Fairfax - Southwestern boundary study

[Anonymous]

I just returned from one of the community meetings. Horrible.
The format was a disaster and not in anyway conducive to community-wide dialogue. Several people attended meetings last night and said conflicting answers were given.

I actually think that Option C -while most expensive- does the best job of evening out the capacities for the schools.

[Anonymous]

If you add capacity, of course its going to be more effective at addressing overcrowding ie if you think 95%-100% utilization by 2015 is even a solution.

The PP has a valid point - Options A and B mostly solve the capacity issues, while (finally) correcting some poor boundary locations.

Eg. Communities much nearer Cub Run and Brookfield are in Poplar Tree

Communities near Poplar Tree are in Greenbrier West, and those near Greenbrier West are in Greenbrier East.


Options A and B address these crazy boundary allocations, while a) mostly addressing capacity concerns and b) costing less - especially when there is talk about cutting music/art/etc programs.

[Anonymous]

Address the crazy boundary allocations? Are you kidding?

The areas around Eagle View/Villa/Providence are insanely drawn. As just one example there is this little oasis of Pink (ID'd for Willow Springs) for new town homes on 29, which are much closer to Villa and Providence. There are many reasons why that is not feasible (transportation being one of them, carving them out of their surrounding community for another).

As to your first point, yes adding capacity is a solution. The County is not willing to add a school in Clifton because, to quote: "the parents of Little Rocky Run and Clifton ES don't want a new school." You are taking away capacity there. So you have to add it elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you add capacity, of course its going to be more effective at addressing overcrowding ie if you think 95%-100% utilization by 2015 is even a solution.

The PP has a valid point - Options A and B mostly solve the capacity issues, while (finally) correcting some poor boundary locations.

Eg. Communities much nearer Cub Run and Brookfield are in Poplar Tree

Communities near Poplar Tree are in Greenbrier West, and those near Greenbrier West are in Greenbrier East.


Options A and B address these crazy boundary allocations, while a) mostly addressing capacity concerns and b) costing less - especially when there is talk about cutting music/art/etc programs.

Also, "C" evens out the utilization rates across the board rather than leaving some schools with higher over-utilization and other schools under utilized. The days of small classrooms, alas, are over (if they ever existed).

[Anonymous]

" Address the crazy boundary allocations? Are you kidding? "

Ok - my bad ( how many times do you hear that here . I was only referring to the areas that I am familiar with - but I dare say was quite accurate about them.

But I stick to my original point that a solution which fixes 'some' of the boundary issues while also meeting capacity concerns is better than these additions.

I betcha 3 years down the line we will be in the same boat and only then realize that we SHOULD have been focused on adding new schools - rather than half-hearted attempts at these partial additions.

And oh, I also totally agree that these meetings were a big waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" Address the crazy boundary allocations? Are you kidding? "

Ok - my bad ( how many times do you hear that here . I was only referring to the areas that I am familiar with - but I dare say was quite accurate about them.

But I stick to my original point that a solution which fixes 'some' of the boundary issues while also meeting capacity concerns is better than these additions.

I betcha 3 years down the line we will be in the same boat and only then realize that we SHOULD have been focused on adding new schools - rather than half-hearted attempts at these partial additions.

And oh, I also totally agree that these meetings were a big waste of time.

Yep. I agree. It's a patchwork fix.

These developers (e.g. Eagle View area) are a big part of the problem. Don't even get me started.

[Anonymous]

I attended the meeting at Greenbriar West yesterday. I've summarized my experience on this blog.

http://smallwoodhouselog.blogspot.com/

[Anonymous]

Per the comment on 10/26/2010 at 22:09

As to your first point, yes adding capacity is a solution. The County is not willing to add a school in Clifton because, to quote: "the parents of Little Rocky Run and Clifton ES don't want a new school." You are taking away capacity there. So you have to add it elsewhere.

There's a reason why the parent at Little Rocky Run and Clifton didn't want a new school. It was because of where it was proposed to be sited - at the Liberty MS site where there was room and which FCPS owns. That site didn't make sense (and the SW Boundary Study Committee of parents from 28 schools agreed) because it was not near the epicenter of crowding along Rt. 29 near Eagle View and Colin Powell. They would not have been able to populate a school at that site without MAJOR redistricting because not all of the Clifton students would have been able to attend at that site because of the time it would have taken them to get there.

That is the solution that still makes the most sense for a majority of the overcrowding in this area. Put a new school where it is needed, in the Rt 29 corridor. There would be a lot fewer changes than what we are currently seeing in the 3 proposed options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I attended the meeting at Greenbriar West yesterday. I've summarized my experience on this blog.

http://smallwoodhouselog.blogspot.com/

Thanks for posting this. I had no idea about the emails that were released due to FOIA requests. Wow, Dean Tisdadt is such a fine public servant for our children, isn't he?

[Anonymous]

16:09 from the 25th here again.

Why not have the creation of a small tax district, akin to the one that funds the McLean Community Center, fund renovation, etc., of Clifton ES?

