FCPS is turning the new high school purchased to fix crowding into an Aviation magnet school instead of a high school??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that they will start it as a regular high school, but add an Aviation or Aerospace-focused Academy as part of the school. They will spend 2-3 years renovating one of the extra buildings to bring in specialized equipment/labs for the academy. That will also give them time to hire the right people.

Here's the academic sequence for students at Raisbeck Aviation HS near Seattle. The school has slightly over 400 students, so it is feasible to have such a program in a building that's built for fewer students than a typical FCPS high school.

https://rahs.highlineschools.org/academics/course-offerings

No.

Not possible.

They didn't follow the proper processes to do this.

The money they spent was money allocated for a new general high school to ease overcrowding through the normal bond process.

It was NOT allocated for a magnet school available to only a few students.

FCPS is cutting money right and left from other students. Most teachers are teaching classes of 30-35 students per year. Many high school teachers have a student load well in excess of 150-180 students per teacher.

If they want a magnet school, then go through the normal bond process.

Do not steal money from the rest of the county meant to relieve overcrowding to fund a vanity project with possible kickbacks or benefits to school board members working in that industry.

I don’t feel strongly about this school, but you mislead when you say they bought it with money allocated to overcrowding. They haven’t disclosed anything about where the money came from.

You can argue why you think the school should be a traditional one, but you hurt your credibility with the argument above.

The money came from a bond that was passed by the voters to build a new high school to relieve overcrowding.

Never in the bond process did FCPS present to voters of Fairfax County that the bond money would be repurposed from a necessary high school to relieve overcrowding to a frivolous vanity project magnet that is only available to a handful of students and does not do anything to relieve overcrowding.

Can you link to the bond material because a quick search of the 2023 referendum material doesn’t support your claim. What am I missing?

Not either PP here, but it really does not matter. If you make it a magnet it does not resolve the overcrowding problem in the area. They honestly do need the school to relieve the overcrowding. If it has to be a smaller school, so be it. There is room for expansion if budgets change. And, certainly, those two additional buildings could support classrooms easily and cheaply. I did a google search, they should be able to get a minimum of twenty classrooms in each of those buildings. Likely more. Anyone who says this would not work has not driven over there. It is basically a private drive.

I’m sorry, but you’re trying to move the goalposts. The point made regarding bonds by the original poster, and made multiple times before that, is that the bond disallows the school to be used as a magnet. That doesn’t comport with my reading of the bond referendum materials, but I’m offering that poster a chance to point out the materials and explain why I’m wrong.

Otherwise, your side loses a lot of credibility here, trying to argue the law/rules don’t allow for the magnet school. It’s never a good look to lie.

The argument isn't that the law/rules don't allow a magnet. The argument is that nowhere in any bond or plan was a magnet ever mentioned. No one ever voted on adding a magnet school. It is as much a misappropriation of funds as the diversion of funds to Dunn Loring that should have been used to build the Blake Lane school.

Exactly this.

If they want to spend tens of millions on a magnet for less than 1% of the high school population, put it up for a county bond referendum and include the miniscule number of students that will benefit.

DP, but you’re a hypocrite. If it turns out they conclude they need to spend $100 million more for KAA to operate as a typical HS, you’ll more than happily let them put other renovation projects on hold for years to make sure that happens, whether or not those projects were referenced in prior bond documents or CIPs.

You ignore the need. You also ignore the fact that the property was sold to Saudis with NO discussion or input.

The bottom line is that there is a need.

No, South Lakes is the only school in the area projected to be at even full capacity within five years. Don’t conflate your preferences with actual need.

Centreville and Chantilly are over capacity now. Westfield has 2700+ students, which is excessively large for a HS.

Says who? What is Westfield’s design capacity?

And both Chantilly and Centreville were projected to be under capacity within the next five years.

"projections" by FCPS have not turned out well. Look at Coates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that they will start it as a regular high school, but add an Aviation or Aerospace-focused Academy as part of the school. They will spend 2-3 years renovating one of the extra buildings to bring in specialized equipment/labs for the academy. That will also give them time to hire the right people.

