What Does FCPS Do with Excess Capacity at Herndon HS

[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:No offense but it’s not the schools that are good, it’s the kids. If you redistrict Langley kids to another school, the other school will increase by that amount. Schools are such a tiny part of academic achievement (meaning they all teach roughly the same). It’s mostly parents.

Bingo. Thats exactly why considering how to efficiently use available space and minimize transportation costs where possible likely makes sense.

Nah, I don’t but your zero-sum game utopia, and I’m not interested in theory-testing with my kids being your lab rats. Also, it’s a little racist/classist for you to claim that Forestville students would make Herndon High better.

First, it’s not a zero-sum game if we spend scarce capital resources expanding schools but don’t use that space because it might offend some entitled Langley mom. It’s a net negative.

Second, if Forestville kids moved back to Langley, it would increase the demand for advanced courses that Herndon is otherwise fully capable of offering. There’s nothing racist in acknowledging this. But I guess you’re fine with a situation where scheduling conflicts are more likely to be an issue at Herndon than at other schools.

DS at HMS, and even I think your Forestville efforts are pretty racist.

This is hilarious. No one on either side wants the equity crusader meddling in their schools. Go back to worrying about your own kids’ education, rather than social engineering.

DP. I am. I could give 2 flying f—k about where Langley kids end up. But something got to give. My kids education is being compromised by being at Chantilly with dozens of trailers and sitting at 125% of capacity. Dealing with that level of overcrowding is not social engineering or DEI or whatever it’s competent management.

DP. Sure, and you have a good point. But Chantilly overcrowding has nothing to do with Langley.

Wow. Talk about being myopic. In any comprehensive boundary adjustment, of course Chantilly overcrowding could affect Langley. I know you think that the other 24 HSs in FCPS revolve around Langley, but they don’t. You sound like Jan on the Brady Bunch. “Langley, Langley, Langley”. Western county boundaries are an intertwined mess— and not just at the HS level. PP is right, as an example, that Carson boundaries are a mess. Any substantive discussion and compressive solution of underenrollment at HHS ends up and boundary adjustments involving ESs and MSs as well Centerville, Chantilly, Westfield, SLHS, HHS, Langley, probably McLean and Oakton. Maybe even Madison. And I’m probably missing a school or two.

I know that in your mind only Langley counts. And sure shuffling some kids between HHS and Langley helps solve one part of one problem. But that’s a band aid over the bullet hole solution. If there is going to be an actual, substantive solution, it won’t just involve HHS and Langley. 6 or 8 or 10 other HSs will come along for the ride. Including Chantilly, because their overenrollment has to go somewhere, and some Chantilly kids do have Herndon addresses (like the many of the Oak Hill kids). For Chantilly kids closer to Carson, HHS might be one option. Or, the might go to Westfield, and some Westfield kids might go to HHS. Western County boundary cannot be solved by moving one neighborhood from one school to another. In the end, about 1/3 of FCPS HSs are involved.

I hate these threads where people are trying to have a substantive conversation and the Langley parents jump in, insult everyone, and insist that only the impact on Langley matters. It may be all that matters to you, but Langley and HHS would not be the only two schools involved in a meaningful boundary change that addresses even half of the issues with Weatern County boundaries.

We know where Langley parents stand. Their kids deserve a school that is 1-2% FARMs and ELL. Basically, a private school in a public school system. Message received, loud and clear. So Please. Go away. Lots of other parents and kids from lots of other schools are affected. And I know you can’t fathom this, but they have opinions worth considering and concerns that need to be addressed too.
[i]
SMDH.

This should be the sticky for the entire FCPS forum.

If you go back and look at the initial post, you’ll see that the Langley discussion is directly on point. If you want to talk about non-Herndon ramifications, that’s fine, but it is you, my dear, that is in the wrong thread.

Insulting people and posting snarky responses is not a discussion.

Hi pot, I’m kettle? Literally no insult in my post, just straight truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't they take it out of the CIP?

Of course. It should have come out when they sold the Carson site and it became apparent to everyone who had waited for a decade for the new HS to materialize that it was never going to happen. Instead, they doubled down and put it in a bond a couple years ago and said they had chosen the Hutchinson site (under the prior, COVID era SB, most of whose members no one could accuse of being smart, competent, or honest with the community about challenging realities). But no one who understands Western County zoning (which I grant you isn’t a lot of people— the boundaries are a disaster) or who has watched the expansions at all the western county HSs actually believes it will happen.

