Any residence west of and not including Lake Hill Drive off OX or Hampton Rd should go to Lake Braddock. Same for Crosspointe Drive off Silverbrooke.

The portion between Shirly and Mims should go to Hayfield. Gunston should be at Mount Vernon.

Looking at this from the perspective of elemntary school attendance areas only assumes those areas are appropriate.

What happened to the comments of this AM? I didn't see anything that violated the TOS as outlined by the Post.

I think it was because they were anonymous. The problem with option one is that it does not give Hayfield back its high school students. Two years ago, too many high school students were taken out of Hayfield with little regard for educational/sports programs. As numbers go down, teachers are taken away, and subject choices and classes decrease. Option one would fill Hayfield with middle school students, to about 96% capacity, without giving them back the high school students they need to restore their programs. 96% capacity at Hayfield is also too high due to BRAC. South County was built to accommodate more students with a larger cafeteria, library and more bathrooms, and can handle more students than older schools. Too many people are trying to stay at South County at any cost, without regard to Hayfield. Since there is no need for a new middle school, with plenty of room at H, LB, SCSS and MV, the boundaries should be set and students in both high and middle school balanced between them.

I wonder what the schools would be like if the more prosaic intellectual activities of the school received the kind of attention from parents that the boundary issue does.

Am I the only parent who thinks the issue is a big waste of time and effort that could be better invested elsewhere?

I don't care if my kids are in a trailer. Put them all in trailers. I don't care if my kids go to SC or TJ or Hayfield. Just make sure the bus gets to the stop on time and I'll take care of the rest.

When I lived in Newington Forest I said that Lorton kids should go to SC. Now that I live in Lorton, I say the same thing. Any solution that excludes Lorton kids from SC reeks of gerrymandering. However, it's not that big a deal.

I wish the Board would either solve this issue or drop it altogether. Then they could focus on ACTUAL issues - cheating at the schools (especially among "honors" students), attracting and retaining GOOD math teachers, getting the leeches OUT of the system, getting updated training for teachers of technology (especially CS teachers), getting internships for teachers, expanding and improving evolution education, expanding participation in extra-curriculars from kids in troubled homes.

Despite the high speeches, few parents care a whit about anyone else's kids other than their own. The talk about diversity is a farce. It's a wedge to justify getting one's own selfish needs met. The talk about crowding is silly. The talk about trailers is silly. The talk about travel time is silly. Despite any "studies" that show their importance, the most important factors that influence education are the attitudes and preparation given to the kids before they even get on the bus.

There's only one place education occurs and it's not in a trailer and it's not in a fancy building - it's between the ears of a student. To believe otherwise is to make the common mistake of conflating schooling (what gets done to you) with education (what you do for yourself).

Many times I am pleasantly surprised by the behavior of students at SC, but often I find myself appalled by it. So many of the kids turn to relentless whining when they don't get their way, a quality they have apparently acquired honestly.

Some people seem to have trained and continue to be training their kids to turn their brains off when they don't get what they want. "I didn't get in the shiny new school! I'm going to stand here and stomp my feet!"

http://fairboundaries.blogspot.com was posted earlier as a place to go if the Post shuts us down again. Glad I added the link to my favorites since it's not showing up as a comment from before.

Trailers are certainly not the best situation, but they are better than long bus rides and being in a Middle School for two years only to go back "home" to your "real" school. Gary is a facility manager and came up with a solution (#1) that is best from his perspective. He is not in the business of educating.

2A and 2B don't meet the board's objectives (eliminate overcrowding) and neither are politically feasible. Unfortunately #1 is the worst option for everyone and is worse than doing nothing at all. I makes the Middle Schools at Hayfield and LB overcrowed and borrows space from High Schools.

The board should delay action for at least another two years to allow the accuracy of the data to be evaluated and receive comments from educators.

FCPS needs a Middle School in South County. While the surrounding attendence areas are reported to be under capacity, the numbers do not give a complete picture of the situation and are of questionable accuracy.

Capacity of a school (and a pretend to care about demographics) is but one of many criteria that should be considered.

I suggest that this blog be renamed the Fairfax County School boundary study. It is about Hayfield, Lake Braddock and SCSS.

The next meeting(s) should be held at Lake Braddock and/or Hayfield - not SCSS. These communities should be included plus the SCSS auditorium is not big enough.

Thanks.

I think if more students are taken from Crosspointe and added to the 2B scenario it would solve the dilemma. SC would then reach under capacity,as would LB and H.

My kids go to Silverbrook and I would absolutely love it if we could get redistricted to Lake Braddock, especially for 6 years. It is a school with a proven track record.

For us it is worth the longer commute. If kids who live on Hampton Road can handle the bus ride to LB, we certainly can as well.

