How about parents try shouldering a larger part of the educational costs in Loudoun county? Demanding a private-school educational environment for free is going to bankrupt this county.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hoquenishy, you've pointed out an interesting aspect of the school system that is often glossed over--we DO have a private system within the public one.

For many years, the tiny rural schools were generational in nature--grandmothers graduated from the same school their grandchild now attends.

That is changing though. For example, in parts of the "transition" area served by Aldie, of the long time families that used the tiny public schools, many have moved on and been replaced by people seeking a low density lifestyle.

I don't know if school seats double the average cost of a seat anywhere else should come with that lifestyle choice.

Particularly when some of the parents seeking that subsidy are also protesting schools at the secondary level as being inappropriate for the landscape.

Will that tune change when their kids are ready for a seat in middle school?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, Ms. Munsey, let's go ahead and figure the per seat cost of those schools -- especially Middleburg and Aldie -- with ALL the costs of the school. Shall we? Let's add in the fact there are ZERO dollars owed on either of those schools and compare that with the 24.5 million dollars it costs to build the new elementary schools. Now go ahead and amortize those construction costs and tell me which is cheaper to run. The paid-for school or the new mega-school?

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Stephen, that hasn't been done since the 2005 budget, perhaps because of the outcry it raised.

That was the year that the per pupil "average" was $9K per seat.

Here are excerpts from the Leesburg Today article entitled "School Budget: Markups Begin in Earnest", published January 2005. I don't believe this is available online, as their website changed since then. However, you should be able to find it at the library.

"The report shows Middleburg Elementary has the highest per-pupil cost
at $16,828. Aldie Elementary is the second highest at $12,182, while
Hillsboro Elementary has the third highest at $10,820.

At the other end of the scale, Little River Elementary in South Riding
has the lowest per pupil cost at $4,456, while Hillside Elementary in
Ashburn had the second lowest cost at $4,854. Mill Run Elementary in
Ashburn had the third lowest at $ 5,162."

To answer your question about debt service and what it does to per-pupil cost, there is the following:

"In the case of Little River, debt service adds $1,775 per student to
the per-pupil cost so that the $4,456 per pupil cost is really $6,231.
The debt service per pupil at Hillside is $1,892 so its overall per-pupil
cost is actually $6,746."

As you see, there is still a significant deviation from the "average" on both the low and high end, even with debt service added to the cost of a newer seat.

Those figures are based on 2004 data, so if Aldie cost over $12K per seat four years ago, I wonder what that's risen to now?

Does moving to the transition or rural policy area entitle someone to a private school experience in an ostensibly public venue?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the table of straight cost from the article, from highest to lowest in that 9K "average" year:

