Free Lance-Star reporter Amy Umble covers Stafford County schools and other education issues

RSS feed of this blog

Should Stafford High be renovated or replaced?

After this story ran Sunday, I’ve heard from more people who think Stafford High needs to be replaced.   

What do you think?


The Stafford County School Board recently updated its capital plan to include a $35 million makeover to Stafford High School, which was built in 1975.  

The plan previously called for a new $115 million Stafford High off Leeland Road in 2017. The existing high school was to be converted into a $68 million career and technology center by 2019.

The School Board scrapped those plans because of the price.


  • Dean Fetterolf

    HS#6 and the CTE facility were originally planned for 2010. The BOS dropped them from the last CIP (that was to go thru 2016) and only approved the plan thru 2014. They are again listed in the new Comp plan for 2010 and 2011.

    If the BOS can’t get these funded what are they going to do for the 17 new schools for the 21,000 new students over the next 20 years in the Comp Plan. That’s the BOS level of service plan.

    Its just a plan! Can’t happen you say! Here’s a history lesson. Over the last 20 years Stafford built 17 new schools, made 17 additions and currently has 5 major renovations planned.

  • Dennis Silver

    I am surprised to see that the BOS in Stafford thinks they have soooo much money to spend on the schools. Just because a building is older doesn’t mean it should be torn down or completely replaced. When I went to Stafford schools, I attended the oldest schools in the county one of which had no A/C or central heating. That doesn’t mean that my education was any less than someone that went to a newer school. It just meant that teachers actually had to teach. Southern Stafford has needed an additional high school for years and it should be built. If SHS and Drew are inadequate as regular school facilities, then repurpose them as community centers or use for special schools or ccommunity outreach programs. To tear them down completely is ridiculous as they are indeed vital assets within their own respective communities. Once again the BOS is thinking with their own personal wallets and not their brains. By the way, I am a SHS Class of 1984 alumni.

  • opiniontoshare

    A school built in 1975 is not old enough to warrant replacement. There are plenty of schools built in the 50s and 60s which have been renovated and are still in use.

  • Dean Fetterolf

    If citizens make this a high enough priority then it can be made to happen. None of this was meant to be a replacement or demolition for SHS. It was originaly a repurposing. Our 5 high schools are at or over capacity. HS#6 would alleviate that overcrowding. Repurposing SHS to a much needed CTE center made sense if it had been done as originally planned. Why hasn’t anyone considered the new HS site as a campus for a combined HS#6 and CTE facility that share adequately sized large common resource areas (library, technology, cafeteria, auditorium, athletics). The CIP and the budget and finance advisory committees have recommended this to the SB several times. Time to think outside the box.