For the second time in a month the Loudoun School Board will be meeting in closed session today at 5:30 to discuss the Superintendent’s contract (see the announcement here). That announcement says no action is anticipated, so I guess they’ll have more of these meetings. Does anyone trust anything these people do, or believe that anyone other than Hatrick is really calling the shots?
UPDATE: So at the same time the School Board is huddled working out who knows what modifications to Herr Hatrick’s contract, Hatrick is already launching the next PR wave about the “dismantling” of the schools based on harsh economic realities (well, harsh for us average citizens that is, not for the nicely compensated chief). John Stevens’ blog post about the last School Board meeting includes these gems:
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Nov 11th by Loudoun Insider
If they give Hatrick a raise or an extension I’ll puke.
They still don’t understand that we’re in a major recession and that Loudoun Cunty has been especially hard hit, do they?
And what part of the “dramatic underfunding” resulted in their holding $28 million aside “for a rainy day”? Sorry, until someone on that board explains where they got the idea that they could complain about not getting enough funding while at the same time funneling off funds into an account that sat unused I’m not going to be especially trusting of their projections and predictions of doom.
No Way, Get out your B bag, I’ll bet he’s getting a contract extension until well into the next Board’s term so he has plenty of time to poison the new recruits that we WILL get elected.
Enrollments are going up so finding a cost effective way to manage more students is a challenge. It’s HOW LCPS plans, sites, constructs, equips, staffs and operates their schools that need a fresh NEW look by a NEW Sup. LCPS refuses and the County enables that refusal to control costs by embracing the national trend of schools functioning more like community centers. More strategically located walkable multi-tasking facilities will be far cheaper for the County to fund over the long haul.
Current players are very territorial and will fight reorg and merging functions to their last breath. We just can’t afford all these bureaucrats’ desperate attempts to protect their ponds. Maybe the new Co Administrator has some new ideas and good Sup candidate collegues he can work with to restructure the beast that is LCPS.
Now that we have a new County Adminstrator, it is absolutely imperative that we get a new School Superintendent. The old ways of doing things at both the county and school levels are obviously not working. Times are tough, and since Hatrick obviously can’t get that through his thick skull, it is time he is terminated.
You are correct, we absolutely WILL have a new School Board next term. All of them need to go – each and every one of them.
Here’s an interesting comment by Hatrick from an article in the Loudoun Independent, “Everyone who I know that works for schools is taking this financial situation very, very seriously,” Hatrick said. “I just would not want anyone out there in the public thinking that it is the same old, same old, and we are spending money willy-nilly. Because that is not what is happening.”
*
Is this an admission they were “spending money willy-nilly” in the past?
And ask Stevens Miller why he led the charge to increase the density immensely, the CHILDREN PRODUCING development called Ryans Corner at the corners of shellhorn and ashburn village dr. The increase was approved in Sept 2009. The proffers are widening a road to nowhere and two traffic lights that are going create traffic backups of biblical proportions
Leej – expect BM to chime in soon – tho this time she’ll be siding WITH her non-pal Miller in their defense of approving all the CHILDREN PRODUCING developments anyone will ask for but skate on past bringing adquate proffers to the table.
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
http://www.leesburg2day.com/articles/2009/11/12/news/9992schools111209.txt
Hatrick recommended a $286 million CIP for FY11? Unbelievable! When are these people going to wake up and realize they need to build larger schools? It will never happen as long as we have a superintendent who thinks the ideal high school size is 1,000 students.
Sarah, nice try. I’m not siding with Miller on much of anything other than his current support of the Stone Ridge site for HS7.
Ric, look back over the years, and you will see more than once the school system returning funds to the county, not because some shadowy slush fund was discovered, but because funds remaining from construction etc were returned if a surplus remained after the job was complete.
It has gone the other way too, when budgeted funds were insufficient for either land purchase or construction, and additional funds were requested to bring a school online.
The difference this time is that reserves were raided in the first half of the fiscal year, instead of returned at the end.
That’s not Sarah, Barb.
One thing all this has proven is that over-development results in huge ongoing expenses for all of us to pay forever. but we’re in the boat we’re in now and the only reasonable option is to increase class sizes and make do with what we have for now. We simply cannot afford to go on a building spree now.
Then I guess the indebtedness formula was NOT incorrectly interpreted, and we can’t afford to reopen the acceleration of funding for HS6, huh?
LI, thank you for your attention to this most important issue.
This is it, this is where the rubber hits the road. The Shape, Size , scope and cost of our school system effects every aspect of life in LOCO.
Didn’t we just see this movie last year ? Well the sequel is far worse.
This school systems reluctance to engage in the required budgetary and fiscal reform in the face of this ongoing economic downturn is simply reckless. The elevation of political agendas and the need to protect the divisions of power by Dr Hatrick, LCPS leadership, the school board,the teachers union and certain members of the LCBOS will cost taxpayers millions in the long run.
I could care less what the indebtedness formula shows since LCPS/LCSB are masters at finagling numbers. I could also care less about the acceleration of HS-6. People with gaggles of kids who move here need to pay THEIR fair share of the cost of education. Myself, with no spawn, does not take kindly to being annually reamed to pay for their wants.
Glad to hear you say it LI, because the porposed boundaries for Tuscarora have apparently prompted a return to that possibility.
Whether you have spawned or not doesn’t change that by law, children are guaranteed a “free and appropriate” education.
“Appropriate” is a hugely elastive word not only for mandates, diagnoses, spectra and treatment, but also for political inclusions as G points out.
Sorry, elastic
Oh yeah, “appropriate” means high tech malfunctioning whiteboards, grade school deans, free gas for administrators. etc. etc. These kids get way beyond what I would consider to be an appropriate education. If the parents want all these extras, then they should be prepared to pay for them. Directly.
LI, you’re missing my point, although that is a lily-gilded part of it here in the wealthiest and most-highly-educated unique county on earth.
The mandate referencing “free and appropriate” has much greater scope in the realm of special ed.
I have never had a problem with society in general, and taxpayers specifically, doing their part to help those truly in need. But I believe the scope of special ed has been expanded beyond its reasonable borders, as is often the case with government programs.
Speaking of “Special Ed” that is the way the compliant School BOard treats Herr Hatrick! He’s sooooooo special, we’re so lucky to have him even if he isn’t here for a huge chunk of the year travelling the world. Such bullshit. Send him packing so he can travel full time. But of course we all know that won’t happen until we get an entirely new School Board into office. It’s coming.
If you take issue with the scope of special ed programs, make sure you focus on the separation between fed, state and local.
Quite a few things are mandated at the federal level.
We are given the bill for much of it, along with the direction to provide it.
IOW, while you can rail against it, there will be very little that can change at the county level.
That’s only one part of the bloated school budget, Barbara. Plenty more excess to cut.
Li, here is a jumping-off place to look at what CAN’T be cut:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act
And it only provides a fairly comprehensive outline. It does not list the additional learning disabilities, nor the state-specific interpretations.
I’m just suggesting eliminate those things from your search before you attack REAL bloat–bloat than CAN be cut.
It will be an interesting journey!
Barbara, would you happen to know how much of the budget is spent on special ed programs?
fedup, I did some digging on the county and school sites, and here are some numbers from the adopted FY10:
Actual costs for special ed in FY06 = 63,901,120
” ” ” ” ” in FY07 = 77,436,160
” ” ” ” ” in FY08 = 81,562,505
Budgeted in FY09 = 92,759,819
Budgeted in FY10 = 93,366,758
Diagnostic costs are tabulated separately, but you can find most of the info under Business and Financial Services on the LCPS website, where I found a PDF of the FY10 Appropriated Budgets.
In FY10, 35 positions were added in special education, consisting of 19 teachers, 15 teaching assistants, and 1 speech pathologist.
Again, these are some of the federal (and state) mandates that we do most of the funding for, so I would suggest reading the most recent budget docs in order to narrow the focus to what can be cut.
In addition, the adopted FY10 budget for the county is posted on the county web, and a graph contained therein shows that 87% of the school budget does go into the classroom.
