SB Member Anderson on County-wide Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

Ricardy Anderson discussed the upcoming county-wide boundary study and other topics, including the specific boundary studies (Glasgow, Parklawn) under way in her district, in the Annandale blog this week. Definitely seems the new board plans to be more aggressive in this area.

https://annandaletoday.com/anderson-mason-district-will-need-a-new-school/

[Anonymous]

I hope so. I was actually disappointed that the 2019 board punked out.

[Anonymous]

I’m curious what they do with Glasgow. They have a big facility so it’s more an issue with just too many kids in one building than traditional overcrowding.

But if they just move kids to Holmes or Poe without changing high schools they turn those schools into 3-way split feeders. Holmes would feed to Annandale, Justice, and Edison. Poe would feed to Annandale, Justice, and Falls Church. Not sure why they can’t just send the AAP kids back to their base schools.

Of course if they are looking at county-wide changes they won’t be limited to the Justice pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope so. I was actually disappointed that the 2019 board punked out.

Ha, they literally locked the last discussion last night, and here you are, back at it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what they do with Glasgow. They have a big facility so it’s more an issue with just too many kids in one building than traditional overcrowding.

But if they just move kids to Holmes or Poe without changing high schools they turn those schools into 3-way split feeders. Holmes would feed to Annandale, Justice, and Edison. Poe would feed to Annandale, Justice, and Falls Church. Not sure why they can’t just send the AAP kids back to their base schools.

Of course if they are looking at county-wide changes they won’t be limited to the Justice pyramid.

They're looking at sending some of the AAP kids to Canterbury/Frost, which seems like a long bus ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what they do with Glasgow. They have a big facility so it’s more an issue with just too many kids in one building than traditional overcrowding.

But if they just move kids to Holmes or Poe without changing high schools they turn those schools into 3-way split feeders. Holmes would feed to Annandale, Justice, and Edison. Poe would feed to Annandale, Justice, and Falls Church. Not sure why they can’t just send the AAP kids back to their base schools.

Of course if they are looking at county-wide changes they won’t be limited to the Justice pyramid.

They're looking at sending some of the AAP kids to Canterbury/Frost, which seems like a long bus ride.

So they aren't considering just having AAP at Holmes or Poe?

If not, could they send the AAP kids from Bren Mar Park to Twain rather than Glasgow, since BMP feeds to Edison? And maybe send the AAP kids from Mason Crest who feed to Falls Church to Jackson rather than Glasgow? Not sure how many kids that would affect.

If they do something like send the Columbia AAP kids to Frost rather than Glasgow, it's a much longer bus ride.

[Anonymous]

Good for Ricardy for being transparent about their plans. They should be looking at all the boundaries and not let themselves get intimidated by any group.

[Anonymous]

Yesterday's meeting points again towards their eventual holistic review of boundaries. It appears they are overly cautious about applying a band-aid for Glasgow that would be overturned by a future review.

[Anonymous]

Holistic studies should be routinely done every few years in a county-wide district like this. I wish such a routine was mandated like the Census.

[Anonymous]

The discussion last night was a bit of a fiasco. Staff made a presentation and then Anderson wanted the scope of the boundary study narrowed. There's no reason at all why that couldn't have been worked out with her before staff made the presentation to all the board members.

Then they got all tangled up as to whether this one-off study would be at odds with the county-wide review that they are now openly discussing. Then the next thing you knew Rachna Sizemore-Heizer was complaining about the number of kids eating in the same cafeteria at Lake Braddock, and Anderson was conflating the renovation queue with the "queue" for boundary changes.

If this type of floundering took place within a private company, people would be getting raked over the coals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The discussion last night was a bit of a fiasco. Staff made a presentation and then Anderson wanted the scope of the boundary study narrowed. There's no reason at all why that couldn't have been worked out with her before staff made the presentation to all the board members.

Then they got all tangled up as to whether this one-off study would be at odds with the county-wide review that they are now openly discussing. Then the next thing you knew Rachna Sizemore-Heizer was complaining about the number of kids eating in the same cafeteria at Lake Braddock, and Anderson was conflating the renovation queue with the "queue" for boundary changes.

If this type of floundering took place within a private company, people would be getting raked over the coals.

Yikes. It is premature to discuss specific boundaries before looking at the entire picture. They need to do the study while also highlighting a map with known problem areas, so they can get to work when the study is complete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The discussion last night was a bit of a fiasco. Staff made a presentation and then Anderson wanted the scope of the boundary study narrowed. There's no reason at all why that couldn't have been worked out with her before staff made the presentation to all the board members.

Then they got all tangled up as to whether this one-off study would be at odds with the county-wide review that they are now openly discussing. Then the next thing you knew Rachna Sizemore-Heizer was complaining about the number of kids eating in the same cafeteria at Lake Braddock, and Anderson was conflating the renovation queue with the "queue" for boundary changes.

If this type of floundering took place within a private company, people would be getting raked over the coals.

Yikes. It is premature to discuss specific boundaries before looking at the entire picture. They need to do the study while also highlighting a map with known problem areas, so they can get to work when the study is complete.

The issue with Glasgow specifically is that it's a 6-8 MS that Anderson and some of her constituents have decided has too many kids, even though it's not especially overcrowded in terms of capacity. Anderson got the prior School Board to prioritize a boundary study, but it doesn't meet the usual conditions for a redistricting. Plus, she points to the fact that FCPS has said the maximum target size of a middle school is 1350, but that's based on a MS with grades 7-8, not 6-8.

On the other hand, the other nearby 6-8 MS (Poe, Holmes) have space, so they can move kids if they want. But once they get into the specifics, which they haven't done yet, they'll realize that the Glasgow neighborhoods closest to Poe and Holmes tend to be higher-income areas assigned to the school, whereas the poverty is concentrated closer to the Arlington and Alexandria borders. So they could end up with a proposal to shrink Glasgow but further drive up the FARMS rate, and when people realize that they'll get a lot of additional pushback. It's unclear that Anderson has thought any of this through - she just heard some constituents say Glasgow is "too big" and was off to the races.

[Anonymous]

The whole discussion was kind of embarrassing. Why did the staff work up a scope that no one wanted? Why did Anderson seem to not find out about the scope until the meeting? Why wasn't Frisch told schools in his district were in scope for the study in advance. Comedy of errors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole discussion was kind of embarrassing. Why did the staff work up a scope that no one wanted? Why did Anderson seem to not find out about the scope until the meeting? Why wasn't Frisch told schools in his district were in scope for the study in advance. Comedy of errors.

I think it’s because everyone just treated Glasgow as Anderson’s baby and assumed she’d coordinate with staff. But to have staff make the presentation in public and then have Anderson and the rest say the scope is wrong was quite awkward.

Thank about it: it’s a single one-off boundary study and they looked like complete bumblers. Imagine what a mess a county-wide study will look like unless they really find a way to clean up their act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole discussion was kind of embarrassing. Why did the staff work up a scope that no one wanted? Why did Anderson seem to not find out about the scope until the meeting? Why wasn't Frisch told schools in his district were in scope for the study in advance. Comedy of errors.

+1
This is a group of clowns. They have no idea what they're doing - no wonder no one takes them seriously.