One way to relieve the pressure of SCSS 9or any over capacity school) is to make the pupil placement option easier for kids and parents. Any student going to an over-capacity school should be allowed (if not encouraged) to attend any school that is under-capacity if they are willing to provide transportation. They should be assured they can stay for the duration and have no restrictions (including sports). They should not have to convince anyone that their reason is "a good reason". They should be thanked for their willingness to help with the problem. There are kids in SCSS that would like to go to Hayfield and LB (or anywhere) -- Enough to move some trailers.

I agree with the above. There are so many kids from the Silverbrook area who switch to Lorton GT Center. They then go on to go to the GT Center at Lake Braddock for 7th and 8th grade. I think this would be a great idea to automatically allow them to continue. This is another reason why the SB should be pursuing 2B so more neighborhoods can go to LB. I really don't care about Hayfield, both 2a and 2b have the same neighborhoods being redistricted there.

FCPS regs say if you want to pupil place at a school you can submit the paperwork..the Principal is the decision maker most of the time. If it is already overcapacity you face an uphill battle.

Problem is, SCSS is a brand new state of the art school, right in most peoples back yard. Having no bus, and going back to an average school is not the choice that most would make.

Most people in the county do not want a countywide study. It has gone too long with the bandage approach and many have battle scars from their own studies. LET US HEAL.
The obvious phenomenon is when you are directly involved in a study, you push for a wider one in hopes of someone elses kid taking the undesirable choice from yours.
Well, we have extraordinary schools folks.Any of the ones in question will serve your student well. Stop complaining or move to Texas..most schools fail there.

I personally prefer Option 1. I would be wiling to have my kids go on a longer commute for 2 years if it ensured that that South County could remain as the high school for all the kids in the current boundaries. I live right across the street from SC and wouldn't be affected by Otions 2A or 2B. But if I'm willing to make the sacrifice despite knowing we are virtually guaranteed a spot, why can't the eastern and western sides of our area?

"Whining" - great comments. The problem is that people denigrate other neighborhood schools, with comments like "going back to an average school". Comments like these cause people to panic and think their kids won't get a good education at a different school. No wonder the SC is overcrowded, everyone pushed hard at the first boundary study to get in thinking they were getting something better, but did they? We do have extraordinary schools and we should appreciate them.

Why should we have the next Town Hall meeting at LB or Hayfield? SC is central to all parties.

Most of the options are reasonable but you can sumise there is history to each one. The fact remains that the overcrowding must be resolved.
There was a good reason this school was not built with FCPS money. It wasnt needed yet, and there was/is more immediate needs on the CIP.
One of the known risks to building the school was bringing in more development. Some of the community knew this, they were a part of the land task force that agreed to mass development in exchange for the school.
The schoolboard undeniably knew this and let the community seal the deal all the while adding more seats to an established plan to get more constiuents in.
No blame.Just shining the big light of truth- for what it is worth.Get over yourselves and pick an option.

Option 1, then 2B

We live in Fairfax Station. Many kids from other parts of Fairfax Station are already at Lake Braddock and live further away as compared to our Silverbrook association. We deserve the same consideration.

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=72494&paper=80&cat=104

Certain interest groups once again are trying to push ahead of others on the CIP. As a taxpayer, I think it is a waste to pay for a middle school to our area when we have so many empty seats at recently renovated Hayfield and newly renovated as of this January LB. There are plenty of schools on the CIP that desperately need their funding for renovation before we need a middle school.

As a taxpayer, i also am concerned about the schools taking most of its budget from the Countys budget and not being fiscally responsible.

If you have available seats in newly renovated buildings no less, then you better think twice before building an entire new school. Checkout the needs-bilions of dollars- on upgrades, renovations,electrical systems, A/C, hot water etc that will be pushed back. Is this really worth it?

^^^Whining, I agree with you. The costs are not worth it. From what I hear from other parts of Fairfax, the rest of the county is very angry with this entire debacle, beginning with the way the funding was found for the original building of SC.

Despite the political pressure not to do so, the School Board and Gary Chevallier must stick to the original 3 options and pick one. I have stated my preference for 2B in previous posts. If not 2B, I would like Option 1.

I think that if pupil placement was more user friendly more would use it then you think. There are many "good" reasons to transfer. There are no bad ones. A principal from an under capacity school should not have the authority to turn down kid from anywhere. Principals from under capacity schools should be encoraged to market to over capacity schools and be rewarded for taking on kids and relieving the pressure. I would probably not transfer my kids, but the ability to do so would be empowering.

Whining is bad, but standing up for yourself, taking a stand, and holding politicians and school officials is appropriate. It sets a good example for our children. Allowing your self to be taken advantage of and being a "chump" is a bad example. Don't confuse the two and make sure your are taking a stand and not whining.

HF, LB, SC, and MV are all good schools and the students are rightfully proud to attend them. It is the reason I don't like #1. #1 takes kids out of the community school situation. Even if Gary's numbers are correct (which they are historically wrong) it only meets the needs of the facility managers. The educators and parents don't like it because it is the worst option for education. The ones that like it do so because they see it as better than the other options and are willing to "put up with it for two years". No one really "likes it".

