Posts
At last night's policy committee meeting, a majority of the school board indicated its desire to have a special committee to study the existing boundary policies and make recommendations to the full Board prior to the next boundary process, which is expected this fall. After Tom Marshall raised potential policy changes at a goal-setting session on Monday night and Bob Ohneiser raised two more at the Legislative/Policy committee last night, I suggested that we review the boundary policies in their entirety instead of tacking on changes one at a time. Others concurred and the committee unanimously passed a resolution recommending the establishment of an ad-hoc committee to the full board, which I would expect to affirm the recommendation.
As I explained to one die-hard parent in attendance last night, the Board hasn't had a forum to conduct a review of all that happened during the most recent boundary process, and what can be done to improve the next process. I hope the committee will do a thorough job of deciding what was done well, what can be done better, and whether our policies need modification.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
School Board to study boundary process?
Labels: Boundaries, Policies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 Comments:
Honestly, I don't see what good that is going to do - nobody follows the policies in place now. So what makes you think they'll be followed in the future?
Unless of course, it becomes a one line policy for boundaries - feeder system. More politics coming.
Can't wait until the next school bond comes up to vote - I'm voting NO!!!! You all can't manage what you have!!! Why waste more of my tax dollars?
You should put in the policy that once kids start at a high school, they will finish at that high school.
Also include that any boundary zone cannot be moved more than 2 times in a 10 year period.
Considerations for boundary changes should be altered to include things exactly like favoring the feeder system to ensure shared-experiences, not moving any community temporarily or moving any community out of their planning district and rational distribution of students among schools at build-out etc. Having kids finish at the high school they start (if they provide their own transportation) should also be allowed. "Sports" exceptions in crowded schools should be eliminated as well.
If these long term considerations aren't comprehensive and prioritized, we will end up with a cut up mess when we are done where some communities are being shipped far away from their neighborhoods and neighborhood schools so that a few vocal and aggressive communities don't have to change at all. Nobody owns the schools no matter where they live, how long they have lived there or what other schools they have attended in the past.
Providing more criteria for plan acceptance and prioritizing the criteria will also make it difficult (politically) to defend plans that don't address these objective concerns.
The DN area doesn't need to move many more times, especially if we wait until HS6 is built. That being said, no matter how many times a community has been moved in the past, we don't have many more moves to make so we should make sensible moves and make them once.
I welcome the review of the boundary process. The last go round, one community was made the "target" and viewed as the "problem". This wasn't a "process". This is a DN problem to solve and all communities in DN should be on the table and considered for boundary change no matter what their history, proximity to a school, where they get their mail or what canine they prefer.
Feeder system is a great concept, but it has changed several times in the DN zone in the last 5 years. It's also a great concept when you have equal numbers of MS & HS. We don't have that now and won't for at least another 8 years according to the CIP. Sterling has a stable feeder system and Leesburg just got voted a stable feeder system. They also don't have the expected growth from new developments that Ashburn/DN has. That is why the DN area won't have stability for a long time. So why implement a feeder system now when it's going to keep changing?
The argument for keeping student communities together is a joke. Yeah, it keeps some together, but DN35 has already moved 2 times in the past 5 years and if this past mess was passed, that would make 3 times in 6 years. The only stability that those students have is knowing they will change schools every 2 years.
Proximity to a school, how many times a child and family have already been forced to change schools should ABSOLUTELY be considered. It's easy for anyone that hasn't been moved at all to claim the feeder system is the best option - after all, keeping the feeder system will ensure you don't get moved again.
I don't hold out much hope that even if the boundary process is changed, that politics won't enter into it. Just look at the last couple of times the school board tried to purchase a new school site.
What I find ABSOLUTELY incredible is that the BoS is considering a new baseball stadium, the possibility of bringing DC United here and a new college campus (GMU/NOVA), but can't even get their act together when it comes to the kids already living here.
One Loudoun is bringing a lot more houses and families, the Kincora project, if approved, would bring more houses, etc. Where are the new schools? Oh, we'll figure that out later and in the meantime let's just keep shifting everybody around.
I also find it amazing that the school board/planning commission, given the tough economic times, proposes a solution that buses MORE kids farther and longer than they already are. Talk about a huge waste of money in the long run.
It's always politics as usual!!!
I think the whole system needs to be evaluated. This includes looking at policy for how large a single zone can be. Once it gets to be approximately 200 kids at a certain school level it needs to be broken up. When there are zones with 400 kids, it makes it almost impossible to come up with proper boundaries. I also think they need to re-evaluate these districts. It seems to me, there should be some clear cut lines that go in line with the the policy. As it is stated, natural and man-made barriers. For example, why is Ashburn Farm split between two districts. Isn't Rte 7 a more natural boundary? Should mailing address also dictate something? I think these all should be addressed.