Here's the academic sequence for students at Raisbeck Aviation HS near Seattle. The school has slightly over 400 students, so it is feasible to have such a program in a building that's built for fewer students than a typical FCPS high school.

https://rahs.highlineschools.org/academics/course-offerings

No.

Not possible.

They didn't follow the proper processes to do this.

The money they spent was money allocated for a new general high school to ease overcrowding through the normal bond process.

It was NOT allocated for a magnet school available to only a few students.

FCPS is cutting money right and left from other students. Most teachers are teaching classes of 30-35 students per year. Many high school teachers have a student load well in excess of 150-180 students per teacher.

If they want a magnet school, then go through the normal bond process.

Do not steal money from the rest of the county meant to relieve overcrowding to fund a vanity project with possible kickbacks or benefits to school board members working in that industry.

I don’t feel strongly about this school, but you mislead when you say they bought it with money allocated to overcrowding. They haven’t disclosed anything about where the money came from.

You can argue why you think the school should be a traditional one, but you hurt your credibility with the argument above.

The money came from a bond that was passed by the voters to build a new high school to relieve overcrowding.

Never in the bond process did FCPS present to voters of Fairfax County that the bond money would be repurposed from a necessary high school to relieve overcrowding to a frivolous vanity project magnet that is only available to a handful of students and does not do anything to relieve overcrowding.

Can you link to the bond material because a quick search of the 2023 referendum material doesn’t support your claim. What am I missing?

Not either PP here, but it really does not matter. If you make it a magnet it does not resolve the overcrowding problem in the area. They honestly do need the school to relieve the overcrowding. If it has to be a smaller school, so be it. There is room for expansion if budgets change. And, certainly, those two additional buildings could support classrooms easily and cheaply. I did a google search, they should be able to get a minimum of twenty classrooms in each of those buildings. Likely more. Anyone who says this would not work has not driven over there. It is basically a private drive.

I’m sorry, but you’re trying to move the goalposts. The point made regarding bonds by the original poster, and made multiple times before that, is that the bond disallows the school to be used as a magnet. That doesn’t comport with my reading of the bond referendum materials, but I’m offering that poster a chance to point out the materials and explain why I’m wrong.

Otherwise, your side loses a lot of credibility here, trying to argue the law/rules don’t allow for the magnet school. It’s never a good look to lie.

The argument isn't that the law/rules don't allow a magnet. The argument is that nowhere in any bond or plan was a magnet ever mentioned. No one ever voted on adding a magnet school. It is as much a misappropriation of funds as the diversion of funds to Dunn Loring that should have been used to build the Blake Lane school.

Exactly this.

If they want to spend tens of millions on a magnet for less than 1% of the high school population, put it up for a county bond referendum and include the miniscule number of students that will benefit.

DP, but you’re a hypocrite. If it turns out they conclude they need to spend $100 million more for KAA to operate as a typical HS, you’ll more than happily let them put other renovation projects on hold for years to make sure that happens, whether or not those projects were referenced in prior bond documents or CIPs.

The whole build of a Western HS was referenced in prior CIPs. Even if it did cost the $100 million more you just pulled out of thin air it would still be less than the cost previously planned to build the new HS from scratch.

[Anonymous]

Where can you find FCPS projections based on new construction? I've seen it in the past on FCPS website, but cannot find it now.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know what the holdups are on the Centreville permits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the holdups are on the Centreville permits?

From what I’ve picked up from info shared at meetings, the proposed expansion of Centreville HS will exceed the floor to area ratio of the zone for the site. The county approving office only wants to grant an exception and approve the overage if FCPS gives Fairfax Parks Authority the land that Cub Run RecCenter is built on. FCPS owns that land and rents it to Parks. FCPS wants to retain the land as it could potentially be used to build another school in the future and land to build schools is hard to come by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the holdups are on the Centreville permits?