2A and 2B relieve the pressure on SCSS temporarily, but it will still be overcapacity and continue to grow. More agressive boundary changes are necessary and the space IS NOT available at HF and LB. It is not available now and will not be available in the future.

I think it is wrong to believe that HF and LB are under capacity. The predictions by FCPS have been consistently wrong. A walk through the buildings will quickly show that excess capacity is NOT available to fix the SC problem. A more comprehensive solution is necessary. Why jerk these families around now just to do it again later?

Leave the trailers at SCSS until we have an option that is better. All three options will result in overcrowding at LB and HF. Option #1 does it at the expense of education.

Some other options:
- more "Magnet" schools (like TJ or West Potomac)
- more liberal "pupil placement" or "student transfer" (this can be implemented immediately)
- complete county study of all pyramids

Why are you bring up Mount Vernon? It is not in the study and is not adjacent to the SC boundaries the way Hayfield and LB are.

We know that the 2 schools are undercapacity because we have seen in the past how many seats they could hold. Hayfield and Lake Braddock can absorb the SCSS overflow capacity together.

Option 1 keeps all schools undercapacity and more importantly, it retains the socioeconomic indicator percentages. 2A and 2B don't go far enough in redisticting enough students from SCSS.
My solutions are
for 2B: A little bit more of Silverbrook should be added to attend LB or
For 2A: the northern part of Crosspointe should be redistricted to Newington Forest and all of Newington Forest should go to LB.

Lewis P. The numbers are not "wrong" this time. Dr.McKibbon was hired as a consultant to review the process. He did find gross errors. Check www.fcps.edu under schoolboard for the report.Its our money the report is public.Gary explained this at the Town Hall Meeting.There is also a citizens task force appointed by the schoolboard that is involved, many from southcounty.
As painful as it is, there are plenty available seats in the high achieving-newly renovated($120 mill taxpayers)schools next door.

The risk of not using those seats is losing taxpayer and County funded support for our schools.Think of the failure of the bonds that will come around in 2 years. It will be catastrophic to ALL our schools.

Please say no to Option #1. It is the worst option from an educational perspective. It may make the numbers add up, but it is bad for the kids at a vulnerable time in their life. They are better off in a school where they don't fit physically than to be bussed away to a place where they do not fit in socially. A few may see this as something they can put up with for two years, but it creates a permanently bad situation for kids (and parents) from all three areas.

LB and HF Middle schools have an identity with their associated High Schools. The Secondary School principals and the communities build programs and school spirit around that concept. They are not Middle Schools with their own identity and where kids all go off to different High Schools. To put kids from SC at LB and HF would create (revive) serious problems. Those kids would rebel and maintain their loyalty to SC (again). Even the most involved families would hestitate to particitipate as they would not be there for the duration. We saw this the last couple of years. Of course the principals and the communtiy could deal with the situation. We would make the best of a difficult situation. But why create the problems when it is unecessary?

There is space at HF and LB but not as much as is reported and it is not as flexible as the facilities manager makes it out to be. The MS portion of has room for 250 more right now. Option #1 brings in 500 kids creating an overcrowded MS and an under capcity HS. Mix in the orange and green T-shirts and you have trouble (again). The cafeterias are overcrowded now and gym space is at a premium. Where will 500 more eat? We had this situation a few years ago and it did not work then.

Something should be done, but doing the wrong thing agressively is worse than doing nothing at all. If we must do something now, then choose 2A or 2B and modify the boundaries so that the schools can maintain their identity and school spirit. I lack confidence that this process can yield appropriate boundaries only looking at three attendence areas.

One example is that Mount Vernon was not part of the study. It shares a large border with SCSS and according to the CIP is under capacity as well (MS and HS). It was a mistake not to include it. All attendence areas around SCSS should have been included to allow the facilities staff to move the puzzle pieces around more effectively.

We have not heard much from the Mason Neck and Gunston area, but I am sure they feel strongly about staying at SCSS. They would be welcome back to HF, but the drive to HF is terrible -- they have been there before. As BRAC takes affect it will be even worse. While there is capacity at HF and MV to say it is "available" to this community may not be true.

It is best to delay action until better information is available on BRAC impacts (on transportation) and the McKibbon study has a chance to be analyzed. The facilities staff needs to be empowered with information and flexibility. If they must do something then change the boundaries, but please do not take the "easy road" create a mess with option #1.

We are over due for a county wide boundary study. Let's not jerk these kids around again and again.

I understand the original SC numbers were flawed. No question, this was clearly the fault of FCPS employees (F&L AND the SB).

Well this time, they hired an outside consultant as demanded. The considerations that were overlooked the first time such as future growth, private/home school guesstimates were taken in account this go around.