Per-Pupil Operation Costs By School

1. Middleburg Elementary $16,828

2. Aldie Elementary $12,182

3. Hillsboro Elementary $10,820

4. Banneker Elementary $9,799

5. J.L Simpson Elementary $9,659

6. Rolling Ridge Elementary $9,092

7. Sully Elementary $8,976

8. Guilford Elementary $8,937

9. Sterling Middle $8,866

10. Harper Park Middle $8,670

11. Lucketts Elementary $8,627

12. Mercer Middle $8,413

13. Smart’s Mill Middle $8,376

14. Lincoln Elementary $8,295

15. Blue Ridge Middle $8,288

16. Eagle Ridge Middle $8,255

17. Catoctin Elementary $8,245

18. Loudoun County High $8,190

19. Dominion High School $8,056

20. Sterling Elementary $8,005

21. Loudoun Valley High $7,969

22. Park View High $7,836

23. Waterford Elementary $7,772

24. Sugarland Elementary $7,771

25. Round Hill Elementary $7,690

26. Potomac Falls High $7,595

27. Lovettsville Elementary $7,570

28. Harmony Intermediate $7,555

29. Heritage High $7,420

30. Belmont Station Elementary $7,356

31. Seneca Ridge Middle $7,369

32. Farmwell Station Middle $7,363

33. Countryside Elementary $7,276

34. Balls Bluff Elementary $7,213

35. Algonkian Elementary $6,976

36. River Bend Middle $6,965

37. Broad Run High $6,838

38. Frances Hazel Reid ES $6,759

39. Meadowland Elementary $6,745

40. Forest Grove Elementary $6,744

41. Leesburg Elementary $6,730

42. Mountain View Elementary $6,708

43. Emerick Elementary $6,655

44. Stone Bridge High $6,544

45. Belmont Ridge Middle $6,368

46. Hamilton Elementary $6,154

47. Potowmack Elementary $6,131

48. Sanders Corner Elementary $6,131

49. Lowes Island Elementary $5,921

50. Cedar Lane Elementary $5,846

51. John W. Tolbert Elementary $5,807

52. Cool Spring Elementary $5,710

53. Horizon Elementary $5,674

54 Hutchison Farm Elementary $5,666

55. Dominion Trail Elementary $5,472

56. Arcola Elementary $5,453

57. Ashburn Elementary $5,405

58. Evergreen Mill Elementary 5,179

59. Mill Run Elementary $5,162

60. Hillside Elementary $4,854

61. Little River Elementary $4,456

(January 6, 2005)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, Barbara, what you fail to mention in your comment is that list is based on costs calculated using actual costs of teachers' salaries rather than the average cost per teacher. Teachers making $80,000 will raise the cost per student much more than those making $45,000. Notice all the older schools top the list. That is because those schools have the teachers with the highest salaries due to longevity. Little River was still new and most teachers there had little experience.
Is your problem just with Aldie and Middleburg or do you resent any school costing more than Little River? Are you suggesting we close J.L. Simpson, Sterling and Harper Park because they cost so much more than Little River?
Also, you should do your research. There are still many multi-generational families at Aldie. I am sure most of the rural schools still have many multi-generational students.

Posted by creekview1 (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually Creekview, all of the older rural schools do not top the list; Waterford and Lovettsville came in at $7K that year, Hamilton at 6K, and old Arcola (Goshen Rd) at 5K.

I do have a distinct problem with those who have been active in protesting the middle and high school sites with some preposterous disinformation, while demanding all day kindergarten and other expensive services.

Particularly when one of the vocal committed activists quoted here gets a 37% reduction in her taxes.

This same individual had quite a wild story at the Mercer meeting on the school sites, claiming that a "deal" had been struck to give Greenvest a density credit on the remainder of their land. While she was floating conspiracy theories, did she count the % of ADUs in the by right application?

In addition, if one of the reasons to oppose the secondary schools is traffic and the cost of fuel to bus children to the sites (much closer than where they WILL be bused for middle school now that Mercer is on overflow until relief is built), why is no one mentioning that each child who opts in to these underenrolled schools will add 4 vehicle trips per day each to roads in the rural policy area?

It seems it is unsafe, environmentally and fiscally unsound to bring older children into Lenah, but here we have some of the youngest children of the transition area, whose western boundary is well east of Route 15, bused into the rural policy area of the Blue Ridge district well WEST of Route 15 for all day kindergarten, the smallest class sizes in the county, and one of the highest costs per seat?

I don't dispute that there are still families in that area with ties to these schools--neither did I say that there were none. However, they do not any longer seem to be the majority. It seems some people are moving IN for the private school experience, if the article has it right.

I have done the research for years creekview, and I don't think one person's children are more special and deserving than another's, simply because of the type of lot they live on.

I don't blame you for wanting your child to have the best things possible. But as long as the same people are fighting AGAINST hundreds of other peoples' children on the secondary issue, it's going to bother me quite a bit when a small group of people want things both ways, especially when some of the warriors get a fat tax break while making their special demands.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, let me get this right. Your main objection to Aldie and Middleburg is that some of the parents object to the proposed location of HS-7 and MS-5. You do realize there are people in South Riding and Stone Ridge who also oppose that location. Do you want to punish them for voicing their opinions also.
This article had nothing to do with HS-7 and MS-5 or land use, yet that is the focus of your argument?
I happen to support all schools in Loudoun. Most people pick their homes for a number of reasons. Some may look for a smaller school , others may like all the bells and whistles of a larger, newer school. Some may want to live close shopping, others prefer more open space. Loudoun offers it all and everyone and everyone is free to chose which they prefer. You want to live in South Riding. I'm glad it makes you happy.
By the way, I voted for the bond to pay for Little River, Liberty, and Freedom in South Riding.

Posted by creekview1 (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

creekview, I do object to activists playing both sides of the lobbying fence for their own personal gain.