If I recall the work session correctly, I think it had to do with FAR, but I’m not a builder so I’m not sure of the nuance of that acronym

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the holdups are on the Centreville permits?

If I recall the work session correctly, I think it had to do with FAR, but I’m not a builder so I’m not sure of the nuance of that acronym

Sounds like what an earlier PP said:

Floor-Area Ratio
FAR stands for Floor-Area Ratio, which is a measure used in urban planning to determine the maximum allowable building size relative to the size of the land on which it is built. It is calculated by dividing the total floor area of a building by the total area of the plot of land. For example, if a building has a total floor area of 20,000 square feet and a plot measures 5,000 square feet, the FAR would be 4.0, indicating that the building can occupy four times the size of the plot. Understanding FAR is crucial for developers and architects as it influences zoning laws, building codes, and property valuations.

Also, sounds like if they open a regular high school at KAA, that they could scale this back--maybe to 2800? But, I am no builder at all.

[Anonymous]

It seems like a no brainer that now that we have 1200+ seats at KAA, we should significantly scale back or cancel the Centreville expansion. That would also realize a cost savings there that should shut up these budget hawks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that they will start it as a regular high school, but add an Aviation or Aerospace-focused Academy as part of the school. They will spend 2-3 years renovating one of the extra buildings to bring in specialized equipment/labs for the academy. That will also give them time to hire the right people.

Here's the academic sequence for students at Raisbeck Aviation HS near Seattle. The school has slightly over 400 students, so it is feasible to have such a program in a building that's built for fewer students than a typical FCPS high school.

https://rahs.highlineschools.org/academics/course-offerings

No.

Not possible.

They didn't follow the proper processes to do this.

The money they spent was money allocated for a new general high school to ease overcrowding through the normal bond process.

It was NOT allocated for a magnet school available to only a few students.

FCPS is cutting money right and left from other students. Most teachers are teaching classes of 30-35 students per year. Many high school teachers have a student load well in excess of 150-180 students per teacher.

If they want a magnet school, then go through the normal bond process.

Do not steal money from the rest of the county meant to relieve overcrowding to fund a vanity project with possible kickbacks or benefits to school board members working in that industry.

I don’t feel strongly about this school, but you mislead when you say they bought it with money allocated to overcrowding. They haven’t disclosed anything about where the money came from.

You can argue why you think the school should be a traditional one, but you hurt your credibility with the argument above.

The money came from a bond that was passed by the voters to build a new high school to relieve overcrowding.

Never in the bond process did FCPS present to voters of Fairfax County that the bond money would be repurposed from a necessary high school to relieve overcrowding to a frivolous vanity project magnet that is only available to a handful of students and does not do anything to relieve overcrowding.

Can you link to the bond material because a quick search of the 2023 referendum material doesn’t support your claim. What am I missing?

Not either PP here, but it really does not matter. If you make it a magnet it does not resolve the overcrowding problem in the area. They honestly do need the school to relieve the overcrowding. If it has to be a smaller school, so be it. There is room for expansion if budgets change. And, certainly, those two additional buildings could support classrooms easily and cheaply. I did a google search, they should be able to get a minimum of twenty classrooms in each of those buildings. Likely more. Anyone who says this would not work has not driven over there. It is basically a private drive.

I’m sorry, but you’re trying to move the goalposts. The point made regarding bonds by the original poster, and made multiple times before that, is that the bond disallows the school to be used as a magnet. That doesn’t comport with my reading of the bond referendum materials, but I’m offering that poster a chance to point out the materials and explain why I’m wrong.

Otherwise, your side loses a lot of credibility here, trying to argue the law/rules don’t allow for the magnet school. It’s never a good look to lie.

The argument isn't that the law/rules don't allow a magnet. The argument is that nowhere in any bond or plan was a magnet ever mentioned. No one ever voted on adding a magnet school. It is as much a misappropriation of funds as the diversion of funds to Dunn Loring that should have been used to build the Blake Lane school.

