Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago voters approved a new elementary school for the Fairfax/Oakton area. The current school board voted to move these voter approved funds to re-open the Dunn Loring school which is not needed. This has turned into a $60 million waste of taxpayer dollars. Until the school board can show that they will be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and follow through on voter approved projects I will be voting "No".

Exactly.

Almost. They led people to believe they were going to renovate and re-open the old Dunn Loring school. There was no need for a new ES there but at least it sounded environmentally friendly. But now their plan is to tear down the existing building and build a brand-new elementary school, which still isn’t needed at that location.

It’s total stupidity courtesy of Karl Frisch, who really does not deserve another term. Sabio may not be a great candidate but he hasn’t wasted $60M in taxpayer money like Frisch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago voters approved a new elementary school for the Fairfax/Oakton area. The current school board voted to move these voter approved funds to re-open the Dunn Loring school which is not needed. This has turned into a $60 million waste of taxpayer dollars. Until the school board can show that they will be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and follow through on voter approved projects I will be voting "No".

I'm pissed about Blake Lane too, but the bond funds were not earmarked for that school and voting against bonds now does not fix the crowding situation we have.

Worth remembering that every candidate in that board election (and some non-candidates, like Gerry Connolly) came out against the Blake Lane school, and most of those people are no longer on the Board. I'm still mad about it but we're 5 years out from 2019 and being mad hasn't gotten us a new school.

I don't understand this issue with Blake Lane. The community was so opposed to the new school. If the school isn't wanted, why would it be built?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I will vote yes when I finally see any movement on McLean HS getting a renovation.

Not voting for other kids to get a renovation because your kids aren't is a very McLean parent attitude.

Knee jerk stupidity. Look into how overdue MHS is for a renovation, how crowded it is, and how the county keeps green lighting development that will add to school crowding before you issue another thoughtless and uninformed statement like that.

Lol. They kind of have a point though. Just because you're not getting a renovation means you're going to vote against other people getting renovations? There is nothing we can do about that. I would love for my kid's school to get a renovation, but that doesn't mean I'm going to vote against these other schools.

See how you feel after voting yes on the bond for over 20 years and still not seeing your school which is in need make the cut.

But voting no will just delay your school's renovations that much longer. They are not going to say "Oh, people voted no, better put McLean on the list." They are going to say "We only have the funds for one renovation this year instead of five, so I guess it will take 5+ years to get through the list we have." Way to spite your face.

That's what these people don't understand. All of the capital improvement meetings are open and accept public comment - submit your opinions there instead of on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have seen a lot of threads and posts about the school board election, but there is also a very important bond referendum on our ballot this November!

The bonds are slated to provide funds for the construction of seven elementary schools, renovations for eight elementary schools and one middle school, and three modular relocations, as well as security improvements.

My elementary school is on deck to get a renovation, so I'm telling all my neighbors and PTA friends to VOTE YES on our public school facilities.

I want to hear every school board candidate's position on the bond. The Fairfax GOP just published an article in opposition, which is absolutely repugnant considering they constantly complain about the modulars and out-of-date buildings.
https://www.fcps.edu/Bond2023

https://fairfaxgop.org/reasons-to-oppose-the-fairfax-2023-435m-school-bond-referendum/

Did you even bother to read the above article?? He's absolutely right. FCPS has wasted millions on administrative buildings rather than needed renovations and construction. They are wasteful spendthrifts and apparently, so are you. This is why I will definitely be voting Republican this November.

"The FCPS ending balance has increased from $140M in FY2018 to $331M in FY2023, even though it had 8,000 fewer students. That’s a $190M increase that should have been returned to the taxpayer but failing that, could have been spent on renovations and construction instead of selling bonds."

I asked about that point earlier in the thread. W wonder if that amount reflects multi year deseral covid relief money. Those grants were meant to be spread over three years so would look like they were leftover when they aren’t. I don’t know if that is what explains the amount but I am curious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I will vote yes when I finally see any movement on McLean HS getting a renovation.

Well, if this isn’t McLean in a nutshell.

Knee jerk stupidity. Look into how overdue MHS is for a renovation, how crowded it is, and how the county keeps green lighting development that will add to school crowding before you issue another thoughtless and uninformed statement like that.

You just copied and pasted your response at 14:16.
DP

Yes. Because it was the exact same sentiment expressed up thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I will vote yes when I finally see any movement on McLean HS getting a renovation.

Well, if this isn’t McLean in a nutshell.

Knee jerk stupidity. Look into how overdue MHS is for a renovation, how crowded it is, and how the county keeps green lighting development that will add to school crowding before you issue another thoughtless and uninformed statement like that.

You just copied and pasted your response at 14:16.
DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You McLean people always want to make everything about yourselves and complain whenever anyone else in the county gets something nice.