“Oh yeah, “appropriate” means high tech malfunctioning whiteboards, grade school deans, free gas for administrators. etc. etc. These kids get way beyond what I would consider to be an appropriate education. If the parents want all these extras, then they should be prepared to pay for them. Directly.”
Ditto. And the snotty nosed bastards can ask mommy for the parking fee …or hey– they can get on a damned bus!!!! How bout that!?
As for Barb, LI, she’s predictable. You propose tightening the funds and frills for her kids. I knew where she was gonna end up in that discussion before she did.
Dean, you’re missing the bus on the legal meaning of “appropriate” in special ed.
If you choose to sidetrack into thinking it means promethean boards to keep up with some Jones, feel free.
In the meantime, educate yourself on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
That’s where the rubber meets the road on the meaning of “appropriate”.
Public education is a service provided by law, so read a few before you get chesty on frills. I doubt whiteboards are mandated by law, but a boatload of things are.
Look them up.
Did anyone watch the meetings tonight? Hatrick was his usual blowhard obnoxious self, decrying the “dismantling” of his empire.
I understand education is needed, but I simply do not trust anything this crew says. They’ve been caught in too many lies.
I did catch some of the meeting earlier this evening. They need to give up building a high school on school property on Farmwell hunt rd. That property needs to be sold . A high school there will create massive traffic jams on a already overcrowded rd. Find property closer to Landsdowne where the high school is needed. Stop looking for the quick fixes. I have a lot to say say about special ed from personal experiences when I lived out in southern California and it is not a pretty what I saw. More latter. Hint don’t label the kids because they could grow into that label whether they should or NOT. A very dangerous road for the children to go down.
Barb…copied LI’s example, added some sprinkles, and left. Seems to have occupied you for a couple of minutes. Too easy.
I’m leaving now, too.
I LOVE phrases like this one “87% of the school budget does go into the classroom”. Totally meaningless. We have NO idea what they include in that. If they are like FCPS they are including every employee who ever SEEs a child, including social workers and psychologists. Will LCRC tell us how many real teachers we have in the county? Teachers who actually teach, those who stand up in front of a group of students, excluding social workers, psychologists, librarians, media experts, tech support, principals and all the other people who they call teachers but who never teach anything to any student. How many actual teachers do we have in LCPS? What is the total number of employees? Those two figures should give some clue to where the money is going.
If LCPS used REAL and PROVEN methods of teaching reading and math in the very early years, they would not need to label so many kids as learning disabled in later years. Despite having NO extra money they were able to find money to purchase an all new, ever fuzzier, math series this year. They could find the money to buy every elementary student a new textbook (one that no parent would ever want) and to train the teachers in the worst math series currently used in the US. Just ask the parents in Prince William county about the silly Math Investigations series.
http://www.petitiononline.com/123math/petition.html
In a few years, (if not sooner) when kids can’t do basic math, parents with money will hire tutors or turn to home schooling. Kids on the bottom, whose parents cannot afford tutors, will be labeled learning disabled and require extra help learning math. And we will watch the educrats scratch their heads over the racial gaps in LCPS.sicnce minorities are the students more likely to be poor and without access to tutors.
FedUp, where did you get the idea Hatrick is proposing 1000 seat schools? He’s the one that says you need the big schools to support Advanced Placement and other such classes. Don’t misunderstand, am not defending him, just think your statement is off.
LeeJ, you are right, a site along Route 7 is needed to relieve Stone Bridge. ISA site is too close to Broad Run. Did you pick up on the chicken littles chirping tonight? – one saying there were no suitable sites along that corridor, and another whining the only one avaiable cost $50M. With that, I just couldn’t bring myself to watch the BS anymore. 2011 elections will come none too soon.
Nice try BM, guess again.
Lovettsville lady, then read the document. It will tell you what’s included, i.e. teacher salaries and benefits, among other things, which have a host of discussions of their own. It will no doubt take some effort, but the most recent document is available so I’d read it now–then you can be SPECIFIC in discussing the new one when it comes out.
Same advice to Dean–read the document. Pretty much guaranteed that raving about “snotty nosed bastards” during mention of what constitutes special ed service requirements under federal law will win you as many friends and as much influence as your default setting usually does.
lovettsville lady: while it may be convenient in the absence of specific information to conclude that LCPS simply labels kids on their own for budgetary reasons, it doesn’t work that way. Your curriculum question is just that, and guess what? That is a whole different set of meetings. If you want to enact fundamental change in the system and its cost, jumping on the budget train once a year won’t get much done–that is pretty much the end of some of the smaller processes that make up the big one.
fedup, one thing the hornet is correct on is school size: current approved capacity is 1800 for a high school, which is a result of some budget-related wrangling of its own over the years. Some people think it is waaaaay too big, others think it is nowhere near large enough. Capacity is another set of meetings, and won’t be changed significantly before this budget either.
If you all are serious about accomplishing anything, you have a lot of reading to do. Otherwise it can boil down to just yelling. Which, while effective on some things, won’t necessarily tell people EXACTLY what you want changed or cut, and why.
My wife used to work as a special ed teacher’s assistant here in Loudoun. She wore out shoes following kids around the school to provide one-on-one instruction in the classrooms. Schools aren’t labeling kids as special (because these kids are real budget busters), it’s the parents – enabled by the whole “autism epidemic” crowd.
Hornet, Hatrick has publicly stated that he thinks the ideal high school size is 1,000 students. However, he also says that number is not realistic for Loudoun and is forced to build bigger schools, but 1,600 appears to be his limit. The BOS recommended upping capacity to 1,800 a few years ago and Tuscarora will be the first high school at that size, but Hatrick reserved 200 seats for yet another academy (another waste of money), which keeps the size of the basic high school program at 1,600. When I look across the border at the 2,500 student high schools Fairfax builds, I wonder why Loudoun cannot do the same or at least up the capacity to 2,000. They have proved that the quality of education is independent of school size.
Barb, the public has asked for creative solns and, guess what, none are coming forward. And more – did you hear the whining during last month’s Jt Comm mtg when poss consolid depts was raised? Geez – they barely could agree to direct staff to prep a scope of work for an eval. The players are xtremly resista to finding effic b/c it impacts their ponds. Xactly what do I want cut and why? I want new direction at LCPS/SB. Why? because it continues to be “business as usual” year after friggin year and coupling the enrollm growth with our budget woes DEMANDS embracing change. Since you are our esteemed knower of all facts, tell me one major initiative LCPS/SB has implemented to SAVE money. 100% support the new user fees finally in place, but that certainly isn’t anything new and doesn’t reduce cost – it just generates more $$.
hornet, I wouldn’t recommend labelling me as the “esteemed knower of all facts”, and that’s not what I labelled myself. I KNOW I don’t know everything about what decisions have been made in curriculum change, textbook selection, federal and state mandates, students’ rights, parents’ rights, and on and on.
I DO know that if you want SPECIFIC changes made in the budget adopted and sent to the BoS, you have to go to work to identify them and advocate for them.
By the time it gets to the BoS, they can vote to give a specific amount of money. They can’t cut programs or mandate instructional changes.
And if you want THAT changed, there are things in the state constitution that need to be changed for you to have it.
And that requires passage by two sequential sessions of the GA, followed by a voter referendum to implement, AFTER legislation is crafted, proposed, and makes it out of committee alive.
If the public isn’t seeing the specifics they may want (”creative solutions” sounds nice, but is a relatively meaningless phrase of its own), then they need to get involved in curriculum committees, textbook review committees, all the places where the smaller decisions are made that make up the end of the trail: the budget that is TOO BIG, GOLD PLATED, full of CADILLAC PERKS to “snotty nosed bastards”, and other emotional but nonspecific war cries.
Hornet, the user fees don’t generate much money, either. They estimated the parking fees would only bring in $550,000 – a drop in the bucket for a $738 million budget, but it forces kids to get a job or work more hours, which takes away time that could be spent studying! To offset that revenue, they have installed expensive artificial turf fields at Woodgrove and Tuscarora.
