Karl Frisch and the Stupidity of Dunn Loring ES

[Anonymous]

How is this going to impact the comprehensive boundary review? The school is slated to open Fall 2028 if construction stays on schedule. Are they going to hold off on adjusting elementary school boundaries for the Marshall feeders until Dunn Loring opens? Or are they going to shuffle households around twice in a 2 year span?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is this going to impact the comprehensive boundary review? The school is slated to open Fall 2028 if construction stays on schedule. Are they going to hold off on adjusting elementary school boundaries for the Marshall feeders until Dunn Loring opens? Or are they going to shuffle households around twice in a 2 year span?

Those are good questions with no answers to date.

They have a bit of a mess now, with at least half the School Board expressing doubts as to the need for this school in public right around the same time as the Planning Commission is giving them a green light to build a new school that would only retain some elements of the existing 1930s building. To secure the Planning Commission approval they had to play up the need for the school, but FCPS's own projections for the surrounding schools in the most recent draft Capital Improvement Program underscore it's not needed, at least not at this location. They would be best served by banking the Planning Commission approval, but putting any further work on hold indefinitely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dunn Loring School was just approved and is now good to go. The architects will remove and preserve the historic entryway pediment and portal, to be showcased in an interpretative exhibit enshrined within a two story atrium in the new school.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/01/16/planning-commission-backs-new-dunn-loring-elementary-school/

This is so stupid, all of the schools around it including Shrevewood which was supposedly the whole reason Karl Frisch proposed the school are UNDERcrowded and projected to be even LESS crowded in five years. F* you, Karl Frisch. We don't want another elementary school. We didn't ask for this. You should be jailed for this fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shrevewood enrollment peaked at 773 six years ago. They are at 569 now. That was the school where overcrowding was prompting the requests for a solution in that area.

The situation has taken care of itself. There is no need for Dunn Loring ES at all.

That's because the former principal took it upon himself to fix the overcrowding himself by getting rid of separate AAP classes. The new principal may fix that and bring all the LLIV kids back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dunn Loring School was just approved and is now good to go. The architects will remove and preserve the historic entryway pediment and portal, to be showcased in an interpretative exhibit enshrined within a two story atrium in the new school.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/01/16/planning-commission-backs-new-dunn-loring-elementary-school/

This is so stupid, all of the schools around it including Shrevewood which was supposedly the whole reason Karl Frisch proposed the school are UNDERcrowded and projected to be even LESS crowded in five years. F* you, Karl Frisch. We don't want another elementary school. We didn't ask for this. You should be jailed for this fraud.

I honestly don’t know how they approve a CIP if it retains funding for Dunn Loring over the coming years when half the members are now on the record as questioning the need for the school.

If they do, they’ve certainly lost any credibility if they want to claim they are looking at boundary changes because they want to save money and operate efficiently.

The best thing would be to pull it out of the CIP and put it on hold indefinitely. If they don’t, it will be very clear they don’t mind wasting tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrevewood enrollment peaked at 773 six years ago. They are at 569 now. That was the school where overcrowding was prompting the requests for a solution in that area.

The situation has taken care of itself. There is no need for Dunn Loring ES at all.

That's because the former principal took it upon himself to fix the overcrowding himself by getting rid of separate AAP classes. The new principal may fix that and bring all the LLIV kids back.

The LLIV kids are entitled to attend Lemon Road if they want to and even if a new principal lures some back with promises of separate LLIV classes Shrevewood won’t be overcrowded.

And even if it were the easy fix would be to move some of Shrevewood to Stenwood and some of Stenwood to Freedom Hill. No need to add a 900-seat school at Gallows and Idylwood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this going to impact the comprehensive boundary review? The school is slated to open Fall 2028 if construction stays on schedule. Are they going to hold off on adjusting elementary school boundaries for the Marshall feeders until Dunn Loring opens? Or are they going to shuffle households around twice in a 2 year span?

Those are good questions with no answers to date.

