request special consideration. It was not a comment about CES. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear.
Thank you again for allowing this civil discussion. I appreciate a thoughtful back and forth and do hope that it all turns out well in the end.
Some items regarding the water quality issue have come out that have made me re-look at that particular issue, but overall I'm still leaning toward the need to close Clifton. I am not closed-minded about the topic. I know that this is not making the overcrowding situation any easier to solve, but the cost to renovate a school for so few students is still a concern. There is also anecdotal information amount numbers, etc., but I'm not sure of its validity. Too many people present this "factual data" that they can't back up any more than they think FCPS can. I can honestly tell you that most of us on the committee tried every possible scenario to see keeping Clifton as practical. I had so many conversations that started with "How can we bring the costs in line with other recent renovation costs?" I know the community thinks we had decided before we started -- that's just not true. We tried hard to see all the possibilities and we challenged every piece of information that came from FCPS staff.
Consolidating resources is, in general, more efficient. I am not in favor of the options presented that have multiple additions for just that reason. We still have space at some schools that will not be used for trying to move the least children. It's not pretty any way you look at it.
I was not stating that CES families expected special treatment. (I know many have.) I was responding to the charge that I had received special consideration for my school in this process and that's why we are not being impacted as much as other schools. I think just looking at a map would explain why my school is not effected much. I haven't requested, nor do I think any school should request special consideration. It was not a comment about CES. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear.
Thank you again for allowing this civil discussion. I appreciate a thoughtful back and forth and do hope that it all turns out well in the end.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
cassie eatmon is a hypocrite
()
Date: December 20, 2010 04:46PM
I wrote the email about the comment from a VA Run resident. Nowhere in my post does it say that Cassie Eatmon was the one who said it, it was an anonymous comment made at the Va Run Boundary Study public meeting, obviously from a Va Run parent. I said that you are the PTA President a VA Run. My title said you are a hypocrite, not a bigot.
You don't find it coincidental that the only voice against keeping Clifton open at the Public Hearing, is selected to FPAC, out of all of the SW boundary participants????
FPAC will be working with SB and staff about Facilities Planning.
I do give you credit for posting your opinion publically. But then again, the SB won't come down hard on you like it might on us. And before you think I am paranoid, one Clifton parent was followed very closely by a FCPS truck all the way from Gatehouse her neighborhood, after she picked up FOIA emails from Gatehouse. Despicable.
You don't find it coincidental that the only voice against keeping Clifton open at the Public Hearing, is selected to FPAC, out of all of the SW boundary participants????
FPAC will be working with SB and staff about Facilities Planning.
I do give you credit for posting your opinion publically. But then again, the SB won't come down hard on you like it might on us. And before you think I am paranoid, one Clifton parent was followed very closely by a FCPS truck all the way from Gatehouse her neighborhood, after she picked up FOIA emails from Gatehouse. Despicable.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
response to Cassie
()
Date: December 20, 2010 05:02PM
Responding to Another One for Cassie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for respecting that my opinion is
> different, but I am not an enemy.
>
> Some items regarding the water quality issue have
> come out that have made me re-look at that
> particular issue, but overall I'm still leaning
> toward the need to close Clifton. I am not
> closed-minded about the topic. I know that this
> is not making the overcrowding situation any
> easier to solve, but the cost to renovate a school
> for so few students is still a concern. There is
> also anecdotal information amount numbers, etc.,
> but I'm not sure of its validity. Too many people
> present this "factual data" that they can't back
> up any more than they think FCPS can. I can
> honestly tell you that most of us on the committee
> tried every possible scenario to see keeping
> Clifton as practical. I had so many conversations
> that started with "How can we bring the costs in
> line with other recent renovation costs?" I know
> the community thinks we had decided before we
> started -- that's just not true. We tried hard to
> see all the possibilities and we challenged every
> piece of information that came from FCPS staff.
>
> Consolidating resources is, in general, more
> efficient. I am not in favor of the options
> presented that have multiple additions for just
> that reason. We still have space at some schools
> that will not be used for trying to move the least
> children. It's not pretty any way you look at
> it.
>
> I was not stating that CES families expected
> special treatment. (I know many have.) I was
> responding to the charge that I had received
> special consideration for my school in this
> process and that's why we are not being impacted
> as much as other schools. I think just looking at
> a map would explain why my school is not effected
> much. I haven't requested, nor do I think any
> school should request special consideration. It
> was not a comment about CES. I'm sorry that I
> wasn't clear.
>
> Thank you again for allowing this civil
> discussion. I appreciate a thoughtful back and
> forth and do hope that it all turns out well in
> the end.
Thank you for the response.
A couple of things to consider though. You state that "Too many people present this "factual data" that they can't back up any more than they think FCPS can."
But, the "factual data" used by the Clifton residents to support keeping the school open came directly from FCPS documents and information. They didn't make it up. They were very meticulous in studying this issue, and I would argue that since they have much more at stake here, they probably spent much more time studying this than any other member of the SWRPS. I know for a fact that many spent hours and hours working to the wee hours of the morning for MONTHS looking at the "facts", and unfortunately, the more the "facts" were examined, the more flawed they were found to be.
If FCPS can't back up their data, and they can't - then why is the data presented by Clifton any less "factual". Forgive me if I have a hard time trusting FCPS to present factual data that isn't skewed to suit their purposes. They intentionally omitted the portions of 22030 and 22039 from the enrollment projections to support a declining enrollment at CES. That is skewing the data to suit their purpose. What would those enrollment projections look like if the entire attendance area of CES were included? We'll never know.
If FCPS's data is questionnable at best, can you at least concede that the decision to close this school was made prematurely? Further can you at least admit that in the best interests of the students, parents and taxpayers, a Boundary Study should have been completed prior to making a decision to shutter this school. An accurate enrollment projection, using the entire attendance area should have been conducted to determine IF the enrollment is truthfully declining.
I do understand the cost per student issue, and agree that if the cost per student far exceeds every other school in the County, then yes, it probably should be closed. But if we're looking at this objectively, on a "county as a whole" scale, the cost per student to renovate CES is comparable to many other schools in the County, and in fact, much less than some. Of course, you have to use accurate enrollment figures, which FCPS did not do.
We could go around and around for hours on end. I do realize you're not the enemy, and think that basically we all want the same thing. What is best for the children with the least amount of financial stress on a system that is already overburdened. I've also tried to keep an open mind on this subject, and I've looked at all of the data from FCPS and from Clifton. The true facts simply don't support closing CES.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for respecting that my opinion is
> different, but I am not an enemy.
>
> Some items regarding the water quality issue have
> come out that have made me re-look at that
> particular issue, but overall I'm still leaning
> toward the need to close Clifton. I am not
> closed-minded about the topic. I know that this
> is not making the overcrowding situation any
> easier to solve, but the cost to renovate a school
> for so few students is still a concern. There is
> also anecdotal information amount numbers, etc.,
> but I'm not sure of its validity. Too many people
> present this "factual data" that they can't back
> up any more than they think FCPS can. I can
> honestly tell you that most of us on the committee
> tried every possible scenario to see keeping
> Clifton as practical. I had so many conversations
> that started with "How can we bring the costs in
> line with other recent renovation costs?" I know
> the community thinks we had decided before we
> started -- that's just not true. We tried hard to
> see all the possibilities and we challenged every
> piece of information that came from FCPS staff.
>
> Consolidating resources is, in general, more
> efficient. I am not in favor of the options
> presented that have multiple additions for just
> that reason. We still have space at some schools
> that will not be used for trying to move the least
> children. It's not pretty any way you look at
> it.
>
> I was not stating that CES families expected
> special treatment. (I know many have.) I was
> responding to the charge that I had received
> special consideration for my school in this
> process and that's why we are not being impacted
> as much as other schools. I think just looking at
> a map would explain why my school is not effected
> much. I haven't requested, nor do I think any
> school should request special consideration. It
> was not a comment about CES. I'm sorry that I
> wasn't clear.
>
> Thank you again for allowing this civil
> discussion. I appreciate a thoughtful back and
> forth and do hope that it all turns out well in
> the end.
Thank you for the response.
A couple of things to consider though. You state that "Too many people present this "factual data" that they can't back up any more than they think FCPS can."
But, the "factual data" used by the Clifton residents to support keeping the school open came directly from FCPS documents and information. They didn't make it up. They were very meticulous in studying this issue, and I would argue that since they have much more at stake here, they probably spent much more time studying this than any other member of the SWRPS. I know for a fact that many spent hours and hours working to the wee hours of the morning for MONTHS looking at the "facts", and unfortunately, the more the "facts" were examined, the more flawed they were found to be.
If FCPS can't back up their data, and they can't - then why is the data presented by Clifton any less "factual". Forgive me if I have a hard time trusting FCPS to present factual data that isn't skewed to suit their purposes. They intentionally omitted the portions of 22030 and 22039 from the enrollment projections to support a declining enrollment at CES. That is skewing the data to suit their purpose. What would those enrollment projections look like if the entire attendance area of CES were included? We'll never know.
If FCPS's data is questionnable at best, can you at least concede that the decision to close this school was made prematurely? Further can you at least admit that in the best interests of the students, parents and taxpayers, a Boundary Study should have been completed prior to making a decision to shutter this school. An accurate enrollment projection, using the entire attendance area should have been conducted to determine IF the enrollment is truthfully declining.
I do understand the cost per student issue, and agree that if the cost per student far exceeds every other school in the County, then yes, it probably should be closed. But if we're looking at this objectively, on a "county as a whole" scale, the cost per student to renovate CES is comparable to many other schools in the County, and in fact, much less than some. Of course, you have to use accurate enrollment figures, which FCPS did not do.
We could go around and around for hours on end. I do realize you're not the enemy, and think that basically we all want the same thing. What is best for the children with the least amount of financial stress on a system that is already overburdened. I've also tried to keep an open mind on this subject, and I've looked at all of the data from FCPS and from Clifton. The true facts simply don't support closing CES.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Will Liz Bradsher respond?
()
Date: December 20, 2010 08:05PM
At least Cassie had the nerve post a reply. (if it was her) How about Liz?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
**to post
()
Date: December 20, 2010 08:06PM
Sorry
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
newgatedenizen
()
Date: December 20, 2010 08:50PM
Here is the link if anyone is interested.
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/swsurveyresults121510.pdf
However, take it with a grain of salt. My feedback comments were edited.
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/swsurveyresults121510.pdf
However, take it with a grain of salt. My feedback comments were edited.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Marty
()
Date: December 20, 2010 09:27PM
Tistadt and team, asked a basic question....what number of enrollment would help to justify closing Clifton.....hmmmmmmm! That is the number 298.
Then they picked a kindergarden class that had a low enrollment that year. Now what can we do? Why not project that number for the next several years....
Oh my guess it is 298.
Now we can really put the icing on the cake....we can leave out 2 zip codes that feed into Clifton because we plan on closing Clifton, therefore, the students from the two zip codes will be redirected to other schools.
Then they will completely ignore that Clifton now has close to 370 students (maybe 368 or 369). Why should they bother.....Clifton is closed.
Then Tistadt said that low projection enrollment was not a major factor....along with the well water that was proven to be ok.
Once a school has a bullseye on its roof top....the end is near.
Then they picked a kindergarden class that had a low enrollment that year. Now what can we do? Why not project that number for the next several years....
Oh my guess it is 298.
Now we can really put the icing on the cake....we can leave out 2 zip codes that feed into Clifton because we plan on closing Clifton, therefore, the students from the two zip codes will be redirected to other schools.
Then they will completely ignore that Clifton now has close to 370 students (maybe 368 or 369). Why should they bother.....Clifton is closed.
Then Tistadt said that low projection enrollment was not a major factor....along with the well water that was proven to be ok.
Once a school has a bullseye on its roof top....the end is near.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
sick of fcps's crap
()
Date: December 20, 2010 09:41PM
reader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "It has to be a big-picture process," said Cassie
> Eatmon of Virginia Run Elementary School in
> Centreville. "It can't be about just looking out
> for your own school. Leave your school at the
> door."
what a crock of shit - this woman has gotten her school excluded from the boundary study now with no changes to virginia run.
she and the school board are total screwing everyone else with their corruptedness.
our kids pay and she gets a hall pass for the richie richs in va run?
they are all shoveling crap on us. i am sick of fcps and their rigged system.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "It has to be a big-picture process," said Cassie
> Eatmon of Virginia Run Elementary School in
> Centreville. "It can't be about just looking out
> for your own school. Leave your school at the
> door."
what a crock of shit - this woman has gotten her school excluded from the boundary study now with no changes to virginia run.
she and the school board are total screwing everyone else with their corruptedness.
our kids pay and she gets a hall pass for the richie richs in va run?
they are all shoveling crap on us. i am sick of fcps and their rigged system.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Curious??
()
Date: December 21, 2010 01:01PM
The Clifton community has done a great job refuting all the reasons the School Board has given to justify closing Clifton Elementary School. Do they legally have to give a reason why or do they have the right to just close a school at their whim?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yup
()
Date: December 21, 2010 01:31PM
sick of fcps's crap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "It has to be a big-picture process," said
> Cassie
> > Eatmon of Virginia Run Elementary School in
> > Centreville. "It can't be about just looking
> out
> > for your own school. Leave your school at the
> > door."
>
>
> what a crock of shit - this woman has gotten her
> school excluded from the boundary study now with
> no changes to virginia run.
>
> she and the school board are total screwing
> everyone else with their corruptedness.
>
> our kids pay and she gets a hall pass for the
> richie richs in va run?
> they are all shoveling crap on us. i am sick of
> fcps and their rigged system.
That about sums it up.
-------------------------------------------------------
> reader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "It has to be a big-picture process," said
> Cassie
> > Eatmon of Virginia Run Elementary School in
> > Centreville. "It can't be about just looking
> out
> > for your own school. Leave your school at the
> > door."
>
>
> what a crock of shit - this woman has gotten her
> school excluded from the boundary study now with
> no changes to virginia run.
>
> she and the school board are total screwing
> everyone else with their corruptedness.
>
> our kids pay and she gets a hall pass for the
> richie richs in va run?
> they are all shoveling crap on us. i am sick of
> fcps and their rigged system.
That about sums it up.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
When is option E coming out?
()
Date: December 21, 2010 05:14PM
I was sent a notice that FCPS has an option E coming out. When are we going to see the new option? If they are to close Clifton this year the SB needs to come up with a complete plan soon.
I have a feeling they have no plan and are just making shit up as they go along. This benefits no one. Thanks Jack Dale! You are a fuck up.
I have a feeling they have no plan and are just making shit up as they go along. This benefits no one. Thanks Jack Dale! You are a fuck up.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Set Record Straight
()
Date: December 22, 2010 12:52PM
To Cassie who wrote......
You say: Not sure to which email you're referring. I don't see it here. I have had several emails with her as the representative to the SWRPS. I think my position on Clifton was made clear in my comments to the SB. I don't believe it is a good use of resources to make the necessary renovations to this particular school with so few children. Clifton is not the only one I could make this argument about -- it's just the one that was being looked at as part of the study.
Response: If you had examined the data of other schools, CES does not have the lowest enrollment where renovations have occurred. Your reason for not looking at other schools with low enrollment is very weak. You can't have it both ways...while you were looking at the 175,000 students and 200 buildings, it is evident that you carefully picked the data set that supported your desire to close CES.
You say: I also don't feel that changing schools is detrimental to children. With the exception of some special populations, I think it's harder on the parents than the kids. I will also repeat that I don't think any one school should get special consideration. In a county the size of Fairfax, with 175,000+ students and @200 buildings to maintain, you have to take single interests and emotions out of the equation. It's a public system and VRES doesn't deserve any more or less consideration than CES or schools in the eastern end of the county.
Response: CES was not getting special consideration. The playing field was titled by Bradsher where she was working with the WSHS group in order to remove CES from the renovation queue. The playing field was tilted by facilities staff under the leadership of Tistadt. Unfortunately, the playing field was titled by some Ad Hoc Committee members who were working in line with Bradsher to close CES.
You say: I'm a parent volunteer who finds herself being attacked for having opinions that differ from those who want to keep Clifton open. I respect your desire to keep your school. Change is not easy and you don't think the SB acted properly. What I don't understand is why those of us who volunteered to serve on the study committee are maligned as we are for disagreeing. Does it make the attackers feel better to call me a hater (and other names that are worse)? What did I gain from Clifton closing? Do my kids get a "better" school out of it? No. I spoke my opinion because I felt it was right. Crime? I'm not picketing Clifton. I'm not filing motions against the lawsuit.
Response: You and several of the members are maligned because you and several of the Ad Hoc committee members were operating behind the scenes to close CES.
You say: My committee work is done, I spoke my opinion and now I am a spectator, like the rest of us. Do I call the CES supporters idiots and haters? No. I can disagree with you without hating you. I applied to serve on the FPAC because I found the process interesting. I am hardly an activist I just like being involved. I grew up in this county, have kids in the schools, I'm the PTA president at my kids' school, and substitute teach occasionally for the schools (not a contract employee, just subbing). I was selected for the FPAC by my representative, Kathy Smith, not Liz Bradsher. Liz did express interest in hosting a party with me last summer, but it has not happened with her or her friends. Not a big deal, just an idea that was put out there. It certainly wasn't the reason for my speaking out about Clifton. To my recollection that didn't even come up until late July/August.
Response: If you are only a spectator, why did you agree to represent the Ad Hoc Committee at the Annandale planning committee meeting? Of all the Ad Hoc Committee members, why were you chosen…the one who supported closing CES? Could it be that you are in step with Bradsher and Smith? Why did you show up at the boundary meetings as a resource person? Why did you accept the appointment to FPAC? In the public eye, you are not a spectator.
You say: I hope I've answered your questions. I also hope that some of this vitriol can be channeled in a more productive direction. Attacking the volunteers who disagree with you isn't furthering your cause. I wish you well.
Response: In the public’s eye, you are a long way from answering the public’s questions. But then you are not alone…..Bradsher is also a long way from answering the public’s questions.
You say: Not sure to which email you're referring. I don't see it here. I have had several emails with her as the representative to the SWRPS. I think my position on Clifton was made clear in my comments to the SB. I don't believe it is a good use of resources to make the necessary renovations to this particular school with so few children. Clifton is not the only one I could make this argument about -- it's just the one that was being looked at as part of the study.
Response: If you had examined the data of other schools, CES does not have the lowest enrollment where renovations have occurred. Your reason for not looking at other schools with low enrollment is very weak. You can't have it both ways...while you were looking at the 175,000 students and 200 buildings, it is evident that you carefully picked the data set that supported your desire to close CES.
You say: I also don't feel that changing schools is detrimental to children. With the exception of some special populations, I think it's harder on the parents than the kids. I will also repeat that I don't think any one school should get special consideration. In a county the size of Fairfax, with 175,000+ students and @200 buildings to maintain, you have to take single interests and emotions out of the equation. It's a public system and VRES doesn't deserve any more or less consideration than CES or schools in the eastern end of the county.
Response: CES was not getting special consideration. The playing field was titled by Bradsher where she was working with the WSHS group in order to remove CES from the renovation queue. The playing field was tilted by facilities staff under the leadership of Tistadt. Unfortunately, the playing field was titled by some Ad Hoc Committee members who were working in line with Bradsher to close CES.
You say: I'm a parent volunteer who finds herself being attacked for having opinions that differ from those who want to keep Clifton open. I respect your desire to keep your school. Change is not easy and you don't think the SB acted properly. What I don't understand is why those of us who volunteered to serve on the study committee are maligned as we are for disagreeing. Does it make the attackers feel better to call me a hater (and other names that are worse)? What did I gain from Clifton closing? Do my kids get a "better" school out of it? No. I spoke my opinion because I felt it was right. Crime? I'm not picketing Clifton. I'm not filing motions against the lawsuit.
Response: You and several of the members are maligned because you and several of the Ad Hoc committee members were operating behind the scenes to close CES.
You say: My committee work is done, I spoke my opinion and now I am a spectator, like the rest of us. Do I call the CES supporters idiots and haters? No. I can disagree with you without hating you. I applied to serve on the FPAC because I found the process interesting. I am hardly an activist I just like being involved. I grew up in this county, have kids in the schools, I'm the PTA president at my kids' school, and substitute teach occasionally for the schools (not a contract employee, just subbing). I was selected for the FPAC by my representative, Kathy Smith, not Liz Bradsher. Liz did express interest in hosting a party with me last summer, but it has not happened with her or her friends. Not a big deal, just an idea that was put out there. It certainly wasn't the reason for my speaking out about Clifton. To my recollection that didn't even come up until late July/August.
Response: If you are only a spectator, why did you agree to represent the Ad Hoc Committee at the Annandale planning committee meeting? Of all the Ad Hoc Committee members, why were you chosen…the one who supported closing CES? Could it be that you are in step with Bradsher and Smith? Why did you show up at the boundary meetings as a resource person? Why did you accept the appointment to FPAC? In the public eye, you are not a spectator.
You say: I hope I've answered your questions. I also hope that some of this vitriol can be channeled in a more productive direction. Attacking the volunteers who disagree with you isn't furthering your cause. I wish you well.
Response: In the public’s eye, you are a long way from answering the public’s questions. But then you are not alone…..Bradsher is also a long way from answering the public’s questions.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
hwga
()
Date: December 22, 2010 08:22PM
From the email below, it appears that even the Chairman of the School Board knew long before July 8th that they intended to vote to close the school. There is no doubt in my mind that the information was skewed to close this school. How is the information being skewed this time with the Boundary Study? The projected enrollments are all over the place, again!
From: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member)
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:29 PM
To: Smith, Kathy L (School Board Member)
Subject: Re: LRR Community Meeting
Kathy,
I will go, not to worry. Found out some more info from Dean which will assist and pacify the issue for LRR.
If we can dispel the spin Clifton has started and a certain Sup we will be better served.
Got 7 now. Just need to hold em.
Liz
________________________________
From: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member)
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:29 PM
To: Smith, Kathy L (School Board Member)
Subject: Re: LRR Community Meeting
Kathy,
I will go, not to worry. Found out some more info from Dean which will assist and pacify the issue for LRR.
If we can dispel the spin Clifton has started and a certain Sup we will be better served.
Got 7 now. Just need to hold em.
Liz
________________________________
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Marty
()
Date: December 23, 2010 12:38AM
It is a disgrace, unethical, lack of professionalism, etc.....the way Bradsher conducted the process. Her buddies Smith, Gibson, Wilson, Center, Strauss, and at the final vote, Raney, Storck, and Moon should be ashamed. No one is willing to call out Bradsher's behavior.
Bradsher was singing a different song with the Clifton folks.....work with me....I will take care of you. Well she did. She will also take care of some of the neighborhoods who think they have dodged the boundary change bullet. We get it that she has promised to take care of Little Rocky Run and Cassie's neighborhood.
This "community input process" stinks and the odor reaches back to Tistadt and Dale.
In the budget process, this same group will be threatening to eliminate those favorite programs which will bring out parents with pitch forks and swords. They will probably ask the general assembly for more authority to bring in more of your dollars....watch out!
Bradsher was singing a different song with the Clifton folks.....work with me....I will take care of you. Well she did. She will also take care of some of the neighborhoods who think they have dodged the boundary change bullet. We get it that she has promised to take care of Little Rocky Run and Cassie's neighborhood.
This "community input process" stinks and the odor reaches back to Tistadt and Dale.
In the budget process, this same group will be threatening to eliminate those favorite programs which will bring out parents with pitch forks and swords. They will probably ask the general assembly for more authority to bring in more of your dollars....watch out!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
payback at the voting booth
()
Date: December 23, 2010 10:17AM
WAKE UP FAIRFAX COUNTY!!!!!!
Two ways to even the score:
1. Vote new SB members in on November 2011
2. Vote HELL NO! on the bond referendum
Why should someone who lives in Clifton who pays taxes and approved the last bond referendum that stated money would go to renovate Clifton Elem, give FCPS another penny to screw around with?
You are nuts if you vote yes.
If you want to get their attention and force them to clean up their act, just take their checkbook away.
That will get their attention real fast. Watch them play nice when they have no money to spend.
Two ways to even the score:
1. Vote new SB members in on November 2011
2. Vote HELL NO! on the bond referendum
Why should someone who lives in Clifton who pays taxes and approved the last bond referendum that stated money would go to renovate Clifton Elem, give FCPS another penny to screw around with?
You are nuts if you vote yes.
If you want to get their attention and force them to clean up their act, just take their checkbook away.
That will get their attention real fast. Watch them play nice when they have no money to spend.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Marty
()
Date: December 23, 2010 11:49AM
Voters supported planning money for Clifton in 2005 and 2007. I guess Bradsher, Tistadt, Dale and some members were plotting to close CES or CES would have been on the 2009 bond list. Action had to be taken because CES was to appear on the 2011 bond list....money for renvoation. Therefore, kick CES to the curb for 2011, and magically (with a lot of plotting against CES), WSHS appears for renovation......
Every opportunity encourage voters not to vote for the bond....for many reasons, including, I would suspect they will raise up the second administration issue again.....
Every opportunity encourage voters not to vote for the bond....for many reasons, including, I would suspect they will raise up the second administration issue again.....
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
F'd up
()
Date: December 23, 2010 03:40PM
If a school is closed, any renovation money that was slated for it (passed on a bond) can then be used for other projects without another vote (apparently)? The bond referendums do include the specific details on what the money (and exact numbers on the money) is to be used for---so isn't this sort of a fraudulent use of the money? If voters thought it would be used for CES when they voted on the bond and now it isn't, that doesn't sound quite right. The SB can play with our money?
I think that lots of "creative money managing" is going on and Dale should be held accountable. They have a "Department of Professional Learning and Accountability"---but apparently that is only there to make sure the teachers toe the line. The SB is supposed to watch Dr. Dale and we are supposed to watch the SB----but how can this work if things are constantly hidden and manipulated. Can you say deception? They all need to go and we need to watch the people there VERY carefully. Where is the press? This is no democracy.
I think that lots of "creative money managing" is going on and Dale should be held accountable. They have a "Department of Professional Learning and Accountability"---but apparently that is only there to make sure the teachers toe the line. The SB is supposed to watch Dr. Dale and we are supposed to watch the SB----but how can this work if things are constantly hidden and manipulated. Can you say deception? They all need to go and we need to watch the people there VERY carefully. Where is the press? This is no democracy.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Marty
()
Date: December 23, 2010 05:22PM
When a voter selects the yes/no button,the question he/she is voting on relates to saying yes/no to Fairfax County Board of Supervisors advertising the sale of bonds for x amount of money. (I believe this is correct.) What the public belives, however, and this is due to FCPS PR campaign, the bond money will be allocated for CES 2 million for planning, 10 million to X school for renovation, 20 million for installing a heating system at X and so on. Therefore, when the voter selects the yes button, in theory, they are saying yes to the identified uses.
In reality, however, the FCPS with board support, can do anything they dang well please as long as the money is being used for capital improvements. Someone said Graham Road Elementary also had renovation money and it was closed to be moved to another site. If I were a parent at a small school, I would run from any allocation of renovation money for fear of it being closed.
Most people vote for school bond money....voters really need to wake up and see how FCPS with the board's endorsement is playing hide and seek with our scarce tax dollars.
In reality, however, the FCPS with board support, can do anything they dang well please as long as the money is being used for capital improvements. Someone said Graham Road Elementary also had renovation money and it was closed to be moved to another site. If I were a parent at a small school, I would run from any allocation of renovation money for fear of it being closed.
Most people vote for school bond money....voters really need to wake up and see how FCPS with the board's endorsement is playing hide and seek with our scarce tax dollars.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Where do the kids go
()
Date: December 28, 2010 12:48PM
Any word on this option E that is suppose to come out. I am really hoping that the FCPS board or staff will realize that people want not just to know where the elementary school boundaries will be but how those changes will affect the middle and high school. Why doesn't the staff do a complete study rather than another half assed job.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
say
()
Date: December 28, 2010 01:27PM
This shit has been going on for time immemorial.
Sometimes when I get bored, I go to the School Board website and read the minutes of long ago Board meetings. They go back to 1922. (in one 1922 meeting, the board was voting on expenditures, and one of them was "Two brooms for Clifton School...$1.70" Another was "Four cords of firewood @ $5.50 per cord...$22.00. Shit, what's a cord of wood cost nowadays? LOL
In meetings back in the early 50's, Fairview parents expressed their outrage that some of their kids were being re-districted to Clifton!
Sometimes when I get bored, I go to the School Board website and read the minutes of long ago Board meetings. They go back to 1922. (in one 1922 meeting, the board was voting on expenditures, and one of them was "Two brooms for Clifton School...$1.70" Another was "Four cords of firewood @ $5.50 per cord...$22.00. Shit, what's a cord of wood cost nowadays? LOL
In meetings back in the early 50's, Fairview parents expressed their outrage that some of their kids were being re-districted to Clifton!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Samuel Clemens
()
Date: December 29, 2010 07:08AM
It's been going on a lot longer than that and it's going to take a lot more than you may think to change the SB.
...."In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards."
Mark Twain
...."In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards."
Mark Twain
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
SB said middle and high schools would remain as they are now
()
Date: December 29, 2010 08:24AM
I do not believe that for a second but they are only moving elementary kids right now.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
HOHOHO
()
Date: January 03, 2011 02:02PM
Saw this on another forum. Pompous letter from Cassie Eatmon to School Board
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sick and tired
()
Date: January 04, 2011 03:30PM
when oh when is the high and mighty School Board and their incompetent staff going to let us serfs know where are kids are going to school next year? Is this decision scheduled for February or are they waiting to see if the lawsuit re: Clifton Elementary goes forward?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
I hope they tell us soon.
()
Date: January 04, 2011 05:33PM
My kids would love to know what school they are going to next year. I tell them FCPS are a mess and the sooner they learn that the better.
And remember option E still is in the works. So to answer you question. nobody the fuck knows.
And remember option E still is in the works. So to answer you question. nobody the fuck knows.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
you just get to pay the bills
()
Date: January 04, 2011 08:46PM
They will let you know in July. It will probably be option J or K. Even though they know right now, they will tell you that they really don't know yet. July is the latest they can let you know and still get the trailers and desks into place.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
July my ass!
()
Date: January 05, 2011 10:25AM
I think the Clifton parents are going to protest and not let the kids take the SOL's. Screw Fairfax county. If they close Clifton they really do not need to take those tests anyway.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Robin Hood
()
Date: January 05, 2011 01:38PM
"WAKE UP FAIRFAX COUNTY!!!!!!
Two ways to even the score:
1. Vote new SB members in on November 2011
2. Vote HELL NO! on the bond referendum "
That would be the thing to do except new SB members might end up following in old SBs' games and learning how to scratch each other backs.
Like a poster said in a similar way,
welcome to the art of redistricting in Fairfax County by FCPS's very own, the SB
Two ways to even the score:
1. Vote new SB members in on November 2011
2. Vote HELL NO! on the bond referendum "
That would be the thing to do except new SB members might end up following in old SBs' games and learning how to scratch each other backs.
Like a poster said in a similar way,
welcome to the art of redistricting in Fairfax County by FCPS's very own, the SB
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
parents
()
Date: January 06, 2011 05:31AM
I live in Centreville off of Stringfellow and some maps have us move to Poplar Tree school. We love the idea. It is not all parents that do not want to move. Ones I talk to do not care. It lets us go to school with the people on our street in our same HOA.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
agree
()
Date: January 06, 2011 12:00PM
parents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I live in Centreville off of Stringfellow and some
> maps have us move to Poplar Tree school. We love
> the idea. It is not all parents that do not want
> to move. Ones I talk to do not care. It lets us
> go to school with the people on our street in our
> same HOA.
That is all most parents want, for their children to go to school with kids that are neighbors, who they are playing with and growing up with. This is the meaning of a community school. When the school board closes a school or redistricts a group of kids, they don't think about how that affects a child's sense of connection. I moved a lot as a kid, and it affected me in my ability to make friends. The school board says kids are resillient (sp?), but in reality, kids just don't know how to communicate how they are hurt. Think about kids that are abused or molested, they don't talk about it as children, they seem to be fine. But when they become adults, all that hurt and anger comes out.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I live in Centreville off of Stringfellow and some
> maps have us move to Poplar Tree school. We love
> the idea. It is not all parents that do not want
> to move. Ones I talk to do not care. It lets us
> go to school with the people on our street in our
> same HOA.
That is all most parents want, for their children to go to school with kids that are neighbors, who they are playing with and growing up with. This is the meaning of a community school. When the school board closes a school or redistricts a group of kids, they don't think about how that affects a child's sense of connection. I moved a lot as a kid, and it affected me in my ability to make friends. The school board says kids are resillient (sp?), but in reality, kids just don't know how to communicate how they are hurt. Think about kids that are abused or molested, they don't talk about it as children, they seem to be fine. But when they become adults, all that hurt and anger comes out.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Surprise!
()
Date: January 06, 2011 02:32PM
The parents in Southwestern Fairfax are in for a big surprise. You aren't going to get additions built on to your schools. You are going to get trailers and you need to be prepared to live with them for a LONG, LONG time. There are other schools in Fairfax with existing trailers so why would your schools be prioritized for getting building additions first why other schools have waited? They are just telling you that you are going to get building additions now to keep you quiet so you don't scream to the press while they meanwhile get to say they gave public notice and went through a public hearing on the boundary changes. You are screwed and you can thank your NON-Representative Liz Bradsher for it.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
parents
()
Date: January 06, 2011 07:09PM
The PTA few pushing for things to not change. This is not majority of parents. Move the kids to Poplar Tree, move neighbors together. Look at map. It makes sense.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
What about the Clifton children?
()
Date: January 06, 2011 07:21PM
The Clifton kids are being moved into three different schools. Friends they have had for years are being split up. I know they will come out great in the end but for right now they feel like they are not being heard. I am happy it is working out for others but right now this whole process stings.
We in Clifton have not been told where are kids are going in the fall. Right now it is option A,B,C or D. They are also working on an E. When we will be told where the school are kids will attend? July or August seems to be FCPS plan.
I am stating facts. Please stop calling us elite. I did not come from family money and I have worked since I was sixteen. I am proud to have worked hard and be able to live in Clifton. Many of my friends have the same story.
We in Clifton have not been told where are kids are going in the fall. Right now it is option A,B,C or D. They are also working on an E. When we will be told where the school are kids will attend? July or August seems to be FCPS plan.
I am stating facts. Please stop calling us elite. I did not come from family money and I have worked since I was sixteen. I am proud to have worked hard and be able to live in Clifton. Many of my friends have the same story.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yee-up
()
Date: January 06, 2011 08:02PM
Surprise! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The parents in Southwestern Fairfax are in for a
> big surprise. You aren't going to get additions
> built on to your schools. You are going to get
> trailers and you need to be prepared to live with
> them for a LONG, LONG time. There are other
> schools in Fairfax with existing trailers so why
> would your schools be prioritized for getting
> building additions first why other schools have
> waited? They are just telling you that you are
> going to get building additions now to keep you
> quiet so you don't scream to the press while they
> meanwhile get to say they gave public notice and
> went through a public hearing on the boundary
> changes. You are screwed and you can thank your
> NON-Representative Liz Bradsher for it.
Thank you. If only more people would actually see this to be true and address this problem.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The parents in Southwestern Fairfax are in for a
> big surprise. You aren't going to get additions
> built on to your schools. You are going to get
> trailers and you need to be prepared to live with
> them for a LONG, LONG time. There are other
> schools in Fairfax with existing trailers so why
> would your schools be prioritized for getting
> building additions first why other schools have
> waited? They are just telling you that you are
> going to get building additions now to keep you
> quiet so you don't scream to the press while they
> meanwhile get to say they gave public notice and
> went through a public hearing on the boundary
> changes. You are screwed and you can thank your
> NON-Representative Liz Bradsher for it.
Thank you. If only more people would actually see this to be true and address this problem.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Liz Bradsher
()
Date: January 06, 2011 09:22PM
Who does she think she is? She has had so much bad press many do not want to be around her. I heard she may retire and move down south after her next loss on the SB. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
parentstounite
()
Date: January 07, 2011 07:42PM
Move Northbourne kids to Poplar Tree. That will free up 150-200 seats at other schools to better shift Clifton.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Capacity? Really???
()
Date: January 08, 2011 12:27PM
Can anyone out there explain to me how surrounding schools can "absorb" Clifton students? I just can't get the math to work. Is there something I am missing?
Clifton Students: 369
Fairview capacity: 58
Sangster capacity: 25
Union Mill capacity: 17
Total capacity: 100
Even if FCPS claims "declining enrollment" (which is simply NOT true), this is still not nearly enough seats. 100 available vs. 370 needed???
Clifton Students: 369
Fairview capacity: 58
Sangster capacity: 25
Union Mill capacity: 17
Total capacity: 100
Even if FCPS claims "declining enrollment" (which is simply NOT true), this is still not nearly enough seats. 100 available vs. 370 needed???
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Skeptical
()
Date: January 08, 2011 01:34PM
Capacity? Really??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can anyone out there explain to me how surrounding
> schools can "absorb" Clifton students? I just
> can't get the math to work. Is there something I
> am missing?
>
> Clifton Students: 369
> Fairview capacity: 58
> Sangster capacity: 25
> Union Mill capacity: 17
> Total capacity: 100
>
>
> Even if FCPS claims "declining enrollment" (which
> is simply NOT true), this is still not nearly
> enough seats. 100 available vs. 370 needed???
I thought it was now all about additions and redistricting throughout the region to create spaces at the schools closest to Clifton.
FYI - there is also an Annandale Regional Study that is going on right now and the MS/HS committee composed of parents from the schools involved basically said in their report that they had very little confidence in how FCPS Staff determined a school's "capacity" (since the numbers bounce around from year to year) or projected future enrollment.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can anyone out there explain to me how surrounding
> schools can "absorb" Clifton students? I just
> can't get the math to work. Is there something I
> am missing?
>
> Clifton Students: 369
> Fairview capacity: 58
> Sangster capacity: 25
> Union Mill capacity: 17
> Total capacity: 100
>
>
> Even if FCPS claims "declining enrollment" (which
> is simply NOT true), this is still not nearly
> enough seats. 100 available vs. 370 needed???
I thought it was now all about additions and redistricting throughout the region to create spaces at the schools closest to Clifton.
FYI - there is also an Annandale Regional Study that is going on right now and the MS/HS committee composed of parents from the schools involved basically said in their report that they had very little confidence in how FCPS Staff determined a school's "capacity" (since the numbers bounce around from year to year) or projected future enrollment.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Additions? When?
()
Date: January 08, 2011 07:29PM
When are they going to build the additions at Fairview/Sangster/Union Mill? Option D does not mention timelines for the additions - or am I missing it?(entirely possible... so don't get all snarky on me!).
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 08, 2011 08:33PM
Additions? When? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When are they going to build the additions at
> Fairview/Sangster/Union Mill? Option D does not
> mention timelines for the additions - or am I
> missing it?(entirely possible... so don't get all
> snarky on me!).
If there are any timelines, FCPS has not shared them with the rest of us. And don't count on additions at all. They are not guaranteed. And now Annandale is reaching in to take a piece of the pie intended for those additions. Read the Annandale Regional Study presentation and report. Not saying that Annandale doesn't need/deserve the funds as much as the SW Region. BUT, I am wondering where exactly those funds are coming from.
Hello TRAILERS!
Get ready for them, they're coming whether we like it or not. And, have you ever noticed that once a school gets those trailers, they never seem to leave?
-------------------------------------------------------
> When are they going to build the additions at
> Fairview/Sangster/Union Mill? Option D does not
> mention timelines for the additions - or am I
> missing it?(entirely possible... so don't get all
> snarky on me!).
If there are any timelines, FCPS has not shared them with the rest of us. And don't count on additions at all. They are not guaranteed. And now Annandale is reaching in to take a piece of the pie intended for those additions. Read the Annandale Regional Study presentation and report. Not saying that Annandale doesn't need/deserve the funds as much as the SW Region. BUT, I am wondering where exactly those funds are coming from.
Hello TRAILERS!
Get ready for them, they're coming whether we like it or not. And, have you ever noticed that once a school gets those trailers, they never seem to leave?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Trailers @ Fairview
()
Date: January 08, 2011 09:18PM
WoW - seems like Fairview is at most risk for the trailers. Why aren't Fairview parents more vocal about this? Do they not know? Do they not understand? What is their PTA President doing to make them aware?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Robin Hood
()
Date: January 09, 2011 08:10AM
Just some thoughts about trailers at some FCPS schools (seems like most of them)--my two kids have experienced classroom trailers. I have never supported the idea of having trailers implanted with the schools for safety and other reasons.
A few years ago in my area, we were under a tornado warning and it happened very quickly. My kids' schools were nearby my work so I knew they had the same warning. One of my kids was in a classroom trailer (was in 4th grade at that time). When the warning expired and I left work to get my kids, I asked how did it go? My 4th grade kid said it was terrible. All the kids and the teachers from these trailers had to run to the main school for safety and that it was not easy for them.
I personally feel these trailers need to be reviewed and must go! They don't help with any redistricting for that matter.
A few years ago in my area, we were under a tornado warning and it happened very quickly. My kids' schools were nearby my work so I knew they had the same warning. One of my kids was in a classroom trailer (was in 4th grade at that time). When the warning expired and I left work to get my kids, I asked how did it go? My 4th grade kid said it was terrible. All the kids and the teachers from these trailers had to run to the main school for safety and that it was not easy for them.
I personally feel these trailers need to be reviewed and must go! They don't help with any redistricting for that matter.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FairviewAnswer
()
Date: January 09, 2011 09:08AM
Trailers @ Fairview Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WoW - seems like Fairview is at most risk for the
> trailers. Why aren't Fairview parents more vocal
> about this? Do they not know? Do they not
> understand? What is their PTA President doing to
> make them aware
It appears that the Fairview parents have their priorities mixed up. They are more worried about getting their kids to after school sporting events than worrying about what is going on with their day-to-day education. Rumor has it that Tessie Wilson and Liz Bradsher were at a PTA meeting at Fairview recently and told the parents there was very little money for renovations which is why Clifton had to be closed and all of this redistricting had to occur (which is ultimately going to put a bunch of trailers at Fairview and increase their class size). LESS THAN TWO MONTHS LATER, FCPS came out with news reports that they had extra money for renovations and were now going to be able to do renovations at a lot of OTHER schools (not the ones in the Southwestern part of the County). Interestingly, a lot of those schools just happened to be located in TESSIE WILSON and STU GIBSON's districts. Fairview parents have their priorities so screwed up that they still aren't paying attention though and it is now going to hurt their kids. They are about as gullible as they come.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WoW - seems like Fairview is at most risk for the
> trailers. Why aren't Fairview parents more vocal
> about this? Do they not know? Do they not
> understand? What is their PTA President doing to
> make them aware
It appears that the Fairview parents have their priorities mixed up. They are more worried about getting their kids to after school sporting events than worrying about what is going on with their day-to-day education. Rumor has it that Tessie Wilson and Liz Bradsher were at a PTA meeting at Fairview recently and told the parents there was very little money for renovations which is why Clifton had to be closed and all of this redistricting had to occur (which is ultimately going to put a bunch of trailers at Fairview and increase their class size). LESS THAN TWO MONTHS LATER, FCPS came out with news reports that they had extra money for renovations and were now going to be able to do renovations at a lot of OTHER schools (not the ones in the Southwestern part of the County). Interestingly, a lot of those schools just happened to be located in TESSIE WILSON and STU GIBSON's districts. Fairview parents have their priorities so screwed up that they still aren't paying attention though and it is now going to hurt their kids. They are about as gullible as they come.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
politics
()
Date: January 09, 2011 09:17AM
> It appears that the Fairview parents have their
> priorities mixed up. They are more worried about
> getting their kids to after school sporting events
> than worrying about what is going on with their
> day-to-day education. Rumor has it that Tessie
> Wilson and Liz Bradsher were at a PTA meeting at
> Fairview recently and told the parents there was
> very little money for renovations which is why
> Clifton had to be closed and all of this
> redistricting had to occur (which is ultimately
> going to put a bunch of trailers at Fairview and
> increase their class size). LESS THAN TWO MONTHS
> LATER, FCPS came out with news reports that they
> had extra money for renovations and were now going
> to be able to do renovations at a lot of OTHER
> schools (not the ones in the Southwestern part of
> the County). Interestingly, a lot of those
> schools just happened to be located in TESSIE
> WILSON and STU GIBSON's districts. Fairview
> parents have their priorities so screwed up that
> they still aren't paying attention though and it
> is now going to hurt their kids. They are about
> as gullible as they come.
This also makes it appear that Liz may have made some political back room deals with the other Board Members to get South County Middle School built ahead of everyone else on the lists. They let her bump South County Middle School up and and now she is going to let the parents in the Southwestern part of the County pay the price for it as she throws them under the bus so that the other Board Members can get THEIR schools renovated. Liz Bradsher is probably the WORST "Representative" this County has ever seen.
> priorities mixed up. They are more worried about
> getting their kids to after school sporting events
> than worrying about what is going on with their
> day-to-day education. Rumor has it that Tessie
> Wilson and Liz Bradsher were at a PTA meeting at
> Fairview recently and told the parents there was
> very little money for renovations which is why
> Clifton had to be closed and all of this
> redistricting had to occur (which is ultimately
> going to put a bunch of trailers at Fairview and
> increase their class size). LESS THAN TWO MONTHS
> LATER, FCPS came out with news reports that they
> had extra money for renovations and were now going
> to be able to do renovations at a lot of OTHER
> schools (not the ones in the Southwestern part of
> the County). Interestingly, a lot of those
> schools just happened to be located in TESSIE
> WILSON and STU GIBSON's districts. Fairview
> parents have their priorities so screwed up that
> they still aren't paying attention though and it
> is now going to hurt their kids. They are about
> as gullible as they come.
This also makes it appear that Liz may have made some political back room deals with the other Board Members to get South County Middle School built ahead of everyone else on the lists. They let her bump South County Middle School up and and now she is going to let the parents in the Southwestern part of the County pay the price for it as she throws them under the bus so that the other Board Members can get THEIR schools renovated. Liz Bradsher is probably the WORST "Representative" this County has ever seen.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Yeeeeees
()
Date: January 09, 2011 09:35AM
"Just some thoughts about trailers at some FCPS schools (seems like most of them)--my two kids have experienced classroom trailers. I have never supported the idea of having trailers implanted with the schools for safety and other reasons.
A few years ago in my area, we were under a tornado warning and it happened very quickly. My kids' schools were nearby my work so I knew they had the same warning. One of my kids was in a classroom trailer (was in 4th grade at that time). When the warning expired and I left work to get my kids, I asked how did it go? My 4th grade kid said it was terrible. All the kids and the teachers from these trailers had to run to the main school for safety and that it was not easy for them.
I personally feel these trailers need to be reviewed and must go! They don't help with any redistricting for that matter."
No sprinklers is a larger danger in the view of the SB. Fires happen much more often than high winds.
A few years ago in my area, we were under a tornado warning and it happened very quickly. My kids' schools were nearby my work so I knew they had the same warning. One of my kids was in a classroom trailer (was in 4th grade at that time). When the warning expired and I left work to get my kids, I asked how did it go? My 4th grade kid said it was terrible. All the kids and the teachers from these trailers had to run to the main school for safety and that it was not easy for them.
I personally feel these trailers need to be reviewed and must go! They don't help with any redistricting for that matter."
No sprinklers is a larger danger in the view of the SB. Fires happen much more often than high winds.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sprinklers?
()
Date: January 09, 2011 09:51AM
> No sprinklers is a larger danger in the view of
> the SB. Fires happen much more often than high
> winds.
There aren't any fire sprinklers in the trailers?!!! That can't be right.
If the kids scramble to the door and block the door, wouldn't the trailer essentially become a death trap?
> the SB. Fires happen much more often than high
> winds.
There aren't any fire sprinklers in the trailers?!!! That can't be right.
If the kids scramble to the door and block the door, wouldn't the trailer essentially become a death trap?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
more on trailers
()
Date: January 09, 2011 10:47AM
You're absolutely right. The trailers are VERY unsafe in many ways----not the least of which is the limited exits (one). Yes, there is no water in the trailers. I used to bring in bottles of it (gee, isn't that what they had to do at Clifton and it was such a problem?). If a teacher needs help in a trailer (fight between students or even teacher suffering medical issue, etc.), it takes much more time for someone to get out there---the trailers are usually as far as possible from the main entrance and the office (way in the back usually). Nobody paid attention to the panic button in my trailer because it was right next to the door and kids often hit it by accident. I did have a student who went into diabetic shock once and I had a student suffer a seizure as well. I also had a student throw a desk at another student. Getting to the phone at one end would not always be a solution. In the building, the teacher can step outside and call to another teacher's room or call down the hallway---action is much faster.
By the way----to all of you who don't think teachers should get a raise, think again. I don't think you all are in much danger in your offices where you work so much harder than we do.
By the way----to all of you who don't think teachers should get a raise, think again. I don't think you all are in much danger in your offices where you work so much harder than we do.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 09, 2011 11:05AM
Hey FCPS staff and SB, (we know you monitor this site)
I was looking at the proposed capacity enhancements at the various schools for the SW Boundary Study, and noticed that for option 1 at Fairview (pg. 20), the school in the picture is Fairfax Villa.
It would be most helpful to the parents currently at Fairview, and those slated to move to Fairview next year, if you would please correct that error and show exactly where the addition proposed for Option 1 at Fairview would be located.
This is such a sloppy mistake. How many more sloppy mistakes were made in this Boundary Study???
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/capacityadditionoptions.pdf
I was looking at the proposed capacity enhancements at the various schools for the SW Boundary Study, and noticed that for option 1 at Fairview (pg. 20), the school in the picture is Fairfax Villa.
It would be most helpful to the parents currently at Fairview, and those slated to move to Fairview next year, if you would please correct that error and show exactly where the addition proposed for Option 1 at Fairview would be located.
This is such a sloppy mistake. How many more sloppy mistakes were made in this Boundary Study???
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/capacityadditionoptions.pdf
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yoyo
()
Date: January 09, 2011 12:22PM
wow, that is pathetic that the staff would get that wrong. Shows how much thougth they really put into the additions.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
bon bons
()
Date: January 09, 2011 12:28PM
more on trailers Wrote:
.> By the way----to all of you who don't think
> teachers should get a raise, think again. I don't
> think you all are in much danger in your offices
> where you work so much harder than we do.
Right. Teachers should get a raise. No one else is in this economy except congress is getting raises. Yep. All of us just sit in our cozy offices nice and safe.
.> By the way----to all of you who don't think
> teachers should get a raise, think again. I don't
> think you all are in much danger in your offices
> where you work so much harder than we do.
Right. Teachers should get a raise. No one else is in this economy except congress is getting raises. Yep. All of us just sit in our cozy offices nice and safe.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
legal?
()
Date: January 09, 2011 01:17PM
more on trailers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're absolutely right. The trailers are VERY
> unsafe in many ways----not the least of which is
> the limited exits (one). Yes, there is no water
> in the trailers. I used to bring in bottles of it
> (gee, isn't that what they had to do at Clifton
> and it was such a problem?). If a teacher needs
> help in a trailer (fight between students or even
> teacher suffering medical issue, etc.), it takes
> much more time for someone to get out there---the
> trailers are usually as far as possible from the
> main entrance and the office (way in the back
> usually). Nobody paid attention to the panic
> button in my trailer because it was right next to
> the door and kids often hit it by accident. I did
> have a student who went into diabetic shock once
> and I had a student suffer a seizure as well. I
> also had a student throw a desk at another
> student. Getting to the phone at one end would
> not always be a solution. In the building, the
> teacher can step outside and call to another
> teacher's room or call down the hallway---action
> is much faster.
>
>
> By the way----to all of you who don't think
> teachers should get a raise, think again. I don't
> think you all are in much danger in your offices
> where you work so much harder than we do.
How is it even legal to have a public gathering place with only one exit?
Plus, a 5 to 12 year old child isn't going to be able to unlock or climb out a window in a panic. Smoke inhalation would probably get to them first. Aren't there laws about having multiple egress points?
Also, most of the schools have entrances with front locks and check-in procedures before someone can just walk into the school. What is the security on a trailer if they are just sitting in the back of the school on what used to be a playing field?
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're absolutely right. The trailers are VERY
> unsafe in many ways----not the least of which is
> the limited exits (one). Yes, there is no water
> in the trailers. I used to bring in bottles of it
> (gee, isn't that what they had to do at Clifton
> and it was such a problem?). If a teacher needs
> help in a trailer (fight between students or even
> teacher suffering medical issue, etc.), it takes
> much more time for someone to get out there---the
> trailers are usually as far as possible from the
> main entrance and the office (way in the back
> usually). Nobody paid attention to the panic
> button in my trailer because it was right next to
> the door and kids often hit it by accident. I did
> have a student who went into diabetic shock once
> and I had a student suffer a seizure as well. I
> also had a student throw a desk at another
> student. Getting to the phone at one end would
> not always be a solution. In the building, the
> teacher can step outside and call to another
> teacher's room or call down the hallway---action
> is much faster.
>
>
> By the way----to all of you who don't think
> teachers should get a raise, think again. I don't
> think you all are in much danger in your offices
> where you work so much harder than we do.
How is it even legal to have a public gathering place with only one exit?
Plus, a 5 to 12 year old child isn't going to be able to unlock or climb out a window in a panic. Smoke inhalation would probably get to them first. Aren't there laws about having multiple egress points?
Also, most of the schools have entrances with front locks and check-in procedures before someone can just walk into the school. What is the security on a trailer if they are just sitting in the back of the school on what used to be a playing field?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
reader
()
Date: January 09, 2011 01:25PM
I still want to know. What is the motivation of staff? I understand Bradsher's political motivation,but why is staff so anxious to close Clifton? It just does not make sense to me. I do not think it is saving money. There must be another reason. Tisdadt surely is not afraid of Bradsher or the other members. He is too close to retirement. Why is he so anxious to do this?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
more on trailers
()
Date: January 09, 2011 01:33PM
Yes. The windows are not big enough to climb out of by the way. They are very small and have the sliding type of opening.
And, yes, security was a big concern that I had when I worked in one of them---the vision of what someone could do ran through my head more than a few times. Trailers are a lot less secure than a building for sure. I think they should keep Clifton open long enough to get the additions built and then move the Clifton students. That would be much wiser than moving students before they are ready and as one poster wrote---once those trailers are in place there will be little incentive to put on the additions. The money will be used elsewhere in the system.
I think the parents should visit elementary schools that have trailers to see what it is like. Ask for additions.
And, yes, security was a big concern that I had when I worked in one of them---the vision of what someone could do ran through my head more than a few times. Trailers are a lot less secure than a building for sure. I think they should keep Clifton open long enough to get the additions built and then move the Clifton students. That would be much wiser than moving students before they are ready and as one poster wrote---once those trailers are in place there will be little incentive to put on the additions. The money will be used elsewhere in the system.
I think the parents should visit elementary schools that have trailers to see what it is like. Ask for additions.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
trailerSafety
()
Date: January 09, 2011 02:18PM
Aside from what sounds like fire and safety concerns related to the trailers, just curious if anybody has ever investigated the trailers FCPS is using for toxic formaldehyde, etc.? According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), exposure to formaldehyde can cause cancer. Formaldehyde exposure is a special concern for children. Children may become sensitive to formaldehyde more easily, which may make it more likely they will become sick.
“ToxicTrailers.com is dedicated to providing information about formaldehyde poisoning, and advocating effective government regulations. The government spent more than $2 billion on FEMA trailers with hazardous levels of formaldehyde, and now has dumped more than 103,000 former FEMA trailers on the market despite proven problems with formaldehyde, mold and even gas leaks. The FEMA trailer tragedy exposed what is a widespread problem in RVs, mobile homes, MODULAR BUILDINGS and even conventional homes and offices.â€
http://www.toxictrailers.org/2007/05/info-on-class-action-lawsuit.html
Maybe what the parents should do is start a petition to FCPS and the County Supervisors that they are putting them on notice that they want to stop the introduction of trailers into the school system? There are likely lots of parents THROUGHOUT the County that would back that petition!
“ToxicTrailers.com is dedicated to providing information about formaldehyde poisoning, and advocating effective government regulations. The government spent more than $2 billion on FEMA trailers with hazardous levels of formaldehyde, and now has dumped more than 103,000 former FEMA trailers on the market despite proven problems with formaldehyde, mold and even gas leaks. The FEMA trailer tragedy exposed what is a widespread problem in RVs, mobile homes, MODULAR BUILDINGS and even conventional homes and offices.â€
http://www.toxictrailers.org/2007/05/info-on-class-action-lawsuit.html
Maybe what the parents should do is start a petition to FCPS and the County Supervisors that they are putting them on notice that they want to stop the introduction of trailers into the school system? There are likely lots of parents THROUGHOUT the County that would back that petition!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Comeon
()
Date: January 09, 2011 02:32PM
Are you people for real? Some are dieing from cancer now because of trailers? Others a letting their 4 year olds decide how well a drill as school goes? Clifton school is closing, its done. Board says so, court says so. Denial should be over. Focus needs to be on best for the students. I am surprised no one proposed homeschool for those kids as they seem too bright for this county. Get real.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 09, 2011 02:48PM
Comeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you people for real? Some are dieing from
> cancer now because of trailers? Others a letting
> their 4 year olds decide how well a drill as
> school goes? Clifton school is closing, its done.
> Board says so, court says so. Denial should be
> over. Focus needs to be on best for the students.
> I am surprised no one proposed homeschool for
> those kids as they seem too bright for this
> county. Get real.
Are you for real?
1. Dieing is spelled dying. And yes, some trailers pose a real danger. Get your head out of the sand and look around once in a while.
2. "Others a letting their 4 year olds decide how well a drill as school goes?"
HUH??? Form a coherent sentence and then please feel free to rejoin the discussion.
3. The focus is on what is best for the students. Which is why parents don't want them in trailers.
You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension while you work on your spelling and sentence structure.
Not a sermon, just a thought!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you people for real? Some are dieing from
> cancer now because of trailers? Others a letting
> their 4 year olds decide how well a drill as
> school goes? Clifton school is closing, its done.
> Board says so, court says so. Denial should be
> over. Focus needs to be on best for the students.
> I am surprised no one proposed homeschool for
> those kids as they seem too bright for this
> county. Get real.
Are you for real?
1. Dieing is spelled dying. And yes, some trailers pose a real danger. Get your head out of the sand and look around once in a while.
2. "Others a letting their 4 year olds decide how well a drill as school goes?"
HUH??? Form a coherent sentence and then please feel free to rejoin the discussion.
3. The focus is on what is best for the students. Which is why parents don't want them in trailers.
You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension while you work on your spelling and sentence structure.
Not a sermon, just a thought!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Liz Bradsher is going down!
()
Date: January 09, 2011 03:33PM
A new lawsuit has been filed by a parent against the SB for secret e-mails not released to the public. In the new lawsuit all e-mails made by SB members must be released to the public. June and July e-mails show that memebers of the SB had already made it clear that CLifton elemenarty was to close.
I am so happy! Now all of Fairax can see the town drunk Liz Bradsher at her best!
I am so happy! Now all of Fairax can see the town drunk Liz Bradsher at her best!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Reading is Fundamental
()
Date: January 09, 2011 03:42PM
" Others a letting
> their 4 year olds decide how well a drill as
> school goes?"
If you go back to the original post, it said a 4th grader, not a 4 year old. Yes, you need to retake the Reading SOL's.
> their 4 year olds decide how well a drill as
> school goes?"
If you go back to the original post, it said a 4th grader, not a 4 year old. Yes, you need to retake the Reading SOL's.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
I hate the grammar police
()
Date: January 09, 2011 04:26PM
When you type on your iPhone it is easy to make an error.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
To iphone user
()
Date: January 09, 2011 05:04PM
Your error on the 4th grader vs. a 4 year old was not a grammar mistake. The iPhone didn't make you do it.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
dimwit
()
Date: January 09, 2011 06:19PM
Sorry about 4th grader versus 4 year old. With the level of conversation, you can see how we all got confused. Back to the topic. Lets do whats best for the kids.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
I am a 4th grader!
()
Date: January 09, 2011 09:40PM
Why are you mad at me? I am learning on my new new iphone. I am NOT a 4 yeard old but in the 4th grade. Don't hate on here.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 10, 2011 07:05PM
Oh yes just move kids from GBW that takes care of it - ummm not the case - because then it overcrowds Poplar Tree. As for neighborhood school, we were told when we moved in that due to the autism center and its requirements that our neighborhood would never be put at Poplar Tree. We have been at GBW and love it. Poplar Tree is by no means a bad school but the frustrating thing is that the school board and admins etc... need parents to get involved. So you get involved your kids build bonds as do the parents and then they just move you like a playing piece in a chess board because really at this point no one wants to stand down. If moving us eliminated the overcrowding issue it would make since, but moving us put to move kids from one school so you can fill that school with kids from another and so on and so on just doesn't make since.
Really the bigger issue for me is timeline. Many families need to make arrangments with child care or preschool for younger children or numerous other things that tie to a childs school and its schedule - many of those things are hitting now and need to get set, but with uncertainty it adds an extra burden on the parents, the same parents the school board depends on to support its school both time wise and financially. It would make more since to continue to work on this plan and have enrollment changes occur the next year.
Also reading through these posts - I am really shocked by the language and hate. I mean peiple may disagree but really if all you can manage is the basest of language and worst attitude towards others - then what does it say about you. Hopefully you raise your children to use their words appropriately with some consideration to others because certainly their are many of you that don't - what a sad display of adult behavior.
Really the bigger issue for me is timeline. Many families need to make arrangments with child care or preschool for younger children or numerous other things that tie to a childs school and its schedule - many of those things are hitting now and need to get set, but with uncertainty it adds an extra burden on the parents, the same parents the school board depends on to support its school both time wise and financially. It would make more since to continue to work on this plan and have enrollment changes occur the next year.
Also reading through these posts - I am really shocked by the language and hate. I mean peiple may disagree but really if all you can manage is the basest of language and worst attitude towards others - then what does it say about you. Hopefully you raise your children to use their words appropriately with some consideration to others because certainly their are many of you that don't - what a sad display of adult behavior.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 10, 2011 07:14PM
I apologize for the spelling errors in particular since - needs to be sense - the lazy days of spellcheckers certainly missed by me on this forum.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
to stayingput
()
Date: January 10, 2011 07:14PM
Cry me a river. You only care about you OWN children. Get a life.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
To: stayingput
()
Date: January 10, 2011 08:52PM
To: Stayingput,
You're absolutely right, it doesn't make any sense to start moving kids from one school to make room for kids from another school. You end up with a giant domino effect. AND, you're going to end up with MORE TRAILERS. At all of the schools.
Let me ask you though - Have you written to the School Board to tell them your concerns? Do you plan to speak at the Public Hearing in February? Have you contacted your PTA President to ask if there is anything more you can do? Have you heard from your PTA Pres. regarding the resolution that many of the PTA's from the involved schools are considering presenting to the School Board.
If you can't answer "Yes" to the above questions, when do you plan on doing something rather than complain anonymously on a forum?
If you have written to the School Board, have they responded? Was their response satisfactory to you? Take it with a grain of salt, whatever they tell you.
If you've read the posts above, and even a small portion of the FOIA emails regarding Clifton, you can see for yourself that the School Board will manipulate the situation to suit them. It's not about the kids. It's about the School Board. It's not about what the parents want for the kids, it's about how the School Board wants the public to perceive the children.
Look past the hateful language, and you will see that there is a reason that so many people are angry at the School Board. Yes, some of it is juvenile and questionable at best, but don't let that cloud your judgement where the School Board is concerned. The lack of transparency is frightening, at best. The lack of accountability is even worse.
If you want to make a difference, then do something about it. If you want your child to stay at GBW, get involved, NOW. Don't wait until the public hearing to say what you want. That will be too late.
You're absolutely right, it doesn't make any sense to start moving kids from one school to make room for kids from another school. You end up with a giant domino effect. AND, you're going to end up with MORE TRAILERS. At all of the schools.
Let me ask you though - Have you written to the School Board to tell them your concerns? Do you plan to speak at the Public Hearing in February? Have you contacted your PTA President to ask if there is anything more you can do? Have you heard from your PTA Pres. regarding the resolution that many of the PTA's from the involved schools are considering presenting to the School Board.
If you can't answer "Yes" to the above questions, when do you plan on doing something rather than complain anonymously on a forum?
If you have written to the School Board, have they responded? Was their response satisfactory to you? Take it with a grain of salt, whatever they tell you.
If you've read the posts above, and even a small portion of the FOIA emails regarding Clifton, you can see for yourself that the School Board will manipulate the situation to suit them. It's not about the kids. It's about the School Board. It's not about what the parents want for the kids, it's about how the School Board wants the public to perceive the children.
Look past the hateful language, and you will see that there is a reason that so many people are angry at the School Board. Yes, some of it is juvenile and questionable at best, but don't let that cloud your judgement where the School Board is concerned. The lack of transparency is frightening, at best. The lack of accountability is even worse.
If you want to make a difference, then do something about it. If you want your child to stay at GBW, get involved, NOW. Don't wait until the public hearing to say what you want. That will be too late.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
You are a little late to the party
()
Date: January 10, 2011 09:06PM
You must get involved now before the SB changes Fairfax co. Public Schools as we know it. Larger schools, class sizes, ect.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Clifton Mom
()
Date: January 10, 2011 09:46PM
Great, so I move to a larger property in Clifton to get more land and more peace (and then pay more real estate taxes) and then won't find out where my kid goes to school on August 28th or so.
Then my kid will have to learn in a windy cold trailer (I had two in high school - I vividly remember them) while a decent school sits empty just because of a dumb school board.
Way to go, SB. Close a perfectly fine school and overcrowd the surrounding ones for no reason at all, except for some unseen financial gain for a crony (and kickback for the SB members) that we will find out about soon.
Then my kid will have to learn in a windy cold trailer (I had two in high school - I vividly remember them) while a decent school sits empty just because of a dumb school board.
Way to go, SB. Close a perfectly fine school and overcrowd the surrounding ones for no reason at all, except for some unseen financial gain for a crony (and kickback for the SB members) that we will find out about soon.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Skeptical
()
Date: January 11, 2011 11:53AM
Clifton Mom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great, so I move to a larger property in Clifton
> to get more land and more peace (and then pay more
> real estate taxes) and then won't find out where
> my kid goes to school on August 28th or so.
