FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not being snarky, but I thought the Herndon HS projections were going to be increased substantially in this CIP to account for new development in the Town of Herndon. Someone made reference to an internal FCPS document that referred to new units and the potential student yield.

Doesn't seem like that happened, at least not in this draft CIP. Right now they have HHS at 1888 kids in SY 2029-30, but they just expanded the school to almost 2800 seats. And now it looks like they are going to do the same thing at Centreville. Can FCPS planning really be this atrocious?

https://www.herndon-va.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18830/638635435180730000

Page 91 has the Feb 24 FCPS estimate for TRG of 406-452. Town of Herndon projects 942 schoolchildren for TRG on page 88.

These projections, including FCPS’s own projections were clearly not incorporated into the CIP.

Got it. It appears the developments just aren't far enough along in the process for FCPS to factor them into the five-year projections in the CIP.

It’s been discussed in the past in this threads and other thread that the CIP only factors in projections for residential buildings currently under construction and not those proposed or approved for development. FCPS has been burned too many times by approved developments that never materialize or that do not materialize until many years after initially projected.

I think this is a defensible position given the way that real estate markets now operate, whereby most large “real estate developers” don’t intend to be the ultimate building owners or operators. These developers produce beautiful plans and get the rezoning and construction approved by the county, but their goal is to sell these “shovel ready” products to someone else to own and operate. It creates a lot of uncertainty with respect to project timelines, because nothing is constructed until there is a buyer for the project. Frequently, this never happens, market conditions change, and then, some years later, the developer creates a new plan for a different “shovel ready” project to replace the old project, hoping that it be more appealing to potential buyers. This is true of a bunch of projects in both Tyson’s and some of the Herndon projects referenced here.

[Anonymous]

Only people with an agenda to move boundaries believe that is defensible for FCPS to ignore its own February 2024 projections of 406-452 additional students for the TRG approved large developments projected to be at least partially completed by 2030.

But don’t just trust me, look at how abysmal the CIP projections have been historically. It’s why we are where we are, with recent expansions for schools with decreasing capacity and significant membership growth in ignored schools.

Shame on FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Gah, the annaul CIP is so infuriating. There are fabricated porjections along with ignoring the fact that the renovation queue is beyond outdated. I so wish that the School Board and Facilities would take a step back and level set.

We need an honest assessment of our schools - age, capacity, modulars - coupled with an honest assessment of where the (potential) student growth is occurring. It's not hard to see that there are several areas that are growing - Tysons, Route 1 corridor - and most of the rest are fairly stable

With the known enrollment numbers peaking with the class of 2025? 2026?, FCPS should be looking to best utilize what we already have and then focus on what really needs to be done. I mean, everyone who has ever visited McLean HS knows it needs a renovation, and given the growth in Tysons, it would make sense to expand it as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gah, the annaul CIP is so infuriating. There are fabricated porjections along with ignoring the fact that the renovation queue is beyond outdated. I so wish that the School Board and Facilities would take a step back and level set.

We need an honest assessment of our schools - age, capacity, modulars - coupled with an honest assessment of where the (potential) student growth is occurring. It's not hard to see that there are several areas that are growing - Tysons, Route 1 corridor - and most of the rest are fairly stable

With the known enrollment numbers peaking with the class of 2025? 2026?, FCPS should be looking to best utilize what we already have and then focus on what really needs to be done. I mean, everyone who has ever visited McLean HS knows it needs a renovation, and given the growth in Tysons, it would make sense to expand it as well.

CIP is agenda-driven and cannot be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only people with an agenda to move boundaries believe that is defensible for FCPS to ignore its own February 2024 projections of 406-452 additional students for the TRG approved large developments projected to be at least partially completed by 2030.

But don’t just trust me, look at how abysmal the CIP projections have been historically. It’s why we are where we are, with recent expansions for schools with decreasing capacity and significant membership growth in ignored schools.

Shame on FCPS.

Only people with an agenda would want FCPS to consider projections for one district when projections are not considered for any other district. FCPS projects more than 2,000 students for FCPS from approved Tyson’s developments not-yet-under-construction and the CIP considers none of them. None.