But when they proposed the boundary adjustments, all the McLean parents wanted the option that had the fewest amount of changes. Meanwhile, there are other schools like Chantilly and Centreville that are even further over capacity and don't have a school right next to it so far below capacity.

Thanks for conflating McLean and Langley again - to you, I guess, we are all the same.

In fact, it was Langley residents from Great Falls who successfully lobbied Elaine Tholen, their neighbor on the School Board to reject an FCPS staff proposal that would have moved more kids from McLean to Langley in favor of one that redistricted fewer kids to Langley.

Centreville is already in the pipeline now for a big expansion - while some might say the planned expansion is too big (to 3000 seats), they are slated for a major renovation and addition, unlike McLean. Chantilly is in a similar boat as McLean (the overcrowding is worse, but the building is in better shape and there isn't nearly as much future growth projected in the Chantilly catchment area as in the McLean area). Once the Centreville expansion is finished, it's quite possible they might decide to adjust Centreville/Chantilly/Westfield boundaries.

Broken.Record.

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago voters approved a new elementary school for the Fairfax/Oakton area. The current school board voted to move these voter approved funds to re-open the Dunn Loring school which is not needed. This has turned into a $60 million waste of taxpayer dollars. Until the school board can show that they will be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and follow through on voter approved projects I will be voting "No".

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:I have seen a lot of threads and posts about the school board election, but there is also a very important bond referendum on our ballot this November!

The bonds are slated to provide funds for the construction of seven elementary schools, renovations for eight elementary schools and one middle school, and three modular relocations, as well as security improvements.

My elementary school is on deck to get a renovation, so I'm telling all my neighbors and PTA friends to VOTE YES on our public school facilities.

I want to hear every school board candidate's position on the bond. The Fairfax GOP just published an article in opposition, which is absolutely repugnant considering they constantly complain about the modulars and out-of-date buildings.
https://www.fcps.edu/Bond2023

https://fairfaxgop.org/reasons-to-oppose-the-fairfax-2023-435m-school-bond-referendum/

Did you even bother to read the above article?? He's absolutely right. FCPS has wasted millions on administrative buildings rather than needed renovations and construction. They are wasteful spendthrifts and apparently, so are you. This is why I will definitely be voting Republican this November.

"The FCPS ending balance has increased from $140M in FY2018 to $331M in FY2023, even though it had 8,000 fewer students. That’s a $190M increase that should have been returned to the taxpayer but failing that, could have been spent on renovations and construction instead of selling bonds."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Additionally to voting no for the first time, I will also vote for Paul Bartkwoski for School Board because this is a cause he will definitely fight for.

From his campaign:
* I will also focus on solving the overcrowding problems in schools without placing burdens on students and families; the two groups who suffer consequences from overcrowding despite having no hand in causing the problem.

No idea what that means in practice. Care to elaborate?

What part do you need further elaboration on, that I will vote against school bonds, or that I will vote for Bartkowski for School Board because, among other good things, he will do something about the overcrowding at McLean HS?

My first assertion is clear: I will be exercising my right to vote. As for Bartkowski, I’ll leave this here for you:

https://ballotpedia.org/Paul_Bartkowski

What’s he going to do about the overcrowding? Be specific.

You won’t answer, which is why Bartkowski’s odds of getting elected currently are slim to none.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Additionally to voting no for the first time, I will also vote for Paul Bartkwoski for School Board because this is a cause he will definitely fight for.

From his campaign:
* I will also focus on solving the overcrowding problems in schools without placing burdens on students and families; the two groups who suffer consequences from overcrowding despite having no hand in causing the problem.

No idea what that means in practice. Care to elaborate?

What part do you need further elaboration on, that I will vote against school bonds, or that I will vote for Bartkowski for School Board because, among other good things, he will do something about the overcrowding at McLean HS?

My first assertion is clear: I will be exercising my right to vote. As for Bartkowski, I’ll leave this here for you:

https://ballotpedia.org/Paul_Bartkowski

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I will vote yes when I finally see any movement on McLean HS getting a renovation.

Not voting for other kids to get a renovation because your kids aren't is a very McLean parent attitude.

FYI- Parents at McLean HS have witnessed helplessly for years how our tax money has gone to update and expand Title 1 schools for years; to replace names of “White oppressors” to more progressive ones; to push green initiatives at schools (car chargers, anyone?), all the while we watch our kids constantly breathing VOC’s from pesticides; material used for repairing and patching ceiling tiles or faulty plumbing, or eating in hallways or stairs due to an overcrowded cafeteria, not to mention barely making it to their classes on time due to impassable hallways!

The only positive thing of that facility has been to have been run by the best school principal and her tireless school support staff.

Your response is so typical of people who feel entitled to many benefits without contributing to anything. Parents in McLean HS who pay property taxes are not free loaders and have the right to expect better for our children than what we have gotten so far, but I guess you think we should vote to continue paying more taxes so your kids can be at facilities with healthier IAQ and more decent space, right?

