Where should the county move the Kent Gardens kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should also get rid of immersion, move that to a lower ses school that has capacity. Too many people are using it as a reason to attend a McLean school when they are zoned for a bad school

Why is the school board not working to make all schools good?

Wait all the schools aren’t good?

[Anonymous]

Are there any options being presented?

Why is Spring Hill part of this study?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Spring Hill part of the study?

What is the status of the new Tysons Elementary school?

There’s a weird little Churchill Road attendance area largely within the Spring Hill boundaries.

It’s possible they could try to clean this up even though it doesn’t appear to have much to do with Kent Gardens. But if part of KG got moved to Franklin Sherman, they could move part of FS to Churchill Road, and move that CR area to Spring Hill.

A new Tysons ES won’t get built for decades. Frisch and Tholen made a hash of things by getting money allocated to build a new ES at Dunn Loring, where it isn’t needed, instead. So as Tysons gets built up, it still won’t get its own school, which is a shame because it would help make Tysons a more attractive place to live. I think FCPS still has a site off Jones Branch Road - FCPS just doesn’t have a vision that aligns with what the Board of Supervisors claims to want for Tysons.

Yeah, that weird island that looks like it should be with Spring Hill, but is zoned for Churchhill is "The Reserve". (There is likely a very shady story of how this developer got the school board to zone his development to Churchhill instead of Springhill, but I digress.) In any case, there are only 168 homes and very (VERY!) few residents send their children to public school. If you rezoned the entire area to Spring Hill, it would be less than a rounding error.

Most of the kids in the Reserve go to private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hoping that mention of middle and high schools means that they will send the FS and Springhill kids to Langley to fix the issue at McLean…win for everyone

Don’t even start. This is a Kent Gardens boundary study, not another Langley/McLean boundary study.

It sounds like it could be both

Not really, especially when you consider how the community meeting later this month is being advertised.

There’s nothing about addressing the overcrowding at KG that requires another MS/HS boundary change.

Churchill and Spring Hill are zoned for Cooper/Langley and part of this KG study. I don’t know how you can adjust elementary boundaries without it changing the high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any options being presented?

Why is Spring Hill part of this study?

Materials are supposed to be posted at 5 PM today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hoping that mention of middle and high schools means that they will send the FS and Springhill kids to Langley to fix the issue at McLean…win for everyone

Don’t even start. This is a Kent Gardens boundary study, not another Langley/McLean boundary study.

It sounds like it could be both

Not really, especially when you consider how the community meeting later this month is being advertised.

There’s nothing about addressing the overcrowding at KG that requires another MS/HS boundary change.

Churchill and Spring Hill are zoned for Cooper/Langley and part of this KG study. I don’t know how you can adjust elementary boundaries without it changing the high school.

They have already posted that the options that will be presented tonight won’t involve any changes to MS or HS assignments.

In theory, they could move some Kent Gardens kids to Franklin Sherman, move some FS kids to Churchill Road, and move some CR kids to Spring Hill. None of that would invoke changing MS or HS boundaries. The kids moved out of KG would stay and Longfellow/McLean and the kids moved out of FS and CR would stay at Cooper/Langley.

But that may or may not be one of the actual options presented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hoping that mention of middle and high schools means that they will send the FS and Springhill kids to Langley to fix the issue at McLean…win for everyone

Don’t even start. This is a Kent Gardens boundary study, not another Langley/McLean boundary study.

It sounds like it could be both

Not really, especially when you consider how the community meeting later this month is being advertised.

There’s nothing about addressing the overcrowding at KG that requires another MS/HS boundary change.

Churchill and Spring Hill are zoned for Cooper/Langley and part of this KG study. I don’t know how you can adjust elementary boundaries without it changing the high school.

They have already posted that the options that will be presented tonight won’t involve any changes to MS or HS assignments.

