Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

West Springfield was overdue for a renovation, but the end product was pretty lavish. Several of the recent renovations have been fairly over the top. And they started with a smaller expansion (140 students) and it magically grew (345) over several years. It was deceptive.

345 is a pretty tiny expansion. That is the equivalent of 10 classrooms. Nominal.

A 16% expansion (345/2160) is not a nominal expansion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same parents complaining here would have a fit if their kids were reassigned to a lower rated school.

It doesn’t make FCPS any less hypocritical. They gutted Annandale through boundary changes because they expected little opposition to moving kids to Woodson and Lake Braddock, but West Springfield got and West Potomac is getting huge additions they didn’t need because the poseurs on the School Board couldn’t handle the push-back from parents if their kids were moved to Lewis or Mount Vernon.

Yes. Because those two types of movement aren't equivalent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same parents complaining here would have a fit if their kids were reassigned to a lower rated school.

It doesn’t make FCPS any less hypocritical. They gutted Annandale through boundary changes because they expected little opposition to moving kids to Woodson and Lake Braddock, but West Springfield got and West Potomac is getting huge additions they didn’t need because the poseurs on the School Board couldn’t handle the push-back from parents if their kids were moved to Lewis or Mount Vernon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

West Springfield was overdue for a renovation, but the end product was pretty lavish. Several of the recent renovations have been fairly over the top. And they started with a smaller expansion (140 students) and it magically grew (345) over several years. It was deceptive.

345 is a pretty tiny expansion. That is the equivalent of 10 classrooms. Nominal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

West Springfield was overdue for a renovation, but the end product was pretty lavish. Several of the recent renovations have been fairly over the top. And they started with a smaller expansion (140 students) and it magically grew (345) over several years. It was deceptive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

West Springfield was overdue for a renovation, but the end product was pretty lavish. Several of the recent renovations have been fairly over the top. And they started with a smaller expansion (140 students) and it magically grew (345) over several years. It was deceptive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

If fcps is doing a full gut of any school, it would be completely irresponsible and an abuse of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars to not expand the school capacity where practical.

The expansion adds very little to the overall renovation price or timeline when you are dealing with a full gut of a school, which the WSHS renovation clearly was.

The difference is clear, that the West Po expansion is not centered around a necessary renovation or full gut of the school. Rather, West Po is an expansion simply for the sake of expansion. It is a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the renovation schedule and process.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

No one is arguing against the renovation of a dumpy school. However, just because a school is a dump doesn’t mean it deserves a huge addition if there’s nothing in the projections suggesting a need for it. It’s a misallocation of taxpayer money and FCPS has been discriminatory in its expenditures, in some cases funding additions outside the renovation cycle and in other cases ignoring schools that are overcrowded. If there were accountability in FCPS, there would be audits and some Gatehouse employees would likely be barred from holding public employment.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

Renovation is one thing, expansion is another. Perhaps if they weren't adding costs to renovations by expanding schools, they would have more money to renovate schools on a more reasonable timetable.

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.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.

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.

The school buildings are old and will be renovated. It makes sense to add extra space during renovation that isn't needed than to "restrain" expansion when space may be needed in the next 10-20 years (or later). School buildings are on a 50 year cycle - enrollment could increase or decrease a lot in the coming decades.

+1, I work at a school that is 60+ years old and is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. It is a DUMP. Everything is old and broken. These schools, including teachers and students, deserve to come to a place that isn’t an eye sore.