Exactly this.

If they want to spend tens of millions on a magnet for less than 1% of the high school population, put it up for a county bond referendum and include the miniscule number of students that will benefit.

DP, but you’re a hypocrite. If it turns out they conclude they need to spend $100 million more for KAA to operate as a typical HS, you’ll more than happily let them put other renovation projects on hold for years to make sure that happens, whether or not those projects were referenced in prior bond documents or CIPs.

You ignore the need. You also ignore the fact that the property was sold to Saudis with NO discussion or input.

The bottom line is that there is a need.

No, South Lakes is the only school in the area projected to be at even full capacity within five years. Don’t conflate your preferences with actual need.

And "full capacity"means crowded." Don't conflate your preferences with a solution.

And, if you do not know, South Lakes boundary study was based on the premise that all FCPS schools should be no larger than 2000. That is a fact. Was it right? No. Did it last? No.
But, anyone who thinks 3000 is optimal needs to rethink their own preferences.

And, anyone who thinks long bus rides are optimal is also wrong.

You’re putting an awful lot of weight on something said in passing over 15 years ago. It’s not like all the schools were at 2000 students or less after the South Lakes boundary changes. Instead, they expanded quite a few of the schools, including South Lakes, thereafter to serve well over 2000 kids.

We get that you want everyone else to pay whatever is required for your fancy local high school now, as well as for others to get redistricted to backfill Westfield, but it remains to be seen just how many HS kids KAA can accommodate. Until we know, it’s reasonable for folks to discuss the alternatives, and disingenuous you to claim there was an iron-clad commitment to open another traditional HS.

dp - 2000 was FCPS official policy for new schools for decades. Westfield and South County were both built to 2500 even though the policy was 2000. R wing - 600 seats - was added to Westfield but the design capacity was substantially reduced by FCPS analysis. During the SLHS redistricting The 2000 seat new school policy was dusted off, polished, and used to create the Floris split feeder. Subsequently, the new school policy was revised to 2500.

[Anonymous]

dp - 2000 was FCPS official policy for new schools for decades. Westfield and South County were both built to 2500 even though the policy was 2000. R wing - 600 seats - was added to Westfield but the design capacity was substantially reduced by FCPS analysis. During the SLHS redistricting The 2000 seat new school policy was dusted off, polished, and used to create the Floris split feeder. Subsequently, the new school policy was revised to 2500.

It may have been policy, but like you point out--it sure was not followed.

The real irony is that they had just "expanded" Westfield to 3000 right before they renewed the policy and redistricted South Lakes. They used it as an excuse to kick Navy kids out of Chantilly and send them to Oakton (and years later a disgruntled parent attacked Kathy Smith when she was campaigning.)

The purpose of the South Lakes boundary shift was purely demographics. The School Board did not say that but the South Lakes PTA did. They made all the decisions.

The problem with the Westfield addition is that the supporting facilities did not support the additional students. That is why the capacity is not really 3000 and the people who keep saying Westfield can take more students are mistaken. If they don't get students out of Westfield soon, they are going to have a capacity problem. Lots more coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that they will start it as a regular high school, but add an Aviation or Aerospace-focused Academy as part of the school. They will spend 2-3 years renovating one of the extra buildings to bring in specialized equipment/labs for the academy. That will also give them time to hire the right people.

Here's the academic sequence for students at Raisbeck Aviation HS near Seattle. The school has slightly over 400 students, so it is feasible to have such a program in a building that's built for fewer students than a typical FCPS high school.

https://rahs.highlineschools.org/academics/course-offerings

No.

Not possible.

They didn't follow the proper processes to do this.

The money they spent was money allocated for a new general high school to ease overcrowding through the normal bond process.

It was NOT allocated for a magnet school available to only a few students.

FCPS is cutting money right and left from other students. Most teachers are teaching classes of 30-35 students per year. Many high school teachers have a student load well in excess of 150-180 students per teacher.

