FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's shocking. They do a smart thing buying the school and then turn it into an academy for baggage handlers? IDIOTIC. That guy is a sleazeball.

Based on the curriculum, it looks more like an AI/ML and data science focus that’s loosely branded as an aerospace academy.

It does feel like they’re putting the cart before the horse when we don’t know the schools capacity or how it will alleviate neighboring schools’ capacity. For example, as they work out transportation logistics, it might become evident that KAA makes more sense as a neighborhood school. While Westfield, which is isolated from much of its community, is a better home for an academy.

The irony is you all claimed this was a really smart decision but now you’re claiming they aren’t approaching the use of the building in a logical manner.

We all know Westfield can accommodate more kids than KAA as a neighborhood school serving kids in the western part of the county. Capacity constraints at KAA may be what’s leading them to consider it for a specialized program.

If you think that’s a waste of money then maybe the purchase was, in fact, a bad or at least a rash decision. Just as some of the Great Falls critics feared.

It’s been obvious for quite a while this School Board is composed of some of the dullest tools in the shed. You just turned them into heroes for two months when you thought they were gifting you a new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/Public

More details and documents posted for Tuesday's Western High School working session. Based on a quick scan it looks like they're pushing for some kind of hybrid Aviation/Aerospace Magnet and Community School. Timeline goal to open in 2026 with 9th and 10th graders, adding a grade each of the following years.

Sorry but that is BS

The Avistion school is something that fraudster Kyle McDaniel has been pushing since he was elected to the school board using his own aviation company that he is being investigated for fraud and theft over.

There is no effing way that FCPS should be creating an Aerospace magnet school with the new high school. People need to make their voices heard over this one

+1. This is stupid and corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone from Great Falls certainly did put a lot of time into that Designing a Future-Ready High School.8.15.2025.docx document copying and pasting a bunch of sentences from various sources to try to justify stealing this high school from an area of the county that desperately needs one.

100% this is the influence of the Fairfact people who for some inexplicable reason have UNDUE INFLUENCE on the school board. WTF GREAT FALLS LOBBYISTS????

Why isn’t an author posted on the “brief”? There usually is a source for similar documents - often Sloan Presidio’s office. Where did this bizarre document come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone from Great Falls certainly did put a lot of time into that Designing a Future-Ready High School.8.15.2025.docx document copying and pasting a bunch of sentences from various sources to try to justify stealing this high school from an area of the county that desperately needs one.

100% this is the influence of the Fairfact people who for some inexplicable reason have UNDUE INFLUENCE on the school board. WTF GREAT FALLS LOBBYISTS????

Why isn’t an author posted on the “brief”? There usually is a source for similar documents - often Sloan Presidio’s office. Where did this bizarre document come from?

You all come up with the silliest conspiracy theories.

Maybe Russian hackers in great falls replaced the PowerPoint and brainwashed the school board into going along with their plans!

[Anonymous]

I think the slide deck is on par for what we’ve seen from FCPS under Reid. She seems to be very big on encouraging people to “think outside the box” - recall how she peppers all her communications with “imagine the possibilities.”

So people within FCPS now feel like they are rewarded for “creative” ideas, even when they don’t make a lot of sense. After all, it’s not going to be any worse than Reid herself suggesting they could make every middle school a 6-8 school, when anyone with any handle on FCPS facilities knew that would be a logistical nightmare.

So the aviation proposal may get dialed back or abandoned, but whoever put together the slide deck will get applauded internally for their creativity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

All of these changes you describe are far less disruptive and impact far fewer families than the changes already proposed by Thru.

As a bonus, the changes could be implemented with each rising 7th grade class as they move from elementary to middle school, leaving current high school students untouched from their current school path, with the only affect being a new feeder pattern which would begin in 7th grade when they are already transitioning to new schools. Current 7th grade - 11th grade could stay on their current path. Current K-5th graders could stay at their neighborhood elementary, switching pyramids in 7th grade, unless they get a capacity rezoning like Coates needs.

This would be the least disruptive and most seamless way to institute a district wide rezoning.

Again. Show me some numbers to back up your claim.
You seem to think moving hundreds of kids out of an AAP center school will be fine and if the school has empyt classrooms, that is fine.

You also seem to think all AAP kids can be moved back to their base schools with out any overcrowding.

Show me the numbers that a majority of middle schools will not have to redo boundaries.

