I think everyone is forgetting that last November, a referendum passed to build HS7, needed SOONER than HS6, in DULLES SOUTH, right after Mr. Miller led the charge to kill MS5 and HS7.

That bond referendum was specific to HS7, in Dulles.

It can't magically become HS6, in another cluster (and cluster is becoming the operative word here again!)

As usual, Ashburn gets crowded because that's where everybody ELSE gets sent to school, and people who actually live there get moved around so the pie can keep getting sliced thinner with schools on top of one another, serving people from all over the place.

If they want to try to accelerate HS6 past already approved (but NO LAND--thanks so much, Mr. Miller) for the purpose of churning up Ashburn, continuing to delay schools in Dulles South, AND leave Leesburg schools under capacity, then there's a simple answer for Ashburn and Dulles parents: vote against any bond for HS6 until HS7 is back on track.

I never thought I'd say vote against a school bond, but I would vote against one for this, and gladly.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 12, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the funding has not yet been approved for HS6? So we, as a county, are going to have to shell out more of our hard earned money to build another school sooner than necessary just so that Lansdowne can keep their kids in Ashburn schools? <Shakes head in disbelief> If the county moves the Lansdowne kids to Leesburg high schools then we wouldn't have to come up with the funds for HS6 as soon? And the high school capacity numbers would even out countywide? Hmmm. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Posted by qazwsxedcrfv (anonymous) on March 12, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not sure why anyone would think it is acceptable to send a community to 2 and eventually 3 different high schools. People in the community submitted ideas- based on the objectives set out by Mr. Adamo and the planning staff. Now these objectives are different--why?

Posted by mtenshaw (anonymous) on March 12, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We are blessed to live in one of the top school districts in the Country. One in which the schools belong to the County and not the individual communities.

The school board has long stated that it supports the Middle to High School feeder system AND that Belmont Ridge MS is the appropriate feeder school for Stone Bridge HS.

Under current and proposed boundaries, and the "proximity" theory that abounds, the Children of Lansdowne do and will likely continue to attend Belmont Ridge MS.

The feeder system (existing and planned) sends Belmont Ridge to Stone Bridge and supports the staff recomendation to leave Lansdowne in Stone Bridge.

At the end of the day, you either support the feeder system or you don't. If you support it, you support the plan as presented.

Posted by vtvickil (anonymous) on March 12, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The following were the guidelines of the boundary adjustment. FYI, NO WHERE does it state a feeder system should be used or maintained.
Establish an attendance boundary for Tuscarora
High School
Ø Relieve existing and projected overcrowding in
current Leesburg and Ashburn high schools
Ø Balance enrollment growth with existing high
school facilities
Ø Accommodate Ashburn area high school student
growth until a new unnamed high school (HS-6)
opens – anticipated for Fall 2014 (2014-15
school year)
Only the first one was accomplished. If my childed handed this boundary recommendation into a teacher, they would get a 25% as a grade. Old grading system or new grading system, a 25% is a Failing Grade of "F". Additionally, the Attendance Boundary Change Criteria as presented also does not suggest ANYTHING about the feeder system Here is a refresher.
(Reference School Board Policy §2-32)

Posted by curioustmf (anonymous) on March 12, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Additionally, the Attendance Boundary Change Criteria as presented also does not suggest ANYTHING about the feeder system Here is a refresher.
(Reference School Board Policy §2-32)
Ø School Enrollment Projections
Ø School Capacities, New Facilities, and/or Renovations to Existing
School Facilities
Ø School Location and Site Characteristics
Ø Transportation Issues (e.g. walk zones, transportation times, costs,
safety, existing and planned road networks)
Ø Natural and Man-Made Geographic Features
Ø Existing and Planned Communities
Ø Whenever Possible, Minimize the Effect of Previous Boundary
Changes
Ø Demographic Characteristics of the School and Community
Ø Whenever Possible, Equitable Distribution of Programs and Resources
and Long-Term Costs

Posted by curioustmf (anonymous) on March 12, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

vtvickil.....agree with your comments on feeder, however the middle school feeder approach overcrowds some schools and underutilizes others. Do we throw out common sense and sacrifice our childrens well being because at one point in time we supported the feeder system? How many times have we seen bad decisions being made only to find out the reasoning was....."well that's the way we've always done it."