*
Agreed that creative solutions are needed, but we won’t be getting them from Hatrick or this School Board.
Since Barb and Robert DuPree are certified “BFFs of Greenvest” she will need to defend LCPS and School Board to the death!
Just look at the past performance of LCPS and the School Board with buying (or attempting to buy) school sites to see how cavalier they are with OUR MONEY. And those stupid whiteboards! And freaking Math Investigations???????? Give me a freaking break. These people are out of the minds. We need a serious backlash this budget season, folks.
So exactly who do people want leading LCPS? “Anyone other than Hatrick/Dupree” is great for voting the bums out of office, but who specifically do you see as having the vision for creative solutions coupled with the mgmt acumen to execute on a much leaner budget?
If we’re serious and not just a bunch of whiners, then who do we work/campaign for?
I’m more concerned with the spending by the BoS – they hold the purse strings. York is a disaster and has finanically mismanaged Loudoun for years. His result of work will be about 1.40/100 next year – thanks Scott… I know LI is a big defender of York, but there is plenty of blame to go around on all levels of local gov. The people that have been there the longest deserve the most scrutiny. Ron there were plenty of candidates last election cycle that would provide better fiscal management on the school board level than we currently get today from Reed, Guerin, DuPree, Potomac guy – the incumbents won — now sit back and pay for the electorates choices.
Rob, it is painfully obvious that nothing substantive will change in the direction or ATTITUDE of LCPS as long as the current board remains in power. They all bow down before Hatrick. Our first step is to continually pummel the hell out of them until the next election when we WILL usher in a broad based new majority (hopefully an entirely new board) on the School Board. The main platform plank of those new candidates seeking our support must be a willingness to clean house at LCPS. Hatrick has been entrenched for far too long and is to used to getting his way when the money flowed freely. The new board can then begin a search for a reform-minded, budget-conscious administrator not entrenched in the local power cabal. It can be done, and will be done.
Michael, York is but one vote of nine and was consistently outvoted last BOS and this BOS. The last BOS was full of grow, grow, grow types who never understood the costs of development that we are now paying, and the current majority is too liberal and afraid to upset their core constituencies. York stood up for the taxpayers last night while people like Kelly Burk threw red meat at the teacher crowd.
AND WHY IS IT STILL ACCEPTABLE FOR AN LCPS EMPLOYEE LIKE BURK TO VOTE ON THE LCPS BUDGET?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
LI, Greenvest was last year’s war cry (and the year before that and the year before that…), and has zero to do with what’s on the table now.
As for overdevelopment (like the new homes of many who protest against any development, now that THEY are here–lol–and have kids in $20K per seat tiny public schools) that horse left the barn before either you or I (or the majority of folks in the county now) moved in.
The fact remains that now that these taxpayers and their children are here, there is a massive set of layers of things that are mandated by state and federal law, and funded at the local level. How those requirements are MET here is where you could most productively focus your efforts.
(and one more note on development–guess what you have to do to avoid being hit with exclusionary zoning lawsuits if you want to zone out growth? Why, you have to establish a housing authority to ensure affordable housing, which has its OWN sets of mandates requiring staff, a budget…)
No easy answers, and as Rob Iola pointed out, anything perceived as (NOTE: PERCEIVED as, by coalitions of decision makers) whining won’t accomplish much.
Density should be halved in this county everywhere. Now. That will still allow for growth and absolutely would not be exclusionary.
Greenvest absolutely is pertinent because of DuPree’s past involvement with them and his pushing to buy their land at grossly inflated prices. It’s indicative of their attitude towards land purchases, which is indicative of their attitudes towards MY MONEY.
Of course unfuinded mandates are a huge part of the school funding problem, but there are definitely plenty of opportunities for cost trimming at LCPS while still meeting those requirements. Of course LCPS’ opaque budget doesn’t help one flesh out those excesses.
Here’s Chicken Little’s whining:
http://www.leesburg2day.com/articles/2009/11/13/news/9991schools121309.txt
He changed the job loss numbers on the fly last night, of course to make it look much worse than before (basically tripling them). I think he just pulls these numbers out of his ass.
Here’s a great example (from Leesburg Today) of the bunk that spews from Hatrick mouth, “We’ve enjoyed the luxury over all of our growth years of never having to have a tax rate approaching a dollar and a half. And if you look back over the history of Fairfax and Montgomery counties and [when] they were in the same growth cycles they couldn’t get a tax rate down to a dollar and a half. I think we are now at the end of the line of being able to have it all and not pay for it,” Hatrick said.
*
Does he actually expect taxpayers to support a $1.50 tax rate next year based on an apples to oranges comparison to tax rates in other counties 30-40 years ago?
Li, the “DuPree is Greenvest” thing may be useful politically (which is what most of this is about, as was stated last year) but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Working for six months years ago for an affordable housing lobby that received funding from a variety of developers does not make the jump to “DuPree was on Greenvest’s payroll!”, and it never did.
But it DOES make for a nice useful political soundbyte!
As for “density being halved” in this county–which county? That’s one of the biggest budgetary holdovers: we are funding TWO. Halving the density in the suburban policy area–the area planned for growth–won’t support “transit oriented development” densities. In the areas NOT really planned for growth, are you advocating 2, 6 and 20 acre lots in the transition zone? And 40 and 80 acres in the rural policy area? How is any of that efficient land use from nearly ANY perspective?
Again, it would require a housing authority, and the county has been in the process of moving toward that since the downzonings of 2001/2003 (before you got here).
It would also require a vast tax-funded process to implement an additional downzoning, while the school budget perks along each year of that process.
Be specific–what would you reduce or cut? At both the school and county level?
It is more than political, Barbara, myself and many others think it is relevant and you will not change our minds. Just like with the rotten as hell Cangiano contract it shows how embedded the developer mentality is in LCPS.
We simply cannot afford to grow like we have. The current situation proves it. Period.
Cuts? Let’s start with increasing class sizes, and Hatrick’s bullshit number of saving only $21 million with a 3 student per class increase is certainly bullshit. LCPS just hired over 300 NEW teachers this year. I guarantee that would not be needed with creative staffing solutions. Whitboards can go, gas for administrators can go, grade deans can go, extra ADs and counselors can go, over inflated land purchases can go, etc. etc. There are savings to be found but there is no internal will to do so at LCPS.
Fed Up, obviously “Dr.” Hatrick thinks that a tax rate of $1.50 is what he needs for his “needs” based budget. You, I and every other tax payer is just supposed to suck it and pay up.
How do we expect reform with that attitude. And please do watch some of that webcast if you want to see attitude. What a prick.
LI – I agree with you that the LCPS needs a new leader…I just think the BoS does as well. York devalued 2/3rds of Loudun – how much tax revenue did that cost us? Millions. I certianly don;t see any good when local government interfers, meddles, regulates, controls private property interests. Free market is best for this. As far as growth…do any of these BoS understand what Class A commericial space is? Loudoun needs 3 large business district hubs around 28 and Dulles Airport, 28/7 interchange and Moorfeild where the metro is going. Large Class A infrastrucure zones in these three areas could provide the tax base to shelter the homeowners and keep western Loudoun green and elimintae the sprawl. until this happens, get use to 1.50 and beyond…
York devalued 2/3 of Loudoun????? All by his lonesome self?????
I guess you’re talking about rural downzoning. If that didn’t happen we would be paying even more in taxes for even more residential growth. You must either be a developer or large landowner. Go join CPR and the noisy profit rights minority.
We absolutely need more commercial development, but it ain’t happening anytime soon in this economy.
We won’t get anymore commercial development until the county stops taxing businesses into bankruptcy. In addition to the skyrocketing commercial property taxes the last 5 years, the next big increase will be in the BPOL taxes to pay for the $250 million in bonds issued for Loudoun’s share of the Dulles rail boondoggle. We need to send every member of the board, except for Eugene, packing in 2 years.
LI, I’m not trying to “change your mind”. I’m asking you to be specific about cuts, and you named some. Good.
