FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

One person who attempted to show numbers came up with a list of middle schools that would have to be redrawn. It wasn’t negligible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

One person who attempted to show numbers came up with a list of middle schools that would have to be redrawn. It wasn’t negligible.

It was less than half, though, right?

If they hadn’t moved the Cooper AAP kids back there from Longfellow and Kilmer, Longfellow would be overcrowded and Kilmer would be even more overcrowded now.

[Anonymous]

We are one of the schools that might benefit from KAA. I will be upset if spaces are not available for the kids in this area and it is used as an academy. I get that not everyone in the area can go there but the focus should be on using the school to help reset boundaries to reduce overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are one of the schools that might benefit from KAA. I will be upset if spaces are not available for the kids in this area and it is used as an academy. I get that not everyone in the area can go there but the focus should be on using the school to help reset boundaries to reduce overcrowding.

Write your School board member. Also, write the At large members. But, especially write the one that represents you.

If you are in Sully it is Seema Dixit. If you are in Hunter Mill, it is Melanie Meren. If you are in Dranesville, it is Robyn Lady.
Most likely, you are in Sully or Hunter Mill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

One person who attempted to show numbers came up with a list of middle schools that would have to be redrawn. It wasn’t negligible.

It was less than half, though, right?

If they hadn’t moved the Cooper AAP kids back there from Longfellow and Kilmer, Longfellow would be overcrowded and Kilmer would be even more overcrowded now.

Here is what I don’t understand. Do you think after putting down a priority of fixing attendance islands the board will abandon that and just be like “we are going to eliminate middle school aap, redo 10-ish middle school boundaries and high school boundaries” and presto everyone affected will clap that the world makes sense their child has to be moved to a new middle and high school?

And that the board is going to say: forget attendance islands- we will still waste buses on that and leave those alone?

I”m not buying this at all.



A

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

One person who attempted to show numbers came up with a list of middle schools that would have to be redrawn. It wasn’t negligible.

It was less than half, though, right?

If they hadn’t moved the Cooper AAP kids back there from Longfellow and Kilmer, Longfellow would be overcrowded and Kilmer would be even more overcrowded now.

Here is what I don’t understand. Do you think after putting down a priority of fixing attendance islands the board will abandon that and just be like “we are going to eliminate middle school aap, redo 10-ish middle school boundaries and high school boundaries” and presto everyone affected will clap that the world makes sense their child has to be moved to a new middle and high school?

And that the board is going to say: forget attendance islands- we will still waste buses on that and leave those alone?

I”m not buying this at all.



A

The middle schools that would be redrawn are the ones that don’t currently align with their high school feeder. The current boundaries result in 2-4 way split feeder patterns. Addressing out of pyramid AAP centers would actually help reduce split feeder patterns, which aligns with Policy 8130s intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

One person who attempted to show numbers came up with a list of middle schools that would have to be redrawn. It wasn’t negligible.

It was less than half, though, right?

If they hadn’t moved the Cooper AAP kids back there from Longfellow and Kilmer, Longfellow would be overcrowded and Kilmer would be even more overcrowded now.

Here is what I don’t understand. Do you think after putting down a priority of fixing attendance islands the board will abandon that and just be like “we are going to eliminate middle school aap, redo 10-ish middle school boundaries and high school boundaries” and presto everyone affected will clap that the world makes sense their child has to be moved to a new middle and high school?

And that the board is going to say: forget attendance islands- we will still waste buses on that and leave those alone?

I”m not buying this at all.



A

The middle schools that would be redrawn are the ones that don’t currently align with their high school feeder. The current boundaries result in 2-4 way split feeder patterns. Addressing out of pyramid AAP centers would actually help reduce split feeder patterns, which aligns with Policy 8130s intent.

Ignore PP. She clearly bought a cheap house zoned to a better AAP center than the base school, and doesn't want the gravy train to end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

One person who attempted to show numbers came up with a list of middle schools that would have to be redrawn. It wasn’t negligible.

It was less than half, though, right?

If they hadn’t moved the Cooper AAP kids back there from Longfellow and Kilmer, Longfellow would be overcrowded and Kilmer would be even more overcrowded now.