Posted by wdmiller99 (anonymous) on March 12, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kirsten Langhorne supports status quo until HS6 is built. She currently does not have a student that is affected by this boundary change and I'm guess that she hasn't had a child ever affected by a boundary change. She wants a long term solution. It sounds like all Ashburn Farm has been asking for the past 20 years and 18 boundary changes for their children to have a permanent solution.

Posted by webs4va (anonymous) on March 12, 2009 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara - I actually agree with you to a point.

I a more than peeved that once again Lori Waters is at the root of this issue. Waters is pushing for HS6 at the expense of her Ashburn Farm residents & Dulles residents. Dulles South needed a NEW HS a few years ago and now Waters is make yet another stupid decision which will impact BWHS and HS7.

Who does Waters think she is? Definetly a horrible EDC Chair and now she is proving to be just as irresponsible as her 2.5M waste of the T.O.T fund.

She is literally robbing Peter to pay Paul, just because she wants the Lansdowne folks happy, she doesn't care about Ashburn Farm residents much less the impact on Dulles folks. Unreal, yet becoming a disturbing pattern with Spvr. Waters

Posted by Ehodell (anonymous) on March 12, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Lansdowne residents want to hold on to the feeder system, why don't you put one in place that makes the most sense. Since the kids spend 4 years at HS and only 3 years at MS and they are more independent and less reliant on their parents for social functions in HS, the feeder system should work in reverse. Establish the boundary for the HS, then that would be your boundary for the MS you designate that is associated with the HS. So since Lansdowne seems to "claim" BRMS since it is in their community and thus that is why they would feed to SBHS, why doesn't it make sense for Ashburn Farm to "claim" Stone Bridge HS since it is in their community and then the Ashburn Farm kids would go to Belmont Ridge MS and the kids from Lansdowne could move to another MS and feed to another HS.

Posted by webs4va (anonymous) on March 12, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Erika, don't look for me to climb on the "bash Waters" bandwagon.

If Miller hadn't sold his own district down the river, there would be no opportunity for anyone to take advantage of.

If he hadn't blown off a whole section of his constituents for the opportunity for a fellow political crony (with STATE connections--gee, already looking at handholds up the ladder to Richmond maybe?) to make a commission on a secondary sale, the bond that passed last November for HS7 means the school could probably could have been bid this spring, and no one would be having this discussion.

The man actively sought support AGAINST schools for his own constituents (the ones who can actually vote for or against him), and we're supposed to be surprised that another supervisor said "hey! I know where I want a school, if you DON'T want any!"?!

Tuscarora is happening--that's the boundary that needs setting first.

We just got our boundary recommendation that has half of South Riding GOING BACK TO ASHBURN for middle school, since MS5--the other one Miller actively worked AGAINST--is now THREE YEARS LATE.

Tell me what (smart) politician is going to wait for someone who THROWS SCHOOLS AWAY to come to their senses?

If Miller doesn't want a big chunk of the district he's planning to leave campaigning against him in the 86th, he needs to get going and MAKE THIS RIGHT.

All day, every day, until it is fixed.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 1 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, although I don't agree with your Miller bashing, where is the proof not conjecture that Miller actively fought schools in his own district.

I am pretty cetain he is working very closely with Mr. Dupree to ensure HS7 is the County's 1st priority. If Waters doesn't think many people are watching and opining on her next moves to shift bonds to excelerate her HS6, she is mistaken.

Point is HS7 (Dulles South) needs to be built before HS6, period and end of discussion. I find it ironic that Waters own statement "I don't want to see or hear another request for additional school funding unless every single seat is filled", direct toward Mr. Dupree is some how lost in her translation of what her district needs. Its just hypocrytical and a double standard of how Waters operates. She has zero regard for the impact of her decision and how it affects other districts.

How does Waters own statement match her actions of putting HS6 ahead of HS7. She will have 2-3 HS with less than >60 capacity. While the Dulles district HS will be maxed out. Yet another questionable move from Waters.

Posted by Ehodell (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Erika, for "proof not conjecture" all you need to do is read the meeting minutes of Board meetings between July and October of last year.