Political is how we got here, and the only political way anyone will really get out of it is to work within confines of the system. That certainly includes supporting candidates you believe will fight for what you think is important, but they will have to work within a specified system too, and a cumbersome one it is.
“Kill the greedy developer” is always a popular banner, but I don’t know where it falls in school budget cuts this year.
It looks like Michael is agreeing with much of what you say about budget specifics–will you acheive your political goal if those items on which he disgrees “prove” he is paid by evil greedy developers?
That’s up there with Dean and his “snotty nosed bastards” on special ed.
I know you aren’t this one dimensional.
And you can’t afford to be, since you live in a new house on old farmland–lol.
I might say a new house that is well sited and constructed to blend in with its environs that I bought when your hated “exclusionary” zoning was in effect. I would have never bought this house if those thrown out zoning restrictions weren’t in place. I can’t help it John Roberts and his staff must be completely inept to not advertise something that significant properly.
I chose to buy where I bought, you chose to buy where you wanted. If we opened up the entire western part of this county to Michael’s desires we would be even more broke than we are now. That ridiculously flawed search for a third western high school site would have not been needed were it not for the bogus Staton bastardization of Clem-Burton.
And is there anyone left in this county other than you and the few CPR types left that doesn’t realize that rampant over-development is what landed us in this budgetary hell hole???
Enough of the land use diversion please, let’s get back to discussing the clusterf&%k that is LCPS.
Specific cuts are the work of the School Board. My job is to advocate for a reduction in spending that resembles something close to other jurisdictions or at a minimum an average of systems of the same size. This school system is layered with those things that would be nice to have in and among those things that we must have. A program of budget and spending reform is what is required to begin the separation process.
We have mowed this field before. We can not continue to spend between
70 – 75% of all revenue on ONE (1) agency and expect the remaining 32 or 33 agencies to operate on the remaining 25%. This formula is unsustainable and disproportionate. The current economic climate requires that some grown ups begin to force the entrenched interests to do what is in our collective economic best interest
I’m sorry LI. I only responded to the land use issue you raised.
G, the school board is more likely to make specific cuts that are advocated.
If the advocacy is specific, it stands a better chance of being implemented.
Fedup and Hornet,
Smaller schools can be more cost effective when you consider design elements and land costs. Latest community planning research suggests governments can more cost-effectively meet school needs if they are designed to meet multiple community needs. Examples include more smaller-scale community-based schools that also have libraries, community/senior centers and/or sheriff stations. Some communities meet their needs in another way by consolidating and alternate financing, like Lorton’s 2500 student secondary school (7-12th grades) built in 2005 by Private/Public Partnership (aside: western Loudoun 6th graders have been riding busses with 12th graders for years with no horror stories, except time spent). Consider challenge of buying 20-75 acre or larger parcels is driving us into paying prime dollar for land away from where they are needed. Parcel size is driving the decision instead of all other criteria like walkability. Keeping car trips down with pedestrian access and smaller community schools further reduces costs for associated school access road upgrades and other mitigating measures.
Research reported here http://www.peterli.com/spm/pdfs/constr_report_2008.pdf indicates bigger is NOT cheaper. Here are latest cost figures for new high schools across the spectrum:
880 students w/ 140 sqft/student for $25M
1830 students w/ 194 sqft/student for $57M
2600 students w/ 460 sqft/student for $96M
That tells me that the number of students doesn’t make the difference, it’s the specifications and program design. Quality education doesn’t have to cost alot. Most parents I know would rather have modest facilities in their community with good teachers willing to share technology than anything else, except those whose priority lies with notoriety of AAAA sports or pretentious spacious edifices.
Love it!
Edgar “Pretentious Spacious Edifice” Hatrick!
Sarah – you seem to forgetting need for large pool of students to justify adv classes like APLang and Mandarin3. Can’t justify class of 2 students, so can you have a quality school with that limitation?
You can’t really justify a class of 2 students period, unless that happens to be how many are in a given mandated service at a particular school (which is why capacity is considered “fluid”–differing mandated needs in a particular cohort determine classroom configurations too).
And Barb, since you go on endlessly about how under-enrolled the small western elementary schools are, wouldn’t you say that opening up that brand spanking new Culbert Elementary in Hamilton at half capacity was a stupid idea and another example of poor planning by LCPS?
Sarah – The 2,500 student Lorton secondary school you mention is named South County, which will be just a high school once the adjacent middle school is built. Note that Fairfax fit the school on a 70 acre site. Why does Loudoun claim they need 75 acres for an 1,800 student school? Seems like a waste of taxpayer money to build on sites that are much larger than needed.
Not necessarily, LI. Every site is a battle in the rural policy area, and even at by-right buildout, that isn’t the only school that will be needed. I have a problem with maintaining the separate service structures. Like the separate tax codes, and the separate offices of economic development, and so on. Is it poor planning for the search for a Lovettsville area site now, when Woodgrove isn’t open yet, years overdue? Not necessarily.
fedup, the site size includes colocated rec facilities, and also figures in the unbuildable portions of land, some natural, some required buffers and setbacks. Is it open for discussion? Absolutely! I agree with the colocation of the rec facilities. I don’t necessarily buy the idea that we need to reinvent the wheel for each community (particularly given the massive cost and intricate procedure for any project). Especially when some of the most vocal advocates for small community schools are also sometimes the most vocal against schools for lots of other kids.
“York devalued 2/3rds of Loudun – how much tax revenue did that cost us? Millions”
So you finally admit that we’ve been carrying the other 1/3 all these years? Because WE certainly don’t get that money back in services out here.
I TOLD your group that the West has been subsidizing the East for a number of years…..but all I get is BS from you guys.
“That’s up there with Dean and his “snotty nosed bastards” on special ed.”
There’s the word – twisting Barbara I was beginning to think had been abducted…and a pod had been left.
I never joined the two, Babs…you did. I was referring to the little shits that wrote letters to the editor demanding that the parking fees be rolled back. I suggested that they ride a damned bus instead of driving and parking at a school property.
Never once did I mention “special ed”.
Sorry Dean–you exploded during the discussion of the federal meaning of “appropriate”, which is both broad and specific, and jumped straightaway to the quote.
No twisting, just you being …you.
As for 2/3 “carrying” one third (and why do some persist in capitalizing a compass direction?), guess again.
Dulles district was providing more revenue than several other districts combined as of several years ago.
Speaking of sleight of hand by the predisposed, was it a typo Sarah, or did the square feet per stucent more than double between 1830 students (194 sf/student @ $57M, to FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY/student @ $96M)? Gosh, I guess that would prove it to be prohibitively expensive! lol
Barbara,
Are you saying that I need to read a document to find out the number of teachers employed by LCPS? I am not surprised that you can’t, or won’t, tell me because I am sure it’s a closely guarded secret. If not, perhaps you could direct me to the link since I am unable to find that information.
How about you tell me the total number of employees and total number of students. Since LCPS claims that 93% of the employees are in the classroom, I will do the math. My guess? It will show that average class size is around 11, which we all know is a joke. The reason is, that 93% includes MANY people who have NEVER taught any child, including some who never even SEE a child. People need to be made aware that terms like ‘’school based” employee does NOT always mean a teacher or even a principal.
Barbara,
Are you a former teacher? Your condensing attitude is not well received by me. If you are going to continue to give me reading assignments, along with snotty, condensing, remarks, please remember that I am not one of your pupils. I object to being talked down to by government bureaucrat defenders such as yourself. If you can continue to do it, you shall be ignored. I never did well with teachers who looked down their nose at the peons in their classroom. While we all had to tolerate then when were in high school, as adults, we don’t.
Carry on, dear.
Fed Up,
75 acres for a high school, that’s nothing – don’t forget about the crown jewel of the Hatrick Team’s siting ineptness: 180 acres for 750 student Sycolin Creek ES built in 2007, and what’s the best part? No room for anything else because the site is so bad. Does anyone know what WE paid for that?
Lovettsville lady, I’m sorry if you feel I’m being snotty to you, because that isn’t my intent. I honestly replied to you as bluntly as you spoke to me. I have no idea who you are, nor do I see much point in worrying about which very important person might be behind a blog name–it’s an anonymous blog, after all!
