FCPS' plans to address concerns at under-enrolled and over-enrolled schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it wouldn't matter if Lewis was AP or IB. Switch to AP, and parents will pupil place to an IB school -- probably Edison. Keep it IB, and parents will switch to the closest AP school -- probably Hayfield.

It doesn't matter.

And I don't think stopping transfers is enough to really make a different in the Lewis population size.

In the meantime, Lewis borders two schools that are over capacity (WSHS and Edison). The very simply solution would be to re-do boundaries for more equal student population sizes.

And no one wants to move to Lewis. Did you watch the recent boundary meeting? No one wants to move to the school with a small cohort of college bound kids and the larger social issues that come with a high FARMs population. Call it what you will, people don't wnat to go there. Parents will fight it tooth and nail.

They could make Lewis and Mt Vernon into VoTech schools/ESOL schools that would provide career training and language training that would be helpful to the studetns at those schools. A strong VoTech school would probably draw in kids who are not interested in college, especially if they are able to earn certifications that would help them when they finish HS. They would still have the traditional HS classes, they could even offer AP classes but their would be a better set of electives and classes that meet the needs of a population that is currently attending the school.

So concentrating poor and high-ESL kids at Lewis and some other FCPS high schools makes them no-go zones for many people? That seems to be what people express on this site (without specifically saying why). Can you see why people might want the border diligently locked down? Just one reason of many.

Generational poverty is very real in the US. There are plenty of poor kids in FCPS who are citizens and plenty who are hear legally. The numbers don't drop that much if you can magically make all of the undocumented kids disappear.

Poverty is concentrated in those schools because those are the areas that you can more easily find less expensive living situations. MC and UMC families are not going to live in those properties so you will swap out one poor group for another poor group. And the societal issues that come from poverty don't change that much based on your legal status in the country.

The poverty in Springfield is certainly NOT generational poverty. Unless you count importing generations of poverty from overseas.

Cannot speak for Springfield, but the same could be true of Herndon. Twenty or so years ago, it was not considered impoverished. In fact, I think it was rated higher than Chantilly.
The reason Great Falls was sent to Langley was because of overcrowding in Herndon.

You could take Fairfax county as a whole and see this. Thirty years ago, the schools did not have so many impoverished students. Ask yourself what changed? Clue: it is not the "generational poverty."

They could have expanded Herndon in the 90s and kept western Great Falls there. The lines typically have been drawn and redrawn to concentrate wealth at Langley. That may change now that they are moving apartments and condos in Tysons there, which will likely bump part of Langley back to now-expanded Herndon in a few years.

Your desperation keeps showing when you repeat this talking point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it wouldn't matter if Lewis was AP or IB. Switch to AP, and parents will pupil place to an IB school -- probably Edison. Keep it IB, and parents will switch to the closest AP school -- probably Hayfield.

It doesn't matter.

And I don't think stopping transfers is enough to really make a different in the Lewis population size.

In the meantime, Lewis borders two schools that are over capacity (WSHS and Edison). The very simply solution would be to re-do boundaries for more equal student population sizes.

And no one wants to move to Lewis. Did you watch the recent boundary meeting? No one wants to move to the school with a small cohort of college bound kids and the larger social issues that come with a high FARMs population. Call it what you will, people don't wnat to go there. Parents will fight it tooth and nail.

They could make Lewis and Mt Vernon into VoTech schools/ESOL schools that would provide career training and language training that would be helpful to the studetns at those schools. A strong VoTech school would probably draw in kids who are not interested in college, especially if they are able to earn certifications that would help them when they finish HS. They would still have the traditional HS classes, they could even offer AP classes but their would be a better set of electives and classes that meet the needs of a population that is currently attending the school.

So concentrating poor and high-ESL kids at Lewis and some other FCPS high schools makes them no-go zones for many people? That seems to be what people express on this site (without specifically saying why). Can you see why people might want the border diligently locked down? Just one reason of many.

Generational poverty is very real in the US. There are plenty of poor kids in FCPS who are citizens and plenty who are hear legally. The numbers don't drop that much if you can magically make all of the undocumented kids disappear.

Poverty is concentrated in those schools because those are the areas that you can more easily find less expensive living situations. MC and UMC families are not going to live in those properties so you will swap out one poor group for another poor group. And the societal issues that come from poverty don't change that much based on your legal status in the country.

The poverty in Springfield is certainly NOT generational poverty. Unless you count importing generations of poverty from overseas.

Cannot speak for Springfield, but the same could be true of Herndon. Twenty or so years ago, it was not considered impoverished. In fact, I think it was rated higher than Chantilly.
The reason Great Falls was sent to Langley was because of overcrowding in Herndon.

