Waste – FCPS School Facilities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

True.

The classroom renovations were pretty basic, and did not expand the school footprint. The indoor athletic rooms are where the extravagance occurred.

Whether fcps added 4 classrooms to the building or 10 classes to the building, the additional classes were going on that upper floor because the footprint was not changing. They went up, not out.

Is that person arguing that fcps should have only added a 1/3 of a floor when they renovated the school instead of a full floor?

Because that is basically what they did.

It was a sound fisc and policy decision tk expand the high schools when they go through a full renovation.

As someone said above, the renovations are on roughly 50 year cycles, with no way to predict enrollment over that time.

It simply is good policy to expand the high schools where practical when the high schools hit their 50 year full renovations.

Lewis should also be expanded when it gets its full gut renovation. It is the smart thing for fcps to do with taxpayer money.

[Anonymous]

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.

Look along route 1 and you'll notice a massive apartment development going up that will feed into Bucknell. Bucknell was renovated to expand capacity with the knowledge that projects along RT 1 had already been approved

[Anonymous]

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.

Look along route 1 and you'll notice a massive apartment development going up that will feed into Bucknell. Bucknell was renovated to expand capacity with the knowledge that projects along RT 1 had already been approved

The person who keeps posting that schools shohld not be expanded during renovations is only thinking in the immediate future, with no long term or comprehensive vision.

Expansion during full renovations just makes for good sensible policy.

[Anonymous]

I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

[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.

Look along route 1 and you'll notice a massive apartment development going up that will feed into Bucknell. Bucknell was renovated to expand capacity with the knowledge that projects along RT 1 had already been approved

The person who keeps posting that schools shohld not be expanded during renovations is only thinking in the immediate future, with no long term or comprehensive vision.

Expansion during full renovations just makes for good sensible disingenuous.

You keep pushing strawman arguments. Are you disingenuous or just stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

This is all common sense, but clearly there are some beneficiaries of FCPS’s incompetent, discriminatory approach to planning who are prepared to support the blatant waste and harm to others as long as they personally made out OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

This is all common sense, but clearly there are some beneficiaries of FCPS’s incompetent, discriminatory approach to planning who are prepared to support the blatant waste and harm to others as long as they personally made out OK.

No it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

This is all common sense, but clearly there are some beneficiaries of FCPS’s incompetent, discriminatory approach to planning who are prepared to support the blatant waste and harm to others as long as they personally made out OK.

External, independent auditors who assess building plans for school systems across the country disagree with you. Fairfax's buildings and operations plans consistently receive high marks. Fairfax doesn't get to just decide these things on their own you know? There's a whole regulatory process which includes eliminating waste. External auditors consistently recommend adding additional capacity at low cost during needed renovations because it tends on average to be worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

This is all common sense, but clearly there are some beneficiaries of FCPS’s incompetent, discriminatory approach to planning who are prepared to support the blatant waste and harm to others as long as they personally made out OK.

It's the people who are willing to spend large amounts of taxpayer money so that boundaries are NEVER changed. People on here complain sometimes that FCPS is too large, but that size and the size of the tax base allows the School Board to get away with hiding it's waste. How many non-parents in Fairfax pay any attention to this?

Imagine a small district with just a few high schools saying they were going to expand one of those schools when the other schools could handle additional students. That would not work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

This is all common sense, but clearly there are some beneficiaries of FCPS’s incompetent, discriminatory approach to planning who are prepared to support the blatant waste and harm to others as long as they personally made out OK.

External, independent auditors who assess building plans for school systems across the country disagree with you. Fairfax's buildings and operations plans consistently receive high marks. Fairfax doesn't get to just decide these things on their own you know? There's a whole regulatory process which includes eliminating waste. External auditors consistently recommend adding additional capacity at low cost during needed renovations because it tends on average to be worth it.

This is absolutl2true.

Adding capacity during renovations is the right thing to do fiscally, even if some are unhappy that they are zoned for a low performing high school..

Long term goal setting and sound fiscal and facility management should trump feelings every time.

Expanding capacity also helps minimize incredibly disruptive and expensive rezoning as attendance ebbs and flows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

This is all common sense, but clearly there are some beneficiaries of FCPS’s incompetent, discriminatory approach to planning who are prepared to support the blatant waste and harm to others as long as they personally made out OK.

It's the people who are willing to spend large amounts of taxpayer money so that boundaries are NEVER changed. People on here complain sometimes that FCPS is too large, but that size and the size of the tax base allows the School Board to get away with hiding it's waste. How many non-parents in Fairfax pay any attention to this?

Imagine a small district with just a few high schools saying they were going to expand one of those schools when the other schools could handle additional students. That would not work.

Boundaries are changed, but only when FCPS decides there won’t be as much pushback. How do you think they ended up gutting Annandale, while West Potomac got a huge addition it didn’t need?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

This is all common sense, but clearly there are some beneficiaries of FCPS’s incompetent, discriminatory approach to planning who are prepared to support the blatant waste and harm to others as long as they personally made out OK.