But, pulling it out of the CIP without a solution for some HSs sitting at 110% capacity— or more (Chantilly)— while expanding HSs that are not over capacity (or not nearly as over capacity) is not a good look. And once they admit it’s not going to be built, they will be locked into readjusting boundaries— now— rather than following the time honored FCPS tradition of pushing messes like a western county Hs with no viable site and western county rezoning down the road for the SB to deal with. Langley and Chantilly parents and the parents of any kids moved to HHs or possibly SLHS (we don’t want IB!) are going to end up furious about any rezoning. Easier to overpromise and never deliver. Eventually, there will be a new SB and it’s no longer the current SB’s problem. Plus, the new SB can ask for “grace” (my least favorite word when spoken by anyone associated with FCPS) and time because they inherited a mess. Then they drag their feet a couple years and the cycle repeats. I’ve even watching this happen for well over a decade.



They need to hire an outside consultant and make a commitment to following their recommendations unless there is a very good, non-SES, non-DEI, non-parently pressure to avoid ELL and FARMS reason not to. Because yes, they need to aim to spread out FARMS and ELL more fairly among the schools— as long as they can do so without creating ridiculous commutes and moving kids who are a mile or two from one HS to another Hs 10 miles away in the make of equity.

That already happened. Here are their recommendations:

1. Prioritize factors determining boundary policy.
2. Define school and program capacity to ensure consistency across the division.
3. Establish boundary adjustments based on balancing the number of schools and students
for efficient use of buildings.
4. Centralize, regionalize, or duplicate programs with great demand in schools across the
district to ensure equitable access for all families.
5. Limit time students are on busses and create efficient transportation networks.
6. Create an established and well-articulated exemption process.
7. Formally evaluate school boundary policies every five years.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KG073D39/%24file/MGT%2520Boundary%2520Policy%2520Best%2520Practices%2520Review%2520Report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj8lP2o5p6EAxXLGlkFHUIvBsAQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw31CVtV1-GCn7fLz7PDaGJC

I hope we didn't pay the consultants too much to come up with this.

#1 is the key, but it's what hasn't been done, yet would drive the process.

#2 is largely moot, as FCPS already has a way to define and quantify "design capacity" and "program capacity" consistently across schools.

#3 is unclear - if the recommendation is to now prioritize the utilization of existing capacity, it will be unpopular and also entirely inconsistent with FCPS's past behavior.

## 4 and 6 - FCPS will say it already does or has this.

#5 - What's the recommended outer limit and the implications thereof (if, say, no one should be on a bus to a neighborhood school for over 30 minutes)?

#7 sounds good, but it assumes a degree of efficiency on the part of FCPS and the School Board that is belied by the debacles of the last 15 years when it comes to boundaries and facilities planning.

A common sense a substantive answer. So, immediately I know you are not a Langley parent. And I agree #1 is the key. But, I also think that #1 is never going to happen. It’s easy to say “we need priorities”. Putting those priorities in writing knowing that it will make at least some parents angry and that some parent group will sue is a different matter entirely.

Vapid drivel, so we know you are an equity pusher.

Not the poster to whom you're responding, but you're so far down the rabbit hole that you attack on cue based on your assumption of the source, and whether you've already judged them to be "anti-Langley," rather than the substance of the post.

I don't know if it's one Langley poster with two IP addresses, or two equally insane Langley posters, but good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't they take it out of the CIP?

Of course. It should have come out when they sold the Carson site and it became apparent to everyone who had waited for a decade for the new HS to materialize that it was never going to happen. Instead, they doubled down and put it in a bond a couple years ago and said they had chosen the Hutchinson site (under the prior, COVID era SB, most of whose members no one could accuse of being smart, competent, or honest with the community about challenging realities). But no one who understands Western County zoning (which I grant you isn’t a lot of people— the boundaries are a disaster) or who has watched the expansions at all the western county HSs actually believes it will happen.