I think we found the mom here who doesn't want her middle schooler at their base middle school. There's no other reason she would be arguing so much. Name the schools, momma.

Ew. I”m not a ‘momma” my kids are in high school. They are protected by grandfathering at this point.

I sent my AAP kid to the local middle rather than a center because centers in middle school are dumb.

I do NOT understand why involving more families in redoing all the AAP boundaries and then redoing many middle school AND high school boundaries would be helpful at this stage of the process. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.

No one seems to be able to explain this idea that except to say “it gets something I can see done that I can understand” or “I must be personally affected to fight this”. It doesn’t affect me, it is just a silly idea that will complicate the boundary process even more at this point.

Multiple people have explained the advantages of focusing on something that might actually provide some benefits to you. You simply choose not to listen, even though it’s not a “silly idea” at all. There’s nothing admirable about plowing ahead with the current boundary process when it seems destined to accomplish very little and hurt many families if it stays on its current track.

I am listening. No one has added up the families impacted by the current plan vs. the number that will have to be moved by the AAP center model. So WHY peruse it when it has even more families and will not meet the attendance island criteria the board claims is a reason to redistrict. They will have to do some of both.

Apparently it is more admirable to “hurt’ even more families by taking the track you suggest? That is ridiculous.

That is twisted logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's shocking. They do a smart thing buying the school and then turn it into an academy for baggage handlers? IDIOTIC. That guy is a sleazeball.

Based on the curriculum, it looks more like an AI/ML and data science focus that’s loosely branded as an aerospace academy.

It does feel like they’re putting the cart before the horse when we don’t know the schools capacity or how it will alleviate neighboring schools’ capacity. For example, as they work out transportation logistics, it might become evident that KAA makes more sense as a neighborhood school. While Westfield, which is isolated from much of its community, is a better home for an academy.

The irony is you all claimed this was a really smart decision but now you’re claiming they aren’t approaching the use of the building in a logical manner.

We all know Westfield can accommodate more kids than KAA as a neighborhood school serving kids in the western part of the county. Capacity constraints at KAA may be what’s leading them to consider it for a specialized program.

If you think that’s a waste of money then maybe the purchase was, in fact, a bad or at least a rash decision. Just as some of the Great Falls critics feared.

It’s been obvious for quite a while this School Board is composed of some of the dullest tools in the shed. You just turned them into heroes for two months when you thought they were gifting you a new school.

Chantilly is the overcrowded school. Westfield is growing and there is lots of new construction. It is not build to accomodate all those kids --they gym is not very big. And, it is NOT a "neighborhood" school. The KAA locality would make a neighborhood school and there are two additional buildings (not trailers) that can easily be utilized.

And, when they voted to purchase, at least three SB members specifically mentioned the overcrowding in the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

All of these changes you describe are far less disruptive and impact far fewer families than the changes already proposed by Thru.

As a bonus, the changes could be implemented with each rising 7th grade class as they move from elementary to middle school, leaving current high school students untouched from their current school path, with the only affect being a new feeder pattern which would begin in 7th grade when they are already transitioning to new schools. Current 7th grade - 11th grade could stay on their current path. Current K-5th graders could stay at their neighborhood elementary, switching pyramids in 7th grade, unless they get a capacity rezoning like Coates needs.

This would be the least disruptive and most seamless way to institute a district wide rezoning.

Again. Show me some numbers to back up your claim.
You seem to think moving hundreds of kids out of an AAP center school will be fine and if the school has empyt classrooms, that is fine.

You also seem to think all AAP kids can be moved back to their base schools with out any overcrowding.

Show me the numbers that a majority of middle schools will not have to redo boundaries.

I think we found the mom here who doesn't want her middle schooler at their base middle school. There's no other reason she would be arguing so much. Name the schools, momma.

Ew. I”m not a ‘momma” my kids are in high school. They are protected by grandfathering at this point.

I sent my AAP kid to the local middle rather than a center because centers in middle school are dumb.

I do NOT understand why involving more families in redoing all the AAP boundaries and then redoing many middle school AND high school boundaries would be helpful at this stage of the process. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.

No one seems to be able to explain this idea that except to say “it gets something I can see done that I can understand” or “I must be personally affected to fight this”. It doesn’t affect me, it is just a silly idea that will complicate the boundary process even more at this point.

