FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im curious how people transfer schools to play on different sports teams.

You can’t. It’s a VHSL violation. People can transfer from private to public though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im curious how people transfer schools to play on different sports teams.

You can’t. It’s a VHSL violation. People can transfer from private to public though.

Local public school divisions can waive the VHSL restriction. That’s what the controversy in Loudoun about the lacrosse player who transferred from Lightridge to Independence is about - the fact that LCPS withheld a waiver.

[Anonymous]

Several kids at our large FCPS HS are zoned to attend a nearby high school, yet somehow they are at our school, starting for the Varsity basketball team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several kids at our large FCPS HS are zoned to attend a nearby high school, yet somehow they are at our school, starting for the Varsity basketball team.

Yep. At an AP and want IB (to play for that school) or vice versa, then biology-boppity-boo! You can rig it to draw kids in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several kids at our large FCPS HS are zoned to attend a nearby high school, yet somehow they are at our school, starting for the Varsity basketball team.

Yep. At an AP and want IB (to play for that school) or vice versa, then biology-boppity-boo! You can rig it to draw kids in.

Wow that’s just wrong. I hope these basketball stars are pursuing the IB Programme Diploma if they “transferred for IB.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let’s say we eventually have all schools at the 3000-3500 and then the population dwindles. People start moving further away as remote work ranges increase for feds. Maybe some more offices move out of DC area. What to do with all this extra capacity?

Never mind. We’ll continue doing things that are not in the interests of education. Not much is happening now. Professors are seeing more and more less prepared students — even from supposed good schools. No ramifications for bad behaviors plus scapegoating of certain socioeconomic groups. We will continue to do BS in the name of the almighty dollar (property values!). This district really is a joke.

FCPS has 25 high/secondary schools (this excludes the smaller specialty schools like Cedar Lane, Quander Road, and Mountain View).

There are only two out of the 25 at or planned for 3000 seats - West Potomac and Centreville. The rest are smaller, although a substantial number now have 2500 or more seats. And then, at the low end, there are some schools with only about 2000 permanent seats.

We don't need right now to plan for, or worry about, all HS in FCPS having 3000-3500 seats. They do have to decide what the plan is for Chantilly, which has about 3000 kids but only 2500 permanent seats. Does the school get expanded at some point, or do they redistrict to Centreville when the CHS renovation is finished? And it would make sense to expand some of the schools with substantially lower capacity to 2500 seats when they are next renovated. At some schools with lower capacities now, extra capacity might be used to provide some wrap-around services to the community. At others, including those that serve areas that the county has prioritized for residential growth, it's hard to see there being a lot of extra space if the schools were expanded. They'd just be eliminating trailers and modulars and improving student safety.

This is what will happen. Not sure how they will do it, but perhaps take Virginia Run (which currently feeds to Westfields) and then shift some Chantilly kids to Westfields. Poplar Tree is another school that could get shifted - it is closer than many think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

[Anonymous]

And to add, if more people keep squeezing into Chantilly or West Springfield should we just keep expanding them? Or should we adjust the boundaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

I want them to use available seats before expanding schools. There are cases where this has been ignored when the schools are adjacent. Nobody is talking about sending kids across the county.

And I don't think our blue county would like to admit why some schools are avoided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And to add, if more people keep squeezing into Chantilly or West Springfield should we just keep expanding them? Or should we adjust the boundaries?

What do you mean “keep expanding them”? Chantilly hasn’t been expanded any time recently.

West Springfield was expanded when it was renovated. There isn’t that much growth planned in the areas that feed into WSHS, and people there aren’t asking to be redistricted.