But, pulling it out of the CIP without a solution for some HSs sitting at 110% capacity— or more (Chantilly)— while expanding HSs that are not over capacity (or not nearly as over capacity) is not a good look. And once they admit it’s not going to be built, they will be locked into readjusting boundaries— now— rather than following the time honored FCPS tradition of pushing messes like a western county Hs with no viable site and western county rezoning down the road for the SB to deal with. Langley and Chantilly parents and the parents of any kids moved to HHs or possibly SLHS (we don’t want IB!) are going to end up furious about any rezoning. Easier to overpromise and never deliver. Eventually, there will be a new SB and it’s no longer the current SB’s problem. Plus, the new SB can ask for “grace” (my least favorite word when spoken by anyone associated with FCPS) and time because they inherited a mess. Then they drag their feet a couple years and the cycle repeats. I’ve even watching this happen for well over a decade.



They need to hire an outside consultant and make a commitment to following their recommendations unless there is a very good, non-SES, non-DEI, non-parently pressure to avoid ELL and FARMS reason not to. Because yes, they need to aim to spread out FARMS and ELL more fairly among the schools— as long as they can do so without creating ridiculous commutes and moving kids who are a mile or two from one HS to another Hs 10 miles away in the make of equity.

That already happened. Here are their recommendations:

1. Prioritize factors determining boundary policy.
2. Define school and program capacity to ensure consistency across the division.
3. Establish boundary adjustments based on balancing the number of schools and students
for efficient use of buildings.
4. Centralize, regionalize, or duplicate programs with great demand in schools across the
district to ensure equitable access for all families.
5. Limit time students are on busses and create efficient transportation networks.
6. Create an established and well-articulated exemption process.
7. Formally evaluate school boundary policies every five years.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KG073D39/%24file/MGT%2520Boundary%2520Policy%2520Best%2520Practices%2520Review%2520Report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj8lP2o5p6EAxXLGlkFHUIvBsAQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw31CVtV1-GCn7fLz7PDaGJC

I hope we didn't pay the consultants too much to come up with this.

#1 is the key, but it's what hasn't been done, yet would drive the process.

#2 is largely moot, as FCPS already has a way to define and quantify "design capacity" and "program capacity" consistently across schools.

#3 is unclear - if the recommendation is to now prioritize the utilization of existing capacity, it will be unpopular and also entirely inconsistent with FCPS's past behavior.

## 4 and 6 - FCPS will say it already does or has this.

#5 - What's the recommended outer limit and the implications thereof (if, say, no one should be on a bus to a neighborhood school for over 30 minutes)?

#7 sounds good, but it assumes a degree of efficiency on the part of FCPS and the School Board that is belied by the debacles of the last 15 years when it comes to boundaries and facilities planning.

A common sense a substantive answer. So, immediately I know you are not a Langley parent. And I agree #1 is the key. But, I also think that #1 is never going to happen. It’s easy to say “we need priorities”. Putting those priorities in writing knowing that it will make at least some parents angry and that some parent group will sue is a different matter entirely.

Vapid drivel, so we know you are an equity pusher.

Not the poster to whom you're responding, but you're so far down the rabbit hole that you attack on cue based on your assumption of the source, and whether you've already judged them to be "anti-Langley," rather than the substance of the post.

I don't know if it's one Langley poster with two IP addresses, or two equally insane Langley posters, but good grief.

So responding to broad sides against all Langley parents is off limits to you? Decorum went out the window a long time ago here. Good grief indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the tenor of the discourse from the Langley parents, and the extent to which you insist that everything be looked at exclusively with a view towards protecting your own interests, that PP was noting.

What's wrong with people protecting their own interests? The government certainly isn't going to do it.

The first post in this thread was someone (probably the same someone who always chimes in on these threads) hoping that Forestville gets moved to Herndon. Is the OP looking out for their best interests? Perhaps. Perhaps they're just a woke culture warrior who wants to stick it to successful people.

You can protect your own interests and still have a substantive discussion where you aren’t being nasty, posting snarky responses, off tracking conversations and insulting people. I mean, apparently Langley parents can’t. But grownups should have this skill in their repitoire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the tenor of the discourse from the Langley parents, and the extent to which you insist that everything be looked at exclusively with a view towards protecting your own interests, that PP was noting.

What's wrong with people protecting their own interests? The government certainly isn't going to do it.

The first post in this thread was someone (probably the same someone who always chimes in on these threads) hoping that Forestville gets moved to Herndon. Is the OP looking out for their best interests? Perhaps. Perhaps they're just a woke culture warrior who wants to stick it to successful people.

You can protect your own interests and still have a substantive discussion where you aren’t being nasty, posting snarky responses, off tracking conversations and insulting people. I mean, apparently Langley parents can’t. But grownups should have this skill in their repitoire.