>
> Then my kid will have to learn in a windy cold
> trailer (I had two in high school - I vividly
> remember them) while a decent school sits empty
> just because of a dumb school board.
>
> Way to go, SB. Close a perfectly fine school and
> overcrowd the surrounding ones for no reason at
> all, except for some unseen financial gain for a
> crony (and kickback for the SB members) that we
> will find out about soon.
It's clear that you obviously need to get your priorities straight. It sounds like you care more about your own child's education than about whether Liz Bradsher can do favors for her cronies in Springfield and build schools that aren't really needed in South County.
Just who do you think you are, anyway? A mere parent? A resident? A taxpayer? It's like some of you people have never been told to accept total idiocy before. Get a grip.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great, so I move to a larger property in Clifton
> to get more land and more peace (and then pay more
> real estate taxes) and then won't find out where
> my kid goes to school on August 28th or so.
>
> Then my kid will have to learn in a windy cold
> trailer (I had two in high school - I vividly
> remember them) while a decent school sits empty
> just because of a dumb school board.
>
> Way to go, SB. Close a perfectly fine school and
> overcrowd the surrounding ones for no reason at
> all, except for some unseen financial gain for a
> crony (and kickback for the SB members) that we
> will find out about soon.
It's clear that you obviously need to get your priorities straight. It sounds like you care more about your own child's education than about whether Liz Bradsher can do favors for her cronies in Springfield and build schools that aren't really needed in South County.
Just who do you think you are, anyway? A mere parent? A resident? A taxpayer? It's like some of you people have never been told to accept total idiocy before. Get a grip.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Agree
()
Date: January 11, 2011 04:24PM
Yes, get a grip. Don't you know that you can't decide what great stuff the county should give to your kid? Your kid was in a school that was not 'up to snuff" and you were depriving your kid of traveling on a bus to a trailer. How dare you not think of what is good for this county! Get with the program! You are elitest. But if you lived in that downtrodden South County MS area, you would get a brand new school with extra room.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 11, 2011 07:51PM
You have no clue how invloved I am. You just assume incorrectly, that I am a whiner and uninvolved. Proving my point that many on here see the worse in a person and make assumptions. Had you taken the time to comprhend my posts you would see I was an involved parent frustrated with the process but, rather than go to the basest level, I can acknowledge that even being extremely involved will not guarantee the result I want or the result that is the best for all (which may not be the same we all come in with biases as to what we want for our own kids). I think if looked at further even the school board can see a real issue with the timeline, and I hope they come to realize this.
I have been extremely involved to a level I doubt many nonClifton people have and have worked hard to rally my neighbors to stay involved in the process both when they have been satisfied with ideas presented and when they have been dissatisfied - regardless if they have the same view as me or not. So that their voice is heard.
I am quite aware of the School Board and how they can be pulled to see things certain way. Just look at the SLEEP movement that almost passed. The main members for it on the board also listed SLEEP chairpeople and members as contributors to their campaigns. All of this is public record if one chooses to look. Things may not always be "transparent" but if one digs far enough and investigates motives of all parties motives can become clearer.
In the end it will depend how much the school board members want to keep the positions they have. All are up for reelection this year and we the people need to make sure they are aware that we put them there to represent us and we have the power to remove them. Does that mean Clifton should stay open - not neccesarily, does it mean my kids should stay where I want - not neccesarily. I think there have been many public and private opportunities for indivuals to share their views - that does not mean those views are what is best for all (mine included). But do I think that the school board needs to look not only at the big picture but the small pictures of the families (who need to make child care changes and preschool choices and numerous other activities that revolve around the school schedule) and how rushing to implement after a drawn out decision process is a poor choice. I may not have the answers but regardless of the outcome of where my child ends up implementing massive moves by September is hasty on all accounts both for the families and the school staff that is left with what these people decide on.
Personally the money and time spent on this study has been a waste. I have been very unimpressed with the employees responsible for gathering data - in the private sector flaws like these would have led to unemployment instead of a shoulder shrug from higher ups. The money spent on this boundary study and the money spent on the SLEEP study both could have been better used to provide resources to our classrooms and raises for our teachers.I think the school board has evolved into profeesional politicans instead of individuals trying to serve our community - and that is a sad state of affairs.
I have been extremely involved to a level I doubt many nonClifton people have and have worked hard to rally my neighbors to stay involved in the process both when they have been satisfied with ideas presented and when they have been dissatisfied - regardless if they have the same view as me or not. So that their voice is heard.
I am quite aware of the School Board and how they can be pulled to see things certain way. Just look at the SLEEP movement that almost passed. The main members for it on the board also listed SLEEP chairpeople and members as contributors to their campaigns. All of this is public record if one chooses to look. Things may not always be "transparent" but if one digs far enough and investigates motives of all parties motives can become clearer.
In the end it will depend how much the school board members want to keep the positions they have. All are up for reelection this year and we the people need to make sure they are aware that we put them there to represent us and we have the power to remove them. Does that mean Clifton should stay open - not neccesarily, does it mean my kids should stay where I want - not neccesarily. I think there have been many public and private opportunities for indivuals to share their views - that does not mean those views are what is best for all (mine included). But do I think that the school board needs to look not only at the big picture but the small pictures of the families (who need to make child care changes and preschool choices and numerous other activities that revolve around the school schedule) and how rushing to implement after a drawn out decision process is a poor choice. I may not have the answers but regardless of the outcome of where my child ends up implementing massive moves by September is hasty on all accounts both for the families and the school staff that is left with what these people decide on.
Personally the money and time spent on this study has been a waste. I have been very unimpressed with the employees responsible for gathering data - in the private sector flaws like these would have led to unemployment instead of a shoulder shrug from higher ups. The money spent on this boundary study and the money spent on the SLEEP study both could have been better used to provide resources to our classrooms and raises for our teachers.I think the school board has evolved into profeesional politicans instead of individuals trying to serve our community - and that is a sad state of affairs.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Robin Hood
()
Date: January 11, 2011 08:10PM
"The money spent on this boundary study and the money spent on the SLEEP study both could have been better used to provide resources to our classrooms and raises for our teachers.I think the school board has evolved into profeesional politicans instead of individuals trying to serve our community - and that is a sad state of affairs."
I totally agree!
I totally agree!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yurright
()
Date: January 11, 2011 08:51PM
Even PTA board people can have a say. Thank you for your input stayingput. But people can have active boards at Poplar Tree too. It will be win win. Your argument doesnt hold.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 12, 2011 10:07AM
Not sure what yurright what part of my arguement you don't agree with
1) That some people on this board have some serious anger issues and need to control their hatred and language
2) The board has been wasteful with money that should be going to classroom resources and our teachers raises
3)That employees responsible for the data have done a less than stellar job and their superiors do not seem to see this as a concern
4) That the board is spending a large amount of time coming up with a major plan only to implement it in a timeframe that does not take into consideration staffing and school space issues or the families and their various needs for planning (child care, preschool, various other activities) and perhaps should create a plan and then implement in the following school year not the up and coming one.
5) That even if someone does not agree with me where my neighborhood go that they should be an active participant in it.
I think the only comment I made about Poplar Tree was that it was a good school and they had been told when our neighborhood was built we would not be going there because of requirements for the autism center and spacial concerns. I know many parents their who are not looking forward to to having our large neighborhood come in and who are upset that to take us would require some of them to move out.
I would prefer to stay where I am because my child and my family have built a strong relationship with where we are. I am sure if you had such a relationship with your school you would be reluctant to leave or the impact of having your child be the "new kid" and getting to know the the staff and teachers especially if your child has special needs. For me, I would prefer to stay where I know my child's needs are met (not saying they can not be met elsewhere)- I know everyone who interacts with my child is aware of the needs and how to deal with them. Is it impossible to start again - no, but the stress and hardwork that was put in to create a positive team relationship took years to develop and to start from scratch is incredibily scary and frustrating.
The schools succeed when parents build strong bonds with a school it is not that one has better bonds than other it is that families build a relationship with their school and to start that process again while not impossible is hard - and the school board does not seem to care about the personal impacts this has and need to consider that when they play dominoes with students. They ask a lot from us, but just always seem to aks for more and not give anything back (like consideration of the family in this study).
My point is that when dealing with people their are more than numbers involved.
My question to you is - is your child slated to moved only because someone else is slated to move into your spot and by your move are you bumping students to another school?
This is the case for us and pretty boundaries just doesn't seem like enough of a reason to create such discourse in my mind - whether that opinion is right - I don't know but it is my voice and I have shared it with the board and welcome a healthy and positive debate on the issue, preferably free from the finger pointing and nastiness. And whether people believe me or not I welcome those in my community who would prefer to move to share their voice. I am more frustrated by those who complain and do not take action.
1) That some people on this board have some serious anger issues and need to control their hatred and language
2) The board has been wasteful with money that should be going to classroom resources and our teachers raises
3)That employees responsible for the data have done a less than stellar job and their superiors do not seem to see this as a concern
4) That the board is spending a large amount of time coming up with a major plan only to implement it in a timeframe that does not take into consideration staffing and school space issues or the families and their various needs for planning (child care, preschool, various other activities) and perhaps should create a plan and then implement in the following school year not the up and coming one.
5) That even if someone does not agree with me where my neighborhood go that they should be an active participant in it.
I think the only comment I made about Poplar Tree was that it was a good school and they had been told when our neighborhood was built we would not be going there because of requirements for the autism center and spacial concerns. I know many parents their who are not looking forward to to having our large neighborhood come in and who are upset that to take us would require some of them to move out.
I would prefer to stay where I am because my child and my family have built a strong relationship with where we are. I am sure if you had such a relationship with your school you would be reluctant to leave or the impact of having your child be the "new kid" and getting to know the the staff and teachers especially if your child has special needs. For me, I would prefer to stay where I know my child's needs are met (not saying they can not be met elsewhere)- I know everyone who interacts with my child is aware of the needs and how to deal with them. Is it impossible to start again - no, but the stress and hardwork that was put in to create a positive team relationship took years to develop and to start from scratch is incredibily scary and frustrating.
The schools succeed when parents build strong bonds with a school it is not that one has better bonds than other it is that families build a relationship with their school and to start that process again while not impossible is hard - and the school board does not seem to care about the personal impacts this has and need to consider that when they play dominoes with students. They ask a lot from us, but just always seem to aks for more and not give anything back (like consideration of the family in this study).
My point is that when dealing with people their are more than numbers involved.
My question to you is - is your child slated to moved only because someone else is slated to move into your spot and by your move are you bumping students to another school?
This is the case for us and pretty boundaries just doesn't seem like enough of a reason to create such discourse in my mind - whether that opinion is right - I don't know but it is my voice and I have shared it with the board and welcome a healthy and positive debate on the issue, preferably free from the finger pointing and nastiness. And whether people believe me or not I welcome those in my community who would prefer to move to share their voice. I am more frustrated by those who complain and do not take action.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yurright
()
Date: January 12, 2011 10:50AM
We are slated to move to Poplar Tree from GBW with 2 options. We have a relationship with the school there and know a lot of the people there. It will not take long to get to know the new school. There are a lot of people within arms distance of my house and also in my HOA who go to Poplar Tree and it is about time they make the change. I do not propose we wait until our kids all graduate and wait for someone else to finally fix the boundaries.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
surveysolveit
()
Date: January 12, 2011 10:54AM
If you have a survey go to parents on PTA who are proposed to move, then you will know true decision. Ask About the proposed move, are you in favor? a) No b) Yes, c) Dont Care/Either Way
Then the PTA board should present that to the board. Board members represent those they are appointed by.
Then the PTA board should present that to the board. Board members represent those they are appointed by.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 12, 2011 11:24AM
surveysolveit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have a survey go to parents on PTA who are
> proposed to move, then you will know true
> decision. Ask About the proposed move, are you in
> favor? a) No b) Yes, c) Dont Care/Either Way
>
> Then the PTA board should present that to the
> board. Board members represent those they are
> appointed by.
In an ideal world, the parents would have a say about where our children are sent, and our "representatives" would represent us.
Unfortunately, the majority of the current SB is not interested in what the parents want. They are incredibly arrogant and Stu Gibson even stated to the Clifton parents, "I think I know what's best for the children".
If you want your child to stay in their current school, good luck! I mean that sincerely. I wish you all the luck in the world because you will need it.
If you want your child to move to a different school, good for you. I wish you all the best.
But really - you're all missing the bigger picture here:
THE SCHOOL BOARD IS WASTING PRECIOUS TAXPAYER MONEY AND TIME TO IMPLEMENT THESE CHANGES THAT DON'T SOLVE THE OVERCROWDING.
We DESPERATELY need a real solution to the overcrowding along the Rt. 50/29 corridor. ALL of the options put forth to date from the SB are mere band-aids, and we're going to be dealing with this again in a very short time.
This isn't about your child alone, this is about the THOUSANDS of kids that will be moved for no good reason.
Instead of building a new school in South County that will have 400 empty seats when it opens, where is the new school to solve the more dire overcrowding that exists NOW in the SW Region?
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have a survey go to parents on PTA who are
> proposed to move, then you will know true
> decision. Ask About the proposed move, are you in
> favor? a) No b) Yes, c) Dont Care/Either Way
>
> Then the PTA board should present that to the
> board. Board members represent those they are
> appointed by.
In an ideal world, the parents would have a say about where our children are sent, and our "representatives" would represent us.
Unfortunately, the majority of the current SB is not interested in what the parents want. They are incredibly arrogant and Stu Gibson even stated to the Clifton parents, "I think I know what's best for the children".
If you want your child to stay in their current school, good luck! I mean that sincerely. I wish you all the luck in the world because you will need it.
If you want your child to move to a different school, good for you. I wish you all the best.
But really - you're all missing the bigger picture here:
THE SCHOOL BOARD IS WASTING PRECIOUS TAXPAYER MONEY AND TIME TO IMPLEMENT THESE CHANGES THAT DON'T SOLVE THE OVERCROWDING.
We DESPERATELY need a real solution to the overcrowding along the Rt. 50/29 corridor. ALL of the options put forth to date from the SB are mere band-aids, and we're going to be dealing with this again in a very short time.
This isn't about your child alone, this is about the THOUSANDS of kids that will be moved for no good reason.
Instead of building a new school in South County that will have 400 empty seats when it opens, where is the new school to solve the more dire overcrowding that exists NOW in the SW Region?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 12, 2011 05:27PM
Yurright - I agree Poplar Tree is next to our neighborhood, and as I said it is a good school, for me I have individual concerns that from what I have heard Poplar Tree is not as good at handling so for me this move is not a good thing, but if it happens I will back it and support our new school. Also the bigger concern for me is the timeframe and the collassal waste of money this whole study has costs. Think we could probably fund a new school on all the time involved in this new study.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Waste of money with this study
()
Date: January 12, 2011 05:40PM
This whole fiasco has been a waste of OUR taxpayer money. It has going to hurt a lot of kids. Everyone wants to know where all the kids our going in September. The folks in Clifton are not the only ones with questions. This hurts ALL of Fairfax and will for many years. Too bad not enough people care.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yurright
()
Date: January 12, 2011 05:56PM
When do they do PTA elections? We should make sure some of the PTA board from GBW that moves gets to be considered. There should also be an open house so we all feel comfortable and get to know the neighbors we never knew. Time to move forward. Time was wasted.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
PTA?? Scary.
()
Date: January 12, 2011 06:29PM
Since my kids are being made to move I will NOT join the new PTA. I will not buy anything the PTA tries to sell. (it is a scam anyway) I will not support a bond for schools in Fairfax. Not one dime is going to leave my pocket unless it goes direcly to my child.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yurright
()
Date: January 13, 2011 05:44AM
Way to go PTAScary. That helps solve all problems. NOT NOT !
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
To: yurright From: PTA scary
()
Date: January 13, 2011 07:24AM
Have you read the e-mails from some of the other PTA members who want to close Clifton? They can close my kids school but I will NOT support the PTA where my kids will attend their next school.
I pay far more in taxes then many and I will not pay on more dime unless it goes directly to my child. FCPS is a joke.
**I also think since the next school my child goes to will be so big the PTA will not notice but at least it will make me feel better.
I pay far more in taxes then many and I will not pay on more dime unless it goes directly to my child. FCPS is a joke.
**I also think since the next school my child goes to will be so big the PTA will not notice but at least it will make me feel better.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 13, 2011 09:25AM
Dear PTAScary - I truly hope the elitist attitude you are presenting is just a person trying to get others insighted and angry. PTAs pay for numerous school functions that would otherwise not exist. GBW almost faced a shortfall this year due to some changes in our traditional fundraiser that we were unaware of prior to it starting. The first thing we would have lost was fieldtrips (the buses are funded by the PTA), Art in the Schools all the supplies funded by the PTA, the cultural assemblies which are some children's only exposure to the performing Arts (funded by the PTA) to just name a few. PTA volunteers spend so many extra hours behind the scenes preparing for things that others really sometimes take for granted. For you to say you won't support a school and their PTA because the School Board is closing yours and moving your child is similar to a truculent child grabbing their toy and saying well if you don't play by my rules (notice not neccesarily THE rules but MY) then you can't play.
I know a lot of parents in Clifton and they earned their money by hard work and positive attitudes not this negativity. Do I think it is right that Clifton closes - perhaps, but I don't know enough to give an educated opinion. I do feel that many of the reasons the School Board has presented have turned out to be negative and they wish to save face and stick with the decision they made. At the same time - I think there are some Clifton people that have gotten very hateful and negative. I was lucky to sit with a man at the intial meeting "Charlie" I think his name was. I was impressed with his even keel attitude but determination to keep Clifton open and his using facts to support it. Those are the people who should be representing you. Another lady came up to me and my friends later and she was so IN YOUR FACE HATE THE SCHOOL BOARD THEY ARE EVIL AND WE CLIFTON PEOPLE DESERVE THIS BECAUSE WE ARE CLIFTON - that attitude gets you no where and I'm afraid some of them are drowning out some of your really best parents representatives, it certainly turned me off but I at least had already been exposed to someone who rationally could present a point of view positively for Clifton.
YurRight as for the GBW PTA board wanting to be on the board at Poplar Tree. Well I know some of them and I get the feel that they really aren't about being on the board - just wanting to help their kids school whatever school it may be (because helping the PTA helps all kids including yours ScaryPTA) - even if they have a preference one way or the other on which school in the end the best way to help your child transition is to be a positive role model. I think for the PTA boards for all schools in this study it may be a hard transition as well - as someone who attends the meetings because I learn a lot about our school that way- many decisions are made in the Spring for the following year. I know people on both schools PTA board and I think they are trying to be prepared either way which is extra work for someone who does this as a volunteer. Again this is not a concern for our School Board and that is frustrating to me.
I hope that each school does an Open House and that the PTAs do a volunteer orientation at the begining of the year. I think it took me 2 years before I even knew where things like the laminator and all were let alone how to work them. I was glad the PTA did an orientation this year - a few of my friends went and said it was very helpful.Given all the changes that it looks like ALL our schools will be facing I think we parents are better off working together once the dust has clears than holding anomosity. As I tell my kids: You get what you get and you don't throw a fit." I'll continue to support staying put because I truly feel for a variety of personal and schoolwide (still having overcrowding not solved for one) that it is truly the best choice, but if moved then positive attitude ahead because when life gives you things you don't want then sometimes that is what you have to do to get by - living it almost daily in our house for a variety of issues already and if we need to add a disruptive change to it, well that is what we do -- just doesn't mean I'm ready to give up the fight yet either.Think we'll have to agree to disagree on what is the best plan for GBW, but I welcome working together whatever the outcome.
I know a lot of parents in Clifton and they earned their money by hard work and positive attitudes not this negativity. Do I think it is right that Clifton closes - perhaps, but I don't know enough to give an educated opinion. I do feel that many of the reasons the School Board has presented have turned out to be negative and they wish to save face and stick with the decision they made. At the same time - I think there are some Clifton people that have gotten very hateful and negative. I was lucky to sit with a man at the intial meeting "Charlie" I think his name was. I was impressed with his even keel attitude but determination to keep Clifton open and his using facts to support it. Those are the people who should be representing you. Another lady came up to me and my friends later and she was so IN YOUR FACE HATE THE SCHOOL BOARD THEY ARE EVIL AND WE CLIFTON PEOPLE DESERVE THIS BECAUSE WE ARE CLIFTON - that attitude gets you no where and I'm afraid some of them are drowning out some of your really best parents representatives, it certainly turned me off but I at least had already been exposed to someone who rationally could present a point of view positively for Clifton.
YurRight as for the GBW PTA board wanting to be on the board at Poplar Tree. Well I know some of them and I get the feel that they really aren't about being on the board - just wanting to help their kids school whatever school it may be (because helping the PTA helps all kids including yours ScaryPTA) - even if they have a preference one way or the other on which school in the end the best way to help your child transition is to be a positive role model. I think for the PTA boards for all schools in this study it may be a hard transition as well - as someone who attends the meetings because I learn a lot about our school that way- many decisions are made in the Spring for the following year. I know people on both schools PTA board and I think they are trying to be prepared either way which is extra work for someone who does this as a volunteer. Again this is not a concern for our School Board and that is frustrating to me.
I hope that each school does an Open House and that the PTAs do a volunteer orientation at the begining of the year. I think it took me 2 years before I even knew where things like the laminator and all were let alone how to work them. I was glad the PTA did an orientation this year - a few of my friends went and said it was very helpful.Given all the changes that it looks like ALL our schools will be facing I think we parents are better off working together once the dust has clears than holding anomosity. As I tell my kids: You get what you get and you don't throw a fit." I'll continue to support staying put because I truly feel for a variety of personal and schoolwide (still having overcrowding not solved for one) that it is truly the best choice, but if moved then positive attitude ahead because when life gives you things you don't want then sometimes that is what you have to do to get by - living it almost daily in our house for a variety of issues already and if we need to add a disruptive change to it, well that is what we do -- just doesn't mean I'm ready to give up the fight yet either.Think we'll have to agree to disagree on what is the best plan for GBW, but I welcome working together whatever the outcome.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
what is the GBW?
()
Date: January 13, 2011 09:50AM
to:stayingput
So your kids to get stay at their current school? Lucky you! What is GBW?
So your kids to get stay at their current school? Lucky you! What is GBW?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Geography King
()
Date: January 13, 2011 12:09PM
That would be Greenbriar West.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Greenbriar West?
()
Date: January 13, 2011 01:53PM
GBW
That school must be a real shit hole if the parents cannot even afford fieldtrips. Yikes!
That school must be a real shit hole if the parents cannot even afford fieldtrips. Yikes!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 13, 2011 03:24PM
To Greenbriar West? I feel sorry that you feel the only thing you can do on this posting is be negative. Also I think you need to do a little research because your ignorance is showing regarding how PTAs and what they fund and school funding in general works -- transportation is an aspect of field trips not covered by the county schools - which is several thousand dollars. Perhaps you should see how your school covers that --- many PTAs fund that but most parents are unaware of that fact and just assume it is something that children are entitled to and given I know until I became involved I thought that it was a conuty covered resource but sadly it is not wheras it used to be. Our schools get less and less money as more and more of it is spent on things like this study. Just imagine if the man hours and money that has been spent on this was given to the schools to actually use.... I get the need to look at these things but I think the Board gets too wrapped up in the research of a topic to look at what they spent. I for one would like to see the total spent by the board on doing this study (including the salary of those who have been doing the "fact checking and data collection" ---I imagine it would leave most of us shocked.
To What is GBW? I am not lucky - in fact at this point my children have a high likely hood of being moved and I am still fighting for them to "stay put" pretty much what I wrote exactly. Rather I am aware that this may not happen and instead of being someone that can't deal with what the world gives me I choose to work with what I get when things don't go my way. Doesn't mean I am giving up or happy about this process, I just choose not to spout venom and pout like a toddler when I don't get my way or put it on someone else who is trying to creat positive change.
To What is GBW? I am not lucky - in fact at this point my children have a high likely hood of being moved and I am still fighting for them to "stay put" pretty much what I wrote exactly. Rather I am aware that this may not happen and instead of being someone that can't deal with what the world gives me I choose to work with what I get when things don't go my way. Doesn't mean I am giving up or happy about this process, I just choose not to spout venom and pout like a toddler when I don't get my way or put it on someone else who is trying to creat positive change.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
WASTE of taxpayer money
()
Date: January 13, 2011 05:34PM
Fieldtrips are a waste of money. With everything going on FCPS needs to trim the fat.I say no to elementary strings,field trips, free lunch ect..
Teachers need a raise. Parents can and should provide for their own children. Trips, strings and lunch parents can afford. Fairfax county is second in the nation in salary. We can do better!
Teachers need a raise. Parents can and should provide for their own children. Trips, strings and lunch parents can afford. Fairfax county is second in the nation in salary. We can do better!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Take a look
()
Date: January 13, 2011 05:46PM
staying put wrote:
Our schools get less and less money as more and more of it is spent on things like this study. Just imagine if the man hours and money that has been spent on this was given to the schools to actually use.... I get the need to look at these things but I think the Board gets too wrapped up in the research of a topic to look at what they spent. I for one would like to see the total spent by the board on doing this study (including the salary of those who have been doing the "fact checking and data collection" ---I imagine it would leave most of us shocked.
This is what need to be looked at---not strings (minimal amount really) and field trips (PTA funded) and free lunch (which is a federal program and not a county program). But do you think the SB wants us to see this?
Indeed there needs to be a look at where money is being spent.
Our schools get less and less money as more and more of it is spent on things like this study. Just imagine if the man hours and money that has been spent on this was given to the schools to actually use.... I get the need to look at these things but I think the Board gets too wrapped up in the research of a topic to look at what they spent. I for one would like to see the total spent by the board on doing this study (including the salary of those who have been doing the "fact checking and data collection" ---I imagine it would leave most of us shocked.
This is what need to be looked at---not strings (minimal amount really) and field trips (PTA funded) and free lunch (which is a federal program and not a county program). But do you think the SB wants us to see this?
Indeed there needs to be a look at where money is being spent.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FCPS: show us the money
()
Date: January 13, 2011 05:51PM
I guess the only way we will ever know is if another brave Clifton parent will sue for an answer. BTW, the PARENTS of the Clifton kids are paying the lawyers fees.
How about some of the other parents at the other schools pony up some money? Not going to happen.
How about some of the other parents at the other schools pony up some money? Not going to happen.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
reader
()
Date: January 13, 2011 05:54PM
I keep coming back to the question:
Why is Staff so anxious to close Clifton, move kids, and build/add on? Why is Gatehouse such a "great" idea? These studies cost money and keep staff employed. Is that what this is all about? Keeping a bureaucracy at Gatehouse? Keeping the engineers, et. al. working? Tistadt and Bradsher seem awfully tight. Is this about South County Middle School?
Is this power or something else?
Why is Staff so anxious to close Clifton, move kids, and build/add on? Why is Gatehouse such a "great" idea? These studies cost money and keep staff employed. Is that what this is all about? Keeping a bureaucracy at Gatehouse? Keeping the engineers, et. al. working? Tistadt and Bradsher seem awfully tight. Is this about South County Middle School?
Is this power or something else?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yurright
()
Date: January 13, 2011 06:51PM
The field trips still cost the parents a fortune at GBW. It is the bus fee that is crazy too. This $30-$50 to an animal farm is just plain wrong. Time to rethink all the field trips too. Not fair to dump the cost of the kids that cant pay on those that can. I will pay for my kid, but let the county find a way to fund the others not through my kid. I work hart and it is just not fair. It is not about my child. It is about some things that are a rip off. Field trips are. I will be happy at Poplar Tree and look forward to change.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
former teacher
()
Date: January 13, 2011 07:04PM
Field trips can be useful--but they are not worth the money. With all the cuts, they can certainly be eliminated. Or limit them dramatically. Frequently, they go places the children have already been. By the time the bus gets them there, it is time to turn around and go home.
Have you ever chaperoned a trip to the museums on the Mall? If traffic is bad, the time spent there can be less than an hour--especially if you count the time the kids sit on the steps eating their lunches.
Have you ever chaperoned a trip to the museums on the Mall? If traffic is bad, the time spent there can be less than an hour--especially if you count the time the kids sit on the steps eating their lunches.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
PTA scams!
()
Date: January 13, 2011 07:20PM
I would give up many things, field trip, bogus gift wrap, selling candy ect.. I want good teachers. I think FCPS needs to give teachers a raise.
The PTA loves to raise money but I would rather give on need. They make it into a contest. This is just dumb. This past year if your CHILD sold so many things they got a stuffed monkey. I told my kids it was a scam. I give money to my kids class but this contest concept is WRONG. It is beyond what we need to teach our kids. Shame on the PTA!
You are teaching kids the wrong example! I am a parent and I do not need the PTA's help. Ask for what you need and parents will give. Stop with the bullshit marketing to our kids!
The PTA loves to raise money but I would rather give on need. They make it into a contest. This is just dumb. This past year if your CHILD sold so many things they got a stuffed monkey. I told my kids it was a scam. I give money to my kids class but this contest concept is WRONG. It is beyond what we need to teach our kids. Shame on the PTA!
You are teaching kids the wrong example! I am a parent and I do not need the PTA's help. Ask for what you need and parents will give. Stop with the bullshit marketing to our kids!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Great post
()
Date: January 13, 2011 07:38PM
PTA scams! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would give up many things, field trip, bogus
> gift wrap, selling candy ect.. I want good
> teachers. I think FCPS needs to give teachers a
> raise.
>
> The PTA loves to raise money but I would rather
> give on need. They make it into a contest. This is
> just dumb. This past year if your CHILD sold so
> many things they got a stuffed monkey. I told my
> kids it was a scam. I give money to my kids class
> but this contest concept is WRONG. It is beyond
> what we need to teach our kids. Shame on the PTA!
>
> You are teaching kids the wrong example! I am a
> parent and I do not need the PTA's help. Ask for
> what you need and parents will give. Stop with the
> bullshit marketing to our kids!
Thank you thank you thank you for posting this! I thought we were the only ones in FCPS who felt this way. Students need great teachers and a safe learning environment. They do not need contests for selling the most magazines, and gimmick-y prizes that really don't mean anything in the long run. Some of these schools' PTAs go overboard.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would give up many things, field trip, bogus
> gift wrap, selling candy ect.. I want good
> teachers. I think FCPS needs to give teachers a
> raise.
>
> The PTA loves to raise money but I would rather
> give on need. They make it into a contest. This is
> just dumb. This past year if your CHILD sold so
> many things they got a stuffed monkey. I told my
> kids it was a scam. I give money to my kids class
> but this contest concept is WRONG. It is beyond
> what we need to teach our kids. Shame on the PTA!
>
> You are teaching kids the wrong example! I am a
> parent and I do not need the PTA's help. Ask for
> what you need and parents will give. Stop with the
> bullshit marketing to our kids!
Thank you thank you thank you for posting this! I thought we were the only ones in FCPS who felt this way. Students need great teachers and a safe learning environment. They do not need contests for selling the most magazines, and gimmick-y prizes that really don't mean anything in the long run. Some of these schools' PTAs go overboard.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yurright
()
Date: January 13, 2011 07:40PM
IF formerteacher agrees it is first hand from the school. Stop the wasted trips that our kids go with us as a family. Or make it an afterschool trip or Saturday. I hope Poplar Tree does not charge as much for field trips. Does anyone know how much their field trips are for 2nd and 5th graders?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
The PTA and bogus fundraising
()
Date: January 14, 2011 08:05AM
"I would give up many things, field trip, bogus gift wrap, selling candy ect.. I want good teachers. I think FCPS needs to give teachers a raise.
The PTA loves to raise money but I would rather give on need. They make it into a contest. This is just dumb. This past year if your CHILD sold so many things they got a stuffed monkey. I told my kids it was a scam. I give money to my kids class but this contest concept is WRONG. It is beyond what we need to teach our kids. Shame on the PTA!
You are teaching kids the wrong example! I am a parent and I do not need the PTA's help. Ask for what you need and parents will give. Stop with the bullshit marketing to our kids!"
This is so true! I will give to my school but not with the PTA making kids be little salespeople. It is a joke. How come we allow this?
The PTA loves to raise money but I would rather give on need. They make it into a contest. This is just dumb. This past year if your CHILD sold so many things they got a stuffed monkey. I told my kids it was a scam. I give money to my kids class but this contest concept is WRONG. It is beyond what we need to teach our kids. Shame on the PTA!
You are teaching kids the wrong example! I am a parent and I do not need the PTA's help. Ask for what you need and parents will give. Stop with the bullshit marketing to our kids!"
This is so true! I will give to my school but not with the PTA making kids be little salespeople. It is a joke. How come we allow this?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 14, 2011 09:14AM
I totally agree about the excessive fundraising. I think the schools should set some serious limits on what the PTAs can do. I also think there are a lot of people who don't want to give unless the get a tangible item. I know PTAs would rather have the money and not a % so I give a large amount directly to our PTA. For those who complain about the trips etc and how schools are funding free lunch (which by the way is a FEDERAL PROGRAM and not a county program) I think private school may really be your best option, because it sounds like you think all kids have what your kids do as far as a financial and experential background and that is not the case. Perhaps you need to look at the hostory of public school and the mission. I think the focus needs to be on the excessive spending of the School Board on things like this study and other similar studies. Changes can be made in a school system without so much red tape - perhaps we need to elect some members who can cut the fat at Gatehouse an dput the money to the teachers.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
better idea for the PTA
()
Date: January 14, 2011 09:17AM
At my kids school we have the teachers fill out a form on what they need for the class. The forms are kept at the front office in a binder. Parents can look up their childs class and buy what the want. It works out great!
PTA's that make the kids in class compete on who sells the most crap is WRONG! The keep a tally up in each class on who has sold the most stuff. WRONG! We need to put a stop to this. It is a scam and not fun for the parents.
PTA's that make the kids in class compete on who sells the most crap is WRONG! The keep a tally up in each class on who has sold the most stuff. WRONG! We need to put a stop to this. It is a scam and not fun for the parents.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Litsa
()
Date: January 14, 2011 09:30AM
I, for one, feel that PTA fundraising is a very lucrative endeavor.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
notrue
()
Date: January 14, 2011 09:38AM
at gbw it was not lucrative and they depended on that money. now buses for trips are a risk. the loss is a tragety.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 14, 2011 09:58AM
I pulled this from another thread, but it bears repeating here. This is what we're going to be faced with - TRAILERS.
Everyone on here should be DEMANDING that the School Board HALT this so-called Boundary Study until we have some REAL answers with REAL solutions.
Relocating a bunch of modulars to the tune of almost $10,000,000 is not an acceptable answer.
We need a full blown financial audit of FCPS. Write to your County Supervisor and demand it. How many BILLIONS were found when VDOT was audited??? How much waste do you think is going on at FCPS? Why should we have to wait until next year when a new School Board takes office and hope that they fix the problems? We deserve answers and accountability now. Yes, DESERVE! It is OUR money they are spending. WHERE IS IT GOING??????
BanLearningCottages wrote:
People are very concerned whether trailer kids mix with luxury home kids - whether townhouse kids receive the same treatment as single family kids - whether the value of their homes, whatever kind of home, will be affected by the largest boundary change we have ever seen in the county.
The fact that the FCPS SB bonds and
>>>spends Millions of taxpayer dollars to just MOVE trailers<<<
[enough with 'Learning Cottages' - that is political correctness to the extreme lunacy] should be beyond disgusted.
We are trailering kids and teachers. What is wrong with us? When will everyone say 'no' to FCPS and this idiocy?
Attachments:
Everyone on here should be DEMANDING that the School Board HALT this so-called Boundary Study until we have some REAL answers with REAL solutions.
Relocating a bunch of modulars to the tune of almost $10,000,000 is not an acceptable answer.
We need a full blown financial audit of FCPS. Write to your County Supervisor and demand it. How many BILLIONS were found when VDOT was audited??? How much waste do you think is going on at FCPS? Why should we have to wait until next year when a new School Board takes office and hope that they fix the problems? We deserve answers and accountability now. Yes, DESERVE! It is OUR money they are spending. WHERE IS IT GOING??????
BanLearningCottages wrote:
People are very concerned whether trailer kids mix with luxury home kids - whether townhouse kids receive the same treatment as single family kids - whether the value of their homes, whatever kind of home, will be affected by the largest boundary change we have ever seen in the county.
The fact that the FCPS SB bonds and
>>>spends Millions of taxpayer dollars to just MOVE trailers<<<
[enough with 'Learning Cottages' - that is political correctness to the extreme lunacy] should be beyond disgusted.
We are trailering kids and teachers. What is wrong with us? When will everyone say 'no' to FCPS and this idiocy?
Attachments:
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
reader
()
Date: January 14, 2011 11:04AM
from questions to FCPS: (what kind of answer is this?)
How are you accommadating the additional students in Union Mill and Fairview before
the additional rooms are added?
Students from Clifton can be accommodated at their new school assignments with minor
modifications to the way space in the buildings is currently used. Architects’ and capacity
experts from the Design and Construction Office will work with the school principals to identify
modifications within the existing building that could increase capacity. Where required, some
boundary changes will be phased and in some instances, temporary classrooms may be
required pending completion of the classroom additions
How are you accommadating the additional students in Union Mill and Fairview before
the additional rooms are added?
Students from Clifton can be accommodated at their new school assignments with minor
modifications to the way space in the buildings is currently used. Architects’ and capacity
experts from the Design and Construction Office will work with the school principals to identify
modifications within the existing building that could increase capacity. Where required, some
boundary changes will be phased and in some instances, temporary classrooms may be
required pending completion of the classroom additions
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
another great answer
()
Date: January 14, 2011 11:11AM
so we make some children into martyrs?
from FCPS:
I noticed that you emphasized on "impacting the least students". Shouldn't "efficient"
and "fair" be more important? Sending some kids over an hour one way on the road so
that other students would not be impacted doesn't sound fair and efficient to me.
“Impact the least students†was a suggestion we received over and over again in the community
comments. We have shown options that impact a range of students from a high of over 2500 to
a low of about 1450. However, each option is responsive to some degree to goal of providing
effective and efficient use of space to accommodate our students pursuant to the School Board
policy and directives on this study.
from FCPS:
I noticed that you emphasized on "impacting the least students". Shouldn't "efficient"
and "fair" be more important? Sending some kids over an hour one way on the road so
that other students would not be impacted doesn't sound fair and efficient to me.
“Impact the least students†was a suggestion we received over and over again in the community
comments. We have shown options that impact a range of students from a high of over 2500 to
a low of about 1450. However, each option is responsive to some degree to goal of providing
effective and efficient use of space to accommodate our students pursuant to the School Board
policy and directives on this study.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
wasteamoney
()
Date: January 14, 2011 06:04PM
to all parents pushing to put this off a year, how much extra money are you asking to waste. its done. option picked. move on. there are bigger battles to fight. lets all work together. news is in that clifton is closing. been decided you should worry where they split the kids. not wait another year.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
I will not give up for my children!
()
Date: January 14, 2011 06:51PM
I love Clifton and everything about it. Clifton elementary is GREAT! I am showing my kids what you do when you stand up for a cause. I will fight till the bitter end.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
wastamoney
()
Date: January 14, 2011 07:49PM
You will look back and see that the lesson your taught, is best left to the teachers.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FanFair
()
Date: January 15, 2011 06:33AM
We should start planning open houses by the PTAs to welcome those joining the schools like Poplar Tree. It is not official, it does make for closer community if is does not happen. It can be cluster carnival with the bands playing. You are all concerned why? Because you dont want to be with those kids. We are all part of our community and this is where we live. Thats what makes it great. Strike up the band. Have a cotton candy. Do a cake walk. Be part of the community.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
PTA Party for newcomers!
()
Date: January 15, 2011 08:29AM
The same PTA's that called Clifton parents rich sobs who act elite? The ones who said Clifton parents can send their kids to private school? No, thanks.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Invitation to party is too little too late
()
Date: January 15, 2011 08:39AM
Sounds like these kinds of wounds don't heal with just a carnival. This is going to take a while.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
don't judge
()
Date: January 15, 2011 08:57AM
It's easy to say, "get over it", when it's not your school that is being torn apart, and your kids that have to start at a new school.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Robin Hood
()
Date: January 15, 2011 09:14AM
don't judge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's easy to say, "get over it", when it's not
> your school that is being torn apart, and your
> kids that have to start at a new school.
I know what you mean. My area was affected by the Western County redistricting a few years ago and a number of people have said "get over it". It was annoying. Changes can be hard depending on what they are and time helps with getting used to whatever changes take place.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's easy to say, "get over it", when it's not
> your school that is being torn apart, and your
> kids that have to start at a new school.
I know what you mean. My area was affected by the Western County redistricting a few years ago and a number of people have said "get over it". It was annoying. Changes can be hard depending on what they are and time helps with getting used to whatever changes take place.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
fanfair
()
Date: January 15, 2011 02:18PM
That is my point bout get over it. It is my kids school and all their friends that are being broken apart. Kids first.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
bus driver
()
Date: January 15, 2011 08:33PM
yurright Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IF formerteacher agrees it is first hand from the
> school. Stop the wasted trips that our kids go
> with us as a family. Or make it an afterschool
> trip or Saturday. I hope Poplar Tree does not
> charge as much for field trips. Does anyone know
> how much their field trips are for 2nd and 5th
> graders?
Relax, field trips have all but been eliminated.
I used to do about 40 field trips in an average school year. This school year is almost half over and I have done 8, and only one of them was an elementary school trip.
And I have a lot of seniority, newer drivers probably haven't gotten more than a couple of field trips so far. This represents a large pay cut for drivers.
-------------------------------------------------------
> IF formerteacher agrees it is first hand from the
> school. Stop the wasted trips that our kids go
> with us as a family. Or make it an afterschool
> trip or Saturday. I hope Poplar Tree does not
> charge as much for field trips. Does anyone know
> how much their field trips are for 2nd and 5th
> graders?
Relax, field trips have all but been eliminated.
I used to do about 40 field trips in an average school year. This school year is almost half over and I have done 8, and only one of them was an elementary school trip.
And I have a lot of seniority, newer drivers probably haven't gotten more than a couple of field trips so far. This represents a large pay cut for drivers.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Question for the bus driver?
()
Date: January 15, 2011 08:41PM
If allowed how much do you make for a field trip? Is it by miles, days, hours?
Field trips are a waste of taxpayer money. Many if not all can go into DC for almost free. Field trips take away from learning in a classroom. With SOL testing and such I say let the kids have extra recess each day. The time spent teaching to the test is ruining our kids.
Field trips are a waste of taxpayer money. Many if not all can go into DC for almost free. Field trips take away from learning in a classroom. With SOL testing and such I say let the kids have extra recess each day. The time spent teaching to the test is ruining our kids.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
bus driver
()
Date: January 15, 2011 09:13PM
Question for the bus driver? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If allowed how much do you make for a field trip?
> Is it by miles, days, hours?
>
> Field trips are a waste of taxpayer money. Many if
> not all can go into DC for almost free. Field
> trips take away from learning in a classroom. With
> SOL testing and such I say let the kids have extra
> recess each day. The time spent teaching to the
> test is ruining our kids.
We are paid our normal hourly wage, although sometimes a field trip can put a driver into overtime if they have worked 40 hours that week. This is the ONLY overtime that is allowed anymore.
I do think FCPS bills field trips by the mile because they want the mileage we drove with the students aboard, not to and from the school.
Athletic and band field trips are, for the most part, the only field trips we do anymore. I've been told that the Booster clubs pay for sports/band trips.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If allowed how much do you make for a field trip?
> Is it by miles, days, hours?
>
> Field trips are a waste of taxpayer money. Many if
> not all can go into DC for almost free. Field
> trips take away from learning in a classroom. With
> SOL testing and such I say let the kids have extra
> recess each day. The time spent teaching to the
> test is ruining our kids.
We are paid our normal hourly wage, although sometimes a field trip can put a driver into overtime if they have worked 40 hours that week. This is the ONLY overtime that is allowed anymore.
I do think FCPS bills field trips by the mile because they want the mileage we drove with the students aboard, not to and from the school.
Athletic and band field trips are, for the most part, the only field trips we do anymore. I've been told that the Booster clubs pay for sports/band trips.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
wrongwrong
()
Date: January 16, 2011 05:43AM
There are still 2 or 3 trips per year per grade. They rent the nice school buses and go to DC, etc, etc. The buses with the bathrooms because your buses need to be back for mid day and early hs runs. I get a form saying $50 to go to DC that is nuts. Higher cost to pay for first class bus. CHaperoens need to pay that amount too.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Not at our school
()
Date: January 16, 2011 07:47AM
My kids are in elementary school and they go one one field trip a year. Maybe the upper grades go on more? I am glad the parent pays $50.00 fee.
Everyone should pay for their own child. Save up if you need to and don't expect the gov't to pay for everything.
Everyone should pay for their own child. Save up if you need to and don't expect the gov't to pay for everything.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
nowayers
()
Date: January 16, 2011 09:33AM
I agree pay for your own. It should be after school and not force my kid to not go because we been to DC a billion times. A waste of money just ask formerteacher. For $50 you can get a nice steak dinner at Ruth Chris's and teach good manners. For DC trip you teach how boring sitting in traffic can be.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
dimwit
()
Date: January 16, 2011 05:57PM
Next week a bus costs more than Ruth Chris because it is resturant week.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Opt out on stupid field trips!
()
Date: January 16, 2011 06:11PM
Not everyone has $175.00 dollars to go on a field trip with their child to Williamsburg. My kids went over the summer. It was a good trip but it was a one time thing. I can choose where to take my child for $175.00.
I told my daughter we were just in Williamsbug and that grandpa and grandma are going to take her for FREE to the new history museum. She is happy. It is all about choices.
I told my daughter we were just in Williamsbug and that grandpa and grandma are going to take her for FREE to the new history museum. She is happy. It is all about choices.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
sorryson
()
Date: January 16, 2011 07:28PM
I am sorry son but we can afford it but dont see the value in your going on the class trip that everyone else is going on. You have a choice though. What do you want to do. Then come the tears. I dont have that money.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Tears! I think not!
()
Date: January 16, 2011 07:39PM
Grandma and grandpa are great at taking the kids somehere fun. Plus they love to bond with their grandkids. If I asked my child they would pick family every time. Since they come up from Florida it is a double treat.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 16, 2011 10:46PM
The Staff has posted their recommendation for the SW Boundary Changes.
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8D6SJ772DD51/$file/Appendix%20A.pdf
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8D6SJ772DD51/$file/Appendix%20A.pdf
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Fish Watcher
()
Date: January 16, 2011 11:03PM
herewegoagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Staff has posted their recommendation for the
> SW Boundary Changes.
>
>
>
> http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/fi
> les/8D6SJ772DD51/$file/Appendix%20A.pdf
I am halfway tempted to read it, but I think I would rather have the pirahnas have at it first and tell me what it really says...
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Staff has posted their recommendation for the
> SW Boundary Changes.
>
>
>
> http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/fi
> les/8D6SJ772DD51/$file/Appendix%20A.pdf
I am halfway tempted to read it, but I think I would rather have the pirahnas have at it first and tell me what it really says...
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Option E?
()
Date: January 17, 2011 07:26AM
herewegoagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Staff has posted their recommendation for the
> SW Boundary Changes.
>
>
>
> http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/fi
> les/8D6SJ772DD51/$file/Appendix%20A.pdf
Where did you find this? I can't find it on fcps.edu. Interesting Sangster is not adding any students from Clifton at all.
If this is the staff recommendations what happens next? Do you think this means options a,b,c and d aren't being considered?
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Staff has posted their recommendation for the
> SW Boundary Changes.
>
>
>
> http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/fi
> les/8D6SJ772DD51/$file/Appendix%20A.pdf
Where did you find this? I can't find it on fcps.edu. Interesting Sangster is not adding any students from Clifton at all.
If this is the staff recommendations what happens next? Do you think this means options a,b,c and d aren't being considered?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Answer to Option E ?
()
Date: January 17, 2011 07:58AM
There is no link on the fcps.edu page or the SW Boundary page. I found it by going to the school board link and looking at the agenda for the upcoming meeting ans it's supporting docs. Kind of peculiar since every other time things regarding this study have been posted I received an email from FCPS. It's almost like they donn't want people to know it's there.
As far as what happens next, this is what staff is recommending so it will most likely be the option they vote on. The only opportunity fir community input will be the public hearings and individual letters to the School Board.
As far as what happens next, this is what staff is recommending so it will most likely be the option they vote on. The only opportunity fir community input will be the public hearings and individual letters to the School Board.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Gambling
()
Date: January 17, 2011 08:56AM
At this point dealing with FCPS and the current School Board is no different than playing slots in Vegas. We put in an enormous amount of money (property taxes) into the machine (FCPS Administration). Each option they keep presenting in this boundary study is like just watching another spin on the slots where we wait for the results but have zero control. Unlike what they are trying to lull parents into believing, it will likely be YEARS before any additions are put in so whomever ends up with the least amount of trailers is the winning combination on this slot machine.
Just like in slots, in the end the house (FCPS) will always eventually win and the people putting the money in (taxpayers) will lose. This is the kind of crap we are dealing with from the current School Board and School Administration.
Just like in slots, in the end the house (FCPS) will always eventually win and the people putting the money in (taxpayers) will lose. This is the kind of crap we are dealing with from the current School Board and School Administration.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
more bad decisions
()
Date: January 17, 2011 10:38AM
Option E? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> herewegoagain Wrote:
>
>
> Interesting Sangster is not adding any
> students from Clifton at all.
How can that be? Sangster is a Govenor's Excellence Award school and closer to Clifton than some of the other schools. Does Bob Larsen have anything t do with this? He helped Liz orchestrate the closing of Clifton and then allegedlly tried to keep Clifton students from attending "his" school?"
-------------------------------------------------------
> herewegoagain Wrote:
>
>
> Interesting Sangster is not adding any
> students from Clifton at all.
How can that be? Sangster is a Govenor's Excellence Award school and closer to Clifton than some of the other schools. Does Bob Larsen have anything t do with this? He helped Liz orchestrate the closing of Clifton and then allegedlly tried to keep Clifton students from attending "his" school?"
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
BiggerPicture
()
Date: January 17, 2011 10:51AM
They seperated the decision to close Clifton before doing this boundary study so everyone would forget about Clifton and be forced to divert their attention and spin their wheels on this dumb boundary "study". That is all they want you to do here - spin your wheels.
If Clifton had any health issues, they wouldn't legally be allowed to have the school open now with kids attending.
This whole boundary study is a dog and pony show just like everything else they do. They said they Clifton had no fire suppression system yet they are going to spread the kids all over to various schools into trailers which have no fire suppression system. They said Clifton is old yet Fairview is older. Get the picture yet?
If Clifton had any health issues, they wouldn't legally be allowed to have the school open now with kids attending.
This whole boundary study is a dog and pony show just like everything else they do. They said they Clifton had no fire suppression system yet they are going to spread the kids all over to various schools into trailers which have no fire suppression system. They said Clifton is old yet Fairview is older. Get the picture yet?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Trailers
()
Date: January 17, 2011 12:03PM
BiggerPicture Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They seperated the decision to close Clifton
> before doing this boundary study so everyone would
> forget about Clifton and be forced to divert their
> attention and spin their wheels on this dumb
> boundary "study". That is all they want you to
> do here - spin your wheels.
>
> If Clifton had any health issues, they wouldn't
> legally be allowed to have the school open now
> with kids attending.
>
> This whole boundary study is a dog and pony show
> just like everything else they do. They said they
> Clifton had no fire suppression system yet they
> are going to spread the kids all over to various
> schools into trailers which have no fire
> suppression system. They said Clifton is old yet
> Fairview is older. Get the picture yet?
How else were they going to get the parents at the other schools to automatically accept trailers and increased class sizes?
-------------------------------------------------------
> They seperated the decision to close Clifton
> before doing this boundary study so everyone would
> forget about Clifton and be forced to divert their
> attention and spin their wheels on this dumb
> boundary "study". That is all they want you to
> do here - spin your wheels.
>
> If Clifton had any health issues, they wouldn't
> legally be allowed to have the school open now
> with kids attending.
>
> This whole boundary study is a dog and pony show
> just like everything else they do. They said they
> Clifton had no fire suppression system yet they
> are going to spread the kids all over to various
> schools into trailers which have no fire
> suppression system. They said Clifton is old yet
> Fairview is older. Get the picture yet?
How else were they going to get the parents at the other schools to automatically accept trailers and increased class sizes?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Virginia Running-Away
()
Date: January 17, 2011 12:12PM
Looks like the biggest winners (in terms of impact on RE values) will be those in new Poplar Tree ES district and the biggest losers, apart from those at Clifton ES, will be those in new Virginia Run ES district.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
real estate observer
()
Date: January 17, 2011 12:14PM
Poplar Tree is Kathy's home......
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Virginia Running-Away
()
Date: January 17, 2011 12:34PM
real estate observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poplar Tree is Kathy's home......
The percentage of low-income and ESOL kids at Poplar Tree would decline drastically under this proposal.
If her house is in the revised Poplar Tree boundaries, the opponents have more ammunition to argue that there's one set of rules for Kathy and Liz and their friends, and another set of rules for everyone else.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poplar Tree is Kathy's home......
The percentage of low-income and ESOL kids at Poplar Tree would decline drastically under this proposal.
If her house is in the revised Poplar Tree boundaries, the opponents have more ammunition to argue that there's one set of rules for Kathy and Liz and their friends, and another set of rules for everyone else.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
social engineering
()
Date: January 17, 2011 01:06PM
Of course this whole "re-districting because of over crowding" is about changing WIC and ESOL numbers in a few elementary schools. This has been one of their goals the whole time. We saw this at the first of the "community" meetings. And now the staff has posted their recommendation without and further input from the affected communities. This whole process has been a joke. I am keeping my fingers crossed that the Clifton folks win tomorrow and the school board is forced to scrap this social engineering plan.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FreyCreatedProblem
()
Date: January 17, 2011 02:32PM
real estate observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poplar Tree is Kathy's home......
Where does County Supervisor Frey live? Why not just redistrict the overcrowding to HIS neighborhood school since he created this problem in the first place. He doesn't have a problem with it so there should be no complaints from him or his neighbors, right?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poplar Tree is Kathy's home......
Where does County Supervisor Frey live? Why not just redistrict the overcrowding to HIS neighborhood school since he created this problem in the first place. He doesn't have a problem with it so there should be no complaints from him or his neighbors, right?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Oak View elementary
()
Date: January 17, 2011 05:27PM
A new map come out today and it looks my kids will be going to Oak View. While I am sure it is a good school this is the first time Oak View has been on the list of schools.
I live in Clifton and Oak View is 19 miles away from my house. That seems far away to me. I wonder how long my kids will be on the bus?
FCPS has no idea what they are doing. This whole "study" has just been a joke.
I live in Clifton and Oak View is 19 miles away from my house. That seems far away to me. I wonder how long my kids will be on the bus?
FCPS has no idea what they are doing. This whole "study" has just been a joke.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Oak View
()
Date: January 17, 2011 05:47PM
Oak View elementary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A new map come out today and it looks my kids will
> be going to Oak View. While I am sure it is a good
> school this is the first time Oak View has been on
> the list of schools.
>
> I live in Clifton and Oak View is 19 miles away
> from my house. That seems far away to me. I wonder
> how long my kids will be on the bus?
>
> FCPS has no idea what they are doing. This whole
> "study" has just been a joke.
I don't think Oak View could possibly be 19 miles from your house. The Clifton area slated for Oak View is along Colchester and Newman Roads. Maybe you are 3-4 miles from Ox Rd? From Fairfax Station Rd to Oak View at most it is 4 miles.
-------------------------------------------------------
> A new map come out today and it looks my kids will
> be going to Oak View. While I am sure it is a good
> school this is the first time Oak View has been on
> the list of schools.
>
> I live in Clifton and Oak View is 19 miles away
> from my house. That seems far away to me. I wonder
> how long my kids will be on the bus?
>
> FCPS has no idea what they are doing. This whole
> "study" has just been a joke.
I don't think Oak View could possibly be 19 miles from your house. The Clifton area slated for Oak View is along Colchester and Newman Roads. Maybe you are 3-4 miles from Ox Rd? From Fairfax Station Rd to Oak View at most it is 4 miles.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thankyou
()
Date: January 17, 2011 05:55PM
Dear Kathy and Liz,
My kid will go to Poplar Tree with the new proposal. For that, I applaud you. I know many people will not thank you but we do. You have dont right for us. Thank you.
My kid will go to Poplar Tree with the new proposal. For that, I applaud you. I know many people will not thank you but we do. You have dont right for us. Thank you.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
fursur
()
Date: January 17, 2011 06:44PM
19 miles. When I was a kid we use to hear the stories of our great grandparents walking in the rain and snow that far to go to school. It can be done.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: January 17, 2011 09:37PM
Objective as set forth by the School Board:
"Achieve a building utilization between approximately 95% - 105% of program capacity at all elementary schools within the study area"
9 of 23 schools do not meet this objective in the recommendation put forth by the FCPS Staff by the 2015-16 school year. 38% of the schools in the study NOT MEETING one of the objectives of the "project". And we pay these people?
Better yet, from 2011-2012 school year through the 2014-2015 school year 11 of 23 schools do not meet this objective in the recommendation put forth by the FCPS Staff. That is 47.8% of the schools in the study. This is a "solution"?
Here is the kicker, 3 schools that will receive "capacity enhancements" will be under the 95% capacity level by 2015-16. And why exactly are we spending $15+million for this?
"Achieve a building utilization between approximately 95% - 105% of program capacity at all elementary schools within the study area"
9 of 23 schools do not meet this objective in the recommendation put forth by the FCPS Staff by the 2015-16 school year. 38% of the schools in the study NOT MEETING one of the objectives of the "project". And we pay these people?
Better yet, from 2011-2012 school year through the 2014-2015 school year 11 of 23 schools do not meet this objective in the recommendation put forth by the FCPS Staff. That is 47.8% of the schools in the study. This is a "solution"?
Here is the kicker, 3 schools that will receive "capacity enhancements" will be under the 95% capacity level by 2015-16. And why exactly are we spending $15+million for this?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Skeptical
()
Date: January 17, 2011 10:22PM
Justataxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Objective as set forth by the School Board:
>
> "Achieve a building utilization between
> approximately 95% - 105% of program capacity at
> all elementary schools within the study area"
>
> 9 of 23 schools do not meet this objective in the
> recommendation put forth by the FCPS Staff by the
> 2015-16 school year. 38% of the schools in the
> study NOT MEETING one of the objectives of the
> "project". And we pay these people?
>
> Better yet, from 2011-2012 school year through the
> 2014-2015 school year 11 of 23 schools do not meet
> this objective in the recommendation put forth by
> the FCPS Staff. That is 47.8% of the schools in
> the study. This is a "solution"?
>
> Here is the kicker, 3 schools that will receive
> "capacity enhancements" will be under the 95%
> capacity level by 2015-16. And why exactly are we
> spending $15+million for this?
Because the world as we know it would come to an end if Liz Bradsher and Dean Tisdadt admitted they were wrong, and Clifton parents have to be taught a lesson. Didn't you know?
These people have elevated cutting one's nose to spite one's face to an art form.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Objective as set forth by the School Board:
>
> "Achieve a building utilization between
> approximately 95% - 105% of program capacity at
> all elementary schools within the study area"
>
> 9 of 23 schools do not meet this objective in the
> recommendation put forth by the FCPS Staff by the
> 2015-16 school year. 38% of the schools in the
> study NOT MEETING one of the objectives of the
> "project". And we pay these people?
>
> Better yet, from 2011-2012 school year through the
> 2014-2015 school year 11 of 23 schools do not meet
> this objective in the recommendation put forth by
> the FCPS Staff. That is 47.8% of the schools in
> the study. This is a "solution"?
>
> Here is the kicker, 3 schools that will receive
> "capacity enhancements" will be under the 95%
> capacity level by 2015-16. And why exactly are we
> spending $15+million for this?
Because the world as we know it would come to an end if Liz Bradsher and Dean Tisdadt admitted they were wrong, and Clifton parents have to be taught a lesson. Didn't you know?
These people have elevated cutting one's nose to spite one's face to an art form.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 18, 2011 10:19AM
Virginia Running-Away Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> real estate observer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Poplar Tree is Kathy's home......
>
> The percentage of low-income and ESOL kids at
> Poplar Tree would decline drastically under this
> proposal.
>
> If her house is in the revised Poplar Tree
> boundaries, the opponents have more ammunition to
> argue that there's one set of rules for Kathy and
> Liz and their friends, and another set of rules
> for everyone else.
Not only would many of the lower income kids and ESOL kids from Poplar Tree be going to different schools - my neighborhood would be transfered out of Greenbriar West and to Poplar Tree. All of our homes are larger sized single family homes.
Personally I know Poplar Tree is actually closer to my house. But I love Greenbrair West, doesn't mean I won't come to love Poplar Tree --- just not pleased that my kids have to start new again. I have been so happy with the adminstration and teachers at GBW and would be sad to leave them.
Also, I am personally glad my children were at a very diverse school. My kids have friends from many countries and socieconomic backgrounds and truly see themselves as part of a community of learners and friends. They are interested in how their freinds celebrate different holidays and have many aspects of their life that are different as well as how they are similar and share those experiences with us - it has been such a positive aspect of not only their education but life. I think for me that is the worse part of the plan because it looks like in moving us into Poplar Tree they are taking out much of that diversity.
-------------------------------------------------------
> real estate observer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Poplar Tree is Kathy's home......
>
> The percentage of low-income and ESOL kids at
> Poplar Tree would decline drastically under this
> proposal.
>
> If her house is in the revised Poplar Tree
> boundaries, the opponents have more ammunition to
> argue that there's one set of rules for Kathy and
> Liz and their friends, and another set of rules
> for everyone else.
Not only would many of the lower income kids and ESOL kids from Poplar Tree be going to different schools - my neighborhood would be transfered out of Greenbriar West and to Poplar Tree. All of our homes are larger sized single family homes.
Personally I know Poplar Tree is actually closer to my house. But I love Greenbrair West, doesn't mean I won't come to love Poplar Tree --- just not pleased that my kids have to start new again. I have been so happy with the adminstration and teachers at GBW and would be sad to leave them.
Also, I am personally glad my children were at a very diverse school. My kids have friends from many countries and socieconomic backgrounds and truly see themselves as part of a community of learners and friends. They are interested in how their freinds celebrate different holidays and have many aspects of their life that are different as well as how they are similar and share those experiences with us - it has been such a positive aspect of not only their education but life. I think for me that is the worse part of the plan because it looks like in moving us into Poplar Tree they are taking out much of that diversity.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
from another thread
()
Date: January 18, 2011 10:32AM
Please note that the legal fees for FCPS in FY 2011 are estimated at 6,579,431. FY2010 was 2,571,749. The request for FY 2012 is 2,512,205.........?
Other professional services for 2011 are $25,441,281. This is double what they spent in 2010 and 11 million less than the request for 2012. What are "other professional services?
This is from page 160 of the budget.
Other professional services for 2011 are $25,441,281. This is double what they spent in 2010 and 11 million less than the request for 2012. What are "other professional services?
This is from page 160 of the budget.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
SoonFormerGBW
()
Date: January 18, 2011 11:09AM
At Poplar Tree the allow all that should be in classes take class and not only GT kids so the numbers look good. You will have more opportunity for your children at Poplar Tree. We will all move together. One for all and all for one. The school will still be diverse. Just minorities will no longer be the majority.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Really
()
Date: January 18, 2011 11:12AM
There is diversity and there is overkill. GBW was overkill. Poplar Tree has international night too.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 18, 2011 11:24AM
UMMHHH did you notice the areas being moved out of Poplar Tree? Pretty much most of the lower income areas and areas that tend to have higher % of esol kids.... I think Poplare Tree is going to suprised how much Poplar Tree will change from this shift as well.
Not sure what you mean only GT students get to participate. My children are not in GT and they participate fully in all activities including academic. I think that is a gross misrepresentation of GBW.
Not sure what you mean only GT students get to participate. My children are not in GT and they participate fully in all activities including academic. I think that is a gross misrepresentation of GBW.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Really
()
Date: January 18, 2011 12:03PM
In the end it will all be good. We live in an area where you get diversity at school, Fair Lakes shopping center, mall, and everywhere around this area. It will also help Poplar Tree numbers and the admin at Poplar Tree are very nice.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
kss
()
Date: January 18, 2011 12:39PM
I am not sure why folks are mixing "The percentage of low-income and ESOL kids" issues with the change in Poplar Tree boundary.
The current boundaries at Poplar Tree ( and GBW for that matter) are really weird - any sane person will admit to that. I hope whichever proposal they pick, will fix these issues.
The current boundaries at Poplar Tree ( and GBW for that matter) are really weird - any sane person will admit to that. I hope whichever proposal they pick, will fix these issues.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
IAgree
()
Date: January 18, 2011 01:06PM
Put the kids in the schools in their neighborhoods, not across Stringfellow down the road and over. Look at the map and that solves it. If people are upset there are less ESOL or whatnot. That is because that is where people bought their houses and paid more for it. The schools should work by map not by numbers.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
kss
()
Date: January 18, 2011 01:25PM
Exactly..and as far as I can tell, the final proposal is doing a decent job of matching schools to your location on the map.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
IAgree
()
Date: January 18, 2011 03:31PM
For that we are happy for the school board members that we elected. It will be a great year next year. I can feel the energy in our community already.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
what happened to Sangster?
()
Date: January 19, 2011 08:55AM
Why is Sangster suddenly not getting Clifton kids? I think that the principal didn't want Clifton kids in her school and asked the school board to send them elsewhere.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Clifton parents
()
Date: January 19, 2011 09:17AM
Clifton parents not want Sangster in the mix after the comments the PTA made. It is a win,win for all.
I am so sick of FCPS and the closing of a great school but I must admit I may now ready for this mess to be over. Just tell us where our kids are going and be done with it.
I am so sick of FCPS and the closing of a great school but I must admit I may now ready for this mess to be over. Just tell us where our kids are going and be done with it.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
tell us
()
Date: January 19, 2011 09:44AM
Clifton parents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clifton parents not want Sangster in the mix after
> the comments the PTA made. It is a win,win for
> all.