He and his commissioner initiated a site search before the staff report was ever complete on the proposed sites, he gave multiple interviews on his suspicion of the process, he had "better, faster, cheaper" places to put things, his disclosures show who was driving the bus.

This is his district, no matter how much harder the work is than anyone told him, no matter how much skimpier the pay than he expected, and any issue involving this district other representatives are going to look at him to take the lead.

He led us into additional delay, and it will be years before it can be determined if it saved any money.

He led us back into busing away from the community.

He was right out front and active on bad information, and we now have a three-year late MS and a one year late HS.

Let me tell you how this little game works: there is a need in this district. We build the school in the wrong place for the wrong reasons, and THEN it will become fiscally necessary to bus everyone for years.

This is not gratuitous bashing Erika. This is his district, and before he bails out to try and move to Richmond, he has some glaring mistakes OF HIS VERY OWN that he needs to fix.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is my understanding of the situation re: Lansdowne. Lansdowne has been promised Belmont Ridge (which like it or not is currently the feeder to SBHS) partly as compensation for the splitting of Seldens Landing Elementary. Belmont Ridge was supposed to have been a second elementary school. But because Toll Brothers in Belmont CC was behind schedule and the county needed a middle school right away, it was built in Lansdowne instead of at the Newton-Lee site. As a result, Seldens is not big enough for Lansdowne and some kids will have to be moved to an Ashburn school (prob, Belmont Station). The closest Leesburg elementary schools to Lansdowne are also full and those parents are up in arms as well about their kids being moved further west to make room for Lansdowne kids. Taking Lansdowne out of Belmont Ridge means that some kids will be bused into Ashburn for elementary and then bused into another Leesburg middle school -- and not attend either school that's in their neighborhood.

Could the county possibly have made a bigger mess of this? How could they not have anticipated the snowball effect of their decisions each year?

Posted by jt12 (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW... This is nuts!!! Plain and simple.. Landsdowne residents do not want to feed into Leesburg HS because they feel it would be a step down from Stonebridge. Landsdowne is in the Leesburg zip code! Ashburn Farm homes can walk to stonebridge. Landsdowne kids have to be transported to Stonebridge? WHY?? would anyone say that overcrowding Stonebridge with kids that need to be bused from Leesburg when there is a good school in Leesburg that has more than enough room to accomidate them? They have to be bused anyway you look at it. WHY?? Push out kids that live in walking distance to Stonebridge to overcrowd and be transported on taxpayers money to another HS? Leesburg kids need to go to Leesburg schools... Ashburn kids need to go to Asburn schools..Or wait do they call it Landsburg or Leesdowne??? No matter how you name it, its Leesburg..

Posted by ed (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that we need to look further down the road before suggesting Lansdowne kids be bussed into Leesburg schools. Leesburg finally has a system that works. They have three middle schools that will feed into three high schools under the staff recommendation. While none of the Leesburg schools will be at capacity in 2010, down the road they will all be nearing capacity. There is NO ROOM for ashburn (and yes, Lansdowne is in the ashburn district of Dulles North) in the Leesburg school system in the long term. Where all of the ashburn kids in dulles north will fit is in dulles north schools once HS 6 is built. The CIP states that HS 6 AND HS 7 are needed in this area at the same time, around 2012. When HS 6 is built, Dulles North will have a system that works as well, with three middle schools that will feed into three high schools. Yes, there are growing pains to get there, but to suggest that we not push for a much needed high school so some kids wont be moved around is short sighted.

Posted by aajohnson (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Ed -

It's called Stone Bridge not Stonebridge and the neighborhorhood is Lansdowne, not Landsdowne. At least use the proper names in your rant.

Posted by rjburns (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The solution is HOME SCHOOL! Loundon County needs to get out of the education business. All the school board does is what they feel like no matter what the tax payers say. The BOS just sit and wonder how so many people can get mad? Vote against the Redskins in Loundon County? This is the Board of Stupids. The rest just line up like sheep and drink the kool aid. It maybe to late to change anything much less school boundaries. Don’t worry, be happy and pay your taxes early

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ed, based on what your saying then all of the ashburn kids that attend middle school in Leesburg (the feeder middle school to Stone Bridge is a Leesburg school by the way) should be moved out of that middle school. Dulles North has 4 middle schools and 3 high schools. We need another high school for our kids. Central Loudoun schools are not the answer. We would overcrowd them which only again supports why HS-6 needs to move ahead. This isn't an argument about Lansdowne not wanting to attend Leesburg schools, it's about a group that doesn't want to move their kids from Stone Bridge even though their kids attend the feeder school for Briar Woods. Why do you think there is so much capacity at Briar Woods TODAY when Stone Bridge is above capacity. Why do so many Dulles North kids have to have their high school years disrupted because 300 kids can't move south?