If they want a magnet school, then go through the normal bond process.

Do not steal money from the rest of the county meant to relieve overcrowding to fund a vanity project with possible kickbacks or benefits to school board members working in that industry.

I don’t feel strongly about this school, but you mislead when you say they bought it with money allocated to overcrowding. They haven’t disclosed anything about where the money came from.

You can argue why you think the school should be a traditional one, but you hurt your credibility with the argument above.

The money came from a bond that was passed by the voters to build a new high school to relieve overcrowding.

Never in the bond process did FCPS present to voters of Fairfax County that the bond money would be repurposed from a necessary high school to relieve overcrowding to a frivolous vanity project magnet that is only available to a handful of students and does not do anything to relieve overcrowding.

Can you link to the bond material because a quick search of the 2023 referendum material doesn’t support your claim. What am I missing?

Not either PP here, but it really does not matter. If you make it a magnet it does not resolve the overcrowding problem in the area. They honestly do need the school to relieve the overcrowding. If it has to be a smaller school, so be it. There is room for expansion if budgets change. And, certainly, those two additional buildings could support classrooms easily and cheaply. I did a google search, they should be able to get a minimum of twenty classrooms in each of those buildings. Likely more. Anyone who says this would not work has not driven over there. It is basically a private drive.

I’m sorry, but you’re trying to move the goalposts. The point made regarding bonds by the original poster, and made multiple times before that, is that the bond disallows the school to be used as a magnet. That doesn’t comport with my reading of the bond referendum materials, but I’m offering that poster a chance to point out the materials and explain why I’m wrong.

Otherwise, your side loses a lot of credibility here, trying to argue the law/rules don’t allow for the magnet school. It’s never a good look to lie.

The argument isn't that the law/rules don't allow a magnet. The argument is that nowhere in any bond or plan was a magnet ever mentioned. No one ever voted on adding a magnet school. It is as much a misappropriation of funds as the diversion of funds to Dunn Loring that should have been used to build the Blake Lane school.

Exactly this.

If they want to spend tens of millions on a magnet for less than 1% of the high school population, put it up for a county bond referendum and include the miniscule number of students that will benefit.

DP, but you’re a hypocrite. If it turns out they conclude they need to spend $100 million more for KAA to operate as a typical HS, you’ll more than happily let them put other renovation projects on hold for years to make sure that happens, whether or not those projects were referenced in prior bond documents or CIPs.

You ignore the need. You also ignore the fact that the property was sold to Saudis with NO discussion or input.

The bottom line is that there is a need.

No, South Lakes is the only school in the area projected to be at even full capacity within five years. Don’t conflate your preferences with actual need.

And "full capacity"means crowded." Don't conflate your preferences with a solution.

And, if you do not know, South Lakes boundary study was based on the premise that all FCPS schools should be no larger than 2000. That is a fact. Was it right? No. Did it last? No.
But, anyone who thinks 3000 is optimal needs to rethink their own preferences.

And, anyone who thinks long bus rides are optimal is also wrong.

You’re putting an awful lot of weight on something said in passing over 15 years ago. It’s not like all the schools were at 2000 students or less after the South Lakes boundary changes. Instead, they expanded quite a few of the schools, including South Lakes, thereafter to serve well over 2000 kids.

We get that you want everyone else to pay whatever is required for your fancy local high school now, as well as for others to get redistricted to backfill Westfield, but it remains to be seen just how many HS kids KAA can accommodate. Until we know, it’s reasonable for folks to discuss the alternatives, and disingenuous you to claim there was an iron-clad commitment to open another traditional HS.

dp - 2000 was FCPS official policy for new schools for decades. Westfield and South County were both built to 2500 even though the policy was 2000. R wing - 600 seats - was added to Westfield but the design capacity was substantially reduced by FCPS analysis. During the SLHS redistricting The 2000 seat new school policy was dusted off, polished, and used to create the Floris split feeder. Subsequently, the new school policy was revised to 2500.