These numbers are accurate unlike the ones from before. If FCPS has the space it should be used before another school is built.

Don't waste the taxpayers' money. Use Option 1 until a middle school can be built at the appropriate time.

The McKibbon study was not finished in time to use the information properly. Time is needed to analyze the data and to use it to make new boundaries. The staff had to cherry pick data during the process to make these options. They did not have the advantage of the complete analysis.

The estimates might be accurate, but capacity is just one component of the decision process. The impact on the educational environment and traffic patterns should be considered as well.

Cost and feasibility are critical also. The cost of busses, bus drivers, the management, time lost, and the added traffic congestion is very expensive. It is questionable the they could get sufficient busses and drivers to meet option #1.

Bussing kids from SC to HF did not work before and nothing has changed to make it work now. Traffic is worse and will continue to deteriorate.

Don't waste taxpayer money bussing kids all over the county! Option #1 is too expensive and bad for education.

We, in the West Springfield community learned some very valuable lessons from the recent LB, Lee, West Springfield Boundary Review.

The most important, in retrospect, is that you must live with your neighbors & those left remaining at your schools AFTER the review is over. Be civil, keep the remarks to the business at hand, and conduct yourselves as neighbors should. You are not waged in issues that were caused by each other, but rather by demographics & politics.

Also, many of the issues at hand are created by the Zoning Departmen, not the School Board. They are merely left to deal with them.

Option 1 is the most evenhanded approach to sovling the OC issue at SC and the UC issue at H and LB. It is not my favorite option, but it fixes the seats problems and everyone does stay in SC for high school. They already have the buses and drivers.

Personally I would rather the Silverbrook neighborhoods north of Slverbrook, west of Hooes just be redistricted to LB and then we can be out of SC once and for all.

The post above is mine. You can add my name since I inadvertantly forgot.

There is just no way that filling up LBSS and HSS with middle school children is good for those schools. People pushing for option 1 are only thinking about keeping their kids at SCSS at any cost and are not thinking about the other schools involved. I agree with Lewis P, Option 1 is the worst option from an educational perspective. Only 2A and 2B are acceptable.

2B is the best. I would jump at any chance to get my kids out of the SC mess.

Dave Albo seems to be floating the idea of swapping land with the Army to get a middle school in South County in a hurry. It's interesting that a faction exists that is willing to spend more construction money even though right now we're expecting a surplus of seats for schools within a reasonable distance. The skeptic in me says this is just another opportunity to leave LBSS with surplus capacity. The western neighborhoods of WSHS would then be moved to LBSS to allow for better school capacity usage, therefore leaving room for Daventry to move into WSHS. Let's hope the powers that be look at the whole picture before pursuing this option.

The thing is that moving as the smaller group from HB to SC may be a step up epecially in the case of HB to SC. With the cases of LB to SC or Irving to Lee, there is no question that it is a srtep down. This is the reason why 2B should be embraced.

Having lived through the WSHS boundary review, I find it interesting that parents are willing to choose option 1. The crowd that wanted into WSHS kept using the argument that all their kids friends would move on to WSHS while their kids went to Lee. Admittedly the crowd moving on to Lee is smaller than what we're talking about with SCSS. Nevertheless I think it would be hard to be in a secondary school setting knowing that you were not moving on to the HS. Option 1 doesn't really seem to have the best intesest of the students at heart.

P.S. Oscar B. Server why don't you admit that your thoughts aren't your own?

Mr/Ms Outside Watcher...I did not claim that my posting was an absolute original thought of mine. Nonetheless it is something I agree with and believe and thought merited discussion. I apologize if I offended you.

Addressing the bussing issue. The schoolboard also hired a transportation consultant. The report is available online. They brought them back to set up an ideal model to adjust bell times.

Some of their suggestions are interesting .. needless to say, the bus ride from SC to HF would no longer be 45 minutes.

They conquered that argument by taking away busses within 2 mile radius, GT center busses, and more.Check with your schoolboard member for the most recent updates.

The bell schedule is far from ideal for middle school SC parents and families. It is very difficult for working parents to rearrange their schedules to get their kids off to school. In the afternoon, the late release prohibits participation in extracurricular activities that are scheduled based on the needs of the majority not just on SC.

2B would take the east of I95 neighborhoods and send them to Hayfield. The western neighborhoods that would be sent to Lake Braddock are the ones north of Silverbrook/west of Hooes.

This is the ideal fix.

Any thoughts on an agressive pupil placement policy change? LB Lover and anyone interested in going to an undercapacity school should be encouraged to do so. Especially if they are in an over capacity school. Principals and schools that are able to recruit kids from over capacity schools should be rewarded for helping reduce the overcrowding. LB and HF could have special "activity days" where SC rising 7th (and others) graders can check things out and consider pupil placement. Athletes, Thesbians, and scholars should be unrestricted in placing themselves in the best opportunity to get college scholarships. There are those that are willing to transport themselves for these opportunities. Right now the policy is too hard. I heard a rumor that athletes from SC to HF must wait a year to play. It is not confirmed, but if true that should be changed. Kids willling to help with the problem should be encouraged to do so. Thoughts?