An overhaul really needs to be put in place. This process is exhausting to all families involved. They are pitting neighbor versus neighbor, it is awful. The Planning Staff asks for input, but then doesn't use it. There should be something that states, you can't put out a recommendation that is based on some far fetched logic. Another policy should be - A community with a school in its neighborhood should not be bused out for another neighborhood to be bused in. This would mean, not moving Lansdowne out of Belmont Ridge MS and not moving Ashburn Farm out of Stone Bridge. Both are ridiculous scenarios. I say this as both the HS and MS boundaries will be back up for re-evaluation within the next few years. Belmont Ridge will need relief.
It's not the boundary process that is the root problem, but rather the disconnect between approving residential development and building schools. How about identifying permanent school boundaries when new communities are approved and, if those schools don't exist, then building them immediately. What? We can't afford to build the schools? Then we can't afford the development. For example, where are all the kids in One Loudoun going to attend school? Has that been identified? Is that going to be a new school? Or an existing school? If an existing school, then which other neighborhoods are going to get bumped to accommodate One Loudoun? If a new school, when will it be built? Ten years after the first residents move in? Where are the kids in the new Wegmans shopping center slated to attend school?
If we want "neighborhood schools," then we need to build more schools in more neighborhoods. And we residents need to suck it up on the expense and also support that idea for everyone, not just our own kids. Right now, a lot of us want a neighborhood school for our own families and too bad for everyone else. If we want the lower expense of fewer schools, then we have to accept that our schools are regional and not claim ownership just because we live across the street or are in a particular HOA.
There isn't going to be some "magic" school boundary policy that solves the pickle the county finds itself in. If you want stable boundaries, you have to build the schools before all the houses are built. If you want to defer that cost until it absolutely can't be avoided, then you have to accept that boundaries will change all the time. It's really not that complicated.
You are right about the root problem. However, the boundary process could be tweaked a little and at the very least, followed by the planning commission when coming up with boundaries.
You also can't claim ownwership of a school based on the feeder system. We've already proven that it's not going to work in DN for the forseeable future.
Yes, boundaries do change. But the same houses should not be subjected to changes every 2 years. Fairfax County has wording in their policy to avoid changing the same house/dwelling only once in 3 years.
anon at 10:35, you aren't taking into account that this is a by right state with no APFOs or impact fees.
Development can occur at base density as an administrative, rather than legislative, process, simply based on the Comp Plan and existing ordinances.
That's what caused some of the school difficulties in Dulles South: over 2000 residential units were built here by right during the 1999 board, and they have to be provided for too, whether they included any land for schools, or roads, or parks, or anything else.
There is no mechanism here to set aside/reserve/take land for schools before development is built (including that development allowed by right), which is what the school board was attempting to do with Wheatland: purchase and reserve in advance the land necessary to provide the schools that would be needed at current base density in the rural area at buildout.
Only through proffers from a legislative land approval can land be transferred to the county to be held and used when needed, at least currently.
Sweeping changes would need to occur at the state and local level in order to implement some of the solutions currently under discussion countywide for a new site selection/implementation process.
There is the mechanism of condemnation to take land, but that is a whole different can of worms, approaching a subject you also touched on in a different context: some neighborhoods wanting something, and to hell with everybody else.
God help us when all decisions are made by an angry mob, and enforced through government takings.
Barbara Munsey
You want to improve the boundary process? Stop the process of emptying the existing schools in favor of filling new megaschools in order to justify the enormous expense of opening them before they are needed.
I will also be voting 'no' to all new school bonds until our elected officials can get their heads out of random places and use the capacity they've already been given.
I think the "feeder system" is ridiculous, the DN vs. CL boundary process is arbitrary (why can't
"DN's" move into "CL" schools-makes no sense?).
And I think the politics in this county are absolutely criminal. I love watching how the few obnoxious elected officials on both the school board and the BoS get their way-I think they just wear down the opposition and are appeased in order to get them to stop yapping.
Anyway, the whole system needs to go.
Eric, that's a bandaid, and a tiny one at that.
It still doesn't address the parity issue of class size, or grade size, given the minute capacity of some of the schools.
Maybe the future for those schools should be regional special needs, instead of serving most in Leesburg.
Barbara Munsey
Barb,
When the elementary schools in the west are fully utilized, they have a higher class size than those in the east. Perhaps it is a parity issue but not the way you wish to paint. I think you will find most parents in these schools have no problem with larger class sizes than yours - the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Eric, I agree that full cap leaves marginally larger class sizes than SOME eastern school--by about 2 or 3 kids.