No I’m not a teacher dear, but I’m curious why you seem to feel it is my job to read for you. It may even be easier–either call or email LCPS on Monday, and they’ll give you a number.
I doubt there are class sizes of 11 outside of a handful of schools that aren’t special ed, and classroom work by specialists is seeing kids. Everyone has mountains of paperwork, a great deal of which has to be basically courtroom-ready. If your focus is admin, you might want to break down what they’re administering before coming to a conclusion on how many there should be.
My opinion, and it remains, is that simply yelling isn’t going to accomplish what it sounds like the objective is: a more efficient, cost-effective system. If you or anyone else can’t be bothered to study how it currently is organized, mandated, funded and executed, how do you expect to really change anything?
Go up to the hearings and stamp your feet? Read some talking points that include figures so it will sound impressive and official?
That may get a percentage cut from the BoS, but it won’t change the underlying issues that are purportedly the focus of the exercise–it will just promote bandaids to reconcile the emotion-induced cuts, and next year the process will produce pretty much the same result, and both sides will gather and argue again.
Please DO ignore me if you like–I already tend to ignore condescending direction from anonymous bloggers whose MO is to label those with whom they disagree as something lesser, evil, or paid.
If you choose to see discussion of the scope of the bureacracy you hope to change as defending it, that’s right up there with LI assuming Michael is paid by developers because they seem to disagree on some aspects of property issues.
Again, if you want to actually CHANGE something long term, first you have to learn how it IS now, not LOOKS, but IS.
You want the Cliff Notes version, or else?
They don’t make one.
Hornet, two things: the cost for that land was pretty low–wasn’t it between 1 and 2M? And look at the bright side: more land preserved forever.
Barbara,
Thanks for pointing us to the school budget. Okay, let’s assume the special ed programs are mandated. Is it mandated LCPS has to spend $93M to administer them? What makes you so sure the staffing levels aren’t double what they really need to be or that LCPS could not carry out the mandates for $60M a year? In the FY09 budget they break out the costs for the program. A good example of a runaway cost is benefits. In FY05 they spent $12M, but by FY09 it had soared to $28M!
Aquisition done on my watch.Sycolin Creek-$1 million adjacent to Red Cedar. Site designed to be able to build 2nd elementary school in the future. Approx. 100 acres mature hardwood forest protected from development. Could become a park at some point.
I’m not sure what the staffing levels need to be–nor am I sure that arbitrarily setting a number any given year will produce a permanent organizational change.
Mrs. Waters had an interesting motion on change in staff benefits in the legislative guidlelines portion of the last business meeting, which showed that by paying ONLY the employer portion and not also the employee contribution would have saved $53M in the past seven years on the county side.
It failed. I heard some discussion that said people expected both when they accepted the job. Sure, but it doesn’t hurt to ask the legislature for a break on that, does it?
We DO have to assume the special ed is mandated, because it is. A Supreme Court case determined some years ago that while “appropriate” remained every bit as broad as the act deems it to be, it was NOT mandated that the service had to be “the best money could buy”. That seems a bit of wiggle room, but I don’t know how it would break out in the details.
There was another famous case here a few years back where a family sued the school system because they felt their child should be mainstreamed, and after trying it, the county felt the child could not. It involved a child whose condition apparently included occasional hitting of themself and others, occasional disrobing in the classroom, and other behaviors. The parent felt that the benfits of being in a regular classroom setting outweighed the necessity of dealing with the behaviors, and sued the system. It took several years to settle, and what does all of that cost too?
It’s a monster of an issue in toto, and I’d like to see some changes myself.
Demanding an arbitrary level of funding at the last line of defense once a year doesn’t seem to me the MOST effective way to effect fundamental change, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think those so inclined should do it. Have at it!
My personal preference would be programming and curriculum change (which have their own bureaucratically determined mandates under the current system) that would effect not only better use of funds, but a better education as the end result!
But those meetings (and there are many!) are long over by budget time, because the decisions on what the money being requested is FOR have already been made.
Barbara,
Barbara I advocate for placement of schools where logical and cost-effective, from a life-cycle cost basis. And I think we agree on far more than suggested by the historic tone of our discourse. Here is a specific place for budget scrutiny: LCPS unjustifyably SOLE-SOURCED work to Mr. Cangiano’s consultant who recommended a big new supply well on his other nearby property that LCPS didn’t even have a contract on! So it appears LCPS procurement practices need serious eval.
Perhaps it was a typo. I found the 2009 School Construction Report here: http://www.peterli.com/spm/pdfs/SPM-2009-02-SUPPLEMENT.pdf (the author’s 14th year of publishing school construction cost research.) In his newest report, the “top 10%” [elite] high schools provide 229 sqft/student, which does seem more in line than the 460.
Fed Up, The 2009 report yields a very interesting observation worthy of consideration, especially as the new CIP is deliberated:
Page 8: “The median ‘small’ high school with 600 students costs $14.9M while the median high school with 2,311 students costs $64.5M. It would appear that four small schools, housing a total of 2,400 students, would cost about the same to build as one high school for about the same number of students.” It goes on to cite even more reasons why on ballance, small schools ARE more cost-effective and suggests [cash strapped] “districts may wish to look once again at the efficacy of putting 2,000 or more students into a single building.”
Considering how hard it is to find sites as big as LCPS believes are needed and the fact that LCPS student transportation is 100% taxpayer-funded, the argument in favor of walkable community schools wins hands down.
And about those benefits, yes, all of us are paying more and getting less, my insurance premiums/copays are rising, retirement is my 401K with a 2% employer match (used to be 10%). So why is there a sense of entitlement with government? The majority of private sector jobs are not disproportionately higher paid as many believe. At the higher tiers yes, but not most of us worker bees.
Hornet,
No, a 2-student class can’t be justified, however, those 2 students can join peers County-wide to attend a class of their choice via teleconference, so the oft stated LCPS argument you recounted falls flat on its face. Large schools aren’t necessary to offer a wide variety of upper-level classes.
Barbara,
Requiring county and school employees to pay the employee share (5% of salary) of the VRS contribution would be a huge cost savings. The BOS voted that one down, but had no problem voting 8 to 1 (again, Eugene was the voice of reason) to seek authority from the general assembly to levy the meals tax without a referendum!
Who doesn’t contribute to their retirement these days? How many taxpayers aren’t even offered a retirement plan by their employer? IMO, it’s completely reasonable to ask the county and school employees to contribute to their retirement.
Barbara, you consistently want facts and figures, and no one is better prepared to give them than Sarah. You may not like what she has to say but you must admit she knows what she’s talking about.
LCPS’s behavior with the whole Cangiano deal stinks to high heaven. A disgusting breach of the public trust.
LI, is Cangiano in the current budget? Nope.
Sarah has lots of figures, but some pan out like the one a few posts above, where a school that seats over 2000 students is automatcially not cost effective (and we’re not supposed to notice that the square footage per pupil went from 190 to 460 in the process).
Figures aren’t necessarily facts if they’re used out of context.
Take the Sycolin Creek purchase: it was a single, nonsubdivided parcel that the school system bought for $1M even in 2005. Three years later it was assessed at about three times that amount. LCPS is apparently working with Parks and Rec to see about active rec use on as much of the remainder as possible. Was that a good deal or a bad one?
On the county side, look at the Aldie Fire and Rescue purchase: last year, bought by the BoS for $1.2M. This year, assessed value as of Jan 1, $443.6K.
Is that a bad deal, or flagrant insider corruption?
Sarah, while we may agree on some basic issues, I look forward to seeing if the “historic tone” of our discourse changes when we disagree. It will be interesting!
Some of the ideas presented i.e. teleconferencing for higher level classes like the Mandarin3 mentioned earlier are excellent.
For some people, however, it may not address the underlying issue of whether that language needs to be publically offerred in the first place.
Fed up, the BoS controls the purse strings for the schools and everything else, and I don’t know why Waters’ motion to ASK for the ability to ONLY contribute, as the employer, the employer portion, didn’t pass.