"The thing is that moving as the smaller group from HB to SC may be a step up epecially in the case of HB to SC. With the cases of LB to SC or Irving to Lee, there is no question that it is a srtep down. This is the reason why 2B should be embraced."

LB Lover, how dare you suggest Lee or HB (whatever that is, Hayfield?), or any other school is a step down. Who do you think you are? Lee and Irving are not in this study, so why bring them up? Your comments are just plain nasty.

FFH, I'm basing my evaluation on test scores and violence incidents as reported on the FCPS websites.

Lewis P., Who on earth is going to pupilplace from SC to H? Part of last year's overcrowding problem is that the SB didn't just open SC with 9-10th graders, but they gave 11th graders the option to switch over as well. There weren't a whole lot of 11th graders who opted to stay behind at the old school.

There are several PP from SC to HF right now. More have expressed interest. If we make it easy and without constaints more will go. Also, I am not suggesting that they go to HF. I am suggesting that they be allowed to go to ANY under capacity HS in the county for ANY reason without constaints and for the duration of their HS experience (actually liberal PP would work for Elementary schools as well). That would allow LB lover to get his/her wish along with some others. It couldn't hurt to try. It probably won't solve the OC, but it will make some people happy and help a little. Nobody loses with PP.

You asked who? Here are examples of kids who would transfer. These don't have to be real - only perceived by the kid/parent:
- an athlete that is JV at base school that could be starting Varsity at transfer
- a better AP or IB program
- avoid over crowding
- avoiding a stawker or bully that the administration can't or won't do anything about
- better music or arts program
- closer to the Dance studio or church they go to
- avoid a coach that doesn't play them
- fresh start
- get away from a clique or gang
- access to a teacher or coach they like or likes them
- friends from 5th and 6th grade are going there
- fellow little league baseball team players are going there
- It is a shorter drive to that school.
- the kids across the street go there

This sounds crazy, but I have seen it work well in another school district. The vast majority stay at their base school -- but even they know they can go somewhere else. The power of free enterprise and greed takes over and everyone wins (except incompentent school administrators).

LB lover, you didn't notice that Lee has had less violence than Lake Braddock over the past two years? Did you consider the esol and free and reduced lunch numbers at schools like Lee and Hayfield and factor them into your evaluations? Look at Langley demographics and then compare their test scores to Lake Braddock, way ahead. Is Lake Braddock a step down from Langley? Have you ever been to schools like Lee and Hayfield and seen for yourself how well run they are and how well mannered the kids are? Those schools get new students on a regular basis who cannot speak a word of English, they educate them and they still continue to rank year after year in the top 5-10% of schools in the nation. I am extremely proud of schools like Lee and Hayfield. I think the reason you don't want to go to SC is they have higher diversity than Lake Braddock. The reason we have problems with neighborhoods not wanting to go back to Hayfield is due to comments like yours. You are causing trouble, not helping.

After watching the Lee/WSHS split feeder issue and study be mangled by the SB, I've been curious how the SC effort would play out.

And it's comments like LB Lover's concerning "step downs" to SC or Lee, and also Oscar B.'s comments on making sure no room would ever be made for Daventry at WSHS, that make me happy I'm not involved in any of this mess and can stay happy and contented with our well-mannered, diverse, less-crimed Lee friends. (That is one long sentence...and is "less-crimed" even a word?) The sense of entitlement in this county is sometimes stunning. And who would even consider funding a new school with all the capacity sitting so close at HB and LB? Puh-leaze.

Why would you assume we are not minorities? Just because I write in a grammatically correct format does not mean I am uneducated even if English is not my first language!

My spouse and I are first-generation immigrants from different countries, thus our kids are counted in the minority population. Do we not count?

Why would we compare Langley to SC or LB? It's in a completely different area of the county. I compared LB, SC and H because those are the 3 schools in the study.

LB Lover, you compared Lee high school to Irving and claimed that Lee was a step down from Irving. Now you are trying to say you only compared LB, SC and H? Go back and read your previous post. How is comparing Langly to LB any different than your comparison of Lee to Irving? They are outside of this study. You are the one making ugly comments about other community schools, comments that you cannot justify. Hayfield and Lee are highly successful schools, full of fine families with wonderful children. Your comments are not appreciated.

There are MANY that would consider funding a new MS in SC. The capacity at the surrounding attendence areas is barely sufficient to handle the current population and the SC area is continuing to grow. Also, the the capacity at HF, LV, MV, and others is not readily available to the SC area due to long distance and traffic patterns.

