Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 15:19     Subject: future at Haycock?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:They are not going to be able build a new ES near Tysons before next year.


They could if they were just remodeling the Pimmit Center or the Dunn Loring center back into schools. It was done with the Devonshire center that is now Graham Road ES.


+1. Pimmit does not need much in the way of remodeling. It's been used for adult ed, and classrooms are in great shape, the library is empty but ready to go, and the cafeteria is no smaller than Haycock's or Lemon Road's.


That would be kind of strange. It's so close to Westgate, and not far from Lemon Road, either.
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 14:05     Subject: future at Haycock?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:They are not going to be able build a new ES near Tysons before next year.


They could if they were just remodeling the Pimmit Center or the Dunn Loring center back into schools. It was done with the Devonshire center that is now Graham Road ES.


+1. Pimmit does not need much in the way of remodeling. It's been used for adult ed, and classrooms are in great shape, the library is empty but ready to go, and the cafeteria is no smaller than Haycock's or Lemon Road's.
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 13:42     Subject: future at Haycock?
Anonymous wrote:They are not going to be able build a new ES near Tysons before next year.


They could if they were just remodeling the Pimmit Center or the Dunn Loring center back into schools. It was done with the Devonshire center that is now Graham Road ES.
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 13:37     Subject: future at Haycock?
They are not going to be able build a new ES near Tysons before next year.
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 12:23     Subject: Re:future at Haycock?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There are other possibilities not even under consideration by FCPS. How about moving the center out of Haycock altogether and relocating it to Kent Gardens. Of course, KG currently doesn't have room, BUT...what if KG didn't have a french immersion program. This is unlikely to happen because a vocal community of parents wants french immersion, but, really, that program doesn't need to be at KG in an area where the schools are so overcrowded.


How many French Immersion students are out of boundary and where do they come from? Historical numbers? That could move to a whole other cluster. It should be a fluid filler not the driver of the school building.


FCPS only shows Kent Gardens as having 26 out-of-boundary students, and it doesn't even look like they are all for the immersion program.

The solution is to move the Cluster 1 kids to Lemon Road and build another ES near Tysons.
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 12:06     Subject: Re:future at Haycock?
Anonymous wrote:There are other possibilities not even under consideration by FCPS. How about moving the center out of Haycock altogether and relocating it to Kent Gardens. Of course, KG currently doesn't have room, BUT...what if KG didn't have a french immersion program. This is unlikely to happen because a vocal community of parents wants french immersion, but, really, that program doesn't need to be at KG in an area where the schools are so overcrowded.


How many French Immersion students are out of boundary and where do they come from? Historical numbers? That could move to a whole other cluster. It should be a fluid filler not the driver of the school building.
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 10:21     Subject: Re:future at Haycock?
There are other possibilities not even under consideration by FCPS. How about moving the center out of Haycock altogether and relocating it to Kent Gardens. Of course, KG currently doesn't have room, BUT...what if KG didn't have a french immersion program. This is unlikely to happen because a vocal community of parents wants french immersion, but, really, that program doesn't need to be at KG in an area where the schools are so overcrowded.
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 09:38     Subject: future at Haycock?
Anonymous wrote:You sound like a bitter person.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Are those making the case for grandfathering really proposing no change in enrollment from current to next? What alternative solutions are on the table to reduce the total enrollment from this year's 968 by next year? Doing nothing is not an option.


I'll propose something. How about a base school boundary change? If you freeze the cluster 2 AAP growth yet you are still worried about growth, then clearly cluster 2 is not the problem. Let's be honest here. AAP is growing but the base school is growing at the same or perhaps an even greater rate. So let's have an equivalent reduction of the base school population-- without grandfathering of course. If my kid doesn't need to be grandfathered neither does yours. Sound good?


Yes, there needs to be boundary changes to coincide w the end of the Center at Haycock. For real and impactful change both need to happen.;


Or a realistic person. The school needs to reduce enrollment by 100+ students by next year.
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 09:35     Subject: future at Haycock?
You sound like a bitter person.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Are those making the case for grandfathering really proposing no change in enrollment from current to next? What alternative solutions are on the table to reduce the total enrollment from this year's 968 by next year? Doing nothing is not an option.


I'll propose something. How about a base school boundary change? If you freeze the cluster 2 AAP growth yet you are still worried about growth, then clearly cluster 2 is not the problem. Let's be honest here. AAP is growing but the base school is growing at the same or perhaps an even greater rate. So let's have an equivalent reduction of the base school population-- without grandfathering of course. If my kid doesn't need to be grandfathered neither does yours. Sound good?


Yes, there needs to be boundary changes to coincide w the end of the Center at Haycock. For real and impactful change both need to happen.;
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 09:26     Subject: future at Haycock?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Are those making the case for grandfathering really proposing no change in enrollment from current to next? What alternative solutions are on the table to reduce the total enrollment from this year's 968 by next year? Doing nothing is not an option.


I'll propose something. How about a base school boundary change? If you freeze the cluster 2 AAP growth yet you are still worried about growth, then clearly cluster 2 is not the problem. Let's be honest here. AAP is growing but the base school is growing at the same or perhaps an even greater rate. So let's have an equivalent reduction of the base school population-- without grandfathering of course. If my kid doesn't need to be grandfathered neither does yours. Sound good?


Yes, there needs to be boundary changes to coincide w the end of the Center at Haycock. For real and impactful change both need to happen.;
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 09:16     Subject: future at Haycock?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Are those making the case for grandfathering really proposing no change in enrollment from current to next? What alternative solutions are on the table to reduce the total enrollment from this year's 968 by next year? Doing nothing is not an option.


I'll propose something. How about a base school boundary change? If you freeze the cluster 2 AAP growth yet you are still worried about growth, then clearly cluster 2 is not the problem. Let's be honest here. AAP is growing but the base school is growing at the same or perhaps an even greater rate. So let's have an equivalent reduction of the base school population-- without grandfathering of course. If my kid doesn't need to be grandfathered neither does yours. Sound good?


No. The base school boundaries are not that large, and the ratio is AAP to Gen. Ed. students at Haycock is already high. Consider moving Cluster 2 kids to Lemon Road in stages, but if that doesn't provide sufficient relief, dispense with the grandfathering. In addition to relieving overcrowding, the kids who move to Lemon Road will get to know other future Kilmer classmates sooner.

Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 08:30     Subject: future at Haycock?
Anonymous wrote:Are those making the case for grandfathering really proposing no change in enrollment from current to next? What alternative solutions are on the table to reduce the total enrollment from this year's 968 by next year? Doing nothing is not an option.


I'll propose something. How about a base school boundary change? If you freeze the cluster 2 AAP growth yet you are still worried about growth, then clearly cluster 2 is not the problem. Let's be honest here. AAP is growing but the base school is growing at the same or perhaps an even greater rate. So let's have an equivalent reduction of the base school population-- without grandfathering of course. If my kid doesn't need to be grandfathered neither does yours. Sound good?
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 07:33     Subject: future at Haycock?
It took many years for Haycock to get to the point it is at. It may take a couple years to rectify the situation.
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 07:23     Subject: Re:future at Haycock?
Sounds to me like the plan is to hope for a smaller K, move some 3rd graders to Lemon Road, and hope some stay at Franklin Sherman next year when it gets Local Level IV. Maybe that brings the enrollment closer to, what, 925?
Anonymous
Post 11/30/2012 07:23     Subject: Re:future at Haycock?
Sounds to me like the plan is to hope for a smaller K, move some 3rd graders to Lemon Road, and hope some stay at Franklin Sherman next year when it gets Local Level IV. Maybe that brings the enrollment closer to, what, 925?