I have no objection to people opting in as that is current policy. (It also seems last year many people registered, yet on opening day a good chunk of the kids didn't materialize, but that's another story.)

I very much object to the disinformation used by some to combat the middle and high schools, particularly one individual receiving such a hugely disproportionate benefit of (reduced)taxes paid/taxes invested in service provision.

I have no doubt there are people in the large developments of the suburban policy area who oppose the sites. I would also venture that some of those have no children affected, and some swallowed whole the fertilizer put out in the email alerts of some of the activists--like the one that said these schools mean the CPAMs are coming back, and other whoppers.

Salary doesn't begin to cover the discrepancies in cost per seat, unless the schools in question have only a few dozen kids each. And if that is the case, why are they open at all? Separate and unequal is no more valid than separate but equal.

When Ms. Hutchison's kindergartner reaches 6th grade, does she think a little red middle school will automatically materialize in an appropriate setting (at God knows what cost per seat) because it's time for her child to have one?

I guess we won't be able to blame her for thinking so, if the secondary schools go down while small private schools receive massive funding to enable them to serve a fraction of a percent of the population as a whole.

The "P" in LCPS stands for "public", which is why I too have voted for all school bonds, and have publicly spoken at the BoS for funding for rural schools as well as the ones my children would need during the now eleven years I've been here.

Watching selfish people protest schools (other than their own) makes me feel like it is becoming foolish to hold a position of unconditional support.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I've never heard anyone protest against the need for HS-7 and HS-5, only the proposed location.
By the way, Aldie and Middleburg are public schools. In fact, the point of the article is that they are open to anyone in Loudoun County. In fact, the parents there welcome other students and their families. Again, contrary to your claim, you seem to support only schools in the suburban policy whose parents agree with your views.

Posted by creekview1 (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The "P" in LCPS stands for "public", which is why I too have voted for all school bonds..."

You mean you've voted to give the rest of us the privilege of spending more and more every year on the school system, and encourage further fiscal recklessness by the LCPS system, and enabling them to spend, spend, spend?

EARTH TO LOUDOUN COUNTY PARENTS - PLEASE RETURN TO REALITY. The rest of us would like to see our public dollars be spent on other things as well. It's not all about you.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, I have, hoqenishy. It is the responsibility of the county to provide schools. The sites will not always be perfect, nor will the curriculum, nor the teachers, nor anything else.

Plenty of people vote against the bonds, but when kids are crammed on buses and transported to wherever there's a seat, you get problems, both educationally and behaviorally. The budget for what goes IN the schools--and there is a ton of extraneous political baggage right there--is a subject for another day.

Some expenditures could be curbed right here--obviously it struck a nerve with creekview trees to quote the per-pupil operating costs, but that is just one example of the separate and unequal provision system.

creekview, the point of the article is that there is a recurring problem at these small and very expensive schools: there is no longer a reason for them to be open in their location. They cannot maintain a population without special policies and petition drives urging people to come from afar to attend them.

I'm sure many of the parents are welcoming to anyone who will allow the school to continue to exist. Ms. Hutchison and those who YES protest the secondary schools aren't very welcoming.

It would be laughable to credit your "wrong place" argument, if it weren't so self serving.

That is a fine game to play with houses, businesses, and other applications. It is why there is so much unplanned growth in Loudoun, and real businesses (the ones that pay taxes) are leaving the county.

What does it cost to bus hundreds of kids to Ashburn because a handfull of people (with the second highest per pupil cost in the county) don't want to be near a school they don't use yet?

Ms. Hutchison and the dual-activists (we don't want these schools that hundreds of kids will need, but we do want all day kindergarten at our little school, and by the way we want the county to renovate a derelict community center and give us a preschool and daycare) are not only selfish, but they are uninformed.

People who wave the Comp Plan should READ it.

Chapter 8, Transition Policy Area, Land Use Pattern, para 5:

"The non-residential component of the Transition Policy Area will be comprised of uses that represent an appropriate transition from suburban to rural land uses, such as golf courses, active recreation uses, kennels, nurseries and similar commercial uses, PUBLIC and private SCOOLS and other compatible institutional uses. (emphasis mine) These uses will serve to promote a rural character while SERVING BOTH RURAL AND SUBURBAN RESIDENTS." Emphasis again mine.