>
> I am so sick of FCPS and the closing of a great
> school but I must admit I may now ready for this
> mess to be over. Just tell us where our kids are
> going and be done with it.
What comments did the PTA make?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clifton parents not want Sangster in the mix after
> the comments the PTA made. It is a win,win for
> all.
>
> I am so sick of FCPS and the closing of a great
> school but I must admit I may now ready for this
> mess to be over. Just tell us where our kids are
> going and be done with it.
What comments did the PTA make?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Enough Supposition
()
Date: January 19, 2011 10:25AM
what happened to Sangster? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is Sangster suddenly not getting Clifton kids?
> I think that the principal didn't want Clifton
> kids in her school and asked the school board to
> send them elsewhere.
Don't think, OK? Just the facts please.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is Sangster suddenly not getting Clifton kids?
> I think that the principal didn't want Clifton
> kids in her school and asked the school board to
> send them elsewhere.
Don't think, OK? Just the facts please.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sangster PTA
()
Date: January 19, 2011 10:30AM
tell us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clifton parents Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Clifton parents not want Sangster in the mix
> after
> > the comments the PTA made. It is a win,win for
> > all.
> >
> > I am so sick of FCPS and the closing of a great
> > school but I must admit I may now ready for
> this
> > mess to be over. Just tell us where our kids
> are
> > going and be done with it.
>
>
> What comments did the PTA make?
Yes, do tell.....? What comments exactly. Principals don't have that authority, plus Sangster would be a good choice if the students must move...nearby, Govenor's Excellence Award and the Sangster busses go that way anyway. Also, capacity would be at 105%. It could be so much worse.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clifton parents Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Clifton parents not want Sangster in the mix
> after
> > the comments the PTA made. It is a win,win for
> > all.
> >
> > I am so sick of FCPS and the closing of a great
> > school but I must admit I may now ready for
> this
> > mess to be over. Just tell us where our kids
> are
> > going and be done with it.
>
>
> What comments did the PTA make?
Yes, do tell.....? What comments exactly. Principals don't have that authority, plus Sangster would be a good choice if the students must move...nearby, Govenor's Excellence Award and the Sangster busses go that way anyway. Also, capacity would be at 105%. It could be so much worse.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sangster would be over the 100%
()
Date: January 19, 2011 12:47PM
Sangster is a great school and we do want or need any kids brought into our school. Over 100% is too many kids.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sangster PTA
()
Date: January 19, 2011 01:05PM
Sangster would be over the 100% Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sangster is a great school and we do want or need
> any kids brought into our school. Over 100% is too
> many kids.
Careful there, you could be pushed out to make room. Wouldn't be the first time. Better them instead of you, eh? Hmm, maybe I'll suggest it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sangster is a great school and we do want or need
> any kids brought into our school. Over 100% is too
> many kids.
Careful there, you could be pushed out to make room. Wouldn't be the first time. Better them instead of you, eh? Hmm, maybe I'll suggest it.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sangster
()
Date: January 19, 2011 01:35PM
Sangster seems kind of far from Clifton elementary. Maybe that is the reason? What is sad is the Clifton children are being spit up. In the end it may even be 4-5 schools. That does not seem fair.
FCPS rushed this and now a lot of kids are being moved. Sad.
FCPS rushed this and now a lot of kids are being moved. Sad.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
It is sad
()
Date: January 19, 2011 01:52PM
Sangster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sangster seems kind of far from Clifton
> elementary. Maybe that is the reason? What is sad
> is the Clifton children are being spit up. In the
> end it may even be 4-5 schools. That does not seem
> fair.
>
> FCPS rushed this and now a lot of kids are being
> moved. Sad.
It is sad Clifton kids are being split up. It is even more sad what is happening to some Fairview kids along Fairfax Station Rd. Half (@20) are going to Bonnie Brae and the other half are going to Oak View. I hope my children have at least one old friend from Fairview. I am mad at the SB (not at Clifton folks). We are ALL suffering.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sangster seems kind of far from Clifton
> elementary. Maybe that is the reason? What is sad
> is the Clifton children are being spit up. In the
> end it may even be 4-5 schools. That does not seem
> fair.
>
> FCPS rushed this and now a lot of kids are being
> moved. Sad.
It is sad Clifton kids are being split up. It is even more sad what is happening to some Fairview kids along Fairfax Station Rd. Half (@20) are going to Bonnie Brae and the other half are going to Oak View. I hope my children have at least one old friend from Fairview. I am mad at the SB (not at Clifton folks). We are ALL suffering.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Oak View?
()
Date: January 19, 2011 02:16PM
I am sorry to hear your kids are being made to move. My kids are also slated to go to Oak View. I was unable to get much info about the school from the FCPS.
Is it a good school?
Is it a good school?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Oak View
()
Date: January 19, 2011 02:25PM
Oak View? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am sorry to hear your kids are being made to
> move. My kids are also slated to go to Oak View. I
> was unable to get much info about the school from
> the FCPS.
>
> Is it a good school?
It is a great school!! Tests scores are on par with all the other schools in the area. Oak View is a split feeder. Most children go to Frost/Woodson. Children in the immediate surrounding area feed into Robinson.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am sorry to hear your kids are being made to
> move. My kids are also slated to go to Oak View. I
> was unable to get much info about the school from
> the FCPS.
>
> Is it a good school?
It is a great school!! Tests scores are on par with all the other schools in the area. Oak View is a split feeder. Most children go to Frost/Woodson. Children in the immediate surrounding area feed into Robinson.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
to Oak View parent
()
Date: January 19, 2011 02:39PM
Thank you for the information. A few more questions for you.
1. How large are the class sizes?
2. Does the school have after school clubs?
3. Is the PTA involved in the school?
4. I have read that Oak View has about 700 kids. Would another 100 kids added to the school make the over school over-crowded?
Thank you for taking the time to look at my questions.
From a Clifton parent.
1. How large are the class sizes?
2. Does the school have after school clubs?
3. Is the PTA involved in the school?
4. I have read that Oak View has about 700 kids. Would another 100 kids added to the school make the over school over-crowded?
Thank you for taking the time to look at my questions.
From a Clifton parent.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Oak View
()
Date: January 19, 2011 02:55PM
to Oak View parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for the information. A few more
> questions for you.
>
> 1. How large are the class sizes?
>
> 2. Does the school have after school clubs?
>
> 3. Is the PTA involved in the school?
>
> 4. I have read that Oak View has about 700 kids.
> Would another 100 kids added to the school make
> the over school over-crowded?
>
> Thank you for taking the time to look at my
> questions.
>
> From a Clifton parent.
Sorry if I confused you - my children are currently at Fairview so I can't answer these questions. From the latest boundary study from the demographic sheet it indicates next year it will be about 15 students over capacity. Which won't be as overcrowded as Fairview will be next year. The latest study indicates Fairview's addition (4 classrooms) will be through interior modifications so at least no trailers. I don't know where/how the interior modications will work. The cafeteria size is the same so lunch will have to start earlier and go later. Kiss 'n ride will be more backed up, parking is difficult during school events, buses will back up even further on Ox Rd. at arrival.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for the information. A few more
> questions for you.
>
> 1. How large are the class sizes?
>
> 2. Does the school have after school clubs?
>
> 3. Is the PTA involved in the school?
>
> 4. I have read that Oak View has about 700 kids.
> Would another 100 kids added to the school make
> the over school over-crowded?
>
> Thank you for taking the time to look at my
> questions.
>
> From a Clifton parent.
Sorry if I confused you - my children are currently at Fairview so I can't answer these questions. From the latest boundary study from the demographic sheet it indicates next year it will be about 15 students over capacity. Which won't be as overcrowded as Fairview will be next year. The latest study indicates Fairview's addition (4 classrooms) will be through interior modifications so at least no trailers. I don't know where/how the interior modications will work. The cafeteria size is the same so lunch will have to start earlier and go later. Kiss 'n ride will be more backed up, parking is difficult during school events, buses will back up even further on Ox Rd. at arrival.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 19, 2011 04:04PM
It sounds like so many of you are ready to quit and just give in, regardless of how wrong this is. Not all of these changes are terrible, don't get me wrong. Some of the schools involved need real solutions. The recommendation does help some of the overcrowding in the worst areas, but creates overcrowding where none exists now. That's not a solution. Especially not when it's going to cost over $15 Million to build additions at schools projected to be below 95% capacity in a few years. How does that make sense to anyone?
Giving up now isn't the answer. That's what the SB wants everyone to do; get tired of it and go away.
How many on here plan to speak at the Public Hearing on Feb. 7th?
The hearing is a mere formality that the SB has to endure for the sake of appearances; they have already made up their minds and know exactly what they are going to do. But if you don't go and speak out if you're upset with this recommendation, then you really don't have much room to complain. Kind of like bitching about the POTUS when you didn't bother to vote.
Registration for the hearing just opened. If you have something to say, tell it to the SB on the 7th. Here's the link to register to speak.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JK798WD
Giving up now isn't the answer. That's what the SB wants everyone to do; get tired of it and go away.
How many on here plan to speak at the Public Hearing on Feb. 7th?
The hearing is a mere formality that the SB has to endure for the sake of appearances; they have already made up their minds and know exactly what they are going to do. But if you don't go and speak out if you're upset with this recommendation, then you really don't have much room to complain. Kind of like bitching about the POTUS when you didn't bother to vote.
Registration for the hearing just opened. If you have something to say, tell it to the SB on the 7th. Here's the link to register to speak.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JK798WD
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
dreaming
()
Date: January 19, 2011 04:24PM
herewegoagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It sounds like so many of you are ready to quit
> and just give in, regardless of how wrong this is.
> Not all of these changes are terrible, don't get
> me wrong. Some of the schools involved need real
> solutions. The recommendation does help some of
> the overcrowding in the worst areas, but creates
> overcrowding where none exists now. That's not a
> solution. Especially not when it's going to cost
> over $15 Million to build additions at schools
> projected to be below 95% capacity in a few years.
> How does that make sense to anyone?
>
> Giving up now isn't the answer. That's what the
> SB wants everyone to do; get tired of it and go
> away.
>
> How many on here plan to speak at the Public
> Hearing on Feb. 7th?
>
> The hearing is a mere formality that the SB has to
> endure for the sake of appearances; they have
> already made up their minds and know exactly what
> they are going to do. But if you don't go and
> speak out if you're upset with this
> recommendation, then you really don't have much
> room to complain. Kind of like bitching about the
> POTUS when you didn't bother to vote.
>
> Registration for the hearing just opened. If you
> have something to say, tell it to the SB on the
> 7th. Here's the link to register to speak.
>
> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JK798WD
You are wrong on one point -- they aren't going to get additions. They are going to get trailers. They have never committed on paper an exact date of when additions would be built and there are plenty of other schools in the County that have had trailers longer than you will have had. You are all screwed.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It sounds like so many of you are ready to quit
> and just give in, regardless of how wrong this is.
> Not all of these changes are terrible, don't get
> me wrong. Some of the schools involved need real
> solutions. The recommendation does help some of
> the overcrowding in the worst areas, but creates
> overcrowding where none exists now. That's not a
> solution. Especially not when it's going to cost
> over $15 Million to build additions at schools
> projected to be below 95% capacity in a few years.
> How does that make sense to anyone?
>
> Giving up now isn't the answer. That's what the
> SB wants everyone to do; get tired of it and go
> away.
>
> How many on here plan to speak at the Public
> Hearing on Feb. 7th?
>
> The hearing is a mere formality that the SB has to
> endure for the sake of appearances; they have
> already made up their minds and know exactly what
> they are going to do. But if you don't go and
> speak out if you're upset with this
> recommendation, then you really don't have much
> room to complain. Kind of like bitching about the
> POTUS when you didn't bother to vote.
>
> Registration for the hearing just opened. If you
> have something to say, tell it to the SB on the
> 7th. Here's the link to register to speak.
>
> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JK798WD
You are wrong on one point -- they aren't going to get additions. They are going to get trailers. They have never committed on paper an exact date of when additions would be built and there are plenty of other schools in the County that have had trailers longer than you will have had. You are all screwed.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Trailers
()
Date: January 19, 2011 04:47PM
Trailers are for losers. My little one only wants the best. Bye FCPS.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
article
()
Date: January 19, 2011 09:19PM
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/fairfax-school-board-do-over-needed-more-ways-one
A Fairfax school board do-over needed in more ways than one
TAGS: Barbara F. Hollingworth Fairfax School Board FOIA
Comments (1) Share Print By: Barbara Hollingsworth 01/18/11 8:05 PM
Local Opinion Editor
Virginia's Freedom of Information Act is quite clear: Except in certain limited instances, meetings of public bodies must be open to the public. The law's intent is also clear: Public officials cannot do public business in secret.
The Fairfax County School Board has been accused of multiple violations of the state's open meetings law, as well as its own strategic governance rules, according to a lawsuit filed Jan. 7 in Fairfax County Circuit Court by Patton Boggs attorney Benjamin Chew. School board members allegedly exchanged secret e-mails about matters under discussion during public meetings regarding the closure of Clifton Elementary.
One of these e-mails, dated June 15, 2010, which surfaced as a result of FOIA requests by Clifton resident Jill DeMello Hill, show school board member Liz Bradsher -- whose Springfield district includes Clifton -- brazenly coaching members of a West Springfield High School parents' group on how to advance in FCPS' renovation queue by lobbying board members to close Clifton. "If we decided to close Clifton, your bonding could be moved [up two years] to 2011," Bradsher tells members of the parents' group.
At the board's June 28 public hearing, which lasted until 1 a.m., 149 county residents passionately testified to keep their community school open even as board members were busy exchanging private e-mails.
Board member Stuart Gibson of Hunter Mill even chastised the development director of a nonprofit that runs a family shelter near the school, warning her that it was "highly inappropriate for your organization to be lobbying the school board on this issue."
Talk about highly inappropriate. During the school board's July 8 public meeting, Dean Tistadt, the school system's chief operating officer, secretly e-mailed board members a report that found nothing wrong with the school's supposedly contaminated well water. The expense of fixing the water problem was one of three main arguments made for closing the school. This report completely eliminated it.
Yet according to e-mail transcripts, board Chairwoman Kathy Smith of Sully, Tessie Wilson of Braddock, and Patricia Reed of Providence -- who was participating from a remote location even though she was officially listed in the board minutes as "absent" -- discussed posting the water report before the vote with school board clerk Pamela Goddard.
"It can wait until tomorrow!" Wilson says. "I checked with Kathy and she agrees. GOOD GRIEF! Does she not realize we are in the middle of the meeting?" Without publicly divulging the explosive contents of the water report, the board then voted 9-2 to close Clifton without any plan for relocating its 369 students.
Besides Smith, Wilson, Bradsher, and Gibson, board Vice Chairman Brad Center of Lee, Ilryong Moon, at large, Jim Raney, at large, Dan Storck of Mount Vernon, and Jane Strauss of Dranesville voted to shutter the school.
"In effect, the school board pretended to conduct an open meeting while it simultaneously, by e-mail, discussed the same matters in a secret 'closed' session,' " the lawsuit alleged, asking the court to require FCPS to post all withheld e-mails pertaining to the vote on its Web site, hold a "properly noticed public meeting to reconsider the closure in accordance with its own policy (1501.3) to conduct its business in public, and schedule a re-vote.
On Tuesday, the lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn before trial because representatives of the Fairfax County Public Schools and the school board are still refusing to provide documents requested under FOIA. If board members are allowed to get away with ignoring Virginia's open meetings statute, they will never again conduct controversial public business in public.
So besides demanding a do-over of the Clifton vote, voters should do-over the school board as well.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/fairfax-school-board-do-over-needed-more-ways-one#ixzz1BXOd96QK
A Fairfax school board do-over needed in more ways than one
TAGS: Barbara F. Hollingworth Fairfax School Board FOIA
Comments (1) Share Print By: Barbara Hollingsworth 01/18/11 8:05 PM
Local Opinion Editor
Virginia's Freedom of Information Act is quite clear: Except in certain limited instances, meetings of public bodies must be open to the public. The law's intent is also clear: Public officials cannot do public business in secret.
The Fairfax County School Board has been accused of multiple violations of the state's open meetings law, as well as its own strategic governance rules, according to a lawsuit filed Jan. 7 in Fairfax County Circuit Court by Patton Boggs attorney Benjamin Chew. School board members allegedly exchanged secret e-mails about matters under discussion during public meetings regarding the closure of Clifton Elementary.
One of these e-mails, dated June 15, 2010, which surfaced as a result of FOIA requests by Clifton resident Jill DeMello Hill, show school board member Liz Bradsher -- whose Springfield district includes Clifton -- brazenly coaching members of a West Springfield High School parents' group on how to advance in FCPS' renovation queue by lobbying board members to close Clifton. "If we decided to close Clifton, your bonding could be moved [up two years] to 2011," Bradsher tells members of the parents' group.
At the board's June 28 public hearing, which lasted until 1 a.m., 149 county residents passionately testified to keep their community school open even as board members were busy exchanging private e-mails.
Board member Stuart Gibson of Hunter Mill even chastised the development director of a nonprofit that runs a family shelter near the school, warning her that it was "highly inappropriate for your organization to be lobbying the school board on this issue."
Talk about highly inappropriate. During the school board's July 8 public meeting, Dean Tistadt, the school system's chief operating officer, secretly e-mailed board members a report that found nothing wrong with the school's supposedly contaminated well water. The expense of fixing the water problem was one of three main arguments made for closing the school. This report completely eliminated it.
Yet according to e-mail transcripts, board Chairwoman Kathy Smith of Sully, Tessie Wilson of Braddock, and Patricia Reed of Providence -- who was participating from a remote location even though she was officially listed in the board minutes as "absent" -- discussed posting the water report before the vote with school board clerk Pamela Goddard.
"It can wait until tomorrow!" Wilson says. "I checked with Kathy and she agrees. GOOD GRIEF! Does she not realize we are in the middle of the meeting?" Without publicly divulging the explosive contents of the water report, the board then voted 9-2 to close Clifton without any plan for relocating its 369 students.
Besides Smith, Wilson, Bradsher, and Gibson, board Vice Chairman Brad Center of Lee, Ilryong Moon, at large, Jim Raney, at large, Dan Storck of Mount Vernon, and Jane Strauss of Dranesville voted to shutter the school.
"In effect, the school board pretended to conduct an open meeting while it simultaneously, by e-mail, discussed the same matters in a secret 'closed' session,' " the lawsuit alleged, asking the court to require FCPS to post all withheld e-mails pertaining to the vote on its Web site, hold a "properly noticed public meeting to reconsider the closure in accordance with its own policy (1501.3) to conduct its business in public, and schedule a re-vote.
On Tuesday, the lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn before trial because representatives of the Fairfax County Public Schools and the school board are still refusing to provide documents requested under FOIA. If board members are allowed to get away with ignoring Virginia's open meetings statute, they will never again conduct controversial public business in public.
So besides demanding a do-over of the Clifton vote, voters should do-over the school board as well.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/fairfax-school-board-do-over-needed-more-ways-one#ixzz1BXOd96QK
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
otherplaces
()
Date: January 20, 2011 06:06PM
To the parent upset they are losing diversity. Do you get it at your church? Yes? Then your children have diversity. No? Then why expect it from the school?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Diversity?
()
Date: January 20, 2011 06:49PM
That is the LAST thing I would look for at my kids school is diversity. I went to GMU and they all wanted to live
with their own ethnic group They formed clubs based on race,ect.
with their own ethnic group They formed clubs based on race,ect.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Diversity = Can I Has Welfare Check ?
()
Date: January 20, 2011 06:58PM
THAT'S BECAUSE "MINORITIES" ARE THE BIGGEST RACISTS THAT EVER WERE !
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
notfare
()
Date: January 20, 2011 08:06PM
The minorities are the majority at GBW. Nothing wrong with that.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Majority?
()
Date: January 20, 2011 09:03PM
The PTA budget says you are the minority. You get what you pay for. How much do you give to your child's school? Is everything in English? Do you demand the PTA translate to Spanish?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Question to Clifton parent
()
Date: January 21, 2011 10:43AM
to Oak View parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for the information. A few more
> questions for you.
>
> 1. How large are the class sizes?
>
> 2. Does the school have after school clubs?
>
> 3. Is the PTA involved in the school?
>
> 4. I have read that Oak View has about 700 kids.
> Would another 100 kids added to the school make
> the over school over-crowded?
>
> Thank you for taking the time to look at my
> questions.
>
> From a Clifton parent.
What will you do if you don't like the answers to these questions?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for the information. A few more
> questions for you.
>
> 1. How large are the class sizes?
>
> 2. Does the school have after school clubs?
>
> 3. Is the PTA involved in the school?
>
> 4. I have read that Oak View has about 700 kids.
> Would another 100 kids added to the school make
> the over school over-crowded?
>
> Thank you for taking the time to look at my
> questions.
>
> From a Clifton parent.
What will you do if you don't like the answers to these questions?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 21, 2011 11:02AM
To: Question to Clifton parent
Why would you assume they are going to "do" anything. Maybe they just want to be informed. Since when do parents NOT have the right to ask questions about the school that their children will attend?
Why would you assume they are going to "do" anything. Maybe they just want to be informed. Since when do parents NOT have the right to ask questions about the school that their children will attend?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
logicaldog
()
Date: January 21, 2011 11:52AM
From Another Thread has identified the core issue that would create a level playing field...FCPS has a staff of lawyers on retainer that want nothing more than to shut down parents and students. Why should they have such a large budget and large overage? Why is this allowed when funds are short? Because they are constantly doing what they are doing now with Clifton (and dont think for a minute that they wont do it with you whoever you are, they even eat their young, their own kids...), they make their decisions behind closed doors, in secret-God knows what the real agenda is-you can be sure it is either power or money (and you can be sure it has nothing to do with quality of education or the consumers of this product-HA! the students...), they create a faux process (usually so full of bureaucratic hyperbole that no one can sort it out or refute it), then they do what they want. I cannot overstate how dangerous this is to a system, a community and individual students. It tears apart neighborhoods, families, and creates mental illnesses...
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
PTANot
()
Date: January 21, 2011 07:02PM
The PTA resolution. Did you notice less than 24 hours to respond. Required your name. When results were released they did not say how many people voted. Why do the schools allow this?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
distraction
()
Date: January 21, 2011 07:31PM
It is probably just a distraction to take away from Clifton shutting down.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
PTA Resolution?
()
Date: January 21, 2011 08:09PM
PTANot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The PTA resolution. Did you notice less than 24
> hours to respond. Required your name. When
> results were released they did not say how many
> people voted. Why do the schools allow this?
Where can I find the results?
-------------------------------------------------------
> The PTA resolution. Did you notice less than 24
> hours to respond. Required your name. When
> results were released they did not say how many
> people voted. Why do the schools allow this?
Where can I find the results?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: January 21, 2011 11:17PM
Question to Clifton parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to Oak View parent Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thank you for the information. A few more
> > questions for you.
> >
> > 1. How large are the class sizes?
> >
> > 2. Does the school have after school clubs?
> >
> > 3. Is the PTA involved in the school?
> >
> > 4. I have read that Oak View has about 700
> kids.
> > Would another 100 kids added to the school make
> > the over school over-crowded?
> >
> > Thank you for taking the time to look at my
> > questions.
> >
> > From a Clifton parent.
>
> What will you do if you don't like the answers to
> these questions?
I think the Clifton families will be quite happy with Oak View and this individual is just trying to get a feel for the Oak View community as it had not been noted in prior options as being a school that would receive Clifton students. The tone in their message was polite and simply appears to be seeking some basic information.
-------------------------------------------------------
> to Oak View parent Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thank you for the information. A few more
> > questions for you.
> >
> > 1. How large are the class sizes?
> >
> > 2. Does the school have after school clubs?
> >
> > 3. Is the PTA involved in the school?
> >
> > 4. I have read that Oak View has about 700
> kids.
> > Would another 100 kids added to the school make
> > the over school over-crowded?
> >
> > Thank you for taking the time to look at my
> > questions.
> >
> > From a Clifton parent.
>
> What will you do if you don't like the answers to
> these questions?
I think the Clifton families will be quite happy with Oak View and this individual is just trying to get a feel for the Oak View community as it had not been noted in prior options as being a school that would receive Clifton students. The tone in their message was polite and simply appears to be seeking some basic information.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: January 21, 2011 11:26PM
Just one other item. Did anyone else catch during the School Board meeting last night what Liz Bradsher said in response to a question about why Sangster would not be receiving students from Clifton when that had been proposed in all 4 of the prior options? She said that after speaking with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz) now understood better the programs at Sangster and that bringing students from Clifton into Sangster could disrupt the community learning environment for some of the special programs at Sangster. REALLY?
It doesn't take much looking around the FCPS Web site to see that Sangster's very own appointee to the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee indicated Sangster had "plenty of room and would welcome the addition of Clifton students." That same individual pushed extremely hard for the closing of Clifton. What changed and why does that individual appear now to be so disconnected from his own school community and the will of the principal? When FCPS (and Liz in particular) talks about an open and transparent process, behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in the ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the principal's comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year later. Oh, and nevermind that Sangster will be at a 90% capacity or thereabouts after all the deck chairs are shuffled.
Anyone else realize this is going on? This is yet another one of those things that smells rotten....
It doesn't take much looking around the FCPS Web site to see that Sangster's very own appointee to the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee indicated Sangster had "plenty of room and would welcome the addition of Clifton students." That same individual pushed extremely hard for the closing of Clifton. What changed and why does that individual appear now to be so disconnected from his own school community and the will of the principal? When FCPS (and Liz in particular) talks about an open and transparent process, behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in the ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the principal's comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year later. Oh, and nevermind that Sangster will be at a 90% capacity or thereabouts after all the deck chairs are shuffled.
Anyone else realize this is going on? This is yet another one of those things that smells rotten....
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
greatidea
()
Date: January 22, 2011 08:23AM
Yes PTA presidents. Be open. Share the numbers either here or on your PTA website. We wantto know real results of surveys for resolution. FOIA would also list names.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
tell us
()
Date: January 22, 2011 08:43AM
Justataxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just one other item. Did anyone else catch during
> the School Board meeting last night what Liz
> Bradsher said in response to a question about why
> Sangster would not be receiving students from
> Clifton when that had been proposed in all 4 of
> the prior options? She said that after speaking
> with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz) now
> understood better the programs at Sangster and
> that bringing students from Clifton into Sangster
> could disrupt the community learning environment
> for some of the special programs at Sangster.
> REALLY?
>
> It doesn't take much looking around the FCPS Web
> site to see that Sangster's very own appointee to
> the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee
> indicated Sangster had "plenty of room and would
> welcome the addition of Clifton students." That
> same individual pushed extremely hard for the
> closing of Clifton. What changed and why does
> that individual appear now to be so disconnected
> from his own school community and the will of the
> principal? When FCPS (and Liz in particular)
> talks about an open and transparent process,
> behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in the
> ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the principal's
> comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> later. Oh, and nevermind that Sangster will be at
> a 90% capacity or thereabouts after all the deck
> chairs are shuffled.
>
> Anyone else realize this is going on? This is yet
> another one of those things that smells rotten....
Please inform us of the Sangsters "principal's comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year later." What was said?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just one other item. Did anyone else catch during
> the School Board meeting last night what Liz
> Bradsher said in response to a question about why
> Sangster would not be receiving students from
> Clifton when that had been proposed in all 4 of
> the prior options? She said that after speaking
> with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz) now
> understood better the programs at Sangster and
> that bringing students from Clifton into Sangster
> could disrupt the community learning environment
> for some of the special programs at Sangster.
> REALLY?
>
> It doesn't take much looking around the FCPS Web
> site to see that Sangster's very own appointee to
> the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee
> indicated Sangster had "plenty of room and would
> welcome the addition of Clifton students." That
> same individual pushed extremely hard for the
> closing of Clifton. What changed and why does
> that individual appear now to be so disconnected
> from his own school community and the will of the
> principal? When FCPS (and Liz in particular)
> talks about an open and transparent process,
> behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in the
> ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the principal's
> comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> later. Oh, and nevermind that Sangster will be at
> a 90% capacity or thereabouts after all the deck
> chairs are shuffled.
>
> Anyone else realize this is going on? This is yet
> another one of those things that smells rotten....
Please inform us of the Sangsters "principal's comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year later." What was said?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sangster
()
Date: January 22, 2011 09:20AM
Justataxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just one other item. Did anyone else catch during
> the School Board meeting last night what Liz
> Bradsher said in response to a question about why
> Sangster would not be receiving students from
> Clifton when that had been proposed in all 4 of
> the prior options? She said that after speaking
> with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz) now
> understood better the programs at Sangster and
> that bringing students from Clifton into Sangster
> could disrupt the community learning environment
> for some of the special programs at Sangster.
> REALLY?
>
> It doesn't take much looking around the FCPS Web
> site to see that Sangster's very own appointee to
> the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee
> indicated Sangster had "plenty of room and would
> welcome the addition of Clifton students." That
> same individual pushed extremely hard for the
> closing of Clifton. What changed and why does
> that individual appear now to be so disconnected
> from his own school community and the will of the
> principal? When FCPS (and Liz in particular)
> talks about an open and transparent process,
> behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in the
> ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the principal's
> comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> later. Oh, and nevermind that Sangster will be at
> a 90% capacity or thereabouts after all the deck
> chairs are shuffled.
>
> Anyone else realize this is going on? This is yet
> another one of those things that smells rotten....
YES, it smells rotten. That's what I've been saying. I don't understand the principal's statement...if she even said it. Is there proof? You know you can't believe a word our SB rep. says. Sangster has an Autism Center and an AAP center. It's a great school with very involved parents. It's beyond reason that adding some students from a NEARBY community could "disrupt the learning enviorment." Students come and go all the time. I think they just like not having crowded classrooms.Interesting that a memo came home urging parents to support all day kindergarten for Sangster. Pretty outrageous since the schools receiving Clifton students will have priority for ADK. Our very own SELF appointed rep to the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee is a friend of our school board rep. Connect the dots.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just one other item. Did anyone else catch during
> the School Board meeting last night what Liz
> Bradsher said in response to a question about why
> Sangster would not be receiving students from
> Clifton when that had been proposed in all 4 of
> the prior options? She said that after speaking
> with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz) now
> understood better the programs at Sangster and
> that bringing students from Clifton into Sangster
> could disrupt the community learning environment
> for some of the special programs at Sangster.
> REALLY?
>
> It doesn't take much looking around the FCPS Web
> site to see that Sangster's very own appointee to
> the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee
> indicated Sangster had "plenty of room and would
> welcome the addition of Clifton students." That
> same individual pushed extremely hard for the
> closing of Clifton. What changed and why does
> that individual appear now to be so disconnected
> from his own school community and the will of the
> principal? When FCPS (and Liz in particular)
> talks about an open and transparent process,
> behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in the
> ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the principal's
> comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> later. Oh, and nevermind that Sangster will be at
> a 90% capacity or thereabouts after all the deck
> chairs are shuffled.
>
> Anyone else realize this is going on? This is yet
> another one of those things that smells rotten....
YES, it smells rotten. That's what I've been saying. I don't understand the principal's statement...if she even said it. Is there proof? You know you can't believe a word our SB rep. says. Sangster has an Autism Center and an AAP center. It's a great school with very involved parents. It's beyond reason that adding some students from a NEARBY community could "disrupt the learning enviorment." Students come and go all the time. I think they just like not having crowded classrooms.Interesting that a memo came home urging parents to support all day kindergarten for Sangster. Pretty outrageous since the schools receiving Clifton students will have priority for ADK. Our very own SELF appointed rep to the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee is a friend of our school board rep. Connect the dots.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Disheartened
()
Date: January 22, 2011 10:11AM
Sangster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justataxpayer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just one other item. Did anyone else catch
> during
> > the School Board meeting last night what Liz
> > Bradsher said in response to a question about
> why
> > Sangster would not be receiving students from
> > Clifton when that had been proposed in all 4 of
> > the prior options? She said that after
> speaking
> > with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz)
> now
> > understood better the programs at Sangster and
> > that bringing students from Clifton into
> Sangster
> > could disrupt the community learning
> environment
> > for some of the special programs at Sangster.
> > REALLY?
> >
> > It doesn't take much looking around the FCPS
> Web
> > site to see that Sangster's very own appointee
> to
> > the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee
> > indicated Sangster had "plenty of room and
> would
> > welcome the addition of Clifton students."
> That
> > same individual pushed extremely hard for the
> > closing of Clifton. What changed and why does
> > that individual appear now to be so
> disconnected
> > from his own school community and the will of
> the
> > principal? When FCPS (and Liz in particular)
> > talks about an open and transparent process,
> > behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in
> the
> > ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the
> principal's
> > comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> > later. Oh, and nevermind that Sangster will be
> at
> > a 90% capacity or thereabouts after all the
> deck
> > chairs are shuffled.
> >
> > Anyone else realize this is going on? This is
> yet
> > another one of those things that smells
> rotten....
>
> YES, it smells rotten. That's what I've been
> saying. I don't understand the principal's
> statement...if she even said it. Is there proof?
> You know you can't believe a word our SB rep.
> says. Sangster has an Autism Center and an AAP
> center. It's a great school with very involved
> parents. It's beyond reason that adding some
> students from a NEARBY community could "disrupt
> the learning enviorment." Students come and go all
> the time. I think they just like not having
> crowded classrooms.Interesting that a memo came
> home urging parents to support all day
> kindergarten for Sangster. Pretty outrageous
> since the schools receiving Clifton students will
> have priority for ADK. Our very own SELF appointed
> rep to the Southwestern Regional Planning
> Committee is a friend of our school board rep.
> Connect the dots.
Clifton students can't be part of the "Sangster community?" That very argument defies the definition of community. Sangster draws students from all over the SW County for their special programs. Our busses pass right by the Clifton community. For that very reason Sangster is on the third bell because kids come from all over. So WHY THEN can't Clifton kids be part of this community. He lobbied so hard to close another community school, now they can't be part of our community? The arrogance is astounding.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justataxpayer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just one other item. Did anyone else catch
> during
> > the School Board meeting last night what Liz
> > Bradsher said in response to a question about
> why
> > Sangster would not be receiving students from
> > Clifton when that had been proposed in all 4 of
> > the prior options? She said that after
> speaking
> > with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz)
> now
> > understood better the programs at Sangster and
> > that bringing students from Clifton into
> Sangster
> > could disrupt the community learning
> environment
> > for some of the special programs at Sangster.
> > REALLY?
> >
> > It doesn't take much looking around the FCPS
> Web
> > site to see that Sangster's very own appointee
> to
> > the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee
> > indicated Sangster had "plenty of room and
> would
> > welcome the addition of Clifton students."
> That
> > same individual pushed extremely hard for the
> > closing of Clifton. What changed and why does
> > that individual appear now to be so
> disconnected
> > from his own school community and the will of
> the
> > principal? When FCPS (and Liz in particular)
> > talks about an open and transparent process,
> > behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in
> the
> > ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the
> principal's
> > comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> > later. Oh, and nevermind that Sangster will be
> at
> > a 90% capacity or thereabouts after all the
> deck
> > chairs are shuffled.
> >
> > Anyone else realize this is going on? This is
> yet
> > another one of those things that smells
> rotten....
>
> YES, it smells rotten. That's what I've been
> saying. I don't understand the principal's
> statement...if she even said it. Is there proof?
> You know you can't believe a word our SB rep.
> says. Sangster has an Autism Center and an AAP
> center. It's a great school with very involved
> parents. It's beyond reason that adding some
> students from a NEARBY community could "disrupt
> the learning enviorment." Students come and go all
> the time. I think they just like not having
> crowded classrooms.Interesting that a memo came
> home urging parents to support all day
> kindergarten for Sangster. Pretty outrageous
> since the schools receiving Clifton students will
> have priority for ADK. Our very own SELF appointed
> rep to the Southwestern Regional Planning
> Committee is a friend of our school board rep.
> Connect the dots.
Clifton students can't be part of the "Sangster community?" That very argument defies the definition of community. Sangster draws students from all over the SW County for their special programs. Our busses pass right by the Clifton community. For that very reason Sangster is on the third bell because kids come from all over. So WHY THEN can't Clifton kids be part of this community. He lobbied so hard to close another community school, now they can't be part of our community? The arrogance is astounding.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Robin Hood
()
Date: January 22, 2011 10:44AM
"The arrogance is astounding."
Tell me about it. Amazing....scratching each other's backs--the PTAs and the SB involving in this elementary school redistricting. Nothing is transparent these days when it comes to redistricting and the SB.
Tell me about it. Amazing....scratching each other's backs--the PTAs and the SB involving in this elementary school redistricting. Nothing is transparent these days when it comes to redistricting and the SB.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Curious2
()
Date: January 22, 2011 11:39AM
Justataxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just one other item. Did anyone else catch during
> the School Board meeting last night what Liz
> Bradsher said in response to a question about why
> Sangster would not be receiving students from
> Clifton when that had been proposed in all 4 of
> the prior options? She said that after speaking
> with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz) now
> understood better the programs at Sangster and
> that bringing students from Clifton into Sangster
> could disrupt the community learning environment
> for some of the special programs at Sangster.
> REALLY?
>
> It doesn't take much looking around the FCPS Web
> site to see that Sangster's very own appointee to
> the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee
> indicated Sangster had "plenty of room and would
> welcome the addition of Clifton students." That
> same individual pushed extremely hard for the
> closing of Clifton. What changed and why does
> that individual appear now to be so disconnected
> from his own school community and the will of the
> principal? When FCPS (and Liz in particular)
> talks about an open and transparent process,
> behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in the
> ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the principal's
> comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> later. Oh, and nevermind that Sangster will be at
> a 90% capacity or thereabouts after all the deck
> chairs are shuffled.
>
> Anyone else realize this is going on? This is yet
> another one of those things that smells rotten....
Just curious. If, based on the census, they can carve another area out for a new County Supervisor seat, does Sangster fall in that area? Would Liz Bradsher be eligible to run for that new County Supervisor seat? Is that why she hasn't yet announced what her intentions are for what seat she is going to run for in November? Don't know enough about what is going on with the status of that but from the FOIA emails it looks like some of her decisions are selfishly motivated to her own self political interests. Just curious if there might possibly be any connections between that possible new seat and Liz and Sangster.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just one other item. Did anyone else catch during
> the School Board meeting last night what Liz
> Bradsher said in response to a question about why
> Sangster would not be receiving students from
> Clifton when that had been proposed in all 4 of
> the prior options? She said that after speaking
> with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz) now
> understood better the programs at Sangster and
> that bringing students from Clifton into Sangster
> could disrupt the community learning environment
> for some of the special programs at Sangster.
> REALLY?
>
> It doesn't take much looking around the FCPS Web
> site to see that Sangster's very own appointee to
> the Southwestern Regional Planning Committee
> indicated Sangster had "plenty of room and would
> welcome the addition of Clifton students." That
> same individual pushed extremely hard for the
> closing of Clifton. What changed and why does
> that individual appear now to be so disconnected
> from his own school community and the will of the
> principal? When FCPS (and Liz in particular)
> talks about an open and transparent process,
> behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in the
> ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the principal's
> comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> later. Oh, and nevermind that Sangster will be at
> a 90% capacity or thereabouts after all the deck
> chairs are shuffled.
>
> Anyone else realize this is going on? This is yet
> another one of those things that smells rotten....
Just curious. If, based on the census, they can carve another area out for a new County Supervisor seat, does Sangster fall in that area? Would Liz Bradsher be eligible to run for that new County Supervisor seat? Is that why she hasn't yet announced what her intentions are for what seat she is going to run for in November? Don't know enough about what is going on with the status of that but from the FOIA emails it looks like some of her decisions are selfishly motivated to her own self political interests. Just curious if there might possibly be any connections between that possible new seat and Liz and Sangster.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
TurnThisAround
()
Date: January 22, 2011 12:05PM
> Just curious. If, based on the census, they can
> carve another area out for a new County Supervisor
> seat, does Sangster fall in that area? Would Liz
> Bradsher be eligible to run for that new County
> Supervisor seat? Is that why she hasn't yet
> announced what her intentions are for what seat
> she is going to run for in November? Don't know
> enough about what is going on with the status of
> that but from the FOIA emails it looks like some
> of her decisions are selfishly motivated to her
> own self political interests. Just curious if
> there might possibly be any connections between
> that possible new seat and Liz and Sangster.
That would be obscenely evil if she was throwing all the children in these schools involved in this boundary study to the wind just because she was trying to get votes to win some new seat in another area! If that happens, than I wish someone from the Clifton community would run for School Board because there would be nobody more motivated than someone from Clifton to fix this nightmare she is getting ready to put all of the kids in this portion of the County through.
> carve another area out for a new County Supervisor
> seat, does Sangster fall in that area? Would Liz
> Bradsher be eligible to run for that new County
> Supervisor seat? Is that why she hasn't yet
> announced what her intentions are for what seat
> she is going to run for in November? Don't know
> enough about what is going on with the status of
> that but from the FOIA emails it looks like some
> of her decisions are selfishly motivated to her
> own self political interests. Just curious if
> there might possibly be any connections between
> that possible new seat and Liz and Sangster.
That would be obscenely evil if she was throwing all the children in these schools involved in this boundary study to the wind just because she was trying to get votes to win some new seat in another area! If that happens, than I wish someone from the Clifton community would run for School Board because there would be nobody more motivated than someone from Clifton to fix this nightmare she is getting ready to put all of the kids in this portion of the County through.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: January 22, 2011 02:02PM
tell us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justataxpayer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> She said that after
> speaking
> > with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz)
> now
> > understood better the programs at Sangster and
> > that bringing students from Clifton into
> Sangster
> > could disrupt the community learning
> environment
> > for some of the special programs at Sangster.
> > REALLY?
> >
> > When FCPS (and Liz in particular)
> > talks about an open and transparent process,
> > behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in
> the
> > ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the
> principal's
> > comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> > later.
>
>
> Please inform us of the Sangsters "principal's
> comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> later." What was said?
The video has not been posted yet of this past Thursday's School Board meeting. But, during the meeting Liz Bradsher volunteered an explanation as to why Sangster was no longer to receive Clifton students. In her explanation she said that after a discussion with the Sangster principal she now understands the special programs that are housed at Sangster and that adding to the student population at Sangster would impact the learning environment of the school.
Facts from FCPS.edu show that Sangster's enrollment is projected to decline through 2015 from 859 students now down to 802 students. The school has a program capacity of 885 yet now there apparently is no room by 2015 for Clifton students yet through all of the Southwestern Committee meetings there was a TON of space available for students from Clifton. It just doesn't seem like everyone is being treated the same here. Sangster doesn't want more students so they don't get them. A subdivision just off 123 south of Fairview continues to go to Oak View while they actually drive past the entrance to Fairview to get to Oak View. The transparency of this process is showing that some communities are clearly receiving preferential treatment (though no one in the schools will own up to it).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justataxpayer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> She said that after
> speaking
> > with the principal at Sangster she (being Liz)
> now
> > understood better the programs at Sangster and
> > that bringing students from Clifton into
> Sangster
> > could disrupt the community learning
> environment
> > for some of the special programs at Sangster.
> > REALLY?
> >
> > When FCPS (and Liz in particular)
> > talks about an open and transparent process,
> > behavior like what was shown by Bob Larson in
> the
> > ad-hoc committee doesn't jive with the
> principal's
> > comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> > later.
>
>
> Please inform us of the Sangsters "principal's
> comments made to Liz Bradsher less than a year
> later." What was said?
The video has not been posted yet of this past Thursday's School Board meeting. But, during the meeting Liz Bradsher volunteered an explanation as to why Sangster was no longer to receive Clifton students. In her explanation she said that after a discussion with the Sangster principal she now understands the special programs that are housed at Sangster and that adding to the student population at Sangster would impact the learning environment of the school.
Facts from FCPS.edu show that Sangster's enrollment is projected to decline through 2015 from 859 students now down to 802 students. The school has a program capacity of 885 yet now there apparently is no room by 2015 for Clifton students yet through all of the Southwestern Committee meetings there was a TON of space available for students from Clifton. It just doesn't seem like everyone is being treated the same here. Sangster doesn't want more students so they don't get them. A subdivision just off 123 south of Fairview continues to go to Oak View while they actually drive past the entrance to Fairview to get to Oak View. The transparency of this process is showing that some communities are clearly receiving preferential treatment (though no one in the schools will own up to it).
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Skeptical
()
Date: January 22, 2011 03:22PM
Justataxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The video has not been posted yet of this past
> Thursday's School Board meeting. But, during the
> meeting Liz Bradsher volunteered an explanation as
> to why Sangster was no longer to receive Clifton
> students. In her explanation she said that after
> a discussion with the Sangster principal she now
> understands the special programs that are housed
> at Sangster and that adding to the student
> population at Sangster would impact the learning
> environment of the school.
>
I don't see any reason at this point to believe a single word that comes out of Liz Bradsher's mouth, and this type of silly rationalization for special treatment gives me no basis to reconsider.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The video has not been posted yet of this past
> Thursday's School Board meeting. But, during the
> meeting Liz Bradsher volunteered an explanation as
> to why Sangster was no longer to receive Clifton
> students. In her explanation she said that after
> a discussion with the Sangster principal she now
> understands the special programs that are housed
> at Sangster and that adding to the student
> population at Sangster would impact the learning
> environment of the school.
>
I don't see any reason at this point to believe a single word that comes out of Liz Bradsher's mouth, and this type of silly rationalization for special treatment gives me no basis to reconsider.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Oak View
()
Date: January 22, 2011 03:38PM
I live in Clifton and my kids are being moved to Oak View. I just read in the paper that PTA president said she felt sorry for the kids in Clifton because the school is so far away. This worries me too. How long will my kids be on the bus? The SB has not done a study on bus times. How can this be?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
MapReader
()
Date: January 22, 2011 04:24PM
The Clifton kids being moved to Oak View won't have much longer a bus ride than some of the kids already at Oak View. Some of Clifton kids being moved to Fairview, however, will have a really long bus ride.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
otheroptions
()
Date: January 22, 2011 05:04PM
Have any of you thought of homeschool?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
why
()
Date: January 22, 2011 08:00PM
It's hard to home school when you have to go to work. Why should we home school when we pay taxes for schools? I would need a voucher to pay for the materials, etc.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
otheroptions
()
Date: January 22, 2011 08:02PM
Just take out the books from the library. Cost is free. Didnt know you worked.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Robin Hood
()
Date: January 23, 2011 08:31AM
why Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's hard to home school when you have to go to
> work. Why should we home school when we pay taxes
> for schools? I would need a voucher to pay for
> the materials, etc.
Right, while homeschooling is an option, with the cost of living given in Fairfax County, most of us definitely have to work!
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's hard to home school when you have to go to
> work. Why should we home school when we pay taxes
> for schools? I would need a voucher to pay for
> the materials, etc.
Right, while homeschooling is an option, with the cost of living given in Fairfax County, most of us definitely have to work!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Final SB vote
()
Date: January 23, 2011 09:23AM
Does anyone know when parents will be told by FCPS what school their child will attend next year?
The FCPS web site does not state the date.
Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we get a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and need to make arrangements.
Thank you for the help.
The FCPS web site does not state the date.
Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we get a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and need to make arrangements.
Thank you for the help.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
HoldYurPanties
()
Date: January 23, 2011 10:54AM
Final SB vote Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone know when parents will be told by FCPS
> what school their child will attend next year?
>
> The FCPS web site does not state the date.
>
> Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we get
> a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and
> need to make arrangements.
>
> Thank you for the help.
Chill the hell out. You'll find out before school starts next fall. Stop pretending that you're so damn important that you require six months advance notice of everything.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone know when parents will be told by FCPS
> what school their child will attend next year?
>
> The FCPS web site does not state the date.
>
> Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we get
> a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and
> need to make arrangements.
>
> Thank you for the help.
Chill the hell out. You'll find out before school starts next fall. Stop pretending that you're so damn important that you require six months advance notice of everything.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
?s
()
Date: January 23, 2011 11:17AM
Final SB vote Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone know when parents will be told by FCPS
> what school their child will attend next year?
>
> The FCPS web site does not state the date.
>
> Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we get
> a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and
> need to make arrangements.
>
> Thank you for the help.
The school board vote for which option they are choosing is Feb. 24th so not until then. Currently there are 5 options - I imagine it is between option D or the staff recommendation option that is date 1/7/11. I doubt the bus schedule will come out until the week before school starts has it has in the past. I wonder if any schools will be changing start times in the morning due to further travel by some students - if so hopefully we will find out well in advance.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone know when parents will be told by FCPS
> what school their child will attend next year?
>
> The FCPS web site does not state the date.
>
> Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we get
> a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and
> need to make arrangements.
>
> Thank you for the help.
The school board vote for which option they are choosing is Feb. 24th so not until then. Currently there are 5 options - I imagine it is between option D or the staff recommendation option that is date 1/7/11. I doubt the bus schedule will come out until the week before school starts has it has in the past. I wonder if any schools will be changing start times in the morning due to further travel by some students - if so hopefully we will find out well in advance.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
thetruth
()
Date: January 23, 2011 12:10PM
This does not effect highschool kids, so you are not impacted. If you are in 4 grade or below. Which would be 5 grade or below next year because 6 is grandfathered. If you are below then you should have your parents watching what you post or have your mom post for you her question.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput-not now
()
Date: January 23, 2011 06:26PM
?s Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Final SB vote Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Does anyone know when parents will be told by
> FCPS
> > what school their child will attend next year?
> >
> > The FCPS web site does not state the date.
> >
> > Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we
> get
> > a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and
> > need to make arrangements.
> >
> > Thank you for the help.
>
> The school board vote for which option they are
> choosing is Feb. 24th so not until then.
> Currently there are 5 options - I imagine it is
> between option D or the staff recommendation
> option that is date 1/7/11. I doubt the bus
> schedule will come out until the week before
> school starts has it has in the past. I wonder if
> any schools will be changing start times in the
> morning due to further travel by some students -
> if so hopefully we will find out well in advance.
Option D is off the table even though it is predomiantely still shown on the web site to keep people quite and confused. If you read the board docs you will find that The staff Final Proposal is what is being voted on. Conveniently they have divided this final proposal into 2 parts. The one Appendix shows the map and HOAs being switched etc... the second doc shows things like oh the Greenbriar East kinders will still be transfered to West for 1 year and get 1/2 day kinder....It really looks like they are trying to hide what is going down to keep people thinking that something other than this final plan will happen. I have heard second hand from people that this is pretty much a done deal and that any resolution being passed by the PTA will not matter. At this point I imagine my kids will be changing schools and I will be voting for people other than the existing board members.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Final SB vote Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Does anyone know when parents will be told by
> FCPS
> > what school their child will attend next year?
> >
> > The FCPS web site does not state the date.
> >
> > Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we
> get
> > a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and
> > need to make arrangements.
> >
> > Thank you for the help.
>
> The school board vote for which option they are
> choosing is Feb. 24th so not until then.
> Currently there are 5 options - I imagine it is
> between option D or the staff recommendation
> option that is date 1/7/11. I doubt the bus
> schedule will come out until the week before
> school starts has it has in the past. I wonder if
> any schools will be changing start times in the
> morning due to further travel by some students -
> if so hopefully we will find out well in advance.
Option D is off the table even though it is predomiantely still shown on the web site to keep people quite and confused. If you read the board docs you will find that The staff Final Proposal is what is being voted on. Conveniently they have divided this final proposal into 2 parts. The one Appendix shows the map and HOAs being switched etc... the second doc shows things like oh the Greenbriar East kinders will still be transfered to West for 1 year and get 1/2 day kinder....It really looks like they are trying to hide what is going down to keep people thinking that something other than this final plan will happen. I have heard second hand from people that this is pretty much a done deal and that any resolution being passed by the PTA will not matter. At this point I imagine my kids will be changing schools and I will be voting for people other than the existing board members.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
comeonfolks
()
Date: January 23, 2011 07:04PM
Stayingput why do you care about GB East kindergarten. It does not impact your kids going to Poplar Tree. That seems like just trying to start trouble. The PTA resolution was just starting trouble too. I will vote for the same school board person for my area that is getting moved. It is a great option. I hope the PTAs run for the school board. They represent all the parents and will be a 100% win. Now everyone get back to reality. Next time give more than 12-24 hours to comment and respond to the survey when they had it in their hands weeks ago. I am hoping this is all over and we move on. Fairax County is great school. One is better than the next.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
confused
()
Date: January 23, 2011 07:56PM
East to West. West to Tree. All too confusing.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
To: Clifton parent
()
Date: January 23, 2011 09:06PM
Keep fighting for what is right. The SB is made up of a those that run for the tea party movement. Liz Bradsher is just as bad as Sarah Palin.
I will always give money to what is right. It seems many in the FCPS want to not give anything. Now the other schools wish they had paid attention. The PTA members even admit as much.
Shame on parents who only care for themselves. You know have let the SB dig your grave. Just pick up your shovel and put some dirt over your school. That is what you wanted for Clifton.
I will always give money to what is right. It seems many in the FCPS want to not give anything. Now the other schools wish they had paid attention. The PTA members even admit as much.
Shame on parents who only care for themselves. You know have let the SB dig your grave. Just pick up your shovel and put some dirt over your school. That is what you wanted for Clifton.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 23, 2011 09:23PM
comeonfolks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stayingput why do you care about GB East
> kindergarten. It does not impact your kids going
> to Poplar Tree. That seems like just trying to
> start trouble. The PTA resolution was just
> starting trouble too. I will vote for the same
> school board person for my area that is getting
> moved. It is a great option. I hope the PTAs run
> for the school board. They represent all the
> parents and will be a 100% win. Now everyone get
> back to reality. Next time give more than 12-24
> hours to comment and respond to the survey when
> they had it in their hands weeks ago. I am hoping
> this is all over and we move on. Fairax County is
> great school. One is better than the next.
It must be nice to live in your own little bubble and not give a damn about anyone else. Do you even listen to yourself?
Maybe Stayingput is concerned about Kindergarten in other schools because for many parents it is going to be a concern when you're child is moved from a school with Full Day K to a school with 1/2 day. Stayingput isn't starting trouble, simply pointing out an obvious concern for many.
Then you say that the PTA resolution was just to start trouble, but you wish that the PTAs would run for school board because they represent all the parents and it will be a win?!?!??? I'm sorry, I'm confused. The PTAs came up with the resolution, but what, this time they really don't represent the parents. Or is it that they aren't representing YOUR VIEW, so you don't like them for the moment. If you're happy with your move to a new school, good for you. But seriously, do you hate your current school that much that you don't give a damn about the rest of the kids involved in this study as long as you get what you want?
Sounds a bit selfish to me.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stayingput why do you care about GB East
> kindergarten. It does not impact your kids going
> to Poplar Tree. That seems like just trying to
> start trouble. The PTA resolution was just
> starting trouble too. I will vote for the same
> school board person for my area that is getting
> moved. It is a great option. I hope the PTAs run
> for the school board. They represent all the
> parents and will be a 100% win. Now everyone get
> back to reality. Next time give more than 12-24
> hours to comment and respond to the survey when
> they had it in their hands weeks ago. I am hoping
> this is all over and we move on. Fairax County is
> great school. One is better than the next.
It must be nice to live in your own little bubble and not give a damn about anyone else. Do you even listen to yourself?
Maybe Stayingput is concerned about Kindergarten in other schools because for many parents it is going to be a concern when you're child is moved from a school with Full Day K to a school with 1/2 day. Stayingput isn't starting trouble, simply pointing out an obvious concern for many.
Then you say that the PTA resolution was just to start trouble, but you wish that the PTAs would run for school board because they represent all the parents and it will be a win?!?!??? I'm sorry, I'm confused. The PTAs came up with the resolution, but what, this time they really don't represent the parents. Or is it that they aren't representing YOUR VIEW, so you don't like them for the moment. If you're happy with your move to a new school, good for you. But seriously, do you hate your current school that much that you don't give a damn about the rest of the kids involved in this study as long as you get what you want?
Sounds a bit selfish to me.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
comeonefolks
()
Date: January 24, 2011 05:27AM
The kids learn the same thing with 1/2 day versus full day. Look at the ciriculum. FCPS should not offer a babysitter service for 1/2 day in this time of budget concerns. The schools with populations that need it, have it funded through the federal goverment. Would a solution be to have 1/2 day just next year and not the next? Where will this money come from? What about teach and government worker raises? That will definitely take away from that.
The comment about PTA running for school board was sarcasm. They have just as much of a shot of winning as does the current people.
The comment about my VIEW. Except for 12-24 hours to fill out a survey, which minimal response. Who on the PTA asked for my view. You cannt get our views unless you ask and not do it last minute? PTA meetings are held during the day. Most people work. We saw that in this discussion when a parent said they need to work and cannot homeschool.
I agree Clifton was a mess. A new school should have been built. I also think that people do not like change. The kids will still get the best education. If they are AAP they will be pulled to another school anyway.
I cant keep up with all the requests. Dont close Clifton, dont move my children, not that school it is too far, concerned about another school, etc. To be honest, if we are looking out for all the students, why didnt you push for full day kindergarten sooner? GBW does not offer it. I did not see you sticking up for that the past 5 years.
The comment about PTA running for school board was sarcasm. They have just as much of a shot of winning as does the current people.
The comment about my VIEW. Except for 12-24 hours to fill out a survey, which minimal response. Who on the PTA asked for my view. You cannt get our views unless you ask and not do it last minute? PTA meetings are held during the day. Most people work. We saw that in this discussion when a parent said they need to work and cannot homeschool.
I agree Clifton was a mess. A new school should have been built. I also think that people do not like change. The kids will still get the best education. If they are AAP they will be pulled to another school anyway.
I cant keep up with all the requests. Dont close Clifton, dont move my children, not that school it is too far, concerned about another school, etc. To be honest, if we are looking out for all the students, why didnt you push for full day kindergarten sooner? GBW does not offer it. I did not see you sticking up for that the past 5 years.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
About Clifton elementary
()
Date: January 24, 2011 07:16AM
Clifton elementary never had all kindergarten and we just dealt with. We also went without SAC and we did not complain about that either. We pay higher taxes and we went without a lot of extras. We still are not asking for much. It is the SB who made this mess. Not Clifton elementary.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 24, 2011 05:30PM
comeonefolks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kids learn the same thing with 1/2 day versus
> full day. Look at the ciriculum. FCPS should not
> offer a babysitter service for 1/2 day in this
> time of budget concerns. The schools with
> populations that need it, have it funded through
> the federal goverment. Would a solution be to
> have 1/2 day just next year and not the next?
> Where will this money come from? What about teach
> and government worker raises? That will
> definitely take away from that.
Actually it is not primarily funded through federal funds and over 70% of the county schools have it. Also the listed SOLS are the same (state SOLS by the way) but that does not mean it is an equal education or the end of year results in reading level and math skills are the same. This is not an issue of "child care" obviously you do not think much of teachers with that attitude. Clearly you have not taught this age group before or have any working knowledge of this matter since your facts are so wrong.
>
>
> The comment about my VIEW. Except for 12-24 hours
> to fill out a survey, which minimal response. Who
> on the PTA asked for my view. You cannt get our
> views unless you ask and not do it last minute?
> PTA meetings are held during the day.
Not all PTAs have their meetings during the day, and surveys were done at our school to determine the time when the turn out would be the highest. I have attend PTA meetings since my children began school and they used to be all at night and I was generally the only non committee non board person there after the first meeting, when our school switched to a mix time format alternating nights and days - it is the day time when we garner the largest group of parents, the meetings are held first thing when school starts and some working parents change their schedule to come then. Most working parents did not want evening meetings either because it was their family time.
.
>
> I cant keep up with all the requests. Dont close
> Clifton, dont move my children, not that school it
> is too far, concerned about another school, etc.
> To be honest, if we are looking out for all the
> students, why didnt you push for full day
> kindergarten sooner? GBW does not offer it. I
> did not see you sticking up for that the past 5
> years.
I have been involved with full day kindergarten long before I had children when I worked for the county and was on a committee to evaluate the need and worked with many of the parents at the first schools who had it. I am well aware GBW does not offer it and have addressed my issues with that to the board in the past. That said - how do you have any clue who I am or if I have been "sticking up for it in the last 5 years"
Regarding my concern for GBE and how they will be switched to GBW for half day. First that shift is part if the cause of my children's move and I think it is a bad plan. Second it has been proven full day kindergarten has an impact on a children's education, and schools should not be losing it. Do I think more schools should be getting - yes, but not at the expense of teacher raises (but then the lawyers the county holds on reatiner and the salaries of the individuals who can not seem to tabulate data for this study- should certainly help with raises) I think the GBE parents need to stand up for themselves in the regard that they will be losing full day kindergarten, some may be fine with it - they have a right to their opinion either way and should voice it, but also they have a right to that information being clearly presented and not tucked away.
WHAT I DON'T LIKE is that the school board has not been forthcoming with this information and other aspects to this final plan. The web site does not present this and other changes in the final plan outright where it can be clearly seen and have kept Option D listed seperate as if it is still an option, but when you read the final plan documents - both of them you find it to be an entirely different story. For all the concern about community involvement and listing everyones comments etc.. Now when we have the final plan that is to be voted on the way it is being presented can lead one to believe that there is some intention to cause confusion and reduce community input. Parents think they are getting one thing but it is entirely different.
As for me "just trying to start trouble" at least I am part of the process as are the PTAs. If you are happy with the plan that is great, please go to the school board and support it (I think they probably need a few pats on the back right now -they are far and few coming and in my mind not deserved.) Personally it does not sound like you are very involved and that you abhore the process or people questioning it because you are getting what you want. I may not get what I want - and if that is the case then I will continued to be involved at my new school in a positive manor (because parent involvement is key to a great school), but at least I can say I focused on the issues at hand and didn't just blindly let it go on and complain about it like many have done and gone no further.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kids learn the same thing with 1/2 day versus
> full day. Look at the ciriculum. FCPS should not
> offer a babysitter service for 1/2 day in this
> time of budget concerns. The schools with
> populations that need it, have it funded through
> the federal goverment. Would a solution be to
> have 1/2 day just next year and not the next?
> Where will this money come from? What about teach
> and government worker raises? That will
> definitely take away from that.
Actually it is not primarily funded through federal funds and over 70% of the county schools have it. Also the listed SOLS are the same (state SOLS by the way) but that does not mean it is an equal education or the end of year results in reading level and math skills are the same. This is not an issue of "child care" obviously you do not think much of teachers with that attitude. Clearly you have not taught this age group before or have any working knowledge of this matter since your facts are so wrong.
>
>
> The comment about my VIEW. Except for 12-24 hours
> to fill out a survey, which minimal response. Who
> on the PTA asked for my view. You cannt get our
> views unless you ask and not do it last minute?
> PTA meetings are held during the day.
Not all PTAs have their meetings during the day, and surveys were done at our school to determine the time when the turn out would be the highest. I have attend PTA meetings since my children began school and they used to be all at night and I was generally the only non committee non board person there after the first meeting, when our school switched to a mix time format alternating nights and days - it is the day time when we garner the largest group of parents, the meetings are held first thing when school starts and some working parents change their schedule to come then. Most working parents did not want evening meetings either because it was their family time.
.
>
> I cant keep up with all the requests. Dont close
> Clifton, dont move my children, not that school it
> is too far, concerned about another school, etc.
> To be honest, if we are looking out for all the
> students, why didnt you push for full day
> kindergarten sooner? GBW does not offer it. I
> did not see you sticking up for that the past 5
> years.
I have been involved with full day kindergarten long before I had children when I worked for the county and was on a committee to evaluate the need and worked with many of the parents at the first schools who had it. I am well aware GBW does not offer it and have addressed my issues with that to the board in the past. That said - how do you have any clue who I am or if I have been "sticking up for it in the last 5 years"
Regarding my concern for GBE and how they will be switched to GBW for half day. First that shift is part if the cause of my children's move and I think it is a bad plan. Second it has been proven full day kindergarten has an impact on a children's education, and schools should not be losing it. Do I think more schools should be getting - yes, but not at the expense of teacher raises (but then the lawyers the county holds on reatiner and the salaries of the individuals who can not seem to tabulate data for this study- should certainly help with raises) I think the GBE parents need to stand up for themselves in the regard that they will be losing full day kindergarten, some may be fine with it - they have a right to their opinion either way and should voice it, but also they have a right to that information being clearly presented and not tucked away.
WHAT I DON'T LIKE is that the school board has not been forthcoming with this information and other aspects to this final plan. The web site does not present this and other changes in the final plan outright where it can be clearly seen and have kept Option D listed seperate as if it is still an option, but when you read the final plan documents - both of them you find it to be an entirely different story. For all the concern about community involvement and listing everyones comments etc.. Now when we have the final plan that is to be voted on the way it is being presented can lead one to believe that there is some intention to cause confusion and reduce community input. Parents think they are getting one thing but it is entirely different.
As for me "just trying to start trouble" at least I am part of the process as are the PTAs. If you are happy with the plan that is great, please go to the school board and support it (I think they probably need a few pats on the back right now -they are far and few coming and in my mind not deserved.) Personally it does not sound like you are very involved and that you abhore the process or people questioning it because you are getting what you want. I may not get what I want - and if that is the case then I will continued to be involved at my new school in a positive manor (because parent involvement is key to a great school), but at least I can say I focused on the issues at hand and didn't just blindly let it go on and complain about it like many have done and gone no further.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
WastedTime
()
Date: January 24, 2011 11:04PM
If your kids go to any of the schools that are part of this redistricting and they rush this through and start this next Fall, you might as well forget about your child getting any education at all the first 6 months. It is going to be an administrative nightmare trying to just get the paperwork and data transferred to the appropriate schools for this many students in that short of a time period. Parents are going to be ripping kids out, pupil placing, probably trying to use different addresses, etc. With the number of kids they will be shifting around this area of Fairfax, you will be lucky if your school even knows your child belongs there! Forget about the teachers having any kind of time to prepare and review your child's file! Just write next year off as a waste of valuable time for your child.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Trailers
()
Date: January 24, 2011 11:11PM
Do any of FCPS figures include the cost to furnish and stock the trailers with all that is needed for an appropriate learning environment? The furniture at Clifton Elementary was designed for larger classrooms not trailers so it doesn't make sense to assume they would just move the furniture from Clifton to trailers. What about extra seating and supplies for cafeterias, libraries, gyms, etc. All those costs add up especially when you are talking about multiple trailers at multiple schools - where are those being reflected? In the rushed manner that FCPS is pushing this through, is any of this really being included in the total cost and provided to the public?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
To wastedTime
()
Date: January 25, 2011 06:44AM
You made some great points. I never even considered what would happen when this mess starts and kids are flung about the county. It is going to be awful. Just the bus schedule alone scares me. I really dislike FCPS. I only wish we could afford to send our kids to private school.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
goodcomments
()
Date: January 25, 2011 11:28AM
Do we know if they will still bus? Looks like less busses with the new layout.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
jokeright
()
Date: January 25, 2011 07:52PM
If we dont have busing when we change schools, Im not changing schools.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
buses
()
Date: January 25, 2011 07:56PM
Of course there will be bussing to new schools. They will even bus 6th graders grandfathered in to their old school.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
busing
()
Date: January 25, 2011 08:45PM
buses Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course there will be bussing to new schools.