Posted by dullesnorth (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

woops, thanks Dulles north, I forgot to add farmwell and broad run in my counting above...

Posted by aajohnson (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Dulles north" is being used very broadly here; Do you know "Dulles south" used to extend all the way past Middleburg? (USED to)

Lansdowne is north of Route 7 in Broad Run district.

The HS6 site is between the Greenway and the airport in Dulles district.

Magisterial districts and zip codes aren't of prime relevance here, and the "feeder system" isn't necessarily either.

As more schools are built (and they will be, for some years yet), feeders can and will change.

That's all they've done for years already.

HS7 is projected (and voter approved) in Dulles SOUTH, and if Mr. Miller hadn't torpedoed the sites, this discussion would not be going on.

Is there some reason that kids south of 50 should return to attending secondary school in Ashburn AGAIN (which we WILL be doing THIS FALL), and Ashburn kids should be disrupted AGAIN?

Tuscarora is opening; before we build another school that will send us back ten years in time as far as neighborhood disruption, let's set a reasonable boundary for that school.

Then let's build VOTER APPROVED HS7.

THEN let's see when HS6 is actually NEEDED.

Until those first two things occur, any discussion of HS6 is grossly premature.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So this is all a power play by Lori Waters to get the Loudoun taxpayers to fund a high school they don't need yet (HS6) so that her constituents children don't need to go to Leesburg schools. Let's get that out in the open.
.
There needs to be some fiscal responsibility in this county. This is just getting ridiculous!
.
The next meetings are 3/23 and 3/25-please make your opinions heard. You can also email your concerns to the school board and board of supervisors.
.
Waters should not be allowed to get away with this at all of our expense.

Posted by qazwsxedcrfv (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The enrollment projections support BOTH HS-6 and HS-7. In a market where you can build a school for half of what it is budgeted for there is no reason NOT to move forward with construction of both schools - that is however, except for the fact that the county doesn't have the land yet for HS-7. This isn't an either or solution and no where does the staff recommendation say not to build HS-7, it simply moves up the timeframe for 6.

Posted by vtvickil (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Question, When was the CIP planned? Was it in 06 or 07 when new homes were being built faster than we could plan for them?

Posted by ed (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The slow down in new housing construction does not have much impact on the need for HS-7 to relieve overcrowding at Freedom High School. There are enough kids currently sitting in grades 3-7 in Dulles South to fill both Freedom and HS-7. Every grade has more kids in it than the grade above.

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ed, the CIP is re-planned every year--that's what's happening right now. The first year of the six-year projection becomes part of the current year's adopted budget.

What is under discussion here is what happens in the out-years, and what steps must occur this year to bring the current-planned out years to fruition.

vtvickil, none of this addresses the surplus of seats in Leesburg, OR the fact that next year's budget is projected to be worse than this.

Where is the $100M to advance this school, and still operate the Leesburg schools with empty seats?

Charsj is correct; the reason HS7 was advanced last year, placed on the ballot, and passed was because currently Dulles south, the fastest growing area of the county even in this economy, has ONE ms and ONE hs, both of which need relief.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dullesnorth asked:"Why do so many Dulles North kids have to have their high school years disrupted because 300 kids can't move south?"

I pose this question to you: Why do so many Ashburn Farm kids have to have their high school years disrupted, be splintered from the rest of their community and be displaced out of a school within their own community boundaries because Lansdowne kids can't move north?

Posted by kimtl (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why don't we check the integrity of the Lansdowne residents and the planning staff. If it's all about the feeder system....fine, split Lansdowne at DN40 and DN1.3 to address crowding at Belmont Ridge, send those sections to Harper Park since it has room, and let those sections feed into Heritage. Fixes the capacity issues, but splits the Lansdowne community the way we're splitting Ashburn.