Rich coming from you.

[Anonymous]

I just watched the recording of yesterday’s school board meeting. Multiple school board members stated explicitly or implied that they would no longer support or vote for “one off” boundary changes.

It sounds like the school board is going update / implement a new policy, and then use the updated policy to inform a boundary changes and renovation plans for all high schools. For example, a school board member commented that the county is spending substantial sums on inefficient busing of kids to schools, and more efficient boundaries will reduce those expenditures, freeing more funding within the budget.

One they have a policy to inform school boundary zoning and renovations, board members will have something to point to to justify their votes (“we are just following the policy”). Additionally, it was implied that future redistricting proposals will be more system-wide benefiting many (and to some, negatively impacting) different schools across the system, so school board members won’t be in the hook for individual votes affecting individual schools, and, at least in theory, it will move the school board away from the horse-trading that has dominated past voting.

[Anonymous]

I said high schools above, but I meant all schools.

[Anonymous]

TL;DR for this entire thread:

Forestville parents are horrible, evil, selfish, insulting, vile, racist, rich snob SOBs who only look out for themselves and complain all the time, just real POSs who are just so disgusting we can't even look at them and they muck up this whole website and their kids are just real pretentious a-hole POSs as well,

and it just so happens that these Forestville families will be the saviors of the misguided and misdirected Herndon High students and their unsupportive parents, who need the love, generosity, guidance, and support that these tremendous Forestville parents and families will lavish upon them. And the Herndon High students shall rise up just by being in the vicinity of these outstanding Forestville families. And when the Forestville families pay FULL price for their school lunches, all will be perfect in the world and the pathetic Herndon High children will come together to praise the ladies of the dcurbanmom forum for providing them the opportunity to bask in the glow of these magnificent Forestville families.

I feel like you kinda need to pick your lane here, folks. Also, this feels a little bit like a paternalistic white savior territory to me, but maybe that's what you are all going for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the recording of yesterday’s school board meeting. Multiple school board members stated explicitly or implied that they would no longer support or vote for “one off” boundary changes.

It sounds like the school board is going update / implement a new policy, and then use the updated policy to inform a boundary changes and renovation plans for all high schools. For example, a school board member commented that the county is spending substantial sums on inefficient busing of kids to schools, and more efficient boundaries will reduce those expenditures, freeing more funding within the budget.

One they have a policy to inform school boundary zoning and renovations, board members will have something to point to to justify their votes (“we are just following the policy”). Additionally, it was implied that future redistricting proposals will be more system-wide benefiting many (and to some, negatively impacting) different schools across the system, so school board members won’t be in the hook for individual votes affecting individual schools, and, at least in theory, it will move the school board away from the horse-trading that has dominated past voting.

Thank you for watching this. I tried, I really did, but I couldn't get through all of it.

It's a School Board composed largely of new members and there is a lot of wishful thinking involved. You have budding politicians thinking it sounds good to suggest that "the School Board should get out of the boundary business" and that, once there is a new policy in place, they can just push a button and they'll get a print out of recommended boundary changes across the county to vote on with no amendments.

But they already have a detailed policy on adjusting boundaries that identifies a host of relevant considerations. If that policy isn't adequate, it's because it's not providing clear enough direction on what considerations should be prioritized. And guess what - they are still going to be on the hook for prioritizing the considerations and signing off on the actual changes.

In other words, they want an algorithm, but they are going to have to own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR for this entire thread:

Forestville parents are horrible, evil, selfish, insulting, vile, racist, rich snob SOBs who only look out for themselves and complain all the time, just real POSs who are just so disgusting we can't even look at them and they muck up this whole website and their kids are just real pretentious a-hole POSs as well,

and it just so happens that these Forestville families will be the saviors of the misguided and misdirected Herndon High students and their unsupportive parents, who need the love, generosity, guidance, and support that these tremendous Forestville parents and families will lavish upon them. And the Herndon High students shall rise up just by being in the vicinity of these outstanding Forestville families. And when the Forestville families pay FULL price for their school lunches, all will be perfect in the world and the pathetic Herndon High children will come together to praise the ladies of the dcurbanmom forum for providing them the opportunity to bask in the glow of these magnificent Forestville families.

I feel like you kinda need to pick your lane here, folks. Also, this feels a little bit like a paternalistic white savior territory to me, but maybe that's what you are all going for.