Whether you agree or disagree with FCPS not considering projected students (which are for all schools within a boundary, not necessarily all children of the age to attend a particular school) in proposed or approved developments, FCPS has been consistent in only considering students in developments under construction. They’ve been doing the same thing for at least the last 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not being snarky, but I thought the Herndon HS projections were going to be increased substantially in this CIP to account for new development in the Town of Herndon. Someone made reference to an internal FCPS document that referred to new units and the potential student yield.

Doesn't seem like that happened, at least not in this draft CIP. Right now they have HHS at 1888 kids in SY 2029-30, but they just expanded the school to almost 2800 seats. And now it looks like they are going to do the same thing at Centreville. Can FCPS planning really be this atrocious?

https://www.herndon-va.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18830/638635435180730000

Page 91 has the Feb 24 FCPS estimate for TRG of 406-452. Town of Herndon projects 942 schoolchildren for TRG on page 88.

These projections, including FCPS’s own projections were clearly not incorporated into the CIP.

Got it. It appears the developments just aren't far enough along in the process for FCPS to factor them into the five-year projections in the CIP.

It’s been discussed in the past in this threads and other thread that the CIP only factors in projections for residential buildings currently under construction and not those proposed or approved for development. FCPS has been burned too many times by approved developments that never materialize or that do not materialize until many years after initially projected.

I think this is a defensible position given the way that real estate markets now operate, whereby most large “real estate developers” don’t intend to be the ultimate building owners or operators. These developers produce beautiful plans and get the rezoning and construction approved by the county, but their goal is to sell these “shovel ready” products to someone else to own and operate. It creates a lot of uncertainty with respect to project timelines, because nothing is constructed until there is a buyer for the project. Frequently, this never happens, market conditions change, and then, some years later, the developer creates a new plan for a different “shovel ready” project to replace the old project, hoping that it be more appealing to potential buyers. This is true of a bunch of projects in both Tyson’s and some of the Herndon projects referenced here.

I really want to know how they do these projections. Take Westgate ES, for example. It is probably ground zero for new residential developments in Tysons. There have been 3 or 4 high rise condos built and 2 large town house developments added in the last five years (though Tysons Ridge is sold out, it’s not actually completed yet, but those townhouses will be occupied this year.) Enrollment has either maintained or increased year after year, yet they’re projecting it will decrease in enrollment by 60 students over the next 5 years. I get that condos don’t necessarily yield more students, but surely 100 new townhomes you’d expect enrollment to at least sustain its current numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only people with an agenda to move boundaries believe that is defensible for FCPS to ignore its own February 2024 projections of 406-452 additional students for the TRG approved large developments projected to be at least partially completed by 2030.

But don’t just trust me, look at how abysmal the CIP projections have been historically. It’s why we are where we are, with recent expansions for schools with decreasing capacity and significant membership growth in ignored schools.

Shame on FCPS.

Only people with an agenda would want FCPS to consider projections for one district when projections are not considered for any other district. FCPS projects more than 2,000 students for FCPS from approved Tyson’s developments not-yet-under-construction and the CIP considers none of them. None.

Whether you agree or disagree with FCPS not considering projected students (which are for all schools within a boundary, not necessarily all children of the age to attend a particular school) in proposed or approved developments, FCPS has been consistent in only considering students in developments under construction. They’ve been doing the same thing for at least the last 10 years.

It’s just insane that you would consider someone doing something consistently wrong over the last ten years to be laudable.

They’ve been doing the same quality (bad) projections over the last few years, which is why they continue to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into unnecessary capital expansions, while ignoring pressing needs.

Now they seem to be goosing the program capacities to support their agenda.

Whoever is in charge of this process should be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is now projected to be at 3000 students and TWICE the size of Lewis.

Those enrollment figures are outright lies

Doesn't matter. WSHS is going to lose one elementary. Now the battle begins with the HVES members throwing WSES to Lewis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only people with an agenda to move boundaries believe that is defensible for FCPS to ignore its own February 2024 projections of 406-452 additional students for the TRG approved large developments projected to be at least partially completed by 2030.