You can't have it both ways creekview, and neither can the Mrs.

The cost that will be incurred messing up the secondary schools will be huge, and the cost will continue to flow to the protesters' little idyll.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems to me that part of the reason that Aldie is under-enrolled is the way the boundaries were drawn. Perhaps Lenah Run residents, for instance, could be given the choice between going there or to one of the SR elementaries. Then, the school would be fully enrolled and whatever formula you're using to decide the per seat cost would be decreased. And we wouldn't be resorting to "special policies and petition drives" to keep it open. There are no special policies for Aldie, et al., Ms. Munsey; the policies are in effect for the entire district and can be used by anyone enrolled therein.
.
No one is asking for separate by (un)equal treatment, Ms. Munsey. We are asking to keep a very viable COMMUNITY school open. Just as SR petitioned for, and got, community schools in the past. In fact, instead of busing all the over-enrolees in SR to Brambleton or Ashburn (wherever the decision is made to send them) why not send some of them to Aldie? We have some room and would welcome as many as we could fit. In fact, why not add a second story to Aldie and double the student population, taking in all of Lenah Run, perhaps? That might cut out some of the 90 cents/student mile cost of busing them over to Arcola and afford seats at Arcola for some of the SR kids in the interim.
.
Petitioning for all-day kindergarten was and is a good thing from an educational perspective. There is plenty of solid evidence that starting earlier is better. Aldie got the full-day program because they have a classroom already. It had been being used only half-day for Kindergarten and was then empty. Why not utilize it all the day?

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(Continuing)
Perhaps, had Mr. Adamo been doing his homework including thinking outside the box, the other schools would have included enough rooms for the Kindergartens there. I don't feel that his short-sightedness and bad planning should now constitute our emergency.
.
Similarly, the fact that he claims to have been searching for a new Dulles South site (now proposed for Lenah Road) for the past 4 or 5 years, yet he came with a solid proposal only this past September is an indication to me that his job performance is lacking.
.
On another note, I fail to see what your beef is with Ms. Hutchison. Why is it two-faced to want all-day Kindergarten and properly-situated schools at the same time? No one, including Ms. Hutchison have advocated not building schools -- that seems to be your fabrication -- but what I see repeatedly is advocacy for locating them where the students are. Given the relatively low-density of the transition area and the really low density of the urban area to the west, it makes little or no sense to put two mega-schools right there on Lenah Road. UNLESS, there is an underlying thought by some developers that they might conceivably justify more dense development later on with the argument that the schools are already there and they need to be filled economically. That proposition doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me. But then, I'm a proponent of reasonable growth, not the hell-bent-for-election growth so popular until recently.

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Correction: It should read rural are to the west, not urban area.

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stephen, you would have boundaries drawn to place more students east of Rte 15 in the rural policy area? That would seem to me to contradict the arguments of the school protesters that it makes no sense to bus children from east of Lenah to Lenah, as well as the arguments against the energy expense (and cost to the environment!) of doing so.

Indeed a very few vocal people ARE asking for separate and unequal, if the small community schools are no longer viable on their own, and cost massively more per seat to operate, even if they ARE paid for.

Your cost argument also falls flat if you are suggesting a complete re-engineering of the bulding at Aldie to plop a second floor on top! Have somebody run the cost estimates on THAT and see what you get per seat.

Then add in the cost of busing people there.

Your continued emphasis on this being developer driven is as deliberately obtuse as the argument by some that the site is costing $25M.

That was the amount approved on bond for site acquisition in the region. Dr. Adamo tried repeatedly to make that perfectly clear at the Mercer meeting. He is not and SHOULD NOT make price negotiations open on an unconsummated deal. To make the leap that since that is what is currently budgeted (TOTAL) for acquisition is the actual cost of the site, in some evil developer fantasy, is beyond absurd.

Stephen, READ the Comp Plan. Schools are an allowed use.

