One Year In: An Interview With the New Superintendent
By STEPHEN SIEGEL
Falls Church Times Staff
May 8, 2012
When Toni Jones was hired as the new superintendent of the Falls Church City Schools last year, it may have come as a surprise to some. Many new faces among city officials have experience locally, especially in Arlington or Fairfax counties, while she hailed from distant Oklahoma.
But she ran a highly regarded independent school system there, and has lived in major cities before, among them Sydney, Australia.
The Times recently sat down with her to discuss her early impressions and ideas after a few months on the job.
The first thing she says, in response to a question, is that she hasn’t really found anything shocking or unexpected among what she’s learned thus far, in part because she did ample research on the City and its schools beforehand.
“I feel like I studied the district for a year,” she said. “I’m not going to say there were no surprises, but I tried to do my homework before going here. I understood the demographics.
“The biggest change was living in Northern Virginia,” which has a much larger population than suburban Oklahoma City, where she was superintendent of the district of Deer Creek.
Nevertheless, she likes Falls Church City’s feel of a village within a major metropolitan area. “It’s like living in a small town but has all the luxuries,” she says.
Asked if the area’s steep real estate prices provided any sticker shock, she says no. “I was used to Sydney. I was ready for it here.”
However, the high real estate prices do affect Dr. Jones’ job: they are a major driver of the schools’ budget, as the cost of living in the area means salaries need to be higher. And salaries are the biggest portion of that budget, which is increasing 7% this year.
“Most of our spending is teachers,” she says. But she is quick to point out that another driver of the spending is the growing student population, and that spending per student has been declining for several years, from over $19,000 per student to about $16,000 now.
Dr. Jones also recognizes that while the community wants top-notch schools, many people in town — and on the City Council — are concerned about their cost.
“We have to be very prudent and make good decisions and make sure we’re spending money on aspects that really make a difference in the classroom for children,” she says, adding: “Anybody that works with me knows that being fiscally responsible is something I take a lot of pride in. We’re only asking for what’s necessary to sustain the excellence that we all expect for Falls Church City.”
Another factor driving the spending, while teacher-related, is different and unavoidable, at least by local officials: teacher retirement costs, which are mandated by the state-run Virginia Retirement System (VRS), are rising dramatically in order to put the system, which has billions in unfunded liabilities, on sounder financial footing.
In fact, that’s the biggest issue facing the school budget this year. It’s costing $1.1 million, plus $200,000 in VRS insurance costs. “That’s the greatest increase in Virginia history,” Dr. Jones said, adding that $350,000 would be a more typical figure.
Then there’s the increase in students. Falls Church City schools are in great demand, which is being reflected in a surging City real estate market, and the number of students this year is the “largest year over year increase in 30 years,” Dr. Jones said. “And we didn’t hire any new staff this year. That’s why next year there are five new teachers in the budget — that’s for kids who are already here.”
Another reason for the increase is the number of students who come from multi-unit developments such as Pearson Square on Maple Avenue, where Dr. Jones says as many as 100 kids are at the bus stop.
Pearson Square originally was built to be high-end condos costing in the range of $800,000 a piece for three bedroom floor plans, but the building was completed as the condo market was collapsing in 2008. The developer then chose to rent them as apartments instead.
That made Pearson Square an attractive alternative to single family homes for families who wanted into the City schools. The building subsequently was sold and the new owner intends to keep the units as rentals, at least for the near future.
“We have no plan at the moment to change the property use,” said Robert Ruffatto, managing director of Pearlmark Real Estate Partners, in a telephone interview. “The property is performing extremely well.”
Pearson Square also has added a State Department contract, which added still more children to the schools.
Asked if she is concerned about the rapid enrollment growth and the City’s ability to support it, Dr. Jones said they managed such growth in Deer Creek for many years, and that it wasn’t a problem there. She also doesn’t believe it’s part of her job description to worry about it.
“I think it’s very optimstic to think that you can control growth,” she said. “I leave that up to city planners. They know growth means more children. The city hires experts in that field.”
Dr. Jones also didn’t want to sound as if she wasn’t welcoming all the students that live in the City.
“When you have apartments and condos, they are going to be full of families,” she said matter-of-factly. Speaking specifically of the State Department families, she added: “You couldn’t choose a better population to join our schools and really contribute to our schools. They bring a unique diversity.