But don’t just trust me, look at how abysmal the CIP projections have been historically. It’s why we are where we are, with recent expansions for schools with decreasing capacity and significant membership growth in ignored schools.

Shame on FCPS.

Only people with an agenda would want FCPS to consider projections for one district when projections are not considered for any other district. FCPS projects more than 2,000 students for FCPS from approved Tyson’s developments not-yet-under-construction and the CIP considers none of them. None.

Whether you agree or disagree with FCPS not considering projected students (which are for all schools within a boundary, not necessarily all children of the age to attend a particular school) in proposed or approved developments, FCPS has been consistent in only considering students in developments under construction. They’ve been doing the same thing for at least the last 10 years.

It’s just insane that you would consider someone doing something consistently wrong over the last ten years to be laudable.

They’ve been doing the same quality (bad) projections over the last few years, which is why they continue to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into unnecessary capital expansions, while ignoring pressing needs.

Now they seem to be goosing the program capacities to support their agenda.

Whoever is in charge of this process should be fired.

Dranesville has Langley, McClean, and Herndon within it's borders. Langley was renovated in 2018 and Herndon in 2021. That as much as any other district has received.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not being snarky, but I thought the Herndon HS projections were going to be increased substantially in this CIP to account for new development in the Town of Herndon. Someone made reference to an internal FCPS document that referred to new units and the potential student yield.

Doesn't seem like that happened, at least not in this draft CIP. Right now they have HHS at 1888 kids in SY 2029-30, but they just expanded the school to almost 2800 seats. And now it looks like they are going to do the same thing at Centreville. Can FCPS planning really be this atrocious?

https://www.herndon-va.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18830/638635435180730000

Page 91 has the Feb 24 FCPS estimate for TRG of 406-452. Town of Herndon projects 942 schoolchildren for TRG on page 88.

These projections, including FCPS’s own projections were clearly not incorporated into the CIP.

Got it. It appears the developments just aren't far enough along in the process for FCPS to factor them into the five-year projections in the CIP.

It’s been discussed in the past in this threads and other thread that the CIP only factors in projections for residential buildings currently under construction and not those proposed or approved for development. FCPS has been burned too many times by approved developments that never materialize or that do not materialize until many years after initially projected.

I think this is a defensible position given the way that real estate markets now operate, whereby most large “real estate developers” don’t intend to be the ultimate building owners or operators. These developers produce beautiful plans and get the rezoning and construction approved by the county, but their goal is to sell these “shovel ready” products to someone else to own and operate. It creates a lot of uncertainty with respect to project timelines, because nothing is constructed until there is a buyer for the project. Frequently, this never happens, market conditions change, and then, some years later, the developer creates a new plan for a different “shovel ready” project to replace the old project, hoping that it be more appealing to potential buyers. This is true of a bunch of projects in both Tyson’s and some of the Herndon projects referenced here.

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. The issue isn’t so much whether their five-year projections are wrong to exclude development that hasn’t broken ground yet so much as their capital allocation decisions bear virtually no relation to either those or longer-term forecasts.

They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on unnecessary expansions or, even worse, new schools that don’t need to be built (Dunn Loring), while ignoring areas with sustained overcrowding and now trying to cover their tracks with an unnecessary and unwanted boundary study. We have only arrived at this point due to the incompetence of FCPS staff (dating back many years) and School Boards focused on anything but sound facilities planning and capital allocation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only people with an agenda to move boundaries believe that is defensible for FCPS to ignore its own February 2024 projections of 406-452 additional students for the TRG approved large developments projected to be at least partially completed by 2030.

But don’t just trust me, look at how abysmal the CIP projections have been historically. It’s why we are where we are, with recent expansions for schools with decreasing capacity and significant membership growth in ignored schools.

Shame on FCPS.

Only people with an agenda would want FCPS to consider projections for one district when projections are not considered for any other district. FCPS projects more than 2,000 students for FCPS from approved Tyson’s developments not-yet-under-construction and the CIP considers none of them. None.

