FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

#2 for sure. Parents zoned for lower performing base schools in elementary will push back on #3 unless there's assurance the base schools will have a uniform Level IV program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if any of these options should happen as part of the boundary review?

1. Middle schools goes from 7-8 to 6-8,
2. No more IB program,
3. Close down AAP centers,
4. Move good students to poor performing schools to shore up test scores.

I don’t think any are really needed, but 2 if that’s what the school community wants, and certainly 3 (and ceasing student transfers) before 4. 4 just creates a downward spiral for the county.

[Anonymous]

They should get rid of middle school AAP centers - it seems like a transportation nightmare and creates a lot of student placements out of the assigned MS. I could go either way on elementary. I don’t love them from a transportation standpoint and it seems like it puts a lot of 20% full buses on the road. But maybe better to keep them as still not every school has LLIV (two big ES in the WS pyramid do not). MS AAP seems like it could be handled by just offering more MS advanced/honors classes.

But, getting rid of centers is a pipe dream now because the advocacy groups have the ear of the SB and continue to promote their existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of middle school AAP centers - it seems like a transportation nightmare and creates a lot of student placements out of the assigned MS. I could go either way on elementary. I don’t love them from a transportation standpoint and it seems like it puts a lot of 20% full buses on the road. But maybe better to keep them as still not every school has LLIV (two big ES in the WS pyramid do not). MS AAP seems like it could be handled by just offering more MS advanced/honors classes.

But, getting rid of centers is a pipe dream now because the advocacy groups have the ear of the SB and continue to promote their existence.

AAP Centers have been around for more than 50 years. They won’t be going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of middle school AAP centers - it seems like a transportation nightmare and creates a lot of student placements out of the assigned MS. I could go either way on elementary. I don’t love them from a transportation standpoint and it seems like it puts a lot of 20% full buses on the road. But maybe better to keep them as still not every school has LLIV (two big ES in the WS pyramid do not). MS AAP seems like it could be handled by just offering more MS advanced/honors classes.

But, getting rid of centers is a pipe dream now because the advocacy groups have the ear of the SB and continue to promote their existence.

AAP Centers have been around for more than 50 years. They won’t be going anywhere.

They are likely to put AAP centers in every MS so no more bussing kids to a different MS just for AAP. That’s been a big waste of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of middle school AAP centers - it seems like a transportation nightmare and creates a lot of student placements out of the assigned MS. I could go either way on elementary. I don’t love them from a transportation standpoint and it seems like it puts a lot of 20% full buses on the road. But maybe better to keep them as still not every school has LLIV (two big ES in the WS pyramid do not). MS AAP seems like it could be handled by just offering more MS advanced/honors classes.

But, getting rid of centers is a pipe dream now because the advocacy groups have the ear of the SB and continue to promote their existence.

AAP Centers have been around for more than 50 years. They won’t be going anywhere.

They are likely to put AAP centers in every MS so no more bussing kids to a different MS just for AAP. That’s been a big waste of money.

I’m the original poster and I’d have no problem with this. That way every kid can stay at their zoned middle school.

[Anonymous]

Interesting development - FCPS has agreed to allow 3 reps from the FairFACTS Matters group to join the BRAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A plan for #1 but it will take longer to implement. There needs to be an articulated vision though, such as identifying certain ES sites that would later convert to MS, or whatever other means to create the needed MS capacity.

#2 I'd like to see IB remain as a choice program or academy, ideally at 2-3 locations like one in southern portion of county and another in western portion of county. Could be physically co-located with other specialty programs or academies such as vocational prep, music, arts, immersion, and so on alongside IB. Get enough of those programs under one roof and you've got enough students collectively to fill a HS and give students more options than they have today.

#3 only at the MS level, where you have enough of a critical mass of AAP students at any MS to serve their needs locally. This isn't true at the ES level.

#4 no, and this isn't really part of the current plan or exercise either. Some small number of students may end up moving from schools with higher average test scores to lower average test scores, but that's incidental to optimizing capacities and travel times, not some social engineering intent. If anything the opposite is true, they don't want to jeopardize any school with Title I services from being downgraded and receiving less support (and larger class sizes) than the status quo as a result of an influx of higher-income kids.

Careful, now.

You can claim the bolded, above, is “incidental,” but if “transit” “capacity” and “proximity” are not equally applied across the entire county, then it will not hold up when challenged.

That is the risk you run when you do “comprehensive” review of the entire county. You create direct comparisons of what you did, or did not do, everywhere. Making a shift solely based on a “transit time” or “proximity” benefit when such a “benefit” absent any other need was not applied elsewhere for a boundary shift will weigh against those factors being considered the true reason for the shift. Especially when the totality of the evidence demonstrates other intent by the SB and FCPS.

If a horse has four legs and a tail, and you call the tail a leg, how many legs does it have? Four, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

Calling a boundary change a shift made for “optimizing capacities and travel times” does not make it so in every circumstance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A plan for #1 but it will take longer to implement. There needs to be an articulated vision though, such as identifying certain ES sites that would later convert to MS, or whatever other means to create the needed MS capacity.

#2 I'd like to see IB remain as a choice program or academy, ideally at 2-3 locations like one in southern portion of county and another in western portion of county. Could be physically co-located with other specialty programs or academies such as vocational prep, music, arts, immersion, and so on alongside IB. Get enough of those programs under one roof and you've got enough students collectively to fill a HS and give students more options than they have today.