There are issues on BOTH sides of the budget that bear year-round work at a variety of levels.
I’ll leave it to Sarah to argue the speicific numbers. Cangiano isn’t in the current budget, but was a horrible smelly insider deal, which is indicative of the way LCPS treats my tax dollars. I don’t trust the current cabal in charge there and never will.
And yes, the BOS does control the purse strings for the schools, which is why I still can’t understand why in the world Kelly Burk, as an LCPS teacher, can even have any input in discussion, let alone a vote, on those matters. What in the hell is she doing voting on the VRS issue??? That’s a blatant conflict of interest, no matter how Jack Roberts may want to parse it. Maybe it’s time for a lawsuit.
One official mentioned looking into income tax to capture revenue for the younger folks reported in the Wash Post that enjoy County services like Sheriff/Parks/Libraries etc., but have disproportionate County tax contributions because of their dwelling choices. I see some value with that, if they are going to raise my taxes to pay for educating 3,000 new kids, I’d rather see it applied to residents across the board based on their ability to pay – which is income. If the official is true to their word, only those earning $200k or more would see much of an increase. Besides, income taxes can be balanced with a credit for property taxes already paid so it seems realistic they can insure the focus stays on that target. Interesting point made above about student transportation being funded, seems having families pay fees for student transportation would be very reasonable.
If you are comparing figures from Sarah and figures from Barbara, there is no comparison. Barbara has figures behind figures, Sarah has emotion behind figures.
LI, questions of a conflict in voting for Ms Burk are worthy of discussion, but if the aim is to craft a better budget, I don’t know if eliminating one vote will do that this year.
Is it time for a lawsuit? That’s tax dollars too.
Your focus seems to be primarily political, and that’s fine—your business on your blog.
But for those for whom actually acheiving a better budget THIS YEAR is an objective, laying the groundwork for the next campaign doesn’t necessarily accomplish that.
And without attention and involvement in the issues that PRODUCE the budget on an ongoing basis, an election won’t necessarily accomplish much of it either.
It may be a start, but some things WON’T change, regardless of who gets to vote on them, without focusing on how to change those things in and of themselves. It only elects a new set of people to administer them.
As I said, worthy enterprise.
I think it would be more effective to separate the political from the nuts and bolts, then keep an eye on how to politically remedy the TREATMENT and USE of the nuts and bolts by those in current political power.
And you can’t do that without a thorough understanding of more of the nuts and bolts.
BlackOut, I wondered where you were in all of this!
Ready to be slimed with me for not agreeing with all of the right things all of the time?
lol
The Dynamic Duo of DuPree Defense is back!
Barbara, of course I have a political view on this, and that will help with this year’s budget because it will be a political battle between the BOS and the SB. I say the BOS wins.
They always “win” in that they control funding.
They also “win” politically by having the school board to point to.
The school board “wins” by getting more money than many people think they should.
The whole budget needs year-round scrutiny.
Something I remembered from the most recent board meeting, when it was determined not to seek the ability to stop contributing the employee portion because, according to some board members, staffers expected that when they agreed to take the position.
The BoS also spent about an hour talking about what constituted a state approved animal unit for alpacas.
It seems there is another family in a situation similar to the Hamilton goats issue, who bought their home with the intent to have alpacas or llamas. Apparently the rules were unclear or changed in the process of getting their home and buying their animals, with neighbor issues and county issues now in a muddle.
DISCLAIMER: I am not against goats. I am not against llamas or alpacas. I am not against 4H. I wish this family, and every other who wants to raise goats, alpacas or llamas, and participate in 4H and other good programs, all the very best.
But Holy Mother of God, in a county of over a quarter million people with a billion dollar plus budget, why in bleeding hell is the supreme public body of the jurisdiction spending an hour of time on the record arguing with staff about alpacas to the acre?
Much of the discussion could have been done preceding the meeting, between the supervisor attempting to gain relief for their constituents and staff, and between the supervisor and other supervisors on a one-to-one basis seeking support for a solution, rather than having staff sit at a table and be questioned over how many alpacas can dance on the head of a low-density residential lot!
There is plenty in the budget to go around. The schools are an easy target because they’re large.
The underlying structure of the county approach to both schools and the general budget cam into a bit closer perspective for me seeing Waters’ idea go down, and the attention by the entire body to an “alpaca unit” (as determined by the state and the county).
On that issue we agree – this BOS spend waaaayyy too much time on micro-managing. Spending an hour on alpacas with so much more important things to work on is ridiculous.
I have to chime in here even though I usually don’t. I agree with Barbara Munsey that we need to be specific on what cuts we think the School Board should make. Not being specific is counter productive. We were specific when the Castagiano property was axed. We were specific when the Lenah property was axed. We are specific when we say that Hatrick can go. I agree that school systems AND local government is inefficient. National and state government are inefficient for that matter. Be specific about what should be cut, gain public support for it and pursue the cuts. Otherwise your general statements are worthless and you become a ranting idiot. I believe the inefficiencies of the schools are being overstated here and that Hatrick is right in the fact that many needed schools (particularly middle and high schools) are threatened by the lack of funding that is the direct result of dropping property values. The numbers of rising elementary students in our school system is dramatic and must be funded. This has nothing to do with new adds or new construction that is occuring in the residential real estate market. BTW: have you been to Braddock Road lately…out behind Stone Ridge and the Greenvest development? There are hundreds of new homes there that have been built in the LAST TWO YEARS! Who said the market slowed down? New construction is booming over here. Even Toll Brothers in South Riding is building new homes NOW! These homes are sold before they are built. We can complain about HATRICK all we want, but it is doing little good to address the underlying problems. We need to get ahead of the curve and build the planned schools because they are needed. Yes, we should make sure the property purchases and the costs of construction are market rate. We should do our best to make sure the system runs at the best efficiency practically possible. There is no harm in that…BUT…WE must address the needs of the public and the public NEEDS these schools! We need a new high school in the north now. We need a new high school in the south now. We will need Loudoun Valley Estates high school and we must make sure funding is available. We need to maintain our bond rating. Despite what you might believe, starving the school system of funds won’t accomplish your goals of a more efficient system. It only compounds the problem of overall inefficiency. The County MUST raise the property tax rate sufficiently to keep up with the necessary but inefficient school system. It may be politically unpopular, but I believe the public, those people with students in the school system, and even the empty nesters who have no students, will support an increase in the tax rate to fund schools. Having a failing school system compounds the problems with declining property values. The School system is one of the leading and fundamental contributers to economic growth, increased property values, and the lifelong success of children. It is time for both the County and the Board of Supervisors to stop playing politics with this topic and take the necessary steps to fund the schools. Raise the tax rate and demand specific changes that can be specifically identified (inefficiencies). Otherwise, move forward with funding the Schools and stop chasing empty general rhetoric. FUND CONSTRUCTION OF THESE SCHOOLS NOW! The numbers showing reasonable construction costs and land costs are available. USE THEM. Stop the crap and provide reasonable funding. Stop the crap and identify reasonable inefficiencies. We won’t move forward until this is done…and not moving forward in this case is MOVING BACKWARD!
Barbara,
Actually it seems a little boring to me. This site has become a second rate novatownhall. Same chatter, same characters. Same same, just different.
by the way, have you seen Joe’s new website design, really looks professional)
I do take issue when folks start smearing stuff and people without any facts or experience. I guarantee LI has never even seen a white board. Or at the least seen one in use.
I have seen the new nova, and by and large I like it.
Any basically Republican blog is going to have similarities, just like the Democratic ones do–the universe of Blue VA, BC, NLS contains many of the same characters.
As for the smearing, it’s unfortunate because there are a host of legitimate issues worth discussing, but since the objective for some IS primarily political, I don’t know how much is going to get sorted out, other than who we all must vote for in two years, or else! lol
Blackout,
I don’t dispute Barbara’s facts but you are misinformed – I have a pile of LCPS documents and web links to studies by nationwide experts behind my figures. Sadly, you are guilty of what Barbara often recognizes in bloggers here, you are attacking the person and not their data. Unless you have a specific figure of mine you want to dispute and the basis of your argument, all you bring to the table is air.