Multiple people have explained the advantages of focusing on something that might actually provide some benefits to you. You simply choose not to listen, even though it’s not a “silly idea” at all. There’s nothing admirable about plowing ahead with the current boundary process when it seems destined to accomplish very little and hurt many families if it stays on its current track.

I am listening. No one has added up the families impacted by the current plan vs. the number that will have to be moved by the AAP center model. So WHY peruse it when it has even more families and will not meet the attendance island criteria the board claims is a reason to redistrict. They will have to do some of both.

Apparently it is more admirable to “hurt’ even more families by taking the track you suggest? That is ridiculous.

That is twisted logic.

No, the twisted logic is asserting that one set of boundary changes is better than another simply because it may affect fewer people.

If boundary changes are serving a purpose, the validity of which is widely agreed-upon, they should be pursued. If they aren't, they should not be pursued at all.

Middle school AAP centers that serve out-of-boundary students drive up transportation costs, complicate and skew facilities planning, and increase the likelihood that kids won't attend HS with their MS peers. Eliminating them warrants further consideration, even if that might delay other boundary changes that, in any event, accomplish less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's shocking. They do a smart thing buying the school and then turn it into an academy for baggage handlers? IDIOTIC. That guy is a sleazeball.

Based on the curriculum, it looks more like an AI/ML and data science focus that’s loosely branded as an aerospace academy.

It does feel like they’re putting the cart before the horse when we don’t know the schools capacity or how it will alleviate neighboring schools’ capacity. For example, as they work out transportation logistics, it might become evident that KAA makes more sense as a neighborhood school. While Westfield, which is isolated from much of its community, is a better home for an academy.

The irony is you all claimed this was a really smart decision but now you’re claiming they aren’t approaching the use of the building in a logical manner.

We all know Westfield can accommodate more kids than KAA as a neighborhood school serving kids in the western part of the county. Capacity constraints at KAA may be what’s leading them to consider it for a specialized program.

If you think that’s a waste of money then maybe the purchase was, in fact, a bad or at least a rash decision. Just as some of the Great Falls critics feared.

It’s been obvious for quite a while this School Board is composed of some of the dullest tools in the shed. You just turned them into heroes for two months when you thought they were gifting you a new school.

Chantilly is the overcrowded school. Westfield is growing and there is lots of new construction. It is not build to accomodate all those kids --they gym is not very big. And, it is NOT a "neighborhood" school. The KAA locality would make a neighborhood school and there are two additional buildings (not trailers) that can easily be utilized.

And, when they voted to purchase, at least three SB members specifically mentioned the overcrowding in the schools.

A neighborhood school is generally understood to mean a school that serves kids in surrounding neighborhoods, not simply a school that's located in a residential neighborhood.

Westfield was built to accommodate a lot of kids who live in western Fairfax, and it has contiguous boundaries and no attendance islands. If KAA opens as a neighborhood school, Westfield will lose a lot more kids than any other school, or any new construction within the new Westfield boundaries will likely house, requiring other students further south and/or east to be moved into Westfield. Simply emptying Westfield out because some people don't want to send their kids there isn't sensible planning.

[Anonymous]

Westfield was built to accommodate a lot of kids who live in western Fairfax, and it has contiguous boundaries and no attendance islands. If KAA opens as a neighborhood school, Westfield will lose a lot more kids than any other school, or any new construction within the new Westfield boundaries will likely house, requiring other students further south and/or east to be moved into Westfield. Simply emptying Westfield out because some people don't want to send their kids there isn't sensible planning.

Contiguous boundaries that are composed of industrial and commercial areas. It is an island. Period. It is miles from other Westfield neighborhoods. Westfield has lots of new construction near the school. There is also a lot in the Wegman's area--some Chantilly boundary could be sent to Westfield from that area.

Centreville is full. Contiguous neighborhoods that are genuinely contiguous to Westfield neighborhoods could be added there. One school would be sufficient to keep Westfield over 2000--and likely well over.
And, the neighborhood adjacent to Centreville that is sent to Fairfax could hopefully be sent there in the future when Centreville is renovated.

Please tell us what you plan to do about overcrowding at Chantilly, Westfield, and Centreville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

All of these changes you describe are far less disruptive and impact far fewer families than the changes already proposed by Thru.