Here is what I don’t understand. Do you think after putting down a priority of fixing attendance islands the board will abandon that and just be like “we are going to eliminate middle school aap, redo 10-ish middle school boundaries and high school boundaries” and presto everyone affected will clap that the world makes sense their child has to be moved to a new middle and high school?

And that the board is going to say: forget attendance islands- we will still waste buses on that and leave those alone?

I”m not buying this at all.

A

This was just an example of a situation where moving out of boundary kids back to their base schools didn’t require any boundary changes. It actually helped even out the enrollments at Cooper, Kilmer, and Longfellow, and avoid even worse overcrowding at Kilmer.

They can do whatever they want with attendance islands. Several School Board members have said they are open to retaining at least some of them, if getting rid of them creates new issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

One person who attempted to show numbers came up with a list of middle schools that would have to be redrawn. It wasn’t negligible.

It was less than half, though, right?

If they hadn’t moved the Cooper AAP kids back there from Longfellow and Kilmer, Longfellow would be overcrowded and Kilmer would be even more overcrowded now.

Here is what I don’t understand. Do you think after putting down a priority of fixing attendance islands the board will abandon that and just be like “we are going to eliminate middle school aap, redo 10-ish middle school boundaries and high school boundaries” and presto everyone affected will clap that the world makes sense their child has to be moved to a new middle and high school?

And that the board is going to say: forget attendance islands- we will still waste buses on that and leave those alone?

I”m not buying this at all.



A

The middle schools that would be redrawn are the ones that don’t currently align with their high school feeder. The current boundaries result in 2-4 way split feeder patterns. Addressing out of pyramid AAP centers would actually help reduce split feeder patterns, which aligns with Policy 8130s intent.

Not in all cases.

[Anonymous]

KAA could have been a solution to the 20171 Carson/Franklin split feeder nonsense. How can the SB say they care about split feeders and base an entire boundary review on that, but then NOT fix the biggest problem area in the county?

[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: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.

DP. I completely disagree. Removing all AAP centers and simply having AAP in each school would streamline the boundary process. We've seen pages and pages of complicated boundary discussions, which are always made even *more* complicated by parsing out where AAP kids would go. Enough is enough. Everyone should simply stay at their zoned school and be educated there. Nothing would simplify boundaries more than this one critical step.

[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????

I’m assuming you are making this mental leap based on the push on Nextdoor from some people in Great Falls who wanted the school board to explain more details about the purchase.

I am pretty confident that this is driven by the school board members themselves (eg, Kyle McDaniels).

Your normal boogey man isn’t boogeying here.

+1
Report these trolls who want to single out Great Falls as the scapegoat for all their (many) issues. No one is coming for their school. These people are beyond paranoid and smearing an entire community due to the comments of a handful of people is troll behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I KNEW IT. We are a Crossfield family that lives in Franklin Farm and I KNEW that this was never going to happen. I get that Crossfield was a maybe in the whole formula anyway, but now it absolutely isn't going to happen. NOBODY WANTS AN AVIATION AND AEROSPACE ACADEMY. Who on earth do they think they are going to hire to each here????? So much for relieving overcrowding and making a shorter bud ride for Westfield and Oakton kids. It was never going to happen. Just another magnet for Asian families.

You are such babies claiming this aviation program would be geared to “rich” and now “Asian” families. From the second the KAA deal was announced the people in western Fairfax have acted so self-centered and entitled. I am thrilled that some of you may NOT get what you want. Maybe it will teach you a bit more compassion for people elsewhere in the county. You can start by stop blaming Great Falls residents for something that clearly is the brainchild of Kyle McDaniel and others (maybe Robyn Lady, maybe a local corporation), not people in Great Falls.

+1
Why do these twits think GF would want an aviation academy? NO ONE wants an aviation academy. Well, except for Kyle McDaniel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:KAA could have been a solution to the 20171 Carson/Franklin split feeder nonsense. How can the SB say they care about split feeders and base an entire boundary review on that, but then NOT fix the biggest problem area in the county?

RIGHT??? I thought for sure Crossfield was going to be rezoned to Hughes/South Lakes after this study but nothing.

[Anonymous]

Which board doc talks about rezoning and the I-95 corridor schools?

All I saw was Kyle Mcadaniel's new Aviation magnet high school plans