You could read the thread and just as easily come up with a short-hand version that relies on less snark and more on basic operating efficiencies:

Forestville ES is considerably closer to Herndon than Langley. In the mid-90s, it was moved from Herndon to Langley because Herndon was overcrowded and Langley had space. Now, 30 years later, the situation is the opposite: Herndon has space and Langley (and, even more so Cooper, its middle school feeder) is approaching full capacity. Accordingly, moving Forestville to Herndon could reduce transportation time and expense, increase the number of sessions of advanced courses available at Herndon, increase the number of actively involved parents at Herndon, and free up additional space at Cooper and Langley to accommodate kids from McLean and/or Marshall, the two schools that for now are being asked to accommodate all the growth in the immediate Tysons area. These kids live closer to Langley than the Forestville kids and, while they may live closer to McLean and/or Marshall than to Langley, those schools are more crowded now than Langley.

Nothing about this is paternalistic, or "white savior territory," unless you stretch really hard. It's about operating efficiency and the limited options that may be available to FCPS given past decisions. And it's not even the only option, since FCPS could move McLean kids to Falls Church, which is being expanded now (as Herndon just was) and stands to have additional space and/or move Marshall kids to Madison, which was recently expanded. Or they could adjust the CIP and prioritize additions to McLean and/or Marshall over the otherwise planned renovations of schools in the current queue, although that wouldn't happen without an outcry.

Similar scenarios relating to overcrowded Chantilly - which may or may not involve Langley - also warrant discussion, but you want to cut it all off at the pass with a condescending summary that starts from the premise that everyone just wants to "stick it" to Langley for currently having a lot of kids from wealthy families. At a certain point, it does become transparent that your agenda is just to be totally removed from what's going on in the rest of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's a School Board composed largely of new members and there is a lot of wishful thinking involved. You have budding politicians thinking it sounds good to suggest that "the School Board should get out of the boundary business" and that, once there is a new policy in place, they can just push a button and they'll get a print out of recommended boundary changes across the county to vote on with no amendments.

But they already have a detailed policy on adjusting boundaries that identifies a host of relevant considerations. If that policy isn't adequate, it's because it's not providing clear enough direction on what considerations should be prioritized. And guess what - they are still going to be on the hook for prioritizing the considerations and signing off on the actual changes.

In other words, they want an algorithm, but they are going to have to own it.

I don’t disagree, but I don’t think it will be hard for them to come up with priorities that sound great and paper and make sense to most voters. Some items I heard mentioned:

1. Efficient utilization of taxpayer funded space
2. Efficient utilization of taxpayer funds
3. Minimizing the number of kids who have to learn in trailers
4. Eliminating inefficient and unnecessary busing
5. Reducing carbon footprint and emissions
6. Leveraging public-private partnerships and private funding to improve school programs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listened to the CIP discussion last night, it's clear where this board wants to go:

* Update the policy on boundary changes

* Have staff come up with county-wide boundary change recommendations, rather than one-off changes proposed by individual Board members.

So no one will get moved from Forestville to Langley on a one-off basis at the behest of any single Board member. But when staff comes up with the county-wide recommendations in a few years, all bets are off.

+1. Sounds like this is truly the time that boundaries are going to be scrutinized, unless every member yesterday was spewing lies and wasting each other's time.

Good. Lots of people don’t want it— including me. My kids are out, but my house is more valuable zoned for Chantilly than Herndon. But, it needs to happen. And FFS, please let them clean up the Carson 4 way split and get all the Franklin based AAP kids back to Franklin. Its AAP center was new and tiny 10 years ago. Now, Franklin is more than capable of being a good Center. But, not until it gets capacity relief.

I agree that this is the direction the district should take with middle school AAP. It is the only logical approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR for this entire thread:

Forestville parents are horrible, evil, selfish, insulting, vile, racist, rich snob SOBs who only look out for themselves and complain all the time, just real POSs who are just so disgusting we can't even look at them and they muck up this whole website and their kids are just real pretentious a-hole POSs as well,

and it just so happens that these Forestville families will be the saviors of the misguided and misdirected Herndon High students and their unsupportive parents, who need the love, generosity, guidance, and support that these tremendous Forestville parents and families will lavish upon them. And the Herndon High students shall rise up just by being in the vicinity of these outstanding Forestville families. And when the Forestville families pay FULL price for their school lunches, all will be perfect in the world and the pathetic Herndon High children will come together to praise the ladies of the dcurbanmom forum for providing them the opportunity to bask in the glow of these magnificent Forestville families.