Lewis P- Are you advocating a voucher system? The outcome of that is the have and have-nots. In this part of the world, segregation is a painful part of our past(just a few years ago, we spent a few thousand on making sure those segregated students that didnt complete highschool could). Our schools and superintendent have vowed to keep the schools diverse, and we plan to hold them too it.Remember in the 60's, bussing to keep it diverse happened...

Option 1 is the fairest in terms of retaining the F/R Lunch and ESOL percentages. It does not make any one school skew in any direction.

I am not advocating a voucher system for FCPS. People that want to send their kids to private schools should be willing to pay. I am advocating that students should be allowed to pp in undercapacity schools -- especially when they are in an OC school.

Yet, I disagree with the premise that vouchers create have and have-nots. Where it has been tried this has not been the case and it has met huge success. It has helped the very people critics said it would hurt. People tend to want to stay at their community school because that is the best. The ability to go somewhere else forces Administration's that dimiss parents concerns to pay attention. It empowers parents of all economic levels. A more liberal PP policy would do that for FCPS.

Diversity in schools is important and a maintaining it is a worthy goal. The SB should continue to strive for it. PP will help achieve that goal. ESOL/FRL kids should not have to pay the price of being forced to bus all over the county to make it happen. Everyone deserves community schools.

Bussing was a huge failure in this country and we should learn from our mistakes. We found that maintaining community schools was far more important than maintaining diversity. We can have both in FCPS, but should maintain coummunity schools at all costs. That was the big lesson of the bussing debacle.

Option #1 is "fair" because it treets every attendence area bad. It creates pain and spreads it to all . It creates split feeders at community Middle schools in places designed as part of Secondary Schools, busses kids across the county unecessarily, over crowds LB and HF MS, sends 7th and 8th graders to schools where they don't want to go (and feel unwanted), and leaves LB and HF HS under capacity. Additionally, it does not provide LB and HF the HS students it needs to maintain programs.

Options 2A and 2B are ok, but need some work to get SC below 100%. They also only work in the short term as the SC area is growing (according to the McKibbon study). Unfortunatley, they also have kids bussing long ways when there is a school nearby. That is why we need to delay this decision until we can get a county wide study and/or a MS in SC. The spaces exist in surrounding areas, but it is not readily availble due to traffic (which is getting worse).

The ESOL/FRL is a useful guideline for maintaining diversity, but it only considers economic diversity, not cultural diversity. The numbers are different in the three options, but I don't think the difference is enough to choose one over the other.

Please stop option #1. It is bad for everyone. It appears "fair" because it shares misery -- misery created by the option. We do not have to create this misery for everyone. We have the McKibbon study now. Let's use it to make some comprehensive boundary changes.

I think that 2A and 2B are both a start, but don't go far enough. For both of the "2s", send ALL of Lorton Station to Hayfield. This would create a Hayfield population of slightly over 90.2% capacity which be a decent buffer for future BRAC growth.

For the SC to LB redistricting, Option 2A could add a couple more communities to the Newington Forest group that would be redistricted.

Option 2B could add more of Crosspointe to get redistricted.

These tweaks to 2A and 2B would bring SC undercapacity while not overcrowding LB or H.

How about Newington Forest to HF?

It needs to be just 2A or 2B to make the school board go for it. Either ALL of Silverbrook gets redistricted in the case of 2B OR it needs to be Newington Forest and Barrington.

Portions of the Halley and Silverbrook attendance areas should go to Lake Braddock. Hagel Circle should be at Lorton Station. Gunston should go to Hayfield as well as portions of Lorton Station. Each secondary school should be analyzed appropriately for operational capacity as opposed to square footage and all three should be left with about 95% open capacity. Furthermore FCPS can have these kids take honors geometry with the HS. The HS should run sections of honors geometry for gr 9 and 10 only - same for alg 2. FCPS should examine the GT boundaries and sending receiving numbers as well as look at base school boundaries on the elementary level. Each of these 3 secondary schools has a large enough population to support an in-house GT center critical mass. Why bus them?

Resource Allocation,

Lots of GT kids and non-GT students who are accelerated in math only take Algebra 1 in 7th grade. This renecessitates a course offering of Geometry in 8th grade.

Lake Braddock is the GT Center for several schools to include South County. We fought to get South County redesignated to the LBSS GT Center from Twain. Don't switch it back!

Do SC kids that go to LBSS for GT get to stay at LBSS for HS? or do they have to go back to SCSS?

GT Center kids who don't go to TJ end up going to their base hs. This is not a problem as many of them keep friends in the neighborhood and will rejoin their buddies at the local hs/ss in 9th grade.

Meeting on 11/1 needs to be moved to a larger room. The SCSS auditorium is not large enough for the crowd we all no will be attending.