As a bonus, the changes could be implemented with each rising 7th grade class as they move from elementary to middle school, leaving current high school students untouched from their current school path, with the only affect being a new feeder pattern which would begin in 7th grade when they are already transitioning to new schools. Current 7th grade - 11th grade could stay on their current path. Current K-5th graders could stay at their neighborhood elementary, switching pyramids in 7th grade, unless they get a capacity rezoning like Coates needs.

This would be the least disruptive and most seamless way to institute a district wide rezoning.

Again. Show me some numbers to back up your claim.
You seem to think moving hundreds of kids out of an AAP center school will be fine and if the school has empyt classrooms, that is fine.

You also seem to think all AAP kids can be moved back to their base schools with out any overcrowding.

Show me the numbers that a majority of middle schools will not have to redo boundaries.

I think we found the mom here who doesn't want her middle schooler at their base middle school. There's no other reason she would be arguing so much. Name the schools, momma.

Ew. I”m not a ‘momma” my kids are in high school. They are protected by grandfathering at this point.

I sent my AAP kid to the local middle rather than a center because centers in middle school are dumb.

I do NOT understand why involving more families in redoing all the AAP boundaries and then redoing many middle school AND high school boundaries would be helpful at this stage of the process. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.

No one seems to be able to explain this idea that except to say “it gets something I can see done that I can understand” or “I must be personally affected to fight this”. It doesn’t affect me, it is just a silly idea that will complicate the boundary process even more at this point.

Multiple people have explained the advantages of focusing on something that might actually provide some benefits to you. You simply choose not to listen, even though it’s not a “silly idea” at all. There’s nothing admirable about plowing ahead with the current boundary process when it seems destined to accomplish very little and hurt many families if it stays on its current track.

I am listening. No one has added up the families impacted by the current plan vs. the number that will have to be moved by the AAP center model. So WHY peruse it when it has even more families and will not meet the attendance island criteria the board claims is a reason to redistrict. They will have to do some of both.

Apparently it is more admirable to “hurt’ even more families by taking the track you suggest? That is ridiculous.

That is twisted logic.

No, the twisted logic is asserting that one set of boundary changes is better than another simply because it may affect fewer people.

If boundary changes are serving a purpose, the validity of which is widely agreed-upon, they should be pursued. If they aren't, they should not be pursued at all.

Middle school AAP centers that serve out-of-boundary students drive up transportation costs, complicate and skew facilities planning, and increase the likelihood that kids won't attend HS with their MS peers. Eliminating them warrants further consideration, even if that might delay other boundary changes that, in any event, accomplish less.

Wait a minute. You think there is validity to what the school board proposed in Policy 8130? Most parents are against any kind of boundary changes. Just look at the regional meeting feedback, people want to stay in the same school.

Transportation for ALL AAP is less than 1% of the budget and that includes elementary. So it is not a great talking point for you here.

Yes, parents want to stay in their current boundaries- have you not been listening for the last year and a half?

Coming up with yet another “Reason” why you should move more families is the antithesis of what parents have been saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Westfield was built to accommodate a lot of kids who live in western Fairfax, and it has contiguous boundaries and no attendance islands. If KAA opens as a neighborhood school, Westfield will lose a lot more kids than any other school, or any new construction within the new Westfield boundaries will likely house, requiring other students further south and/or east to be moved into Westfield. Simply emptying Westfield out because some people don't want to send their kids there isn't sensible planning.

Contiguous boundaries that are composed of industrial and commercial areas. It is an island. Period. It is miles from other Westfield neighborhoods. Westfield has lots of new construction near the school. There is also a lot in the Wegman's area--some Chantilly boundary could be sent to Westfield from that area.

Centreville is full. Contiguous neighborhoods that are genuinely contiguous to Westfield neighborhoods could be added there. One school would be sufficient to keep Westfield over 2000--and likely well over.
And, the neighborhood adjacent to Centreville that is sent to Fairfax could hopefully be sent there in the future when Centreville is renovated.

Please tell us what you plan to do about overcrowding at Chantilly, Westfield, and Centreville.

You can look at the Thru Consulting proposals. They undertook to eliminate every attendance island in FCPS and Westfield was not one of them because you're making up your own definition of an "attendance island" to serve your personal agenda.

Chantilly kids could move to Westfield and even Oakton, and Westfield kids could move to Herndon. There was already a plan to expand Centreville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

All of these changes you describe are far less disruptive and impact far fewer families than the changes already proposed by Thru.