They are only "mega schools" (Loudoun builds smaller schools than many places--that is a hot button budget issue of its own) to those who reap the benefit of the separate and unequal service provision in Loudoun.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"you would have boundaries drawn to place more students east of Rte 15 in the rural policy area?" What?!? I didn't say anything of the sort. Getting them to schools that are located there is a far different concept than building houses to have them there already, if that's what you mean. If that's not what you mean, then I have no idea what you mean.
.
One of the busing arguments to the Lenah location is that either the students in the immediate area of Mercer will be relocated out of their community school to a distant one, or the students from SR will be bused PAST Mercer to the new one. Neither makes sense. Build the school where the students live that will predominantly use it. That's the point of those opposed to Lenah Road.
.
"if the small community schools are no longer viable on their own." Who says they are? That's a presumptuous statement.
.
Before you get too dismissive on the second floor idea (and it seems that you are being just that), let's get the figures. I don't see that as my job. I see it as Sam Adamo's job to figure this stuff out. I am willing to give him ideas and propose alternatives but by gum he's getting the big bucks to do the work.
.
The busing costs to get the Lenah Run kids there are certainly no more than they are currently paying to get those same kids to Arcola. That one's a wash, at least. If it's closer to Aldie than to Arcola, it's a profit.
.
If you think Adamo made the site acquisition costs "perfectly clear" at the Mercer meeting, Ms. Munsey, then you and I were at different meetings -- as were scores of others, apparently. I am not alone in taking away from that meeting the idea that the COST is going to be 25M. What makes you think that's NOT the cost?
.
Please refrain from talking down to me, Ms. Munsey (e.g., "Stephen, READ the Comp Plan. Schools are an allowed use"). I do not and never have disputed that fact -- nor has anyone else I've seen commenting.
.
While living in Williamsburg a few years ago, my kids went to a 900 student megaschool and I thought the same about them then as I do now. It's not a matter of reaping the benefits of what you euphemistically prefer to call a "separate but unequal service provision." It is a matter of reaping the benefits of a smaller, more community-based learning environment. Perhaps the outcry-at-large to the school board should be to start building lots more smaller schools and fewer megaschools. Maybe then we'd find ALL the Loudoun schools in the Top 100 listing.

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

""you would have boundaries drawn to place more students east of Rte 15 in the rural policy area?" What?!? I didn't say anything of the sort." Posted by stephen (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It seems to me that part of the reason that Aldie is under-enrolled is the way the boundaries were drawn. Perhaps Lenah Run residents, for instance, could be given the choice between going there or to one of the SR elementaries. Then, the school would be fully enrolled...In fact, instead of busing all the over-enrolees in SR to Brambleton or Ashburn (wherever the decision is made to send them) why not send some of them to Aldie?" Posted by stephen (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They already HAVE the opt-in option. And it appears you did suggest boundary issues, as well as busing (in both directions).

Stephen, there is no available land in South Riding. That is a fairy tale, just like your statement that "it isn't your job" to do the engineering on your idea of a second story; apparently it is only your job to throw it out there as a "solution", and then claim it is real because you said so.

Talking down goes both ways, friend. Perhaps you would have heard and understood what Dr. Adamo was saying at the Mercer meeting if you and the Dulles Rep to Parks and Rec hadn't been engaged in making derogatory comments about speakers in support of the school; a resident of Gum Spring Rd. asked me who you guys were, because they were sitting not far behind you and had trouble hearing some of the speakers because of the ongoing commentary in your row.

If you are now NOT disputing that schools are an appropriate use in the trans area, then please do get the word out to the other activists who say the sites don't comply.

If traffic is just too much of an impact on Lenah Rd, busing and individual driving to the unincorporated rural village of Aldie in the Blue Ridge district is an impact and safety issue that should be examined as well.

For the umpteenth of what will no doubt be infinite times, you can't have it both ways.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Perhaps you would have heard and understood what Dr. Adamo was saying at the Mercer meeting if you and the Dulles Rep to Parks and Rec hadn't been engaged in making derogatory comments about speakers in support of the school; a resident of Gum Spring Rd. asked me who you guys were, because they were sitting not far behind you and had trouble hearing some of the speakers because of the ongoing commentary in your row."
Utter BS. Period.

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Utter bs? Is that why the individual described you both to a T?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Disruptive? The two of us? Utter BS, yes.

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stephen, you need not disrupt the entire room to interfere with the ability of someone sitting near you in hearing what was said.

Particularly since some of the speakers that evening were more softly-spoken than others.

Distraction? Apparently so, for that person.

Disruptive? If you choose to see yourself that way, feel free.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)