You are right dude. SCSS auditorium is way too small. Tell Gary and the SB while they still have time to change it. I feel for his staff that would have to change all the forms -- they probably would like to reuse the old ones. But, that place is not big enough -- it will not be safe with a rowdy crowd. Move to HF of LB.

Don't forget there is a public meeting THIS Thursday, October 26 at Silverbrook Elementary, 7:30 pm to discuss this issue before the next town hall meeting. At least 3 SB members have been invited according to the FCPS website.

Yes please attend the meeting. It is our chance to be heard and remain vigilant.

I was told that the Silverbrook Community meeting is really just for the neighborhoods of Silverbrook only.

The meeting at Silverbrook is up on the FCPS website to notify everyone that school buisness make be discussed by SB members.

http://www.fcps.edu/schlbd/requests.htm

Lewis p is correct.
If more then two school board members attend a meeting then it must be made public on the FCPS website to let all know that school business may be discussed. I believe one or more of the at-large school board members will be attending, which means these officials elected by the entire county. Any county residence has a right to attend a public meeting in which their elected representative will be attending regardless if they live in Silverbrook, Crosspointe, Barrington Etc. These members are not Silverbrook's personal servants and they should hear from all factions that elect them.

Not everybody in the Silverbrook area wants to stay in the South County boundaries. Many of us would prefer LB for a variety of reasons.

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/october10meetingnotes.htm

These are the meeting notes from the Town Hall Meeting on 10 October.

I was appalled at the attitudes last night at the meeting. Although the one of the main speakers initially denied that the greater Silverbrook area is "entitled" to go to SC, in the next breath she said that Silverbrook has earned the privilege being at SC due to all the hard work of Crosspointe and Barrington residents.

I must extend kudos to SB members Steve Hunt and to a smaller extent to Dan Storckfor looking at this objectively. A major problem is occurring at SC with the overcrowding and they seemed to be the only ones willing to address it.

Definitely not a lot of opportunity for dissension last night!

LB Lover, we get the point that you, a Crosspointe, Silverbrook parent, would rather have your children go to Lake Braddock. But for those of us who bused out children to Hayfield from the Silverbrook area, the idea of going 6 miles away to LB is more of the same -- too far and not in our community. SC isn't any better than Hayfield. It is just closer and it is a community school. I'm sorry you don't feel more connected to your community. The meeting last night was well run, the attitudes were far from appalling and the School Board members and other officials present all took the situation very seriously.

The meeting at Silverbrook Elementary last night (10/26) was very well run and very civil. They had six board members, Rep. Tom Davis, a couple of supervisors, Dave Albo, and Tistadt from faciilities in attendence. The speakers were well prepared and made the case that all three options would not work for these reasons:

1. Core Facilities were not sufficient at LBSS to take on the numbers of kids being moved.
2. Execss capacity at LBSS is "projected" and not actual. Projected numbers have historically been low.
3. Transportation is far and congested.

All of these issues apply to the Lorton/Gunston move to Hayfield (and the Middle School out option), but this was a Silverbrook presentation and so they focused on the potential movement of kids to LBSS.

There seemed to be agreement in the room and with the officials that delaying any action for at least a year (to gather more information) was an option and probably the best option.

Many of us are very much in favor of ensuring capacity at LBSS (and Hayfield) is used to the extent possible for a variety of reasons.

Rest assured Oscar.

SC Parent - I agree with you 100%, thank you for saying that!
If you are not happy at the school pupil placement to LB is always another option. LBLover, please don't assume everyone in the Silverbrook area would like to go to LB. Let other's speak for themselves and don't speak for them.

I have never claimed to speak for the entire Silverbrook community let alone my neighborhood. That being said, there are people in Silverbrook who would like the Silverbrook part of Fairfax Station to be redistricted into Lake Braddock just like the Roseland, Henderson Rd/Hampton Rd areas already there.

More support for improving the pupil placement policy! Families should be allowed to pp for ANY REASON to an under capacity school -- especially from an over capcity school!

Orange Crush- What are you saying?WSHS families should keep SCSS OUT of LBSS? This must be an imposter. Surely nobody in the WSHS district would ever agree with this unless you wanted ANOTHER study in Springfield??

The statements made at Silverbrook meeting last night indicating BRAC will somehow cause the SB to adjust WSHS and Lee again are pipe dreams.As said above (somewhere) they left a buffer, and if you follow anything besides school issues, you can read up on the reports about BRAC.Not bringing more students to our area.

Leave other areas out of this SCSS mess. The boundary study has a focus, all options must be directed to those schools so indicated.