Posted by wdmiller99 (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW....throw DN1 in the mix as well.

Posted by wdmiller99 (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"In this economy we will not stand by and have them build a new high school that is not needed. We need to maximize use of available capacity. As taxpayers, we demand fiscal accountability. Building a high school years ahead of schedule, just to placate a special interest in Supervisor Waters’ district is irresponsible. In 2012, both plans endorsed by Ashburn Farm Parents United and other surrounding communities (plan 564 & 592) have only 36 students over capacity in 2012. These plans are also permanent solutions for Ashburn Farm, Belmont Country Club, and Lansdowne. This is not a 2 year solution – kids don’t have to move again, communities are kept together, and taxpayers don’t have HS-6 prematurely added to our already high tax burden."

Could not have said it better..

Posted by ed (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What about forgetting the whole "feeder school" idea altogether? We could have both Lansdowne and Ashburn Farm kids go to the same middle school, Belmont Ridge MS, then the Lansdowne kids could go to high schools in Leesburg while Ashburn Farm kids could go to their local Ashburn high schools? Is that possible? Split the schools, not the neighborhoods.

Posted by qazwsxedcrfv (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

vtvickil-
The enrollment projections do not support HS-6 until 2014. And those were the rosier projections when development was still happening.

aajohnson-
Even if you move Lansdowne to Tuscarora, that school is STILL under capacity by 100 seats in 2013.

Why should Board of Supervisors boundaries have anything to do with where we have schools and seats? These boundaries will all be changing again in 2010 anyways.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kimtl- if you are referring to the current students at SBHS being allowed to finish their high schools years at SBHS, I couldn't agree more. No student should have to go to 2 different high schools. The boundaries should be grandfathered for current students. The new boundary should start with next years class so the freshman from the moved DN's can go to one high school. The DN's that were moved go to Eagle Ridge (feeder to Briar Woods). I don't think it is disruptive for them to attend a high school with their middle school friends. I do think it is disruptive to send any child from Dulles North to a Central Loudoun where they have never gone to school.

wdmiller - The middle schools in Central Loudoun can not take Dulles North kids in the future because their middle schools are needed for their children. Why do you think the loudest applause occurred when Harper Park's boundaries were left alone. The applause came from Central Loudoun parents who do not want to have their schools messed up because of Dulles North's problems. Middle school seats do exist in Dulles North at Stone Hill and will become available when MS-5 opens. The movement for Dulles North is south.

Posted by dullesnorth (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I stand corrected. Was just looking at the staff's projections and it appeared Harper Park didn't reach capacity until 2013. I like the idea presented earlier about the High School being the starting point for community and feeder boundaries since the HS is where the children end secondary school.

Posted by wdmiller99 (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Frankly, it's the development of Lansdowne causing the overcrowding at Stone Bridge so the Lansdowne students should be the ones to move. Displacing Ashburn Farm students from the high school IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITY because Landsowne is still growing makes no sense at all. Common sense dictates that Lansdowne students move to Heritage or Tuscarora and keep all of Ashburn Farm students at Stone Bridge. It will alleviate the overcrowding at Stone Bridge, fill the EMPTY SPACE at the Leesburg schools, keep communities together and provide stability in the school populations much longer than the "staff recommended" plan. And as a bonus, we won't need to build HS6 prematurely with $100M that we don't have.

Posted by kimtl (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a thought....Ashburn Farm is so concerned about keeping their "community" together at the expence of getting rid of the feeder system,but have any of those parents ever asked their middle schooler the following question: "Would you rather go to high school with kids you went to middle school with or kids you don't know, but that live in your 'community'?"

Posted by mdisch (anonymous) on March 17, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mdisch-The middle schoolers would still go to school with their friends, just not ALL of their friends. And they would have grown up with the kids from their neighborhood so wouldn't have too much of a problem assimilating into the HS.
.
If we did away with the feeder school idea altoghether, the kids from several different middle schools could end up at the same high school as each other. You could have 2, 3 or 4 middle schools feeding into the high schools.
.
Has anyone in the school planning department ever looked into this possibility?

Posted by qazwsxedcrfv (anonymous) on March 17, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The feeder system is a dead horse please stop beating it..

Posted by ed (anonymous) on March 17, 2009 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)