FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[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.

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.

Removing AAP centers also creates holes and overcrowding in some middle schools AND any changes made now give very short feedback windows.

Somehow you expect families who may be affected by that to jump for joy when you are clearly disgruntled about moving schools and parents have said again and again that they don’t want to move.

That step isn’t “critical.” It is one you made up, just like the board made up their criteria.

[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.

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.

Removing AAP centers also creates holes and overcrowding in some middle schools AND any changes made now give very short feedback windows.

Somehow you expect families who may be affected by that to jump for joy when you are clearly disgruntled about moving schools and parents have said again and again that they don’t want to move.

That step isn’t “critical.” It is one you made up, just like the board made up their criteria.

You and PP are talking past each other. PP is talking about what would actually make sense if we were trying to improve FCPS, and you’re just focused on their wrapping up the current boundary review ASAP even if half of what they’re proposing makes little or no sense.

[Anonymous]

School Board meeting today on boundary review, school time change, and new academy proposal

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/DKSU827AC0D8/$file/Integration%20of%20Boundary%20Review%20%20Start%20Times%20August%2026.pdf

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

[Anonymous]

Multiple members seem to be suggesting pushing back the boundary change deadline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Multiple members seem to be suggesting pushing back the boundary change deadline.

Good. Fix Coates and wait on some of this other stuff. Better to get it right than to mess even more things up. They need to figure out the KAA situation and school start times. They're also going to have a lot of legal problems to deal with as they fight the Trump admin over that funding. This isn't the time for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Multiple members seem to be suggesting pushing back the boundary change deadline.

Where did you see/hear this? Besides your dreams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Multiple members seem to be suggesting pushing back the boundary change deadline.

Not surprised. With everything they’re trying to throw into the boundary discussion (KAA, school start times, the ever present spectre of 6th to middle) they’ve added so much to the scope of the project that it has gone from a massive undertaking to an all out quagmire.

[Anonymous]

I thought school start times was settled. Why are we bringing that up again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple members seem to be suggesting pushing back the boundary change deadline.

Where did you see/hear this? Besides your dreams?

DP. Straight from the school board members at the work session.

Not everything needs to be a snarky confrontation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought school start times was settled. Why are we bringing that up again?

"We" aren't. The school board is according to the board docs for today's meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought school start times was settled. Why are we bringing that up again?

I thought so too but it’s in the board docs … https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1289001.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple members seem to be suggesting pushing back the boundary change deadline.

Where did you see/hear this? Besides your dreams?

In today’s work session. I support the boundary change so an delay isn’t what I would want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:School Board meeting today on boundary review, school time change, and new academy proposal

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/DKSU827AC0D8/$file/Integration%20of%20Boundary%20Review%20%20Start%20Times%20August%2026.pdf

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

https://www.youtube.com/live/u11acsrpEFo?si=4Gn-i0EO1kcRMnDA

[Anonymous]

This work session on the status of the boundary review was a doozy.

Loys of frustration on the lack of data informing recommendations, failures to have made decisions on key issues that should have been made already, and some blatant lies as always from School Board members.

The biggest liars were Frisch and St. John-Cunning. Frisch falsely stated the flawed Thru recommendations came from the BRAC. They did not; they came from Thru and FCPS staff. St. John-Cunning falsely stated that families have always been required to provide transportation to their old base schools when boundary changes were being phased in. Both should be ashamed for lying and trying to mislead their colleagues and the public.

Ricardy Anderson and Melanie Meren made valid points about how sloppy this process has been.

[Anonymous]

Reid pushing for a dual magnet.