However, that class size is also the GRADE size in many cases.
Yes, it is a HUGE parity issue, in both individual attention AND cost per pupil.
Barbara Munsey
"Yes, it is a HUGE parity issue, in both individual attention AND cost per pupil."
The grades are smaller in a smaller school, Barb - this is true. And it is a positive thing but IF the schools are kept full (which goes back to the boundary issues) they cost no more per student.
You are not suggesting that we close perfectly usable schools simply because the grade sizes are smaller. You really think we should build all new space for these kids (at $20K a child) simply because you think it is unfair that the school is a 2 track school instead of 6? All other things are equal after all.
Eric, $20K per child is about what it costs now in the buildings where the grade is also the class.
You are pulling that figure out of the air as an operating cost for more efficient schools.
In addition, let's talk to Troll the 1/2 Environmentalist for a minute; is he in there?
Some of the older buildings would not meet current code on a variety of issues.
Do we expend massive amounts to bring them in line (thereby further raising the cost per child, which is already multiples of many other schools' costs), and then continue with the inequitable service for a very narrow segment of the population at large?
I mean, if we're one county and all...
Barbara Munsey
"$20K per child is about what it costs now in the buildings where the grade is also the class."
The $20K per child is what it costs to build new seats for the kids you want to relocate out of their paid for existing schools. It is not an oeprating budget figure.
Again, sigh, again, when the schools were FULLY utilized (see my first post regarding the boundary process), the operating costs are the same for all schools regardless of size. One can argue that due to reduced need for bussing, the smaller community-based schools cost less than the larger regional schools to operate.
"Do we expend massive amounts to bring them in line...?"
No, since this is a capital expenditure question, I will use the Hamilton ES school as an example. The committee that recommended the rennovation of Hamilton ES (one of the lowest cost per student schools in the county on the operating budget side) examined the cost to build new space for these kids versus the rennovation that brought it up to current standards. It was clear to all involved that fiscally the smart thing to do was rennovate and NOT build new space for these kids - it wasn't even close. This is why it was approved by the committee as a recommendation and further why the SB and BOS supported the rennovation as well. Fiscally it is much better to use the existing facilities you have instead of building new from scratch. Furthermore, not all of the older schools requier rennovation at this point.
What I want to dispell here is your continued rant that there is inequity in the continued use of these schools. The inequity you love to promote is a creation resulting from the UNDER USE of these schools. If we use the schools the way we use the other schools in the county, there is absolutely no inequity.
This responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Stevens and the rest of the SB (who just voted to approve a boundary adjustment that exacerbates your inequity not improves it. Where is your cry of "foul!" "inequity!" ... I guess that would not help you promote an east vs. west divide so it won't be coming from your posts...
"Again, sigh, again, when the schools were FULLY utilized (see my first post regarding the boundary process), the operating costs are the same for all schools regardless of size."
Uhh, no.
Never has been, never will be.
Dividing cost between 125 kids instead of 120 doesn't make it magically cost the same as a 4 or 5K seat.
Many people are pushing for much LARGER schools than are currently approved, Eric.
Continuing to fight for private schools for a very few kids does little-to-nothing for your argument, and does less than zero for "we're all one here".
Barbara Munsey
Evidence, Barb: look at the operating cos per student of the schools that are fully utilized. And we are not talking about going from 120 to 125 student (Queen of Hyperbole) we are talking about running a school at 50% utilization which magically (unless you happen to have a 3rd grade math education) doubles the cost per student.
School boundary policies that already exist are generally fine, if they are followed. . . first and foremost by the LCPS planning staff and then by the School Board. It might help if the existing policies were prioritized or even simplified.
What is wrong with proximity and community being core values in boundary decisions? It clearly is the priority for parents from Lovettsville to Ashburn to Middleburg, based on tracking boundary and school siting decisions and debates over the last several months.
Eric, no hyperbole, because I purposely didn't use the smallest of the small schools.
I'll never forget when one CIP about 10 years back had Hillsboro listed at 110% of capacity!!!!
...because it had NINE extra kids.
Barbara Munsey
Your distain for any small schools (along with anything west of SR) is apparent. I'm sure you are aware that even a one track school (the smallest schools) has more than 125 student capacity.
You are indeed the QH. The reigning champion.
I am so glad to see that there is effort toward this being a much better process with better outcomes. I never want to go through this again and feel that the outcomes would have been very different had the starting point been accurate and common sense been applied. Great news.
Post a Comment