“We have children who have lived all over the world. When I sit in the classroom and listen, it’s fascinating the experiences the children are able to share.”
Few would disagree with that sentiment, but at the same time, the State Department contract imposes costs, particularly when the city schools already are pushing capacity. Asked if perhaps the City could get any reimbursement from the federal government, she said: “Great question. That’s one thing I’m really studying.”
Because of the capacity issues, plans for expansion and renovation are moving ahead. Thomas Jefferson Elementary School is first on the list, with expansion beginning this summer. The plan remains to move fifth grade back to TJ from Mary Ellen Henderson when the expansion is complete, which is scheduled for April 2013. The expansion includes 15 new classrooms, a kitchen renovation, and new pavement.
A possible expansion of Mt. Daniel also is under discussion, and plans to move the Mt. Daniel preschool program to the Child Development Center on Cherry Street continue apace. That’s been controversial because it would oust the Easter Seals’ popular daycare program from that location, but Dr. Jones said it makes the most financial sense.
“In Falls Church City, if you have the opportunity to own a piece of property, you have to go do it. It’s much more expensive to acquire new land.”
She also said officials have begun discussions about George Mason High School’s future. “We have some work to do to figure out what needs to be done. It’s very old — we work hard to make it look nice, keeping the floors waxed, keeping it painted. The ceilings are very low, and the heating and cooling environmental impact is a challenge.
Another challenge, she said, is security, because of the number of doors to the building and because of the use of trailers that are outside the main building, which was built in 1952. Because of that concern — and concern about the location near Interstate 66 and the West Falls Church Metro Station — the school has a high-tech locking system that unlocks the doors automatically when the bell rings so students can go from trailer to building and vice versa. The system then re-locks the doors when the second bell rings and students are at their new classroom.
The issue of a how to pay for a new high school also became an issue in the just-concluded City Council elections, as several candidates mentioned its estimated $90 million price tag.
Part of the challenge is the size of the parcel that would be needed. The current high school is on a 30 acre site. “It’s not easy to find that size of a parcel. We’re keeping a very open-minded look at every creative option available to us.”
By Stephen Siegel
May 8, 2012
Thanks for this interview — it’s good for the community to hear directly from Dr. Jones what her challenges and priorities are. She sounds level-headed in terms of balancing fiscal realities with our community’s commitment to having great schools.
I appreciate her comment on the growth not being her problem in the sense that her job is to educate the kids that are ultimately enrolled. Focus is a good thing.
That said, growth, to me, is a major concern. In addition to apartments like Pearson Sq., there are new houses being built all over the city — some where no house was before. Anytime a new home is built, or even just sold, I’d be willing to bet on average 2 new kids are coming into our schools (clearly this is just a guess, but I’d argue a logical one). Have we indeed planned for this increase? I’ve heard for the past few years that enrollment has been higher than expected.
Dr. Jones references “experts” that are planning for the enrollments — I’d like to learn more about the analysis and planning that’s been done, and how it’s being adjusted year-to-year if indeed it’s been off. Those estimates don’t have to be off by much to have a real and immediate impact on the quality of education our kids are getting in terms of teacher-student ratios.
I would like to see growth in actual numbers of school children in mixed-use projects versus single family housing. From the presentations that are on the school’s website the actual growth is right in line with what was projected.
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fccpsva/Board.nsf/files/8N7HUK4A0D5A/$file/FCCPS%20Budget%20November%201%202011.pdf
I hope that accommodating enrollment growth is one the top priorities of the school board.
The document that D. Wayne links to is interesting. Back in 2009 the schools did a facility study that included a bunch of very scientific enrollment projections. I can’t track down the main report but I did find this presentation that seems to be pulling info from the report: http://www.fccps.org/board/facilitystudy/SchoolFacilityStudy_090609.pdf
On page 5 of that report it shows the “Projected Enrollment Based on Current Trends” for 2013 to be 2,047. But the document D. Wayne links to says we already have 2,169 kids in the system and we’re now projecting close to 2,250 by 2013. That’s bad enough but the 2009 study suggests that by 2018 total enrollment will by 2,151 – a number we’ve already surpassed.
My point is that whatever decisions were made as recently as 2009 need to be reconsidered because they were based on very incorrect forecasts. It also seems like we should use a new approach to forecasting enrollment since the last approach didn’t work.