Sarah, BlackOut dismisses you outright because you are a persistent thorn in the side of Hatrick and DuPree, and ou do it with their own damn documents (or lack thereof). You and I both know we could write a book on boneheaded moves by LCPS, especially in the realm of land acquisition. For some reason he and Barbara, who would both be ready to jump down the throats of the County making the same moves, want to excuse such behavior by their buds at LCPS. We’ll never change their minds and they won’t change ours.
The alpaca discussion was ridiculous and unnecessary. Did anyone notice the item approved on consent to give County employees another paid holiday (half day Thanksgiving and half day Christmas Eve) this year? Anyone else getting an additional paid day off for the holidays this year?
I dismiss Sarah because she has a long “history” of twisted logic. Heck LI, you know more of it then I do. It can’t be discounted. I don’t doubt she has stacks and stacks of “stuff”, it’s what she does with it that causes the doubt. And if Sarah is going to become LI’s fact provider in the up coming war, I am not sure folks will be able to note that without chuckling. Just my opinion.
I agree LI, we probably won’t change each others minds. I do feel confident your motivation is valid, you are concerned about the tax rate and you want it to stay the same or lowered. Unfortunately, you don’t present solutions, everything you say is based on heresay. That’s fine, I can relate to your wish to have taxes stay at the current level or be lowered. But I must say for you to team up with Sarah as your source to fill the heresay is really stretching it. Not much credibility there.
Here’s my prediction, at some point Sarah is going to freak when here “facts” are challenged and she starts to look foolish. We will then begin to see her appear on blogs under numerous bogus names. Hup, we’ve see that one before, deja vu folks.
air
Isn’t the basis for the Sarah v Barbara/BlackOut argument essentially the same as the whole Catoctin County v Loudoun County argument? Should Lovettsville and other west-of-15 communities have “walkable” small schools while east-of-15 communities (and I guess Purcellville) have clusters of large schools?
Oh, and 1 quibble about Sarah’s figures – why does square footage per student increase (from 140 to 460) as student population increase? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Rob, No that isn’t my point, which is smaller schools belong everywhere. Scan the reference provided. It explains why the “bigger is cheaper” theory is not proving to be true in real school construction around the country. The report presents the cost of schools being built and it comes out every year with the lastest data. The large sqft per student is how some schools in the study were designed. It repesents the elite grouping of the top 10% of the large schools. The point is that you can build schools cheaply or you can build them expensive. Others are building schools far far cheaper than Loudoun. How they do it? I don’t know but Loudoun should find out because, as Rt50Hero points out, they are needed. There are more small affordable lots available throughout the County. Smaller schools encourages walkability. Because there has to be more schools to accomodate the population, they can be distributed closer to the most dense residential areas. This promotes walkability. Pedestrian access is a criteria of the lowest priority to LCPS – just look at their boundary lines to prove that. The argument is all about what is cheaper to build and operate on the long haul and nicely-equipped mega-schools everyone rides a bus to attend isn’t cheaper. People think so, but where is the data to prove it? Consider that Walmart isn’t cheaper because they have a big building, it’s because they can leverage cheaper pricing. Choices have to be made and I would rather LCPS adjust its standards than overcrowd or bus kids far outside of their (or any) community. Just scan the report or the dozens of other references available on the internet. It’s not MY twisted logic, it’s the logic of planners nationwide.
Sarah, it sounds nice to think that little schools everywhere would be cheaper, but one thing you will but up against in the denser areas is the fact that more densely zoned land is NOT going to be cheaper per acre, and removing commercially or industrially zoned land from the tax rolls is counter productive.
I was extremely lucky in my kids’ elementary schooling. When we moved in, Little River was already on the way, and the lots that were available at the time in the community were within blocks of the site.
My now-junior in high school spent two years at a packed old Arcola (which was absolutely wonderful–the principal and staff there were top-notch), and from second to fifth grade walked one block to school. My now eighth-grader never rode a bus except for a field trip until he went to middle school.
It was fabulous, and in a denser area more kids can walk. But Little River was a profferred site, approved long before anyone lived in this community.
Taking commercial off the books in South Riding was a no-go during the Lenah fight, no matter how easy it was for a few beneficiaries of the second-most-expensive school in Loudoun to say “Oh, condemn something over there”. Residentially zoned land at PDH4 was worth 3/4M per acre in 2008–just the land, without the improvements–and vested commercial wasn’t going to turn into anything else without lots of cost including court.
Funny, when everyone who got here before the crowds of 99-02 were protesting other people’s new homes, the cry was “how will we afford the land for schools?”. When sites were profferred, it switched to “oh so what, a site isn’t a building”. When the evil dreaded area plan known as the CboogeymanPAMs proposed developers financing the building of schools on profferred sites through a fee on buyers of the new homes to repay CDAs, one of the multiple cries was “so what if they give the land and build the buildings, it doesn’t cover the operating budget”.
Let’s say there IS enough land available, suitable and willing to sell strategically located throughout the county to let nearly everyone walk to school. What about the operating budgets providing parity of service at a greatly-increased number of schools? Many services of which are mandated at the fed or state level, which takes a LOT more work to change?
We can’t all just switch arguments depending on what differing interest groups want at any given specific moment. It becomes self defeating, like the environmental advocates who protest dirty coal in favor of clean free wind, then go home and sue the company who wants to build the wind project nearer their home, because it will hurt the birds.
Commercial should be LAST on the list of any land that will produce small walkable schools (in SOME places), vested rezoned land will be a mess too, and what about the larger more efficient central facilities we already have? There is NO magic bullet.
(In addition, I’m glad you noted that the only reason the square footage per student went up was because the larger schools in the study were designed that way. However, if that is the case, then I tend to think that the cost figures that correspond to the student numbers are no longer proved to be unaffordable simply because more students are served together.)
Rob, the Catoctin v. Loudoun argument probably does figure in a bit, but IMO more in the area that some people apparently DO believe that the residents of the rural policy area are somehow paying the bulk for services in the suburban policy area.
dean and others have made the argument, and it is true for shildless people all over the county, or those who do not use public schools, that they help fund a service they do not use. But that is true everywhere, not just in Loudoun.
Taking a step back and looking at population distribution, at the last decennial census (which pretty much coincided with the big downzoning) approximately 85% of the population lived on approximately 1/3 of the county land, east of Goose Creek. No matter how you slice and dice it, 15% of the population isn’t paying enough taxes to pay for ELL of the needs of the other 85%
Add in that undeveloped rural land is valued differently land developed residential, commercial and industrial (with roads and utilities), AND that any rural land that is participating in land use gets a tax deferral not available on dense residential or commercial land, AND that the most costly service–the schools–have in Loudoun cost MORE per capita in the smaller schools of the rural policy area, and yes, it not only approaches a bit of the case for Catoctin County by the rest of Loudoun, but explains one of the reasons why Catoctin County doesn’t exist: if it were an economically viable stand alone proposal, it would exist already.
I think it clouds the issue though, especially with the big v. little schools argument.
Sorry, capitalize Dean, and I meant “childless”.
Lousy editor me!
Sorry this got bumped from the front page and it is not easy to jump back. I have more school stuff coming soon.
Here’s a great comment I received in email:
“Hatrick’s posse would never go for a redesign of their schools because that would take more effort. They like templates because it is easy for them to manage building the same thing over and over and they like going into a building where everything is the same. They won’t build them to a lower standard because they have developed very expensive tastes (compare Briar Woods w/ Loudoun County). They won’t go for small schools because that means more schools and that is more work for them to plan and build. They don’t accept a salary cut yet they won’t work harder to save money. Maybe they aren’t idiots – they are just lazy fat cats.”
Barbara, Please help me understand your statement, “What about the operating budgets providing parity of service at a greatly-increased number of schools?” Are you suggesting providing parity for say, 5600 students in 3-1800 seat schools costs less than the same number served by 4 1350-seat schools?