External, independent auditors who assess building plans for school systems across the country disagree with you. Fairfax's buildings and operations plans consistently receive high marks. Fairfax doesn't get to just decide these things on their own you know? There's a whole regulatory process which includes eliminating waste. External auditors consistently recommend adding additional capacity at low cost during needed renovations because it tends on average to be worth it.

This is absolutl2true.

Adding capacity during renovations is the right thing to do fiscally, even if some are unhappy that they are zoned for a low performing high school..

Long term goal setting and sound fiscal and facility management should trump feelings every time.

Expanding capacity also helps minimize incredibly disruptive and expensive rezoning as attendance ebbs and flows.

Adding additions that weren’t needed is how we end up with many high schools are at 85% capacity, while severe overcrowding at other high schools persists for years on end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

This is all common sense, but clearly there are some beneficiaries of FCPS’s incompetent, discriminatory approach to planning who are prepared to support the blatant waste and harm to others as long as they personally made out OK.

External, independent auditors who assess building plans for school systems across the country disagree with you. Fairfax's buildings and operations plans consistently receive high marks. Fairfax doesn't get to just decide these things on their own you know? There's a whole regulatory process which includes eliminating waste. External auditors consistently recommend adding additional capacity at low cost during needed renovations because it tends on average to be worth it.

FCPS hires consultants who know they are paid to validate what FCPS is already doing. It’s anything but an independent “audit.” In any case, please let us know what “independent auditor” signed off on the expansion of West Potomac to 3000 students when there is space at Mount Vernon and kids at other schools end up in trailers and cheap modulars.

FCPS is poorly administered and subject to minimal oversight, and many of its practices are the antithesis of “best practices.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

This is all common sense, but clearly there are some beneficiaries of FCPS’s incompetent, discriminatory approach to planning who are prepared to support the blatant waste and harm to others as long as they personally made out OK.

External, independent auditors who assess building plans for school systems across the country disagree with you. Fairfax's buildings and operations plans consistently receive high marks. Fairfax doesn't get to just decide these things on their own you know? There's a whole regulatory process which includes eliminating waste. External auditors consistently recommend adding additional capacity at low cost during needed renovations because it tends on average to be worth it.

This is absolutl2true.

Adding capacity during renovations is the right thing to do fiscally, even if some are unhappy that they are zoned for a low performing high school..

Long term goal setting and sound fiscal and facility management should trump feelings every time.

Expanding capacity also helps minimize incredibly disruptive and expensive rezoning as attendance ebbs and flows.

Adding additions that weren’t needed is how we end up with many high schools are at 85% capacity, while severe overcrowding at other high schools persists for years on end.

Funny thing is that FCPS frequently lists boundary changes as an option to solve overcrowding, but it is almost never acted on at the high school or middle school level. At least it hasn't been for years. Parents at wealthier schools would rather hold out for an expansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think it is sound fiscal policy to build additional capacity on the basis that it may be needed some day in the distant future. Especially when there is existing capacity to handle the growth.

Or to build additional capacity in a school to handle overcrowding and then immediately move students out (to the point there is a large surplus of space). This was the case with Lewis and Springfield Estates.

Nor is it okay to mislead on the size of expansions.

But hey, it is just taxpayer's money.

This is all common sense, but clearly there are some beneficiaries of FCPS’s incompetent, discriminatory approach to planning who are prepared to support the blatant waste and harm to others as long as they personally made out OK.

External, independent auditors who assess building plans for school systems across the country disagree with you. Fairfax's buildings and operations plans consistently receive high marks. Fairfax doesn't get to just decide these things on their own you know? There's a whole regulatory process which includes eliminating waste. External auditors consistently recommend adding additional capacity at low cost during needed renovations because it tends on average to be worth it.

This is absolutl2true.

Adding capacity during renovations is the right thing to do fiscally, even if some are unhappy that they are zoned for a low performing high school..

Long term goal setting and sound fiscal and facility management should trump feelings every time.

Expanding capacity also helps minimize incredibly disruptive and expensive rezoning as attendance ebbs and flows.

Adding additions that weren’t needed is how we end up with many high schools are at 85% capacity, while severe overcrowding at other high schools persists for years on end.

You are arguing like fcps schools are on a 5 or 10 year renovation schedule.

As posted above by several posters, FCPS is on a 50 year renovation schedule.

It is the right thing to do with taxpayer money to expand capacity at a much cheaper cost while renovating, than to try to do it as a stand alone project at a much greater expense.

It also makes sense to have extra capacity built in rather than rezoning students back and forth as attendance rises and falls. Changing schools is very negative and disruptive to students, especially teenagers. It can result in a lot of unnecessary time and expense for a school district and lots of unnecessary conflicts.

Doing what you want is not fiscally sound and is not good policy. It is akin to running a school district on panic mode as if every year is a new attendance crisis.

FCPS current policy of expanding during big renovations at a much lower cost is sound, long term, responsible facilities management.