> They will even bus 6th graders grandfathered in to
> their old school.
Unless, of course, it is a Clifton Elementary student. The School Board doesn't care about how those children are affected.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course there will be bussing to new schools.
> They will even bus 6th graders grandfathered in to
> their old school.
Unless, of course, it is a Clifton Elementary student. The School Board doesn't care about how those children are affected.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sangster PTA
()
Date: January 26, 2011 06:03AM
PTAs RESOLUTION FOR FCPS SCHOOL BOARD ACTION
ON SW REGION BOUNDARY STUDY
WHEREAS:
1. FCPS is using inconsistent enrollment projections and building capacity data when determining the number of students each of the impacted schools in the SW Region Boundary Study can accommodate and educate.
2. The proposed time frame put forth by FCPS staff for the boundary change implementation is moving too fast for public comfort and confidence.
3. The proposed time frame put forth by FCPS staff in OPTIONS A, B, C & updated D moves some children into schools before proposed new building additions are complete.
4. Bus transportation costs and accurate travel times considering traffic flows rather than solely distance, have not been publicly addressed for parents who have legitimate concerns about how long young children may have to travel to a new school.
5. FCPS has not fully addressed the legitimate concerns of working parents with children in SACC, such as how SACC placement will occur and how waitlists will be merged and managed.
6. FCPS has neither adequately addressed scheduling conflicts presented for families in schools with current full day kindergarten who may be moved to a new school with half-day kindergarten nor have they addressed the decrease in the quality of education that these students would receive as a result of such a move.
7. Schools to receive proposed classroom additions and schools that retain and/or add modular additions will not receive other capacity enhancements to fully meet the Educational Specifications.
8. The Options A, B, C and updated D presented by FCPS offer a short term band aid solution to the overcrowded elementary school population in the Southwestern portion of the county.
9. This is the largest boundary study ever undertaken by FCPS officials and many questions and concerns from parents and Fairfax County residents remain unanswered.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The PTAs who adopt this resolution are expressing a sufficient lack of confidence in the current SW Region Boundary Study process to date, the enrollment projections and capacity data presented by FCPS staff to date, and the rushed time table advocated by FCPS for the largest boundary study ever conducted in FCPS history.
2. The FCPS School Board should address the following concerns about the SW Region Boundary Study at the work session on February 14, 2011 and report back to the public and affected schools with answers to these concerns BEFORE conducting any vote(s) about school boundary changes in the SW Region:
a. Do not move any students in September 2011 when there are too many unanswered questions regarding capacity availability.
b. Do not move students into schools without existing capacity before permanent capacity, in the form of newly proposed building additions, is complete. Trailers and modulars are not permanent solutions.
c. Fully develop and distribute to the public, a transportation plan including costs and ride times before implementing any boundary changes.
d. Do not implement any boundary changes before fully reexamining construction of a new elementary school at or near the epicenter of overcrowding.
e. Use one consistent source for data when determining current capacity and projected enrollment based on credible and reliable population growth analysis.
f. Determine the exact plan for SACC placement when children with a SACC assignment at their current school are moved to another school.
g. Address concerns of impacted families who may be moved from a school with current full day kindergarten to a new school that has half-day kindergarten.
Oak View Elementary School PTA Colin Powell Elementary School PTA
Clifton Elementary School PTA Providence Elementary School PTA
Willow Springs Elementary School PTA Greenbriar West Elementary School PTA
Union Mill Elementary School PTA London Towne Elementary School PTA
Deer Park Elementary School PTA Poplar Tree Elementary School PTA
Fairview Elementary School PTA
ON SW REGION BOUNDARY STUDY
WHEREAS:
1. FCPS is using inconsistent enrollment projections and building capacity data when determining the number of students each of the impacted schools in the SW Region Boundary Study can accommodate and educate.
2. The proposed time frame put forth by FCPS staff for the boundary change implementation is moving too fast for public comfort and confidence.
3. The proposed time frame put forth by FCPS staff in OPTIONS A, B, C & updated D moves some children into schools before proposed new building additions are complete.
4. Bus transportation costs and accurate travel times considering traffic flows rather than solely distance, have not been publicly addressed for parents who have legitimate concerns about how long young children may have to travel to a new school.
5. FCPS has not fully addressed the legitimate concerns of working parents with children in SACC, such as how SACC placement will occur and how waitlists will be merged and managed.
6. FCPS has neither adequately addressed scheduling conflicts presented for families in schools with current full day kindergarten who may be moved to a new school with half-day kindergarten nor have they addressed the decrease in the quality of education that these students would receive as a result of such a move.
7. Schools to receive proposed classroom additions and schools that retain and/or add modular additions will not receive other capacity enhancements to fully meet the Educational Specifications.
8. The Options A, B, C and updated D presented by FCPS offer a short term band aid solution to the overcrowded elementary school population in the Southwestern portion of the county.
9. This is the largest boundary study ever undertaken by FCPS officials and many questions and concerns from parents and Fairfax County residents remain unanswered.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The PTAs who adopt this resolution are expressing a sufficient lack of confidence in the current SW Region Boundary Study process to date, the enrollment projections and capacity data presented by FCPS staff to date, and the rushed time table advocated by FCPS for the largest boundary study ever conducted in FCPS history.
2. The FCPS School Board should address the following concerns about the SW Region Boundary Study at the work session on February 14, 2011 and report back to the public and affected schools with answers to these concerns BEFORE conducting any vote(s) about school boundary changes in the SW Region:
a. Do not move any students in September 2011 when there are too many unanswered questions regarding capacity availability.
b. Do not move students into schools without existing capacity before permanent capacity, in the form of newly proposed building additions, is complete. Trailers and modulars are not permanent solutions.
c. Fully develop and distribute to the public, a transportation plan including costs and ride times before implementing any boundary changes.
d. Do not implement any boundary changes before fully reexamining construction of a new elementary school at or near the epicenter of overcrowding.
e. Use one consistent source for data when determining current capacity and projected enrollment based on credible and reliable population growth analysis.
f. Determine the exact plan for SACC placement when children with a SACC assignment at their current school are moved to another school.
g. Address concerns of impacted families who may be moved from a school with current full day kindergarten to a new school that has half-day kindergarten.
Oak View Elementary School PTA Colin Powell Elementary School PTA
Clifton Elementary School PTA Providence Elementary School PTA
Willow Springs Elementary School PTA Greenbriar West Elementary School PTA
Union Mill Elementary School PTA London Towne Elementary School PTA
Deer Park Elementary School PTA Poplar Tree Elementary School PTA
Fairview Elementary School PTA
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Question about option D/E
()
Date: January 26, 2011 06:46AM
How come Sangster elementary school PTA did NOT sign the resolution? They fought to have Clifton closed and now they got Liz Bradsher to cut a deal for the school. Sangster now gets no new kids. The even said it would change the community feel. Wow, these are same people who called Clifton folks snobs.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
More questions
()
Date: January 26, 2011 07:19AM
Question about option D/E Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How come Sangster elementary school PTA did NOT
> sign the resolution? They fought to have Clifton
> closed and now they got Liz Bradsher to cut a deal
> for the school. Sangster now gets no new kids. The
> even said it would change the community feel. Wow,
> these are same people who called Clifton folks
> snobs.
Please get you facts straight. "They" did NOT "fight" to have Clifton closed. "They" did NOT say it would change the community. Those were isolated comments by two separate people. However, it it curious how the final and recommended option so drastically changed to.
-------------------------------------------------------
> How come Sangster elementary school PTA did NOT
> sign the resolution? They fought to have Clifton
> closed and now they got Liz Bradsher to cut a deal
> for the school. Sangster now gets no new kids. The
> even said it would change the community feel. Wow,
> these are same people who called Clifton folks
> snobs.
Please get you facts straight. "They" did NOT "fight" to have Clifton closed. "They" did NOT say it would change the community. Those were isolated comments by two separate people. However, it it curious how the final and recommended option so drastically changed to.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
I do have my facts straight
()
Date: January 26, 2011 07:27AM
Sangster in longer in the option mix for Clifton elementary. Oak View is now in option D. Oak View is too far for many Clifton elementary children. You don't care though since your school is not closing.
The comments made by Sangster were by people who represent the school.
The comments made by Sangster were by people who represent the school.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
more questions
()
Date: January 26, 2011 08:17AM
I do have my facts straight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sangster in longer in the option mix for Clifton
> elementary. Oak View is now in option D. Oak View
> is too far for many Clifton elementary children.
> You don't care though since your school is not
> closing.
>
> The comments made by Sangster were by people who
> represent the school.
Again you make assumptions, this time about what I care about and you are wrong. "Sangster" did not make any comments. Here's what we know. We've seen the principal's comment via our SB rep and we know that the PTA Rep for the SW Boundary Committee pushed hard to have the CES closed. AND we know per FOIA emails that our SB Rep and Sangter's PTA rep are friends. That does not indict all families who go to Sangster. The relationship between the SB rep and the SW Boundry rep is what I find....... collusive.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sangster in longer in the option mix for Clifton
> elementary. Oak View is now in option D. Oak View
> is too far for many Clifton elementary children.
> You don't care though since your school is not
> closing.
>
> The comments made by Sangster were by people who
> represent the school.
Again you make assumptions, this time about what I care about and you are wrong. "Sangster" did not make any comments. Here's what we know. We've seen the principal's comment via our SB rep and we know that the PTA Rep for the SW Boundary Committee pushed hard to have the CES closed. AND we know per FOIA emails that our SB Rep and Sangter's PTA rep are friends. That does not indict all families who go to Sangster. The relationship between the SB rep and the SW Boundry rep is what I find....... collusive.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
q&a
()
Date: January 26, 2011 08:47AM
You can't generalize about Sangster parents any more than you can about Clifton parents. Bob Larsen and the principal did not want Sangster to take on any new kids. How are Sangster parents reacting to Larsen's actions? Is he the hero?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
NO!
()
Date: January 26, 2011 09:39AM
q&a Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't generalize about Sangster parents any
> more than you can about Clifton parents. Bob
> Larsen and the principal did not want Sangster to
> take on any new kids. How are Sangster parents
> reacting to Larsen's actions? Is he the hero?
NO!
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't generalize about Sangster parents any
> more than you can about Clifton parents. Bob
> Larsen and the principal did not want Sangster to
> take on any new kids. How are Sangster parents
> reacting to Larsen's actions? Is he the hero?
NO!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
re-election campaign
()
Date: January 26, 2011 10:04AM
Here's a theory so follow along kids...
Sangster is in Bradsher's district-more than half of Sangster kids have Fairfax Station addresses and therefore go to LBSS. The WSHS families that go to Sangster have already been screwed....again and will never vote for her. Make the FFX Station people happy = votes. Sangster is being played!
Sangster is in Bradsher's district-more than half of Sangster kids have Fairfax Station addresses and therefore go to LBSS. The WSHS families that go to Sangster have already been screwed....again and will never vote for her. Make the FFX Station people happy = votes. Sangster is being played!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sangster parents are HAPPY
()
Date: January 26, 2011 10:46AM
Sangster was taken off the table. Trailers will not be brought in to take in Clifton(elite, snobby, lilly white smart) kids. They are in the free and clear.
The Sangster PTA and principle knew this all along. At first they said they would accept kids. Now you say the Clifton kids are going to disrupt your community????
NOBODY cared in Fairfax about Clifton till they found out that they would need to make room for the Clifton elementary kids.
I am so glad I can afford private school. FCPS are a disgrace.
The Sangster PTA and principle knew this all along. At first they said they would accept kids. Now you say the Clifton kids are going to disrupt your community????
NOBODY cared in Fairfax about Clifton till they found out that they would need to make room for the Clifton elementary kids.
I am so glad I can afford private school. FCPS are a disgrace.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
notachance
()
Date: January 27, 2011 07:03AM
We will not have busses because our school is now within 1 mile of our house to Poplar.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Make the fat kids walk
()
Date: January 27, 2011 11:41AM
Make little Biff walk to school. I always laugh at moms who drive their kids four blocks to school. We had one mom who kept driving her sixth grade son. What a pussy.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
sdas
()
Date: January 27, 2011 12:51PM
stayingput () - regarding GBE to GBW:
The boundary being moved from GBE to GBW was in GBW till a few years back. So, many parents are actually glad this is happening. In addition, the move makes sense, just from looking at the map.
I can personally attest to the fact that a full day KG is a waste of both my kids time and county tax payers money.
Option D actually does a great job of matching a community with school boundary.
I guess only whiners are on this board.
The boundary being moved from GBE to GBW was in GBW till a few years back. So, many parents are actually glad this is happening. In addition, the move makes sense, just from looking at the map.
I can personally attest to the fact that a full day KG is a waste of both my kids time and county tax payers money.
Option D actually does a great job of matching a community with school boundary.
I guess only whiners are on this board.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
sw
()
Date: January 27, 2011 12:59PM
How come all the schools are not in this petition? I guess only those who had a same point of view ( don't care what is happening elsewhere and dont change anything with our school) signed on.
Oak View Elementary School PTA Colin Powell Elementary School PTA
Clifton Elementary School PTA Providence Elementary School PTA
Willow Springs Elementary School PTA Greenbriar West Elementary School PTA
Union Mill Elementary School PTA London Towne Elementary School PTA
Deer Park Elementary School PTA Poplar Tree Elementary School PTA
Fairview Elementary School PTA
Oak View Elementary School PTA Colin Powell Elementary School PTA
Clifton Elementary School PTA Providence Elementary School PTA
Willow Springs Elementary School PTA Greenbriar West Elementary School PTA
Union Mill Elementary School PTA London Towne Elementary School PTA
Deer Park Elementary School PTA Poplar Tree Elementary School PTA
Fairview Elementary School PTA
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: January 27, 2011 01:43PM
sw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How come all the schools are not in this petition?
> I guess only those who had a same point of view (
> don't care what is happening elsewhere and dont
> change anything with our school) signed on.
>
> Oak View Elementary School PTA Colin Powell
> Elementary School PTA
> Clifton Elementary School PTA Providence
> Elementary School PTA
> Willow Springs Elementary School PTA Greenbriar
> West Elementary School PTA
> Union Mill Elementary School PTA London Towne
> Elementary School PTA
All of the PTAs In the study were engaged to sign on. It has been a bit of an eye opener to see how many "are afraid" of going against the FCPS Board. Like some sort of retribution might occur to them if they sign-on.
> Deer Park Elementary School PTA Poplar Tree
> Elementary School PTA
> Fairview Elementary School PTA
-------------------------------------------------------
> How come all the schools are not in this petition?
> I guess only those who had a same point of view (
> don't care what is happening elsewhere and dont
> change anything with our school) signed on.
>
> Oak View Elementary School PTA Colin Powell
> Elementary School PTA
> Clifton Elementary School PTA Providence
> Elementary School PTA
> Willow Springs Elementary School PTA Greenbriar
> West Elementary School PTA
> Union Mill Elementary School PTA London Towne
> Elementary School PTA
All of the PTAs In the study were engaged to sign on. It has been a bit of an eye opener to see how many "are afraid" of going against the FCPS Board. Like some sort of retribution might occur to them if they sign-on.
> Deer Park Elementary School PTA Poplar Tree
> Elementary School PTA
> Fairview Elementary School PTA
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
trw
()
Date: January 27, 2011 02:53PM
Justataxpayer () - that BS.
And in addition the PTA's are also acting quite adamantly.
I am more than happy to see my kid go to Poplar Tree ( from GBW ) - but sure, the PTA goes ahead and submits a petition, even w/o soliciting much feedback.
The parents on these boards should focus more on what is being taught in the public school ( which is not much) and stop worrying about some necessary changes.
And in addition the PTA's are also acting quite adamantly.
I am more than happy to see my kid go to Poplar Tree ( from GBW ) - but sure, the PTA goes ahead and submits a petition, even w/o soliciting much feedback.
The parents on these boards should focus more on what is being taught in the public school ( which is not much) and stop worrying about some necessary changes.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: January 27, 2011 10:08PM
trw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justataxpayer () - that BS.
>
> And in addition the PTA's are also acting quite
> adamantly.
>
> I am more than happy to see my kid go to Poplar
> Tree ( from GBW ) - but sure, the PTA goes ahead
> and submits a petition, even w/o soliciting much
>
If the PTA did not represent your viewpoint you can have your voice heard by speaking at the upcoming public hearings on the boundaries. Now remember that some of the School Board members listen only to the silence, so be sure to speak quietly and agree adamantly with everying they say so you might actually be heard.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justataxpayer () - that BS.
>
> And in addition the PTA's are also acting quite
> adamantly.
>
> I am more than happy to see my kid go to Poplar
> Tree ( from GBW ) - but sure, the PTA goes ahead
> and submits a petition, even w/o soliciting much
>
If the PTA did not represent your viewpoint you can have your voice heard by speaking at the upcoming public hearings on the boundaries. Now remember that some of the School Board members listen only to the silence, so be sure to speak quietly and agree adamantly with everying they say so you might actually be heard.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
trailerSafety
()
Date: January 28, 2011 11:17AM
Have heard a lot about the cost of the additions. What about the cost of purchasing all the new trailers for these different schools that will serve as a temporary solution? Why isn't that cost being included in the total cost? If FCPS can keep crying to the County and the State that they don't have enough money and about overcrowding than they can't possibly just have a bunch of empty trailers sitting around somewhere.... How much is it going to cost to purchase all the trailers for these different schools?
Also, are there bathrooms in the trailers? If a young child has to go into the main building to use the bathroom, who is escorting them from the trailer to the main building? Does the teacher leave the rest of the class? How do they deal with child safety/security in this type of scenario?
Also, are there bathrooms in the trailers? If a young child has to go into the main building to use the bathroom, who is escorting them from the trailer to the main building? Does the teacher leave the rest of the class? How do they deal with child safety/security in this type of scenario?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
publichearing
()
Date: January 28, 2011 11:50AM
Justataxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> trw Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Justataxpayer () - that BS.
> >
> > And in addition the PTA's are also acting quite
> > adamantly.
> >
> > I am more than happy to see my kid go to Poplar
> > Tree ( from GBW ) - but sure, the PTA goes
> ahead
> > and submits a petition, even w/o soliciting
> much
> >
>
> If the PTA did not represent your viewpoint you
> can have your voice heard by speaking at the
> upcoming public hearings on the boundaries. Now
> remember that some of the School Board members
> listen only to the silence, so be sure to speak
> quietly and agree adamantly with everying they say
> so you might actually be heard.
There are those Board Members, however, that will listen if you AGREE with their viewpoint that this Boundary Study is the best solution as they are proposing it in which case they will take a quote out of your speech and give it to their Spin/Media Department who will then quickly publish it out to the Press and media as though it is the justification for everything. Everyone else will be ignored. That seems to be how the Public Hearings really work.
-------------------------------------------------------
> trw Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Justataxpayer () - that BS.
> >
> > And in addition the PTA's are also acting quite
> > adamantly.
> >
> > I am more than happy to see my kid go to Poplar
> > Tree ( from GBW ) - but sure, the PTA goes
> ahead
> > and submits a petition, even w/o soliciting
> much
> >
>
> If the PTA did not represent your viewpoint you
> can have your voice heard by speaking at the
> upcoming public hearings on the boundaries. Now
> remember that some of the School Board members
> listen only to the silence, so be sure to speak
> quietly and agree adamantly with everying they say
> so you might actually be heard.
There are those Board Members, however, that will listen if you AGREE with their viewpoint that this Boundary Study is the best solution as they are proposing it in which case they will take a quote out of your speech and give it to their Spin/Media Department who will then quickly publish it out to the Press and media as though it is the justification for everything. Everyone else will be ignored. That seems to be how the Public Hearings really work.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
why 20 schools?
()
Date: January 28, 2011 02:37PM
I still don't get why this study has to involve 20 schools.
If Clifton wasn't closed, how many schools are actually overcrowded?
Please don't direct me to some 20 page document or link-can you just list them?
Thanks-
If Clifton wasn't closed, how many schools are actually overcrowded?
Please don't direct me to some 20 page document or link-can you just list them?
Thanks-
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
GBE parent
()
Date: January 28, 2011 04:00PM
GBE currently has 8 trailers and six full time kindergartens. When you look at the proposed plans for the 15 new classrooms, with all of their additions,they are proposing creating new parking spots on top of neighbors backyards. I wish this study and all of the proposed options matched our community with the boundaries, but it just doesn't, If you ever look at the GBE and the GBW boundary map, it looks like a 1st grader was trying to trace lines. In some cases, houses on the same street don't attend the same schools. In other cases, one side of the street is GBE and the other GBW. Children that are next door neighbors sometimes don't attend the same schools b/c streets are just divided randomly by the boundaries. If you look at GBE's school profile, it shows 68% English proficiency with GBW being 85%. Most of GBE is Fair lakes apartments and condos and not families in Greenbriar.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thats Why
()
Date: January 28, 2011 04:06PM
Why 20 schools?
If Clifton wasn't closed, how many schools are actually overcrowded?
ALL 196 SCHOOLS ARE OVERCROWDED! This will be a problem always facing this County.
Here is the deal. Clifton was a neglected dump so they closed it. Now they are going to drop the kids into other schools. The County will decide where your children will go. They need a good mix of the kids from the big houses as well as the kids from the shitty apartments.
Kids from the big houses do well on the tests and typically the kids in the shitty apartments do not. The schools need a balance, so you don't have too many shitty kids bringing down any one particular school.
It does not matter how much you whine about it, they will do what they want. Just relax, take a deep breath, and put it all in perspective. You all live in one of the wealthiest economies in this country. Some of you need to take a step outside of Fairfax and see what passes for education in other parts of this country.
If Clifton wasn't closed, how many schools are actually overcrowded?
ALL 196 SCHOOLS ARE OVERCROWDED! This will be a problem always facing this County.
Here is the deal. Clifton was a neglected dump so they closed it. Now they are going to drop the kids into other schools. The County will decide where your children will go. They need a good mix of the kids from the big houses as well as the kids from the shitty apartments.
Kids from the big houses do well on the tests and typically the kids in the shitty apartments do not. The schools need a balance, so you don't have too many shitty kids bringing down any one particular school.
It does not matter how much you whine about it, they will do what they want. Just relax, take a deep breath, and put it all in perspective. You all live in one of the wealthiest economies in this country. Some of you need to take a step outside of Fairfax and see what passes for education in other parts of this country.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
GBE
()
Date: January 28, 2011 04:30PM
GBE parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GBE currently has 8 trailers and six full time
> kindergartens. When you look at the proposed plans
> for the 15 new classrooms, with all of their
> additions,they are proposing creating new parking
> spots on top of neighbors backyards. I wish this
> study and all of the proposed options matched our
> community with the boundaries, but it just
> doesn't, If you ever look at the GBE and the GBW
> boundary map, it looks like a 1st grader was
> trying to trace lines. In some cases, houses on
> the same street don't attend the same schools. In
> other cases, one side of the street is GBE and the
> other GBW. Children that are next door neighbors
> sometimes don't attend the same schools b/c
> streets are just divided randomly by the
> boundaries. If you look at GBE's school profile,
> it shows 68% English proficiency with GBW being
> 85%. Most of GBE is Fair lakes apartments and
> condos and not families in Greenbriar.
They could have brought a lot of the GBE Fair Lakes Apartments and condos kids down a short drive down Clifton Road to CLifton Elementary and a lot of the overcrowding would have then been solved with some minor other changes. However, than Liz Bradsher wouldn't have been able to bump CES off the renovation queue in order to please WSHS and Tessie and Stu Gibson's schools would have had to wait for renovation because they were also after CES. This side of the county is getting screwed.
OR
They also could have built a new school where Mountain View Alternative (old Centreville Elementary) is but OOPS (surprise! surprise!) the Facilities Department forgot to give that option to the Committee that studied this last summer. When they asked for properties that one wasn't included even thought it was right in the epicenter of crowding and even though at the same time they were trying to decide where to move alternative students too.
-------------------------------------------------------
> GBE currently has 8 trailers and six full time
> kindergartens. When you look at the proposed plans
> for the 15 new classrooms, with all of their
> additions,they are proposing creating new parking
> spots on top of neighbors backyards. I wish this
> study and all of the proposed options matched our
> community with the boundaries, but it just
> doesn't, If you ever look at the GBE and the GBW
> boundary map, it looks like a 1st grader was
> trying to trace lines. In some cases, houses on
> the same street don't attend the same schools. In
> other cases, one side of the street is GBE and the
> other GBW. Children that are next door neighbors
> sometimes don't attend the same schools b/c
> streets are just divided randomly by the
> boundaries. If you look at GBE's school profile,
> it shows 68% English proficiency with GBW being
> 85%. Most of GBE is Fair lakes apartments and
> condos and not families in Greenbriar.
They could have brought a lot of the GBE Fair Lakes Apartments and condos kids down a short drive down Clifton Road to CLifton Elementary and a lot of the overcrowding would have then been solved with some minor other changes. However, than Liz Bradsher wouldn't have been able to bump CES off the renovation queue in order to please WSHS and Tessie and Stu Gibson's schools would have had to wait for renovation because they were also after CES. This side of the county is getting screwed.
OR
They also could have built a new school where Mountain View Alternative (old Centreville Elementary) is but OOPS (surprise! surprise!) the Facilities Department forgot to give that option to the Committee that studied this last summer. When they asked for properties that one wasn't included even thought it was right in the epicenter of crowding and even though at the same time they were trying to decide where to move alternative students too.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: January 28, 2011 04:33PM
Thats Why Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why 20 schools?
> If Clifton wasn't closed, how many schools are
> actually overcrowded?
>
> ALL 196 SCHOOLS ARE OVERCROWDED! This will be a
> problem always facing this County.
Not true. Many schools are not utilized in the most efficient manner. Many have classrooms designed for 30 children where fewer than 10 are taught. It is poor planning that is causing the problems where they exist.
>
> Here is the deal. Clifton was a neglected dump so
> they closed it.
How many FCPS facilities have you been in? Have ou ever been inside of Clifton Elementary? Part of the school is old but not a dump.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why 20 schools?
> If Clifton wasn't closed, how many schools are
> actually overcrowded?
>
> ALL 196 SCHOOLS ARE OVERCROWDED! This will be a
> problem always facing this County.
Not true. Many schools are not utilized in the most efficient manner. Many have classrooms designed for 30 children where fewer than 10 are taught. It is poor planning that is causing the problems where they exist.
>
> Here is the deal. Clifton was a neglected dump so
> they closed it.
How many FCPS facilities have you been in? Have ou ever been inside of Clifton Elementary? Part of the school is old but not a dump.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
don't think so
()
Date: January 28, 2011 04:34PM
Well, funny thing, as I go thru the CIP, I see a number of schools that are under capacity.
Fox Mill 109 seats available
Willow Springs 253 seats available
Fairfax Villa 43 seats available
Oak Hill 116 seats available
Lees Corner 23 seats available
Brookfield 42 seats available
Centre Ridge 24 seats
Union Mill 32 seats
etc, etc,....
Again, if Clifton folks aren't added into this mix, would we have an overcrowding problem that couldn't be resolved involving only a few schools?
I don't get why this has to be so massive.
Fox Mill 109 seats available
Willow Springs 253 seats available
Fairfax Villa 43 seats available
Oak Hill 116 seats available
Lees Corner 23 seats available
Brookfield 42 seats available
Centre Ridge 24 seats
Union Mill 32 seats
etc, etc,....
Again, if Clifton folks aren't added into this mix, would we have an overcrowding problem that couldn't be resolved involving only a few schools?
I don't get why this has to be so massive.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
rew
()
Date: January 28, 2011 05:00PM
Seriously - will Clifton folks stop thinking this is all about them?
There are major over-crowding issues across several schools and in many case boundaries are plain silly ( as someone earlier pointed it out - thank you much!)
The SW boundary changes are attempting to correct some of these issues. And they are doing a pretty decent job at that.
So the PTA's from all the schools need to really stop getting hyper and gossiping about how the FCPS board is out to screw the lives of kids in the community.
There are major over-crowding issues across several schools and in many case boundaries are plain silly ( as someone earlier pointed it out - thank you much!)
The SW boundary changes are attempting to correct some of these issues. And they are doing a pretty decent job at that.
So the PTA's from all the schools need to really stop getting hyper and gossiping about how the FCPS board is out to screw the lives of kids in the community.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
reader
()
Date: January 28, 2011 05:06PM
Well, funny thing, as I go thru the CIP, I see a number of schools that are under capacity.
Fox Mill 109 seats available
Willow Springs 253 seats available
Fairfax Villa 43 seats available
Oak Hill 116 seats available
Lees Corner 23 seats available
Brookfield 42 seats available
Centre Ridge 24 seats
Union Mill 32 seats
I'm not sure this is true. If you look at the membership profile, I see that Oak Hill has 850 students. This is with the use of a modular unit. I find it hard to believe there are 116 seats available. The gym and cafeteria are small.
Fox Mill 109 seats available
Willow Springs 253 seats available
Fairfax Villa 43 seats available
Oak Hill 116 seats available
Lees Corner 23 seats available
Brookfield 42 seats available
Centre Ridge 24 seats
Union Mill 32 seats
I'm not sure this is true. If you look at the membership profile, I see that Oak Hill has 850 students. This is with the use of a modular unit. I find it hard to believe there are 116 seats available. The gym and cafeteria are small.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 28, 2011 05:25PM
For all of you that believe what FCPS is telling you about Clifton, here's more proof that they lied about the water problems. Even this email is misleading. Copper and lead don't come from the ground! They come from copper plumbing with lead solders. The wells at Clifton were never the problem, ineffective equipment was the problem.
Dear Clifton Elementary Parent:
Since October 2008, students and staff at Clifton Elementary School have used bottled water for drinking due to elevated lead and copper levels in the groundwater system (wells). After careful analysis, a team of experts agreed that the elevated levels resulted from the inability of the corrosion control system to sufficiently control the low pH in the groundwater. This team was composed of representatives from the Virginia Department of Health’s Office of Drinking Water, Virginia Machinery and Well Company (a drinking water treatment industry expert), and Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) engineers, and maintenance, safety and environmental staff.
As a result of these findings, FCPS staff installed a new corrosion filtration system in May 2010, capable of raising the pH level of the water, which reduces the amount of copper and lead in the water.
We are pleased to report that the water is now safe to drink as the pH level has been raised sufficiently and the water is no longer leaching lead or copper into the distribution system. This report is based on the two most recent tests, the results of which were in full compliance with the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lead and Copper rule.
With the new corrosion control system optimally working and having consistently favorable water results, FCPS maintenance staff will remove the water fountain bubbler covers and replace any missing water fountain spigots. They will also clean and flush these devices to prepare them for use. This work will take place during the upcoming teacher workdays on January 31 and February 1. Drinking fountains will be safe and fully operational beginning on February 2.
For those staff and students who might be concerned about water quality and would like to continue using bottled water, FCPS will provide bottled water for their use.
FCPS staff will be regularly testing and monitoring the water quality and distribution system to ensure the safety of the water supply.
We anticipate that staff, parents, and students may have questions or concerns regarding the well water. Please feel free to direct those questions or concerns to Douglass O’Neill, Coordinator of Safety and Environmental Health, at 571-423-2016 or at doneill@fcps.edu. Thank you very much.
-----About this E-mail-----
This e-mail has been sent to you by FCPS. To maximize their communication with you, you may be receiving this e-mail in addition to a phone call with the same message. If you wish to discontinue this service, please inform FCPS IN PERSON, by US MAIL, by TELEPHONE at (571) 423-1210 or REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL.
Dear Clifton Elementary Parent:
Since October 2008, students and staff at Clifton Elementary School have used bottled water for drinking due to elevated lead and copper levels in the groundwater system (wells). After careful analysis, a team of experts agreed that the elevated levels resulted from the inability of the corrosion control system to sufficiently control the low pH in the groundwater. This team was composed of representatives from the Virginia Department of Health’s Office of Drinking Water, Virginia Machinery and Well Company (a drinking water treatment industry expert), and Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) engineers, and maintenance, safety and environmental staff.
As a result of these findings, FCPS staff installed a new corrosion filtration system in May 2010, capable of raising the pH level of the water, which reduces the amount of copper and lead in the water.
We are pleased to report that the water is now safe to drink as the pH level has been raised sufficiently and the water is no longer leaching lead or copper into the distribution system. This report is based on the two most recent tests, the results of which were in full compliance with the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lead and Copper rule.
With the new corrosion control system optimally working and having consistently favorable water results, FCPS maintenance staff will remove the water fountain bubbler covers and replace any missing water fountain spigots. They will also clean and flush these devices to prepare them for use. This work will take place during the upcoming teacher workdays on January 31 and February 1. Drinking fountains will be safe and fully operational beginning on February 2.
For those staff and students who might be concerned about water quality and would like to continue using bottled water, FCPS will provide bottled water for their use.
FCPS staff will be regularly testing and monitoring the water quality and distribution system to ensure the safety of the water supply.
We anticipate that staff, parents, and students may have questions or concerns regarding the well water. Please feel free to direct those questions or concerns to Douglass O’Neill, Coordinator of Safety and Environmental Health, at 571-423-2016 or at doneill@fcps.edu. Thank you very much.
-----About this E-mail-----
This e-mail has been sent to you by FCPS. To maximize their communication with you, you may be receiving this e-mail in addition to a phone call with the same message. If you wish to discontinue this service, please inform FCPS IN PERSON, by US MAIL, by TELEPHONE at (571) 423-1210 or REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
reader
()
Date: January 28, 2011 05:31PM
Is it possible that this letter is giving FCPS an "out" to gracefully change its mind about closing Clifton? Maybe a little common sense will kick in.....
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Clifton well water
()
Date: January 28, 2011 05:42PM
reader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it possible that this letter is giving FCPS an
> "out" to gracefully change its mind about closing
> Clifton? Maybe a little common sense will kick
> in.....
"As a result of these findings, FCPS staff installed a new corrosion filtration system in May 2010, capable of raising the pH level of the water, which reduces the amount of copper and lead in the water"
If the filtration was installed in May 2010 wouldn't they have known this when they voted in July?
And why the need for bottled water still if the "problem" was fixed last May?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it possible that this letter is giving FCPS an
> "out" to gracefully change its mind about closing
> Clifton? Maybe a little common sense will kick
> in.....
"As a result of these findings, FCPS staff installed a new corrosion filtration system in May 2010, capable of raising the pH level of the water, which reduces the amount of copper and lead in the water"
If the filtration was installed in May 2010 wouldn't they have known this when they voted in July?
And why the need for bottled water still if the "problem" was fixed last May?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: January 28, 2011 06:15PM
Clifton well water Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is it possible that this letter is giving FCPS
> an
> > "out" to gracefully change its mind about
> closing
> > Clifton? Maybe a little common sense will kick
> > in.....
>
>
> "As a result of these findings, FCPS staff
> installed a new corrosion filtration system in May
> 2010, capable of raising the pH level of the
> water, which reduces the amount of copper and lead
> in the water"
>
> If the filtration was installed in May 2010
> wouldn't they have known this when they voted in
> July?
>
> And why the need for bottled water still if the
> "problem" was fixed last May?
The problem is FCPS indicated anyone consuming the well water would likely wind up glowing in the dark and contracting all kinds of cancers. You can read the report they provided during the SW Boundary Study process. The preliminary report indicating the radioactive material was no longer present in the water didn't get released until partially during the actual meeting where the vote to close occurred and then the final bit came a week or so after the vote to close.
I would say that the reason they would offer bottled water (in large water coolers, not individual bottles by the way as Liz Bradsher thought was the case) was the fact they scared the crap out of some of the parents when they put forward all the cancer causing reports about the well water reports prior to the "fix". And actually, there were 2 "fixes" implemented. 1) Was as noted in the e-mail they installed the new corrosion filtration system and 2) Required them to decrease the depth of one of the wells which was producing the radioactive water. In the case of item 2 the reason the water was radioactive was it was actually coming from an aquifer above the radioactive rock layer and then falling down into the bottom of the 600ft or so deep well and collecting radioactive matter on the way back up the well to the pump house. The well bottom was brought up to the aquifer level and the water no longer was passing through the radioactive layer and voila, no more radioactive well water.
-------------------------------------------------------
> reader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is it possible that this letter is giving FCPS
> an
> > "out" to gracefully change its mind about
> closing
> > Clifton? Maybe a little common sense will kick
> > in.....
>
>
> "As a result of these findings, FCPS staff
> installed a new corrosion filtration system in May
> 2010, capable of raising the pH level of the
> water, which reduces the amount of copper and lead
> in the water"
>
> If the filtration was installed in May 2010
> wouldn't they have known this when they voted in
> July?
>
> And why the need for bottled water still if the
> "problem" was fixed last May?
The problem is FCPS indicated anyone consuming the well water would likely wind up glowing in the dark and contracting all kinds of cancers. You can read the report they provided during the SW Boundary Study process. The preliminary report indicating the radioactive material was no longer present in the water didn't get released until partially during the actual meeting where the vote to close occurred and then the final bit came a week or so after the vote to close.
I would say that the reason they would offer bottled water (in large water coolers, not individual bottles by the way as Liz Bradsher thought was the case) was the fact they scared the crap out of some of the parents when they put forward all the cancer causing reports about the well water reports prior to the "fix". And actually, there were 2 "fixes" implemented. 1) Was as noted in the e-mail they installed the new corrosion filtration system and 2) Required them to decrease the depth of one of the wells which was producing the radioactive water. In the case of item 2 the reason the water was radioactive was it was actually coming from an aquifer above the radioactive rock layer and then falling down into the bottom of the 600ft or so deep well and collecting radioactive matter on the way back up the well to the pump house. The well bottom was brought up to the aquifer level and the water no longer was passing through the radioactive layer and voila, no more radioactive well water.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
offtopic
()
Date: January 28, 2011 06:37PM
To be honest, you dont know which battle to fight. Every day its a different one. Bere that its GBE and Fair Lakes Trailors. Today its the water. Then its GBW 1/2 day kindergarten. Then its no busses. Then its no PTA. Get focus people.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 28, 2011 06:55PM
Justataxpayer wrote:
2) Required them to decrease the depth of one of the wells which was producing the radioactive water. In the case of item 2 the reason the water was radioactive was it was actually coming from an aquifer above the radioactive rock layer and then falling down into the bottom of the 600ft or so deep well and collecting radioactive matter on the way back up the well to the pump house. The well bottom was brought up to the aquifer level and the water no longer was passing through the radioactive layer and voila, no more radioactive well water.
But this is the well that is not even hooked up to the school. Has it been reconnected? I don't believe it has. I think they simply "fixed" the ph issues and are still using the same wells that serve the school now. My understanding is that well #3, the one with the supposed contamination issue is simply a back up well in case one of the other 2 that currently serve the school fail.
2) Required them to decrease the depth of one of the wells which was producing the radioactive water. In the case of item 2 the reason the water was radioactive was it was actually coming from an aquifer above the radioactive rock layer and then falling down into the bottom of the 600ft or so deep well and collecting radioactive matter on the way back up the well to the pump house. The well bottom was brought up to the aquifer level and the water no longer was passing through the radioactive layer and voila, no more radioactive well water.
But this is the well that is not even hooked up to the school. Has it been reconnected? I don't believe it has. I think they simply "fixed" the ph issues and are still using the same wells that serve the school now. My understanding is that well #3, the one with the supposed contamination issue is simply a back up well in case one of the other 2 that currently serve the school fail.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
iowef
()
Date: January 28, 2011 08:52PM
"The wells at Clifton were never the problem, ineffective equipment was the problem."
Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any fool will realize that a school which gets its water from a well in this day and age is probably nearing its end.
And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on your state of mind.
Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any fool will realize that a school which gets its water from a well in this day and age is probably nearing its end.
And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on your state of mind.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
uninformed
()
Date: January 28, 2011 09:05PM
iowef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The wells at Clifton were never the problem,
> ineffective equipment was the problem."
>
> Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any fool
> will realize that a school which gets its water
> from a well in this day and age is probably
> nearing its end.
>
> And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call
> kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on your
> state of mind.
There are houses built all the time in Fairfax County that have wells. Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem, 75-80% are on well water.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The wells at Clifton were never the problem,
> ineffective equipment was the problem."
>
> Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any fool
> will realize that a school which gets its water
> from a well in this day and age is probably
> nearing its end.
>
> And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call
> kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on your
> state of mind.
There are houses built all the time in Fairfax County that have wells. Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem, 75-80% are on well water.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
left field
()
Date: January 28, 2011 09:11PM
herewegoagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For all of you that believe what FCPS is telling
> you about Clifton, here's more proof that they
> lied about the water problems. Even this email is
> misleading. Copper and lead don't come from the
> ground! They come from copper plumbing with lead
> solders. The wells at Clifton were never the
> problem, ineffective equipment was the problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Clifton Elementary Parent:
>
> Since October 2008, students and staff at Clifton
> Elementary School have used bottled water for
> drinking due to elevated lead and copper levels in
> the groundwater system (wells). After careful
> analysis, a team of experts agreed that the
> elevated levels resulted from the inability of the
> corrosion control system to sufficiently control
> the low pH in the groundwater. This team was
> composed of representatives from the Virginia
> Department of Health’s Office of Drinking Water,
> Virginia Machinery and Well Company (a drinking
> water treatment industry expert), and Fairfax
> County Public Schools (FCPS) engineers, and
> maintenance, safety and environmental staff.
>
> As a result of these findings, FCPS staff
> installed a new corrosion filtration system in May
> 2010, capable of raising the pH level of the
> water, which reduces the amount of copper and lead
> in the water.
>
> We are pleased to report that the water is now
> safe to drink as the pH level has been raised
> sufficiently and the water is no longer leaching
> lead or copper into the distribution system. This
> report is based on the two most recent tests, the
> results of which were in full compliance with the
> Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S.
> Environmental Protection Agency Lead and Copper
> rule.
>
> With the new corrosion control system optimally
> working and having consistently favorable water
> results, FCPS maintenance staff will remove the
> water fountain bubbler covers and replace any
> missing water fountain spigots. They will also
> clean and flush these devices to prepare them for
> use. This work will take place during the upcoming
> teacher workdays on January 31 and February 1.
> Drinking fountains will be safe and fully
> operational beginning on February 2.
>
> For those staff and students who might be
> concerned about water quality and would like to
> continue using bottled water, FCPS will provide
> bottled water for their use.
>
> FCPS staff will be regularly testing and
> monitoring the water quality and distribution
> system to ensure the safety of the water supply.
>
>
> We anticipate that staff, parents, and students
> may have questions or concerns regarding the well
> water. Please feel free to direct those questions
> or concerns to Douglass O’Neill, Coordinator of
> Safety and Environmental Health, at 571-423-2016
> or at doneill@fcps.edu. Thank you very much.
>
>
>
>
> -----About this E-mail-----
>
> This e-mail has been sent to you by FCPS. To
> maximize their communication with you, you may be
> receiving this e-mail in addition to a phone call
> with the same message. If you wish to discontinue
> this service, please inform FCPS IN PERSON, by US
> MAIL, by TELEPHONE at (571) 423-1210 or REPLY TO
> THIS E-MAIL.
This is a letter that Clifton parents just received?
-------------------------------------------------------
> For all of you that believe what FCPS is telling
> you about Clifton, here's more proof that they
> lied about the water problems. Even this email is
> misleading. Copper and lead don't come from the
> ground! They come from copper plumbing with lead
> solders. The wells at Clifton were never the
> problem, ineffective equipment was the problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Clifton Elementary Parent:
>
> Since October 2008, students and staff at Clifton
> Elementary School have used bottled water for
> drinking due to elevated lead and copper levels in
> the groundwater system (wells). After careful
> analysis, a team of experts agreed that the
> elevated levels resulted from the inability of the
> corrosion control system to sufficiently control
> the low pH in the groundwater. This team was
> composed of representatives from the Virginia
> Department of Health’s Office of Drinking Water,
> Virginia Machinery and Well Company (a drinking
> water treatment industry expert), and Fairfax
> County Public Schools (FCPS) engineers, and
> maintenance, safety and environmental staff.
>
> As a result of these findings, FCPS staff
> installed a new corrosion filtration system in May
> 2010, capable of raising the pH level of the
> water, which reduces the amount of copper and lead
> in the water.
>
> We are pleased to report that the water is now
> safe to drink as the pH level has been raised
> sufficiently and the water is no longer leaching
> lead or copper into the distribution system. This
> report is based on the two most recent tests, the
> results of which were in full compliance with the
> Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S.
> Environmental Protection Agency Lead and Copper
> rule.
>
> With the new corrosion control system optimally
> working and having consistently favorable water
> results, FCPS maintenance staff will remove the
> water fountain bubbler covers and replace any
> missing water fountain spigots. They will also
> clean and flush these devices to prepare them for
> use. This work will take place during the upcoming
> teacher workdays on January 31 and February 1.
> Drinking fountains will be safe and fully
> operational beginning on February 2.
>
> For those staff and students who might be
> concerned about water quality and would like to
> continue using bottled water, FCPS will provide
> bottled water for their use.
>
> FCPS staff will be regularly testing and
> monitoring the water quality and distribution
> system to ensure the safety of the water supply.
>
>
> We anticipate that staff, parents, and students
> may have questions or concerns regarding the well
> water. Please feel free to direct those questions
> or concerns to Douglass O’Neill, Coordinator of
> Safety and Environmental Health, at 571-423-2016
> or at doneill@fcps.edu. Thank you very much.
>
>
>
>
> -----About this E-mail-----
>
> This e-mail has been sent to you by FCPS. To
> maximize their communication with you, you may be
> receiving this e-mail in addition to a phone call
> with the same message. If you wish to discontinue
> this service, please inform FCPS IN PERSON, by US
> MAIL, by TELEPHONE at (571) 423-1210 or REPLY TO
> THIS E-MAIL.
This is a letter that Clifton parents just received?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
iowef
()
Date: January 28, 2011 09:19PM
"Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem, 75-80% are on well water."
Clearly its points to why FCPS chose to close CES
I am honestly sorry for CES parents - but from FCPS point of view, looks like it made no sense to invest additional $ into a resource that was serving so few families.
Clearly its points to why FCPS chose to close CES
I am honestly sorry for CES parents - but from FCPS point of view, looks like it made no sense to invest additional $ into a resource that was serving so few families.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
hello!
()
Date: January 28, 2011 09:20PM
uninformed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> iowef Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "The wells at Clifton were never the problem,
> > ineffective equipment was the problem."
> >
> > Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> > goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any
> fool
> > will realize that a school which gets its water
> > from a well in this day and age is probably
> > nearing its end.
> >
> > And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call
> > kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on
> your
> > state of mind.
>
There are houses built all the time in Fairfax
> County that have wells. Of the 200 families that
> attend Clifton Elem, 75-80% are on well water.
Not to mention the hundreds of houses by fountainhead park that go to Lake Braddock, and houses in Oakton.
-------------------------------------------------------
> iowef Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "The wells at Clifton were never the problem,
> > ineffective equipment was the problem."
> >
> > Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> > goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any
> fool
> > will realize that a school which gets its water
> > from a well in this day and age is probably
> > nearing its end.
> >
> > And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call
> > kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on
> your
> > state of mind.
>
There are houses built all the time in Fairfax
> County that have wells. Of the 200 families that
> attend Clifton Elem, 75-80% are on well water.
Not to mention the hundreds of houses by fountainhead park that go to Lake Braddock, and houses in Oakton.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
I live in Clifton
()
Date: January 28, 2011 09:20PM
My house is twenty years old. I bought my house three years ago. We had our well tested and we have a filtration system. It works great and the water is no problem.
I never thought the water at the school was a deal. If anything I gave water bottles to my kids each day to go with lunch. Water is better for you teeth ect. It has NEVER ben a big deal at Clifton. Plus after the H1N1 who would wants a child drinking out of a nasty fountain?
I never thought the water at the school was a deal. If anything I gave water bottles to my kids each day to go with lunch. Water is better for you teeth ect. It has NEVER ben a big deal at Clifton. Plus after the H1N1 who would wants a child drinking out of a nasty fountain?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
letter today
()
Date: January 28, 2011 10:02PM
>
> This is a letter that Clifton parents just
> received?
Yes, Clifton Elem parents received this letter today via FCPS keep-in-touch email.
> This is a letter that Clifton parents just
> received?
Yes, Clifton Elem parents received this letter today via FCPS keep-in-touch email.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 28, 2011 10:06PM
iowef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem,
> 75-80% are on well water."
>
> Clearly its points to why FCPS chose to close CES
>
>
> I am honestly sorry for CES parents - but from
> FCPS point of view, looks like it made no sense to
> invest additional $ into a resource that was
> serving so few families.
I'm sorry, I truly mean no offense by what I'm about to say, but you don't know what you are talking about.
It is NOT necessary to invest additional $$$$$ at CES right now. In this economy, FCPS SHOULD be focusing on the schools that are in desperate need of renovations. CES isn't one of them. That is not a reason to close it.
As for "serving so few families", the attendance area for CES consists of over 2200 homes. Not all of those homes currently have elementary school aged children. Many are now in MS and HS, and many are empty nesters. Many of the empty nesters will be moving on at some point, and those homes will sell. What are the odds of families with small children moving in? There are several new families in Clifton this year, and many of them have small children that will attend school in the next 2-4 years, myself included.
In addition, the school is currently at 99% capacity. Clearly, the attendance for the school is not a problem. Before you say 'well, in that case, the school is just too small to maintain.' There are many schools smaller than CES and
the great majority of them are much more expensive to maintain.
Oh yeah, and CES just won the 2011 Virginia Board of Education Excellence Award.
READ this thread from the very beginning and you'll start to see the light.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem,
> 75-80% are on well water."
>
> Clearly its points to why FCPS chose to close CES
>
>
> I am honestly sorry for CES parents - but from
> FCPS point of view, looks like it made no sense to
> invest additional $ into a resource that was
> serving so few families.
I'm sorry, I truly mean no offense by what I'm about to say, but you don't know what you are talking about.
It is NOT necessary to invest additional $$$$$ at CES right now. In this economy, FCPS SHOULD be focusing on the schools that are in desperate need of renovations. CES isn't one of them. That is not a reason to close it.
As for "serving so few families", the attendance area for CES consists of over 2200 homes. Not all of those homes currently have elementary school aged children. Many are now in MS and HS, and many are empty nesters. Many of the empty nesters will be moving on at some point, and those homes will sell. What are the odds of families with small children moving in? There are several new families in Clifton this year, and many of them have small children that will attend school in the next 2-4 years, myself included.
In addition, the school is currently at 99% capacity. Clearly, the attendance for the school is not a problem. Before you say 'well, in that case, the school is just too small to maintain.' There are many schools smaller than CES and
the great majority of them are much more expensive to maintain.
Oh yeah, and CES just won the 2011 Virginia Board of Education Excellence Award.
READ this thread from the very beginning and you'll start to see the light.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
coreissue
()
Date: January 28, 2011 10:29PM
offtopic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be honest, you dont know which battle to fight.
> Every day its a different one. Bere that its GBE
> and Fair Lakes Trailors. Today its the water.
> Then its GBW 1/2 day kindergarten. Then its no
> busses. Then its no PTA. Get focus people.
The core issue is that the closing of Clifton is creating this domino effect of other issues and new or unresolved problems so the discussion is now scattered. People are focusing in on which issue is personally affecting them whether it is boundaries or PTA or whatever but it is all being spawned from the same core issue which is the closing of Clifton.
This is only the beginning. Once they are done with screwing around with the elementary schools they are going to go after the middle and high school boundaries. This magnitude of changes could have been avoided though had they not voted to close Clifton. It is simply common sense that if you close a school in area that supposedly already has overcrowding that this would happen. If there was something truly wrong with Clifton it would be illegal for them to have kids attending it right now. It wouldn't have just won the Governor's Award, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be honest, you dont know which battle to fight.
> Every day its a different one. Bere that its GBE
> and Fair Lakes Trailors. Today its the water.
> Then its GBW 1/2 day kindergarten. Then its no
> busses. Then its no PTA. Get focus people.
The core issue is that the closing of Clifton is creating this domino effect of other issues and new or unresolved problems so the discussion is now scattered. People are focusing in on which issue is personally affecting them whether it is boundaries or PTA or whatever but it is all being spawned from the same core issue which is the closing of Clifton.
This is only the beginning. Once they are done with screwing around with the elementary schools they are going to go after the middle and high school boundaries. This magnitude of changes could have been avoided though had they not voted to close Clifton. It is simply common sense that if you close a school in area that supposedly already has overcrowding that this would happen. If there was something truly wrong with Clifton it would be illegal for them to have kids attending it right now. It wouldn't have just won the Governor's Award, etc.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
GBWisokay
()
Date: January 29, 2011 10:20AM
GBW is okay. GBW Principal smiles a lot. Principal at Rocky Run will not allow for boundary changes at his school. No worries there. Liberty will do as told they are a new school. Chantilly needs a new turf field but is good other than that. Centreville is old. Westfield has bad rap. I support decision to keep us at GBW. I am sure the principal at GBW will miss us if we leave. Keep us there.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 29, 2011 11:05AM
I would love to stay at GBW, but do I think it is going to happen -- no. I think the school board has been very involved in this final "staff plan". I think the are purposely not flaunting it on the site to keep people unaware. I do not know how many parents I have talked to even with PTA emails being sent out that are not aware that Option D is gone baby gone. I have written my letters. I will go to the board meeting and be involved. That said - when I end up at Poplar Tree next year, I will be actively involved and help make a smooth and positive transition for my children. I think the school board is filled with stubborn individuals that cater to those who line their reelection coffers and they are out for themselves - the BS that they are trying to do a plan that effects the least people is not the case. The fact that they are making clean boundaries flies out the window when a portion of our area (the closest to Poplar Tree by the way and on this side of Stringfellow still goes to GBW??). They are going to do what they want and it is going to get pushed through to start this fall - I still plan to speak out but I feel like it is bailing a sinking ship with a dixie cup .
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
GBWisokay
()
Date: January 29, 2011 12:41PM
I like the chocolate and vanilla mixed dixie cups from Giant in the 8 pack. But that is not important. stayingput we should go to the meeting together. Do you still work at the school or just focusng on the kids for now.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
GBWisokay
()
Date: January 29, 2011 12:42PM
Will those off of Stringfellow to Poplar be bussed?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
H2O
()
Date: January 29, 2011 02:03PM
Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any fool
> will realize that a school which gets its water
> from a well in this day and age is probably
> nearing its end.
Do people understand that water sinks into the ground and is stored in underground aquifers? No wonder this country is failing in science. Yes, you can get it from a river, but there are tons of wells in this country and lots of people would have no water if not for wells! I grew up and my whole town's water was from wells. Where do people get these strange ideas about water?? Some of the best water you can drink comes from under the ground (not on top!). This is not a middle ages concept at all. If you enjoy drinking runoff water with chlorine in it, fine. The problem with Clifton was not the well---it was the pipes---which are a problem all over the place because lead was used in the past for pipes. This problem affects your water that is coming from the rivers also.
> goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any fool
> will realize that a school which gets its water
> from a well in this day and age is probably
> nearing its end.
Do people understand that water sinks into the ground and is stored in underground aquifers? No wonder this country is failing in science. Yes, you can get it from a river, but there are tons of wells in this country and lots of people would have no water if not for wells! I grew up and my whole town's water was from wells. Where do people get these strange ideas about water?? Some of the best water you can drink comes from under the ground (not on top!). This is not a middle ages concept at all. If you enjoy drinking runoff water with chlorine in it, fine. The problem with Clifton was not the well---it was the pipes---which are a problem all over the place because lead was used in the past for pipes. This problem affects your water that is coming from the rivers also.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
question about Clifton elementary
()
Date: January 29, 2011 02:18PM
Why would FCPS pay to have the lines flushed and work on the water fountains for two days if Clifton is closing in June? Why waste the money if you are going to close the school?
I hope this is a sign that Clifton is now going to stay open. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
I hope this is a sign that Clifton is now going to stay open. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 29, 2011 02:42PM
GBWisokay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will those off of Stringfellow to Poplar be
> bussed?
As the final proposal sets those off Marshall Crown and along Veronica Rd to a certain point will be bussed to GBW.
Worthington Woods goes to Poplar Tree and everything back from there - all the neighborhoods off Doyle would go as well and the additional streets behind there. Page 20 of the appendix of the final proposal lists the HOAs being moved, but I know the Veronica Road HOA gets split somewhere and it is very hard from the provided map to ascertain the exact cutoff.
Common sense would dictate that the Marshall Crown bus is the same bus that would go through the rest of Northbourne and pick up the kids who are in the AAP center at GBW as well (but I have not seen a lot of sommone sense when it comes to this or any bus issues EVER). There would be at least 1 if not 2 buses from Poplar Tree to pick up kids who lived in the transition area. I know off Doyle they have had to have 2 buses because the Heathrow stop fills almost a whole bus, but when you add the rest of the Doyle stops it puts it past maximum (they try every few years for the first week and then go back to 2 buses for a couple of years till they forget and try it as one again). They will have to provide the bussing based on the distance elementary equation - so they do not save any money there, but I really don't think our move has anything to do with saving on transportation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will those off of Stringfellow to Poplar be
> bussed?
As the final proposal sets those off Marshall Crown and along Veronica Rd to a certain point will be bussed to GBW.
Worthington Woods goes to Poplar Tree and everything back from there - all the neighborhoods off Doyle would go as well and the additional streets behind there. Page 20 of the appendix of the final proposal lists the HOAs being moved, but I know the Veronica Road HOA gets split somewhere and it is very hard from the provided map to ascertain the exact cutoff.
Common sense would dictate that the Marshall Crown bus is the same bus that would go through the rest of Northbourne and pick up the kids who are in the AAP center at GBW as well (but I have not seen a lot of sommone sense when it comes to this or any bus issues EVER). There would be at least 1 if not 2 buses from Poplar Tree to pick up kids who lived in the transition area. I know off Doyle they have had to have 2 buses because the Heathrow stop fills almost a whole bus, but when you add the rest of the Doyle stops it puts it past maximum (they try every few years for the first week and then go back to 2 buses for a couple of years till they forget and try it as one again). They will have to provide the bussing based on the distance elementary equation - so they do not save any money there, but I really don't think our move has anything to do with saving on transportation.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FlorisR
()
Date: January 29, 2011 03:15PM
The comments on this list regarding the boundaries are almost comical. You act as though once the boundary study is done than you will know what school you are going too and this whole mess will be solved. Well, maybe you will know for one year. The people on this list are SERIOUSLY oblivious to what goes on in the rest of the County. For example, Floris Elementary was redistricted multiple times within 1-3 years.
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=322466&paper=66&cat=104
The only way you are going to save yourselves a lot of grief is if they don't shut down that school and you get them to stop this boundary study now. And you think you are going to get additions on your schools? Ha! Think again. You'll have those trailers for YEARS!!!! Eventually they will build that school they wanted to build in the first place and you will get shifted again! You need to wake up and start looking at what has been going on around the rest of the County because you are living in a bubble.
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=322466&paper=66&cat=104
The only way you are going to save yourselves a lot of grief is if they don't shut down that school and you get them to stop this boundary study now. And you think you are going to get additions on your schools? Ha! Think again. You'll have those trailers for YEARS!!!! Eventually they will build that school they wanted to build in the first place and you will get shifted again! You need to wake up and start looking at what has been going on around the rest of the County because you are living in a bubble.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
notclear
()
Date: January 29, 2011 03:22PM
Will all of Hawthourne Forest HOA have buses? In snow we would not get there ever.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FlorisR
()
Date: January 29, 2011 03:22PM
Here is another story for those of you that are living in a bubble about what goes on with redistricting.
"School officials are trying to force boundary changes on communities that have already been redistricted five times in nine years. One mother told The Examiner that her three daughters will have diplomas from three different high schools, even though the family hasn’t moved since 1991"
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/junk-fairfax-school-redistricting-plan?quicktabs_1=0#ixzz1CSR2PP8t
"School officials are trying to force boundary changes on communities that have already been redistricted five times in nine years. One mother told The Examiner that her three daughters will have diplomas from three different high schools, even though the family hasn’t moved since 1991"
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/junk-fairfax-school-redistricting-plan?quicktabs_1=0#ixzz1CSR2PP8t
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Trailers
()
Date: January 29, 2011 03:37PM
question about Clifton elementary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would FCPS pay to have the lines flushed and
> work on the water fountains for two days if
> Clifton is closing in June? Why waste the money if
> you are going to close the school?
>
> I hope this is a sign that Clifton is now going to
> stay open. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Don't most of the "closed" schools get turned into FCPS Admin buildings? Trailers are okay for the kids but the staff gets brick and mortar buildings... For example, this School Board was ready to build Gatehouse II Admin Offices for themselves (complete with granite flooring and state of the art gym) why thousands of kids in the County are in trailers. If the County Supervisors hadn't stepped in and said No to Gatehouse II they WOULD have built it. Do you still believe in this boundary study and that your kids deserve to be put in trailers?
Read this:
"In the middle of what economists are calling a once-in-a-century economic free fall, when taxpayers are watching jobs, home equity and retirement funds literally disappearing before their eyes, Dale and the bobbleheads on the School Board want to spend another $130 million on overpaid school administrators instead of kids?"
"On a marble palace for paper-pushing adults while thousands of children have to learn in 900 flimsy trailers that cannot be secured, which one veteran teacher told me were nothing more than “chicken coops�"
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/2009/02/breaking-news-supervisors-just-say-no-gatehouse
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would FCPS pay to have the lines flushed and
> work on the water fountains for two days if
> Clifton is closing in June? Why waste the money if
> you are going to close the school?
>
> I hope this is a sign that Clifton is now going to
> stay open. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Don't most of the "closed" schools get turned into FCPS Admin buildings? Trailers are okay for the kids but the staff gets brick and mortar buildings... For example, this School Board was ready to build Gatehouse II Admin Offices for themselves (complete with granite flooring and state of the art gym) why thousands of kids in the County are in trailers. If the County Supervisors hadn't stepped in and said No to Gatehouse II they WOULD have built it. Do you still believe in this boundary study and that your kids deserve to be put in trailers?
Read this:
"In the middle of what economists are calling a once-in-a-century economic free fall, when taxpayers are watching jobs, home equity and retirement funds literally disappearing before their eyes, Dale and the bobbleheads on the School Board want to spend another $130 million on overpaid school administrators instead of kids?"
"On a marble palace for paper-pushing adults while thousands of children have to learn in 900 flimsy trailers that cannot be secured, which one veteran teacher told me were nothing more than “chicken coops�"
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/2009/02/breaking-news-supervisors-just-say-no-gatehouse
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Trailers
()
Date: January 29, 2011 03:39PM
Trailers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> question about Clifton elementary Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why would FCPS pay to have the lines flushed
> and
> > work on the water fountains for two days if
> > Clifton is closing in June? Why waste the money
> if
> > you are going to close the school?
> >
> > I hope this is a sign that Clifton is now going
> to
> > stay open. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
>
>
> Don't most of the "closed" schools get turned into
> FCPS Admin buildings? Trailers are okay for the
> kids but the staff gets brick and mortar
> buildings... For example, this School Board was
> ready to build Gatehouse II Admin Offices for
> themselves (complete with granite flooring and
> state of the art gym) why thousands of kids in the
> County are in trailers. If the County Supervisors
> hadn't stepped in and said No to Gatehouse II they
> WOULD have built it. Do you still believe in this
> boundary study and that your kids deserve to be
> put in trailers?
>
> Read this:
>
> "In the middle of what economists are calling a
> once-in-a-century economic free fall, when
> taxpayers are watching jobs, home equity and
> retirement funds literally disappearing before
> their eyes, Dale and the bobbleheads on the School
> Board want to spend another $130 million on
> overpaid school administrators instead of kids?"
>
> "On a marble palace for paper-pushing adults while
> thousands of children have to learn in 900 flimsy
> trailers that cannot be secured, which one veteran
> teacher told me were nothing more than “chicken
> coops�"
>
> http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/2009/0
> 2/breaking-news-supervisors-just-say-no-gatehouse
And with 900 flimsy trailers in the County, why would they prioritize building additions at YOUR schools. Get ready to live with the trailers!
-------------------------------------------------------
> question about Clifton elementary Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why would FCPS pay to have the lines flushed
> and
> > work on the water fountains for two days if
> > Clifton is closing in June? Why waste the money
> if
> > you are going to close the school?
> >
> > I hope this is a sign that Clifton is now going
> to
> > stay open. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
>
>
> Don't most of the "closed" schools get turned into
> FCPS Admin buildings? Trailers are okay for the
> kids but the staff gets brick and mortar
> buildings... For example, this School Board was
> ready to build Gatehouse II Admin Offices for
> themselves (complete with granite flooring and
> state of the art gym) why thousands of kids in the
> County are in trailers. If the County Supervisors
> hadn't stepped in and said No to Gatehouse II they
> WOULD have built it. Do you still believe in this
> boundary study and that your kids deserve to be
> put in trailers?
>
> Read this:
>
> "In the middle of what economists are calling a
> once-in-a-century economic free fall, when
> taxpayers are watching jobs, home equity and
> retirement funds literally disappearing before
> their eyes, Dale and the bobbleheads on the School
> Board want to spend another $130 million on
> overpaid school administrators instead of kids?"
