8
proven to be beneficial. Critical elements of this transition are safety concerns and
parental acceptability, so fast and wholesale changes of this nature are not realistic.
The planned stop location and route must be assessed by the supervisor and, often, by
the coordinator. It is not unusual to receive letters and petitions from parents listing
additional concerns. Stops then have to be reassessed and the safety specialist from
the Office of Safety and Security and other transportation staff must observe, assess,
and report.
Changes save minutes of time on a run and occasionally make it possible to consolidate
runs to reduce the total number into a school. Reducing a run does not reduce a bus,
but it does make that bus available to assist with a run at another school. We are not
certain that a great many additional opportunities exist for further consolidations without
having an impact on student safety. Supervisors will continue their review and move
toward central stops, as possible. See appendix D.
In addition, we believe that there are several larger-scale initiatives that offer possibilities that
should be explored. These initiatives, such as Consortia and the “Cool Counties Initiative,” are
beyond the purview of this Task Force. While we reviewed and discussed them in this report, we
had neither the time nor the expertise to study them in the depth needed to support anything
more than a recommendation to the School Board for further study.
Since the long term implications and impact of these initiatives are not known at this
time, they cannot play a part in the development of a revised bell schedule.
Like the School Board, the Task Force believes that later start times would be beneficial
for adolescents, particularly high school students. This, in turn, serves FCPS Strategic Goal 6.7
to provide, “a safe and healthful learning environment.” It also helps FCPS meet its Student
Achievement Goals to ensure that students, “achieve their full academic potential in the core
disciplines,” (1.1), and, “make healthy and safe choices” (2.8).
In Phase I, we developed five bell schedule alternatives that would provide these later
start times. In Phase II, the TTF spent almost three months identifying the impacts of each of
these alternatives on FCPS students, on FCPS employees and on the greater Fairfax community.
These impacts – positive and negative (most impacts cut both ways) – informed our final
decisions. As would be expected in any group, particularly one as large and intentionally diverse
as the TTF, there was disagreement on the magnitude of the impacts, on whether an impact was
positive or negative or both, and – most critically – as to whether the overall positive benefits of
later start times outweighed the negative effects. Yet, after much discussion the Task Force
determined that later HS and MS start times can be achieved in an acceptable way, and selected a
bell schedule that does this.
The proposed bell schedule continues the current three-tier system. It begins with
Elementary Schools (ES), follows with HS and ends with MS. To balance the tiers there are ES