I feel like you kinda need to pick your lane here, folks. Also, this feels a little bit like a paternalistic white savior territory to me, but maybe that's what you are all going for.

You could read the thread and just as easily come up with a short-hand version that relies on less snark and more on basic operating efficiencies:

Forestville ES is considerably closer to Herndon than Langley. In the mid-90s, it was moved from Herndon to Langley because Herndon was overcrowded and Langley had space. Now, 30 years later, the situation is the opposite: Herndon has space and Langley (and, even more so Cooper, its middle school feeder) is approaching full capacity. Accordingly, moving Forestville to Herndon could reduce transportation time and expense, increase the number of sessions of advanced courses available at Herndon, increase the number of actively involved parents at Herndon, and free up additional space at Cooper and Langley to accommodate kids from McLean and/or Marshall, the two schools that for now are being asked to accommodate all the growth in the immediate Tysons area. These kids live closer to Langley than the Forestville kids and, while they may live closer to McLean and/or Marshall than to Langley, those schools are more crowded now than Langley.

Nothing about this is paternalistic, or "white savior territory," unless you stretch really hard. It's about operating efficiency and the limited options that may be available to FCPS given past decisions. And it's not even the only option, since FCPS could move McLean kids to Falls Church, which is being expanded now (as Herndon just was) and stands to have additional space and/or move Marshall kids to Madison, which was recently expanded. Or they could adjust the CIP and prioritize additions to McLean and/or Marshall over the otherwise planned renovations of schools in the current queue, although that wouldn't happen without an outcry.

Similar scenarios relating to overcrowded Chantilly - which may or may not involve Langley - also warrant discussion, but you want to cut it all off at the pass with a condescending summary that starts from the premise that everyone just wants to "stick it" to Langley for currently having a lot of kids from wealthy families. At a certain point, it does become transparent that your agenda is just to be totally removed from what's going on in the rest of the county.

First post is more accurate. This is just white washing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listened to the CIP discussion last night, it's clear where this board wants to go:

* Update the policy on boundary changes

* Have staff come up with county-wide boundary change recommendations, rather than one-off changes proposed by individual Board members.

So no one will get moved from Forestville to Langley on a one-off basis at the behest of any single Board member. But when staff comes up with the county-wide recommendations in a few years, all bets are off.

+1. Sounds like this is truly the time that boundaries are going to be scrutinized, unless every member yesterday was spewing lies and wasting each other's time.

Good. Lots of people don’t want it— including me. My kids are out, but my house is more valuable zoned for Chantilly than Herndon. But, it needs to happen. And FFS, please let them clean up the Carson 4 way split and get all the Franklin based AAP kids back to Franklin. Its AAP center was new and tiny 10 years ago. Now, Franklin is more than capable of being a good Center. But, not until it gets capacity relief.

Of course you want things changed now. Your kids are out of school.

I’m quite certain that you advocated for disruptive change while your kids were in school, right? Right?

Please actually read posts before being mean and snarky. Now, read what I said and tell me where you got the idea that I’m “advocating” for “disruptive change”?

First— at a minimum I have my housing value on the line here. A lot of equity disappears if we get rezoned from Chantilly HS to HHS. Yes, your kids are more important than money. Then again, if our house was $150k less expensive because it was zoned for HHS, I could have used that money are sent my kids to private.

Second— reading is fundamental. Please read the bolded above I am NOT “advocating for” boundary change. I am acknowledging the reality that having one HS at 125% capacity— and rising— is not sustainable. Especially with under enrolled schools nearby. “Something needs to be done” is very different from “I want this to happen”. And it’s definitely different than “advocating” for change. Some realities are are unpleasant. This one of them.
TBH, ideally someone else gets zoned out of Chantilly. But I am aware of the fact that if there is a boundary adjustment, it could include our neighborhood. And I would be very unhappy about that. But, that doesn’t change reality. The Western County needs a boundary adjustment.

Third— a large of my response is about the Franklin vs Carson AAP Centers. Do you think a MS that brings in kids from something like 10 ESs and sends them out to 4 HSs, plus when my kids were there 80-100 kids to TJ is a good idea?