>
> "On a marble palace for paper-pushing adults while
> thousands of children have to learn in 900 flimsy
> trailers that cannot be secured, which one veteran
> teacher told me were nothing more than “chicken
> coops�"
>
> http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/2009/0
> 2/breaking-news-supervisors-just-say-no-gatehouse
And with 900 flimsy trailers in the County, why would they prioritize building additions at YOUR schools. Get ready to live with the trailers!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
dontgetit
()
Date: January 29, 2011 03:50PM
I dont get it. This is all gossip.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: January 29, 2011 07:28PM
Does anyone know if there are School Board members who have come out and said this final plan is no good? I know the vote is still coming, but I think certain members have made it very clear they will back it, Bradsher, Smith. Does anyone really feel we are going to change the minds of anyone by showing up? (guess I am feeling frustrated today). Also could they propose to make changes to the final plan or is it an all or none type of thing they vote on???
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
cabinfever
()
Date: January 30, 2011 06:37AM
stayingput you just have cabin fever. you wont change a thing, but your presence will know you views. when they try to change things for high grades they will think twice.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
who the f*ck knows
()
Date: January 30, 2011 12:31PM
I think the SB has had so many boundary changes in the study as to confuse us all. I have no idea where my kids are going and the SB does not want to give out info as to when we will know.
We will be sent letters in August as to what schools our kids will attend and that will be that.
We will be sent letters in August as to what schools our kids will attend and that will be that.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
comeonmaam
()
Date: January 30, 2011 06:51PM
If you read it is out there. Attend the meetings with your PTA and get to know them and you will have the material. Parents need to be more involved. Not when it is too late after the fact. Then complane.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
R U Signed up?
()
Date: January 31, 2011 10:31AM
Have you signed up to speak at the public hearing next week? If not, then don't complain when this is over.
Since everyone on here seems to have something to say, and you should be saying these things to the school board at the public hearing next week, I thought I'd make it easy for everyone to sign up.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JK798WD
Since everyone on here seems to have something to say, and you should be saying these things to the school board at the public hearing next week, I thought I'd make it easy for everyone to sign up.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JK798WD
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Hear this, Lizzy
()
Date: January 31, 2011 02:28PM
greatidea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes PTA presidents. Be open. Share the numbers
> either here or on your PTA website. We wantto
> know real results of surveys for resolution. FOIA
> would also list names.
You dumbass - PTAs aren't subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
If you aren't a member of your own PTA and don't vote, that's your problem.
Represent by participating or sit down and zip it.
The real results are that at least 11 of the 20 schools subject to the draconian heavy hand of FCPS have told the SB to go take a flying leap.
Figure a lowball estimate of 700 kids per school, that is 7,700 kids, 15,400 parents (at least) a likely equivalent or huge number of grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends and the like.
Now add sympathetic constituents, small business owners, real estate agents and more.
Hear the silence? F the silence! Listen up, SB & FCPS.
We are done with this crap.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes PTA presidents. Be open. Share the numbers
> either here or on your PTA website. We wantto
> know real results of surveys for resolution. FOIA
> would also list names.
You dumbass - PTAs aren't subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
If you aren't a member of your own PTA and don't vote, that's your problem.
Represent by participating or sit down and zip it.
The real results are that at least 11 of the 20 schools subject to the draconian heavy hand of FCPS have told the SB to go take a flying leap.
Figure a lowball estimate of 700 kids per school, that is 7,700 kids, 15,400 parents (at least) a likely equivalent or huge number of grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends and the like.
Now add sympathetic constituents, small business owners, real estate agents and more.
Hear the silence? F the silence! Listen up, SB & FCPS.
We are done with this crap.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Not gonna do it
()
Date: January 31, 2011 02:34PM
Curious2 Wrote:
> Just curious. If, based on the census, they can
> carve another area out for a new County Supervisor
> seat, does Sangster fall in that area? Would Liz
> Bradsher be eligible to run for that new County
> Supervisor seat? Is that why she hasn't yet
> announced what her intentions are for what seat
> she is going to run for in November? Don't know
> enough about what is going on with the status of
> that but from the FOIA emails it looks like some
> of her decisions are selfishly motivated to her
> own self political interests. Just curious if
> there might possibly be any connections between
> that possible new seat and Liz and Sangster.
Listen - a County Supervisor seat costs a half a Mill. Not happening. The census data doesn't support it and at the time of a budget gap, the BOS is not going to carve another 1/2 Million Dollars out to set up a new seat.
If this is Liz's gameplan, she is even dumber than we thought.
> Just curious. If, based on the census, they can
> carve another area out for a new County Supervisor
> seat, does Sangster fall in that area? Would Liz
> Bradsher be eligible to run for that new County
> Supervisor seat? Is that why she hasn't yet
> announced what her intentions are for what seat
> she is going to run for in November? Don't know
> enough about what is going on with the status of
> that but from the FOIA emails it looks like some
> of her decisions are selfishly motivated to her
> own self political interests. Just curious if
> there might possibly be any connections between
> that possible new seat and Liz and Sangster.
Listen - a County Supervisor seat costs a half a Mill. Not happening. The census data doesn't support it and at the time of a budget gap, the BOS is not going to carve another 1/2 Million Dollars out to set up a new seat.
If this is Liz's gameplan, she is even dumber than we thought.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Call Liz - She Knows
()
Date: January 31, 2011 02:39PM
?s Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Final SB vote Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Does anyone know when parents will be told by
> FCPS
> > what school their child will attend next year?
> >
> > The FCPS web site does not state the date.
> >
> > Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we
> get
> > a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and
> > need to make arrangements.
> >
> > Thank you for the help.
>
> The school board vote for which option they are
> choosing is Feb. 24th so not until then.
> Currently there are 5 options - I imagine it is
> between option D or the staff recommendation
> option that is date 1/7/11. I doubt the bus
> schedule will come out until the week before
> school starts has it has in the past. I wonder if
> any schools will be changing start times in the
> morning due to further travel by some students -
> if so hopefully we will find out well in advance.
Just call Liz Bradshere and see if she will tell you - you know she knows already because it has already been decided.
Public Hearing my eye. You mean Public Waste of Time?
These people deserve an Academy Award for Most Use of the Public's Time to Contrive Transparency
-------------------------------------------------------
> Final SB vote Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Does anyone know when parents will be told by
> FCPS
> > what school their child will attend next year?
> >
> > The FCPS web site does not state the date.
> >
> > Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we
> get
> > a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and
> > need to make arrangements.
> >
> > Thank you for the help.
>
> The school board vote for which option they are
> choosing is Feb. 24th so not until then.
> Currently there are 5 options - I imagine it is
> between option D or the staff recommendation
> option that is date 1/7/11. I doubt the bus
> schedule will come out until the week before
> school starts has it has in the past. I wonder if
> any schools will be changing start times in the
> morning due to further travel by some students -
> if so hopefully we will find out well in advance.
Just call Liz Bradshere and see if she will tell you - you know she knows already because it has already been decided.
Public Hearing my eye. You mean Public Waste of Time?
These people deserve an Academy Award for Most Use of the Public's Time to Contrive Transparency
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
EXACTLY
()
Date: January 31, 2011 02:47PM
comeonefolks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kids learn the same thing with 1/2 day versus
> full day. Look at the ciriculum. FCPS should not
> offer a babysitter service for 1/2 day in this
> time of budget concerns. The schools with
> populations that need it, have it funded through
> the federal goverment. Would a solution be to
> have 1/2 day just next year and not the next?
> Where will this money come from? What about teach
> and government worker raises? That will
> definitely take away from that.
>
> The comment about PTA running for school board was
> sarcasm. They have just as much of a shot of
> winning as does the current people.
>
> The comment about my VIEW. Except for 12-24 hours
> to fill out a survey, which minimal response. Who
> on the PTA asked for my view. You cannt get our
> views unless you ask and not do it last minute?
> PTA meetings are held during the day. Most people
> work. We saw that in this discussion when a parent
> said they need to work and cannot homeschool.
>
> I agree Clifton was a mess. A new school should
> have been built. I also think that people do not
> like change. The kids will still get the best
> education. If they are AAP they will be pulled to
> another school anyway.
>
> I cant keep up with all the requests. Dont close
> Clifton, dont move my children, not that school it
> is too far, concerned about another school, etc.
> To be honest, if we are looking out for all the
> students, why didnt you push for full day
> kindergarten sooner? GBW does not offer it. I
> did not see you sticking up for that the past 5
> years.
While you may not have meant to point it out, you got it EXACTLY.
How interesting that FCPS, the school board and in particular Liz Bradsher didn't seem too concerned about funding full day K for the lat 3 1/2 years.
But suddenly - as the election season gears up and the annual budget standoff with the Supervisors heats up - they genuinely advocate for FDK?
Seems their timely push for FDK is just in time to serve - - - themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kids learn the same thing with 1/2 day versus
> full day. Look at the ciriculum. FCPS should not
> offer a babysitter service for 1/2 day in this
> time of budget concerns. The schools with
> populations that need it, have it funded through
> the federal goverment. Would a solution be to
> have 1/2 day just next year and not the next?
> Where will this money come from? What about teach
> and government worker raises? That will
> definitely take away from that.
>
> The comment about PTA running for school board was
> sarcasm. They have just as much of a shot of
> winning as does the current people.
>
> The comment about my VIEW. Except for 12-24 hours
> to fill out a survey, which minimal response. Who
> on the PTA asked for my view. You cannt get our
> views unless you ask and not do it last minute?
> PTA meetings are held during the day. Most people
> work. We saw that in this discussion when a parent
> said they need to work and cannot homeschool.
>
> I agree Clifton was a mess. A new school should
> have been built. I also think that people do not
> like change. The kids will still get the best
> education. If they are AAP they will be pulled to
> another school anyway.
>
> I cant keep up with all the requests. Dont close
> Clifton, dont move my children, not that school it
> is too far, concerned about another school, etc.
> To be honest, if we are looking out for all the
> students, why didnt you push for full day
> kindergarten sooner? GBW does not offer it. I
> did not see you sticking up for that the past 5
> years.
While you may not have meant to point it out, you got it EXACTLY.
How interesting that FCPS, the school board and in particular Liz Bradsher didn't seem too concerned about funding full day K for the lat 3 1/2 years.
But suddenly - as the election season gears up and the annual budget standoff with the Supervisors heats up - they genuinely advocate for FDK?
Seems their timely push for FDK is just in time to serve - - - themselves.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Lawrence
()
Date: January 31, 2011 03:03PM
EXACTLY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> How interesting that FCPS, the school board and in
> particular Liz Bradsher didn't seem too concerned
> about funding full day K for the lat 3 1/2 years.
>
>
> But suddenly - as the election season gears up and
> the annual budget standoff with the Supervisors
> heats up - they genuinely advocate for FDK?
>
> Seems their timely push for FDK is just in time to
> serve - - - themselves.
So, so true. Especially the last sentence. Supporting FDK is actually serving their own interests.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> How interesting that FCPS, the school board and in
> particular Liz Bradsher didn't seem too concerned
> about funding full day K for the lat 3 1/2 years.
>
>
> But suddenly - as the election season gears up and
> the annual budget standoff with the Supervisors
> heats up - they genuinely advocate for FDK?
>
> Seems their timely push for FDK is just in time to
> serve - - - themselves.
So, so true. Especially the last sentence. Supporting FDK is actually serving their own interests.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Mommy Lion
()
Date: January 31, 2011 03:17PM
rew Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously - will Clifton folks stop thinking this
> is all about them?
>
> There are major over-crowding issues across
> several schools and in many case boundaries are
> plain silly ( as someone earlier pointed it out -
> thank you much!)
>
> The SW boundary changes are attempting to correct
> some of these issues. And they are doing a pretty
> decent job at that.
>
> So the PTA's from all the schools need to really
> stop getting hyper and gossiping about how the
> FCPS board is out to screw the lives of kids in
> the community.
From another thread.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously - will Clifton folks stop thinking this
> is all about them?
>
> There are major over-crowding issues across
> several schools and in many case boundaries are
> plain silly ( as someone earlier pointed it out -
> thank you much!)
>
> The SW boundary changes are attempting to correct
> some of these issues. And they are doing a pretty
> decent job at that.
>
> So the PTA's from all the schools need to really
> stop getting hyper and gossiping about how the
> FCPS board is out to screw the lives of kids in
> the community.
From another thread.
Attachments:
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Solution
()
Date: January 31, 2011 03:38PM
iowef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The wells at Clifton were never the problem,
> ineffective equipment was the problem."
>
> Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any fool
> will realize that a school which gets its water
> from a well in this day and age is probably
> nearing its end.
>
> And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call
> kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on your
> state of mind.
How about all of us in Clifton keep our real estate taxes and pay for our own dump of a school out of our dump of homes taxes and the rest of you just deal - cuz apparently they are coming through and plowing down all our houses anyway, cuz we all have wells - you ELITIST MORON.
Do you realize how much of a metro snob you sound like? We live life characterized by the best, newest, latest, electronic everything in Fairfax County. The rest of the UNIVERSE doesn't live like this. If a single community in Fairfax County doesn't subscribe to your vanilla, cookie-cutter subdivision, Starbucks on every corner lifestyle - so what? Clearly, our kids are not suffering educationally with another Excellence award.
If we were the actually elitists FCPS & the School Board are trying to smear us as, don't you think we would be demanding the brand new shiny crap all the other kids in this county are getting (largely thanks to pockets of real estate dollars like Clifton)?
Take your Smartboards and shove em - and thank Clifton, Great Falls and the like for them.
Let's stop with the ridiculous justification of what the School Board did - there is no justification for utter insanity and outright illegalites by a bunch of scofflaws.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The wells at Clifton were never the problem,
> ineffective equipment was the problem."
>
> Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any fool
> will realize that a school which gets its water
> from a well in this day and age is probably
> nearing its end.
>
> And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call
> kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on your
> state of mind.
How about all of us in Clifton keep our real estate taxes and pay for our own dump of a school out of our dump of homes taxes and the rest of you just deal - cuz apparently they are coming through and plowing down all our houses anyway, cuz we all have wells - you ELITIST MORON.
Do you realize how much of a metro snob you sound like? We live life characterized by the best, newest, latest, electronic everything in Fairfax County. The rest of the UNIVERSE doesn't live like this. If a single community in Fairfax County doesn't subscribe to your vanilla, cookie-cutter subdivision, Starbucks on every corner lifestyle - so what? Clearly, our kids are not suffering educationally with another Excellence award.
If we were the actually elitists FCPS & the School Board are trying to smear us as, don't you think we would be demanding the brand new shiny crap all the other kids in this county are getting (largely thanks to pockets of real estate dollars like Clifton)?
Take your Smartboards and shove em - and thank Clifton, Great Falls and the like for them.
Let's stop with the ridiculous justification of what the School Board did - there is no justification for utter insanity and outright illegalites by a bunch of scofflaws.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Clifton Parent
()
Date: January 31, 2011 03:53PM
Solution Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> iowef Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "The wells at Clifton were never the problem,
> > ineffective equipment was the problem."
> >
> > Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> > goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any
> fool
> > will realize that a school which gets its water
> > from a well in this day and age is probably
> > nearing its end.
> >
> > And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call
> > kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on
> your
> > state of mind.
>
>
> How about all of us in Clifton keep our real
> estate taxes and pay for our own dump of a school
> out of our dump of homes taxes and the rest of you
> just deal - cuz apparently they are coming through
> and plowing down all our houses anyway, cuz we all
> have wells - you ELITIST MORON.
>
> Do you realize how much of a metro snob you sound
> like? We live life characterized by the best,
> newest, latest, electronic everything in Fairfax
> County. The rest of the UNIVERSE doesn't live like
> this. If a single community in Fairfax County
> doesn't subscribe to your vanilla, cookie-cutter
> subdivision, Starbucks on every corner lifestyle
> - so what? Clearly, our kids are not suffering
> educationally with another Excellence award.
>
> If we were the actually elitists FCPS & the School
> Board are trying to smear us as, don't you think
> we would be demanding the brand new shiny crap all
> the other kids in this county are getting (largely
> thanks to pockets of real estate dollars like
> Clifton)?
>
> Take your Smartboards and shove em - and thank
> Clifton, Great Falls and the like for them.
>
> Let's stop with the ridiculous justification of
> what the School Board did - there is no
> justification for utter insanity and outright
> illegalites by a bunch of scofflaws.
You need some anger management, you sound like a lunatic... and I live in Clifton.
-------------------------------------------------------
> iowef Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "The wells at Clifton were never the problem,
> > ineffective equipment was the problem."
> >
> > Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> > goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any
> fool
> > will realize that a school which gets its water
> > from a well in this day and age is probably
> > nearing its end.
> >
> > And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call
> > kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on
> your
> > state of mind.
>
>
> How about all of us in Clifton keep our real
> estate taxes and pay for our own dump of a school
> out of our dump of homes taxes and the rest of you
> just deal - cuz apparently they are coming through
> and plowing down all our houses anyway, cuz we all
> have wells - you ELITIST MORON.
>
> Do you realize how much of a metro snob you sound
> like? We live life characterized by the best,
> newest, latest, electronic everything in Fairfax
> County. The rest of the UNIVERSE doesn't live like
> this. If a single community in Fairfax County
> doesn't subscribe to your vanilla, cookie-cutter
> subdivision, Starbucks on every corner lifestyle
> - so what? Clearly, our kids are not suffering
> educationally with another Excellence award.
>
> If we were the actually elitists FCPS & the School
> Board are trying to smear us as, don't you think
> we would be demanding the brand new shiny crap all
> the other kids in this county are getting (largely
> thanks to pockets of real estate dollars like
> Clifton)?
>
> Take your Smartboards and shove em - and thank
> Clifton, Great Falls and the like for them.
>
> Let's stop with the ridiculous justification of
> what the School Board did - there is no
> justification for utter insanity and outright
> illegalites by a bunch of scofflaws.
You need some anger management, you sound like a lunatic... and I live in Clifton.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
MythBreaker
()
Date: January 31, 2011 03:54PM
iowef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem,
> 75-80% are on well water."
>
> Clearly its points to why FCPS chose to close CES
>
>
> I am honestly sorry for CES parents - but from
> FCPS point of view, looks like it made no sense to
> invest additional $ into a resource that was
> serving so few families.
The rumors by FCPS continue =
Clifton ES attendance area is TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED HOMES.
The town boundary itself encompasses 200 - but is only a tiny portion of the overall attendance area.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem,
> 75-80% are on well water."
>
> Clearly its points to why FCPS chose to close CES
>
>
> I am honestly sorry for CES parents - but from
> FCPS point of view, looks like it made no sense to
> invest additional $ into a resource that was
> serving so few families.
The rumors by FCPS continue =
Clifton ES attendance area is TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED HOMES.
The town boundary itself encompasses 200 - but is only a tiny portion of the overall attendance area.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Clifton Parent
()
Date: January 31, 2011 04:00PM
MythBreaker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> iowef Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem,
> > 75-80% are on well water."
> >
> > Clearly its points to why FCPS chose to close
> CES
> >
> >
> > I am honestly sorry for CES parents - but from
> > FCPS point of view, looks like it made no sense
> to
> > invest additional $ into a resource that was
> > serving so few families.
>
>
> The rumors by FCPS continue =
>
> Clifton ES attendance area is TWO THOUSAND TWO
> HUNDRED HOMES.
>
> The town boundary itself encompasses 200 - but is
> only a tiny portion of the overall attendance
> area.
The original post is still correct, approx. 200 families ATTEND Clifton right now. There may be 2200 familes that COULD attend Clifton, but right now, there are approx. 200 families that are sending kids to Clifton THIS SCHOOL YEAR. And of those families with kids at Clifton right now, 75-80% are on well water.
-------------------------------------------------------
> iowef Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem,
> > 75-80% are on well water."
> >
> > Clearly its points to why FCPS chose to close
> CES
> >
> >
> > I am honestly sorry for CES parents - but from
> > FCPS point of view, looks like it made no sense
> to
> > invest additional $ into a resource that was
> > serving so few families.
>
>
> The rumors by FCPS continue =
>
> Clifton ES attendance area is TWO THOUSAND TWO
> HUNDRED HOMES.
>
> The town boundary itself encompasses 200 - but is
> only a tiny portion of the overall attendance
> area.
The original post is still correct, approx. 200 families ATTEND Clifton right now. There may be 2200 familes that COULD attend Clifton, but right now, there are approx. 200 families that are sending kids to Clifton THIS SCHOOL YEAR. And of those families with kids at Clifton right now, 75-80% are on well water.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sparkling Tap
()
Date: January 31, 2011 04:34PM
Clifton Parent Wrote:
> The original post is still correct, approx. 200
> families ATTEND Clifton right now. There may be
> 2200 familes that COULD attend Clifton, but right
> now, there are approx. 200 families that are
> sending kids to Clifton THIS SCHOOL YEAR. And of
> those families with kids at Clifton right now,
> 75-80% are on well water.
Does every family send two kids? How do they have 370 students?
And it doesn't matter how many families attend - because families don't attend, kids do.
A lot more than 200 people in Clifton and the surrounding areas have wells - I don't live in Clifton and I have a well.
> The original post is still correct, approx. 200
> families ATTEND Clifton right now. There may be
> 2200 familes that COULD attend Clifton, but right
> now, there are approx. 200 families that are
> sending kids to Clifton THIS SCHOOL YEAR. And of
> those families with kids at Clifton right now,
> 75-80% are on well water.
Does every family send two kids? How do they have 370 students?
And it doesn't matter how many families attend - because families don't attend, kids do.
A lot more than 200 people in Clifton and the surrounding areas have wells - I don't live in Clifton and I have a well.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: January 31, 2011 08:51PM
It appears that in June of last year, there was no reason to not leave Clifton ES "as is" and use the $$ else where in the CIP. It also appears that they absolutely knew that NOT building a new school would require additions and a large movement of students. Anyone else feel like they're being played here??
How many schools come out of the boundary study if CES is left open in "as is" condition so more pressing needs in county schools can be addressed? Hmmm???
The proof is right here that it can be done.
From: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member) [ETBradsher@fcps.edu]
To: Wilson, Tessie (School Board Member)
CC:
BCC:
Sent: 6/7/2010 9:41:54 PM
Subject: RE: July 8th meeting
Attachments:
You are correct—Janie just called she doesn’t want to put a dime into Clifton, neither does Jim. Both question can we just leave it as is and use the funds for the CIP and other needs? The answer is yes but we still must respond to the capacity concerns in the Southwest and if we don’t build a school we build additions and there will need to be a rather large movement of students, i.e. boundary changes. More so than if we build a new school per Dean. L
Elizabeth T. Bradsher
Fairfax County School Board
Springfield District
Phone: (571) 296-1875
Debora L. Cain, Executive Administrative Assistant
Phone: (571) 423-1070
________________________________
From: Wilson, Tessie (School Board Member)
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 8:39 PM
To: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member)
Subject: RE: July 8th meeting
Try not to get too engaged with a back and forth with one person. It will drive you crazy – and chances are – you’re not going to change her mind!
Tessie Wilson
Vice Chairman
School Board Member
Braddock District
How many schools come out of the boundary study if CES is left open in "as is" condition so more pressing needs in county schools can be addressed? Hmmm???
The proof is right here that it can be done.
From: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member) [ETBradsher@fcps.edu]
To: Wilson, Tessie (School Board Member)
CC:
BCC:
Sent: 6/7/2010 9:41:54 PM
Subject: RE: July 8th meeting
Attachments:
You are correct—Janie just called she doesn’t want to put a dime into Clifton, neither does Jim. Both question can we just leave it as is and use the funds for the CIP and other needs? The answer is yes but we still must respond to the capacity concerns in the Southwest and if we don’t build a school we build additions and there will need to be a rather large movement of students, i.e. boundary changes. More so than if we build a new school per Dean. L
Elizabeth T. Bradsher
Fairfax County School Board
Springfield District
Phone: (571) 296-1875
Debora L. Cain, Executive Administrative Assistant
Phone: (571) 423-1070
________________________________
From: Wilson, Tessie (School Board Member)
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 8:39 PM
To: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member)
Subject: RE: July 8th meeting
Try not to get too engaged with a back and forth with one person. It will drive you crazy – and chances are – you’re not going to change her mind!
Tessie Wilson
Vice Chairman
School Board Member
Braddock District
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
LargerFamilies
()
Date: January 31, 2011 11:29PM
Sparkling Tap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clifton Parent Wrote:
> > The original post is still correct, approx. 200
> > families ATTEND Clifton right now. There may
> be
> > 2200 familes that COULD attend Clifton, but
> right
> > now, there are approx. 200 families that are
> > sending kids to Clifton THIS SCHOOL YEAR. And
> of
> > those families with kids at Clifton right now,
> > 75-80% are on well water.
>
> Does every family send two kids? How do they have
> 370 students?
> And it doesn't matter how many families attend -
> because families don't attend, kids do.
>
> A lot more than 200 people in Clifton and the
> surrounding areas have wells - I don't live in
> Clifton and I have a well.
I know numerous families in Clifton that have 4-5 kids. In fact, the reason they moved to Clifton was for the bigger yards for their larger than average families.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clifton Parent Wrote:
> > The original post is still correct, approx. 200
> > families ATTEND Clifton right now. There may
> be
> > 2200 familes that COULD attend Clifton, but
> right
> > now, there are approx. 200 families that are
> > sending kids to Clifton THIS SCHOOL YEAR. And
> of
> > those families with kids at Clifton right now,
> > 75-80% are on well water.
>
> Does every family send two kids? How do they have
> 370 students?
> And it doesn't matter how many families attend -
> because families don't attend, kids do.
>
> A lot more than 200 people in Clifton and the
> surrounding areas have wells - I don't live in
> Clifton and I have a well.
I know numerous families in Clifton that have 4-5 kids. In fact, the reason they moved to Clifton was for the bigger yards for their larger than average families.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
JustGo
()
Date: January 31, 2011 11:33PM
Would folks worried/ranting about CES closing please start a new thread.
This thread is about SW Boundary study and NOT CES.
And, no SW boundary study is not just cause CES was closed - you folks do realize that the world does not start and end with CES closure, right?
This thread is about SW Boundary study and NOT CES.
And, no SW boundary study is not just cause CES was closed - you folks do realize that the world does not start and end with CES closure, right?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Keep up on CES
()
Date: February 01, 2011 06:42AM
You have the biggest dog in this fight. This all started with CES and will end with CES. Plus you have the balls and money to sue the county.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
SHUT UP!
()
Date: February 01, 2011 11:02PM
JustGo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would folks worried/ranting about CES closing
> please start a new thread.
>
> This thread is about SW Boundary study and NOT
> CES.
>
> And, no SW boundary study is not just cause CES
> was closed - you folks do realize that the world
> does not start and end with CES closure, right?
SHUT UP!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would folks worried/ranting about CES closing
> please start a new thread.
>
> This thread is about SW Boundary study and NOT
> CES.
>
> And, no SW boundary study is not just cause CES
> was closed - you folks do realize that the world
> does not start and end with CES closure, right?
SHUT UP!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
JustGo
()
Date: February 01, 2011 11:11PM
Looks like someone can't handle the truth..
You folks mad about CES closure should have faced down this issue last year. Too Late now - dont you get it?
20+ other schools are impacted by this and if its fairness that you care about then respect other parents whose kids are going to be impacted by these proposals.
Changes are coming, whether you like it or not, so look forward and dont be silly trying to re litigate this decision.
You folks mad about CES closure should have faced down this issue last year. Too Late now - dont you get it?
20+ other schools are impacted by this and if its fairness that you care about then respect other parents whose kids are going to be impacted by these proposals.
Changes are coming, whether you like it or not, so look forward and dont be silly trying to re litigate this decision.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: February 02, 2011 10:45PM
JustGo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like someone can't handle the truth..
>
> You folks mad about CES closure should have faced
> down this issue last year. Too Late now - dont you
> get it?
Um, a good number of those living in the Clifton Elementary attendance area as well as a few from surrounding schools DID stand up. They have done so since this whole process started in July of 2009. And they found that the School Board listens to those who don't speak and hides important information until the hour of the vote. Or as Stu Gibson said the night of the Clifton closure vote, they "listen to the silence."
All I can say is that if you believe your voice will be heard and your concerns addressed by this School Board and Superintendant, you are nuts. You are correct in stating they are going to do whatever they want and you have no recourse.
Please remember this all started because 4 schools had projected overcrowding issues.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like someone can't handle the truth..
>
> You folks mad about CES closure should have faced
> down this issue last year. Too Late now - dont you
> get it?
Um, a good number of those living in the Clifton Elementary attendance area as well as a few from surrounding schools DID stand up. They have done so since this whole process started in July of 2009. And they found that the School Board listens to those who don't speak and hides important information until the hour of the vote. Or as Stu Gibson said the night of the Clifton closure vote, they "listen to the silence."
All I can say is that if you believe your voice will be heard and your concerns addressed by this School Board and Superintendant, you are nuts. You are correct in stating they are going to do whatever they want and you have no recourse.
Please remember this all started because 4 schools had projected overcrowding issues.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
AddToStudy
()
Date: February 05, 2011 04:13PM
Clifton Elementary is not going away and it should be part of this boundary study. The Fairfax History Commission just voted UNANIMOUSLY to add it to the Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites. Saw a quote that said "For the School Board to not operate it as a school going forward would be fiscally irresponsible to the County's taxpayers."
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayinput
()
Date: February 05, 2011 05:09PM
Scheduled to speak in front of the board. Have spent hours researching the plans and see some fatal flaws - when compaing the presentation the staff did for the board and looking at their data. Feeling confident that I can present some hard facts and not just emotional stuff. I may not make a change but I will make sure my voice is heard - feeling impowered.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Yeeehawww!
()
Date: February 05, 2011 05:42PM
stayinput Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scheduled to speak in front of the board. Have
> spent hours researching the plans and see some
> fatal flaws - when compaing the presentation the
> staff did for the board and looking at their data.
> Feeling confident that I can present some hard
> facts and not just emotional stuff. I may not make
> a change but I will make sure my voice is heard -
> feeling impowered.
Good for you!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scheduled to speak in front of the board. Have
> spent hours researching the plans and see some
> fatal flaws - when compaing the presentation the
> staff did for the board and looking at their data.
> Feeling confident that I can present some hard
> facts and not just emotional stuff. I may not make
> a change but I will make sure my voice is heard -
> feeling impowered.
Good for you!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Pissed
()
Date: February 05, 2011 08:20PM
The overall cost of the boundary shifts are going to cost approximately $15 million and effort that will impact 23 schools and thousands of students and their families. The goal of the boundary changes is to achieve a building utilization between 95% -105%. Of the 23 schools in the study, 12 of the schools are already compliant and only 5 more schools will be achieve this utilization goal as part of the study in 2011-2012. $15 million seems like a hefty pricing, especially during a recession, to make 5 more schools achieve such a building utilization goal.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
NotFree
()
Date: February 05, 2011 08:30PM
Pissed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The overall cost of the boundary shifts are going
> to cost approximately $15 million and effort that
> will impact 23 schools and thousands of students
> and their families. The goal of the boundary
> changes is to achieve a building utilization
> between 95% -105%. Of the 23 schools in the
> study, 12 of the schools are already compliant and
> only 5 more schools will be achieve this
> utilization goal as part of the study in
> 2011-2012. $15 million seems like a hefty
> pricing, especially during a recession, to make 5
> more schools achieve such a building utilization
> goal.
It's more than $15 milllion. The trailers and furniture needed for them aren't going to be free.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The overall cost of the boundary shifts are going
> to cost approximately $15 million and effort that
> will impact 23 schools and thousands of students
> and their families. The goal of the boundary
> changes is to achieve a building utilization
> between 95% -105%. Of the 23 schools in the
> study, 12 of the schools are already compliant and
> only 5 more schools will be achieve this
> utilization goal as part of the study in
> 2011-2012. $15 million seems like a hefty
> pricing, especially during a recession, to make 5
> more schools achieve such a building utilization
> goal.
It's more than $15 milllion. The trailers and furniture needed for them aren't going to be free.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: February 05, 2011 09:01PM
Yes, the furniture and all of the equipment will cost. They do not normally use furniture from school to school. When a school is closed down, or fully renovated, all of the desks, chairs, blackboards, and yes smartboards and computers go in the dumpster.
It's a complete waste.
It's a complete waste.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Notagainplease
()
Date: February 05, 2011 09:53PM
Is Yeehaw the same PTA exec board that hired the people before. The members of your PTA did not approve you to do this. Please represent yourself not the PTA.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: February 05, 2011 10:26PM
Notagainplease Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is Yeehaw the same PTA exec board that hired the
> people before. The members of your PTA did not
> approve you to do this. Please represent yourself
> not the PTA.
What are you talking about? Who did the PTA hire, and for what? For that matter, what PTA are you referring to?
You lost us.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is Yeehaw the same PTA exec board that hired the
> people before. The members of your PTA did not
> approve you to do this. Please represent yourself
> not the PTA.
What are you talking about? Who did the PTA hire, and for what? For that matter, what PTA are you referring to?
You lost us.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
youknow
()
Date: February 06, 2011 04:14PM
GB
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayinput
()
Date: February 06, 2011 05:45PM
I think you are actually speaking of me - yeehaw was commenting on the fact that I have an issue with this boundary study and I am speaking.
I have no clue what you mean with hiring? I am a member of the PTA and I did vote on the resolution as every member of Greenbriar PTA was invited to do and those that did vote to include our PTA as part of that larger PTA resolution.
I am there to speak as an individual but I do plan to include that I am a PTA member and state the facts that I have been provided by our PTA as a very small part of my 3 minutesm and this has been addressed and apporoved by the Greenbriar West PTA board. So please don't jump to any conclusions as it appears from your post.
You have no right to say how I address this but are more than welcome to sign up and take your own time and speak before the board as well. You have no clue who I am or what I intend to say yet you have the audacity to make apparently some sort of assumption. I have been very clear that I am unhappy about the possible move, but at the same time I have been open minded of different opinions and aware that while my voice may be heard it does not mean I will get what I want which is to stay at Greenbriar West. I have also said throughout my posts that I encourage those with differing views to also share that with the board and if in fact we get moved I will be 100% behind making it a positive transistion.
I have no clue what you mean with hiring? I am a member of the PTA and I did vote on the resolution as every member of Greenbriar PTA was invited to do and those that did vote to include our PTA as part of that larger PTA resolution.
I am there to speak as an individual but I do plan to include that I am a PTA member and state the facts that I have been provided by our PTA as a very small part of my 3 minutesm and this has been addressed and apporoved by the Greenbriar West PTA board. So please don't jump to any conclusions as it appears from your post.
You have no right to say how I address this but are more than welcome to sign up and take your own time and speak before the board as well. You have no clue who I am or what I intend to say yet you have the audacity to make apparently some sort of assumption. I have been very clear that I am unhappy about the possible move, but at the same time I have been open minded of different opinions and aware that while my voice may be heard it does not mean I will get what I want which is to stay at Greenbriar West. I have also said throughout my posts that I encourage those with differing views to also share that with the board and if in fact we get moved I will be 100% behind making it a positive transistion.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayinput
()
Date: February 06, 2011 05:49PM
Yeehaw - thank you for the positve comment by the way. I have spent more hours on planning a concise and factual 3 minutes than I did on many of my papers in school.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: February 06, 2011 11:15PM
Received this earlier today.
Public Hearing, Monday, February 7th, at 6pm
on the Southwestern boundary study affecting 17,500 students and FCPS’ intentions on Clifton Elementary
Jackson Middle School, 3020 Gallows Rd, Falls Church
We have two immediate CALL TO ACTION items for all Fairfax County residents regarding the FCPS decision to affect over 17,500 students, their families, teachers, communities and taxpayers in the unnecessary SW Boundary Study, which has NOT been substantiated by facts and data:
1. MONDAY, February 7th: Attend the School Board meeting this Monday, February 8th, promptly at 6:00pm at Luther Jackson Middle School located at 3020 Gallows Road in Falls Church. The School Board’s decision to completely ignore the public outcry, the lack of material information on the costs or need for the sweeping nature of the SW Boundary Study, and failure to be transparent about the process are NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Students, families, teachers, communities and all Fairfax County taxpayers are being needlessly impacted by the SW Boundary Study.
Bring small signs if you want and PLEASE WEAR A WHITE SHIRT. We'll have a sign-up sheet to ensure that all attendees are accounted for and the final count will be given to FCPS officials. YOUR PRESENCE AT THIS MEETING IS CRITICAL!
2. TODAY: Email your School Board member and the At-Large members and specifically:
Ask them what the transportation impact will be for every school in the study;
Ask them what the transportation costs will be for the proposed Staff recommendation;
Ask them what the cost and program impacts will be to Special Education students, AAP students, ESL students, special programs and SACC;
Ask them which schools will meet ALL Educational Specifications in SY2011-12 if the boundary changes as proposed are implemented next school year; and
Ask them questions specific to your student, your community, your tax bill.
Detailed questions could include:
How many schools would be removed from this boundary study if Clifton Elementary were to stay open?
Now that we know the water is safe and the enrollment has not declined as predicted, will the School Board reconsider its vote from July 8th, 2010 to close CES?
What are the REAL costs of the study’s boundary changes? impact and cost of transportation? Special education needs?
What are the SACC implications?
What are the AAP implications? How do you know, as students are not identified until the end of 2nd grade for Level IV AAP? What is the impact to school-based Level III AAP?
When are brick and mortar additions scheduled to start? To be finished?What happens until then?!
How many trailers are needed for these boundary changes? Where? At what cost?
FCPS anticipates over 2,100 MORE students in the county just next year – SY2011-12 – how are these new estimates accounted for when maxing out capacity in a vast portion of the county?
Here is a list of all the School Board Members' Email addresses:
Ms. Kathy Smith, Chairman, Sully District - Email: kathy.l.smith@fcps.edu
Mr. Brad Center, Vice Chairman, Lee District - Email: brad.center@fcps.edu
Mr. Daniel Storck, Mount Vernon District - Email: daniel.storck@fcps.edu
Ms. Liz Bradsher, Springfield District - Email: elizabeth.bradsher@fcps.edu
Mr. Stuart Gibson, Hunter Mill District - Email: stuart.gibson@fcps.edu
Ms. Sandy Evans, Mason District - Email: sandy.evans@fcps.edu
Ms. Patty Reed, Providence District - Email: patricia.reed@fcps.edu
Ms. Jane Strauss, Dranesville District - Email: jane.strauss@fcps.edu
Ms. Tessie Wilson, Braddock District - Email: tessie.wilson@fcps.edu
Mr. Ilryong Moon, Member at Large - Email: ilryong.moon@fcps.edu
Mr. James Raney, Member at Large - Email: james.raney@fcps.edu
Ms. Tina Hone, Member at Large - Email: martina.hone@fcps.edu
DO NOT LEAVE ACTION TO OTHERS.YOUR PRESENCE AT MONDAY'S MEETING IS CRITICAL. SIGN UP TO SPEAK AND EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD. If you missed on-line sign up, PLEASE SHOW UP AND REGISTER TO SPEAK IN PERSON MONDAY NIGHT!
This is the only opportunity you will have to speak directly to the School Board regarding this issue.
Please tell the School Board that they must do better!
Forward this message to a friend
Public Hearing, Monday, February 7th, at 6pm
on the Southwestern boundary study affecting 17,500 students and FCPS’ intentions on Clifton Elementary
Jackson Middle School, 3020 Gallows Rd, Falls Church
We have two immediate CALL TO ACTION items for all Fairfax County residents regarding the FCPS decision to affect over 17,500 students, their families, teachers, communities and taxpayers in the unnecessary SW Boundary Study, which has NOT been substantiated by facts and data:
1. MONDAY, February 7th: Attend the School Board meeting this Monday, February 8th, promptly at 6:00pm at Luther Jackson Middle School located at 3020 Gallows Road in Falls Church. The School Board’s decision to completely ignore the public outcry, the lack of material information on the costs or need for the sweeping nature of the SW Boundary Study, and failure to be transparent about the process are NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Students, families, teachers, communities and all Fairfax County taxpayers are being needlessly impacted by the SW Boundary Study.
Bring small signs if you want and PLEASE WEAR A WHITE SHIRT. We'll have a sign-up sheet to ensure that all attendees are accounted for and the final count will be given to FCPS officials. YOUR PRESENCE AT THIS MEETING IS CRITICAL!
2. TODAY: Email your School Board member and the At-Large members and specifically:
Ask them what the transportation impact will be for every school in the study;
Ask them what the transportation costs will be for the proposed Staff recommendation;
Ask them what the cost and program impacts will be to Special Education students, AAP students, ESL students, special programs and SACC;
Ask them which schools will meet ALL Educational Specifications in SY2011-12 if the boundary changes as proposed are implemented next school year; and
Ask them questions specific to your student, your community, your tax bill.
Detailed questions could include:
How many schools would be removed from this boundary study if Clifton Elementary were to stay open?
Now that we know the water is safe and the enrollment has not declined as predicted, will the School Board reconsider its vote from July 8th, 2010 to close CES?
What are the REAL costs of the study’s boundary changes? impact and cost of transportation? Special education needs?
What are the SACC implications?
What are the AAP implications? How do you know, as students are not identified until the end of 2nd grade for Level IV AAP? What is the impact to school-based Level III AAP?
When are brick and mortar additions scheduled to start? To be finished?What happens until then?!
How many trailers are needed for these boundary changes? Where? At what cost?
FCPS anticipates over 2,100 MORE students in the county just next year – SY2011-12 – how are these new estimates accounted for when maxing out capacity in a vast portion of the county?
Here is a list of all the School Board Members' Email addresses:
Ms. Kathy Smith, Chairman, Sully District - Email: kathy.l.smith@fcps.edu
Mr. Brad Center, Vice Chairman, Lee District - Email: brad.center@fcps.edu
Mr. Daniel Storck, Mount Vernon District - Email: daniel.storck@fcps.edu
Ms. Liz Bradsher, Springfield District - Email: elizabeth.bradsher@fcps.edu
Mr. Stuart Gibson, Hunter Mill District - Email: stuart.gibson@fcps.edu
Ms. Sandy Evans, Mason District - Email: sandy.evans@fcps.edu
Ms. Patty Reed, Providence District - Email: patricia.reed@fcps.edu
Ms. Jane Strauss, Dranesville District - Email: jane.strauss@fcps.edu
Ms. Tessie Wilson, Braddock District - Email: tessie.wilson@fcps.edu
Mr. Ilryong Moon, Member at Large - Email: ilryong.moon@fcps.edu
Mr. James Raney, Member at Large - Email: james.raney@fcps.edu
Ms. Tina Hone, Member at Large - Email: martina.hone@fcps.edu
DO NOT LEAVE ACTION TO OTHERS.YOUR PRESENCE AT MONDAY'S MEETING IS CRITICAL. SIGN UP TO SPEAK AND EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD. If you missed on-line sign up, PLEASE SHOW UP AND REGISTER TO SPEAK IN PERSON MONDAY NIGHT!
This is the only opportunity you will have to speak directly to the School Board regarding this issue.
Please tell the School Board that they must do better!
Forward this message to a friend
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Pat
()
Date: February 07, 2011 03:14PM
From the Herrity Report:
Fairfax County Public Schools is currently conducting a study of Elementary School boundaries to address current overcrowding in a handful of schools for the 2011-12 school year and the loss of 400 seats due to the closing of Clifton ES. The current recommendation of school staff directly impacts almost 1,500 kids in 21 schools - and their new classmates another 17,000+ kids who will now be in schools with inadequate facilities - overcrowded classrooms, gyms, music rooms, cafeterias and trailers. These boundary changes are projected to take place this year (September 2011) before any new classroom and facilities are built. Lost in the debate is that fact that much of the school overcrowding is not projected to occur until later. So why disrupt the education of so many southwestern students and families now?
There are a whole slew of unanswered questions related to this boundary study. In my opinion the biggest is - Why the rush? Why rush kids and teachers into school trailers and inadequate facilities that don't meet the county's basic educational specifications?
The public hearings for the boundary study are today, February 7, 2011 at Luther Jackson Middle School beginning at 6:00PM and concluding when all speakers have been heard. If you live in the southwestern section of the County please consider attending the meeting TONIGHT. Let the school board know that you want answers. Ask why they are rushing a process that doesn't need to be rushed and that will force our kids and teachers into facilities that are not yet ready. Ask why they are not giving serious consideration to the option that would let students and teachers stay in proven facilities for the time being while new facilities are being constructed.
Over half of the PTA's from the impacted schools have already passed a "No Faith" resolution expressing a lack of confidence in the process, projections, building capacity data, and the rushed timetable pushed by school staff. The PTAs and their members recognize this is the largest boundary study in FCPS history. The PTAs' resolution asks the school board to halt the boundary study until school staff answers the following basic questions:
· Why move students into schools without existing capacity before permanent capacity, in the form of newly proposed building additions, is complete? Trailers and modulars are not permanent solutions.
· What are the basic transportation plans including cost and ride times?
· What is the traffic impact on the local communities? Is there sufficient parking, kiss and ride, and bus drop off space?
· Has staff considered construction of a new elementary school at or near the epicenter of overcrowding - Would this be a cheaper option and less disruptive option than spending, at minimum, $15.1M of your taxpayer dollars on expansions? Some 'big schools' will, as a result of the proposed expansions, become even bigger schools - is this the best option for our kids and teachers?
· What is the plan for SACC placement when children with a SACC assignment at their current school are moved to another school?
· How will FCPS address concerns of impacted families who may be moved from a school with current full day kindergarten to a new school that has half-day kindergarten?
· Is this an opportunity to build space for full day kindergarten?
I encourage you to go to the FCPS school boundary site to see if you can find the answers to these questions - http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/index.htm
It is clear to me that the Southwestern Boundary Study and the decision to close Clifton should have been considered together, and if they had been considered together, the school board wouldn't have closed Clifton ES. School staff says the two issues are not linked. But the absurdity of closing Clifton ES - our number two best performing elementary school with a capacity of 400 that did not need to be renovated - only to move students to other sites with inadequate facilities - raises serious questions that need to be answered. The school board's rush to close Clifton by June 2011 and accomplish demographic shuffling in the boundary study before a new school board is elected in November is a major disservice to potentially thousands of the kids, families and teachers in southwestern Fairfax County.
The fact is there is no need to rush this process. The School Board should wait until it addresses the issues identified by the concerned PTA's and the families they represent. And new facilities should be created before they move our kids into a worse situation with inadequate facilities. Unfortunately, that was not one that was presented to parents by school staff for consideration.
Southwestern Boundary Study Schools Impacted:
Bonnie Brae, Colin Powell, Greenbriar East, Providence, Brookfield, Cub Run, Greenbriar West, Bull Run, Deer Park, Union Mill, Centre Ridge, Eagle View, London Towne, Virginia Run, Centreville, Fairfax Villa, Oak View, Willow Springs, Clifton, Fairview, Poplar Tree
Clifton ES Closure:
Clifton Elementary was approved for closure by the School Board in July. Board members cited the following reasons for closing the school:
high renovation costs (disputed claim but undisputed was the communities request not to renovate the #2 best performing elementary school in Fairfax County and leave it open),
decreases in enrollment projects (enrollment actually increased) and
water safety concerns (water quality proved to be fine - FCPS has stopped using bottled water at the school)
Fairfax County Public Schools is currently conducting a study of Elementary School boundaries to address current overcrowding in a handful of schools for the 2011-12 school year and the loss of 400 seats due to the closing of Clifton ES. The current recommendation of school staff directly impacts almost 1,500 kids in 21 schools - and their new classmates another 17,000+ kids who will now be in schools with inadequate facilities - overcrowded classrooms, gyms, music rooms, cafeterias and trailers. These boundary changes are projected to take place this year (September 2011) before any new classroom and facilities are built. Lost in the debate is that fact that much of the school overcrowding is not projected to occur until later. So why disrupt the education of so many southwestern students and families now?
There are a whole slew of unanswered questions related to this boundary study. In my opinion the biggest is - Why the rush? Why rush kids and teachers into school trailers and inadequate facilities that don't meet the county's basic educational specifications?
The public hearings for the boundary study are today, February 7, 2011 at Luther Jackson Middle School beginning at 6:00PM and concluding when all speakers have been heard. If you live in the southwestern section of the County please consider attending the meeting TONIGHT. Let the school board know that you want answers. Ask why they are rushing a process that doesn't need to be rushed and that will force our kids and teachers into facilities that are not yet ready. Ask why they are not giving serious consideration to the option that would let students and teachers stay in proven facilities for the time being while new facilities are being constructed.
Over half of the PTA's from the impacted schools have already passed a "No Faith" resolution expressing a lack of confidence in the process, projections, building capacity data, and the rushed timetable pushed by school staff. The PTAs and their members recognize this is the largest boundary study in FCPS history. The PTAs' resolution asks the school board to halt the boundary study until school staff answers the following basic questions:
· Why move students into schools without existing capacity before permanent capacity, in the form of newly proposed building additions, is complete? Trailers and modulars are not permanent solutions.
· What are the basic transportation plans including cost and ride times?
· What is the traffic impact on the local communities? Is there sufficient parking, kiss and ride, and bus drop off space?
· Has staff considered construction of a new elementary school at or near the epicenter of overcrowding - Would this be a cheaper option and less disruptive option than spending, at minimum, $15.1M of your taxpayer dollars on expansions? Some 'big schools' will, as a result of the proposed expansions, become even bigger schools - is this the best option for our kids and teachers?
· What is the plan for SACC placement when children with a SACC assignment at their current school are moved to another school?
· How will FCPS address concerns of impacted families who may be moved from a school with current full day kindergarten to a new school that has half-day kindergarten?
· Is this an opportunity to build space for full day kindergarten?
I encourage you to go to the FCPS school boundary site to see if you can find the answers to these questions - http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/index.htm
It is clear to me that the Southwestern Boundary Study and the decision to close Clifton should have been considered together, and if they had been considered together, the school board wouldn't have closed Clifton ES. School staff says the two issues are not linked. But the absurdity of closing Clifton ES - our number two best performing elementary school with a capacity of 400 that did not need to be renovated - only to move students to other sites with inadequate facilities - raises serious questions that need to be answered. The school board's rush to close Clifton by June 2011 and accomplish demographic shuffling in the boundary study before a new school board is elected in November is a major disservice to potentially thousands of the kids, families and teachers in southwestern Fairfax County.
The fact is there is no need to rush this process. The School Board should wait until it addresses the issues identified by the concerned PTA's and the families they represent. And new facilities should be created before they move our kids into a worse situation with inadequate facilities. Unfortunately, that was not one that was presented to parents by school staff for consideration.
Southwestern Boundary Study Schools Impacted:
Bonnie Brae, Colin Powell, Greenbriar East, Providence, Brookfield, Cub Run, Greenbriar West, Bull Run, Deer Park, Union Mill, Centre Ridge, Eagle View, London Towne, Virginia Run, Centreville, Fairfax Villa, Oak View, Willow Springs, Clifton, Fairview, Poplar Tree
Clifton ES Closure:
Clifton Elementary was approved for closure by the School Board in July. Board members cited the following reasons for closing the school:
high renovation costs (disputed claim but undisputed was the communities request not to renovate the #2 best performing elementary school in Fairfax County and leave it open),
decreases in enrollment projects (enrollment actually increased) and
water safety concerns (water quality proved to be fine - FCPS has stopped using bottled water at the school)
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
todayortomorrow
()
Date: February 07, 2011 05:47PM
Note the two different days in the past two posts. I believe it is tonight. Is this going to be on cable so we can watch.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
RogNoVa
()
Date: February 07, 2011 08:06PM
Read the Post article today on the amount of FOIA requests being put forth on the Boundary study and on the Clifton closure, plus just happened to catch the FCPS board meeting tonight...especially heard the testimony by the Schultz couple..who are also mentioned in the Post article...some thoughts.
Mr and Mrs Schultz I am ticked off over your incessant demands for FOIA info and what it is costing me as a taxpayer. And based on your comments tonight, it appears that you have tried Catholic schools, private schools, and now public schools...hell, you will never be satisfied, regardless of what FCPS does! So shut the hell up.
And as for the rest of you nasty folks, especially those from Clifton...if you are so ticked off with a School Board member, then vote him/her out. Better yet, so many of you appear to be real "experts" why don't YOU run for office? It is very apparent that you think you can do a much better job.
Sheesh..enough already!
Mr and Mrs Schultz I am ticked off over your incessant demands for FOIA info and what it is costing me as a taxpayer. And based on your comments tonight, it appears that you have tried Catholic schools, private schools, and now public schools...hell, you will never be satisfied, regardless of what FCPS does! So shut the hell up.
And as for the rest of you nasty folks, especially those from Clifton...if you are so ticked off with a School Board member, then vote him/her out. Better yet, so many of you appear to be real "experts" why don't YOU run for office? It is very apparent that you think you can do a much better job.
Sheesh..enough already!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yo
()
Date: February 07, 2011 10:17PM
Here's a better question? Why was the meeting held all the way at Luther Jackson, why not a school in the affected area? Was it so no one would attend or at least fewer people who are against the school board would attend as that starting time with traffic and everything would be difficult for many in the affected areas
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
TGE
()
Date: February 07, 2011 11:37PM
LIz, you go girl!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
GoAway
()
Date: February 07, 2011 11:55PM
RogNoVa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read the Post article today on the amount of FOIA
> requests being put forth on the Boundary study and
> on the Clifton closure, plus just happened to
> catch the FCPS board meeting tonight...especially
> heard the testimony by the Schultz couple..who are
> also mentioned in the Post article...some
> thoughts.
>
> Mr and Mrs Schultz I am ticked off over your
> incessant demands for FOIA info and what it is
> costing me as a taxpayer. And based on your
> comments tonight, it appears that you have tried
> Catholic schools, private schools, and now public
> schools...hell, you will never be satisfied,
> regardless of what FCPS does! So shut the hell
> up.
>
> And as for the rest of you nasty folks, especially
> those from Clifton...if you are so ticked off with
> a School Board member, then vote him/her out.
> Better yet, so many of you appear to be real
> "experts" why don't YOU run for office? It is very
> apparent that you think you can do a much better
> job.
>
> Sheesh..enough already!
This thread is about the Southwestern Boundary Study. If you can't stay on topic, please get off the thread.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read the Post article today on the amount of FOIA
> requests being put forth on the Boundary study and
> on the Clifton closure, plus just happened to
> catch the FCPS board meeting tonight...especially
> heard the testimony by the Schultz couple..who are
> also mentioned in the Post article...some
> thoughts.
>
> Mr and Mrs Schultz I am ticked off over your
> incessant demands for FOIA info and what it is
> costing me as a taxpayer. And based on your
> comments tonight, it appears that you have tried
> Catholic schools, private schools, and now public
> schools...hell, you will never be satisfied,
> regardless of what FCPS does! So shut the hell
> up.
>
> And as for the rest of you nasty folks, especially
> those from Clifton...if you are so ticked off with
> a School Board member, then vote him/her out.
> Better yet, so many of you appear to be real
> "experts" why don't YOU run for office? It is very
> apparent that you think you can do a much better
> job.
>
> Sheesh..enough already!
This thread is about the Southwestern Boundary Study. If you can't stay on topic, please get off the thread.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayinput
()
Date: February 08, 2011 08:48AM
yo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a better question? Why was the meeting held
> all the way at Luther Jackson, why not a school in
> the affected area? Was it so no one would attend
> or at least fewer people who are against the
> school board would attend as that starting time
> with traffic and everything would be difficult for
> many in the affected areas
I agree they should have made an exception and moved the meeting because of the issue and area, but I think they have the cameras and all the other things like there special seating and the timer system all set there for all public meetings so they can be aired on 21 - that said I think there are times when exceptions can be made, and they could have just gone without the fluff and held it in a highschool auditorium with a single camera.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a better question? Why was the meeting held
> all the way at Luther Jackson, why not a school in
> the affected area? Was it so no one would attend
> or at least fewer people who are against the
> school board would attend as that starting time
> with traffic and everything would be difficult for
> many in the affected areas
I agree they should have made an exception and moved the meeting because of the issue and area, but I think they have the cameras and all the other things like there special seating and the timer system all set there for all public meetings so they can be aired on 21 - that said I think there are times when exceptions can be made, and they could have just gone without the fluff and held it in a highschool auditorium with a single camera.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
comeonpepl
()
Date: February 08, 2011 07:23PM
So it the new option the final option. why no comments about what happened except you dont like some couple. what is now on the table and when will it be final
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayinput
()
Date: February 08, 2011 10:51PM
Okay up date. I left the speaker forum feeling that there may be some wiggle room on this whole thing. I think the will be revising the Final Plan as they have said in the past it is not a yes or no thing. I think people need to write to the board with their opinions (they have asked for that and if you are going to complain then be a part of the process).
That said - I think it would take a miracle for them to give in on Clifton (for the record I think many valid points were made last night to keep it, but I think there were a few very rude highly emotionally charged individuals that only harmed Clifton's pursuit - I understand their anger but being rude only makes you look bad). That said I really think the Clifton folks made a good case - I hope you all are listened too but I think it would be hard for the Board to go back even if it is the right thing.
I think the Fairview 50 has really solidified and will get to stay - the Board was listening when people from your school spoke.
I think London Towne brought up some valid points but the numbers were not there.
I think not enough people from other schools came and said hey we asked for no Domino Effect moves this does not make sense. I think there will be some tweeks but not a lot of big changes.
That said - I think it would take a miracle for them to give in on Clifton (for the record I think many valid points were made last night to keep it, but I think there were a few very rude highly emotionally charged individuals that only harmed Clifton's pursuit - I understand their anger but being rude only makes you look bad). That said I really think the Clifton folks made a good case - I hope you all are listened too but I think it would be hard for the Board to go back even if it is the right thing.
I think the Fairview 50 has really solidified and will get to stay - the Board was listening when people from your school spoke.
I think London Towne brought up some valid points but the numbers were not there.
I think not enough people from other schools came and said hey we asked for no Domino Effect moves this does not make sense. I think there will be some tweeks but not a lot of big changes.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Final plan?
()
Date: February 09, 2011 07:39AM
When will get this new made up final plan? Does anyone know what option it may be? We have had all these meetings ect. I guess they were just a waste of our time.
I just want to know what school my child is going to next year, as I am sure everyone else does to. Enough with the bullshit and give us the straight facts.
I just want to know what school my child is going to next year, as I am sure everyone else does to. Enough with the bullshit and give us the straight facts.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
watch the video
()
Date: February 09, 2011 07:42AM
stayinput Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay up date. I left the speaker forum feeling
> that there may be some wiggle room on this whole
> thing. I think the will be revising the Final Plan
> as they have said in the past it is not a yes or
> no thing. I think people need to write to the
> board with their opinions (they have asked for
> that and if you are going to complain then be a
> part of the process).
>
> That said - I think it would take a miracle for
> them to give in on Clifton (for the record I think
> many valid points were made last night to keep it,
> but I think there were a few very rude highly
> emotionally charged individuals that only harmed
> Clifton's pursuit - I understand their anger but
> being rude only makes you look bad). That said I
> really think the Clifton folks made a good case -
> I hope you all are listened too but I think it
> would be hard for the Board to go back even if it
> is the right thing.
>
> I think the Fairview 50 has really solidified and
> will get to stay - the Board was listening when
> people from your school spoke.
>
> I think London Towne brought up some valid points
> but the numbers were not there.
>
> I think not enough people from other schools came
> and said hey we asked for no Domino Effect moves
> this does not make sense. I think there will be
> some tweeks but not a lot of big changes.
Good points, stayinput. In defense of the Clifton angry, go back and look at the public hearing video during the Clifton School Closing hearing (June 28, I think) where almost 100 people talked in front of the school board. There were no angry or insulting remarks then, just a lot of facts, alternate solutions, saying Clifton parents would sacrifice renovations for keeping the school open, and opinions. BUT the school board chose to ignore them all. Then come to find out about all of the backdoor deals going on. This makes people lose faith in their own elected officials, and yes, a lot angry!
Interesting fact: The only dissenting voice from that June 28 hearing in favor of CLOSING Clifton Elem was from the Virginia Run PTA President, Cassie Eatmon. Ironically, Beth Tweddle, who lives in and writes the newsletter and pretty much represents the Va Run neighborhood, spoke Monday night at the hearing in favor of scrapping the boundary study (because Va Run does not want more kids at their school).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay up date. I left the speaker forum feeling
> that there may be some wiggle room on this whole
> thing. I think the will be revising the Final Plan
> as they have said in the past it is not a yes or
> no thing. I think people need to write to the
> board with their opinions (they have asked for
> that and if you are going to complain then be a
> part of the process).
>
> That said - I think it would take a miracle for
> them to give in on Clifton (for the record I think
> many valid points were made last night to keep it,
> but I think there were a few very rude highly
> emotionally charged individuals that only harmed
> Clifton's pursuit - I understand their anger but
> being rude only makes you look bad). That said I
> really think the Clifton folks made a good case -
> I hope you all are listened too but I think it
> would be hard for the Board to go back even if it
> is the right thing.
>
> I think the Fairview 50 has really solidified and
> will get to stay - the Board was listening when
> people from your school spoke.
>
> I think London Towne brought up some valid points
> but the numbers were not there.
>
> I think not enough people from other schools came
> and said hey we asked for no Domino Effect moves
> this does not make sense. I think there will be
> some tweeks but not a lot of big changes.
Good points, stayinput. In defense of the Clifton angry, go back and look at the public hearing video during the Clifton School Closing hearing (June 28, I think) where almost 100 people talked in front of the school board. There were no angry or insulting remarks then, just a lot of facts, alternate solutions, saying Clifton parents would sacrifice renovations for keeping the school open, and opinions. BUT the school board chose to ignore them all. Then come to find out about all of the backdoor deals going on. This makes people lose faith in their own elected officials, and yes, a lot angry!
Interesting fact: The only dissenting voice from that June 28 hearing in favor of CLOSING Clifton Elem was from the Virginia Run PTA President, Cassie Eatmon. Ironically, Beth Tweddle, who lives in and writes the newsletter and pretty much represents the Va Run neighborhood, spoke Monday night at the hearing in favor of scrapping the boundary study (because Va Run does not want more kids at their school).
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Clifton parents
()
Date: February 09, 2011 07:55AM
This back and forth with the SB has been going on for over a year. We have been told so many lies by the SB. I think we now have every right to be mad. I only wish we had tougher from the get go.
I am glad now that so many other parents from the other area schools are upset too. This effects so many children.
The SB should not be allowed to treat us like this and keep us in the dark.
I am glad now that so many other parents from the other area schools are upset too. This effects so many children.
The SB should not be allowed to treat us like this and keep us in the dark.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
watch the video
()
Date: February 09, 2011 08:35AM
My comments were not to disparage or disrespect Ms. Tweddle, she does a lot of great things for Va Run. My point is that they would not be in this fight if it weren't for the actions of Eatmon and Bradsher.
I think Tweddle should run for school board!
I think Tweddle should run for school board!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
SBvote
()
Date: February 09, 2011 12:41PM
+ 1 Tweedle for School Board!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Sign the petition
()
Date: February 09, 2011 03:43PM
Please sign the SW Boundary Study petition today!
A new petition regarding the SW Boundary Study has been started online by a concerned parent from Poplar Tree Elementary in Chantilly.
This petition will be presented to the School Board prior to their vote on the boundary changes on Feb. 24th. Please take a moment to follow the link below and sign the petition. It is free to sign. There is a "requested donation" page that pops up after you add your signature, but you do not need to make a donation in order for your signature to count.
It only takes a moment.
54% of tax revenue for Fairfax County goes directly to FCPS. The proposed boundary changes will cost taxpayers from the entire county over $15 MILLION, and fails to effectively solve the overcrowding. Please sign the petition, and please forward this to everyone you know in Fairfax County. Even if they do not have children in FCPS or live in the SW Region of Fairfax County, every resident of Fairfax County is going to pay for this failure.
"Southwestern Boundary Study Petition"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/southwesternboundarystudy
A new petition regarding the SW Boundary Study has been started online by a concerned parent from Poplar Tree Elementary in Chantilly.
This petition will be presented to the School Board prior to their vote on the boundary changes on Feb. 24th. Please take a moment to follow the link below and sign the petition. It is free to sign. There is a "requested donation" page that pops up after you add your signature, but you do not need to make a donation in order for your signature to count.
It only takes a moment.
54% of tax revenue for Fairfax County goes directly to FCPS. The proposed boundary changes will cost taxpayers from the entire county over $15 MILLION, and fails to effectively solve the overcrowding. Please sign the petition, and please forward this to everyone you know in Fairfax County. Even if they do not have children in FCPS or live in the SW Region of Fairfax County, every resident of Fairfax County is going to pay for this failure.
"Southwestern Boundary Study Petition"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/southwesternboundarystudy
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
sign!
()
Date: February 09, 2011 04:57PM
+1
"Southwestern Boundary Study Petition"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/southwesternboundarystudy
"Southwestern Boundary Study Petition"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/southwesternboundarystudy
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayinput(I hope)
()
Date: February 09, 2011 06:05PM
Clifton parents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This back and forth with the SB has been going on
> for over a year. We have been told so many lies
> by the SB. I think we now have every right to be
> mad. I only wish we had tougher from the get go.
>
> I am glad now that so many other parents from the
> other area schools are upset too. This effects so
> many children.
>
> The SB should not be allowed to treat us like this
> and keep us in the dark.
I think there is a big difference between mad/angry and vocalizing it (which I think many Clifton parents did brilliantly at this last speaker forum and I am not from Clifton) to being down right rude. I just think that the one or two who just really were rude - did nothing but make themself look bad and unfortunately bolster this horrible "Clifton parent" sterotype that seems to be out there and further shut the ears of the board. You could see the body language change and watch them shut down - you were not there to vent but to present points. Yes I know history is that the Board has not listened but then why give ammunition to ignore you further. Until Clifton is closed it is still open and shooting yourself in the foot by being rude and nasty only helps the board feel good about it. How they have gone about this is horrible, and I doubt they will back down about Clifton, but when faced with an adversary you have more strength staying collected and cooly polite then being rude and nasty (don't get me wrong I get it I have had my moments in life, but I also had many remind me the best way to deal with this was stick with the numbers and hard facts). I will say again though that I was truly impressed with the vast majority of Clifton parents and wish more parents from other schools were there as well - a petition and emails is great but physical numbers, filling a room with a wide number of constituents from various areas is what opens blinded eyes (sometimes - one hopes).
-------------------------------------------------------
> This back and forth with the SB has been going on
> for over a year. We have been told so many lies
> by the SB. I think we now have every right to be
> mad. I only wish we had tougher from the get go.
>
> I am glad now that so many other parents from the
> other area schools are upset too. This effects so
> many children.