Whether you agree or disagree with FCPS not considering projected students (which are for all schools within a boundary, not necessarily all children of the age to attend a particular school) in proposed or approved developments, FCPS has been consistent in only considering students in developments under construction. They’ve been doing the same thing for at least the last 10 years.

It’s just insane that you would consider someone doing something consistently wrong over the last ten years to be laudable.

They’ve been doing the same quality (bad) projections over the last few years, which is why they continue to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into unnecessary capital expansions, while ignoring pressing needs.

Now they seem to be goosing the program capacities to support their agenda.

Whoever is in charge of this process should be fired.

Dranesville has Langley, McClean, and Herndon within its borders. Langley was renovated in 2018 and Herndon in 2021. That as much as any other district has received.

Clearly, the seats added to Herndon HS would have been of better value at McLean HS, but they didn’t use the CIP numbers starring them in the face when there was a 15 year old renovation queue to follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not being snarky, but I thought the Herndon HS projections were going to be increased substantially in this CIP to account for new development in the Town of Herndon. Someone made reference to an internal FCPS document that referred to new units and the potential student yield.

Doesn't seem like that happened, at least not in this draft CIP. Right now they have HHS at 1888 kids in SY 2029-30, but they just expanded the school to almost 2800 seats. And now it looks like they are going to do the same thing at Centreville. Can FCPS planning really be this atrocious?

https://www.herndon-va.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18830/638635435180730000

Page 91 has the Feb 24 FCPS estimate for TRG of 406-452. Town of Herndon projects 942 schoolchildren for TRG on page 88.

These projections, including FCPS’s own projections were clearly not incorporated into the CIP.

Got it. It appears the developments just aren't far enough along in the process for FCPS to factor them into the five-year projections in the CIP.

It’s been discussed in the past in this threads and other thread that the CIP only factors in projections for residential buildings currently under construction and not those proposed or approved for development. FCPS has been burned too many times by approved developments that never materialize or that do not materialize until many years after initially projected.

I think this is a defensible position given the way that real estate markets now operate, whereby most large “real estate developers” don’t intend to be the ultimate building owners or operators. These developers produce beautiful plans and get the rezoning and construction approved by the county, but their goal is to sell these “shovel ready” products to someone else to own and operate. It creates a lot of uncertainty with respect to project timelines, because nothing is constructed until there is a buyer for the project. Frequently, this never happens, market conditions change, and then, some years later, the developer creates a new plan for a different “shovel ready” project to replace the old project, hoping that it be more appealing to potential buyers. This is true of a bunch of projects in both Tyson’s and some of the Herndon projects referenced here.

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. The issue isn’t so much whether their five-year projections are wrong to exclude development that hasn’t broken ground yet so much as their capital allocation decisions bear virtually no relation to either those or longer-term forecasts.

They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on unnecessary expansions or, even worse, new schools that don’t need to be built (Dunn Loring), while ignoring areas with sustained overcrowding and now trying to cover their tracks with an unnecessary and unwanted boundary study. We have only arrived at this point due to the incompetence of FCPS staff (dating back many years) and School Boards focused on anything but sound facilities planning and capital allocation.

DP. She’s also missing the trees. Fcps’s projections with their current method will always be an undercount instead of a best estimate.

What she is focused on is variability in the estimate rather than trying to forecast the best estimate. The argument seems to be: unless it is a certainty, the projection should be zero. Such an incredibly bad practice, as we’ve seen horrible projections over the last several years that miss a lot of population issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only people with an agenda to move boundaries believe that is defensible for FCPS to ignore its own February 2024 projections of 406-452 additional students for the TRG approved large developments projected to be at least partially completed by 2030.

But don’t just trust me, look at how abysmal the CIP projections have been historically. It’s why we are where we are, with recent expansions for schools with decreasing capacity and significant membership growth in ignored schools.

Shame on FCPS.

Only people with an agenda would want FCPS to consider projections for one district when projections are not considered for any other district. FCPS projects more than 2,000 students for FCPS from approved Tyson’s developments not-yet-under-construction and the CIP considers none of them. None.

