CIP (proposed) 2019-2023 posted

[Anonymous]

Why are there schools with trailers that are listed at under capacity? Why do they even have trailers then?

[Anonymous]

The document definitely says that capacity does not include trailers. So why would they need trailers at severely under capacity schools? Something is not right with these numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is FCPS still sticking with the 2008 renovation queue, when current projections show some schools need expansions now? Is there a requirement somewhere that FCPS must renovate some sooner than others, even when there is already substantial overutilization? Why are more boundary changes not included?

Schools still need to be renovated, even if they are under capacity and others are over.

But why does FCPS need a new elementary school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The capacities include the trailers. If they did capacities based on actual buildings almost all would be over capacity.

Only 28 elementary schools have core classes in trailers.

Where is this found in the CIP? I see the spreadsheets that list the number of trailers, but where does it indicate what the trailers are used for? Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are there schools with trailers that are listed at under capacity? Why do they even have trailers then?

The explanation is that it costs money to remove and store them elsewhere and/or there may be existing programs within schools that require specialized space. See p. 30.

Also the capacity calculations seem to adjust for some schools depending on when an expansion or modular relocation is expected to be completed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is FCPS still sticking with the 2008 renovation queue, when current projections show some schools need expansions now? Is there a requirement somewhere that FCPS must renovate some sooner than others, even when there is already substantial overutilization? Why are more boundary changes not included?

Schools still need to be renovated, even if they are under capacity and others are over.

But why does FCPS need a new elementary school?

Which one are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The capacities include the trailers. If they did capacities based on actual buildings almost all would be over capacity.

Only 28 elementary schools have core classes in trailers.

Where is this found in the CIP? I see the spreadsheets that list the number of trailers, but where does it indicate what the trailers are used for? Thanks!

Dashboard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is FCPS still sticking with the 2008 renovation queue, when current projections show some schools need expansions now? Is there a requirement somewhere that FCPS must renovate some sooner than others, even when there is already substantial overutilization? Why are more boundary changes not included?

Schools still need to be renovated, even if they are under capacity and others are over.

But why does FCPS need a new elementary school?

Which one are you referring to?

Both the Fairfax/Oakton ES and the Silver Line ES

[Anonymous]

They really toned down the details on future potential boundary shifts in this year's CIP. I wonder whether they decided it was getting people too agitated about things that rarely happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are there schools with trailers that are listed at under capacity? Why do they even have trailers then?

The explanation is that it costs money to remove and store them elsewhere and/or there may be existing programs within schools that require specialized space. See p. 30.

Also the capacity calculations seem to adjust for some schools depending on when an expansion or modular relocation is expected to be completed.

That may be, but it doesn’t explain why there are schools that have whole grade levels in trailers, but are also shown to be under capacity on the CIP. And at least some schools that are under capacity have gotten new trailers in the past several years. So why did they go to the expense of moving trailers there if they weren’t actually needed?

I’d really like to see explanation for each school with trailers that is under capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are there schools with trailers that are listed at under capacity? Why do they even have trailers then?

The explanation is that it costs money to remove and store them elsewhere and/or there may be existing programs within schools that require specialized space. See p. 30.

Also the capacity calculations seem to adjust for some schools depending on when an expansion or modular relocation is expected to be completed.

That may be, but it doesn’t explain why there are schools that have whole grade levels in trailers, but are also shown to be under capacity on the CIP. And at least some schools that are under capacity have gotten new trailers in the past several years. So why did they go to the expense of moving trailers there if they weren’t actually needed?

I’d really like to see explanation for each school with trailers that is under capacity.

Agreed. It would be nice to see the numbers both with and without trailers to understand capacity.

[Anonymous]

Ask Elizabeth Schultz to demand an explanation. She cares about this stuff being intelligible, whereas most of the Board members just defer to whatever Facilities staff tells them.

[Anonymous]

Or better yet ask your own supervisor. Why should she get all the heat and the rest coast by?