At the time my kids were in MS, one kid didn’t have a choice. Franklin didn’t have Level IV AAP. The other kid followed their sibling because Carson had worked for us and that’s where their friends went— and because the Franklin Local AAP was in its first year. No one knew how it would go at Franklin in year 1. And I had concerns about the fact that in the beginning there were only enough kid for 1 AAP classroom. That’s a very small cohort— especially in MS. You don’t mesh with some of the kids in your class and you are I for a tough two years.

As the local Franklin AAP Center stands today, 10 years later, I would absolutely send my kids there over Carson— if for no other reason than because the drop off choices were spending 45 minutes on a bus to go two miles or sitting in a Kiss and Ride line for— I kid you not— up to 30 minutes. The traffic leading into Carson was a nightmare. It was also hard, if not impossible, join any academic team, because there were so many kids gunning for TJ and trying to build a resume.

And I don’t think grandfathering current Carson students and removing Carson as an option for Franklin base school kids would be disruptive. A huge part of the reason parents dug in about keeping Carson an option was that it gave a big bump in TJ admissions. That’s no longer the case. Franklins a great school with a great reputation and I now know a number of kids who have gone through the AAP program and done well. Plus, Carson is very high pressure. Franklin seems to be better at keeping the academics strong in a less pressured environment. If I had a MS student this year, they would be at Franklin’s AAP Center, not Carson. So yes, I would be okay with that change for my kids.

Now Chantilly to HHS? Not so much. But here in the real world, some Chantilly kids have to be rezoned somewhere else. And BTW, I would t want that “somewhere else” to be Langley either. Life’s too short to make your kid attend a school when UMC kids are consider the poors and the parents are such arrogant snots.

This is an extremely well written post and I agree with it. I feel the same way about my children's schools, which are Franklin and Chantilly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR for this entire thread:

Forestville parents are horrible, evil, selfish, insulting, vile, racist, rich snob SOBs who only look out for themselves and complain all the time, just real POSs who are just so disgusting we can't even look at them and they muck up this whole website and their kids are just real pretentious a-hole POSs as well,

and it just so happens that these Forestville families will be the saviors of the misguided and misdirected Herndon High students and their unsupportive parents, who need the love, generosity, guidance, and support that these tremendous Forestville parents and families will lavish upon them. And the Herndon High students shall rise up just by being in the vicinity of these outstanding Forestville families. And when the Forestville families pay FULL price for their school lunches, all will be perfect in the world and the pathetic Herndon High children will come together to praise the ladies of the dcurbanmom forum for providing them the opportunity to bask in the glow of these magnificent Forestville families.

I feel like you kinda need to pick your lane here, folks. Also, this feels a little bit like a paternalistic white savior territory to me, but maybe that's what you are all going for.

You could read the thread and just as easily come up with a short-hand version that relies on less snark and more on basic operating efficiencies:

Forestville ES is considerably closer to Herndon than Langley. In the mid-90s, it was moved from Herndon to Langley because Herndon was overcrowded and Langley had space. Now, 30 years later, the situation is the opposite: Herndon has space and Langley (and, even more so Cooper, its middle school feeder) is approaching full capacity. Accordingly, moving Forestville to Herndon could reduce transportation time and expense, increase the number of sessions of advanced courses available at Herndon, increase the number of actively involved parents at Herndon, and free up additional space at Cooper and Langley to accommodate kids from McLean and/or Marshall, the two schools that for now are being asked to accommodate all the growth in the immediate Tysons area. These kids live closer to Langley than the Forestville kids and, while they may live closer to McLean and/or Marshall than to Langley, those schools are more crowded now than Langley.

Nothing about this is paternalistic, or "white savior territory," unless you stretch really hard. It's about operating efficiency and the limited options that may be available to FCPS given past decisions. And it's not even the only option, since FCPS could move McLean kids to Falls Church, which is being expanded now (as Herndon just was) and stands to have additional space and/or move Marshall kids to Madison, which was recently expanded. Or they could adjust the CIP and prioritize additions to McLean and/or Marshall over the otherwise planned renovations of schools in the current queue, although that wouldn't happen without an outcry.

Similar scenarios relating to overcrowded Chantilly - which may or may not involve Langley - also warrant discussion, but you want to cut it all off at the pass with a condescending summary that starts from the premise that everyone just wants to "stick it" to Langley for currently having a lot of kids from wealthy families. At a certain point, it does become transparent that your agenda is just to be totally removed from what's going on in the rest of the county.

First post is more accurate. This is just white washing.

You'd have to be extremely self-centered to get there, but you are.