Oh Mclean bathroom mommy, I knew you'd show up here!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I will vote yes when I finally see any movement on McLean HS getting a renovation.

Not voting for other kids to get a renovation because your kids aren't is a very McLean parent attitude.

Knee jerk stupidity. Look into how overdue MHS is for a renovation, how crowded it is, and how the county keeps green lighting development that will add to school crowding before you issue another thoughtless and uninformed statement like that.

Lol. They kind of have a point though. Just because you're not getting a renovation means you're going to vote against other people getting renovations? There is nothing we can do about that. I would love for my kid's school to get a renovation, but that doesn't mean I'm going to vote against these other schools.

See how you feel after voting yes on the bond for over 20 years and still not seeing your school which is in need make the cut.

But voting no will just delay your school's renovations that much longer. They are not going to say "Oh, people voted no, better put McLean on the list." They are going to say "We only have the funds for one renovation this year instead of five, so I guess it will take 5+ years to get through the list we have." Way to spite your face.

You don’t get it. They aren’t putting McLean on the list, not now and not in five years. The process is perverted by political interests and MHS doesn’t get through. We need an objective process based on capacity, facility condition and other relevant things. Not a school board member forcing one school to jump the line because it serves their interests.

They are supposed to be working with a firm to come up with an updated renovation queue. It’s just that there’s no sense of urgency about it. They’ll spend years talking about the relevant criteria, and then years evaluating schools pursuant to the new criteria, and then another year discussing whether the evaluations were fair.

None of this matters if you recently got a top-dollar renovation or are about to get one. But it doesn’t do much for the schools that have been neglected from an investment perspective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I will vote yes when I finally see any movement on McLean HS getting a renovation.

Not voting for other kids to get a renovation because your kids aren't is a very McLean parent attitude.

Knee jerk stupidity. Look into how overdue MHS is for a renovation, how crowded it is, and how the county keeps green lighting development that will add to school crowding before you issue another thoughtless and uninformed statement like that.

Lol. They kind of have a point though. Just because you're not getting a renovation means you're going to vote against other people getting renovations? There is nothing we can do about that. I would love for my kid's school to get a renovation, but that doesn't mean I'm going to vote against these other schools.

See how you feel after voting yes on the bond for over 20 years and still not seeing your school which is in need make the cut.

But voting no will just delay your school's renovations that much longer. They are not going to say "Oh, people voted no, better put McLean on the list." They are going to say "We only have the funds for one renovation this year instead of five, so I guess it will take 5+ years to get through the list we have." Way to spite your face.

You don’t get it. They aren’t putting McLean on the list, not now and not in five years. The process is perverted by political interests and MHS doesn’t get through. We need an objective process based on capacity, facility condition and other relevant things. Not a school board member forcing one school to jump the line because it serves their interests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago voters approved a new elementary school for the Fairfax/Oakton area. The current school board voted to move these voter approved funds to re-open the Dunn Loring school which is not needed. This has turned into a $60 million waste of taxpayer dollars. Until the school board can show that they will be a good steward of taxpayer dollars and follow through on voter approved projects I will be voting "No".

I'm pissed about Blake Lane too, but the bond funds were not earmarked for that school and voting against bonds now does not fix the crowding situation we have.

Worth remembering that every candidate in that board election (and some non-candidates, like Gerry Connolly) came out against the Blake Lane school, and most of those people are no longer on the Board. I'm still mad about it but we're 5 years out from 2019 and being mad hasn't gotten us a new school.

To the extent bond proceeds are ever “earmarked” they were earmarked for a “Fairfax/Oakton ES.” In getting that money reallocated it’s likely Karl Frisch asked division counsel to jump through some hoops to conclude a school in Dunn Loring instead could still be characterized as a “Fairfax” elementary school. Otherwise it starts to seem like taxpayers were fraudulently induced to vote for a bond referendum.

But the bigger issue is that, if a school wasn’t needed at Blake Lake, then it shouldn’t have been built there, but there also should have been a candid discussion with local residents in western Providence about the implications.

Instead, Frisch’s actions guarantee families will be sending their kids to a very big Mosaic ES for many years, decades will pass before anyone ever considers a new ES in Fairfax/Oakton again, and a school that isn’t needed at the Dunn Loving site will get built just to put the final nail in the coffin with respect to Blake Lane. They could have had a bonfire and burned the $60M in cash, and it would still be less disruptive than the Dunn Loring boondoggle will be. Many kids in the Marshall pyramid will be redistricted from schools that are under capacity, and an elementary school closer to the growth in Tysons will also end up getting deferred for many years.

But that’s a reason to replace or recall Frisch, not prevent other schools from getting renovated.