>
> The SB should not be allowed to treat us like this
> and keep us in the dark.
I think there is a big difference between mad/angry and vocalizing it (which I think many Clifton parents did brilliantly at this last speaker forum and I am not from Clifton) to being down right rude. I just think that the one or two who just really were rude - did nothing but make themself look bad and unfortunately bolster this horrible "Clifton parent" sterotype that seems to be out there and further shut the ears of the board. You could see the body language change and watch them shut down - you were not there to vent but to present points. Yes I know history is that the Board has not listened but then why give ammunition to ignore you further. Until Clifton is closed it is still open and shooting yourself in the foot by being rude and nasty only helps the board feel good about it. How they have gone about this is horrible, and I doubt they will back down about Clifton, but when faced with an adversary you have more strength staying collected and cooly polite then being rude and nasty (don't get me wrong I get it I have had my moments in life, but I also had many remind me the best way to deal with this was stick with the numbers and hard facts). I will say again though that I was truly impressed with the vast majority of Clifton parents and wish more parents from other schools were there as well - a petition and emails is great but physical numbers, filling a room with a wide number of constituents from various areas is what opens blinded eyes (sometimes - one hopes).
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
NotClifton
()
Date: February 09, 2011 08:00PM
stayinput(I hope) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clifton parents Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This back and forth with the SB has been going
> on
> > for over a year. We have been told so many
> lies
> > by the SB. I think we now have every right to
> be
> > mad. I only wish we had tougher from the get go.
>
> >
> > I am glad now that so many other parents from
> the
> > other area schools are upset too. This effects
> so
> > many children.
> >
> > The SB should not be allowed to treat us like
> this
> > and keep us in the dark.
>
>
> I think there is a big difference between
> mad/angry and vocalizing it (which I think many
> Clifton parents did brilliantly at this last
> speaker forum and I am not from Clifton) to being
> down right rude. I just think that the one or two
> who just really were rude - did nothing but make
> themself look bad and unfortunately bolster this
> horrible "Clifton parent" sterotype that seems to
> be out there and further shut the ears of the
> board. You could see the body language change and
> watch them shut down - you were not there to vent
> but to present points. Yes I know history is that
> the Board has not listened but then why give
> ammunition to ignore you further. Until Clifton is
> closed it is still open and shooting yourself in
> the foot by being rude and nasty only helps the
> board feel good about it. How they have gone about
> this is horrible, and I doubt they will back down
> about Clifton, but when faced with an adversary
> you have more strength staying collected and cooly
> polite then being rude and nasty (don't get me
> wrong I get it I have had my moments in life, but
> I also had many remind me the best way to deal
> with this was stick with the numbers and hard
> facts). I will say again though that I was truly
> impressed with the vast majority of Clifton
> parents and wish more parents from other schools
> were there as well - a petition and emails is
> great but physical numbers, filling a room with a
> wide number of constituents from various areas is
> what opens blinded eyes (sometimes - one hopes).
The ones that were "rude" were not from Clifton. They were Fairfax County taxpayers that are angry about how they see the SB is operating. Watch the video. They weren't from Clifton. It's interesting though how everyone wants to assume they are from Clifton.... Seems to be lots of pre-conceived notions about Clifton.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clifton parents Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This back and forth with the SB has been going
> on
> > for over a year. We have been told so many
> lies
> > by the SB. I think we now have every right to
> be
> > mad. I only wish we had tougher from the get go.
>
> >
> > I am glad now that so many other parents from
> the
> > other area schools are upset too. This effects
> so
> > many children.
> >
> > The SB should not be allowed to treat us like
> this
> > and keep us in the dark.
>
>
> I think there is a big difference between
> mad/angry and vocalizing it (which I think many
> Clifton parents did brilliantly at this last
> speaker forum and I am not from Clifton) to being
> down right rude. I just think that the one or two
> who just really were rude - did nothing but make
> themself look bad and unfortunately bolster this
> horrible "Clifton parent" sterotype that seems to
> be out there and further shut the ears of the
> board. You could see the body language change and
> watch them shut down - you were not there to vent
> but to present points. Yes I know history is that
> the Board has not listened but then why give
> ammunition to ignore you further. Until Clifton is
> closed it is still open and shooting yourself in
> the foot by being rude and nasty only helps the
> board feel good about it. How they have gone about
> this is horrible, and I doubt they will back down
> about Clifton, but when faced with an adversary
> you have more strength staying collected and cooly
> polite then being rude and nasty (don't get me
> wrong I get it I have had my moments in life, but
> I also had many remind me the best way to deal
> with this was stick with the numbers and hard
> facts). I will say again though that I was truly
> impressed with the vast majority of Clifton
> parents and wish more parents from other schools
> were there as well - a petition and emails is
> great but physical numbers, filling a room with a
> wide number of constituents from various areas is
> what opens blinded eyes (sometimes - one hopes).
The ones that were "rude" were not from Clifton. They were Fairfax County taxpayers that are angry about how they see the SB is operating. Watch the video. They weren't from Clifton. It's interesting though how everyone wants to assume they are from Clifton.... Seems to be lots of pre-conceived notions about Clifton.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
To notclifton
()
Date: February 09, 2011 10:08PM
+1
I am so tired of being called an elite rude snob. This not true for me and many others who live in Clifton. If you do not live here you would not and can not understand how we love our community. If you like you should get involved in your own community and make it what you want.
I am so tired of being called an elite rude snob. This not true for me and many others who live in Clifton. If you do not live here you would not and can not understand how we love our community. If you like you should get involved in your own community and make it what you want.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
be there
()
Date: February 12, 2011 10:41AM
Work session on Monday on the boundary study, 12:30 at Gatehouse. Be there.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: February 14, 2011 09:56AM
http://fairfaxstation.patch.com/articles/parents-speak-out-on-proposed-school-boundary-changes-2?ncid=M255
Parents Speak Out on Proposed School Boundary Changes
Public hearing held this week in Falls Church on changes that will affect a number of schools in the area.
By Mary C. Stachyra | Email the author | February 10, 2011
Add a comment (1 comment )
Email | Start Following | Print | Facebook Share on Facebook |
View full size
new Play
Credit Mary C. Stachyra
Videos (1)
Credit Mary C. Stachyra http://o5.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/resize/273x203/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/c61732f00f4fcf46fadd081d256abe03
Add your photos & videos
Section Sponsored By
patch
Parents and community members gathered before the Fairfax County School Board this week to express their opinions and concerns over proposed changes to school boundaries in the southwestern part of the county.
Much of the testimony centered on the school board's decision last year to close Clifton Elementary School. However, representatives from 10 other local PTAs also testified that their members had voted in favor of a resolution expressing "no confidence" in the study, showing widespread unease over the largest boundary study in FCPS history.
The PTAs that have signed the resolution are from Oak View, Clifton, Willow Springs, Union Mill, Deer Park, Poplar Tree, Fairview, Colin Powell, Providence, Greenbriar West and London Towne elementary schools.
"Early on, several of the PTAs expressly did not want to get involved in what has become a very contentious issue. As the study evolved, these PTAs from all areas of the study region have banded together willingly over what we see as an incomplete solution to the overcrowding issue in this area," said Amy Riddick, president of the PTA at Fairview Elementary, adding that the 11 PTAs represent 8,500 students in the area.
Riddick said that the final FCPS staff recommendations, which were presented to the board last month, raised more questions then the other four options presented to the public and that there were too many "domino effects" caused by moving children from one school to another. She questioned why the school board would schedule the vote before new five-year projection data is released next month.
"We do understand that some schools in the area have an overcrowding problem, and we feel for those schools that need immediate relief," Riddick said. "In no way do we want to unnecessarily stall solutions to these problems. However, expediency is not always the best solution."
Proposed Changes
The school board authorized the study last September. Four options were presented to the public and feedback obtained through public meetings and online questionnaires before the final staff recommendation was presented to the board in January. The school board can vote to adopt some of these changes, accept them all, or even reject them entirely.
The proposed changes are an attempt to relieve overcrowding at a number of local schools. Colin Powell Elementary, for instance, will have nearly 200 students more then the recommended number during the next school year, according to projection data.
The proposed changes come in two phases. In the first phase, which will take effect during the next school year:
* Clifton Elementary will close and its students will be sent to Fairview, Oak View and Union Mill.
* Bonnie Brae, Brookfield, Bull Run, Cub Run, Deer Park, Eagle View, Fairview, Fairfax Villa, Greenbriar East, Greenbriar West, London Towne, Oak View, Poplar Tree, Providence, Virginia Run and Willow Springs elementary schools will all have their enrollment numbers change.
In phase two, during the 2013-2014 school year, changes at Centreville, Centre Ridge, Colin Powell, Eagle View, Fairfax Villa, Greenbriar East and Union Mill elementary schools will take effect once building construction is complete.
Students in Advanced Academic Programs would also experience some shifts.
The total cost for building construction is over $15 million, which would come from the construction reserve account.
Clifton Supporters Remain Vocal
Many parents had scathing words for the board, and some personal attacks aimed at certain board members, when it came to the subject of Clifton Elementary School closing. Some urged scrapping the study entirely and starting from scratch. Some had suggestions to relieve the overcrowding.
Dwayne Nitz spoke on behalf of the proposed Lewis and Clark charter school, which organizers hope would replace Clifton Elementary if it is closed as planned. The school's location six miles from the overcrowded schools in the area will help relieve the congestion at those schools, and would also serve at-risk students, he said.
Before Monday's hearing, Springfield Supervisor Pat Herrity, long a vocal opponent of closing Clifton Elementary, said that school board members were rushing to close the school before elections in the fall.
"There are a whole slew of unanswered questions related to this boundary study. In my opinion the biggest is: 'Why the rush?' " Herrity wrote in his newsletter. "Why rush kids and teachers into school trailers and inadequate facilities that don’t meet the county’s basic educational specifications?"
Board Responds
After the meeting, some board members said that they would receive criticism no matter what they did, and they would stay accountable to their constituents.
"There's some decisions people aren't going to like and some things that people are going to like," Elizabeth Bradsher, of the Springfield district, said.
"Boundary changes are hard. It is very hard to make changes," said Jane Strauss, of the Dranesville district, noting that in her 18 years on the school board, not one boundary study has been easy. "People value their neighborhood school and that's a good thing."
"We are always rushing to keep up and it comes with the territory," Strauss said of the criticism leveled at the board.
What do you think of the proposed changes? Tell us in the comments box!
Parents Speak Out on Proposed School Boundary Changes
Public hearing held this week in Falls Church on changes that will affect a number of schools in the area.
By Mary C. Stachyra | Email the author | February 10, 2011
Add a comment (1 comment )
Email | Start Following | Print | Facebook Share on Facebook |
View full size
new Play
Credit Mary C. Stachyra
Videos (1)
Credit Mary C. Stachyra http://o5.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/resize/273x203/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/c61732f00f4fcf46fadd081d256abe03
Add your photos & videos
Section Sponsored By
patch
Parents and community members gathered before the Fairfax County School Board this week to express their opinions and concerns over proposed changes to school boundaries in the southwestern part of the county.
Much of the testimony centered on the school board's decision last year to close Clifton Elementary School. However, representatives from 10 other local PTAs also testified that their members had voted in favor of a resolution expressing "no confidence" in the study, showing widespread unease over the largest boundary study in FCPS history.
The PTAs that have signed the resolution are from Oak View, Clifton, Willow Springs, Union Mill, Deer Park, Poplar Tree, Fairview, Colin Powell, Providence, Greenbriar West and London Towne elementary schools.
"Early on, several of the PTAs expressly did not want to get involved in what has become a very contentious issue. As the study evolved, these PTAs from all areas of the study region have banded together willingly over what we see as an incomplete solution to the overcrowding issue in this area," said Amy Riddick, president of the PTA at Fairview Elementary, adding that the 11 PTAs represent 8,500 students in the area.
Riddick said that the final FCPS staff recommendations, which were presented to the board last month, raised more questions then the other four options presented to the public and that there were too many "domino effects" caused by moving children from one school to another. She questioned why the school board would schedule the vote before new five-year projection data is released next month.
"We do understand that some schools in the area have an overcrowding problem, and we feel for those schools that need immediate relief," Riddick said. "In no way do we want to unnecessarily stall solutions to these problems. However, expediency is not always the best solution."
Proposed Changes
The school board authorized the study last September. Four options were presented to the public and feedback obtained through public meetings and online questionnaires before the final staff recommendation was presented to the board in January. The school board can vote to adopt some of these changes, accept them all, or even reject them entirely.
The proposed changes are an attempt to relieve overcrowding at a number of local schools. Colin Powell Elementary, for instance, will have nearly 200 students more then the recommended number during the next school year, according to projection data.
The proposed changes come in two phases. In the first phase, which will take effect during the next school year:
* Clifton Elementary will close and its students will be sent to Fairview, Oak View and Union Mill.
* Bonnie Brae, Brookfield, Bull Run, Cub Run, Deer Park, Eagle View, Fairview, Fairfax Villa, Greenbriar East, Greenbriar West, London Towne, Oak View, Poplar Tree, Providence, Virginia Run and Willow Springs elementary schools will all have their enrollment numbers change.
In phase two, during the 2013-2014 school year, changes at Centreville, Centre Ridge, Colin Powell, Eagle View, Fairfax Villa, Greenbriar East and Union Mill elementary schools will take effect once building construction is complete.
Students in Advanced Academic Programs would also experience some shifts.
The total cost for building construction is over $15 million, which would come from the construction reserve account.
Clifton Supporters Remain Vocal
Many parents had scathing words for the board, and some personal attacks aimed at certain board members, when it came to the subject of Clifton Elementary School closing. Some urged scrapping the study entirely and starting from scratch. Some had suggestions to relieve the overcrowding.
Dwayne Nitz spoke on behalf of the proposed Lewis and Clark charter school, which organizers hope would replace Clifton Elementary if it is closed as planned. The school's location six miles from the overcrowded schools in the area will help relieve the congestion at those schools, and would also serve at-risk students, he said.
Before Monday's hearing, Springfield Supervisor Pat Herrity, long a vocal opponent of closing Clifton Elementary, said that school board members were rushing to close the school before elections in the fall.
"There are a whole slew of unanswered questions related to this boundary study. In my opinion the biggest is: 'Why the rush?' " Herrity wrote in his newsletter. "Why rush kids and teachers into school trailers and inadequate facilities that don’t meet the county’s basic educational specifications?"
Board Responds
After the meeting, some board members said that they would receive criticism no matter what they did, and they would stay accountable to their constituents.
"There's some decisions people aren't going to like and some things that people are going to like," Elizabeth Bradsher, of the Springfield district, said.
"Boundary changes are hard. It is very hard to make changes," said Jane Strauss, of the Dranesville district, noting that in her 18 years on the school board, not one boundary study has been easy. "People value their neighborhood school and that's a good thing."
"We are always rushing to keep up and it comes with the territory," Strauss said of the criticism leveled at the board.
What do you think of the proposed changes? Tell us in the comments box!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingput
()
Date: February 14, 2011 03:12PM
If anyone attended the work session could you please put down some simple notes from the meeting. I had no sitter and had to volunteer at school today so there was no way to make it. Thanks in advance.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: February 14, 2011 05:26PM
stayingput Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If anyone attended the work session could you
> please put down some simple notes from the
> meeting. I had no sitter and had to volunteer at
> school today so there was no way to make it.
> Thanks in advance.
From what I heard from an attendee at the meeting:
- interior mods are now coming to Oak View, Virginia Run, Union Mill and Fairview before the 2011 school year starts. That is a change as previously only Fairview was to receive interior mods. Union Mill will still receive additions even after interior mods. No cost data for see new mods was provided
- trailors will be needed at some schools. Board and staff made a point to say no standard classrooms will be held in the new trailers but music and similar classes may.
- Clifton hasn't got a prayer on the charter school alternative as the Board seemed to have no interest in holding the changes until after additions are made on schools
- an amendment to the staff proposal will be made by Cathy Smith to ask that full day K be implemented at schools with half day programs that will be receiving families from full day programs
- Bradsher made vague reference to errant information being dispersed by "a particular supervisor" but failed to name at supervisor or mention what exactly the errant information was that was being distributed to constituents. Brasher only addressed the full board and said she, Smith and Wilson were working to "correct" the bad information that was being distributed. Brasher characterized the information as inaccurate yet did not add detail or indicate what was wrong. Interesting, one would think you may wish to correct the errant information being distributed in a public forum vs in email but we've seen the interest of this board in sharing information.
- Reid, Hone, Moon and Rainey asked most of the questions
-------------------------------------------------------
> If anyone attended the work session could you
> please put down some simple notes from the
> meeting. I had no sitter and had to volunteer at
> school today so there was no way to make it.
> Thanks in advance.
From what I heard from an attendee at the meeting:
- interior mods are now coming to Oak View, Virginia Run, Union Mill and Fairview before the 2011 school year starts. That is a change as previously only Fairview was to receive interior mods. Union Mill will still receive additions even after interior mods. No cost data for see new mods was provided
- trailors will be needed at some schools. Board and staff made a point to say no standard classrooms will be held in the new trailers but music and similar classes may.
- Clifton hasn't got a prayer on the charter school alternative as the Board seemed to have no interest in holding the changes until after additions are made on schools
- an amendment to the staff proposal will be made by Cathy Smith to ask that full day K be implemented at schools with half day programs that will be receiving families from full day programs
- Bradsher made vague reference to errant information being dispersed by "a particular supervisor" but failed to name at supervisor or mention what exactly the errant information was that was being distributed to constituents. Brasher only addressed the full board and said she, Smith and Wilson were working to "correct" the bad information that was being distributed. Brasher characterized the information as inaccurate yet did not add detail or indicate what was wrong. Interesting, one would think you may wish to correct the errant information being distributed in a public forum vs in email but we've seen the interest of this board in sharing information.
- Reid, Hone, Moon and Rainey asked most of the questions
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
InteriorMods
()
Date: February 14, 2011 09:58PM
So interior mods are now the Kool Aid that FCPS is serving up? These people would make Jim Jones proud.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
LRRfolk
()
Date: February 14, 2011 10:57PM
Someone did a calculation, pretty telling.
If this is about keeping costs down per student, why is UMES getting modifications costing $4,500,000 for 91 students, part of the CES student body being peeled off and sent here?
Get your bubble sheets ready.
Spending $4,500,000 for 91 students equals:
1. a whopping $45,604 per student
2. the School Board's answer not to spend $29,756 per student at CES
3. the dumbest thing you have ever heard
4. all of the above
If this is about keeping costs down per student, why is UMES getting modifications costing $4,500,000 for 91 students, part of the CES student body being peeled off and sent here?
Get your bubble sheets ready.
Spending $4,500,000 for 91 students equals:
1. a whopping $45,604 per student
2. the School Board's answer not to spend $29,756 per student at CES
3. the dumbest thing you have ever heard
4. all of the above
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
See and Believe
()
Date: February 14, 2011 11:10PM
RogNoVa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read the Post article today on the amount of FOIA
> requests being put forth on the Boundary study and
> on the Clifton closure, plus just happened to
> catch the FCPS board meeting tonight...especially
> heard the testimony by the Schultz couple..who are
> also mentioned in the Post article...some
> thoughts.
>
> Mr and Mrs Schultz I am ticked off over your
> incessant demands for FOIA info and what it is
> costing me as a taxpayer. And based on your
> comments tonight, it appears that you have tried
> Catholic schools, private schools, and now public
> schools...hell, you will never be satisfied,
> regardless of what FCPS does! So shut the hell
> up.
>
> And as for the rest of you nasty folks, especially
> those from Clifton...if you are so ticked off with
> a School Board member, then vote him/her out.
> Better yet, so many of you appear to be real
> "experts" why don't YOU run for office? It is very
> apparent that you think you can do a much better
> job.
>
> Sheesh..enough already!
If the basics are whether we can trust in what the school board is doing, then it matters to all of us in the study. From some of the comments on the WaPost story, it seems like there is a huge missing link. It actually doesnt' sound like much of the important stuff is either right or even in the story at all.
The comments have more than the story. Here's a few:
ffxvoter wrote:
The requestor of the information PAYS FCPS for the FOIA’d documents. It is egregious that this is being portrayed as a financial burden on FCPS! If this is taxing on FCPS staff than perhaps FCPS Administration needs to streamline the procedure/process which they are using to gather the information instead of trying to use it as an excuse to try and skirt transparency. At a time when other agencies (Ex. White House Open Government Initiative) are seeking to become MORE transparent, it is arrogant of FCPS to try and go in the opposite direction.
Further, the POST has now injured its own credibility by (1) not doing full research on a story (2), not checking its facts to make sure they are accurate and (3) appearing to merely be an extension of FCPS PR Department. Shame on you!
Infinimac wrote:
Dear Washington Post Reporter Who Should Have Standards: Who, EXACTLY, is accusing parents of an "indiscriminate witch hunt?" Someone with the word "Hunt" in her name, maybe? Or a board member? This is an OUTRAGEOUS accusation, coming from a school board with zero accountability or a school system administrator with even less!!
Janet Otersen got it right, and I can attest to it: This school administration does not deserve to be trusted. I have seen manipulation of data, spinning of facts, and outright lies from FCPS Gatehouse individuals. Does the public know that almost all the "awards" this system gets come from self-nominations (conducted at taxpayer expense)? Go figure.
That they're spending our money and our trust marching to Richmond claiming victimhood because poor them, they have to abide by the sunshine laws in place for decades to protect the public, just like every other government entity does, is truly illuminating. If I were a taxpayer, I'd be asking, "What are they trying to hide?"
Pay attention, voters! This school system spends 53% of your budget to the tune of $2.2B, more than we give to Egypt in aid every year! There are some amazing reform candidates running for school board who stand for transparency, honesty, and accountability, and who WELCOME public engagement. Find out who they are and vote them in!
ElizabethSchultz wrote:
Several important points of clarification regarding this article:
First of all – my husband and I have FOUR sons - no daughters.
Second – early last fall I sent a single (one) email inquiry to my School Board representative, Elizabeth Bradsher, to pursue transparency in attempting to account Bond Referendum monies totaling $21.75M in taxpayer dollars. Ms. Bradsher refused to answer the inquiry. I have not sent a single formal FOIA request to FCPS, nevermind more than a dozen as attributed in this article.
Third – I am not a plaintiff in any lawsuit against the School Board or FCPS.
Fourth – the FOIA lawsuit has a single plaintiff, NOT many parents.
And, critically, the School Board members emails in the conduct of the public's business with public monies ARE NOT PRIVATE. Virginia statute sets forth that at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government. If the School Board - or any public body - circumvents the law under existing Virginia Code, they should held accountable.
Any government body, including a school board, which endeavours to do the public's business with LESS transparency and LESS accountability, is not seeking to serve their stakeholders with integrity.
Such efforts to reduce government transparency and accountability should wave a red flag to the respective constituents of such government body.
Elizabeth L. Schultz
Springfield District resident
Fairfax County, VA
ProudVoter wrote:
There obviously is a big trust issue between the current Fairfax County School Board & administration, and the parents. The School Board and FCPS management seems to forget that the parents and all County taxpayers have an expectation of high integrity and transparent decision making by their School Board. Instead there have been repeated instances of decisions being made before public hearings even begin, decisions being made that go against the objective facts and data, decisions being made that go against the desires of the parents and taxpayers (the customers), and ugly back room dealing. An enlightened School Board would want to know what has caused this and be asking themselves what they can do to be even more transparent and responsive to the public to try and regain trust.
Voters will have the opportunity to vote in many new School Board members in November. They should exercise their right to do so.
mmkm wrote:
Isn't the real story about what was in those FOIA emails? The reader of this article might understand why there are so many requests if the reporter had revealed a little more about the emails.
FOIA was set up to protect citizens from abuse by government officials. And, abuse is exactly what is revealed in the emails relating to Clifton. This is exactly why we need FOIA.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read the Post article today on the amount of FOIA
> requests being put forth on the Boundary study and
> on the Clifton closure, plus just happened to
> catch the FCPS board meeting tonight...especially
> heard the testimony by the Schultz couple..who are
> also mentioned in the Post article...some
> thoughts.
>
> Mr and Mrs Schultz I am ticked off over your
> incessant demands for FOIA info and what it is
> costing me as a taxpayer. And based on your
> comments tonight, it appears that you have tried
> Catholic schools, private schools, and now public
> schools...hell, you will never be satisfied,
> regardless of what FCPS does! So shut the hell
> up.
>
> And as for the rest of you nasty folks, especially
> those from Clifton...if you are so ticked off with
> a School Board member, then vote him/her out.
> Better yet, so many of you appear to be real
> "experts" why don't YOU run for office? It is very
> apparent that you think you can do a much better
> job.
>
> Sheesh..enough already!
If the basics are whether we can trust in what the school board is doing, then it matters to all of us in the study. From some of the comments on the WaPost story, it seems like there is a huge missing link. It actually doesnt' sound like much of the important stuff is either right or even in the story at all.
The comments have more than the story. Here's a few:
ffxvoter wrote:
The requestor of the information PAYS FCPS for the FOIA’d documents. It is egregious that this is being portrayed as a financial burden on FCPS! If this is taxing on FCPS staff than perhaps FCPS Administration needs to streamline the procedure/process which they are using to gather the information instead of trying to use it as an excuse to try and skirt transparency. At a time when other agencies (Ex. White House Open Government Initiative) are seeking to become MORE transparent, it is arrogant of FCPS to try and go in the opposite direction.
Further, the POST has now injured its own credibility by (1) not doing full research on a story (2), not checking its facts to make sure they are accurate and (3) appearing to merely be an extension of FCPS PR Department. Shame on you!
Infinimac wrote:
Dear Washington Post Reporter Who Should Have Standards: Who, EXACTLY, is accusing parents of an "indiscriminate witch hunt?" Someone with the word "Hunt" in her name, maybe? Or a board member? This is an OUTRAGEOUS accusation, coming from a school board with zero accountability or a school system administrator with even less!!
Janet Otersen got it right, and I can attest to it: This school administration does not deserve to be trusted. I have seen manipulation of data, spinning of facts, and outright lies from FCPS Gatehouse individuals. Does the public know that almost all the "awards" this system gets come from self-nominations (conducted at taxpayer expense)? Go figure.
That they're spending our money and our trust marching to Richmond claiming victimhood because poor them, they have to abide by the sunshine laws in place for decades to protect the public, just like every other government entity does, is truly illuminating. If I were a taxpayer, I'd be asking, "What are they trying to hide?"
Pay attention, voters! This school system spends 53% of your budget to the tune of $2.2B, more than we give to Egypt in aid every year! There are some amazing reform candidates running for school board who stand for transparency, honesty, and accountability, and who WELCOME public engagement. Find out who they are and vote them in!
ElizabethSchultz wrote:
Several important points of clarification regarding this article:
First of all – my husband and I have FOUR sons - no daughters.
Second – early last fall I sent a single (one) email inquiry to my School Board representative, Elizabeth Bradsher, to pursue transparency in attempting to account Bond Referendum monies totaling $21.75M in taxpayer dollars. Ms. Bradsher refused to answer the inquiry. I have not sent a single formal FOIA request to FCPS, nevermind more than a dozen as attributed in this article.
Third – I am not a plaintiff in any lawsuit against the School Board or FCPS.
Fourth – the FOIA lawsuit has a single plaintiff, NOT many parents.
And, critically, the School Board members emails in the conduct of the public's business with public monies ARE NOT PRIVATE. Virginia statute sets forth that at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government. If the School Board - or any public body - circumvents the law under existing Virginia Code, they should held accountable.
Any government body, including a school board, which endeavours to do the public's business with LESS transparency and LESS accountability, is not seeking to serve their stakeholders with integrity.
Such efforts to reduce government transparency and accountability should wave a red flag to the respective constituents of such government body.
Elizabeth L. Schultz
Springfield District resident
Fairfax County, VA
ProudVoter wrote:
There obviously is a big trust issue between the current Fairfax County School Board & administration, and the parents. The School Board and FCPS management seems to forget that the parents and all County taxpayers have an expectation of high integrity and transparent decision making by their School Board. Instead there have been repeated instances of decisions being made before public hearings even begin, decisions being made that go against the objective facts and data, decisions being made that go against the desires of the parents and taxpayers (the customers), and ugly back room dealing. An enlightened School Board would want to know what has caused this and be asking themselves what they can do to be even more transparent and responsive to the public to try and regain trust.
Voters will have the opportunity to vote in many new School Board members in November. They should exercise their right to do so.
mmkm wrote:
Isn't the real story about what was in those FOIA emails? The reader of this article might understand why there are so many requests if the reporter had revealed a little more about the emails.
FOIA was set up to protect citizens from abuse by government officials. And, abuse is exactly what is revealed in the emails relating to Clifton. This is exactly why we need FOIA.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: February 14, 2011 11:24PM
Sunshine is the best disinfectant - Brandeis
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
MoreSunshine
()
Date: February 17, 2011 10:24PM
Thomas More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sunshine is the best disinfectant - Brandeis
Speaking of FOIA and sunshine and trying to get more information in understanding what might be going on behind the scenes here, just saw this on another thread....
Subject: URGENT: Breaking News
Fairfax County School Board and Officials Subpoenaed
Thursday, February 17, 2011 - Fairfax County, Virginia – Documenting violations under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as continuing to mount, a fourth count has been added to the recent FOIA case against Fairfax County Public Schools and the Fairfax County School Board. The case, filed today in Fairfax County Circuit Court, was temporarily held due to FCPS’ efforts to enter the case in an evidentiary trial rather than a hearing as motioned by the Petitioner.
The David v. Goliath case centers around accountability demanded by the Petitioner, Jill D. Hill, a Fairfax County resident, for an extensive array of Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Law violations by FCPS and the School Board.
Patton Boggs, LLP, counsel for Hill, and FCPS attorneys will appear in the Court’s calendar control Friday morning, February 18th, to set the trial date. Under Virginia law, FOIA cases are required by statute to be heard in seven (7) calendar days. The statute does not permit exceptions for weekends or holidays.
Among those for whom subpoenas were issued in Fairfax County Circuit Court today are school officials:
§ Dean Tistadt;
§ Paul Regnier;
§ Pam Goddard; and
§ Sara Kolb
In addition, the School Board in its entirety were issued subpoenas:
§ Judith Wilson;
§ Jane K. Strauss;
§ Daniel G. Storck;
§ Kathy L. Smith, Chairman;
§ Patricia S. Reed;
§ James L. Raney;
§ Ilryong Moon;
§ Martina Hone;
§ Stuart D. Gibson;
§ Sandra S. Evans;
§ Brad Center, Vice Chairman; and
§ Elizabeth Torpey Bradsher
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sunshine is the best disinfectant - Brandeis
Speaking of FOIA and sunshine and trying to get more information in understanding what might be going on behind the scenes here, just saw this on another thread....
Subject: URGENT: Breaking News
Fairfax County School Board and Officials Subpoenaed
Thursday, February 17, 2011 - Fairfax County, Virginia – Documenting violations under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as continuing to mount, a fourth count has been added to the recent FOIA case against Fairfax County Public Schools and the Fairfax County School Board. The case, filed today in Fairfax County Circuit Court, was temporarily held due to FCPS’ efforts to enter the case in an evidentiary trial rather than a hearing as motioned by the Petitioner.
The David v. Goliath case centers around accountability demanded by the Petitioner, Jill D. Hill, a Fairfax County resident, for an extensive array of Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Law violations by FCPS and the School Board.
Patton Boggs, LLP, counsel for Hill, and FCPS attorneys will appear in the Court’s calendar control Friday morning, February 18th, to set the trial date. Under Virginia law, FOIA cases are required by statute to be heard in seven (7) calendar days. The statute does not permit exceptions for weekends or holidays.
Among those for whom subpoenas were issued in Fairfax County Circuit Court today are school officials:
§ Dean Tistadt;
§ Paul Regnier;
§ Pam Goddard; and
§ Sara Kolb
In addition, the School Board in its entirety were issued subpoenas:
§ Judith Wilson;
§ Jane K. Strauss;
§ Daniel G. Storck;
§ Kathy L. Smith, Chairman;
§ Patricia S. Reed;
§ James L. Raney;
§ Ilryong Moon;
§ Martina Hone;
§ Stuart D. Gibson;
§ Sandra S. Evans;
§ Brad Center, Vice Chairman; and
§ Elizabeth Torpey Bradsher
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
AvgTaxpayer
()
Date: February 20, 2011 09:09AM
If FCPS doesn't care about subpoenas issue to them by the Court, than why should we believe they are going to care about what parents say during a boundary study?
Can you imagine what would happen to you or I as the average taxpayer if we just simply refused to accept subpoenas? Look at this post. What is up with this?
Red Apple Mom
February 19, 2011
Attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools Refuses Service of Subpoenas
Filed under: Education,Fairfax County Public Schools,Advocacy,Parent Teacher Associations (PTA),School Board,FOIA,Open Meetings Law — Red Apple Mom @ 4:02 pm
Tags: Fairfax County Public Schools, SW Boundary Study, Liz Bradsher, Clifton Elementary School, Patton Boggs, Freedom of Information Act (United States), Open Meetings Law, Dean Tistadt, Subpoena, Wisconsin, Pam Goddard, Kathy Smith, Tessie Wilson, Stu Gibson
This just in:
Sources close to Washington, DC law firm Patton Boggs told me this astounding news today: The attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools refused service of the subpoenas issued to the FCPS School Board and top FCPS School officials.
If you read my post yesterday, you know the subpoenas were issued to FCPS over alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law and alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
This same source also told me that Pam Goddard, Executive Assistant and Clerk to the FCPS School Board accepted her subpoena, but refused to accept the subpoenas for the School Board. I find her refusal to accept the subpoenas interesting considering that she is the “Clerk to the School Board” That means she’s the official caretaker of all official records pertaining to the School Board. So it’s quite surprising she refused these documents from the Court. Does this mean Court officials will have to go to School Board members’ homes and work places to serve them their subpoenas in person? Would FCPS attorneys really permit that embarrassment to take place?
As a taxpayer, I’m quite stunned at the FCPS attorney’s refusal to accept the subpoenas. Do some of our School Board officials and FCPS administrative personnel think they are above the law and don’t have to accept court documents when served? Don’t we taxpayers and supporters of our public schools deserve better leadership from these officials?
These events mean Thursday’s trial date has been scrapped and the trial is now set for 10am on March 2nd.
Stay tuned for more details on this developing and changing story.
Can you imagine what would happen to you or I as the average taxpayer if we just simply refused to accept subpoenas? Look at this post. What is up with this?
Red Apple Mom
February 19, 2011
Attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools Refuses Service of Subpoenas
Filed under: Education,Fairfax County Public Schools,Advocacy,Parent Teacher Associations (PTA),School Board,FOIA,Open Meetings Law — Red Apple Mom @ 4:02 pm
Tags: Fairfax County Public Schools, SW Boundary Study, Liz Bradsher, Clifton Elementary School, Patton Boggs, Freedom of Information Act (United States), Open Meetings Law, Dean Tistadt, Subpoena, Wisconsin, Pam Goddard, Kathy Smith, Tessie Wilson, Stu Gibson
This just in:
Sources close to Washington, DC law firm Patton Boggs told me this astounding news today: The attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools refused service of the subpoenas issued to the FCPS School Board and top FCPS School officials.
If you read my post yesterday, you know the subpoenas were issued to FCPS over alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law and alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
This same source also told me that Pam Goddard, Executive Assistant and Clerk to the FCPS School Board accepted her subpoena, but refused to accept the subpoenas for the School Board. I find her refusal to accept the subpoenas interesting considering that she is the “Clerk to the School Board” That means she’s the official caretaker of all official records pertaining to the School Board. So it’s quite surprising she refused these documents from the Court. Does this mean Court officials will have to go to School Board members’ homes and work places to serve them their subpoenas in person? Would FCPS attorneys really permit that embarrassment to take place?
As a taxpayer, I’m quite stunned at the FCPS attorney’s refusal to accept the subpoenas. Do some of our School Board officials and FCPS administrative personnel think they are above the law and don’t have to accept court documents when served? Don’t we taxpayers and supporters of our public schools deserve better leadership from these officials?
These events mean Thursday’s trial date has been scrapped and the trial is now set for 10am on March 2nd.
Stay tuned for more details on this developing and changing story.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
AvgTaxpayer
()
Date: February 20, 2011 09:11AM
AvgTaxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If FCPS doesn't care about subpoenas issue to them
> by the Court, than why should we believe they are
> going to care about what parents say during a
> boundary study?
>
> Can you imagine what would happen to you or I as
> the average taxpayer if we just simply refused to
> accept subpoenas? Look at this post. What is up
> with this?
>
> Red Apple Mom
> February 19, 2011
>
> Attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools Refuses
> Service of Subpoenas
> Filed under: Education,Fairfax County Public
> Schools,Advocacy,Parent Teacher Associations
> (PTA),School Board,FOIA,Open Meetings Law — Red
> Apple Mom @ 4:02 pm
> Tags: Fairfax County Public Schools, SW Boundary
> Study, Liz Bradsher, Clifton Elementary School,
> Patton Boggs, Freedom of Information Act (United
> States), Open Meetings Law, Dean Tistadt,
> Subpoena, Wisconsin, Pam Goddard, Kathy Smith,
> Tessie Wilson, Stu Gibson
>
> This just in:
>
> Sources close to Washington, DC law firm Patton
> Boggs told me this astounding news today: The
> attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools refused
> service of the subpoenas issued to the FCPS School
> Board and top FCPS School officials.
>
> If you read my post yesterday, you know the
> subpoenas were issued to FCPS over alleged
> violations of the Open Meetings Law and alleged
> violations of the Freedom of Information Act
> (FOIA).
>
> This same source also told me that Pam Goddard,
> Executive Assistant and Clerk to the FCPS School
> Board accepted her subpoena, but refused to accept
> the subpoenas for the School Board. I find her
> refusal to accept the subpoenas interesting
> considering that she is the “Clerk to the School
> Board” That means she’s the official
> caretaker of all official records pertaining to
> the School Board. So it’s quite surprising she
> refused these documents from the Court. Does this
> mean Court officials will have to go to School
> Board members’ homes and work places to serve
> them their subpoenas in person? Would FCPS
> attorneys really permit that embarrassment to take
> place?
>
> As a taxpayer, I’m quite stunned at the FCPS
> attorney’s refusal to accept the subpoenas. Do
> some of our School Board officials and FCPS
> administrative personnel think they are above the
> law and don’t have to accept court documents
> when served? Don’t we taxpayers and supporters
> of our public schools deserve better leadership
> from these officials?
>
> These events mean Thursday’s trial date has been
> scrapped and the trial is now set for 10am on
> March 2nd.
>
> Stay tuned for more details on this developing and
> changing story.
http://redapplemom.wordpress.com/
-------------------------------------------------------
> If FCPS doesn't care about subpoenas issue to them
> by the Court, than why should we believe they are
> going to care about what parents say during a
> boundary study?
>
> Can you imagine what would happen to you or I as
> the average taxpayer if we just simply refused to
> accept subpoenas? Look at this post. What is up
> with this?
>
> Red Apple Mom
> February 19, 2011
>
> Attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools Refuses
> Service of Subpoenas
> Filed under: Education,Fairfax County Public
> Schools,Advocacy,Parent Teacher Associations
> (PTA),School Board,FOIA,Open Meetings Law — Red
> Apple Mom @ 4:02 pm
> Tags: Fairfax County Public Schools, SW Boundary
> Study, Liz Bradsher, Clifton Elementary School,
> Patton Boggs, Freedom of Information Act (United
> States), Open Meetings Law, Dean Tistadt,
> Subpoena, Wisconsin, Pam Goddard, Kathy Smith,
> Tessie Wilson, Stu Gibson
>
> This just in:
>
> Sources close to Washington, DC law firm Patton
> Boggs told me this astounding news today: The
> attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools refused
> service of the subpoenas issued to the FCPS School
> Board and top FCPS School officials.
>
> If you read my post yesterday, you know the
> subpoenas were issued to FCPS over alleged
> violations of the Open Meetings Law and alleged
> violations of the Freedom of Information Act
> (FOIA).
>
> This same source also told me that Pam Goddard,
> Executive Assistant and Clerk to the FCPS School
> Board accepted her subpoena, but refused to accept
> the subpoenas for the School Board. I find her
> refusal to accept the subpoenas interesting
> considering that she is the “Clerk to the School
> Board” That means she’s the official
> caretaker of all official records pertaining to
> the School Board. So it’s quite surprising she
> refused these documents from the Court. Does this
> mean Court officials will have to go to School
> Board members’ homes and work places to serve
> them their subpoenas in person? Would FCPS
> attorneys really permit that embarrassment to take
> place?
>
> As a taxpayer, I’m quite stunned at the FCPS
> attorney’s refusal to accept the subpoenas. Do
> some of our School Board officials and FCPS
> administrative personnel think they are above the
> law and don’t have to accept court documents
> when served? Don’t we taxpayers and supporters
> of our public schools deserve better leadership
> from these officials?
>
> These events mean Thursday’s trial date has been
> scrapped and the trial is now set for 10am on
> March 2nd.
>
> Stay tuned for more details on this developing and
> changing story.
http://redapplemom.wordpress.com/
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
November Voter
()
Date: February 20, 2011 09:55AM
AvgTaxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://redapplemom.wordpress.com/
I gather than the woman operating this web site (Catherine Lorenze) wants a School Board slot.
What are her positions? She doesn't seem very bright, but I'd also pick a Wheaten Terrier over Liz Bradsher if those were the choices.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://redapplemom.wordpress.com/
I gather than the woman operating this web site (Catherine Lorenze) wants a School Board slot.
What are her positions? She doesn't seem very bright, but I'd also pick a Wheaten Terrier over Liz Bradsher if those were the choices.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
A Good Thing
()
Date: February 20, 2011 10:14AM
November Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AvgTaxpayer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> I'd also pick a Wheaten Terrier over
> Liz Bradsher if those were the choices.
Starting my day with coffee and a smile!! Thanx November Voter!!
And, no, Lorenze is a friend of a friend ---- not running for the SB.
-------------------------------------------------------
> AvgTaxpayer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> I'd also pick a Wheaten Terrier over
> Liz Bradsher if those were the choices.
Starting my day with coffee and a smile!! Thanx November Voter!!
And, no, Lorenze is a friend of a friend ---- not running for the SB.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: February 20, 2011 10:11PM
New documents posted to Board Docs on FCPS.edu show transportation and facilities responses to questions from Board members. Gold star to first person that figures out what is wrong with the transportation data.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Amendments?
()
Date: February 22, 2011 09:47AM
Shouldnt amendments be on the web site today? I don't see any, but I'm not sure where I should be looking.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Amendments
()
Date: February 22, 2011 11:51AM
Go under southwest study and see amendment A. It is hidden and you need to search for it.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayinput
()
Date: February 22, 2011 12:38PM
Please put a link up or say where to look - I am having a devil of a time fidning it - and with a 2 year old running around limited search time so would love the help if possible thanks!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
help?
()
Date: February 22, 2011 12:52PM
I found Appendix A --but I'm not sure if this is it. It looks to me to be the same as Option E--but I don't live in Southwest area so I am not that sure. As I recall, changes are usually offered as amendments--so there may be something else that I am not finding.
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/Public
It's buried in the minutes for Thursday's meeting.
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/Public
It's buried in the minutes for Thursday's meeting.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayinputNOT
()
Date: February 22, 2011 12:57PM
changed name as looks like I am moving schools. Appendix A is the same Staff recommendation that was presented 1/7 if you look at the map, and all they did is say okay we'll try to give FDK to those certain schools and SACC promises to try to help everyone - never mind if you get screwed come fall this will be done and signe and the school board can blame Office For Children since they had OFC said they would try to help everyone. This is a mess.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
help?
()
Date: February 22, 2011 01:03PM
There may still be amendments. There were lots of them in the South Lakes redistricting. Appendix A is the staff recommendation. The SB members usually offer some type of amendment. I think there were several amendments offered in the Carson Middle School redistricting, as well.
I am totally unaffected by this and I still think it is the worst this SB has ever done. I thought they were deaf and arrogant during South Lakes, but this even goes beyond that. I will say that Liz made it clear during the South Lakes fiasco that she was sympathetic, but that her goal was to get South County Middle built and she needed Stu's vote. ( I don't think she got it, though.)
I am totally unaffected by this and I still think it is the worst this SB has ever done. I thought they were deaf and arrogant during South Lakes, but this even goes beyond that. I will say that Liz made it clear during the South Lakes fiasco that she was sympathetic, but that her goal was to get South County Middle built and she needed Stu's vote. ( I don't think she got it, though.)
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayingputNOT?Maybe?
()
Date: February 22, 2011 01:26PM
help? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There may still be amendments. There were lots of
> them in the South Lakes redistricting. Appendix A
> is the staff recommendation. The SB members
> usually offer some type of amendment. I think
> there were several amendments offered in the
> Carson Middle School redistricting, as well.
>
> I am totally unaffected by this and I still think
> it is the worst this SB has ever done. I thought
> they were deaf and arrogant during South Lakes,
> but this even goes beyond that. I will say that
> Liz made it clear during the South Lakes fiasco
> that she was sympathetic, but that her goal was to
> get South County Middle built and she needed Stu's
> vote. ( I don't think she got it, though.)
Thanks for the possible silver lining it made no since that there would be no changes I expected the Fairview 50 to get moved (I am not there though). So I will live with hope for a couple more days. I think for me it is trying to not become cynical about the whole process. I would love to have my way, but if I at least see changes are made for some then at least I feel that someone was heard.
I will say Liz may have done some HORRIBLE stuff, but she was the only one who respnded to my email with a real response regarding my questions. Kathy Smith who prior to this I found pleasant really has left me with a bad impression. Her child went to our schools and she always comes to our PTA and begs us to write to the County Govt Board for more money to the schools an then after doing that again when we asked about the study she was contrite, condsending at times, and just flippant about the whole thing.
I wish they could remember what spark made them first decide to become school board members. Kathy Smith had been a teacher and a parent and PTA president... I don't know I just feel like they have forgotten their purpose. I think they should be going out to bus stops in their areas and really talking to the parents --- instead they distance themselves. I mean personally to recognize that it would make more sense to have a school board meeting in the largest Boundary area when they opened it up to public comments - it could have and should have been done, They seem so mired in the politics and procdures that they can't do things any other way.
-------------------------------------------------------
> There may still be amendments. There were lots of
> them in the South Lakes redistricting. Appendix A
> is the staff recommendation. The SB members
> usually offer some type of amendment. I think
> there were several amendments offered in the
> Carson Middle School redistricting, as well.
>
> I am totally unaffected by this and I still think
> it is the worst this SB has ever done. I thought
> they were deaf and arrogant during South Lakes,
> but this even goes beyond that. I will say that
> Liz made it clear during the South Lakes fiasco
> that she was sympathetic, but that her goal was to
> get South County Middle built and she needed Stu's
> vote. ( I don't think she got it, though.)
Thanks for the possible silver lining it made no since that there would be no changes I expected the Fairview 50 to get moved (I am not there though). So I will live with hope for a couple more days. I think for me it is trying to not become cynical about the whole process. I would love to have my way, but if I at least see changes are made for some then at least I feel that someone was heard.
I will say Liz may have done some HORRIBLE stuff, but she was the only one who respnded to my email with a real response regarding my questions. Kathy Smith who prior to this I found pleasant really has left me with a bad impression. Her child went to our schools and she always comes to our PTA and begs us to write to the County Govt Board for more money to the schools an then after doing that again when we asked about the study she was contrite, condsending at times, and just flippant about the whole thing.
I wish they could remember what spark made them first decide to become school board members. Kathy Smith had been a teacher and a parent and PTA president... I don't know I just feel like they have forgotten their purpose. I think they should be going out to bus stops in their areas and really talking to the parents --- instead they distance themselves. I mean personally to recognize that it would make more sense to have a school board meeting in the largest Boundary area when they opened it up to public comments - it could have and should have been done, They seem so mired in the politics and procdures that they can't do things any other way.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
document reader
()
Date: February 22, 2011 03:13PM
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/faq.pdf
Please read page 80. Great question---terrible answer.
Please read page 80. Great question---terrible answer.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stu is now a columnist
()
Date: February 22, 2011 03:20PM
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
ReallyFedUp
()
Date: February 22, 2011 05:22PM
stu is now a columnist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://reston.patch.com/articles/fec-right-initial
> s-wrong-name
When Stu Gibson says that we should all be focused on "student achievement", what he really means to say is "performance on standardized tests." This is at the heart of the boundary study. Our incompetent school board cannot figure out how to make low performing schools better, particularly those in lower income areas, so they just shuffle all the kids around to help diffuse the problem.
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://reston.patch.com/articles/fec-right-initial
> s-wrong-name
When Stu Gibson says that we should all be focused on "student achievement", what he really means to say is "performance on standardized tests." This is at the heart of the boundary study. Our incompetent school board cannot figure out how to make low performing schools better, particularly those in lower income areas, so they just shuffle all the kids around to help diffuse the problem.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Skeptical
()
Date: February 22, 2011 06:57PM
stu is now a columnist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://reston.patch.com/articles/fec-right-initial
> s-wrong-name
Gag. Please tell me the folks at the Patch are kidding when they suggest this windbag will be writing a monthly column. One self-serving paean to his own purported accomplishments is one too many.
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://reston.patch.com/articles/fec-right-initial
> s-wrong-name
Gag. Please tell me the folks at the Patch are kidding when they suggest this windbag will be writing a monthly column. One self-serving paean to his own purported accomplishments is one too many.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Robin Hood
()
Date: February 22, 2011 07:42PM
ReallyFedUp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stu is now a columnist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://reston.patch.com/articles/fec-right-initial
>
> > s-wrong-name
>
> When Stu Gibson says that we should all be focused
> on "student achievement", what he really means to
> say is "performance on standardized tests." This
> is at the heart of the boundary study. Our
> incompetent school board cannot figure out how to
> make low performing schools better, particularly
> those in lower income areas, so they just shuffle
> all the kids around to help diffuse the problem.
I know--I know. Every time I hear something about Stu, it reminds me of how he behaved at the last final boundary hearing (West FFX Cty high school redistricting)..OMFG.
-------------------------------------------------------
> stu is now a columnist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://reston.patch.com/articles/fec-right-initial
>
> > s-wrong-name
>
> When Stu Gibson says that we should all be focused
> on "student achievement", what he really means to
> say is "performance on standardized tests." This
> is at the heart of the boundary study. Our
> incompetent school board cannot figure out how to
> make low performing schools better, particularly
> those in lower income areas, so they just shuffle
> all the kids around to help diffuse the problem.
I know--I know. Every time I hear something about Stu, it reminds me of how he behaved at the last final boundary hearing (West FFX Cty high school redistricting)..OMFG.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
West FFX
()
Date: February 22, 2011 07:53PM
Was that the meeting when he and Kathy sat with backs to the audience? They had some lamebrained reason for not answering questions. Thanks for the memories!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Robin Hood
()
Date: February 22, 2011 08:01PM
West FFX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was that the meeting when he and Kathy sat with
> backs to the audience? They had some lamebrained
> reason for not answering questions. Thanks for
> the memories!
Yeah something like that. Stu kept going in the other room every time a patron spoke out against the redistricting. Kathy on the other hand weeped--something to do with the amendment being overridden, something to do with the Floris community in her district, I think. It was pathetic.
Wonder how the members will behave during the boundary decision regarding this current boundary study.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was that the meeting when he and Kathy sat with
> backs to the audience? They had some lamebrained
> reason for not answering questions. Thanks for
> the memories!
Yeah something like that. Stu kept going in the other room every time a patron spoke out against the redistricting. Kathy on the other hand weeped--something to do with the amendment being overridden, something to do with the Floris community in her district, I think. It was pathetic.
Wonder how the members will behave during the boundary decision regarding this current boundary study.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: February 22, 2011 09:57PM
stayinput Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please put a link up or say where to look - I am
> having a devil of a time fidning it - and with a 2
> year old running around limited search time so
> would love the help if possible thanks!
Here is the link to the transportation and additional answers document in response to questions from Board members at the Work Session. Note that the transportation averages are actually higher in many cases than the LONGEST bus ride. Someone else pointed that out to me and if this is what FCPS calls accurate data, they need to go back to remedial math class.
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8E9GJ243F7C5/$file/SB%20Follow-up%20no.%2011-47-Southwestern%20Boundary%20Study.pdf
Yes Liz, open and transparent indeed. If this is how FCPS Staff does math, no wonder we have an issue with overcrowding/underutilization in school facilities.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please put a link up or say where to look - I am
> having a devil of a time fidning it - and with a 2
> year old running around limited search time so
> would love the help if possible thanks!
Here is the link to the transportation and additional answers document in response to questions from Board members at the Work Session. Note that the transportation averages are actually higher in many cases than the LONGEST bus ride. Someone else pointed that out to me and if this is what FCPS calls accurate data, they need to go back to remedial math class.
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8E9GJ243F7C5/$file/SB%20Follow-up%20no.%2011-47-Southwestern%20Boundary%20Study.pdf
Yes Liz, open and transparent indeed. If this is how FCPS Staff does math, no wonder we have an issue with overcrowding/underutilization in school facilities.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stunning answers
()
Date: February 23, 2011 06:46AM
Just a taxpayer wrote:
"Here is the link to the transportation and additional answers document in response to questions from Board members at the Work Session. Note that the transportation averages are actually higher in many cases than the LONGEST bus ride. Someone else pointed that out to me and if this is what FCPS calls accurate data, they need to go back to remedial math class.
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8E9GJ243F7C5/$file/SB%20Follow-up%20no.%2011-47-Southwestern%20Boundary%20Study.pdf
Yes Liz, open and transparent indeed. If this is how FCPS Staff does math, no wonder we have an issue with overcrowding/underutilization in school facilities."
This is a "must read" document. I find the comparison of adding on to the overcrowded schools vs SW boundary option very interesting. Note how they give a detailed chart on staying in place but not on the other one.
Also, "must read" posted by document reader
"http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/faq.pdf
Please read page 80. Great question---terrible answer"
The answer on page 80 really is an example of why we are in this mess. Pure arrogance. In my translation: FCPS facilities manages a huge budget, so that proves that we know what we are doing.
"Here is the link to the transportation and additional answers document in response to questions from Board members at the Work Session. Note that the transportation averages are actually higher in many cases than the LONGEST bus ride. Someone else pointed that out to me and if this is what FCPS calls accurate data, they need to go back to remedial math class.
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8E9GJ243F7C5/$file/SB%20Follow-up%20no.%2011-47-Southwestern%20Boundary%20Study.pdf
Yes Liz, open and transparent indeed. If this is how FCPS Staff does math, no wonder we have an issue with overcrowding/underutilization in school facilities."
This is a "must read" document. I find the comparison of adding on to the overcrowded schools vs SW boundary option very interesting. Note how they give a detailed chart on staying in place but not on the other one.
Also, "must read" posted by document reader
"http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/faq.pdf
Please read page 80. Great question---terrible answer"
The answer on page 80 really is an example of why we are in this mess. Pure arrogance. In my translation: FCPS facilities manages a huge budget, so that proves that we know what we are doing.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
simplify....
()
Date: February 23, 2011 07:51AM
can someone tell me when this decision will be final?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
no confidence
()
Date: February 23, 2011 09:25AM
Simplify --- The vote is tomorrow 2-24. However, there will be amendments that may affect the timing as well as which students will be moved.
To complicate things even more they will pass something regarding the boundary changes, building improvements, teacher pay, full day kindergarten, etc. then in a week or so they will find out what their budget is and have to re-visit all these items again to make it fit in the budget. Sorry teachers looks like the rug is going to be pulled out from the raises the board recently promised. We'll see what other cuts will be made as well.
To complicate things even more they will pass something regarding the boundary changes, building improvements, teacher pay, full day kindergarten, etc. then in a week or so they will find out what their budget is and have to re-visit all these items again to make it fit in the budget. Sorry teachers looks like the rug is going to be pulled out from the raises the board recently promised. We'll see what other cuts will be made as well.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
amendments
()
Date: February 23, 2011 09:35AM
Found the proposed amendments--Board Docs-->reg meeting #14 --> view agenda-->scroll to bottom.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
1. I move to postpone action on the proposed program/attendance area adjustments for the Southwestern Boundary Study until the April 14, 2011, School Board meeting, so that staff can evaluate and apply to their recommendation the updated projection data to be released in March. (Patty Reed)
2. I move to amend the main motion by revising the staff recommendation in Appendix A as follows: the area along Fairfax Station Road west of Fairfax County Parkway (Pickwick Woods, Ten Penny Woods, Innisvale, Station Hills, Popes Head Mill Estates and Station Crossing) to be reassigned from Oak View ES to Bonnie Brae ES, effective for the 2011-2012 school year. (Liz Bradsher)
3. I move to amend the main motion by implementing full-day kindergarten at Virginia Run, Greenbriar West, and Willow Springs Elementary Schools, beginning in the 2011-2012 school year, in order to maintain program offerings for those students moving from schools that currently offer full-day kindergarten, to be funded with $0.5 million from the operating savings that result from closing Clifton Elementary School. (Kathy Smith)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
1. I move to postpone action on the proposed program/attendance area adjustments for the Southwestern Boundary Study until the April 14, 2011, School Board meeting, so that staff can evaluate and apply to their recommendation the updated projection data to be released in March. (Patty Reed)
2. I move to amend the main motion by revising the staff recommendation in Appendix A as follows: the area along Fairfax Station Road west of Fairfax County Parkway (Pickwick Woods, Ten Penny Woods, Innisvale, Station Hills, Popes Head Mill Estates and Station Crossing) to be reassigned from Oak View ES to Bonnie Brae ES, effective for the 2011-2012 school year. (Liz Bradsher)
3. I move to amend the main motion by implementing full-day kindergarten at Virginia Run, Greenbriar West, and Willow Springs Elementary Schools, beginning in the 2011-2012 school year, in order to maintain program offerings for those students moving from schools that currently offer full-day kindergarten, to be funded with $0.5 million from the operating savings that result from closing Clifton Elementary School. (Kathy Smith)
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
all day K
()
Date: February 23, 2011 09:59AM
0.5 million will not pay for all day K at three schools. I would imagine that it will require a minimum of 6 new teachers and 6 aides--not to mention figuring out where they are going to find the space. They will also need to supply those classrooms with furniture and materials. Greenbriar West is already popping at the seams--and there is little physical space left outside.
This is an appeasement to Virginia Run for taking the trailer park from Poplar Tree (Kathy's school). She used it to get all day K for her school so now she is moving it out.
It's all smoke and mirrors. And more trailers.
This is an appeasement to Virginia Run for taking the trailer park from Poplar Tree (Kathy's school). She used it to get all day K for her school so now she is moving it out.
It's all smoke and mirrors. And more trailers.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
w54
()
Date: February 23, 2011 10:38AM
Either way, I ( and many other folks) really appreciate FDK at GBW and elsewhere.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
questioner
()
Date: February 23, 2011 10:41AM
Why do we need an amendment for all day K when the Board already voted for all day K? Could it be that they don't think the Board of Supervisors will approve the budget?
I don't think Reed's amendment will pass. If it would, I don't think Smith and Bradsher would have put forth amendments.
Reed was not at the last boundary vote. Her vote would not have made a difference. They still need another member or two to switch. That should have been Clifton's effort--not to change the whole school board, but to pick off a vote or two. Unfortunately, Clifton is in Bradsher's district and that is usually "hands off". What I can't figure out is why Wilson supported her so strongly. Also, Hone tried to stop the closing and it seems like anything Hone wants is disliked by the "old" school board members: Smith, Gibson, Strauss, Wilson, Center, Storck.
I don't think Reed's amendment will pass. If it would, I don't think Smith and Bradsher would have put forth amendments.
Reed was not at the last boundary vote. Her vote would not have made a difference. They still need another member or two to switch. That should have been Clifton's effort--not to change the whole school board, but to pick off a vote or two. Unfortunately, Clifton is in Bradsher's district and that is usually "hands off". What I can't figure out is why Wilson supported her so strongly. Also, Hone tried to stop the closing and it seems like anything Hone wants is disliked by the "old" school board members: Smith, Gibson, Strauss, Wilson, Center, Storck.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: February 23, 2011 12:05PM
Can someone please explain to me where the savings are from closing CES? According to the info below from the FCPS website, the maintenance and utility costs at CES are less than $300K a year. That leaves staff expenses for the school. Are the current teachers, administration and janitorial staff not going to be employed elsewhere within FCPS when CES closes? Where is this magical $million$ savings from closing CES?????
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: February 23, 2011 12:24PM
> 3. I move to amend the main motion by
> implementing full-day kindergarten at Virginia
> Run, Greenbriar West, and Willow Springs
> Elementary Schools, beginning in the 2011-2012
> school year, in order to maintain program
> offerings for those students moving from schools
> that currently offer full-day kindergarten, to be
> funded with $0.5 million from the operating
> savings that result from closing Clifton
> Elementary School. (Kathy Smith)
Which is it? Kathy says one thing, but the FCPS website says another....
Attachments:
> implementing full-day kindergarten at Virginia
> Run, Greenbriar West, and Willow Springs
> Elementary Schools, beginning in the 2011-2012
> school year, in order to maintain program
> offerings for those students moving from schools
> that currently offer full-day kindergarten, to be
> funded with $0.5 million from the operating
> savings that result from closing Clifton
> Elementary School. (Kathy Smith)
Which is it? Kathy says one thing, but the FCPS website says another....
Attachments:
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES is left out
()
Date: February 23, 2011 09:14PM
think they're saying UMES will not get FDK, since they won't get kids coming from a FDK school until the year after next. this fall, it will just be some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have FDK).
Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK) at least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and it was supposed to have happened by now anyway, and it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway? They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for the proposed changes with the boundary study, and carving up existing classrooms in the buildings into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting room dividers in the classes for special ed and autism?)
Good luck even making your way into the school - traffic getting in and out is bad and will only get worse. wonder how much bus service they will provide for communities being changed over to UMES.
Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK) at least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and it was supposed to have happened by now anyway, and it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway? They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for the proposed changes with the boundary study, and carving up existing classrooms in the buildings into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting room dividers in the classes for special ed and autism?)
Good luck even making your way into the school - traffic getting in and out is bad and will only get worse. wonder how much bus service they will provide for communities being changed over to UMES.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stayinput
()
Date: February 24, 2011 02:00PM
UMES is left out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> think they're saying UMES will not get FDK, since
> they won't get kids coming from a FDK school until
> the year after next. this fall, it will just be
> some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have
> FDK).
>
> Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK) at
> least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and it
> was supposed to have happened by now anyway, and
> it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
>
> Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway?
> They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for
> the proposed changes with the boundary study, and
> carving up existing classrooms in the buildings
> into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting room
> dividers in the classes for special ed and
> autism?)
>
> Good luck even making your way into the school -
> traffic getting in and out is bad and will only
> get worse. wonder how much bus service they will
> provide for communities being changed over to
> UMES.
Don't feel left out. They are promising it to GBW. But if anyone reads the rest of what they say it is dependent on $$. Kathy Smith has come to our PTA and told us before - oh well without you parents emailing the County Government then we are not going to have money to fund the programs you like. So here she makes an ammendment. Then she and the rest of the Board will say - well enough parents didn't write the County Government and the County Government doesn't want to help the schools. The Board is excellent as painting themselfs as blameless victims. The sad part is how many people really believe that because they are "supporting" this full day K thing now it will really happen. Sorry I have become a little more cynical in wacthing and dealing with these individuals through this boundary study. They are all about completing their agenda the best they can with the least amount of parent annoynace. They say the want a parent partnership - but only as long as the parents agree with them. When Kathy Smith started getting questioned about the Boundary study at our GBW PTA meeting - she became very short and contrite. I used to think she truly was trying to listen and represent our area - now I really feel she already has a plan and her goal is just how to sell it to the most people. I hope GBW gets FDK, but I don't believe it will happen. I think she used it to get adminstrators and parents to stop complaining about the Boundary Study, I know she is not the only Board memebr working it either,but she has been the rep for my school and I voted for her. Well I will not vote for her again - even if I get to stay at my school.
-------------------------------------------------------
> think they're saying UMES will not get FDK, since
> they won't get kids coming from a FDK school until
> the year after next. this fall, it will just be
> some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have
> FDK).
>
> Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK) at
> least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and it
> was supposed to have happened by now anyway, and
> it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
>
> Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway?
> They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for
> the proposed changes with the boundary study, and
> carving up existing classrooms in the buildings
> into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting room
> dividers in the classes for special ed and
> autism?)
>
> Good luck even making your way into the school -
> traffic getting in and out is bad and will only
> get worse. wonder how much bus service they will
> provide for communities being changed over to
> UMES.
Don't feel left out. They are promising it to GBW. But if anyone reads the rest of what they say it is dependent on $$. Kathy Smith has come to our PTA and told us before - oh well without you parents emailing the County Government then we are not going to have money to fund the programs you like. So here she makes an ammendment. Then she and the rest of the Board will say - well enough parents didn't write the County Government and the County Government doesn't want to help the schools. The Board is excellent as painting themselfs as blameless victims. The sad part is how many people really believe that because they are "supporting" this full day K thing now it will really happen. Sorry I have become a little more cynical in wacthing and dealing with these individuals through this boundary study. They are all about completing their agenda the best they can with the least amount of parent annoynace. They say the want a parent partnership - but only as long as the parents agree with them. When Kathy Smith started getting questioned about the Boundary study at our GBW PTA meeting - she became very short and contrite. I used to think she truly was trying to listen and represent our area - now I really feel she already has a plan and her goal is just how to sell it to the most people. I hope GBW gets FDK, but I don't believe it will happen. I think she used it to get adminstrators and parents to stop complaining about the Boundary Study, I know she is not the only Board memebr working it either,but she has been the rep for my school and I voted for her. Well I will not vote for her again - even if I get to stay at my school.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
response to stayinput
()
Date: February 24, 2011 02:11PM
Kathy and Stu were like that through every boundary process I have witnessed-from the opening of Carson, to Westfield, to South Lakes. They always say to "write us." They always tell the parents that they have not made up their minds--when they already have. It appears that Liz Bradsher is even more extreme in the prevarication.
