Waste – FCPS School Facilities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You prefer the Arlington model where they reduce capacity during renovation. However, when enrollment increases, the new school building is immediately overcrowded. But at least there was a short period of non-wastefulness.

They are expanding and growth is not following - particularly in the southeast part of the county. I would prefer they restrain the expansions when there is available space nearby. Some of this is egregious. Simply done to avoid changing boundaries - I don't think that can be denied.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You prefer the Arlington model where they reduce capacity during renovation. However, when enrollment increases, the new school building is immediately overcrowded. But at least there was a short period of non-wastefulness.

They are expanding and growth is not following - particularly in the southeast part of the county. I would prefer they restrain the expansions when there is available space nearby. Some of this is egregious. Simply done to avoid changing boundaries - I don't think that can be denied.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

No one is arguing against the renovation of a dumpy school. However, just because a school is a dump doesn’t mean it deserves a huge addition if there’s nothing in the projections suggesting a need for it. It’s a misallocation of taxpayer money and FCPS has been discriminatory in its expenditures, in some cases funding additions outside the renovation cycle and in other cases ignoring schools that are overcrowded. If there were accountability in FCPS, there would be audits and some Gatehouse employees would likely be barred from holding public employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You prefer the Arlington model where they reduce capacity during renovation. However, when enrollment increases, the new school building is immediately overcrowded. But at least there was a short period of non-wastefulness.

They are expanding and growth is not following - particularly in the southeast part of the county. I would prefer they restrain the expansions when there is available space nearby. Some of this is egregious. Simply done to avoid changing boundaries - I don't think that can be denied.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

Bingo. But then certain FCPS employees couldn’t shovel money into the pockets of building contractors as quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You prefer the Arlington model where they reduce capacity during renovation. However, when enrollment increases, the new school building is immediately overcrowded. But at least there was a short period of non-wastefulness.

They are expanding and growth is not following - particularly in the southeast part of the county. I would prefer they restrain the expansions when there is available space nearby. Some of this is egregious. Simply done to avoid changing boundaries - I don't think that can be denied.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You prefer the Arlington model where they reduce capacity during renovation. However, when enrollment increases, the new school building is immediately overcrowded. But at least there was a short period of non-wastefulness.

They are expanding and growth is not following - particularly in the southeast part of the county. I would prefer they restrain the expansions when there is available space nearby. Some of this is egregious. Simply done to avoid changing boundaries - I don't think that can be denied.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

No one is arguing against the renovation of a dumpy school. However, just because a school is a dump doesn’t mean it deserves a huge addition if there’s nothing in the projections suggesting a need for it. It’s a misallocation of taxpayer money and FCPS has been discriminatory in its expenditures, in some cases funding additions outside the renovation cycle and in other cases ignoring schools that are overcrowded. If there were accountability in FCPS, there would be audits and some Gatehouse employees would likely be barred from holding public employment.

The added capacity was nominal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You prefer the Arlington model where they reduce capacity during renovation. However, when enrollment increases, the new school building is immediately overcrowded. But at least there was a short period of non-wastefulness.

They are expanding and growth is not following - particularly in the southeast part of the county. I would prefer they restrain the expansions when there is available space nearby. Some of this is egregious. Simply done to avoid changing boundaries - I don't think that can be denied.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

West Springfield was overdue for a renovation, but the end product was pretty lavish. Several of the recent renovations have been fairly over the top. And they started with a smaller expansion (140 students) and it magically grew (345) over several years. It was deceptive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You prefer the Arlington model where they reduce capacity during renovation. However, when enrollment increases, the new school building is immediately overcrowded. But at least there was a short period of non-wastefulness.

They are expanding and growth is not following - particularly in the southeast part of the county. I would prefer they restrain the expansions when there is available space nearby. Some of this is egregious. Simply done to avoid changing boundaries - I don't think that can be denied.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

West Springfield was overdue for a renovation, but the end product was pretty lavish. Several of the recent renovations have been fairly over the top. And they started with a smaller expansion (140 students) and it magically grew (345) over several years. It was deceptive.

345 is a pretty tiny expansion. That is the equivalent of 10 classrooms. Nominal.