I have been reading these comments for weeks now and must say that I am embarrassed to call this county "home" if this is how my fellow community members think of one another. From what I can discern from the blog, many SCSS parents think that ESOL and/or F/R lunch students are the dregs of society who hold no promise in their future, and that their presence from the new high school must be eradicated in order to keep the school flourishing. (Actually I think I read specifically that if the well-to-do families leave SCSS, then the PTO will collapse for lack of volunteers.)
Who among you is naive enough to think that the children of privilege never get into trouble (wasn't there trouble recently at Mt. Vernon HS related to Homecoming and the athletes? And then another incident recently with MySpace photos being sent to the police lieutenant that identified underage drinkers from another area HS?) Who among you is naive enough to think that our GT programs do not contain children who need help paying for their lunch, or who live in income-limited housing?
All children have the potential to succeed in life -- not in the way that many people count as "success", by looking at the car in the driveway or the size of their home, or by which subdivision they live in, but by the way that they help others. All children have the potential to grow up expecting others to take the blame for them, make things right for them, get what they want for them, when they want it, and get them out of trouble when they screw up -- or worse. The way they turn out is a result, in large part, of what they learn at home.
People, please take a moment and think about what you write here, and what you say at the meetings, and even what you are saying at home around the dinner table. Your children are listening -- and talking -- about this issue around town too. Make this an opportunity to give them the tools to face other discussions with grace and dignity as adults.

Thanks for the sermon NewObserver, but what are you talking about? ESOL? F/R lunches? Where did that come from? We want to stay at a community school two miles away from our homes.

Maybe NewObserver's comments were "not a sermon, just a thought."

Hey Observer, sounds like you "observe" from LS, same type of remarks from other blogs of the past. No one has spoken about ESOL or F/R lunches. Why is this your continued concern? All certain communities want is to stay at SCSS, there has been no mention of the issues you refer to. Stop pulling that tired card. Your choir is singing the same old song. New song this time around.
HEY HIT IT BOYS....

Hey LB LOVER, we never whinned about Hayfield, only you did. Hayfield is a beautiful school, but you wouldn't know that because you no doubt pupil place. Let's be honest here, if you want LB so much then why did you move into the Hayfield boundaries that became SCSS? Because the truth is you don't live in the Silverbrook boundaries do you? You are just trying to use this blog to give the wrong impression of what the majority truly wants -SCSS. Shame on you, you little instigator!

I agree with Posted by: | October 28, 2006 10:51 AM

To add to that position, no current or potential walkers should be moved from South County or any other school if capacity permits. Another factor is combining middle and high school bus routes particularly in low density areas.

If that middle school is in the pipeline I believe people in other areas of this county need to contact their elected officials because it is fiscally irresponsible. It is also a perfect example of why Virginia will not increase funding to Fairfax County.

FCPS should account for future construction and not go by current elementary school boundaries for base and special programs like GT centers. Non-base GTC students should be where there is space and if possible run in-house at large schools. For secondary schools students can take geometry in gr 8 with gr 9 assuming the principals schedule properly. Therefore there is not the problem of on-line classes.

There should be spreadsheet comparisons examining core facility capacity which should be reasonably equitable considering all 3 are renovated schools. That is not true where capacity was increased on the CIP via modulars.

Furthermore FCPS has had open capacity at the renovated Mount Vernon for years. FCPS did that assuming it would hold some who decided to remain at the over capacity Hayfield. Fort Belvoir will have over 2000 new residences on site which I hope will attend Mount Vernon.

2:01p

I understand your point, but I disagree with your facts and assumtions. Even if what you said was completely true, we are where we are now and need to look forward. The only real solution is to build a MS. The available space at HF and LB is not sufficient to accomodate SCSS and the future growth. Some of the pressure can be released, but SCSS will still be oc. The question is what to do in the meantime? The people in the three areas seem to agree that the trailers are fine for now. The politicians seem to be willing to delay action for now. I would much prefer they wait then to make a bad decision (e.g. Option #1).

I think that some of LS and Gunston can go to HF, but most of those kids would spend the day stuck in traffic like before. They might as well stay at an OC SCSS.

LB may be near full next year without any SCSS students. The renovations will bring back some pp and private school kids for sure. We should wait on any moves to there until we see what happens. The real capacity of that school has probably been overstated. Even Tistadt said he needed to check into that issue.

HF was overcrowded for almost two decades with no end in sight. If SCSS was not built HF & LB would be still be overcrowded.

So do we need a MS and a Boundary change? HF could use some more HS kids.

Oops, my mistake. I seem to have referred to an earlier blog page where I read the comments re: ESOL and F/R lunch, and I guess I didn't know the rules that I wasn't allowed to bring it up on a new page. That was my very first blog. And no, not really meant to be a "sermon" -- this just isn't the kind of thing you want to hear your neighbors' kids talking about in Dairy Queen in derogatory terms.
But I understand now that nothing stops the bloggers here from making assumptions. This is not a venue for Ladies or Gentlemen, and I'll simply mind to my own children.
Good luck to all of you -- I hope it works out in some way that everyone can be peaceful.

Orange Crush, you should be careful with your statements. One could easily look to your area for LBSS, again. Please leave us to our issue. We understand the importance of community schools.