In theory, they could move some Kent Gardens kids to Franklin Sherman, move some FS kids to Churchill Road, and move some CR kids to Spring Hill. None of that would invoke changing MS or HS boundaries. The kids moved out of KG would stay and Longfellow/McLean and the kids moved out of FS and CR would stay at Cooper/Langley.

But that may or may not be one of the actual options presented.

Most of FS goes to MCLean and not Langley. Moving them to Churchill would likely change their high school. We know families who say they are few families zoned for Cooper/Langley from FS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hoping that mention of middle and high schools means that they will send the FS and Springhill kids to Langley to fix the issue at McLean…win for everyone

Don’t even start. This is a Kent Gardens boundary study, not another Langley/McLean boundary study.

It sounds like it could be both

Not really, especially when you consider how the community meeting later this month is being advertised.

There’s nothing about addressing the overcrowding at KG that requires another MS/HS boundary change.

Churchill and Spring Hill are zoned for Cooper/Langley and part of this KG study. I don’t know how you can adjust elementary boundaries without it changing the high school.

They have already posted that the options that will be presented tonight won’t involve any changes to MS or HS assignments.

In theory, they could move some Kent Gardens kids to Franklin Sherman, move some FS kids to Churchill Road, and move some CR kids to Spring Hill. None of that would invoke changing MS or HS boundaries. The kids moved out of KG would stay and Longfellow/McLean and the kids moved out of FS and CR would stay at Cooper/Langley.

But that may or may not be one of the actual options presented.

Most of FS goes to MCLean and not Langley. Moving them to Churchill would likely change their high school. We know families who say they are few families zoned for Cooper/Langley from FS.

Again, FCPS has already posted there is no intention to change middle or high school assignments as part of the Kent Gardens boundary study.

It does provide a potential opportunity, if some Kent Gardens kids were to move to Franklin Sherman, to also move the small number of Cooper/Langley neighborhoods at Franklin Sherman to Churchill Road. That would leave Franklin Sherman as exclusively a Longfellow/McLean feeder and Churchill Road already feeds to Cooper/Langley (apart from the small number of AAP kids from Kent Gardens at Churchill Road). So it would just be some potential clean-up of the boundaries, recognizing that the 10% of so or Franklin Sherman families at Cooper/Langley might be happier at Churchill Road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hoping that mention of middle and high schools means that they will send the FS and Springhill kids to Langley to fix the issue at McLean…win for everyone

Don’t even start. This is a Kent Gardens boundary study, not another Langley/McLean boundary study.

It sounds like it could be both

Not really, especially when you consider how the community meeting later this month is being advertised.

There’s nothing about addressing the overcrowding at KG that requires another MS/HS boundary change.

Churchill and Spring Hill are zoned for Cooper/Langley and part of this KG study. I don’t know how you can adjust elementary boundaries without it changing the high school.

They have already posted that the options that will be presented tonight won’t involve any changes to MS or HS assignments.

In theory, they could move some Kent Gardens kids to Franklin Sherman, move some FS kids to Churchill Road, and move some CR kids to Spring Hill. None of that would invoke changing MS or HS boundaries. The kids moved out of KG would stay and Longfellow/McLean and the kids moved out of FS and CR would stay at Cooper/Langley.

But that may or may not be one of the actual options presented.

Most of FS goes to MCLean and not Langley. Moving them to Churchill would likely change their high school. We know families who say they are few families zoned for Cooper/Langley from FS.

Again, FCPS has already posted there is no intention to change middle or high school assignments as part of the Kent Gardens boundary study.

It does provide a potential opportunity, if some Kent Gardens kids were to move to Franklin Sherman, to also move the small number of Cooper/Langley neighborhoods at Franklin Sherman to Churchill Road. That would leave Franklin Sherman as exclusively a Longfellow/McLean feeder and Churchill Road already feeds to Cooper/Langley (apart from the small number of AAP kids from Kent Gardens at Churchill Road). So it would just be some potential clean-up of the boundaries, recognizing that the 10% of so or Franklin Sherman families at Cooper/Langley might be happier at Churchill Road.