Whether you agree or disagree with FCPS not considering projected students (which are for all schools within a boundary, not necessarily all children of the age to attend a particular school) in proposed or approved developments, FCPS has been consistent in only considering students in developments under construction. They’ve been doing the same thing for at least the last 10 years.

It’s just insane that you would consider someone doing something consistently wrong over the last ten years to be laudable.

They’ve been doing the same quality (bad) projections over the last few years, which is why they continue to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into unnecessary capital expansions, while ignoring pressing needs.

Now they seem to be goosing the program capacities to support their agenda.

Whoever is in charge of this process should be fired.

Dranesville has Langley, McClean, and Herndon within it's borders. Langley was renovated in 2018 and Herndon in 2021. That as much as any other district has received.

They should have invested where the growth was occurring, regardless of the magisterial district. And creating a projected 900 or so surplus seats at Herndon doesn’t suggest they’re even close to getting it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only people with an agenda to move boundaries believe that is defensible for FCPS to ignore its own February 2024 projections of 406-452 additional students for the TRG approved large developments projected to be at least partially completed by 2030.

But don’t just trust me, look at how abysmal the CIP projections have been historically. It’s why we are where we are, with recent expansions for schools with decreasing capacity and significant membership growth in ignored schools.

Shame on FCPS.

Only people with an agenda would want FCPS to consider projections for one district when projections are not considered for any other district. FCPS projects more than 2,000 students for FCPS from approved Tyson’s developments not-yet-under-construction and the CIP considers none of them. None.

Whether you agree or disagree with FCPS not considering projected students (which are for all schools within a boundary, not necessarily all children of the age to attend a particular school) in proposed or approved developments, FCPS has been consistent in only considering students in developments under construction. They’ve been doing the same thing for at least the last 10 years.

It’s just insane that you would consider someone doing something consistently wrong over the last ten years to be laudable.

They’ve been doing the same quality (bad) projections over the last few years, which is why they continue to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into unnecessary capital expansions, while ignoring pressing needs.

Now they seem to be goosing the program capacities to support their agenda.

Whoever is in charge of this process should be fired.

Dranesville has Langley, McClean, and Herndon within it's borders. Langley was renovated in 2018 and Herndon in 2021. That as much as any other district has received.

They should have invested where the growth was occurring, regardless of the magisterial district. And creating a projected 900 or so surplus seats at Herndon doesn’t suggest they’re even close to getting it right.

One district is not getting all of it's schools renovated. Once Langley was chosen, McLean was going to be left out. The lists are political and McLean keeps on voting for representatives who don't care about McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to cross-post this on this thread in addition to the thread on the upcoming CIP hearing, since someone already reacted that the information in the draft 2026-30 CIP supports putting any boundary changes on hold:

"The draft 2026-30 CIP was posted today. It appears they largely roll forward information from prior CIPs, with some updated enrollment projections but otherwise little new thinking.

Some "highlights":

* They claim that they will be working on a new renovation queue, which contradicts a statement in another recent FCPS document (relating to Dr. Reid's meeting her performance obligations) that implies they are already working on a new queue.

* They are projecting a slight increase in total enrollment next year (SY 2025-26), followed by four years of declining enrollments that would leave FCPS with fewer students than at any point since 2015.

* They have jacked up the projected budget for the unnecessary Dunn Loring ES in Vienna to almost $86 million, with no explanation as to why this project is still in the CIP. Notably, once-overcrowded, nearby Shrevewood ES, which years ago was crowded and seeking capacity relief, is now projected to be at only 64% capacity in SY 2029-30.

* They continue to refer to a new western high school (location TBD), with planning work now bumped to 2032 (in the last CIP, planning was purportedly scheduled to begin in 2030).

...

The bolded, above, just makes me laugh. As in, literally laughing out loud. This SB is so clueless, it's actually hilarious.

They actually don't care. They don't care about wasting money and they don't care about being taken seriously. The fact that they sign off on such nonsense, while simultaneously claiming a boundary review is necessary, is one way they demonstrate they are in charge and can do whatever they want.

Of course, with the declining enrollment numbers, it looks like they don't have as many buyers as they once did.

If the decline continues it will be interesting to see which schools get closed.