#3 only at the MS level, where you have enough of a critical mass of AAP students at any MS to serve their needs locally. This isn't true at the ES level.

#4 no, and this isn't really part of the current plan or exercise either. Some small number of students may end up moving from schools with higher average test scores to lower average test scores, but that's incidental to optimizing capacities and travel times, not some social engineering intent. If anything the opposite is true, they don't want to jeopardize any school with Title I services from being downgraded and receiving less support (and larger class sizes) than the status quo as a result of an influx of higher-income kids.

Careful, now.

You can claim the bolded, above, is “incidental,” but if “transit” “capacity” and “proximity” are not equally applied across the entire county, then it will not hold up when challenged.

That is the risk you run when you do “comprehensive” review of the entire county. You create direct comparisons of what you did, or did not do, everywhere. Making a shift solely based on a “transit time” or “proximity” benefit when such a “benefit” absent any other need was not applied elsewhere for a boundary shift will weigh against those factors being considered the true reason for the shift. Especially when the totality of the evidence demonstrates other intent by the SB and FCPS.

If a horse has four legs and a tail, and you call the tail a leg, how many legs does it have? Four, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

Calling a boundary change a shift made for “optimizing capacities and travel times” does not make it so in every circumstance.

It’s always going to be odd to add capacity to schools that don’t need it during renovations just because their number came up for a renovation, and then claim you are “optimizing capacities.” In other words, if you really cared about efficiencies and travel times, you’d look at whether a school really needed an expansion before you slapped one on during a renovation.

FCPS has consistently failed to do this, so when they or their proxies do then claim to care about “efficiency,” no one really believes them. It’s more of a legal ploy, since the term “efficiency” appears in the state law addressing the power of school boards to adjust boundaries, than an actual commitment to sound facilities planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting development - FCPS has agreed to allow 3 reps from the FairFACTS Matters group to join the BRAC.

I saw that and I hope it brings more transparency to the process.

Side thought: the BRAC meetings are huge with all the FCPS staff, the hand-selected group members representing the various special interest groups, and the 2 community reps from each pyramid. I imagine there’s some clashing of egos going on in there. I’d love to be a fly on the wall at these meetings!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of middle school AAP centers - it seems like a transportation nightmare and creates a lot of student placements out of the assigned MS. I could go either way on elementary. I don’t love them from a transportation standpoint and it seems like it puts a lot of 20% full buses on the road. But maybe better to keep them as still not every school has LLIV (two big ES in the WS pyramid do not). MS AAP seems like it could be handled by just offering more MS advanced/honors classes.

But, getting rid of centers is a pipe dream now because the advocacy groups have the ear of the SB and continue to promote their existence.

AAP Centers have been around for more than 50 years. They won’t be going anywhere.

You are claiming that AAP centers are the same as GT centers. They are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting development - FCPS has agreed to allow 3 reps from the FairFACTS Matters group to join the BRAC.

Source? And, how are the three members selected? Is BRAC selecting them or Fairfacts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting development - FCPS has agreed to allow 3 reps from the FairFACTS Matters group to join the BRAC.

Source? And, how are the three members selected? Is BRAC selecting them or Fairfacts?

FB page. Three names identified by FairFACTS Matters were submitted. That’s apparently how it worked with other advisory groups on BRAC other than the pyramid reps supposedly selected at random.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really more about Coates and Parklawn, but also some reference to the comprehensive study.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/03/18/fairfax-school-board-split-on-when-to-address-overcrowded-elementary-schools/

From that article- cram the kids and continue to stall out on boundaries, but good news!! Hayfield getting new turf field for close to a million. How’s that for a reward for last year’s mess!

Boundary issue buried in the article includes Armstrong being expanded to 800 capacity. Design capacity will expand from 784 to 800. That's only adding 16 but program capacity is 482 [membership about 360] so this huge project should allign design and program capacity for general education. 8 more gen ed classrooms adding 200 to program capacity?
https://www.ffxnow.com/2024/03/13/plan-to-renovate-armstrong-es-heads-to-planning-commission/

Dranesville ES expansion adds 12-14 gen ed classrooms - program capacity for gen ed increases by a mi nimum of 300?https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/DranesvilleESReno2023PresentationPlanningCommission1042023.pdf

So these 2 Herndon feeders intersect for current boundaries with Forestville No impact on the boundary review? The Colvin Run area parent meeting with Supt Reid at the Great Falls Libary? Great Falls addresses sent to Colvin Run? Vienna addresses - Hunter Mill district - sent to Colvin Run? Colvin Run has SPA 1806 next to 1809 Forest Edge/South Lakes. https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/Coates-Area-Boundary-Maps.pdf

When Reid added the 3rd Woodson rep [Mantua-Winterset] and did not define base schools on all extra non pyramid BRAC members the process really got distorted. Even school staff live somewhere. Fairfacts Matters posted it will have 3 on BRAC- 2 not Langley and will include a West Springfield. This will be the 3rd known extra plus the 2 Langley for the pyramid. For all anyone knows Vienna/Great Falls Colvin Run parents at the Reid meeting could have been offering up Forestville or Great Falls Elementary as a middle school for her grades 6-8 project. 6-8 does not fit in Cooper. Anything is possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting development - FCPS has agreed to allow 3 reps from the FairFACTS Matters group to join the BRAC.

This process is such a farce. They should just disband BRAC instead of covering it with bandaids.