Ok, that makes sense.

Would they move part of Churchill to Spring Hill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hoping that mention of middle and high schools means that they will send the FS and Springhill kids to Langley to fix the issue at McLean…win for everyone

Don’t even start. This is a Kent Gardens boundary study, not another Langley/McLean boundary study.

It sounds like it could be both

Not really, especially when you consider how the community meeting later this month is being advertised.

There’s nothing about addressing the overcrowding at KG that requires another MS/HS boundary change.

Churchill and Spring Hill are zoned for Cooper/Langley and part of this KG study. I don’t know how you can adjust elementary boundaries without it changing the high school.

They have already posted that the options that will be presented tonight won’t involve any changes to MS or HS assignments.

In theory, they could move some Kent Gardens kids to Franklin Sherman, move some FS kids to Churchill Road, and move some CR kids to Spring Hill. None of that would invoke changing MS or HS boundaries. The kids moved out of KG would stay and Longfellow/McLean and the kids moved out of FS and CR would stay at Cooper/Langley.

But that may or may not be one of the actual options presented.

Most of FS goes to MCLean and not Langley. Moving them to Churchill would likely change their high school. We know families who say they are few families zoned for Cooper/Langley from FS.

Again, FCPS has already posted there is no intention to change middle or high school assignments as part of the Kent Gardens boundary study.

It does provide a potential opportunity, if some Kent Gardens kids were to move to Franklin Sherman, to also move the small number of Cooper/Langley neighborhoods at Franklin Sherman to Churchill Road. That would leave Franklin Sherman as exclusively a Longfellow/McLean feeder and Churchill Road already feeds to Cooper/Langley (apart from the small number of AAP kids from Kent Gardens at Churchill Road). So it would just be some potential clean-up of the boundaries, recognizing that the 10% of so or Franklin Sherman families at Cooper/Langley might be happier at Churchill Road.

Ok, that makes sense.

Would they move part of Churchill to Spring Hill?

Possibly. They are supposed to post potential options by 5 PM today. I was just trying to explain why they might include Churchill Road and Spring Hill within the scope of the Kent Gardens boundary study, even though they’ve stated that they will not be proposing to change any middle or high school assignments.

It feels a little bit like scope creep, since in theory they could address overcrowding at Kent Gardens by just moving kids to Chesterbrook, Franklin Sherman and/or Haycock, but if they also wanted to move the Cooper/Langley kids at Franklin Sherman to Churchill Road, or get rid of the weird Churchill Road island within the Spring Hill boundaries, it wouldn’t be a bad time to do it.

It’s really not something I personally feel strongly about, but it’s always seemed to me that more parents in the part of Franklin Sherman that feeds into Cooper/Langley might send their kids to public school if they were at a Langley pyramid feeder like Churchill Road rather than at Franklin Sherman, where about 90% of the kids go to Longfellow/McLean.

[Anonymous]

Materials are posted. Proposals are for schools that have trailers to be adding students, yet Spring Hill that has a capacity of 400 additional student has no changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Materials are posted. Proposals are for schools that have trailers to be adding students, yet Spring Hill that has a capacity of 400 additional student has no changes?

Spring Hill may get a bunch of additional kids from Tysons eventually. The first three options set forth seem reasonable to me. The last two don’t seem to make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Senerio A seems to make the most sense and option D is just stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Materials are posted. Proposals are for schools that have trailers to be adding students, yet Spring Hill that has a capacity of 400 additional student has no changes?

Which schools have trailers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Senerio A seems to make the most sense and option D is just stupid

+1 - why introduce a environmentally poor option that separates families from their community schools?

C also - I'm concerned they aren't going to move enough kids, especially with the bleating about phasing in. Rip off that bandaid and put kids in the new schools.

I am confused why they aren't moving kids to Spring Hill and why they aren't moving kids out of Haycock. (obvi not from one to the other!)