You could take Fairfax county as a whole and see this. Thirty years ago, the schools did not have so many impoverished students. Ask yourself what changed? Clue: it is not the "generational poverty."

They could have expanded Herndon in the 90s and kept western Great Falls there. The lines typically have been drawn and redrawn to concentrate wealth at Langley. That may change now that they are moving apartments and condos in Tysons there, which will likely bump part of Langley back to now-expanded Herndon in a few years.

Your desperation keeps showing when you repeat this talking point.

Seems more like your insecurity is rearing its head again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it wouldn't matter if Lewis was AP or IB. Switch to AP, and parents will pupil place to an IB school -- probably Edison. Keep it IB, and parents will switch to the closest AP school -- probably Hayfield.

It doesn't matter.

And I don't think stopping transfers is enough to really make a different in the Lewis population size.

In the meantime, Lewis borders two schools that are over capacity (WSHS and Edison). The very simply solution would be to re-do boundaries for more equal student population sizes.

And no one wants to move to Lewis. Did you watch the recent boundary meeting? No one wants to move to the school with a small cohort of college bound kids and the larger social issues that come with a high FARMs population. Call it what you will, people don't wnat to go there. Parents will fight it tooth and nail.

They could make Lewis and Mt Vernon into VoTech schools/ESOL schools that would provide career training and language training that would be helpful to the studetns at those schools. A strong VoTech school would probably draw in kids who are not interested in college, especially if they are able to earn certifications that would help them when they finish HS. They would still have the traditional HS classes, they could even offer AP classes but their would be a better set of electives and classes that meet the needs of a population that is currently attending the school.

So concentrating poor and high-ESL kids at Lewis and some other FCPS high schools makes them no-go zones for many people? That seems to be what people express on this site (without specifically saying why). Can you see why people might want the border diligently locked down? Just one reason of many.

Generational poverty is very real in the US. There are plenty of poor kids in FCPS who are citizens and plenty who are hear legally. The numbers don't drop that much if you can magically make all of the undocumented kids disappear.

Poverty is concentrated in those schools because those are the areas that you can more easily find less expensive living situations. MC and UMC families are not going to live in those properties so you will swap out one poor group for another poor group. And the societal issues that come from poverty don't change that much based on your legal status in the country.

The poverty in Springfield is certainly NOT generational poverty. Unless you count importing generations of poverty from overseas.

Cannot speak for Springfield, but the same could be true of Herndon. Twenty or so years ago, it was not considered impoverished. In fact, I think it was rated higher than Chantilly.
The reason Great Falls was sent to Langley was because of overcrowding in Herndon.

You could take Fairfax county as a whole and see this. Thirty years ago, the schools did not have so many impoverished students. Ask yourself what changed? Clue: it is not the "generational poverty."

They could have expanded Herndon in the 90s and kept western Great Falls there. The lines typically have been drawn and redrawn to concentrate wealth at Langley. That may change now that they are moving apartments and condos in Tysons there, which will likely bump part of Langley back to now-expanded Herndon in a few years.

Your desperation keeps showing when you repeat this talking point.

+1
It really is comical how this person continues to bring this up.

[Anonymous]

Does anybody have old studies saved to their computers from the time Langley had its enrollment beefed up, Westfield was built and opened, and from the all contentious 2008 study where South Lakes received several students from Westfield, Oakton, and Madison post renovation?

I would love to see what the maps looked like before today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have old studies saved to their computers from the time Langley had its enrollment beefed up, Westfield was built and opened, and from the all contentious 2008 study where South Lakes received several students from Westfield, Oakton, and Madison post renovation?

I would love to see what the maps looked like before today.

No. Several computers ago for me. However, I'm pretty sure that Langley's boundary was untouched in the 2008 South Lakes redistricting. There was lots of talk on FFX Underground about how Janie Strauss protected them. Seems like I remember something about an adjustment in the Hunter Mill area, but I'm much further west and not real familiar with that. I remember the Wolf Trap people wanting to stay at Madison.

If anyone could retrieve FFX Underground from those days, there would be a wealth of information for you. SLPTA posted possibilities on their website. I think it included maps, but not sure. They took it down when it was outed on FFX Underground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have old studies saved to their computers from the time Langley had its enrollment beefed up, Westfield was built and opened, and from the all contentious 2008 study where South Lakes received several students from Westfield, Oakton, and Madison post renovation?

I would love to see what the maps looked like before today.

Langley's boundaries weren't affected by the 2008 South Lakes boundary study. That study impacted South Lakes, Westfield, Oakton, Chantilly, and Madison. Janie Strauss and Stu Gibson agreed to keep Langley out of that study. Herndon was included in the study but ultimately there were no changes to Herndon's boundaries at the time. Strauss went to Great Falls in 2011 when she was running for re-election and bragged about keeping Langley out of the 2008 boundary study.