Stu's agenda was to get more students in South Lakes--now he is leaving. Liz wanted South County Middle--I guess that wasn't enough. She apparently has political ambitions. I am not sure what Kathy's agenda is. Her name used to be floated around for higher Democratic office, but I haven't heard that lately. Nevertheless, she always plays sweetness and light at the beginning and then does not respond at the end. Janie Strauss just wants to protect her district and keep her voters happy--that's why Langley was left out of South Lakes study, even though her district was on top of South Lakes.
Stu's agenda was to get more students in South Lakes--now he is leaving. Liz wanted South County Middle--I guess that wasn't enough. She apparently has political ambitions. I am not sure what Kathy's agenda is. Her name used to be floated around for higher Democratic office, but I haven't heard that lately. Nevertheless, she always plays sweetness and light at the beginning and then does not respond at the end. Janie Strauss just wants to protect her district and keep her voters happy--that's why Langley was left out of South Lakes study, even though her district was on top of South Lakes.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES is left out
()
Date: February 24, 2011 02:25PM
I agree, it's all for show. In the Q&A from people moving to a school w/half day K, they state that they have 1/2 day SAC for K (what they don't mention is how $$ it is, and how hard it is to get in/there's a wait list)
I'd rather UMES not become a mega school. it could go over 1,000, especially if their enrollment/decline projections are off. that's even more critical than getting FDK, in my opinion. I'd like to see those who want it get it though. It's just that they are cramming so many kids into UMES, and they won't even follow through on FDK to boot.
We obviously have no power to convince them to do what's right. I am having a hard time being proud about our schools. my hope is that some higher up in our elected representatives will step in and make them see the horrible errors they've made in judgement and ethics, and help make it right.
I'd rather UMES not become a mega school. it could go over 1,000, especially if their enrollment/decline projections are off. that's even more critical than getting FDK, in my opinion. I'd like to see those who want it get it though. It's just that they are cramming so many kids into UMES, and they won't even follow through on FDK to boot.
We obviously have no power to convince them to do what's right. I am having a hard time being proud about our schools. my hope is that some higher up in our elected representatives will step in and make them see the horrible errors they've made in judgement and ethics, and help make it right.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Adios_FCPS
()
Date: February 24, 2011 04:50PM
Crossposted from the "Jack Dale Must Go" thread . . .
I just felt the need to share it both places.
###
Suggested reading (among others):
"Dumbing Us Down, the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling"
by John Gatto
So, let's see . . . FCPS has "Zero Tolerance" policy and a tome of a "student rules" (SR&R) book that strips most students (AND parents) of their civil rights . . . FCPS gerrymanders its school districts and cannot offer any clear, evidence-based data with studies to back as to why/how this is being done and the LOGIC that should be used . . . the SOL scores (what a JOKE!) may go up but the actual KNOWLEDGE and curiosity for learning plummets . . . teachers are kept on who clearly should be disciplined or terminated for their abusive behavior toward students . . . principals and administration work diligently to avoid Section-504 designations for students with disabilities that may not rise to the level of IEP (or for whom they refuse to grant IEP) . . . FOIA requests for student records are burdening the district . . .
. . . And the homeschool population in FCPS just continues to GROW.
Should NOT be a surprise.
###
I just felt the need to share it both places.
###
Suggested reading (among others):
"Dumbing Us Down, the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling"
by John Gatto
So, let's see . . . FCPS has "Zero Tolerance" policy and a tome of a "student rules" (SR&R) book that strips most students (AND parents) of their civil rights . . . FCPS gerrymanders its school districts and cannot offer any clear, evidence-based data with studies to back as to why/how this is being done and the LOGIC that should be used . . . the SOL scores (what a JOKE!) may go up but the actual KNOWLEDGE and curiosity for learning plummets . . . teachers are kept on who clearly should be disciplined or terminated for their abusive behavior toward students . . . principals and administration work diligently to avoid Section-504 designations for students with disabilities that may not rise to the level of IEP (or for whom they refuse to grant IEP) . . . FOIA requests for student records are burdening the district . . .
. . . And the homeschool population in FCPS just continues to GROW.
Should NOT be a surprise.
###
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
sad situation
()
Date: February 24, 2011 05:02PM
Actually, I feel for the teachers. They're the ones on the front line who will have to take it on the chin because parents are mad about all of this (as they should be, as should every homeowner in this county).
Take a look at SOL scores - some aren't doing so well, actually. I saw one ES in the boundary study that had some recent scores on the 3rd gr SOL that just made the state average of 87%.
Take a look at SOL scores - some aren't doing so well, actually. I saw one ES in the boundary study that had some recent scores on the 3rd gr SOL that just made the state average of 87%.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
badmanagement
()
Date: February 24, 2011 05:40PM
stayinput Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UMES is left out Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > think they're saying UMES will not get FDK,
> since
> > they won't get kids coming from a FDK school
> until
> > the year after next. this fall, it will just
> be
> > some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have
> > FDK).
> >
> > Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK)
> at
> > least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and
> it
> > was supposed to have happened by now anyway,
> and
> > it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
> >
> > Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway?
> > They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for
> > the proposed changes with the boundary study,
> and
> > carving up existing classrooms in the buildings
> > into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting
> room
> > dividers in the classes for special ed and
> > autism?)
> >
> > Good luck even making your way into the school
> -
> > traffic getting in and out is bad and will only
> > get worse. wonder how much bus service they
> will
> > provide for communities being changed over to
> > UMES.
>
>
> Don't feel left out. They are promising it to GBW.
> But if anyone reads the rest of what they say it
> is dependent on $$. Kathy Smith has come to our
> PTA and told us before - oh well without you
> parents emailing the County Government then we are
> not going to have money to fund the programs you
> like. So here she makes an ammendment. Then she
> and the rest of the Board will say - well enough
> parents didn't write the County Government and the
> County Government doesn't want to help the
> schools. The Board is excellent as painting
> themselfs as blameless victims. The sad part is
> how many people really believe that because they
> are "supporting" this full day K thing now it will
> really happen. Sorry I have become a little more
> cynical in wacthing and dealing with these
> individuals through this boundary study. They are
> all about completing their agenda the best they
> can with the least amount of parent annoynace.
> They say the want a parent partnership - but only
> as long as the parents agree with them. When Kathy
> Smith started getting questioned about the
> Boundary study at our GBW PTA meeting - she became
> very short and contrite. I used to think she truly
> was trying to listen and represent our area - now
> I really feel she already has a plan and her goal
> is just how to sell it to the most people. I hope
> GBW gets FDK, but I don't believe it will happen.
> I think she used it to get adminstrators and
> parents to stop complaining about the Boundary
> Study, I know she is not the only Board memebr
> working it either,but she has been the rep for my
> school and I voted for her. Well I will not vote
> for her again - even if I get to stay at my
> school.
This is pure politics from Kathy Smith. She is going to say she tried to get FDK and then when there isn't enough money she will blame the County Supervisors. That is what they always do. Those of us living in the real world with families have to know what our budget is before making decisions. These people promise to spend money where money that doesn't exist. It's a joke.
-------------------------------------------------------
> UMES is left out Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > think they're saying UMES will not get FDK,
> since
> > they won't get kids coming from a FDK school
> until
> > the year after next. this fall, it will just
> be
> > some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have
> > FDK).
> >
> > Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK)
> at
> > least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and
> it
> > was supposed to have happened by now anyway,
> and
> > it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
> >
> > Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway?
> > They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for
> > the proposed changes with the boundary study,
> and
> > carving up existing classrooms in the buildings
> > into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting
> room
> > dividers in the classes for special ed and
> > autism?)
> >
> > Good luck even making your way into the school
> -
> > traffic getting in and out is bad and will only
> > get worse. wonder how much bus service they
> will
> > provide for communities being changed over to
> > UMES.
>
>
> Don't feel left out. They are promising it to GBW.
> But if anyone reads the rest of what they say it
> is dependent on $$. Kathy Smith has come to our
> PTA and told us before - oh well without you
> parents emailing the County Government then we are
> not going to have money to fund the programs you
> like. So here she makes an ammendment. Then she
> and the rest of the Board will say - well enough
> parents didn't write the County Government and the
> County Government doesn't want to help the
> schools. The Board is excellent as painting
> themselfs as blameless victims. The sad part is
> how many people really believe that because they
> are "supporting" this full day K thing now it will
> really happen. Sorry I have become a little more
> cynical in wacthing and dealing with these
> individuals through this boundary study. They are
> all about completing their agenda the best they
> can with the least amount of parent annoynace.
> They say the want a parent partnership - but only
> as long as the parents agree with them. When Kathy
> Smith started getting questioned about the
> Boundary study at our GBW PTA meeting - she became
> very short and contrite. I used to think she truly
> was trying to listen and represent our area - now
> I really feel she already has a plan and her goal
> is just how to sell it to the most people. I hope
> GBW gets FDK, but I don't believe it will happen.
> I think she used it to get adminstrators and
> parents to stop complaining about the Boundary
> Study, I know she is not the only Board memebr
> working it either,but she has been the rep for my
> school and I voted for her. Well I will not vote
> for her again - even if I get to stay at my
> school.
This is pure politics from Kathy Smith. She is going to say she tried to get FDK and then when there isn't enough money she will blame the County Supervisors. That is what they always do. Those of us living in the real world with families have to know what our budget is before making decisions. These people promise to spend money where money that doesn't exist. It's a joke.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMES
()
Date: February 24, 2011 05:46PM
UMES is left out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> think they're saying UMES will not get FDK, since
> they won't get kids coming from a FDK school until
> the year after next. this fall, it will just be
> some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have
> FDK).
>
> Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK) at
> least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and it
> was supposed to have happened by now anyway, and
> it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
>
> Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway?
> They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for
> the proposed changes with the boundary study, and
> carving up existing classrooms in the buildings
> into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting room
> dividers in the classes for special ed and
> autism?)
>
> Good luck even making your way into the school -
> traffic getting in and out is bad and will only
> get worse. wonder how much bus service they will
> provide for communities being changed over to
> UMES.
I think this article pretty much sums up why UMES is getting screwed:
The New Norm: Pay Up for those Who Don't
Red Apple Mom | February 24, 2011 at 10:53 am
http://redapplemom.wordpress.com/
The full-day kindergarten (FDK) debate going on in Fairfax County has highlighted just how inequitable our public education system has become in Fairfax County.
It doesn't matter if it's FDK, school renovations, class size or goodies like the foreign language in elementary schools (FLES) program. A minority of Fairfax County public schools are receiving a majority of our public school resources. Areas like parts of Alexandria, Fairfax Station, McLean, Great Falls, Vienna and Oakton get screwed. Areas like Bailey's Crossroad, parts of Annandale, Mount Vernon, the Route One Corridor and Herndon make out like bandits.
Last year, I complained to my School Board member Jane Strauss about my son's ridiculously large class. (This year his fifth grade class has 36 students!) Her response to me - stated in front of our entire McLean Community Association education committee - was that I should move my family to Bailey's Crossroads where my son would have only 20 students in his class. She even took care to kindly warn me that I would have to learn Spanish in order to speak with new neighbors there. Hey I like Bailey's Crossroad, but I'm kind of tied to a mortgage right now. It's incredulous that Strauss suggests constituents should move because she refuses to address a serious problem. Which is why Jane Strauss - who has served on the board for nearly two decades - needs to go this November!
Here's another example. Just a month ago, the moms heading up the Full-Day Kindergarten effort told me that Board of Supervisor Penny Gross-Mason District- refused to meet with them saying, "My area already has FDK. I don't care about your issue." Wow. She sure cares about our county tax dollars that fund all the programs for her part of the county tbough doesn't she?!
I would have no problem paying slightly more in taxes to the county IF MY CHILDREN RECEIVED THE SAME BASIC PUBLIC EDUCATION SERVICES that others in this county receive. But they don't and that IS a fact! The poor communities in our county will always need additional services and they should get those services - but they shouldn't all the service while the rest of us receive "crumbs"! The pendulum has swung so far out of whack with Fairfax County's Public School's "needs-based" budgeting approach that those who pay the most get the absolute least. Public education should be for everyone - rich and poor. These are kids we are talking about and all kids deserve the basics in a public education - like FDK and decent class sizes containing 26 or fewer students.
I'm becoming convinced that the new norm in Fairfax County Public Schools is now: Pay up for those who don't. We see it with testing fees, athletic fees, FCPS resource allocation and then FCPS' pleas for higher taxes. I believe it has been FCPS' strategy all along to create a major imbalance over this past decade. They gradually redistributed a majority of resources to the less affluent schools so that over time, it is now the new norm. FCPS' hope, I believe, is that the wealthier areas may finally join their call for higher taxes for education.
But here's the problem. Trust. We don't trust that Dr. Dale and FCPS will re-allocate new revenues to our area. In fact, just three weeks ago at one of the School Board budget meetings, FCPS officials stated that they intend to bulk up central administration spending again once the economy returns to normal. Any new dollars should flow to the classroom and teacher first - period!
Here's an additional rub. More affluent areas of the county may get some of the resources they are seeking, but at price in more LOST resources. It's likely we'll see FDK implemented because it is an election year and the School Board wants to play Santa Claus even if only for once. Just last night, Dr. Dale told the Superintendent's Parent Advisory Committee that elementary school principals around the county have agreed to trade other resources in order to help pay for FDK in the remaining 37 schools. A source I trust told me they saw the principals' list and at the top of proposed cuts: Kindergarten classroom aides and aides to special education classes! FLES fans should be relieved. Your program apparently is not on the list.
Let's see if any of these inequities are discussed at tonight's School Board meeting. You can catch it at 7:00pm on Channel 21, watch it live via webstreaming at www.FCPS.edu or attend in person at Luther Jackson Middle School in Falls Church. The meeting should be packed with action as the main discussion concerns the SW Boundary study. 12 of 21 schools participating the school are demanding a halt to the study citing doubts about FCPS' data.
Watch closely to see who sides with Liz Bradsher. And keep an eye out for reformers Patty Reed and Tina Hone. As always, they are great about trying to ensure that the community's concerns are fully and satisfactorily addressed. Here's hoping that Sandy Evans, Ilryong Moon and Jim Rainey flex some muscle on behalf of the public tonight too.
This action alert in from Zero Tolerance Reform: The FCPS School Board will conduct a forum meeting on discipline review tonight at 5:30pm at Luther Jackson Middle School. In response student Nick Stuben's tragic suicide, several Board members are presenting a request to review several aspects of FCPS' discipline process.
WINCE ALERT: Want to see what some school board members really think about the public they claim to serve? Check out this link which has posted several disturbing FOIA'd emails between school board members Liz Bradsher and Tessie Wilson:
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2,430530,515096,page=12#msg-515096http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2,430530,515096,page=12#msg-515096
-------------------------------------------------------
> think they're saying UMES will not get FDK, since
> they won't get kids coming from a FDK school until
> the year after next. this fall, it will just be
> some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have
> FDK).
>
> Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK) at
> least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and it
> was supposed to have happened by now anyway, and
> it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
>
> Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway?
> They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for
> the proposed changes with the boundary study, and
> carving up existing classrooms in the buildings
> into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting room
> dividers in the classes for special ed and
> autism?)
>
> Good luck even making your way into the school -
> traffic getting in and out is bad and will only
> get worse. wonder how much bus service they will
> provide for communities being changed over to
> UMES.
I think this article pretty much sums up why UMES is getting screwed:
The New Norm: Pay Up for those Who Don't
Red Apple Mom | February 24, 2011 at 10:53 am
http://redapplemom.wordpress.com/
The full-day kindergarten (FDK) debate going on in Fairfax County has highlighted just how inequitable our public education system has become in Fairfax County.
It doesn't matter if it's FDK, school renovations, class size or goodies like the foreign language in elementary schools (FLES) program. A minority of Fairfax County public schools are receiving a majority of our public school resources. Areas like parts of Alexandria, Fairfax Station, McLean, Great Falls, Vienna and Oakton get screwed. Areas like Bailey's Crossroad, parts of Annandale, Mount Vernon, the Route One Corridor and Herndon make out like bandits.
Last year, I complained to my School Board member Jane Strauss about my son's ridiculously large class. (This year his fifth grade class has 36 students!) Her response to me - stated in front of our entire McLean Community Association education committee - was that I should move my family to Bailey's Crossroads where my son would have only 20 students in his class. She even took care to kindly warn me that I would have to learn Spanish in order to speak with new neighbors there. Hey I like Bailey's Crossroad, but I'm kind of tied to a mortgage right now. It's incredulous that Strauss suggests constituents should move because she refuses to address a serious problem. Which is why Jane Strauss - who has served on the board for nearly two decades - needs to go this November!
Here's another example. Just a month ago, the moms heading up the Full-Day Kindergarten effort told me that Board of Supervisor Penny Gross-Mason District- refused to meet with them saying, "My area already has FDK. I don't care about your issue." Wow. She sure cares about our county tax dollars that fund all the programs for her part of the county tbough doesn't she?!
I would have no problem paying slightly more in taxes to the county IF MY CHILDREN RECEIVED THE SAME BASIC PUBLIC EDUCATION SERVICES that others in this county receive. But they don't and that IS a fact! The poor communities in our county will always need additional services and they should get those services - but they shouldn't all the service while the rest of us receive "crumbs"! The pendulum has swung so far out of whack with Fairfax County's Public School's "needs-based" budgeting approach that those who pay the most get the absolute least. Public education should be for everyone - rich and poor. These are kids we are talking about and all kids deserve the basics in a public education - like FDK and decent class sizes containing 26 or fewer students.
I'm becoming convinced that the new norm in Fairfax County Public Schools is now: Pay up for those who don't. We see it with testing fees, athletic fees, FCPS resource allocation and then FCPS' pleas for higher taxes. I believe it has been FCPS' strategy all along to create a major imbalance over this past decade. They gradually redistributed a majority of resources to the less affluent schools so that over time, it is now the new norm. FCPS' hope, I believe, is that the wealthier areas may finally join their call for higher taxes for education.
But here's the problem. Trust. We don't trust that Dr. Dale and FCPS will re-allocate new revenues to our area. In fact, just three weeks ago at one of the School Board budget meetings, FCPS officials stated that they intend to bulk up central administration spending again once the economy returns to normal. Any new dollars should flow to the classroom and teacher first - period!
Here's an additional rub. More affluent areas of the county may get some of the resources they are seeking, but at price in more LOST resources. It's likely we'll see FDK implemented because it is an election year and the School Board wants to play Santa Claus even if only for once. Just last night, Dr. Dale told the Superintendent's Parent Advisory Committee that elementary school principals around the county have agreed to trade other resources in order to help pay for FDK in the remaining 37 schools. A source I trust told me they saw the principals' list and at the top of proposed cuts: Kindergarten classroom aides and aides to special education classes! FLES fans should be relieved. Your program apparently is not on the list.
Let's see if any of these inequities are discussed at tonight's School Board meeting. You can catch it at 7:00pm on Channel 21, watch it live via webstreaming at www.FCPS.edu or attend in person at Luther Jackson Middle School in Falls Church. The meeting should be packed with action as the main discussion concerns the SW Boundary study. 12 of 21 schools participating the school are demanding a halt to the study citing doubts about FCPS' data.
Watch closely to see who sides with Liz Bradsher. And keep an eye out for reformers Patty Reed and Tina Hone. As always, they are great about trying to ensure that the community's concerns are fully and satisfactorily addressed. Here's hoping that Sandy Evans, Ilryong Moon and Jim Rainey flex some muscle on behalf of the public tonight too.
This action alert in from Zero Tolerance Reform: The FCPS School Board will conduct a forum meeting on discipline review tonight at 5:30pm at Luther Jackson Middle School. In response student Nick Stuben's tragic suicide, several Board members are presenting a request to review several aspects of FCPS' discipline process.
WINCE ALERT: Want to see what some school board members really think about the public they claim to serve? Check out this link which has posted several disturbing FOIA'd emails between school board members Liz Bradsher and Tessie Wilson:
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2,430530,515096,page=12#msg-515096http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2,430530,515096,page=12#msg-515096
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Kathy observer
()
Date: February 24, 2011 05:47PM
Badmanagement is right. Not only will Kathy blame the Supervisors, but she will cry at the Board meeting and talk about the "children."
Write the BOS and tell them to save FCPS money for next year with a new board. (I hope.)
Does Sully district have a challenger?
Write the BOS and tell them to save FCPS money for next year with a new board. (I hope.)
Does Sully district have a challenger?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thankyou
()
Date: February 24, 2011 06:18PM
I thank Kathy Smith and the rest of the board for voting to move Northbourne to Poplar Tree. You never let us down.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Nodat
()
Date: February 24, 2011 08:33PM
When they do vote?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
SB
()
Date: February 24, 2011 08:44PM
Voted to NOT delay on today's vote on the boundary study.
Voted to oppose all day K with to go through with tonights boundary study. (for the schools in tonights boundary study)
Voted to oppose all day K with to go through with tonights boundary study. (for the schools in tonights boundary study)
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Boundary study not yet voted on
()
Date: February 24, 2011 08:45PM
Still waiting.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
liar liar liar
()
Date: February 24, 2011 08:48PM
Thugs
Liars
Bullies
Mafiaso
Hope they wind up jailbirds too
Liars
Bullies
Mafiaso
Hope they wind up jailbirds too
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
How do you Know
()
Date: February 24, 2011 08:59PM
SB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voted to NOT delay on today's vote on the boundary
> study.
>
> Voted to oppose all day K with to go through with
> tonights boundary study. (for the schools in
> tonights boundary study)
How did you find this out? Just curious so I can follow.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voted to NOT delay on today's vote on the boundary
> study.
>
> Voted to oppose all day K with to go through with
> tonights boundary study. (for the schools in
> tonights boundary study)
How did you find this out? Just curious so I can follow.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
21 or fcps.edu
()
Date: February 24, 2011 09:03PM
SB meeting on channel 21 or go to FCPS.edu There's a link to channel 21 streaming.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
VRES Victory
()
Date: February 24, 2011 09:04PM
This board is so confident that they jammed this study ahead?
VA Run has --- three! --- different program capacity numbers, all hundreds less than building capacity!
"Careful attention was paid" say Liz Bradsher? What a crock.
Don't think staff or board could pass 3rd grade Math SOLs.
Burned again by SB & FCPS.
November is coming and Dale better get ready to move.
VA Run has --- three! --- different program capacity numbers, all hundreds less than building capacity!
"Careful attention was paid" say Liz Bradsher? What a crock.
Don't think staff or board could pass 3rd grade Math SOLs.
Burned again by SB & FCPS.
November is coming and Dale better get ready to move.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
How do you know
()
Date: February 24, 2011 09:12PM
21 or fcps.edu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SB meeting on channel 21 or go to FCPS.edu There's
> a link to channel 21 streaming.
Thanks. Do you know if there is a way to go back to see now what they talked about? I want to see the opposing vote for FDK that happened a litte bit ago.
-------------------------------------------------------
> SB meeting on channel 21 or go to FCPS.edu There's
> a link to channel 21 streaming.
Thanks. Do you know if there is a way to go back to see now what they talked about? I want to see the opposing vote for FDK that happened a litte bit ago.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
SB
()
Date: February 24, 2011 09:24PM
There are going to be a lot of pissed off people...
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
A,B,C or D
()
Date: February 24, 2011 09:28PM
Which option did the school board pick on for the boundary study?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
We are leaving
()
Date: February 24, 2011 09:30PM
Private school here we come.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Option "E"
()
Date: February 24, 2011 09:30PM
A,B,C or D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which option did the school board pick on for the
> boundary study?
They chose the staff recommendation. That was the only option that was even being considered once they created it in January.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which option did the school board pick on for the
> boundary study?
They chose the staff recommendation. That was the only option that was even being considered once they created it in January.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
to How do you know
()
Date: February 24, 2011 09:32PM
http://fcps.edu/schlbd/index.htm
It should be on this page eventually under the video archive. They also may repeat it on Channel 21.
I don't think anyone voted for the ADK amendment. I think they are going to bring it up when they "get the money" in the spring.
It should be on this page eventually under the video archive. They also may repeat it on Channel 21.
I don't think anyone voted for the ADK amendment. I think they are going to bring it up when they "get the money" in the spring.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
hdyk
()
Date: February 24, 2011 09:34PM
thanks... I figured
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
ReallyFedUp
()
Date: February 24, 2011 10:17PM
VRES Victory Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This board is so confident that they jammed this
> study ahead?
>
> VA Run has --- three! --- different program
> capacity numbers, all hundreds less than building
> capacity!
>
> "Careful attention was paid" say Liz Bradsher?
> What a crock.
>
> Don't think staff or board could pass 3rd grade
> Math SOLs.
>
> Burned again by SB & FCPS.
>
> November is coming and Dale better get ready to
> move.
VRES is a big LOSER! Kathy Smith worked a sweetheart deal for her home school, Popular Tree, by removing Dulles Meadows (the trailer park on Rt. 50) to VRES. It doubles the number of ESOL students and triples the number of free-reduced lunch kids at VRES in just one year. It's not like the school will get extra resources for these disadvantaged kids. The rest of the school will suffer. Not to mention a dramatic fall in SOL scores. The school may be lucky to just make AYP next year. I'm thinking of selling and moving to Loudon.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This board is so confident that they jammed this
> study ahead?
>
> VA Run has --- three! --- different program
> capacity numbers, all hundreds less than building
> capacity!
>
> "Careful attention was paid" say Liz Bradsher?
> What a crock.
>
> Don't think staff or board could pass 3rd grade
> Math SOLs.
>
> Burned again by SB & FCPS.
>
> November is coming and Dale better get ready to
> move.
VRES is a big LOSER! Kathy Smith worked a sweetheart deal for her home school, Popular Tree, by removing Dulles Meadows (the trailer park on Rt. 50) to VRES. It doubles the number of ESOL students and triples the number of free-reduced lunch kids at VRES in just one year. It's not like the school will get extra resources for these disadvantaged kids. The rest of the school will suffer. Not to mention a dramatic fall in SOL scores. The school may be lucky to just make AYP next year. I'm thinking of selling and moving to Loudon.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Holy Crap
()
Date: February 24, 2011 11:15PM
Amazing display of hypocrisy:
"VRES is a big LOSER!"
" it's not like the school will get extra resources for these disadvantaged kids."
Yeah right..as long as its not in my back yard, screw you all
"VRES is a big LOSER!"
" it's not like the school will get extra resources for these disadvantaged kids."
Yeah right..as long as its not in my back yard, screw you all
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
big picture
()
Date: February 24, 2011 11:25PM
Nothing the SB has done makes sense, from closing Clifton to overcrowding even more schools - and this will all have to revisited soon, as a result. Could go on and on here.
Point is, the next time, it could be your neighborhood. Who wants to take that chance? Predict fewer and fewer people will want to buy homes in ffx co. just not worth it.
Point is, the next time, it could be your neighborhood. Who wants to take that chance? Predict fewer and fewer people will want to buy homes in ffx co. just not worth it.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
ReallyFedUp
()
Date: February 24, 2011 11:40PM
Holy Crap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing display of hypocrisy:
>
>
> "VRES is a big LOSER!"
>
> " it's not like the school will get extra
> resources for these disadvantaged kids."
>
> Yeah right..as long as its not in my back yard,
> screw you all
Oh, come on! This is what the redistricting is all about. To quote the SB, to move kids around to get the "right balance" in the schools. I was just saying that we are not a big winner and did not get any favors. Do you even know the definition of "hypocrisy"? I was not being a hypocrite, I may have been somewhat "elitist," but certainly not a hypocrite. Do your kids belong to the free-reduced lunch crowd? You seem to have trouble with your vocabulary.
And if you ask me, the kids in Dulles Meadows got a raw deal, too. Now they no longer have FDK and then they have to go to Westfield instead of Chantilly.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing display of hypocrisy:
>
>
> "VRES is a big LOSER!"
>
> " it's not like the school will get extra
> resources for these disadvantaged kids."
>
> Yeah right..as long as its not in my back yard,
> screw you all
Oh, come on! This is what the redistricting is all about. To quote the SB, to move kids around to get the "right balance" in the schools. I was just saying that we are not a big winner and did not get any favors. Do you even know the definition of "hypocrisy"? I was not being a hypocrite, I may have been somewhat "elitist," but certainly not a hypocrite. Do your kids belong to the free-reduced lunch crowd? You seem to have trouble with your vocabulary.
And if you ask me, the kids in Dulles Meadows got a raw deal, too. Now they no longer have FDK and then they have to go to Westfield instead of Chantilly.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
sb's evil eye
()
Date: February 25, 2011 12:01AM
We are leaving Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Private school here we come.
That's what they want - you leave, capacity frees, they don't have to deal with you and they still get your money.
It is the only win-win they know.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Private school here we come.
That's what they want - you leave, capacity frees, they don't have to deal with you and they still get your money.
It is the only win-win they know.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Eleanor
()
Date: February 25, 2011 12:07AM
ReallyFedUp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, come on! This is what the redistricting is
> all about. To quote the SB, to move kids around
> to get the "right balance" in the schools. I was
> just saying that we are not a big winner and did
> not get any favors. Do you even know the
> definition of "hypocrisy"? I was not being a
> hypocrite, I may have been somewhat "elitist," but
> certainly not a hypocrite. Do your kids belong to
> the free-reduced lunch crowd? You seem to have
> trouble with your vocabulary.
>
> And if you ask me, the kids in Dulles Meadows got
> a raw deal, too. Now they no longer have FDK and
> then they have to go to Westfield instead of
> Chantilly.
I don't think the high school assignments were changed, though new split feeders may have been created.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, come on! This is what the redistricting is
> all about. To quote the SB, to move kids around
> to get the "right balance" in the schools. I was
> just saying that we are not a big winner and did
> not get any favors. Do you even know the
> definition of "hypocrisy"? I was not being a
> hypocrite, I may have been somewhat "elitist," but
> certainly not a hypocrite. Do your kids belong to
> the free-reduced lunch crowd? You seem to have
> trouble with your vocabulary.
>
> And if you ask me, the kids in Dulles Meadows got
> a raw deal, too. Now they no longer have FDK and
> then they have to go to Westfield instead of
> Chantilly.
I don't think the high school assignments were changed, though new split feeders may have been created.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Westfield
()
Date: February 25, 2011 05:50AM
Pretty sure that Dulles meadows already goes to Westfield. I'm not where they go to middle school. This area is not really near any elementary school.
I think the big thing from that area is ESOL. From what I hear, Poplar Tree had a very good program going for these kids.
I think the big thing from that area is ESOL. From what I hear, Poplar Tree had a very good program going for these kids.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Manbat
()
Date: February 25, 2011 06:34AM
ReallyFedUp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Holy Crap Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Amazing display of hypocrisy:
> >
> >
> > "VRES is a big LOSER!"
> >
> > " it's not like the school will get extra
> > resources for these disadvantaged kids."
> >
> > Yeah right..as long as its not in my back yard,
> > screw you all
>
> Oh, come on! This is what the redistricting is
> all about. To quote the SB, to move kids around
> to get the "right balance" in the schools. I was
> just saying that we are not a big winner and did
> not get any favors. Do you even know the
> definition of "hypocrisy"? I was not being a
> hypocrite, I may have been somewhat "elitist," but
> certainly not a hypocrite. Do your kids belong to
> the free-reduced lunch crowd? You seem to have
> trouble with your vocabulary.
>
> And if you ask me, the kids in Dulles Meadows got
> a raw deal, too. Now they no longer have FDK and
> then they have to go to Westfield instead of
> Chantilly.
Reallyfedup,
don't defend yourself against that asshole. He/she obviously doesn't understand the word hypocrite and their post made no sense. Holy Crap is probably just a homeless Mexican pounding keys at the library computer while he's waiting for his next porn site screen to come up. Ignore trolls like this. They are the dregs of the county.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Holy Crap Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Amazing display of hypocrisy:
> >
> >
> > "VRES is a big LOSER!"
> >
> > " it's not like the school will get extra
> > resources for these disadvantaged kids."
> >
> > Yeah right..as long as its not in my back yard,
> > screw you all
>
> Oh, come on! This is what the redistricting is
> all about. To quote the SB, to move kids around
> to get the "right balance" in the schools. I was
> just saying that we are not a big winner and did
> not get any favors. Do you even know the
> definition of "hypocrisy"? I was not being a
> hypocrite, I may have been somewhat "elitist," but
> certainly not a hypocrite. Do your kids belong to
> the free-reduced lunch crowd? You seem to have
> trouble with your vocabulary.
>
> And if you ask me, the kids in Dulles Meadows got
> a raw deal, too. Now they no longer have FDK and
> then they have to go to Westfield instead of
> Chantilly.
Reallyfedup,
don't defend yourself against that asshole. He/she obviously doesn't understand the word hypocrite and their post made no sense. Holy Crap is probably just a homeless Mexican pounding keys at the library computer while he's waiting for his next porn site screen to come up. Ignore trolls like this. They are the dregs of the county.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Counterpoint
()
Date: February 25, 2011 07:40AM
big picture Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing the SB has done makes sense, from closing
> Clifton to overcrowding even more schools - and
> this will all have to revisited soon, as a result.
> Could go on and on here.
>
> Point is, the next time, it could be your
> neighborhood. Who wants to take that chance?
> Predict fewer and fewer people will want to buy
> homes in ffx co. just not worth it.
With around 1.1 million people already in Fairfax, the thought of discouraging a few people from buying homes here somehow does not send me into a tailspin.
And, when push comes to shove, few folks won't move to Loudoun - an even further commute from jobs - based on this decision. They redistrict there at least as often as in Fairfax.
But, seriously, let's get rid of Bradsher, Strauss, Smith, etc. this fall.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing the SB has done makes sense, from closing
> Clifton to overcrowding even more schools - and
> this will all have to revisited soon, as a result.
> Could go on and on here.
>
> Point is, the next time, it could be your
> neighborhood. Who wants to take that chance?
> Predict fewer and fewer people will want to buy
> homes in ffx co. just not worth it.
With around 1.1 million people already in Fairfax, the thought of discouraging a few people from buying homes here somehow does not send me into a tailspin.
And, when push comes to shove, few folks won't move to Loudoun - an even further commute from jobs - based on this decision. They redistrict there at least as often as in Fairfax.
But, seriously, let's get rid of Bradsher, Strauss, Smith, etc. this fall.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Robin Hood
()
Date: February 25, 2011 08:11AM
Yeah I agree--the "old" school board members need to be replaced with "new" school members, new ones who must understand that scratching each other's backs, backroom deals and all that jazz will not be tolerated among most constituents around here. Integrity and transparency are very important for SBs to carry out especially if redistricting schools is so common in Fairfax County.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
budget reader
()
Date: February 25, 2011 08:18AM
We need some more Patty Reeds and Tina Hones who ask questions and challenge the staff. We need members who actually read the budget and ask the citizens to read it and question it, as well.
I, for one, would like to know why it costs $27,000 to install a flagpole at Herndon --not including the flagpole itself. Perhaps it also includes a courtyard and a park, but that seems a little excessive to me.
Someone also needs to analyze and look at some of the contracts--it appears that some years we spend a lot on certain types of equipment--chillers, for example.
I still wonder about the contracts for the modulars and trailers. Why do we keep moving these things around? I kind of wonder if that is what this redistricting was all about. If not, why not just leave Clifton open and move the kids from overcrowded schools as minimally as possible? Or, is it just to justify Tisdadt's 80 plus member construction department?
I, for one, would like to know why it costs $27,000 to install a flagpole at Herndon --not including the flagpole itself. Perhaps it also includes a courtyard and a park, but that seems a little excessive to me.
Someone also needs to analyze and look at some of the contracts--it appears that some years we spend a lot on certain types of equipment--chillers, for example.
I still wonder about the contracts for the modulars and trailers. Why do we keep moving these things around? I kind of wonder if that is what this redistricting was all about. If not, why not just leave Clifton open and move the kids from overcrowded schools as minimally as possible? Or, is it just to justify Tisdadt's 80 plus member construction department?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
private school
()
Date: February 25, 2011 09:29AM
My kids are being moved to Oak View from Clifton. The bus ride is going to be 40 minutes each way. Absurd!
I do not trust the SB and I have lost faith with the FCPS and the zero tolerence policy.
Private schools are the only option we have left. I know many of my friends feel the same way.
I do not trust the SB and I have lost faith with the FCPS and the zero tolerence policy.
Private schools are the only option we have left. I know many of my friends feel the same way.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Bingo
()
Date: February 25, 2011 10:14AM
http://www.fcps.edu/schlbd/videostream/index.htm
check out the proposed scope of the boundary study at fcps and the final result.
I had missed this: staff had designated the following schools for possible additions:Bonnie Brae, Cub Run, Fairfax Villa, Fairview, Greenbrier East, and Union Mill. This was BEFORE any meeting was held with public.
Final Results: Additions at Centreville, Greenbrier East, Fairfax Villa, Fairview and Union Mill.
no addition at Bonnie Brae or Cub Run--but Centreville could be substitued for Cub Run--so Bonnie Brae is only school left out of construction.
They could never have justified this without closing Clifton--they could have sent kids to Clifton if it was going to be "underenrolled"--which I doubt--and they knew better, too.
Kathy's motivation: look at why Poplar Tree was included in the study--as part of a domino. She could never have thrown out the trailer park without the "domino effect."
THEY HAD TO CLOSE CLIFTON TO JUSTIFY THIS! I don't care what they say, they could have renovated Clifton for MUCH less than this. The space was there to help the overcrowded schools with minimal construction.
The only place they would have needed to domino was just a little in Centreville area. They would have had to shift West a little--but nothing like what they are doing now. They possibly could have moved a program out of some school and avoided any domino. Did they ever consider that? Moving an AAP program to another school? That's why GBW is overcrowded.
P.S. Kathy, why don't you give PT's AdK to Virginia Run?
check out the proposed scope of the boundary study at fcps and the final result.
I had missed this: staff had designated the following schools for possible additions:Bonnie Brae, Cub Run, Fairfax Villa, Fairview, Greenbrier East, and Union Mill. This was BEFORE any meeting was held with public.
Final Results: Additions at Centreville, Greenbrier East, Fairfax Villa, Fairview and Union Mill.
no addition at Bonnie Brae or Cub Run--but Centreville could be substitued for Cub Run--so Bonnie Brae is only school left out of construction.
They could never have justified this without closing Clifton--they could have sent kids to Clifton if it was going to be "underenrolled"--which I doubt--and they knew better, too.
Kathy's motivation: look at why Poplar Tree was included in the study--as part of a domino. She could never have thrown out the trailer park without the "domino effect."
THEY HAD TO CLOSE CLIFTON TO JUSTIFY THIS! I don't care what they say, they could have renovated Clifton for MUCH less than this. The space was there to help the overcrowded schools with minimal construction.
The only place they would have needed to domino was just a little in Centreville area. They would have had to shift West a little--but nothing like what they are doing now. They possibly could have moved a program out of some school and avoided any domino. Did they ever consider that? Moving an AAP program to another school? That's why GBW is overcrowded.
P.S. Kathy, why don't you give PT's AdK to Virginia Run?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
VoterInNov
()
Date: February 25, 2011 10:18AM
budget reader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We need some more Patty Reeds and Tina Hones who
> ask questions and challenge the staff. We need
> members who actually read the budget and ask the
> citizens to read it and question it, as well.
>
> I, for one, would like to know why it costs
> $27,000 to install a flagpole at Herndon --not
> including the flagpole itself. Perhaps it also
> includes a courtyard and a park, but that seems a
> little excessive to me.
>
> Someone also needs to analyze and look at some of
> the contracts--it appears that some years we spend
> a lot on certain types of equipment--chillers, for
> example.
>
> I still wonder about the contracts for the
> modulars and trailers. Why do we keep moving
> these things around? I kind of wonder if that is
> what this redistricting was all about. If not,
> why not just leave Clifton open and move the kids
> from overcrowded schools as minimally as possible?
> Or, is it just to justify Tisdadt's 80 plus
> member construction department?
Elizabeth SCHULTZ is running for Springfield School Board Representative. I am definitely going to vote for her because she has already proven herself to be someone like Patty Reed and Tina Hone who are not afraid to ask questions. We are going to need someone like Schultz on the Board because if you think they are done here, you are crazy. The next step is going to be redistricting middle and high schools. We need someone on the School Board who will represent the Southwestern Region and it is not Liz Bradsher!
-------------------------------------------------------
> We need some more Patty Reeds and Tina Hones who
> ask questions and challenge the staff. We need
> members who actually read the budget and ask the
> citizens to read it and question it, as well.
>
> I, for one, would like to know why it costs
> $27,000 to install a flagpole at Herndon --not
> including the flagpole itself. Perhaps it also
> includes a courtyard and a park, but that seems a
> little excessive to me.
>
> Someone also needs to analyze and look at some of
> the contracts--it appears that some years we spend
> a lot on certain types of equipment--chillers, for
> example.
>
> I still wonder about the contracts for the
> modulars and trailers. Why do we keep moving
> these things around? I kind of wonder if that is
> what this redistricting was all about. If not,
> why not just leave Clifton open and move the kids
> from overcrowded schools as minimally as possible?
> Or, is it just to justify Tisdadt's 80 plus
> member construction department?
Elizabeth SCHULTZ is running for Springfield School Board Representative. I am definitely going to vote for her because she has already proven herself to be someone like Patty Reed and Tina Hone who are not afraid to ask questions. We are going to need someone like Schultz on the Board because if you think they are done here, you are crazy. The next step is going to be redistricting middle and high schools. We need someone on the School Board who will represent the Southwestern Region and it is not Liz Bradsher!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
agree
()
Date: February 25, 2011 11:43AM
Couldn't agree more. Maybe the upcoming lawsuit and court appearances will help get rid of them sooner. one can only hope.
I'd rather move closer in, and get less house. I think Arlington, FFX city, and Falls Church are better managed, and they're smaller - so they can't hide poor performance by just shifting things around. If I were looking to move to the DC area, the SB and FFX co's actions on all this would definitely make me think twice. no place is perfect, but this is absurd. if they get away with this, how much worse will it possibly get? (shudder)
Counterpoint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> big picture Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nothing the SB has done makes sense, from
> closing
> > Clifton to overcrowding even more schools - and
> > this will all have to revisited soon, as a
> result.
> > Could go on and on here.
> >
> > Point is, the next time, it could be your
> > neighborhood. Who wants to take that chance?
> > Predict fewer and fewer people will want to buy
> > homes in ffx co. just not worth it.
>
> With around 1.1 million people already in Fairfax,
> the thought of discouraging a few people from
> buying homes here somehow does not send me into a
> tailspin.
> And, when push comes to shove, few folks won't
> move to Loudoun - an even further commute from
> jobs - based on this decision. They redistrict
> there at least as often as in Fairfax.
>
> But, seriously, let's get rid of Bradsher,
> Strauss, Smith, etc. this fall.
I'd rather move closer in, and get less house. I think Arlington, FFX city, and Falls Church are better managed, and they're smaller - so they can't hide poor performance by just shifting things around. If I were looking to move to the DC area, the SB and FFX co's actions on all this would definitely make me think twice. no place is perfect, but this is absurd. if they get away with this, how much worse will it possibly get? (shudder)
Counterpoint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> big picture Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nothing the SB has done makes sense, from
> closing
> > Clifton to overcrowding even more schools - and
> > this will all have to revisited soon, as a
> result.
> > Could go on and on here.
> >
> > Point is, the next time, it could be your
> > neighborhood. Who wants to take that chance?
> > Predict fewer and fewer people will want to buy
> > homes in ffx co. just not worth it.
>
> With around 1.1 million people already in Fairfax,
> the thought of discouraging a few people from
> buying homes here somehow does not send me into a
> tailspin.
> And, when push comes to shove, few folks won't
> move to Loudoun - an even further commute from
> jobs - based on this decision. They redistrict
> there at least as often as in Fairfax.
>
> But, seriously, let's get rid of Bradsher,
> Strauss, Smith, etc. this fall.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Counterpoint
()
Date: February 25, 2011 02:15PM
agree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Couldn't agree more. Maybe the upcoming lawsuit
> and court appearances will help get rid of them
> sooner. one can only hope.
>
> I'd rather move closer in, and get less house. I
> think Arlington, FFX city, and Falls Church are
> better managed, and they're smaller - so they
> can't hide poor performance by just shifting
> things around. If I were looking to move to the DC
> area, the SB and FFX co's actions on all this
> would definitely make me think twice. no place is
> perfect, but this is absurd. if they get away with
> this, how much worse will it possibly get?
> (shudder)
>
The alternative is staying put and getting rid of the current School Board members who run for re-election (some, like Stu Gibson, see the writing on the wall and won't run again).
Arlington just had a principal at one of its middle schools resign and accuse the superintendent of being an overbearing, harassing control freak. Falls Church City is expensive, and their schools are now overcrowded. Students who live in the City of Fairfax attend FCPS. People in Loudoun often have horrendous commutes.
No place is perfect. This place would be better with a decent School Board.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Couldn't agree more. Maybe the upcoming lawsuit
> and court appearances will help get rid of them
> sooner. one can only hope.
>
> I'd rather move closer in, and get less house. I
> think Arlington, FFX city, and Falls Church are
> better managed, and they're smaller - so they
> can't hide poor performance by just shifting
> things around. If I were looking to move to the DC
> area, the SB and FFX co's actions on all this
> would definitely make me think twice. no place is
> perfect, but this is absurd. if they get away with
> this, how much worse will it possibly get?
> (shudder)
>
The alternative is staying put and getting rid of the current School Board members who run for re-election (some, like Stu Gibson, see the writing on the wall and won't run again).
Arlington just had a principal at one of its middle schools resign and accuse the superintendent of being an overbearing, harassing control freak. Falls Church City is expensive, and their schools are now overcrowded. Students who live in the City of Fairfax attend FCPS. People in Loudoun often have horrendous commutes.
No place is perfect. This place would be better with a decent School Board.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Falls Church City schools
()
Date: February 25, 2011 02:21PM
FCCS are great! Yes, Falls Church is costly to move to but it like having a private school system for your kids. I went to GM and it was great. The city is wonderful and it has a small town feel to it.
I do not think the schools are crowded. They're also ranked as one of the best high schools in the US. Something to look into.
I do not think the schools are crowded. They're also ranked as one of the best high schools in the US. Something to look into.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Counterpoint
()
Date: February 25, 2011 03:20PM
Falls Church City schools Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FCCS are great! Yes, Falls Church is costly to
> move to but it like having a private school system
> for your kids. I went to GM and it was great. The
> city is wonderful and it has a small town feel to
> it.
>
> I do not think the schools are crowded. They're
> also ranked as one of the best high schools in the
> US. Something to look into.
There were reports that FCC elementary schools were overcrowded this fall. FCC underestimated the percentage of people who would move into new condo buildings with elementary school age kids.
Most of the FCC schools are in Fairfax County, not the City of Falls Church. As a result, FCC can't build additions without getting the county's permission, which complicates matters.
-------------------------------------------------------
> FCCS are great! Yes, Falls Church is costly to
> move to but it like having a private school system
> for your kids. I went to GM and it was great. The
> city is wonderful and it has a small town feel to
> it.
>
> I do not think the schools are crowded. They're
> also ranked as one of the best high schools in the
> US. Something to look into.
There were reports that FCC elementary schools were overcrowded this fall. FCC underestimated the percentage of people who would move into new condo buildings with elementary school age kids.
Most of the FCC schools are in Fairfax County, not the City of Falls Church. As a result, FCC can't build additions without getting the county's permission, which complicates matters.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FCCS
()
Date: February 25, 2011 08:05PM
FCCS= Falls Church City Schools
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Counterpoint
()
Date: February 25, 2011 08:53PM
FCCS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FCCS= Falls Church City Schools
Right. FCCS has four schools. Only one of them is actually in the City of Falls Church. The other three are located in Fairfax County.
-------------------------------------------------------
> FCCS= Falls Church City Schools
Right. FCCS has four schools. Only one of them is actually in the City of Falls Church. The other three are located in Fairfax County.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
newgatedenizen
()
Date: February 25, 2011 09:09PM
http://centreville.patch.com/articles/school-board-votes-to-accept-boundary-changes
Anyway, I think my earlier comments have once again proved true.
Posted by: newgatedenizen ()
Date: October 25, 2010 11:03PM
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.
Anyway, I think my earlier comments have once again proved true.
Posted by: newgatedenizen ()
Date: October 25, 2010 11:03PM
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.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
I went to GMHS
()
Date: February 25, 2011 09:42PM
All the schools are thought of as FCCS even though only one is in the city. Go figure.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stopit
()
Date: February 26, 2011 06:45AM
It was not even 10 hours and the PTAs started emails. Who is leaving who is staying. All for best intrest of PTA and school. The wind is gone and time to move to new school. Get over it.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Manbat
()
Date: February 26, 2011 08:57AM
stopit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was not even 10 hours and the PTAs started
> emails. Who is leaving who is staying. All for
> best intrest of PTA and school. The wind is gone
> and time to move to new school. Get over it.
You must be a liberal. Encouraging everyone to quit and give up. Sorry comrade, real Americans stand and fight injustice and tyranny. Thank gosh there weren't too many punks like you around in 1776 or we'd still be speaking with a British accent and bowing to that homely queen.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was not even 10 hours and the PTAs started
> emails. Who is leaving who is staying. All for
> best intrest of PTA and school. The wind is gone
> and time to move to new school. Get over it.
You must be a liberal. Encouraging everyone to quit and give up. Sorry comrade, real Americans stand and fight injustice and tyranny. Thank gosh there weren't too many punks like you around in 1776 or we'd still be speaking with a British accent and bowing to that homely queen.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stopit
()
Date: February 26, 2011 10:28AM
Not liberal! Asking PTA board to stop fighting battle we dont want fought. Yall lose focus on the kids. I cannt wait to vote for Kathy Smith. She should run for board of supervisors or virginia seat.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: February 26, 2011 11:49AM
stopit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not liberal! Asking PTA board to stop fighting battle we dont want fought. Yall lose focus on the kids. I cannt wait to vote for Kathy Smith. She should run for board of supervisors or virginia seat.<
That'll make 7 votes: she gets. Herself, her husband, Chuck and Barbara Caputo, Ted and Mrs. Velkoff.
Can't find too many more.
A Democrat running in a strongly Republican district, like Sully, can't afford to tick too many folks off.
Kathy's been pissing off lots of folks in Sully for a while.
Remember her tear-filled transfer of kids who lived across Route 50 from Chantilly High to the long bus ride to Oakton. Bet those folks will be voting Republican in November.
So who you Republicans got in Sully for School Board. So long as its not some evolution denying, abstinence only, Daughter of Confederate Veteran, mouth breathing, fire and brimstone fundamentalist, you got a shot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not liberal! Asking PTA board to stop fighting battle we dont want fought. Yall lose focus on the kids. I cannt wait to vote for Kathy Smith. She should run for board of supervisors or virginia seat.<
That'll make 7 votes: she gets. Herself, her husband, Chuck and Barbara Caputo, Ted and Mrs. Velkoff.
Can't find too many more.
A Democrat running in a strongly Republican district, like Sully, can't afford to tick too many folks off.
Kathy's been pissing off lots of folks in Sully for a while.
Remember her tear-filled transfer of kids who lived across Route 50 from Chantilly High to the long bus ride to Oakton. Bet those folks will be voting Republican in November.
So who you Republicans got in Sully for School Board. So long as its not some evolution denying, abstinence only, Daughter of Confederate Veteran, mouth breathing, fire and brimstone fundamentalist, you got a shot.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Liz is done
()
Date: February 26, 2011 12:32PM
stopit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not liberal! Asking PTA board to stop fighting
> battle we dont want fought. Yall lose focus on
> the kids. I cannt wait to vote for Kathy Smith.
> She should run for board of supervisors or
> virginia seat.
Who's "we"? Most of the PTA's effected opposed this realignment. Why is this all being rushed through in a few months? Why does this have to happen this coming year? Is it because they know that they won't have the votes next year after the election to ram this through. The question is why are they tearing SW FFX apart with this plan where they had so many bait and switch maneuvers to get something almost no one wants. Too many unanswered questions. Slow it down. Wait until after this fall's election so the people get the real voice in this.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not liberal! Asking PTA board to stop fighting
> battle we dont want fought. Yall lose focus on
> the kids. I cannt wait to vote for Kathy Smith.
> She should run for board of supervisors or
> virginia seat.
Who's "we"? Most of the PTA's effected opposed this realignment. Why is this all being rushed through in a few months? Why does this have to happen this coming year? Is it because they know that they won't have the votes next year after the election to ram this through. The question is why are they tearing SW FFX apart with this plan where they had so many bait and switch maneuvers to get something almost no one wants. Too many unanswered questions. Slow it down. Wait until after this fall's election so the people get the real voice in this.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
taxes
()
Date: February 26, 2011 12:59PM
Expect your property taxes to go up. If these people can show such an arrogant indifference to the numbers related to a boundary study than we aren't going to suddenly get better performance from them on the school budget. Being that they literally drive the county budget since they get 54% of it, those Board Members are going to f up your property taxes. When your bill goes up, just remember to associate it to the correct names -- Liz Bradsher, Kathy Smith. They will be responsible for your increased property taxes.
Anybody who watched the School Board meeting on the boundary vote already saw Kathy Smith try and sidestep the budget process by trying to push for FDK for some of HER schools. They'll try and blame the County Supervisors for the increase in property taxes but the County Supervisors are just pass-through of the funds which is why it is called a "transfer".
Anybody who watched the School Board meeting on the boundary vote already saw Kathy Smith try and sidestep the budget process by trying to push for FDK for some of HER schools. They'll try and blame the County Supervisors for the increase in property taxes but the County Supervisors are just pass-through of the funds which is why it is called a "transfer".
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
stopit
()
Date: February 26, 2011 01:00PM
Liz is done, you stand corrected. It was PTA boards not all the members. Good ole self interests. Not "WE". "WE" got 10 hours from our board to respond to survey in Greenbriar. They had it over a week before because it was even posted here. It was not a few months, it was 2 years. Get yur facts straight. What yall should be upset about is how FDK played out in the final minutes.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
StartsToday
()
Date: February 26, 2011 01:02PM
It starts today. Kathy for Virginia. We can start her campaign today.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: February 26, 2011 01:12PM
StartsToday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It starts today. Kathy for Virginia. We can start her campaign today.<
So long as it is for the Lee County School Board she can be headed for any part of Virginia you like.
Just get her phony, pretentious, narcissistic, ignorant butt out of Fairfax politics. And do it fast.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It starts today. Kathy for Virginia. We can start her campaign today.<
So long as it is for the Lee County School Board she can be headed for any part of Virginia you like.
Just get her phony, pretentious, narcissistic, ignorant butt out of Fairfax politics. And do it fast.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Liz is done
()
Date: February 26, 2011 01:25PM
stopit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liz is done, you stand corrected. It was PTA
> boards not all the members. Good ole self
> interests. Not "WE". "WE" got 10 hours from our
> board to respond to survey in Greenbriar. They
> had it over a week before because it was even
> posted here. It was not a few months, it was 2
> years. Get yur facts straight. What yall should
> be upset about is how FDK played out in the final
> minutes.
Wow, you seem so sure of your opinions. Actually, the PTA's were more inclined to vote with the SB than the parents. In my school, we had to browbeat the PTA president to vote against this. She's a Kathy Smith acolyte. I'm sure she'll be replaced next year.
I know how long the study was for, but the vote was this week, not two years ago. So why rush now to implement this? That was my point.
I don't care about FDK. After you consider lunch, recess and nap time, you're only getting about an hour of extra classroom time. FDK is just baby sitting for the two income families or parents who want to ship their kids off while they go to Starbucks for coffee. It's easier on the teachers and the parents, but harder on the kids.
You didn't understand my post. We are not quitting. On to the courts! Too bad that we're not rolling over for the SB and their apologists. We're just going to fight harder. There are a lot of upset lawyers who live in Clifton. They don't have to hire lawyers to fight this. They are the lawyers who others would hire. You've pissed off the wrong group. While Greenbriar might be full of quitters, Clifton isn't.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liz is done, you stand corrected. It was PTA
> boards not all the members. Good ole self
> interests. Not "WE". "WE" got 10 hours from our
> board to respond to survey in Greenbriar. They
> had it over a week before because it was even
> posted here. It was not a few months, it was 2
> years. Get yur facts straight. What yall should
> be upset about is how FDK played out in the final
> minutes.
Wow, you seem so sure of your opinions. Actually, the PTA's were more inclined to vote with the SB than the parents. In my school, we had to browbeat the PTA president to vote against this. She's a Kathy Smith acolyte. I'm sure she'll be replaced next year.
I know how long the study was for, but the vote was this week, not two years ago. So why rush now to implement this? That was my point.
I don't care about FDK. After you consider lunch, recess and nap time, you're only getting about an hour of extra classroom time. FDK is just baby sitting for the two income families or parents who want to ship their kids off while they go to Starbucks for coffee. It's easier on the teachers and the parents, but harder on the kids.
You didn't understand my post. We are not quitting. On to the courts! Too bad that we're not rolling over for the SB and their apologists. We're just going to fight harder. There are a lot of upset lawyers who live in Clifton. They don't have to hire lawyers to fight this. They are the lawyers who others would hire. You've pissed off the wrong group. While Greenbriar might be full of quitters, Clifton isn't.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
outnumbered
()
Date: February 26, 2011 01:46PM
StartsToday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It starts today. Kathy for Virginia. We can
> start her campaign today.
I would kind of like to see Kathy on the Board again just because I want to see her be treated the way she has treated others. Once her little voting group of friends leave (Stu, Tessie, Liz), she is going to be de-clawed. There is also somebody very good that is going to be running against Strauss. Kathy will become the new Patty Reed, Ilyrong Moon, Tina Hone -- her votes will not count because she will be outnumbered.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It starts today. Kathy for Virginia. We can
> start her campaign today.
I would kind of like to see Kathy on the Board again just because I want to see her be treated the way she has treated others. Once her little voting group of friends leave (Stu, Tessie, Liz), she is going to be de-clawed. There is also somebody very good that is going to be running against Strauss. Kathy will become the new Patty Reed, Ilyrong Moon, Tina Hone -- her votes will not count because she will be outnumbered.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: February 26, 2011 01:53PM
Liz is done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>On to the courts!<
So you're going to waste $150,000 like the folks in Floris and Fox Mill paid to Stephen David Stone who lost the case at the first substantive hearing. And given the state of the law, rightfully so.
Or are you going to follow the inventive folks at Patton Boggs who used a flanking assault by forcing the disclosure of the embarrassing e-mails from the SCB and her cronies.
Honestly, your energy and money are best used in this November's School Board election. It won't be hard to reverse this decision and the closure of Clifton after 1/1/'12 with a new SB.
-------------------------------------------------------
>On to the courts!<
So you're going to waste $150,000 like the folks in Floris and Fox Mill paid to Stephen David Stone who lost the case at the first substantive hearing. And given the state of the law, rightfully so.
Or are you going to follow the inventive folks at Patton Boggs who used a flanking assault by forcing the disclosure of the embarrassing e-mails from the SCB and her cronies.
Honestly, your energy and money are best used in this November's School Board election. It won't be hard to reverse this decision and the closure of Clifton after 1/1/'12 with a new SB.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Liz is done
()
Date: February 26, 2011 02:09PM
Thomas More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liz is done Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >On to the courts!<
>
> So you're going to waste $150,000 like the folks
> in Floris and Fox Mill paid to Stephen David Stone
> who lost the case at the first substantive
> hearing. And given the state of the law,
> rightfully so.
>
> Or are you going to follow the inventive folks at
> Patton Boggs who used a flanking assault by
> forcing the disclosure of the embarrassing e-mails
> from the SCB and her cronies.
>
> Honestly, your energy and money are best used in
> this November's School Board election. It won't
> be hard to reverse this decision and the closure
> of Clifton after 1/1/'12 with a new SB.
Just want the courts to stop it until after the election. I agree that, at that point, the decision will be reversed. But the SB is going to try and start Clifton demolition this summer. They are trying to rush this along to the point that there is no going back. It is worth $50K to get the courts to stay this decision until November.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liz is done Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >On to the courts!<
>
> So you're going to waste $150,000 like the folks
> in Floris and Fox Mill paid to Stephen David Stone
> who lost the case at the first substantive
> hearing. And given the state of the law,
> rightfully so.
>
> Or are you going to follow the inventive folks at
> Patton Boggs who used a flanking assault by
> forcing the disclosure of the embarrassing e-mails
> from the SCB and her cronies.
>
> Honestly, your energy and money are best used in
> this November's School Board election. It won't
> be hard to reverse this decision and the closure
> of Clifton after 1/1/'12 with a new SB.
Just want the courts to stop it until after the election. I agree that, at that point, the decision will be reversed. But the SB is going to try and start Clifton demolition this summer. They are trying to rush this along to the point that there is no going back. It is worth $50K to get the courts to stay this decision until November.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
tw
()
Date: February 26, 2011 02:21PM
"It won't be hard to reverse this decision and the closure of Clifton after 1/1/'12 with a new SB."
Great..kids will change boundaries this fall and then 2012 again change schools? Just goes to show the PTA's and Clifton folks don't care a hoot about kids in SW - they are just watching their own self interests.
I knew this all along and rather trust the SB - who actually have done a pretty job aligning the boundaries.
Clifton folks should have gone to court LAST year and tried to reverse this decision in summer of 2010. What were you guys doing then? Did you go to court? What were the results?
Great..kids will change boundaries this fall and then 2012 again change schools? Just goes to show the PTA's and Clifton folks don't care a hoot about kids in SW - they are just watching their own self interests.
I knew this all along and rather trust the SB - who actually have done a pretty job aligning the boundaries.
Clifton folks should have gone to court LAST year and tried to reverse this decision in summer of 2010. What were you guys doing then? Did you go to court? What were the results?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
NotRich
()
Date: February 26, 2011 03:36PM
Rich folks can throw money around and own the world with no regard to students.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
StartsToday
()
Date: February 26, 2011 03:37PM
If you want to make a difference give the money to Kathy for Virginia. Holding up in courts will hurt kids. You can use the money to send your kid to private school and not hurt everyone else you didnt think about.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Clifton parent
()
Date: February 26, 2011 04:31PM
If people really cared about the kids in FCPS they would of helped us to keep Clifton open. Who closes a great school to help with over crowding and places kids in trailers? Not to mention having some kids ride the bus over an hour and a half each day to get to elementary school?
You will be bitching when you see your school busting at the seems. Adding trailers does not help the lunchroom,library,halls,playground and gym space. Watch what you wish for because it might come back to bite you.
You will be bitching when you see your school busting at the seems. Adding trailers does not help the lunchroom,library,halls,playground and gym space. Watch what you wish for because it might come back to bite you.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Kathy Smith is Satan
()
Date: February 26, 2011 04:34PM
Look at all the liberal douches from the poor schools babbling their class warfare communist crap. Yeah, parents care about THEIR kids, especially when it comes to secondary issues like education. You libtard dumbasses think richer parents want a bunch of ESOL kids and latchkey kids from neighborhoods with high crime rates and illegal immigrants coming to their schools? What a bunch of sperm-filled loudmouths.
Fight Clifton Fight! Fight Virginia Run Fight! You've got the money. You've got the can-do attitude. Fight them in court and fund the opponents of these SB commies with their social engineering crap. Bring them down.
Fight Clifton Fight! Fight Virginia Run Fight! You've got the money. You've got the can-do attitude. Fight them in court and fund the opponents of these SB commies with their social engineering crap. Bring them down.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Poorer schools
()
Date: February 26, 2011 05:12PM
Maybe the SB is moving all these kids around so some underperforming schools SOL's will go up. I cannot figure out why some many kids are being moved. The SB will never tell us the truth. Closing a high performing school alone makes you wonder what the SB is up to.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Aduhduh
()
Date: February 26, 2011 05:36PM
Look at the map 20120 should have been moved 20 years ago. Kathy finally did it right. Get off your highhorse.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: February 27, 2011 12:10AM
Liz is done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just want the courts to stop it until after the election.<
Won't happen.
> the SB is going to try and start Clifton demolition this summer.
Where is the RFP for that? Last I heard Senator George Barker was trying to put a charter school into that building.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just want the courts to stop it until after the election.<
Won't happen.
> the SB is going to try and start Clifton demolition this summer.
Where is the RFP for that? Last I heard Senator George Barker was trying to put a charter school into that building.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Thomas More
()
Date: February 27, 2011 12:17AM
Poorer schools Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the SB is moving all these kids around so some underperforming schools SOL's will go up.<
One of the few good things about NCLB is the required disaggregation of SOLs by ethnic and income groups. So moving kids to improve a school's SOL averages doesn't work anymore.
> I cannot figure out why some many kids are being moved.<
Neither can anyone else.
> The SB will never tell us the truth.<
After January 1, '12, they will again
>Closing a high performing school alone makes you wonder what the SB is up to.<
We've been wondering about what these fools are up to for far longer than the Clifton closing.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the SB is moving all these kids around so some underperforming schools SOL's will go up.<
One of the few good things about NCLB is the required disaggregation of SOLs by ethnic and income groups. So moving kids to improve a school's SOL averages doesn't work anymore.
> I cannot figure out why some many kids are being moved.<
Neither can anyone else.
> The SB will never tell us the truth.<
After January 1, '12, they will again
>Closing a high performing school alone makes you wonder what the SB is up to.<
We've been wondering about what these fools are up to for far longer than the Clifton closing.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
MyVote
()
Date: February 27, 2011 07:32AM
My vote for SB will not be for people who are on PTA. Dont think that is yur ticket to win.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Fairfax citizen
()
Date: February 27, 2011 07:50AM
While I am grateful for the people who put their time in on PTA, I am not sure that it is the only experience which qualifies one for the SB. I don't think it disqualifies one either.
I don't read in Hone's bio that she spent any time on PTA and, even though my politics are conservative, I think she has been the best member for the last four years. I am very impressed with Patty Reed, too. Watching the meeting the other night, it is clear that she asks lots of questions to staff.
I had hopes for Evans, but her vote on Thursday was disappointing. Is she garnishing votes for SLEEP? However, she did vote against closing Clifton initially, didn't she? My fear with her is that she was so passionate about SLEEP that she may be sort of a "single issue" member.
I think the best school board members have common sense. That seems to be lacking on this board. We also don't need the "touchy feely" members that claim to be doing things for the interests of the schools while making decisions that deeply affect many families in a negative way.
I do understand that schools need to go through boundary changes from time to time, but there was enough space in adjacent schools without doing it in this manner--if they had left Clifton open.