Here is demographic data presented to the City Council last month by Dr. Jones regarding the Falls Church student population living in non-single family homes.
http://goo.gl/o9anN
And these are the current projections of student enrollment versus building capacity out 8 years at rates of 2%, 3% and 4%.
http://goo.gl/ov8F3
John Brett
FCCPS Communications
I’m curious — How far in advance were the projections at http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fccpsva/Board.nsf/files/8N7HUK4A0D5A/$file/FCCPS%20Budget%20November%201%202011.pdf made — was each projection made one year prior, three, five?
So based on the information provided by John Brett and the demographic data from the city website:
There are 2008 rental households in the city which accounts for 449 students…a ratio of .22 students per household.
There are 2912 owner households in the city which accounts for 1720 students…a ratio of .59 students per household
I will let these numbers speak for themselves.
Projections do have limitations. Schools survey residents to look at trends. One thing is clear in hindsight….when there is a US diplomatic emergency or unrest somewhere…the families come home in droves and some come back to DC area. Some of those come to FC schools. I doubt there is a way to predict the next international situation that will drive families to return stateside. I don’t think we know until they arrive.
Mr. Jones made the following comment:
So based on the information provided by John Brett and the demographic data from the city website:
There are 2008 rental households in the city which accounts for 449 students…a ratio of .22 students per household.
There are 2912 owner households in the city which accounts for 1720 students…a ratio of .59 students per household
I will let these numbers speak for themselves.”
One wonders what the ratios were 10 years ago versus now; put another way, where’s the growth coming from? Also, what does each group contribute in terms of needed tax revenues to fund the schools, and what are the implications if a greater proportion of the school system’s future growth comes from rental households.
I have had to pleasure of interacting with Dr. Jones regarding a community effort that had met some bureaucratic intransigence. Based on someone’s past experience who had attempted the same initiative years ago, I had been warned that this particular community effort may fail. Intially, these warnings proved to be a good predictor for my experience, but when I was out of options and the effort had been stymied for several months, I turned to Dr. Jones. One, I was amazed at how quickly she replied to me. Two, how quickly she acted. Three, how quickly the issue was resolved once she was involved. It was an extremely encouraging and positive experience. I know Dr. Jones has a lot of more important issues on her plate than the one I brought to her, but she treated mine as if it was a top priority. I hold no office nor wield any significant influence. I am just Joe Citizen. Dr. Jones showed herself to proactive, professional and responsive. It was an extremely positive experience.
How are rising costs funded……with the economy still sluggish, with increasing demands, with commerical development and expected business tax revenue pretty much flatlined. Does the relief for residential taxpayers in the form of at least holding taxes steady come from sale of water system….delays in capital projects?
I have several questions:
Does the City of Falls Church own the property where the High School is located, or does Fairfax own the land and lease (rent) it to the City? What are the implications of building a new High School on rental property?
Does the City & school budget pay the tuition for students that qualify to attend the magnet technical schools in Fairfax School District?
As I remember, over the past years, Oakwood Apartments (State Department contract) has been the main reason for changes in student enrollment. The State Department has a contract with the leasing agency. There needs to be a contract with the local school district also.
I think the City does own the land that George Mason High School and the middle school (and the VA Tech building) are on – even though that land is in Fairfax County.
I think the City does pay for residents that go to Thomas Jefferson High School.
I’m not sure if the number of students from Oakwood has changed a lot recently (we did get a lot of state department kids coming back from Egypt but I’m not sure if they mostly ended up in Oakwood or Pearson Square or somewhere else) – but Oakwood certainly has a higher concentration of school kids than a “normal” apartment building would have, presumably due to the contract with the State Department.
I think it would be great if the City could get some extra help from the State Department due to the higher concentration of kids the City ends up with. That said, I think having all of those State Department kids in the schools is pretty great and adds a lot to the experience for all the kids.
Good morning!
In answer to a couple of questions and issues raised above:
Falls Church City and the School Board owns the land and buildings for all four of its schools out right. We do not rent from Fairfax County.
As for Thomas Jefferson High School , Falls Church City Schools is allotted space for three students to attend each year. In other words, there can be a maximum of 12 students from FCCPS attending TJHSST in any given year. We currently have 7 students enrolled at TJHSST.
FCCPS does pays tuition to TJHSST of $12,000 per student. In comparison, FCCPS changes approximately $16,000 in tuition for out of city students.
John Brett
FCCPS Communications