[Anonymous]

Any discussion of the waste within FCPS gets hijacked by the same WSHS posters hellbent on defending the proposition that WS deserved a big expansion while Lewis is allowed to become a neglected pariah. So transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You prefer the Arlington model where they reduce capacity during renovation. However, when enrollment increases, the new school building is immediately overcrowded. But at least there was a short period of non-wastefulness.

They are expanding and growth is not following - particularly in the southeast part of the county. I would prefer they restrain the expansions when there is available space nearby. Some of this is egregious. Simply done to avoid changing boundaries - I don't think that can be denied.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

West Springfield was overdue for a renovation, but the end product was pretty lavish. Several of the recent renovations have been fairly over the top. And they started with a smaller expansion (140 students) and it magically grew (345) over several years. It was deceptive.

Jeff Platenberg repeatedly jacked up the scale of school renovations after the projects had already been on the bonds. It was dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You prefer the Arlington model where they reduce capacity during renovation. However, when enrollment increases, the new school building is immediately overcrowded. But at least there was a short period of non-wastefulness.

They are expanding and growth is not following - particularly in the southeast part of the county. I would prefer they restrain the expansions when there is available space nearby. Some of this is egregious. Simply done to avoid changing boundaries - I don't think that can be denied.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

West Springfield was overdue for a renovation, but the end product was pretty lavish. Several of the recent renovations have been fairly over the top. And they started with a smaller expansion (140 students) and it magically grew (345) over several years. It was deceptive.

345 is a pretty tiny expansion. That is the equivalent of 10 classrooms. Nominal.

A 16% expansion (345/2160) is not a nominal expansion.

[Anonymous]

I think WSHS was limited by space. I’m not sure they could have expanded on their land.

The renovation was basic. There wasn’t too much change but definitely updates in tech and a safe environment.

The bottom line is WSHS has always been a popular school, especially in the transient military population and doing the renovation only increased the popularity.

[Anonymous]

Waste is the hallmark of FCPS. Meanwhile, our property taxes continue to rise astronomically. The solution is for all of us to vote smarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same parents complaining here would have a fit if their kids were reassigned to a lower rated school.

It doesn’t make FCPS any less hypocritical. They gutted Annandale through boundary changes because they expected little opposition to moving kids to Woodson and Lake Braddock, but West Springfield got and West Potomac is getting huge additions they didn’t need because the poseurs on the School Board couldn’t handle the push-back from parents if their kids were moved to Lewis or Mount Vernon.

Yes. Because those two types of movement aren't equivalent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same parents complaining here would have a fit if their kids were reassigned to a lower rated school.

It doesn’t make FCPS any less hypocritical. They gutted Annandale through boundary changes because they expected little opposition to moving kids to Woodson and Lake Braddock, but West Springfield got and West Potomac is getting huge additions they didn’t need because the poseurs on the School Board couldn’t handle the push-back from parents if their kids were moved to Lewis or Mount Vernon.

Yes. Because those two types of movement aren't equivalent.

Each instance reflected discrimination in favor of wealthier communities, courtesy of the despicable Jeff Platenberg, a WSHS graduate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You prefer the Arlington model where they reduce capacity during renovation. However, when enrollment increases, the new school building is immediately overcrowded. But at least there was a short period of non-wastefulness.

They are expanding and growth is not following - particularly in the southeast part of the county. I would prefer they restrain the expansions when there is available space nearby. Some of this is egregious. Simply done to avoid changing boundaries - I don't think that can be denied.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

West Springfield was overdue for a renovation, but the end product was pretty lavish. Several of the recent renovations have been fairly over the top. And they started with a smaller expansion (140 students) and it magically grew (345) over several years. It was deceptive.

345 is a pretty tiny expansion. That is the equivalent of 10 classrooms. Nominal.

A 16% expansion (345/2160) is not a nominal expansion.

In terms of actual assrooms it was a very small addition.

You can argue that the indoor athletic facility additions were excessive. I doubt anyone will argue with that.

But adding roughly 10 classrooms (approximately 6 more than originally planned) is nothing. It didn't make a difference to costs and definitely not to timeline.

It is a straw man argument to use that minimal capacity increase as your argument. The numbers do not agree with you.