All this tells you is that the “policy” has been honored largely in the breach for decades because Westfield opened well over 2000 seats in 2000 and FCPS later expanded quite a few schools over 2500, including Herndon, Oakton, and West Potomac.

And, if there is now a policy to favor 2500 seats at new regular high schools, it may increase the likelihood they’ll put a special program in place at KAA if the capacity is considerably lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

dp - 2000 was FCPS official policy for new schools for decades. Westfield and South County were both built to 2500 even though the policy was 2000. R wing - 600 seats - was added to Westfield but the design capacity was substantially reduced by FCPS analysis. During the SLHS redistricting The 2000 seat new school policy was dusted off, polished, and used to create the Floris split feeder. Subsequently, the new school policy was revised to 2500.

It may have been policy, but like you point out--it sure was not followed.

The real irony is that they had just "expanded" Westfield to 3000 right before they renewed the policy and redistricted South Lakes. They used it as an excuse to kick Navy kids out of Chantilly and send them to Oakton (and years later a disgruntled parent attacked Kathy Smith when she was campaigning.)

The purpose of the South Lakes boundary shift was purely demographics. The School Board did not say that but the South Lakes PTA did. They made all the decisions.

The problem with the Westfield addition is that the supporting facilities did not support the additional students. That is why the capacity is not really 3000 and the people who keep saying Westfield can take more students are mistaken. If they don't get students out of Westfield soon, they are going to have a capacity problem. Lots more coming.

The latest projections are for Westfield to lose students over the next five years.

Chantilly has more kids than Westfield and no one there had been actively lobbying to get redistricted out of that school, even though the same issues with “supporting facilities” exist.

[Anonymous]

All this ridiculous sniping back and forth and what I want to know is: why was an aviation academy even suggested? Seems like a completely frivolous idea that NO ONE wants or needs and is the very antithesis of a neighborhood school providing relief for that area. I feel like someone suggested it (one of the idiot SB members) and everyone's fighting over it. It should never have been suggested.

And btw - I live nowhere near this area, so a new western high school won't affect my kids at all. Just chiming in as a FC resident that the idea of a "specialty school" where none is needed is totally absurd. Right up there with the Lewis "leadership academy".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this ridiculous sniping back and forth and what I want to know is: why was an aviation academy even suggested? Seems like a completely frivolous idea that NO ONE wants or needs and is the very antithesis of a neighborhood school providing relief for that area. I feel like someone suggested it (one of the idiot SB members) and everyone's fighting over it. It should never have been suggested.

And btw - I live nowhere near this area, so a new western high school won't affect my kids at all. Just chiming in as a FC resident that the idea of a "specialty school" where none is needed is totally absurd. Right up there with the Lewis "leadership academy".

Well we have a superintendent who wants to pad her resume and is totally unable to understand how different a large, diverse, county wide school district is from the smaller, less diverse district she came from. She is bored by the important things because she can’t throw around her buzzwords with that stuff. She wants to say things like “global priorities”, “future ready high school” and “meeting the moment”. Details aren’t exciting enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this ridiculous sniping back and forth and what I want to know is: why was an aviation academy even suggested? Seems like a completely frivolous idea that NO ONE wants or needs and is the very antithesis of a neighborhood school providing relief for that area. I feel like someone suggested it (one of the idiot SB members) and everyone's fighting over it. It should never have been suggested.

And btw - I live nowhere near this area, so a new western high school won't affect my kids at all. Just chiming in as a FC resident that the idea of a "specialty school" where none is needed is totally absurd. Right up there with the Lewis "leadership academy".

It seems to have gotten some traction because of concerns that the KAA building is not large enough or currently configured to support a traditional high school with a normal enrollment, at least not without a big additional investment.

They were in a big hurry to acquire this property so perhaps their due diligence was less than should have been undertaken.

The Lewis program is a different animal because they were trying to attract more students to a school that, while on the smaller end, has an adequate facility to support a traditional HS.