I understand the political reasons that caused Liz to close Clifton (I don't excuse it.) I also think I now understand Kathy's reasons. I don't know what Tessie's motivation is. And, will somebody please tell me why STAFF is so interested in moving kids around?
I don't read in Hone's bio that she spent any time on PTA and, even though my politics are conservative, I think she has been the best member for the last four years. I am very impressed with Patty Reed, too. Watching the meeting the other night, it is clear that she asks lots of questions to staff.
I had hopes for Evans, but her vote on Thursday was disappointing. Is she garnishing votes for SLEEP? However, she did vote against closing Clifton initially, didn't she? My fear with her is that she was so passionate about SLEEP that she may be sort of a "single issue" member.
I think the best school board members have common sense. That seems to be lacking on this board. We also don't need the "touchy feely" members that claim to be doing things for the interests of the schools while making decisions that deeply affect many families in a negative way.
I do understand that schools need to go through boundary changes from time to time, but there was enough space in adjacent schools without doing it in this manner--if they had left Clifton open.
I understand the political reasons that caused Liz to close Clifton (I don't excuse it.) I also think I now understand Kathy's reasons. I don't know what Tessie's motivation is. And, will somebody please tell me why STAFF is so interested in moving kids around?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Liz is done
()
Date: February 27, 2011 08:31AM
Fairfax citizen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I understand the political reasons that caused Liz
> to close Clifton (I don't excuse it.) I also
> think I now understand Kathy's reasons. I don't
> know what Tessie's motivation is. And, will
> somebody please tell me why STAFF is so interested
> in moving kids around?
What is Liz's political reasons? What is in this for Kathy Smith? No one seems to be able to answer why this whole debacle is being ramrodded through.
And the staff is so interested because it means increased budgets. Lot's of activity requires lots more money. The BOS are willing accomplices in believing the SB has no excess money, so every new thing requires new funding. This allows the FCPS system to keep their $100M slush fund so Tisdale can play landlord and do the SB's bidding without scrutiny.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I understand the political reasons that caused Liz
> to close Clifton (I don't excuse it.) I also
> think I now understand Kathy's reasons. I don't
> know what Tessie's motivation is. And, will
> somebody please tell me why STAFF is so interested
> in moving kids around?
What is Liz's political reasons? What is in this for Kathy Smith? No one seems to be able to answer why this whole debacle is being ramrodded through.
And the staff is so interested because it means increased budgets. Lot's of activity requires lots more money. The BOS are willing accomplices in believing the SB has no excess money, so every new thing requires new funding. This allows the FCPS system to keep their $100M slush fund so Tisdale can play landlord and do the SB's bidding without scrutiny.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
taxpayer
()
Date: February 27, 2011 08:39AM
I believe Reed, Hone, and Evans were the only board members who were in favor of FCPS having to initially notify parents if their child might be suspended or expelled. They are the only ones worth keeping.
Most of them don't even do a good job representing their district since all the crap spending takes away from actual instruction.
Kory had a bill in VA that would require notification and FCPS lobbied against it.
Smith obviously wanted Clifton closed so she could easily do her domino. The full day K issue should be based on which schools meet baselines of FRPM etc each year after a big boundary change.
Many are getting property tax increases this year so ALL schools NOT meeting Virginia reduced ratios for K-3 should have FCPS FDK removed.
AAP should move as needed based on geographics. It should be placed after base school boundaries are drawn or scrapped for local level 4.
Most of them don't even do a good job representing their district since all the crap spending takes away from actual instruction.
Kory had a bill in VA that would require notification and FCPS lobbied against it.
Smith obviously wanted Clifton closed so she could easily do her domino. The full day K issue should be based on which schools meet baselines of FRPM etc each year after a big boundary change.
Many are getting property tax increases this year so ALL schools NOT meeting Virginia reduced ratios for K-3 should have FCPS FDK removed.
AAP should move as needed based on geographics. It should be placed after base school boundaries are drawn or scrapped for local level 4.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Fryingpantofire
()
Date: March 02, 2011 07:09PM
> Elizabeth SCHULTZ is running for Springfield
> School Board Representative. I am definitely
> going to vote for her because she has already
> proven herself to be someone like Patty Reed and
> Tina Hone who are not afraid to ask questions.
> We are going to need someone like Schultz on the
> Board because if you think they are done here, you
> are crazy. The next step is going to be
> redistricting middle and high schools. We need
> someone on the School Board who will represent the
> Southwestern Region and it is not Liz Bradsher!
Elizabeth Schultz is a nut bag. Listen to her talk about all the schools that "failed" her children - I think she "failed" her child and I don't want her making any policies for my kids. I mean did you see her having her 3 year old scheduled to "speak" at the school board and the she spoke with tears in her eyes after her husband spoke. She used the whole Southwest Boundary thing just like the rest of the whiny Clifton parents to try to get what they wanted. If you ever looked at her "Community Schools" web site you could see that. Clifton was already done and she hijacked it to try to get her pitiful little way. Our School Board is already a mess the last thing we need is some bipolar rich pain in the ass on it.
> School Board Representative. I am definitely
> going to vote for her because she has already
> proven herself to be someone like Patty Reed and
> Tina Hone who are not afraid to ask questions.
> We are going to need someone like Schultz on the
> Board because if you think they are done here, you
> are crazy. The next step is going to be
> redistricting middle and high schools. We need
> someone on the School Board who will represent the
> Southwestern Region and it is not Liz Bradsher!
Elizabeth Schultz is a nut bag. Listen to her talk about all the schools that "failed" her children - I think she "failed" her child and I don't want her making any policies for my kids. I mean did you see her having her 3 year old scheduled to "speak" at the school board and the she spoke with tears in her eyes after her husband spoke. She used the whole Southwest Boundary thing just like the rest of the whiny Clifton parents to try to get what they wanted. If you ever looked at her "Community Schools" web site you could see that. Clifton was already done and she hijacked it to try to get her pitiful little way. Our School Board is already a mess the last thing we need is some bipolar rich pain in the ass on it.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
herewegoagain
()
Date: March 03, 2011 09:51AM
To: fryingpantofire
This is stating the obvious, but you're obviously a misguided fan of Bradsher. Please clarify for me your statement below. You lost me somewhere.
>She used the whole Southwest Boundary thing just like the rest of the whiny Clifton parents to try to get what they wanted.
HOW exactly did the "whiny Clifton parents" get what they wanted?? I must have missed the part where the SB said they made a mistake when they decided to close CES and they are reversing that decision.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2011 09:51AM by herewegoagain.
This is stating the obvious, but you're obviously a misguided fan of Bradsher. Please clarify for me your statement below. You lost me somewhere.
>She used the whole Southwest Boundary thing just like the rest of the whiny Clifton parents to try to get what they wanted.
HOW exactly did the "whiny Clifton parents" get what they wanted?? I must have missed the part where the SB said they made a mistake when they decided to close CES and they are reversing that decision.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2011 09:51AM by herewegoagain.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Not Fair!
()
Date: March 03, 2011 11:47AM
I was looking at the boundary study information and it seems one area (on Fairfax Station Road) was able to change the school they were being moved to because of an amendment made to Option E. My children are changing schools. I would have liked to "pick" a different school!!!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Option E?
()
Date: March 03, 2011 12:30PM
Where is option E? No one knows where their child is going till you get a notice in the mail from the FCPS.
The map they have out is a cluster fuck.
I called FCPS and they could not tell me where my kids are next year. Next year is going to suck for everyone.
The map they have out is a cluster fuck.
I called FCPS and they could not tell me where my kids are next year. Next year is going to suck for everyone.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
wO
()
Date: March 03, 2011 12:34PM
That is not nice language. Look at the attachment and your street. Not rockect science. You can ask your neighbor with kids and they will know.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Liz is done
()
Date: March 03, 2011 01:09PM
Fryingpantofire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Elizabeth SCHULTZ is running for Springfield
> > School Board Representative. I am definitely
> > going to vote for her because she has already
> > proven herself to be someone like Patty Reed
> and
> > Tina Hone who are not afraid to ask questions.
>
> > We are going to need someone like Schultz on
> the
> > Board because if you think they are done here,
> you
> > are crazy. The next step is going to be
> > redistricting middle and high schools. We
> need
> > someone on the School Board who will represent
> the
> > Southwestern Region and it is not Liz Bradsher!
>
>
> Elizabeth Schultz is a nut bag. Listen to her talk
> about all the schools that "failed" her children -
> I think she "failed" her child and I don't want
> her making any policies for my kids. I mean did
> you see her having her 3 year old scheduled to
> "speak" at the school board and the she spoke
> with tears in her eyes after her husband spoke.
> She used the whole Southwest Boundary thing just
> like the rest of the whiny Clifton parents to try
> to get what they wanted. If you ever looked at her
> "Community Schools" web site you could see that.
> Clifton was already done and she hijacked it to
> try to get her pitiful little way. Our School
> Board is already a mess the last thing we need is
> some bipolar rich pain in the ass on it.
I know her. She's and her husband are great parents. Very involved in their kid's lives. Brain is active in scouts for his sons. Liz is always helping out whenever needed in whatever activity they're involved in. You obviously don't know the Schultz's or, for that matter what the heck you're talking about. Rant on Lizbot. Your hero's days are numbered. Liz is going to be long gone in January and this whole think will be reversed. On top of that, with her recent perjury in court, she'll come out of this whole thing much worse the wear and tear. Karma baby.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Elizabeth SCHULTZ is running for Springfield
> > School Board Representative. I am definitely
> > going to vote for her because she has already
> > proven herself to be someone like Patty Reed
> and
> > Tina Hone who are not afraid to ask questions.
>
> > We are going to need someone like Schultz on
> the
> > Board because if you think they are done here,
> you
> > are crazy. The next step is going to be
> > redistricting middle and high schools. We
> need
> > someone on the School Board who will represent
> the
> > Southwestern Region and it is not Liz Bradsher!
>
>
> Elizabeth Schultz is a nut bag. Listen to her talk
> about all the schools that "failed" her children -
> I think she "failed" her child and I don't want
> her making any policies for my kids. I mean did
> you see her having her 3 year old scheduled to
> "speak" at the school board and the she spoke
> with tears in her eyes after her husband spoke.
> She used the whole Southwest Boundary thing just
> like the rest of the whiny Clifton parents to try
> to get what they wanted. If you ever looked at her
> "Community Schools" web site you could see that.
> Clifton was already done and she hijacked it to
> try to get her pitiful little way. Our School
> Board is already a mess the last thing we need is
> some bipolar rich pain in the ass on it.
I know her. She's and her husband are great parents. Very involved in their kid's lives. Brain is active in scouts for his sons. Liz is always helping out whenever needed in whatever activity they're involved in. You obviously don't know the Schultz's or, for that matter what the heck you're talking about. Rant on Lizbot. Your hero's days are numbered. Liz is going to be long gone in January and this whole think will be reversed. On top of that, with her recent perjury in court, she'll come out of this whole thing much worse the wear and tear. Karma baby.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FCPS suck
()
Date: March 03, 2011 01:18PM
Private school. I do want my child to kill themselves over a stupid school system.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Dale and the SB do suck
()
Date: March 03, 2011 03:28PM
FCPS suck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Private school. I do want my child to kill
> themselves over a stupid school system.
Just look at this group of ass holes, then tell me if they are not one big ass hole.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Private school. I do want my child to kill
> themselves over a stupid school system.
Just look at this group of ass holes, then tell me if they are not one big ass hole.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
NotRude
()
Date: March 03, 2011 08:01PM
Liz is done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fryingpantofire Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Elizabeth SCHULTZ is running for Springfield
> > > School Board Representative. I am
> definitely
> > > going to vote for her because she has already
> > > proven herself to be someone like Patty Reed
> > and
> > > Tina Hone who are not afraid to ask questions.
>
> >
> > > We are going to need someone like Schultz on
> > the
> > > Board because if you think they are done
> here,
> > you
> > > are crazy. The next step is going to be
> > > redistricting middle and high schools. We
> > need
> > > someone on the School Board who will
> represent
> > the
> > > Southwestern Region and it is not Liz
> Bradsher!
> >
> >
> > Elizabeth Schultz is a nut bag. Listen to her
> talk
> > about all the schools that "failed" her children
> -
> > I think she "failed" her child and I don't want
> > her making any policies for my kids. I mean did
> > you see her having her 3 year old scheduled to
> > "speak" at the school board and the she spoke
> > with tears in her eyes after her husband spoke.
> > She used the whole Southwest Boundary thing
> just
> > like the rest of the whiny Clifton parents to
> try
> > to get what they wanted. If you ever looked at
> her
> > "Community Schools" web site you could see that.
>
> > Clifton was already done and she hijacked it to
> > try to get her pitiful little way. Our School
> > Board is already a mess the last thing we need
> is
> > some bipolar rich pain in the ass on it.
>
> I know her. She's and her husband are great
> parents. Very involved in their kid's lives.
> Brain is active in scouts for his sons. Liz is
> always helping out whenever needed in whatever
> activity they're involved in. You obviously don't
> know the Schultz's or, for that matter what the
> heck you're talking about. Rant on Lizbot. Your
> hero's days are numbered. Liz is going to be long
> gone in January and this whole think will be
> reversed. On top of that, with her recent perjury
> in court, she'll come out of this whole thing much
> worse the wear and tear. Karma baby.
Elizabeth Schultz would be a great Board Member. She is part of Fairfax Education Coalition, she serves on the SYA Executive Board and has actively raised funds for INOVA Fairfax Hospital for Children. She spoke with tears in her eyes after her husband spoke because it was a small miracle he was even able to get up there and speak having recently had surgery and suffered some complications. It is sad though that people like Fryingpantofire could take something like that and try and turn it into negative.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fryingpantofire Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Elizabeth SCHULTZ is running for Springfield
> > > School Board Representative. I am
> definitely
> > > going to vote for her because she has already
> > > proven herself to be someone like Patty Reed
> > and
> > > Tina Hone who are not afraid to ask questions.
>
> >
> > > We are going to need someone like Schultz on
> > the
> > > Board because if you think they are done
> here,
> > you
> > > are crazy. The next step is going to be
> > > redistricting middle and high schools. We
> > need
> > > someone on the School Board who will
> represent
> > the
> > > Southwestern Region and it is not Liz
> Bradsher!
> >
> >
> > Elizabeth Schultz is a nut bag. Listen to her
> talk
> > about all the schools that "failed" her children
> -
> > I think she "failed" her child and I don't want
> > her making any policies for my kids. I mean did
> > you see her having her 3 year old scheduled to
> > "speak" at the school board and the she spoke
> > with tears in her eyes after her husband spoke.
> > She used the whole Southwest Boundary thing
> just
> > like the rest of the whiny Clifton parents to
> try
> > to get what they wanted. If you ever looked at
> her
> > "Community Schools" web site you could see that.
>
> > Clifton was already done and she hijacked it to
> > try to get her pitiful little way. Our School
> > Board is already a mess the last thing we need
> is
> > some bipolar rich pain in the ass on it.
>
> I know her. She's and her husband are great
> parents. Very involved in their kid's lives.
> Brain is active in scouts for his sons. Liz is
> always helping out whenever needed in whatever
> activity they're involved in. You obviously don't
> know the Schultz's or, for that matter what the
> heck you're talking about. Rant on Lizbot. Your
> hero's days are numbered. Liz is going to be long
> gone in January and this whole think will be
> reversed. On top of that, with her recent perjury
> in court, she'll come out of this whole thing much
> worse the wear and tear. Karma baby.
Elizabeth Schultz would be a great Board Member. She is part of Fairfax Education Coalition, she serves on the SYA Executive Board and has actively raised funds for INOVA Fairfax Hospital for Children. She spoke with tears in her eyes after her husband spoke because it was a small miracle he was even able to get up there and speak having recently had surgery and suffered some complications. It is sad though that people like Fryingpantofire could take something like that and try and turn it into negative.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FDKnotHappening
()
Date: March 16, 2011 11:18AM
The School Board should have postponed this boundary study until they could address the lack of Full Day Kindergarten at some of the schools included in the Boundary Study BEFORE voting to shift the kids. This is the SChool Board's fault! Now there are families that are going to be moved from a FDK school to one that is only half day and they are going to have the financial hardship of forking out HUNDREDS of dollars a month to pay for day care they didn't have to pay for before. Big thanks to Kathy Smith and Liz Bradsher for creating this nightmare. You would have to have had your head stuck in the sand to not know that the County wasn't going to have the money for this in this economy. There is no blaming the County for this one.
Just saw this ..
Funding Signposts on Teacher Raises & FDK
Red Apple Mom | March 16, 2011 at 8:40 am | Tags: Board of Supervisors, Cathy Hudgins, FLES, Full Day Kindergarten, Jack Dale, John Foust, Sharon Bulova, Teacher Pay, Tina Hone | Categories: Education, Fairfax County Public Schools, Kindergarten, School Board, Teacher Pay | URL: http://wp.me/p1hbeV-50
Good news and bad news for FDK advocates – the Board of Supervisors (BOS) all want FDK, but it seems they don’t want to pay for it. Based on BOS Chairman Sharon Bulova’s comments at Tuesday’s joint budget meeting with the FCPS School Board, it doesn’t appear that funding from the county for teacher raises will happen either.
Full-Day Kindergarten
There was no mention of Supervisor Gerry Hyland’s proposed amendment to fund Full Day Kindergarten from the Board of Supervisors purported $30 million in surplus funds resulting from unexpected increases in corporate taxes.
Hyland may not have mentioned it because we learned at this meeting that the county does not really have a surplus. They are, according to the county executive, $26 million in the hole. Full Day Kindergarten costs $7.3 million.
Supervisors questioned FCPS officials about how big a priority FDK was for the school system. Dr. Dale told Supervisors he was looking at a three-year implementation for FDK at a cost of $2+ million per year. That didn’t sit well with Supervisors John Foust or Cathy Hudgins.
Joint Meeting - Board of Supervisors, Superintendent Dale & FCPS School Board
“It is a basic service. Folks have been expecting it for long time. It is a matter of equity. You shouldn’t be looking at three years (to implement FDK),” said Foust. He added, “In a $2.2 billion budget you shouldn’t be trying to find 2 million – you have to find it all. Something else might have to give.”
Cathy Hudgins said of FDK, “It’s the foundation of the system and not ‘when we get to it.’”
FCPS repeatedly states that the economic downturn is to blame for not completing the FDK roll-out that began in earnest in 2006. However, in spite of the recession’s onset, the School Board did, in fact, vote to expand the FLES program (foreign language in the elementary schools).
I’m a dual language speaker and support foreign language instruction. But if FDK has always been FCPS’ priority, why were they expanding programs that serve only 10% of the student population rather than implement FDK in more schools? I’m posing the question because several members of the public posed that exact question to FCPS when they voted to expand FLES a few years ago. Everyone seems to be giving FCPS a pass that the recession is solely to blame for not fully implementing FDK. It’s not and that is a fact. They had options.
FDK advocates (and I’m one of them) will have to really turn up the heat on FCPS to make FDK happen this year. Even then, it may still prove to be an internal budget battle on FCPS’s turf. At-Large School Board member Tina Hone told Supervisors, “I will be asking to restore summer school before funding the full roll-out of FDK.”
Employee Compensation:
Board of Supervisor Chairman Sharon Bulova didn’t dance around on FCPS’ request for an additional $48 million for employee compensation increases, stating, “There is a major disconnect between our two budgets.”
Bulova has equity concerns for county employees like police, firemen and librarians.. She said, “Is it right for an employee to get an increase on one side of the house when we can’t on the other side of the house? We aren’t out of the woods yet (on the recession).”
How is the superintendent going to handle this one? Before parents resurrected the FDK issue, the number one priority for the School Board was staff and teacher raises. I know for a fact that teacher morale is already low. I speak to a lot of teachers in my advocacy work and I know their increased workloads are really tough. The student body brings so many challenges from special ed to non-english speaking and poor students. In addition, teachers today are faced with an endless flow of assessment and testing requirements. Our school system is great because of our quality teacher workforce. We have a great curriculum too but without great teachers, the curriculum alone can't maintain FCPS' fine reputation.
So here comes the reality check. The supervisors acknowledged their appreciation of all school employees, but I didn’t hear anything in this meeting to indicate the school system should expect more. FCPS already receives 53 cents of every county tax dollar as part of the $2.2 Billion FCPS budget.
That means it will be up to taxpayers, parents and teachers to hold FCPS’ feet to the fire in upholding the School Board’s promises on FDK and teacher compensation.
Teachers Rally for Compensation Issues on Tuesday
As Supervisor Foust told Dr. Dale, “Something else may have to give.” What “gives” still remains to be seen, however, since Dr. Dale has provided no indication to date of how he would pay for FDK and/or employee raises.
Looks for things to heat up soon. Lots of promises have been made. It's also an election year and a number of School Board members have serious campaign challengers.
Just saw this ..
Funding Signposts on Teacher Raises & FDK
Red Apple Mom | March 16, 2011 at 8:40 am | Tags: Board of Supervisors, Cathy Hudgins, FLES, Full Day Kindergarten, Jack Dale, John Foust, Sharon Bulova, Teacher Pay, Tina Hone | Categories: Education, Fairfax County Public Schools, Kindergarten, School Board, Teacher Pay | URL: http://wp.me/p1hbeV-50
Good news and bad news for FDK advocates – the Board of Supervisors (BOS) all want FDK, but it seems they don’t want to pay for it. Based on BOS Chairman Sharon Bulova’s comments at Tuesday’s joint budget meeting with the FCPS School Board, it doesn’t appear that funding from the county for teacher raises will happen either.
Full-Day Kindergarten
There was no mention of Supervisor Gerry Hyland’s proposed amendment to fund Full Day Kindergarten from the Board of Supervisors purported $30 million in surplus funds resulting from unexpected increases in corporate taxes.
Hyland may not have mentioned it because we learned at this meeting that the county does not really have a surplus. They are, according to the county executive, $26 million in the hole. Full Day Kindergarten costs $7.3 million.
Supervisors questioned FCPS officials about how big a priority FDK was for the school system. Dr. Dale told Supervisors he was looking at a three-year implementation for FDK at a cost of $2+ million per year. That didn’t sit well with Supervisors John Foust or Cathy Hudgins.
Joint Meeting - Board of Supervisors, Superintendent Dale & FCPS School Board
“It is a basic service. Folks have been expecting it for long time. It is a matter of equity. You shouldn’t be looking at three years (to implement FDK),” said Foust. He added, “In a $2.2 billion budget you shouldn’t be trying to find 2 million – you have to find it all. Something else might have to give.”
Cathy Hudgins said of FDK, “It’s the foundation of the system and not ‘when we get to it.’”
FCPS repeatedly states that the economic downturn is to blame for not completing the FDK roll-out that began in earnest in 2006. However, in spite of the recession’s onset, the School Board did, in fact, vote to expand the FLES program (foreign language in the elementary schools).
I’m a dual language speaker and support foreign language instruction. But if FDK has always been FCPS’ priority, why were they expanding programs that serve only 10% of the student population rather than implement FDK in more schools? I’m posing the question because several members of the public posed that exact question to FCPS when they voted to expand FLES a few years ago. Everyone seems to be giving FCPS a pass that the recession is solely to blame for not fully implementing FDK. It’s not and that is a fact. They had options.
FDK advocates (and I’m one of them) will have to really turn up the heat on FCPS to make FDK happen this year. Even then, it may still prove to be an internal budget battle on FCPS’s turf. At-Large School Board member Tina Hone told Supervisors, “I will be asking to restore summer school before funding the full roll-out of FDK.”
Employee Compensation:
Board of Supervisor Chairman Sharon Bulova didn’t dance around on FCPS’ request for an additional $48 million for employee compensation increases, stating, “There is a major disconnect between our two budgets.”
Bulova has equity concerns for county employees like police, firemen and librarians.. She said, “Is it right for an employee to get an increase on one side of the house when we can’t on the other side of the house? We aren’t out of the woods yet (on the recession).”
How is the superintendent going to handle this one? Before parents resurrected the FDK issue, the number one priority for the School Board was staff and teacher raises. I know for a fact that teacher morale is already low. I speak to a lot of teachers in my advocacy work and I know their increased workloads are really tough. The student body brings so many challenges from special ed to non-english speaking and poor students. In addition, teachers today are faced with an endless flow of assessment and testing requirements. Our school system is great because of our quality teacher workforce. We have a great curriculum too but without great teachers, the curriculum alone can't maintain FCPS' fine reputation.
So here comes the reality check. The supervisors acknowledged their appreciation of all school employees, but I didn’t hear anything in this meeting to indicate the school system should expect more. FCPS already receives 53 cents of every county tax dollar as part of the $2.2 Billion FCPS budget.
That means it will be up to taxpayers, parents and teachers to hold FCPS’ feet to the fire in upholding the School Board’s promises on FDK and teacher compensation.
Teachers Rally for Compensation Issues on Tuesday
As Supervisor Foust told Dr. Dale, “Something else may have to give.” What “gives” still remains to be seen, however, since Dr. Dale has provided no indication to date of how he would pay for FDK and/or employee raises.
Looks for things to heat up soon. Lots of promises have been made. It's also an election year and a number of School Board members have serious campaign challengers.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
full day K
()
Date: March 16, 2011 02:28PM
Reminder about Full day K:
Part of the redistricting sends a lower income trailer park from Kathy Smith's home school (Poplar Tree) to Virginia Run.
Kathy played at getting full Day K for Virginia Run at a PTA meeting before the boundary vote.
Poplar Tree will go from having a strong ESOL and free and reduced lunch presence to very little. Virginia Run will be going from little to strong.
I guess Kathy used the trailer park to get full day K at Poplar Tree--and now she is sending them to Virginia Run which has no full day K.
For what it is worth, the trailer park is far more convenient to Virginia Run than Poplar Tree. Although, I think Cub Run would probably be the most convenient. The trailer park is not really convenient to any school. It is off of 50 between Lee Road and Pleasant Valley.
Part of the redistricting sends a lower income trailer park from Kathy Smith's home school (Poplar Tree) to Virginia Run.
Kathy played at getting full Day K for Virginia Run at a PTA meeting before the boundary vote.
Poplar Tree will go from having a strong ESOL and free and reduced lunch presence to very little. Virginia Run will be going from little to strong.
I guess Kathy used the trailer park to get full day K at Poplar Tree--and now she is sending them to Virginia Run which has no full day K.
For what it is worth, the trailer park is far more convenient to Virginia Run than Poplar Tree. Although, I think Cub Run would probably be the most convenient. The trailer park is not really convenient to any school. It is off of 50 between Lee Road and Pleasant Valley.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
VRcare?
()
Date: March 16, 2011 05:40PM
full day K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reminder about Full day K:
>
> Part of the redistricting sends a lower income
> trailer park from Kathy Smith's home school
> (Poplar Tree) to Virginia Run.
>
> Kathy played at getting full Day K for Virginia
> Run at a PTA meeting before the boundary vote.
>
> Poplar Tree will go from having a strong ESOL and
> free and reduced lunch presence to very little.
> Virginia Run will be going from little to strong.
>
>
> I guess Kathy used the trailer park to get full
> day K at Poplar Tree--and now she is sending them
> to Virginia Run which has no full day K.
>
> For what it is worth, the trailer park is far more
> convenient to Virginia Run than Poplar Tree.
> Although, I think Cub Run would probably be the
> most convenient. The trailer park is not really
> convenient to any school. It is off of 50 between
> Lee Road and Pleasant Valley.
And Kathy Smith probably doesn't care because what is the chance that the high ESOL population at the trailer park votes? Somebody from Virginia Run ought to run against her in the next election. THAN she will care.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reminder about Full day K:
>
> Part of the redistricting sends a lower income
> trailer park from Kathy Smith's home school
> (Poplar Tree) to Virginia Run.
>
> Kathy played at getting full Day K for Virginia
> Run at a PTA meeting before the boundary vote.
>
> Poplar Tree will go from having a strong ESOL and
> free and reduced lunch presence to very little.
> Virginia Run will be going from little to strong.
>
>
> I guess Kathy used the trailer park to get full
> day K at Poplar Tree--and now she is sending them
> to Virginia Run which has no full day K.
>
> For what it is worth, the trailer park is far more
> convenient to Virginia Run than Poplar Tree.
> Although, I think Cub Run would probably be the
> most convenient. The trailer park is not really
> convenient to any school. It is off of 50 between
> Lee Road and Pleasant Valley.
And Kathy Smith probably doesn't care because what is the chance that the high ESOL population at the trailer park votes? Somebody from Virginia Run ought to run against her in the next election. THAN she will care.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Shadow
()
Date: March 16, 2011 05:41PM
FDKnotHappening Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The School Board should have postponed this
> boundary study until they could address the lack
> of Full Day Kindergarten at some of the schools
> included in the Boundary Study BEFORE voting to
> shift the kids. This is the SChool Board's fault!
> Now there are families that are going to be
> moved from a FDK school to one that is only half
> day and they are going to have the financial
> hardship of forking out HUNDREDS of dollars a
> month to pay for day care they didn't have to pay
> for before.
If you can't afford children, don't have them. Blaming the school board for having to come up with child care is idiotic. Additionally, there is SACC (A cheaper alternative daycare), and I would imagine if you put in that you specifically needed it because of the school change, they could fit you in.
As an aside, the FLES program is a giant waste of money. It give a FEW students that PAY for the class a tiny taste of another country and its language, which they promptly forget. I've spoken with several kids that did FLES, even the year after and they don't recall ANY of it. It's an hour before or after school and it's an unnecessary budget item. They get more exposure to other countries in social studies. If parents want their kids to get language skills that young, they should do so privately.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The School Board should have postponed this
> boundary study until they could address the lack
> of Full Day Kindergarten at some of the schools
> included in the Boundary Study BEFORE voting to
> shift the kids. This is the SChool Board's fault!
> Now there are families that are going to be
> moved from a FDK school to one that is only half
> day and they are going to have the financial
> hardship of forking out HUNDREDS of dollars a
> month to pay for day care they didn't have to pay
> for before.
If you can't afford children, don't have them. Blaming the school board for having to come up with child care is idiotic. Additionally, there is SACC (A cheaper alternative daycare), and I would imagine if you put in that you specifically needed it because of the school change, they could fit you in.
As an aside, the FLES program is a giant waste of money. It give a FEW students that PAY for the class a tiny taste of another country and its language, which they promptly forget. I've spoken with several kids that did FLES, even the year after and they don't recall ANY of it. It's an hour before or after school and it's an unnecessary budget item. They get more exposure to other countries in social studies. If parents want their kids to get language skills that young, they should do so privately.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
what?
()
Date: March 16, 2011 06:18PM
First of all, FDK is a matter of equity. We all pay taxes here. The disparity in kids' abilities in K is astounding. Throw some ED and ESOL and other kids with additional needs in the mix, and the kid with average or above average needs is basically at the back of the pack in getting needs met in half day K. There is a lot they need to know and do to perform from the beginning in 1st grade - trust me, FDK is not child care.
But it is extra $$ for child care to those who hadn't budgeted for only half day K, as well as additional work with their kids to get them up to speed. They have to learn to read, at least at a basic level, and write. Half day K will only lead to more disparity in abilities at the 1st grade level, which slows everything down.
The folks who are affected by this will vote. The SB members in the wrong are basically already out anyway.
As an aside, there is a looong wait for SACC. Not that simple. They won't fit you in.
Another aside - we're squeezing blood out of a turnip this budget season. Where were these people when the implementation of FDK was put off for the remaining schools, year after year, these past few years?
But it is extra $$ for child care to those who hadn't budgeted for only half day K, as well as additional work with their kids to get them up to speed. They have to learn to read, at least at a basic level, and write. Half day K will only lead to more disparity in abilities at the 1st grade level, which slows everything down.
The folks who are affected by this will vote. The SB members in the wrong are basically already out anyway.
As an aside, there is a looong wait for SACC. Not that simple. They won't fit you in.
Another aside - we're squeezing blood out of a turnip this budget season. Where were these people when the implementation of FDK was put off for the remaining schools, year after year, these past few years?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Clifton parents
()
Date: March 16, 2011 06:21PM
Clifton has never had FDK or SAC. We have always paid of pocket and we did not mind doing so. Why would the SB close such a great school and create such a big mess?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
what?
()
Date: March 16, 2011 06:30PM
I'll cut anyone a pass, if they didn't realize FDK was delayed for the remaining schools. When FDK was threatened for all schools last budget season, however, the advocacy group for keeping FDK made it plain they were working for keeping FDK in the schools that already had it - not giving it to the schools that still didn't, but had been on the schedule to have it.
Again, blood out of a turnip here. We need to fix the SB and their recent decisions before we can make any headway.
Again, blood out of a turnip here. We need to fix the SB and their recent decisions before we can make any headway.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: March 16, 2011 07:48PM
Dr. Dale and School Board Members,
You have to change your current allocation of funds to Programs before the Board of Supervisors will ever think of giving you more. Everything can't be a priority. Start with this:
1) Basic educational needs for all students (equitable distribution to all - no more full day K only for some)
2) State and federal mandates (special needs, NCLB, Title 1)
Figure out what you have left and prioritize special programs and athletics. Add back program after program and when you are out of money, stop. Is that really that difficult. You clearly have no issue with pissing people off so this approach at least lends some logic to the process.
You have to change your current allocation of funds to Programs before the Board of Supervisors will ever think of giving you more. Everything can't be a priority. Start with this:
1) Basic educational needs for all students (equitable distribution to all - no more full day K only for some)
2) State and federal mandates (special needs, NCLB, Title 1)
Figure out what you have left and prioritize special programs and athletics. Add back program after program and when you are out of money, stop. Is that really that difficult. You clearly have no issue with pissing people off so this approach at least lends some logic to the process.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
what?
()
Date: March 16, 2011 08:05PM
It is very hard to dial it all back (current programs). If they could just swallow their pride and leave Clifton open for awhile, don't go through with the boundary changes, see how enrollment pans out for everyone, and fix the overcrowding how it should be fixed (this could even take a few years - but build where it is needed, don't rearrange everyone and make enrollment and logistical, etc problems) it could solve a lot of ills.
They can't even fix zero tolerance. Shouldn't say they - there are a few on the SB who are good. There is a lot of work already to be done.
If they really do close Clifton this year, it will be throwing good money after bad (decisions). (They will need money for trailers, etc etc) They've spent too much good money on this already.
They can't even fix zero tolerance. Shouldn't say they - there are a few on the SB who are good. There is a lot of work already to be done.
If they really do close Clifton this year, it will be throwing good money after bad (decisions). (They will need money for trailers, etc etc) They've spent too much good money on this already.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
board money
()
Date: March 16, 2011 09:50PM
Do they ever publish how much the boundary studies cost?
All those facilitators, staff, paper--not to mention the hours spent by staff shifting people around on a map.......If I were a Supervisor I would ask that question.
All those facilitators, staff, paper--not to mention the hours spent by staff shifting people around on a map.......If I were a Supervisor I would ask that question.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
costs
()
Date: March 17, 2011 04:25PM
board money Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do they ever publish how much the boundary studies
> cost?
>
> All those facilitators, staff, paper--not to
> mention the hours spent by staff shifting people
> around on a map.......If I were a Supervisor I
> would ask that question.
I don't know how much FCPS spends, but it cost the public citizens that were involved with the Southwestern Committee last year time out of their lives and away from their families that they will never get back. It appears the whole thing was a shame from the start too since the focus included building a new school when that clearly isn't what happened.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do they ever publish how much the boundary studies
> cost?
>
> All those facilitators, staff, paper--not to
> mention the hours spent by staff shifting people
> around on a map.......If I were a Supervisor I
> would ask that question.
I don't know how much FCPS spends, but it cost the public citizens that were involved with the Southwestern Committee last year time out of their lives and away from their families that they will never get back. It appears the whole thing was a shame from the start too since the focus included building a new school when that clearly isn't what happened.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
SignUp
()
Date: March 17, 2011 04:28PM
Justataxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Dale and School Board Members,
>
> You have to change your current allocation of
> funds to Programs before the Board of Supervisors
> will ever think of giving you more. Everything
> can't be a priority. Start with this:
>
> 1) Basic educational needs for all students
> (equitable distribution to all - no more full day
> K only for some)
> 2) State and federal mandates (special needs,
> NCLB, Title 1)
>
> Figure out what you have left and prioritize
> special programs and athletics. Add back program
> after program and when you are out of money, stop.
> Is that really that difficult. You clearly have
> no issue with pissing people off so this approach
> at least lends some logic to the process.
I think Justataxpayer should run for the Board as an At-Large Board Member. It sounds like you have sound logic and would be good at looking at the overall perspective for the whole county.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Dale and School Board Members,
>
> You have to change your current allocation of
> funds to Programs before the Board of Supervisors
> will ever think of giving you more. Everything
> can't be a priority. Start with this:
>
> 1) Basic educational needs for all students
> (equitable distribution to all - no more full day
> K only for some)
> 2) State and federal mandates (special needs,
> NCLB, Title 1)
>
> Figure out what you have left and prioritize
> special programs and athletics. Add back program
> after program and when you are out of money, stop.
> Is that really that difficult. You clearly have
> no issue with pissing people off so this approach
> at least lends some logic to the process.
I think Justataxpayer should run for the Board as an At-Large Board Member. It sounds like you have sound logic and would be good at looking at the overall perspective for the whole county.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
yohahahaha
()
Date: March 17, 2011 06:03PM
If you were a supervisor you would ask that question? No one will beat Frey. No one runs against him. Look at all the good he did to Sully.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
NoMoney?
()
Date: March 30, 2011 05:22PM
Love this blog/site. It is especially pertinent considering they are getting ready to supersize all the class sizes in the Southwestern part of the County under the premise of no money (yet according to this they have $48 million in reserves).
Moms, Teachers & Five-Year Old Lobbyists
Red Apple Mom | March 30, 2011 at 9:02 am |
The Board of Supervisors held their first night of public hearings Tuesday night. Adorable four and five-year olds were in the audience with their parents and teachers advocating for increasing school funds and pay increases.
My remarks to Supervisors focused on the fact that FCPS should scrap their budget and re-build it. We deserve a budget that focuses on the community's priorities first - not administrative spending. Here is my speech:
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Budget Hearings
March 29, 2011- Advertised 2012 Budget
Hello. My name is Catherine Lorenze. I am a co-founder of the Fairfax Education Coalition and FAIRGRADE and author of the Red Apple Mom blog. I am speaking for myself tonight - as the mother of three children.
When the School Board passed their budget last month, Member Patty Reed said it was “unrealistic.” Tina Hone called FCPS’ budget “a myth.” Member Jim Raney commented that perhaps the budget should be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.
A lot of promises have been made on FDK and staff raises.
Now you must decide if FCPS’ promises are your responsibility to solve.
Please look at the funding statement located on page 147 of FCPS’ advertised budget that I have attached. This statement shows a nearly $48 million reserve.
I hope you’ll ask serious questions about why FCPS is carrying over tens of millions of dollars going into next year. Why were those funds not used this year to meet critical priorities? Money sitting in a pot doesn’t serve the interests of school children.
I can’t help but wonder if FCPS is giving the community and you all the facts about this budget. I attended the meeting between your two boards a couple of weeks ago. When discussing the FDK issue, Supervisor Hudgins specifically asked school officials if any other programs had been implemented or expanded during the time FDK implementation was halted. They answered no. In fact, while FDK languished – the School Board voted to expand the Foreign Language in the Elementary Schools Program. And last year, they implemented a new program called the Priority Schools Initiative.
I agree with School Board member Jim Raney’s suggestion. FCPS should scrap this budget and re-build it based on the public’s priorities which include FDK, teacher pay and importantly – lowering class size. Last year, our school had a sixth grade class with 39 students. This year, my son’s 5th grade class at Spring Hill Elementary currently has 35 students. It has the feel of a poultry farm. When it gets hot and stuffy, it smells like a poultry farm too.
My request to take a picture of his crowded classroom was denied by my principal. However, I have attached a photo from nearby Churchill Elementary School that continues to also experience ridiculously large class sizes.
Regrettably, FCPS has allowed a subset of children in this county to shoulder the burden of budget cuts by way of super-sized class sizes. This is simply unfair.
Please remember this when considering the FCPS budget transfer: children and teachers deserve a budget that is focused on them and their needs first – not on Gatehouse staff whose work has minimal impact on my children and their teachers.
If kids are the priority FCPS claims them to be – then FCPS should reflect that in their budget priorities with reasonable class size and FDK. FDK should put their money where their mouth is, rather than making you absolve them of their fiduciary responsibility as recipients of 54% of the county budget.
Moms, Teachers & Five-Year Old Lobbyists
Red Apple Mom | March 30, 2011 at 9:02 am |
The Board of Supervisors held their first night of public hearings Tuesday night. Adorable four and five-year olds were in the audience with their parents and teachers advocating for increasing school funds and pay increases.
My remarks to Supervisors focused on the fact that FCPS should scrap their budget and re-build it. We deserve a budget that focuses on the community's priorities first - not administrative spending. Here is my speech:
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Budget Hearings
March 29, 2011- Advertised 2012 Budget
Hello. My name is Catherine Lorenze. I am a co-founder of the Fairfax Education Coalition and FAIRGRADE and author of the Red Apple Mom blog. I am speaking for myself tonight - as the mother of three children.
When the School Board passed their budget last month, Member Patty Reed said it was “unrealistic.” Tina Hone called FCPS’ budget “a myth.” Member Jim Raney commented that perhaps the budget should be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.
A lot of promises have been made on FDK and staff raises.
Now you must decide if FCPS’ promises are your responsibility to solve.
Please look at the funding statement located on page 147 of FCPS’ advertised budget that I have attached. This statement shows a nearly $48 million reserve.
I hope you’ll ask serious questions about why FCPS is carrying over tens of millions of dollars going into next year. Why were those funds not used this year to meet critical priorities? Money sitting in a pot doesn’t serve the interests of school children.
I can’t help but wonder if FCPS is giving the community and you all the facts about this budget. I attended the meeting between your two boards a couple of weeks ago. When discussing the FDK issue, Supervisor Hudgins specifically asked school officials if any other programs had been implemented or expanded during the time FDK implementation was halted. They answered no. In fact, while FDK languished – the School Board voted to expand the Foreign Language in the Elementary Schools Program. And last year, they implemented a new program called the Priority Schools Initiative.
I agree with School Board member Jim Raney’s suggestion. FCPS should scrap this budget and re-build it based on the public’s priorities which include FDK, teacher pay and importantly – lowering class size. Last year, our school had a sixth grade class with 39 students. This year, my son’s 5th grade class at Spring Hill Elementary currently has 35 students. It has the feel of a poultry farm. When it gets hot and stuffy, it smells like a poultry farm too.
My request to take a picture of his crowded classroom was denied by my principal. However, I have attached a photo from nearby Churchill Elementary School that continues to also experience ridiculously large class sizes.
Regrettably, FCPS has allowed a subset of children in this county to shoulder the burden of budget cuts by way of super-sized class sizes. This is simply unfair.
Please remember this when considering the FCPS budget transfer: children and teachers deserve a budget that is focused on them and their needs first – not on Gatehouse staff whose work has minimal impact on my children and their teachers.
If kids are the priority FCPS claims them to be – then FCPS should reflect that in their budget priorities with reasonable class size and FDK. FDK should put their money where their mouth is, rather than making you absolve them of their fiduciary responsibility as recipients of 54% of the county budget.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
nowazer
()
Date: March 31, 2011 07:31AM
I hope your kid dont grow up to be a bully. You are trying to bully the school board to listen to you what does that teach him.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Class size
()
Date: March 31, 2011 09:58AM
Does Va. Have a law on how large a class size can be?
39 students in a class is crazy. How can a teacher teach with that many kids?
Someone explain to me how larger classes do not hurt kids.
39 students in a class is crazy. How can a teacher teach with that many kids?
Someone explain to me how larger classes do not hurt kids.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Shadow
()
Date: March 31, 2011 10:52AM
Class size Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does Va. Have a law on how large a class size can
> be?
>
> 39 students in a class is crazy. How can a teacher
> teach with that many kids?
>
> Someone explain to me how larger classes do not
> hurt kids.
39? the average is 24-29:1. Not 39. (http://www.fcps.edu/about/stats.htm)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does Va. Have a law on how large a class size can
> be?
>
> 39 students in a class is crazy. How can a teacher
> teach with that many kids?
>
> Someone explain to me how larger classes do not
> hurt kids.
39? the average is 24-29:1. Not 39. (http://www.fcps.edu/about/stats.htm)
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
not sure
()
Date: March 31, 2011 10:59AM
I'm not positive--but I think this is decided at the school level. Each school gets classroom teachers based on the population of the school. I taught in a school once where the first grades were huge and the fourth grades small because the principal did not have the guts to tell another teacher that he/she had to move to first grade. (This was not in Fairfax County.)
The principal could also choose to split a class (example have a 4/5 combo) but this is an unpopular decision. It can also be a factor of the size of the physical structure--there may not be an available classroom. Perhaps there are trailers that cannot hold more. Sometimes a principal may choose to have a "roving" teacher instead of a classroom teacher. One thing I am sure of, as foolish as our "leaders" in FCPS are, I do not think that any class is supposed to have 39 students. I suspect that there is more to this story--that the numbers are being manipulated in some way by the principal.
The principal could also choose to split a class (example have a 4/5 combo) but this is an unpopular decision. It can also be a factor of the size of the physical structure--there may not be an available classroom. Perhaps there are trailers that cannot hold more. Sometimes a principal may choose to have a "roving" teacher instead of a classroom teacher. One thing I am sure of, as foolish as our "leaders" in FCPS are, I do not think that any class is supposed to have 39 students. I suspect that there is more to this story--that the numbers are being manipulated in some way by the principal.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: March 31, 2011 11:00AM
my kids' class sizes (twins) for first grade are is 22 and 23 respectively
but with the Clifton debacle happening, I'm sure that's gonna change for next year :(
but with the Clifton debacle happening, I'm sure that's gonna change for next year :(
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
still not sure
()
Date: March 31, 2011 11:18AM
Also, with so many schools now having self-contained GT, this makes splitting the numbers more difficult. Example: a school has 120 fifth graders--but 37of them are put into GT. That leaves 73 "regular" students. Say the principal gets 4 teachers for 110 students. How are you going to split it? If I am the principal, I am going to put 3 teachers with the "regular" kids and 1 with the 37 GT. Sorry, GT parents--but that is the disadvantage of tracking kids.
Another option would be multi-level GT classes.
My personal opinion is that there are far too many kids in the GT classes. If they are going to have them, they should go back to putting only the very highly gifted into centers. To me, it makes more sense to take the kids with learning problems and put them into small self contained classrooms with more help. But, that would be illegal.
Another option would be multi-level GT classes.
My personal opinion is that there are far too many kids in the GT classes. If they are going to have them, they should go back to putting only the very highly gifted into centers. To me, it makes more sense to take the kids with learning problems and put them into small self contained classrooms with more help. But, that would be illegal.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
ClassSizeFacts
()
Date: March 31, 2011 10:16PM
In 2002, citizens in Florida approved an amendment to the Florida Constitution that says the maximum number of students is as follows:
18 students in prekindergarten through grade 3;
22 students in grades 4 through 8; and
25 students in grades 9 through 12.
http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/
Florida now has some of the top public elementary schools in the country which include Freedom 7 Elementary, Hartridge Academy, Jacksonville Beach Elementary School, Bevis Elementary School, etc.
FCPS, on the other hand, seems to be working in the opposite direction by INCREASING class sizes. Through these boundary changes they are now going to be increasing class sizes by closing Clifton Elementary and pushing all of these kids into the adjacent schools.
18 students in prekindergarten through grade 3;
22 students in grades 4 through 8; and
25 students in grades 9 through 12.
http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/
Florida now has some of the top public elementary schools in the country which include Freedom 7 Elementary, Hartridge Academy, Jacksonville Beach Elementary School, Bevis Elementary School, etc.
FCPS, on the other hand, seems to be working in the opposite direction by INCREASING class sizes. Through these boundary changes they are now going to be increasing class sizes by closing Clifton Elementary and pushing all of these kids into the adjacent schools.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
FL
()
Date: March 31, 2011 10:25PM
Some of the Florida School Districts are also close to the same size as Fairfax County with smaller budgets as they do not get the $2.2 BILLION transfer from their County like Fairfax does. When you compare that to what is going on now in Fairfax and this boundary study, you have to ask yourself where FCPS priorities really are and therefore where the money is going.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
novote
()
Date: March 31, 2011 10:34PM
ClassSizeFacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In 2002, citizens in Florida approved an amendment
> to the Florida Constitution that says the maximum
> number of students is as follows:
>
> 18 students in prekindergarten through grade 3;
> 22 students in grades 4 through 8; and
> 25 students in grades 9 through 12.
>
> http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/
>
> Florida now has some of the top public elementary
> schools in the country which include Freedom 7
> Elementary, Hartridge Academy, Jacksonville Beach
> Elementary School, Bevis Elementary School, etc.
>
>
> FCPS, on the other hand, seems to be working in
> the opposite direction by INCREASING class sizes.
> Through these boundary changes they are now going
> to be increasing class sizes by closing Clifton
> Elementary and pushing all of these kids into the
> adjacent schools.
Sure seems like the kids involved in the Southwestern Boundary are the sacrificial lambs so that Liz Bradsher could make up the difference for getting her South County Middle School built which never should have been prioritized over the other needs in the county especially when there are vacancies at schools around it. Will never vote for her again.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In 2002, citizens in Florida approved an amendment
> to the Florida Constitution that says the maximum
> number of students is as follows:
>
> 18 students in prekindergarten through grade 3;
> 22 students in grades 4 through 8; and
> 25 students in grades 9 through 12.
>
> http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/
>
> Florida now has some of the top public elementary
> schools in the country which include Freedom 7
> Elementary, Hartridge Academy, Jacksonville Beach
> Elementary School, Bevis Elementary School, etc.
>
>
> FCPS, on the other hand, seems to be working in
> the opposite direction by INCREASING class sizes.
> Through these boundary changes they are now going
> to be increasing class sizes by closing Clifton
> Elementary and pushing all of these kids into the
> adjacent schools.
Sure seems like the kids involved in the Southwestern Boundary are the sacrificial lambs so that Liz Bradsher could make up the difference for getting her South County Middle School built which never should have been prioritized over the other needs in the county especially when there are vacancies at schools around it. Will never vote for her again.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
seriously out of whack
()
Date: April 01, 2011 07:37AM
What good is all the Gatehouse administration if they can't stop a principal from putting 39 kids into a classroom? What good are they if they can't move resources to stop such a situation from existing? What is more important than this? Maybe they can just give the teacher more training on how to deal with an overcrowded classroom?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
any Union Mill parents on here?
()
Date: April 01, 2011 08:37AM
I have two kids moving into Union Mill and I would like the TRUTH on the current class size.
I will have a 2nd grader and a 5th grader next year.
Thanks!
The school seems not to the answer.??
I will have a 2nd grader and a 5th grader next year.
Thanks!
The school seems not to the answer.??
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
UMreply
()
Date: April 01, 2011 05:54PM
any Union Mill parents on here? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have two kids moving into Union Mill and I would
> like the TRUTH on the current class size.
>
> I will have a 2nd grader and a 5th grader next
> year.
>
> Thanks!
>
> The school seems not to the answer.??
Even if the school did answer, it would be difficult to believe what they say considering their numbers kept changing through the study. Some of the Board Members even questioned the numbers. One of the Board Members tried to get them to postpone the whole thing until they could get more accurate, current numbers. Kathy Smith and Liz Bradsher pushed it through anyway. What a nightmare.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have two kids moving into Union Mill and I would
> like the TRUTH on the current class size.
>
> I will have a 2nd grader and a 5th grader next
> year.
>
> Thanks!
>
> The school seems not to the answer.??
Even if the school did answer, it would be difficult to believe what they say considering their numbers kept changing through the study. Some of the Board Members even questioned the numbers. One of the Board Members tried to get them to postpone the whole thing until they could get more accurate, current numbers. Kathy Smith and Liz Bradsher pushed it through anyway. What a nightmare.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: April 01, 2011 06:10PM
um, you could always just simply GO THERE and ask...........................
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
former teacher
()
Date: April 01, 2011 06:53PM
any Union Mill.......said:
"I have two kids moving into Union Mill and I would like the TRUTH on the current class size.
I will have a 2nd grader and a 5th grader next year.
Thanks!
The school seems not to the answer"
Class size can vary from year to year--it really depends on how the numbers fall. The principal is given so many teachers per the enrollment. Primary grades have one ratio and upper grades the other. It is up to the principal then to divvy them up. Sometimes it is not set in concrete until school starts--a principal may hope to get one more teacher if enrollment is close-or, on the other hand, hopes not to lose one if enrollment is lower than expected.
A few years ago, due to the wonderful planning of our Facilities office, Greenbriar East had a HUGE influx of new students that were not planned on (new apartments in the district). Classes were huge at first--although I think they got more teachers after a few weeks.
Short answer: school probably does not know yet--and they won't know until the kids show up.
"I have two kids moving into Union Mill and I would like the TRUTH on the current class size.
I will have a 2nd grader and a 5th grader next year.
Thanks!
The school seems not to the answer"
Class size can vary from year to year--it really depends on how the numbers fall. The principal is given so many teachers per the enrollment. Primary grades have one ratio and upper grades the other. It is up to the principal then to divvy them up. Sometimes it is not set in concrete until school starts--a principal may hope to get one more teacher if enrollment is close-or, on the other hand, hopes not to lose one if enrollment is lower than expected.
A few years ago, due to the wonderful planning of our Facilities office, Greenbriar East had a HUGE influx of new students that were not planned on (new apartments in the district). Classes were huge at first--although I think they got more teachers after a few weeks.
Short answer: school probably does not know yet--and they won't know until the kids show up.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Numbers game
()
Date: April 01, 2011 07:57PM
Union Mill is going to be super tight next year. We do not have room now and many kids from Clifton are going to join us. We do not know now how many kids yet will be moved into our school.
Everyone is losing since no one seems to have a great plan in place for next September.
Thanks Jack Dale.
Everyone is losing since no one seems to have a great plan in place for next September.
Thanks Jack Dale.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
questioner
()
Date: April 01, 2011 08:08PM
Has anyone had an update on the FOIA case?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: April 01, 2011 08:51PM
Dunno about Union Mill, but I hear Colin Powell has over 1200 students in it, which blows my mind hardcore........................
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
where everybody knows your name
()
Date: April 01, 2011 08:55PM
Those are nice little community schools . ..
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
NotJackDale
()
Date: April 02, 2011 01:16PM
Numbers game Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Union Mill is going to be super tight next year.
> We do not have room now and many kids from Clifton
> are going to join us. We do not know now how many
> kids yet will be moved into our school.
>
> Everyone is losing since no one seems to have a
> great plan in place for next September.
>
> Thanks Jack Dale.
No, thank your School Board Members - Liz Bradsher and Kathy Smith for having done this to you. They are the ones that voted for this. They could have overridden anything Jack Dale wanted but chose not to do so. Both Liz Bradsher and Kathy Smith had their own agendas. If you vote for either one of them again than it is your own fault.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Union Mill is going to be super tight next year.
> We do not have room now and many kids from Clifton
> are going to join us. We do not know now how many
> kids yet will be moved into our school.
>
> Everyone is losing since no one seems to have a
> great plan in place for next September.
>
> Thanks Jack Dale.
No, thank your School Board Members - Liz Bradsher and Kathy Smith for having done this to you. They are the ones that voted for this. They could have overridden anything Jack Dale wanted but chose not to do so. Both Liz Bradsher and Kathy Smith had their own agendas. If you vote for either one of them again than it is your own fault.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
moveoutmovein
()
Date: April 03, 2011 07:43AM
All these people moving in to you school are moving out of somewhere people are leaving your school too. do the math.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: April 03, 2011 11:07AM
moveoutmovein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All these people moving in to you school are
> moving out of somewhere people are leaving your
> school too. do the math.
-------------------------------------------------------
um, you do the ENGLISH first, please
LoLz
does anybody know what the h*ll that means?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2011 11:08AM by Gordon Blvd.
-------------------------------------------------------
> All these people moving in to you school are
> moving out of somewhere people are leaving your
> school too. do the math.
-------------------------------------------------------
um, you do the ENGLISH first, please
LoLz
does anybody know what the h*ll that means?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2011 11:08AM by Gordon Blvd.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
moveoutmoveit
()
Date: April 03, 2011 11:52AM
it means look at the final numbers. not only are people moving INTO your school some are MOVIN OUT. Like the Billy Joel song.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
fcps website
()
Date: April 03, 2011 12:19PM
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/detailedmoves.htm
I only see students moving IN to Union Mill--none moving out.
I only see students moving IN to Union Mill--none moving out.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
moveoutmoveit
()
Date: April 03, 2011 12:32PM
That page also show people moving from a school to a trailer park. Try another page.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
questioner
()
Date: April 03, 2011 12:49PM
moveoutmoveit said:
That page also show people moving from a school to a trailer park. Try another page.
Good catch! More good work from our illustrious facilities dept--the dept that needs no outside help because they are so good at what they do......After all, they are good because they manage such a big budget.
Scary.
That page also show people moving from a school to a trailer park. Try another page.
Good catch! More good work from our illustrious facilities dept--the dept that needs no outside help because they are so good at what they do......After all, they are good because they manage such a big budget.
Scary.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
mmoore
()
Date: April 03, 2011 02:03PM
Lotsa little immigrant families moving from prince william into said area. We allow it, Prince William is not standing for it. Plain and simple. Who is our Corey Stewart?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: April 04, 2011 12:19PM
mmoore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lotsa little immigrant families moving from prince
> william into said area. We allow it, Prince
> William is not standing for it. Plain and simple.
> Who is our Corey Stewart?
---------------------------
wow.......let me guess - you dont even live here, do you? If you did, you would know the REAL actual issue is the closing of Clifton Elem. School that's going on.
...........................immigrant families..................someone needs to read up on his/her American History and lease a clue. Maybe start with the inscription on the Statue of Liberty for starters..........................
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lotsa little immigrant families moving from prince
> william into said area. We allow it, Prince
> William is not standing for it. Plain and simple.
> Who is our Corey Stewart?
---------------------------
wow.......let me guess - you dont even live here, do you? If you did, you would know the REAL actual issue is the closing of Clifton Elem. School that's going on.
...........................immigrant families..................someone needs to read up on his/her American History and lease a clue. Maybe start with the inscription on the Statue of Liberty for starters..........................
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
MissingWord
()
Date: April 04, 2011 03:42PM
Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mmoore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lotsa little immigrant families moving from
> prince
> > william into said area. We allow it, Prince
> > William is not standing for it. Plain and
> simple.
> > Who is our Corey Stewart?
> ---------------------------
>
> wow.......let me guess - you dont even live here,
> do you? If you did, you would know the REAL
> actual issue is the closing of Clifton Elem.
> School that's going on.
>
> ...........................immigrant
> families..................someone needs to read up
> on his/her American History and lease a clue.
> Maybe start with the inscription on the Statue of
> Liberty for starters..........................
The previous posters missed an important word -- ILLEGAL. The ILLEGAL immigrants are not paying for the resources they are using (schools) and that is a huge problem. If they were, the School Board wouldn't have been able to use the *excuse* of not enough money to renovate Clifton even though people following this know this was essentially about Liz Bradsher moving WSHS up the queue by closing Clifton. When Prince William cracked down on the ILLEGALS a large influx of them landed here in the Southwestern part of the County where they are now doing these boundary changes. Just look at the enrollment numbers. PWC enrollment numbers went down and this area went up. Simple math.
-------------------------------------------------------
> mmoore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lotsa little immigrant families moving from
> prince
> > william into said area. We allow it, Prince
> > William is not standing for it. Plain and
> simple.
> > Who is our Corey Stewart?
> ---------------------------
>
> wow.......let me guess - you dont even live here,
> do you? If you did, you would know the REAL
> actual issue is the closing of Clifton Elem.
> School that's going on.
>
> ...........................immigrant
> families..................someone needs to read up
> on his/her American History and lease a clue.
> Maybe start with the inscription on the Statue of
> Liberty for starters..........................
The previous posters missed an important word -- ILLEGAL. The ILLEGAL immigrants are not paying for the resources they are using (schools) and that is a huge problem. If they were, the School Board wouldn't have been able to use the *excuse* of not enough money to renovate Clifton even though people following this know this was essentially about Liz Bradsher moving WSHS up the queue by closing Clifton. When Prince William cracked down on the ILLEGALS a large influx of them landed here in the Southwestern part of the County where they are now doing these boundary changes. Just look at the enrollment numbers. PWC enrollment numbers went down and this area went up. Simple math.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: April 04, 2011 03:47PM
@ the CLUELESS missing word:
read this: maybe you can join us in the real world someday.............
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=349412&paper=72&cat=110
not imagination, but REALITY
read this: maybe you can join us in the real world someday.............
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=349412&paper=72&cat=110
not imagination, but REALITY
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
listening?
()
Date: April 09, 2011 08:43PM
Just read this and found it to be very enlightening.
Serving Up Crow For FCPS Officials on School Renovations & Additions
Red Apple Mom | April 9, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
Remember the scathing editorial School Board member Liz Bradsher wrote last October in the Fairfax Times? It’s the one where she attacked a parent who raised important questions about FCPS’ renovation queue relative to FCPS’ closure of Clifton ES.
Bradsher’s editorial titled “Don’t Let the Facts Get In the Way of a Good Op Ed” specifically stated: “…Clifton Elementary School has 366 students and all students can be moved to successful nearby schools without the necessity of additions or renovations.
Well, well, well. Look out Ms. Bradsher –looks like some multi-million dollar facts are getting "in the way." You told parents and taxpayers that additions and renovations weren’t needed. The FCPS 2011 Proposed 2011 School Bond Referendum tells a different story.
The proposed 2011 bond, released by FCPS last week, shows $13.7 million for “additions and renovations” to schools that Clifton ES students will now be transferred to.
Among the proposed bond projects include:
Fairfax Villa ES (6 rooms) $ 3,129,294
Greenbriar East ES (9 rooms) $ 3,889,687
Union Mill ES (8 rooms) $ 3,419,715
Modular Relocations $ 3,250,000
Capacity Enhancement Subtotal: $ 13,688,696
Ready to eat some crow Ms. Bradsher?
Save some for FCPS Chief Operation Officer for Facilities Planning Dean Tistadt.
Back in October, Tistadt told concerned parents and taxpayers at a SW Boundary study meeting that FCPS already had money for any projects that might be needed as the result of shifting students from Clifton ES to new schools.
“We actually have a great deal of money in what we call the “construction reserve,” Tistadt is quoted in the Centreville Patch. The Patch quotes Tistadt saying that the funds were left over from previous bond referendums. “According to law, that money can be spent on any capital project,” said Tistadt.
So FCPS, if you already have leftover bond money , why are you sticking taxpayers with an additional proposed $13.7 million tab on the 2011 Bond?
If you already have leftover bond money, why the delay in jumpstarting much needed renovations at FCPS’ legacy high schools like Langley and West Springfield who have languished in the renovation queue for way too long?!
I smell the need for a serious audit of FCPS’ budget. Board of Supervisors, are you listening?
Serving Up Crow For FCPS Officials on School Renovations & Additions
Red Apple Mom | April 9, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
Remember the scathing editorial School Board member Liz Bradsher wrote last October in the Fairfax Times? It’s the one where she attacked a parent who raised important questions about FCPS’ renovation queue relative to FCPS’ closure of Clifton ES.
Bradsher’s editorial titled “Don’t Let the Facts Get In the Way of a Good Op Ed” specifically stated: “…Clifton Elementary School has 366 students and all students can be moved to successful nearby schools without the necessity of additions or renovations.
Well, well, well. Look out Ms. Bradsher –looks like some multi-million dollar facts are getting "in the way." You told parents and taxpayers that additions and renovations weren’t needed. The FCPS 2011 Proposed 2011 School Bond Referendum tells a different story.
The proposed 2011 bond, released by FCPS last week, shows $13.7 million for “additions and renovations” to schools that Clifton ES students will now be transferred to.
Among the proposed bond projects include:
Fairfax Villa ES (6 rooms) $ 3,129,294
Greenbriar East ES (9 rooms) $ 3,889,687
Union Mill ES (8 rooms) $ 3,419,715
Modular Relocations $ 3,250,000
Capacity Enhancement Subtotal: $ 13,688,696
Ready to eat some crow Ms. Bradsher?
Save some for FCPS Chief Operation Officer for Facilities Planning Dean Tistadt.
Back in October, Tistadt told concerned parents and taxpayers at a SW Boundary study meeting that FCPS already had money for any projects that might be needed as the result of shifting students from Clifton ES to new schools.
“We actually have a great deal of money in what we call the “construction reserve,” Tistadt is quoted in the Centreville Patch. The Patch quotes Tistadt saying that the funds were left over from previous bond referendums. “According to law, that money can be spent on any capital project,” said Tistadt.
So FCPS, if you already have leftover bond money , why are you sticking taxpayers with an additional proposed $13.7 million tab on the 2011 Bond?
If you already have leftover bond money, why the delay in jumpstarting much needed renovations at FCPS’ legacy high schools like Langley and West Springfield who have languished in the renovation queue for way too long?!
I smell the need for a serious audit of FCPS’ budget. Board of Supervisors, are you listening?
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
Justataxpayer
()
Date: April 14, 2011 06:00PM
Message went out today to Fairview Elementary families from the Principal telling them that Transportation needs more time to get students to the school so their start time at Fairview will be moved back to 9:05 with dismissal at 3:45. Principal's note indicated this is a dramatic change from the current start time. She also indicated in the message that dismissal processes in the afternoon could change. I assume this is due to the fact that already today buses sit along 123 at dismissal time and will only be worse as more students are added to the school.
Wonder what the interior modifications to accommodate the added number of students look like.
Oh, and please remember that according to transportation, no dramatic changes in drive times would occur after these efforts went in effect. Yeah, right!
Wonder what the interior modifications to accommodate the added number of students look like.
Oh, and please remember that according to transportation, no dramatic changes in drive times would occur after these efforts went in effect. Yeah, right!
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
here
()
Date: April 14, 2011 11:30PM
According to Fairview website, their school hours are currently 8:20am - 3:00pm.
Re: FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools)
Posted by:
wew
()
Date: May 28, 2014 01:25PM
when