They have a bit of a mess now, with at least half the School Board expressing doubts as to the need for this school in public right around the same time as the Planning Commission is giving them a green light to build a new school that would only retain some elements of the existing 1930s building. To secure the Planning Commission approval they had to play up the need for the school, but FCPS's own projections for the surrounding schools in the most recent draft Capital Improvement Program underscore it's not needed, at least not at this location. They would be best served by banking the Planning Commission approval, but putting any further work on hold indefinitely.

I didn’t watch the planning commission meeting, but the only explanation I can fathom is that they are ignoring the CIP figures and considering some other figures. For example, a few weeks ago, the planning commission approved the Commons and Mcleans redevelopment (subsequently approved by the Board of Supervisors this week) with up to 2,500 units which is projected to add 370 kids to Westgate. That may necessitate shrinking the Westgate boundaries, which would have downstream effects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frisch snookered people into thinking they were going to renovate the old Dunn Loring building. Instead, they plan to tear it down. So much for his alleged commitment to environmentalism and retrofitting existing buildings. He's an ass.

Why do people still keep voting for this d*ck? He's done nothing good for the school system, definitely nothing good for his district. Everyone I know hates him. I hope there is a better progressive candidate when he's up again (is that this year???)

His purpose on the school board os to fundraise from out of state donors, mostly from California, to support far left wing causes and candidates.

He has zero interest in actual school issues, except those that appeal to out of state donors.

They vote for him because no reasonable opponent ran.

Doesn’t make Dunn Loring ES any better an idea. Karl Frisch is a creep who has no kids, appears to spend most of his free time with drag queens, and wastes taxpayer money.

Of course it doesn’t but the question was why did people vote for him again. The answer is because there was no reasonable alternative.

And criticizing him for having no kids and being part of the LGBTQ community is the problem. Opponents who focus on those things will lose because most people don’t have a problem with those things.

But it’s a more than full time job that pays less than $50,000 a year and subjects you to lots of vitriol and hate so not many people will be interested in running.

People voted for him because most of Fairfax County votes "blue no matter who" and doesn't research local issues or give a fig about who they are electing, their lack of qualifications and what they do once elected.

They did the research and KF was by far the best option.

What kind of unhinged lunatic raffles off a semi-automatic rifle to raise money for his campaign for school board? WTF?

Yeah, that’s crazy, but so too are the number of times Frisch has been photographed hanging around with drag queens. It tells you what his priorities are, and they have little to do with education.

It’s a shame there aren’t better people running but it’s Frisch who is making the terrible decisions now, so he’s the one who needs to be called out and held accountable. His defeated opponents aren’t the ones wasting tens of millions in taxpayer money on an unnecessary new school.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up drag queens. They have nothing to do with his campaign or anything he does on the school board. Get a grip and stick to the point.

Weren't you the one who brought up the idiosyncrasies of Frisch's last opponent, which didn't relate to the decisions he might have made on the School Board if elected.

Karl is a bit unusual as well, but you treat his penchant for spending an inordinate of time at Pride parades and hanging out with drag queens as virtues, while ignoring his bad policy decisions. He is among the current SB members driving FCPS into the ground. Every year performance declines and longstanding issues go unaddressed.

Joanne, is that you?

[Anonymous]

It was about the dog park, it was never about the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this going to impact the comprehensive boundary review? The school is slated to open Fall 2028 if construction stays on schedule. Are they going to hold off on adjusting elementary school boundaries for the Marshall feeders until Dunn Loring opens? Or are they going to shuffle households around twice in a 2 year span?

Those are good questions with no answers to date.

They have a bit of a mess now, with at least half the School Board expressing doubts as to the need for this school in public right around the same time as the Planning Commission is giving them a green light to build a new school that would only retain some elements of the existing 1930s building. To secure the Planning Commission approval they had to play up the need for the school, but FCPS's own projections for the surrounding schools in the most recent draft Capital Improvement Program underscore it's not needed, at least not at this location. They would be best served by banking the Planning Commission approval, but putting any further work on hold indefinitely.

I didn’t watch the planning commission meeting, but the only explanation I can fathom is that they are ignoring the CIP figures and considering some other figures. For example, a few weeks ago, the planning commission approved the Commons and Mcleans redevelopment (subsequently approved by the Board of Supervisors this week) with up to 2,500 units which is projected to add 370 kids to Westgate. That may necessitate shrinking the Westgate boundaries, which would have downstream effects.