As a bonus, the changes could be implemented with each rising 7th grade class as they move from elementary to middle school, leaving current high school students untouched from their current school path, with the only affect being a new feeder pattern which would begin in 7th grade when they are already transitioning to new schools. Current 7th grade - 11th grade could stay on their current path. Current K-5th graders could stay at their neighborhood elementary, switching pyramids in 7th grade, unless they get a capacity rezoning like Coates needs.

This would be the least disruptive and most seamless way to institute a district wide rezoning.

Again. Show me some numbers to back up your claim.
You seem to think moving hundreds of kids out of an AAP center school will be fine and if the school has empyt classrooms, that is fine.

You also seem to think all AAP kids can be moved back to their base schools with out any overcrowding.

Show me the numbers that a majority of middle schools will not have to redo boundaries.

I think we found the mom here who doesn't want her middle schooler at their base middle school. There's no other reason she would be arguing so much. Name the schools, momma.

Ew. I”m not a ‘momma” my kids are in high school. They are protected by grandfathering at this point.

I sent my AAP kid to the local middle rather than a center because centers in middle school are dumb.

I do NOT understand why involving more families in redoing all the AAP boundaries and then redoing many middle school AND high school boundaries would be helpful at this stage of the process. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.

No one seems to be able to explain this idea that except to say “it gets something I can see done that I can understand” or “I must be personally affected to fight this”. It doesn’t affect me, it is just a silly idea that will complicate the boundary process even more at this point.

Multiple people have explained the advantages of focusing on something that might actually provide some benefits to you. You simply choose not to listen, even though it’s not a “silly idea” at all. There’s nothing admirable about plowing ahead with the current boundary process when it seems destined to accomplish very little and hurt many families if it stays on its current track.

I am listening. No one has added up the families impacted by the current plan vs. the number that will have to be moved by the AAP center model. So WHY peruse it when it has even more families and will not meet the attendance island criteria the board claims is a reason to redistrict. They will have to do some of both.

Apparently it is more admirable to “hurt’ even more families by taking the track you suggest? That is ridiculous.

That is twisted logic.

No, the twisted logic is asserting that one set of boundary changes is better than another simply because it may affect fewer people.

If boundary changes are serving a purpose, the validity of which is widely agreed-upon, they should be pursued. If they aren't, they should not be pursued at all.

Middle school AAP centers that serve out-of-boundary students drive up transportation costs, complicate and skew facilities planning, and increase the likelihood that kids won't attend HS with their MS peers. Eliminating them warrants further consideration, even if that might delay other boundary changes that, in any event, accomplish less.

Wait a minute. You think there is validity to what the school board proposed in Policy 8130? Most parents are against any kind of boundary changes. Just look at the regional meeting feedback, people want to stay in the same school.

Transportation for ALL AAP is less than 1% of the budget and that includes elementary. So it is not a great talking point for you here.

Yes, parents want to stay in their current boundaries- have you not been listening for the last year and a half?

Coming up with yet another “Reason” why you should move more families is the antithesis of what parents have been saying.

The budget consists largely of staff salaries, so they have to look at other areas if they want to realize some savings. Many feel that AAP centers, especially at the middle school level, that serve out-of-boundary kids are a waste of money and detrimental in other respects. To the extent their elimination would require some conforming boundary changes to manage school capacities, that would be met with greater support than what Thru has been ponying up.

As for Policy 8130, they would have been far better served seeking more community input before they revised that policy. Rachna Sizemore-Heizer is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

In many cases eliminating AAP centers would not require boundary changes and likely reduce the need for future boundary changes. At the middle school level, the most crowded/over-crowded middle schools have historically been AAP centers. Glasgow and Kilmer are two such examples.

[Anonymous]

Chantilly kids could move to Westfield and even Oakton, and Westfield kids could move to Herndon. There was already a plan to expand Centreville.

None of those options are viable--except, perhaps to send the Chantilly kids near Wegman's.

Chantilly kids and their parents do not want to spend hours every day on a school bus to Oakton or Herndon. 40 minutes each way-or more.

Chantilly kids would be happy to stay at Chantilly, but the School Board and THRU want to kick some out. If they put these kids on school buses for hours after going to a nearby community school, people will not be happy.

Just because one community is happy with a very, very long bus ride does not mean all communities are.