In the mid-90s, the Great Falls area west of Springvale Road was moved from Herndon to Langley. In 2021, single-family neighborhoods in Vienna zoned to McLean (at both Colvin Run ES and Spring Hill ES) were moved to Langley. This January the rest of Spring Hill zoned to McLean (apartments/condos in Tysons) was reassigned to Langley.

Older Board presentations typically are no longer be available online. At least one document relating to the 2008 South Lakes study, however, is still available at https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/legacy-content/867E6G251DFC/$FILE/SB%20Presentation%202_28_08%20on%20West%20Cnty%20Boundary%20Study%20PDF.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have old studies saved to their computers from the time Langley had its enrollment beefed up, Westfield was built and opened, and from the all contentious 2008 study where South Lakes received several students from Westfield, Oakton, and Madison post renovation?

I would love to see what the maps looked like before today.

Langley's boundaries weren't affected by the 2008 South Lakes boundary study. That study impacted South Lakes, Westfield, Oakton, Chantilly, and Madison. Janie Strauss and Stu Gibson agreed to keep Langley out of that study. Herndon was included in the study but ultimately there were no changes to Herndon's boundaries at the time. Strauss went to Great Falls in 2011 when she was running for re-election and bragged about keeping Langley out of the 2008 boundary study.

In the mid-90s, the Great Falls area west of Springvale Road was moved from Herndon to Langley. In 2021, single-family neighborhoods in Vienna zoned to McLean (at both Colvin Run ES and Spring Hill ES) were moved to Langley. This January the rest of Spring Hill zoned to McLean (apartments/condos in Tysons) was reassigned to Langley.

Older Board presentations typically are no longer be available online. At least one document relating to the 2008 South Lakes study, however, is still available at https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/legacy-content/867E6G251DFC/$FILE/SB%20Presentation%202_28_08%20on%20West%20Cnty%20Boundary%20Study%20PDF.pdf

Thats weird because when I went to look the study up, I couldn’t access it like it was deleted.

Same for the 2011 Southwest Study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have old studies saved to their computers from the time Langley had its enrollment beefed up, Westfield was built and opened, and from the all contentious 2008 study where South Lakes received several students from Westfield, Oakton, and Madison post renovation?

I would love to see what the maps looked like before today.

Langley's boundaries weren't affected by the 2008 South Lakes boundary study. That study impacted South Lakes, Westfield, Oakton, Chantilly, and Madison. Janie Strauss and Stu Gibson agreed to keep Langley out of that study. Herndon was included in the study but ultimately there were no changes to Herndon's boundaries at the time. Strauss went to Great Falls in 2011 when she was running for re-election and bragged about keeping Langley out of the 2008 boundary study.

In the mid-90s, the Great Falls area west of Springvale Road was moved from Herndon to Langley. In 2021, single-family neighborhoods in Vienna zoned to McLean (at both Colvin Run ES and Spring Hill ES) were moved to Langley. This January the rest of Spring Hill zoned to McLean (apartments/condos in Tysons) was reassigned to Langley.

Older Board presentations typically are no longer be available online. At least one document relating to the 2008 South Lakes study, however, is still available at https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/legacy-content/867E6G251DFC/$FILE/SB%20Presentation%202_28_08%20on%20West%20Cnty%20Boundary%20Study%20PDF.pdf

Thats weird because when I went to look the study up, I couldn’t access it like it was deleted.

Same for the 2011 Southwest Study

I obviously didn’t pay attention to that last paragraph lol.

Surprised this gem didn’t bite the dust.

[Anonymous]

Along with the previous question, does anyone have the boundaries from before South County was opened? Or what the various proposals were for the boundaries at that time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Along with the previous question, does anyone have the boundaries from before South County was opened? Or what the various proposals were for the boundaries at that time?

I did a bit of digging. It appears the initial decisions around the boundaries for South County Secondary were made in January 2005. Some related materials:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/legacy-content/867QC7297B42/$FILE/Adjustment%20to%20School%20Attendance%20Agenda.pdf

https://insys.fcps.edu/schoolboardapps/ArchivedSBMinutes/2000-2009/2005-2009/2004-2005/20050127R.pdf

There were later adjustments but this may provide some information about the boundaries before SoCo first opened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Along with the previous question, does anyone have the boundaries from before South County was opened? Or what the various proposals were for the boundaries at that time?

I did a bit of digging. It appears the initial decisions around the boundaries for South County Secondary were made in January 2005. Some related materials:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/legacy-content/867QC7297B42/$FILE/Adjustment%20to%20School%20Attendance%20Agenda.pdf

https://insys.fcps.edu/schoolboardapps/ArchivedSBMinutes/2000-2009/2005-2009/2004-2005/20050127R.pdf

There were later adjustments but this may provide some information about the boundaries before SoCo first opened.