Basically if the cost of renovating other schools/otherwise accommodating Clifton kids is X, and the (presumably greater) cost of renovating/expanding Clifton ES is Y, then have the small tax district fund Z, which is Y minus X. If Y is less than X then shame on the School Board.

If the Dillon Rule would throw a tantrum, create a Town of Clifton school district whose sole school is Clifton ES, and then levy an additional tax on Clifton ES's zone. It's already done in West Point and Colonial Beach, although I don't know if it'd have to get approved by Richmond and get shot down by the rednecks in a fit of frustration over being unable to fund their own schools.

Of course, many Cliftonites/ians would oppose this, demonstrating they just want the rest of us to fund their school.

FCPS have to make some hard choices. Do we redistrict/rezone or just beg the BoS for more money so all the parents will be happy?

Not everyone is going to be pleased. If the current school board is underhanded/lying/etc. then put in a new school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per the comment on 10/26/2010 at 22:09

As to your first point, yes adding capacity is a solution. The County is not willing to add a school in Clifton because, to quote: "the parents of Little Rocky Run and Clifton ES don't want a new school." You are taking away capacity there. So you have to add it elsewhere.

There's a reason why the parent at Little Rocky Run and Clifton didn't want a new school. It was because of where it was proposed to be sited - at the Liberty MS site where there was room and which FCPS owns. That site didn't make sense (and the SW Boundary Study Committee of parents from 28 schools agreed) because it was not near the epicenter of crowding along Rt. 29 near Eagle View and Colin Powell. They would not have been able to populate a school at that site without MAJOR redistricting because not all of the Clifton students would have been able to attend at that site because of the time it would have taken them to get there.

That is the solution that still makes the most sense for a majority of the overcrowding in this area. Put a new school where it is needed, in the Rt 29 corridor. There would be a lot fewer changes than what we are currently seeing in the 3 proposed options.

WHERE in the Rte. 29 corridor? Do tell. Because we were told and I think it is quite obvious that there is nowhere in that location for a new school.
If you're not going to put the new school in Clifton then you must add to the other schools.

[Anonymous]

You are likely spinning your wheels hashing out the different options. Have you ever looked at Fairfax Underground? There are two threads with lots of information that people have already posted on this subject. Go to Fairfax Underground and look at the thread called FCPS Southwestern Boundary Study (Elementary Schools).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per the comment on 10/26/2010 at 22:09

WHERE in the Rte. 29 corridor? Do tell. Because we were told and I think it is quite obvious that there is nowhere in that location for a new school.
If you're not going to put the new school in Clifton then you must add to the other schools.

Look at the final report from the southwest study. They proposed several good locations where a school could be built. And I don't want to hear any nonsense about the school system not owning the land. Then arrange to buy it or land swap for it. Geez...

http://www.fcps.edu/news/swcountyschls.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:09 from the 25th here again.

Why not have the creation of a small tax district, akin to the one that funds the McLean Community Center, fund renovation, etc., of Clifton ES?

Basically if the cost of renovating other schools/otherwise accommodating Clifton kids is X, and the (presumably greater) cost of renovating/expanding Clifton ES is Y, then have the small tax district fund Z, which is Y minus X. If Y is less than X then shame on the School Board.

If the Dillon Rule would throw a tantrum, create a Town of Clifton school district whose sole school is Clifton ES, and then levy an additional tax on Clifton ES's zone. It's already done in West Point and Colonial Beach, although I don't know if it'd have to get approved by Richmond and get shot down by the rednecks in a fit of frustration over being unable to fund their own schools.

Of course, many Cliftonites/ians would oppose this, demonstrating they just want the rest of us to fund their school.

FCPS have to make some hard choices. Do we redistrict/rezone or just beg the BoS for more money so all the parents will be happy?

Not everyone is going to be pleased. If the current school board is underhanded/lying/etc. then put in a new school board.

Special tax district for Clifton???

There are other small elementary schools. FCPS has not given the number of students in-boundary for Clifton.. AAP and GT are mysteries.

FX has special tax districts for Reston Association and Mclean. It never set one up for other areas like Lorton ==

Bradsher is a witch. SOCO middle school was for 300 kids and after that was a done deal the witch discovers room at Lake Braddock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per the comment on 10/26/2010 at 22:09

WHERE in the Rte. 29 corridor? Do tell. Because we were told and I think it is quite obvious that there is nowhere in that location for a new school.
If you're not going to put the new school in Clifton then you must add to the other schools.

Look at the final report from the southwest study. They proposed several good locations where a school could be built. And I don't want to hear any nonsense about the school system not owning the land. Then arrange to buy it or land swap for it. Geez...

http://www.fcps.edu/news/swcountyschls.htm

Did you read the "cons" for this proposal?
"water and sewer are not available" and it would be "costly" to build into existing neighborhood connections (if that was available).
The land proposed may not be available due to the Comprehensive Plan that limits building in the southern part of the county. The Comprehensive Plan would have to be changed. Also, there are flood plain concerns. Right now, it seems that part of htat land has ball fields on it and there would also be parental objections to that. Other lands are privately owned.

So, this option is not as viable as you lead it to be. . .

There would STILL be boundary changes necessary with that option and Clifton kids would be split between 4 schools.