The 370 number is all the projects bound for Westgate that are currently under construction. The pending project you’re describing would add up to an additional 135 on that. My point being, the projects under construction should be reflected in the latest CIP, but they aren’t.

Dunn Loring ES is not the place to relieve Westgate/Lemon Road capacity. The Pimmit Hills Center will do that, just as the Tysons ES site will better service the growth in Tysons outside the Beltway, but those projects aren’t slated to begin until 2032, and won’t serve students for another 10 years.

Most of the housing projects for Tysons are north of 7. By building a 900 seat elementary school in Dunn Loring, they’re going to be pulling students from inside the beltway or through Tysons to fill it. And then when it’s Pimmit Hills Center and Tysons ES’s turn, both sites which would better serve the community, questions will be raised for their needs, since they’ll put schools like Dunn Loring, Stenwood, and Shrevewood under capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was about the dog park, it was never about the kids.

This. Karl Frisch sucks

[Anonymous]

It would be easier, faster, lower cost, and generally better to reopen the existing "Pimmit Hills ES", particularly since that whole neighborhood is rapidly shifting from retired folks to young families with ES age children.

(No, I do not live there and I would not personally benefit from reopening PH ES, but the sheer waste of the Dunn Loring ES proposal is frustrating to watch.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this going to impact the comprehensive boundary review? The school is slated to open Fall 2028 if construction stays on schedule. Are they going to hold off on adjusting elementary school boundaries for the Marshall feeders until Dunn Loring opens? Or are they going to shuffle households around twice in a 2 year span?

Those are good questions with no answers to date.

They have a bit of a mess now, with at least half the School Board expressing doubts as to the need for this school in public right around the same time as the Planning Commission is giving them a green light to build a new school that would only retain some elements of the existing 1930s building. To secure the Planning Commission approval they had to play up the need for the school, but FCPS's own projections for the surrounding schools in the most recent draft Capital Improvement Program underscore it's not needed, at least not at this location. They would be best served by banking the Planning Commission approval, but putting any further work on hold indefinitely.

I didn’t watch the planning commission meeting, but the only explanation I can fathom is that they are ignoring the CIP figures and considering some other figures. For example, a few weeks ago, the planning commission approved the Commons and Mcleans redevelopment (subsequently approved by the Board of Supervisors this week) with up to 2,500 units which is projected to add 370 kids to Westgate. That may necessitate shrinking the Westgate boundaries, which would have downstream effects.

The 370 number is all the projects bound for Westgate that are currently under construction. The pending project you’re describing would add up to an additional 135 on that. My point being, the projects under construction should be reflected in the latest CIP, but they aren’t.

Dunn Loring ES is not the place to relieve Westgate/Lemon Road capacity. The Pimmit Hills Center will do that, just as the Tysons ES site will better service the growth in Tysons outside the Beltway, but those projects aren’t slated to begin until 2032, and won’t serve students for another 10 years.

Most of the housing projects for Tysons are north of 7. By building a 900 seat elementary school in Dunn Loring, they’re going to be pulling students from inside the beltway or through Tysons to fill it. And then when it’s Pimmit Hills Center and Tysons ES’s turn, both sites which would better serve the community, questions will be raised for their needs, since they’ll put schools like Dunn Loring, Stenwood, and Shrevewood under capacity.

This is exactly right, it’s been pointed out and ignored by the School Board in the past, and this year (at least at the work session) they finally acknowledged that Dunn Loring is a bad idea right now, especially at a time when they are considering boundary changes and claiming it’s due to a need to conserve resources.

[Anonymous]

This article picks up on some of the concerns voiced this week by School Board members about the Dunn Loring project.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/01/17/fcps-14-4-billion-needed-for-school-facility-projects-even-with-declining-enrollment/

They need to pull it from the next CIP unless they are total hypocrites. They can’t complain about not having enough money but then spend $85 million on a new school that isn’t needed at that site.