I don’t want to sound like a complainer or like I have low comprehension, but these older studies are way harder to interpret than the ones now, which are easier to interpret.

Now, does anybody have the Westfield study or is that long lost?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Along with the previous question, does anyone have the boundaries from before South County was opened? Or what the various proposals were for the boundaries at that time?

I did a bit of digging. It appears the initial decisions around the boundaries for South County Secondary were made in January 2005. Some related materials:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/legacy-content/867QC7297B42/$FILE/Adjustment%20to%20School%20Attendance%20Agenda.pdf

https://insys.fcps.edu/schoolboardapps/ArchivedSBMinutes/2000-2009/2005-2009/2004-2005/20050127R.pdf

There were later adjustments but this may provide some information about the boundaries before SoCo first opened.

Interesting - I don’t think I realized that Laurel Hill ES wasn’t even around when they were figuring out South County’s boundaries. I guess all those kids were at Lorton Station. But now Lorton Station isn’t at South County. It looked like they were also trying to move the Hunt Valley split feeder south of the Parkway (at Lee at the time) to Lake Braddock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Along with the previous question, does anyone have the boundaries from before South County was opened? Or what the various proposals were for the boundaries at that time?

I did a bit of digging. It appears the initial decisions around the boundaries for South County Secondary were made in January 2005. Some related materials:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/legacy-content/867QC7297B42/$FILE/Adjustment%20to%20School%20Attendance%20Agenda.pdf

https://insys.fcps.edu/schoolboardapps/ArchivedSBMinutes/2000-2009/2005-2009/2004-2005/20050127R.pdf

There were later adjustments but this may provide some information about the boundaries before SoCo first opened.

I don’t want to sound like a complainer or like I have low comprehension, but these older studies are way harder to interpret than the ones now, which are easier to interpret.

Now, does anybody have the Westfield study or is that long lost?

I did some more digging. It appears the Westfield boundaries were established at a March 9, 2000 School Board meeting. From some other minutes it appears about 30% of Westfield's students came from Oakton and the remaining 70% from Centreville and Chantilly, but that the boundaries of a few other schools (Fairfax and Robinson) were changed at the same time.

There's a discussion in the minutes for the 3/9/00 meeting: https://insys.fcps.edu/schoolboardapps/ArchivedSBMinutes/1990-1999/1995-1999/1999-2000/20000309RM.pdf

Beyond that, couldn't find an actual study or any maps; Board Docs only dates back to 2004 and Westfield opened in the fall of 2000.

As an aside, during the planning stages, Westfield was referred to as the "West County high school" and it opened around the same time as a "West County middle school" opened. The "West County middle school" ended up being named Rachel Carson MS, and the other finalist for that school's name was "Carl Sagan MS."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Along with the previous question, does anyone have the boundaries from before South County was opened? Or what the various proposals were for the boundaries at that time?

I did a bit of digging. It appears the initial decisions around the boundaries for South County Secondary were made in January 2005. Some related materials:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/legacy-content/867QC7297B42/$FILE/Adjustment%20to%20School%20Attendance%20Agenda.pdf

https://insys.fcps.edu/schoolboardapps/ArchivedSBMinutes/2000-2009/2005-2009/2004-2005/20050127R.pdf

There were later adjustments but this may provide some information about the boundaries before SoCo first opened.

I don’t want to sound like a complainer or like I have low comprehension, but these older studies are way harder to interpret than the ones now, which are easier to interpret.

Now, does anybody have the Westfield study or is that long lost?

I did some more digging. It appears the Westfield boundaries were established at a March 9, 2000 School Board meeting. From some other minutes it appears about 30% of Westfield's students came from Oakton and the remaining 70% from Centreville and Chantilly, but that the boundaries of a few other schools (Fairfax and Robinson) were changed at the same time.

There's a discussion in the minutes for the 3/9/00 meeting: https://insys.fcps.edu/schoolboardapps/ArchivedSBMinutes/1990-1999/1995-1999/1999-2000/20000309RM.pdf

Beyond that, couldn't find an actual study or any maps; Board Docs only dates back to 2004 and Westfield opened in the fall of 2000.

As an aside, during the planning stages, Westfield was referred to as the "West County high school" and it opened around the same time as a "West County middle school" opened. The "West County middle school" ended up being named Rachel Carson MS, and the other finalist for that school's name was "Carl Sagan MS."

Wow, very cool.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Older School Board information is available here: https://insys.fcps.edu/schoolboardapps/searchmenu.cfm

But it is clunky as you have to search keywords in different decade groups.