Baileys & Sleepy Hollow Parents - Proposed Vertical School Meetings This Week!

[Anonymous]

I don't live in the area, but I would think Fairfax needs to spend/take by eminent domain whatever it has to to secure a plot of land to build an elementary school with a playground, safe access for buses etc. Stacking little kids in an office building with no outdoor play area is unacceptable. The status quo is unacceptable.

The overcrowding at Baileys sounds very unsafe-can you imagine if there was a fire or some kind of disaster?

[Anonymous]

They have plenty of other properties they can use. They just don't want to dismantle the existing magnet program at Baileys.

[Anonymous]

What other properties are in the area that they considering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sleepy Hollow people crack me up. First you complain about the overcrowding and issues at Baileys and now you're complaining that the attempted solution will be inconvenient for your neighborhood. You really take the cake! Somehow the redistricting over the last few years left you untouched and now you're making a stink about something that won't affect your elementary school.

OP might not be doing this, and probably has some legit concerns, but I heard about what happened at the Sleepy Hollow meeting and there seem to be a lot of snobs around Lake Barcroft.

No one is saying that this proposed school is INCONVENIENT. What happened at the FCPS meeting at Bailey's on 11/26 is that FCPS invited a small group of the Sleepy Hollow Manor community and the Buffalo Hills community, not the whole Sleepy Hollow Manor community, and had a disjointed and incoherent message. They didn't even have a presentation. The Sleepy Hollow ES community was never contacted by FCPS to discuss this proposed school. The SHES PTA and principal have not been included in the dialog at all.

I think if you're putting a school in the SHES boundary, you should include the SHES community in the discussion. But FCPS hasn't done this. It's nuts.

From what I know, the last time Sleepy Hollow parents were consulted about redistricting some of Bailey's kids to SHES there was huge opposition. As far as I'm concerned, FCPS needs to just get a backbone and do what's right for all involved, regardless of demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They have plenty of other properties they can use. They just don't want to dismantle the existing magnet program at Baileys.

How many students are in the magnet program? I thought I had read that removing the magnet would not do much to address overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Removing the magnet program (about 350 kids) would get Bailey's back to just about 100% capacity, but would do nothing to relieve the impact of the 300+ in-boundary kids they're expecting in the next few years. The office building solution, while not perfect, is long overdue - with or without the magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't live in the area, but I would think Fairfax needs to spend/take by eminent domain whatever it has to to secure a plot of land to build an elementary school with a playground, safe access for buses etc. Stacking little kids in an office building with no outdoor play area is unacceptable. The status quo is unacceptable.

The overcrowding at Baileys sounds very unsafe-can you imagine if there was a fire or some kind of disaster?

If you lived in the area, you would understand that Bailey's is a semi-urban area with no land. There just isn't anywhere to buy even an acre to build a school. There are plans for another urban school in the lower levels of an office building near Tyson's as well.

[Anonymous]

I'm really impressed by the positive attitudes of Bailey's parents towards making use of this building. Parents in a lot of other places would have complained like crazy, but they seem to be hoping for the best and ready to entertain the possibility that an urban/vertical design will work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really impressed by the positive attitudes of Bailey's parents towards making use of this building. Parents in a lot of other places would have complained like crazy, but they seem to be hoping for the best and ready to entertain the possibility that an urban/vertical design will work.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They have plenty of other properties they can use. They just don't want to dismantle the existing magnet program at Baileys.

Please enlighten us dear poster. What are these properties of which you speak?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really impressed by the positive attitudes of Bailey's parents towards making use of this building. Parents in a lot of other places would have complained like crazy, but they seem to be hoping for the best and ready to entertain the possibility that an urban/vertical design will work.

+1

Likely desperation. The school board and leaders have done a disservice to Bailey's children and possibly to future users of this school if it's not done right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really impressed by the positive attitudes of Bailey's parents towards making use of this building. Parents in a lot of other places would have complained like crazy, but they seem to be hoping for the best and ready to entertain the possibility that an urban/vertical design will work.

+1

Likely desperation. The school board and leaders have done a disservice to Bailey's children and possibly to future users of this school if it's not done right.

It's better than what was being done for years, which was nothing. I can't imagine anything being more screwed up than Bailey's currently is.

[Anonymous]

I find the Bailey's situation abhorrent (and I'm not even a Bailey's parent). How has FCPS screwed this up so badly. I can't help but thing part of the issue is the demographic. They never would have let the situation get this desperate in a wealthier school.

As for the vertical school, I think people need to get over their suburban dreams of schools with rolling green spaces and white picket fences. This is a semi-urban area and getting more so. Same with the Tyson's area. There aren't giant spaces to use. The key is to make sure there is some way to get the kids outdoors (i.e. roof playground or courtyard) and to have space to play. Lots of kids go to school in urban environments and do just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find the Bailey's situation abhorrent (and I'm not even a Bailey's parent). How has FCPS screwed this up so badly. I can't help but thing part of the issue is the demographic. They never would have let the situation get this desperate in a wealthier school.

As for the vertical school, I think people need to get over their suburban dreams of schools with rolling green spaces and white picket fences. This is a semi-urban area and getting more so. Same with the Tyson's area. There aren't giant spaces to use. The key is to make sure there is some way to get the kids outdoors (i.e. roof playground or courtyard) and to have space to play. Lots of kids go to school in urban environments and do just fine.

FCPS has been tracking the rapid growth of the Hispanic population in that area for years and had identified the need for a new school. They wanted to build a new ES adjacent to Glasgow MS where there was land, similar to what APS is doing near Williamsburg. That community objected to more congestion near Glasgow and the local supervisor, Penny Gross, not only killed the idea, but also objected to every other proposal FCPS offered, at least until the overcrowding received so much publicity this fall. If you want to blame someone, blame Gross, not the people at FCPS who have been warning Bailey's was becoming overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

I do blame Penny Gross, but I also blame FCPS.