LI, during the period of the county’s most rapid growth, the template was a huge cost savings because it did NOT include the cost of reinventing the wheel for every new school, although that has been advocated by some in the name of context/community character and sensitivity, which often has very little to do in practice with cost-saving.
The template has already been changed with the move to two story buildings–MS5 will be the first two story middle school when it opens.
Sarah, that’s a good specific example–much more specific than your original statement that there are “lots of small lots” around the county that will promote walkability.
Three isn’t a lot countywide, and the areas that have the density that would promote walkability for 1350 students are already built out, and in the case of the northeastern portion of the county, already have high schools located there, a couple of which ARE 1350 capacity. Where are the “lots” of lots that will relieve Broad Run, with walkability?
In addition, given our development process, with the commission permit and special exception needed for each new school,more schools means more trips through that process, with the attendant cost.
Are you suggesting the majority of students who would attend three new 1350-capacity high schools in the rural policy or transition area would walk?
Are three new 1350-capacity (which is not current approved capacity for a high school facility, so that would have to be changed back too) planned in the current six-year proposal for the rural and transition policy areas, and what land would be considered suitable for their location? (this question comes with the caveat that none are included in this year’s budget, so are primarily future policy discussion relating to low density planning areas, and not the idea of many walkable schools at all levels in all planning areas–i.e. I don’t think this is necessarily the time to review your years-long struggle for a high school in or adjoining Lovettsville. I appreciate your interest there, but as with pointing to the past subjects of Greenvest and Cangiano, it isn’t on the table now except as an ongoing site-search/discussion. Are we still talking about THIS year’s budget, and policy changes that would actually reduce long-term costs overall?)
Barbara makes an excellent point about the template becoming less viable over time. I drive by NW High School in Germantown often and wonder why 3-4 story high schools have never been publically discussed (assume for areas with multi-level townhouses and such to be compatible). And Leesburg2day editorial this week hit on the topic of building to a lower standard. Yes, it has trade-offs but not building anything is worse IMO. When a group of parents were researching interim solutions to the Valley crowding, we met with representatives who had built modular schools in Maryland and other jurisdictions – the buildings really didn’t look bad IMO and they were much cheaper and incredibly fast. After she took office, I recall Bergel saying LCPS construction staff said they had problems like mold and other issues, though I’d like to hear more about those “problems”.
Board Member Godfrey mentioned Thursday how terrible it was that athletes at Broad Run had to practice down the street. Baseball field at Fireman’s Field isn’t contiguous to Loudoun Valley and everyone has learned to live with it. Sure, it’s not ideal but if large lots simply aren’t available, why not have sports fields on a nearby Park, not necessarily contiguous to the school? Having Parks and Rec get permission from the LCPS to use school fields is the status quo now (presumably based on an old BOS-directive), but what if it were the other way around and that aspect of the athletic program were carved out of the LCPS budget?
Some time ago during HS-3 dilemma, a guy mentioned he and his business partners offered to build schools and lease them back to the County but were refused by members of the BOS. I realize that wouldn’t be ideal either but now wonder if some form of that concept (public-private partnership?) could be crafted to provide short-term budget relief while meeting the real need for school seats.
Not advocating for these, just brainstorming.
Still waiting to hear from BO – his silence suggests he can talk the talk, but can’t walk the walk when it comes to supporting his vague statements re my numbers being wrong or “twisted logic” – how hypocritical.
Sarah, interesting to reimage it as less-viable.
I have no objection to the move to multistory, but that comes with its own issues. For one, they will all need elevators, and safe accessible evacuation methods–and elevators have their own impact on an operating budget.
As for the idea of active rec being separated from school properties, I’m not sure that I like that so well.
I see the benefit to being able to use smaller or oddly-configured sites to locate schools as land becomes more scarce, but then we’re back to design for each one, and rec opportunities are farther behind schools in capacity.
All kinds of sports all over the county, vying for space and time to play.
You know that parks and rec also had its own construction department? Maybe still does. I don’t know if that was combined with County a few years abck, but when I moved in they had their own.
I do support the colocation of those two large public facilities though. It seems to work fairly well, at least from my limited perspective–my kids have played some sports, but I don’t pretend to know what its like to try to schedule a league with all the competition for space.
Yes, preference is parks co-located w/ schools and schools outfitted with ample fields onsite. However, if it means the vast majority of students attending that school have to ride a bus because it is too far (e.g., Landsdowne going to Stone Bridge and students living within 1-1/2 mile from Stone Bridge being bussed to new schools at Loudoun Valley Estates or even ISA), then better and cheaper to bus a few teams during their seasons than an entire student body all year. One other problem w/ co-location is that it concentrates the traffic burden, where in some cases a wider distribution of the traffic load may require less expensive road upgrades and calm gridlock concerns by protesting neighbors.
Sarah, “too far” means very different things depending on density. And people bring their own versions of “too far” and “not far enough” to the land wars that color everything in this county.
In truly rural areas, counties might have one centrally-located secondary facility, with students bused from the four corners of the compass, in tens or dozens of miles. In urban or suburban settings, one miles might be a great deal of time sitting in traffic that could otherwise be spent learning, exercising, whatever the bused-for function is serving.
Any public facility that is NOT in a completely urban setting is going to have parking issues, which are duplicated with separate facilities for the differing functions.
The fact that the school and active rec functions are pursued at different times makes a good argument for continued colocation.
In addition, if you can’t find places to put a BUILDING in the denser areas that don’t involve removing commercial land from the rolls, I don’t know how we’d find equally-valuable land to turn into FIELDS, with parking, etc.
The fantasy that there are lots of little parcels scattered everywhere that can each be turned into a problem-solver creates costs and problems of its own. In addition, with the already-extant parity issues involving the holdover rural schools, what a can of worms that would be to have schools WITH facilities, and schools constructed without!
But as brainstorming, fine.
Talk to E-the-1/2T to get the scoop on how SB consistently pulls enrollment away from those “holdover” schools to justify new ones that require $Ms debt to open. I’ll bet majority of those served don’t care about parity as much as you suggest Barb – they would rather have those old “holdover” community schools despite their relative lack of new “amenities”.
Your post really did made me laugh. Yes central schools for rural areas is not unusual. However, to serve the hundreds of square miles of western Loudoun, LCPS has 1, about to open a 2nd and proposed a future 3rd HS, all within a 4-mile radius! That enables increasing the bus fleet, hiring more drivers, burning more fuel and transporting students countless extra miles each day for generations while increasing traffic on the relative few miles of avail paved roads. If the ‘budget-minded, land-use planning’ SB and DrsH/A get their way, the only HS in the west that will ever offer community/walkability will be the one built in the 60s that they can’t take credit for.
Sarah, I know some folks prefer the holdover schools. We have a small but determined group here east of 15, most of whom moved in to “the country” not long ago, to new homes they built here, and are bused west of 15 to the “country” school that goes with their life, or at least the image of it, since many have long drives to much more urban areas to their jobs.
Odd, but some of the same people also protest roads, AND (other people’s) schools.
Under the current expanded projection, it looks like the rural policy area high schools aren’t projected for a third for some years yet, so it looks like you may have some time with Woodgrove’s relief.
I’m well aware of the saga of Woodgrove. I watched it all happen, from the surprise purchase of the property in executive session right up to the present–excellent article by David Bradley in this week’s Independent:
http://www.loudouni.com/news/editorial/2009-11-16/fifth-column-power-grab-any-other-name
Some rumblings that might be dear to Eric’s heart–a few people would apparently like to see communities east of 15 broken up and bused all over the area west of 15 just to keep some small schools fuller.
Nothing to do with keeping communities together, or compact attendance zones there, though. Not even neighborhood schools. Just anything to keep the facility open.
I’m not against keeping them open Darah. I do think that the facilities could be better used to disperse some centralized services, instead of run inefficiently to provide a private school experience for a very small percentage of the population, which would continue whether the seats are full to the brim or not.
Sorry, Sarah. Didn’t mean to typo your name.