FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

Some of us have been saying since the start of this nonsense that families don’t want their own kids moved. Some jerks are okay with other people’s kids being moved, of course, But most people just don’t want that hit to their own kid’s psychological health.

The school board has already done immense damage to its own brand by engaging in this, and they’ll no doubt do it again in a few years. I guess we get what we deserve.

[Anonymous]

Here’s what they ought to do:

1. Fall on their sword and admit they overreached by considering boundary changes without adequately considering first what types of programs FCPS wants to offer at the ES, MS, and HS level.

2. Declare unequivocally that KAA will re-open initially as a traditional neighborhood school with an academy program to be considered in 2-3 years.

3. Limit upcoming boundary changes to Coates, those necessitated by KAA’s re-opening, and any other proposed changes for which there is clear evidence of extremely strong community support.

4. Address immediately whether the scope of the Centreville expansion should be scaled back, and Dunn Loring ES should be postponed indefinitely, with any freed-up funds reallocated to other schools.

5. Commit to releasing an updated renovation queue no later than January 2028 that reflects a fresh look at which schools have the greatest facilities needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

Yes, but the two above situations that you mention actually make sense regardless of those being low income families, it doesn't make sense to send children past schools to attend another school further away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

Yes, but the two above situations that you mention actually make sense regardless of those being low income families, it doesn't make sense to send children past schools to attend another school further away.

Unless you're sending the low income kids further away to a lower FARMs school in hopes of spreading them out a bit more or avoiding creation of more Title 1 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

Some of us have been saying since the start of this nonsense that families don’t want their own kids moved. Some jerks are okay with other people’s kids being moved, of course, But most people just don’t want that hit to their own kid’s psychological health.

The school board has already done immense damage to its own brand by engaging in this, and they’ll no doubt do it again in a few years. I guess we get what we deserve.

Mateo can't be trusted and says different things based on who he is talking with and misrepresents things constantly. He has been non-committal this whole process until recently. He has been playing both sides of the fence and I think that now he is seeing the side that is going to win and says he fully supports the changes his community is advocating for. Also, in his last newsletter about boundary reviews he is toeing a fine line to make it look like he is in favor of certain things but when you dig deeper it is hard to understand if he truly is...example he says he supports grandfathering students that are impacted but when you look at the school board minutes from the July 17 meeting where they voted on this he wasn't even present so if he isn't voting in favor of it what has he done to support it really when another member proposed the change? Another example is he wasn't even at the working session when boundary reviews were discussed, he joined after that so he didn't have to be on record for what his position really was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

Yes, but the two above situations that you mention actually make sense regardless of those being low income families, it doesn't make sense to send children past schools to attend another school further away.

Unless you're sending the low income kids further away to a lower FARMs school in hopes of spreading them out a bit more or avoiding creation of more Title 1 schools.

The school board really falters when it starts to factor in family income levels. It doesn’t help the people that they are trying to help, it only hurts everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

Yes, but the two above situations that you mention actually make sense regardless of those being low income families, it doesn't make sense to send children past schools to attend another school further away.

Unless you're sending the low income kids further away to a lower FARMs school in hopes of spreading them out a bit more or avoiding creation of more Title 1 schools.

I'm not familiar with that area. I am experienced in teaching Title I kids. It is imperative that they be as close as possible to their school. It is a struggle to get family support--and when the school is difficult to access easily, it is almost impossible. Busing to more affluent schools is not a good idea!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what they ought to do:

1. Fall on their sword and admit they overreached by considering boundary changes without adequately considering first what types of programs FCPS wants to offer at the ES, MS, and HS level.

2. Declare unequivocally that KAA will re-open initially as a traditional neighborhood school with an academy program to be considered in 2-3 years.

3. Limit upcoming boundary changes to Coates, those necessitated by KAA’s re-opening, and any other proposed changes for which there is clear evidence of extremely strong community support.

4. Address immediately whether the scope of the Centreville expansion should be scaled back, and Dunn Loring ES should be postponed indefinitely, with any freed-up funds reallocated to other schools.

5. Commit to releasing an updated renovation queue no later than January 2028 that reflects a fresh look at which schools have the greatest facilities needs.

Email the school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what they ought to do:

1. Fall on their sword and admit they overreached by considering boundary changes without adequately considering first what types of programs FCPS wants to offer at the ES, MS, and HS level.

2. Declare unequivocally that KAA will re-open initially as a traditional neighborhood school with an academy program to be considered in 2-3 years.

3. Limit upcoming boundary changes to Coates, those necessitated by KAA’s re-opening, and any other proposed changes for which there is clear evidence of extremely strong community support.

4. Address immediately whether the scope of the Centreville expansion should be scaled back, and Dunn Loring ES should be postponed indefinitely, with any freed-up funds reallocated to other schools.

5. Commit to releasing an updated renovation queue no later than January 2028 that reflects a fresh look at which schools have the greatest facilities needs.

Email the school board.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

Yes, but the two above situations that you mention actually make sense regardless of those being low income families, it doesn't make sense to send children past schools to attend another school further away.

Unless you're sending the low income kids further away to a lower FARMs school in hopes of spreading them out a bit more or avoiding creation of more Title 1 schools.

I'm not familiar with that area. I am experienced in teaching Title I kids. It is imperative that they be as close as possible to their school. It is a struggle to get family support--and when the school is difficult to access easily, it is almost impossible. Busing to more affluent schools is not a good idea!

Isn’t there solid research that indicates lower-income kids do better academically when they are not attending economically segregated schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

Yes, but the two above situations that you mention actually make sense regardless of those being low income families, it doesn't make sense to send children past schools to attend another school further away.

Unless you're sending the low income kids further away to a lower FARMs school in hopes of spreading them out a bit more or avoiding creation of more Title 1 schools.

I'm not familiar with that area. I am experienced in teaching Title I kids. It is imperative that they be as close as possible to their school. It is a struggle to get family support--and when the school is difficult to access easily, it is almost impossible. Busing to more affluent schools is not a good idea!

Isn’t there solid research that indicates lower-income kids do better academically when they are not attending economically segregated schools?

Is that the same study that showed a marked decrease in academic performance for the higher income kids when they are not attending economically segregated schools? It is.

The system should never be in the business of picking winners and losers. Social engineering never works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what they ought to do:

1. Fall on their sword and admit they overreached by considering boundary changes without adequately considering first what types of programs FCPS wants to offer at the ES, MS, and HS level.

2. Declare unequivocally that KAA will re-open initially as a traditional neighborhood school with an academy program to be considered in 2-3 years.

3. Limit upcoming boundary changes to Coates, those necessitated by KAA’s re-opening, and any other proposed changes for which there is clear evidence of extremely strong community support.

4. Address immediately whether the scope of the Centreville expansion should be scaled back, and Dunn Loring ES should be postponed indefinitely, with any freed-up funds reallocated to other schools.

5. Commit to releasing an updated renovation queue no later than January 2028 that reflects a fresh look at which schools have the greatest facilities needs.

The Coates boundary change impacts over a dozen other schools. So how exactly do you propose both changing Coates boundaries and also declaring that only Coates boundaries change?