FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t everybody think that eliminating split feeders and reducing bus times is a good idea?
But what another commenter said is absolutely correct, if the board isn’t providing information at these meetings, that will just fuel more anger and speculation.

I believe if Reid and the board had said from the beginning, “we are going to hire a consultant to clean up our boundary maps with the goal of eliminating split feeders and attendance islands throughout the county and this will also help us reduce bus times in many places” that they would not be facing this degree of backlash and distrust. But they can’t get their messaging right and no one knows what’s going on. Is it just fixing the weird situations? Is it a full nuke of the map and starting from scratch with a focus on SES equity? Is it something in between? They aren’t being fully transparent and that’s how rumors and distrust gets started. I’ve heard multiple “my neighbor’s friend at church’s daughter in law works for Gatehouse and she said blah blah blah” type rumors and I don’t think it necessarily had to come to this.

It is right on the website.

By reviewing boundaries, we seek to:

*Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.

*Balance available capacity to make the best use of our school facilities.

*Establish consistent “attendance zones” by removing isolated attendance areas and reducing split feeder patterns. This would increase the likelihood that students from the same neighborhood would be assigned to the same schools which are also the closest option.

*Minimize travel time for students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t everybody think that eliminating split feeders and reducing bus times is a good idea?
But what another commenter said is absolutely correct, if the board isn’t providing information at these meetings, that will just fuel more anger and speculation.

I believe if Reid and the board had said from the beginning, “we are going to hire a consultant to clean up our boundary maps with the goal of eliminating split feeders and attendance islands throughout the county and this will also help us reduce bus times in many places” that they would not be facing this degree of backlash and distrust. But they can’t get their messaging right and no one knows what’s going on. Is it just fixing the weird situations? Is it a full nuke of the map and starting from scratch with a focus on SES equity? Is it something in between? They aren’t being fully transparent and that’s how rumors and distrust gets started. I’ve heard multiple “my neighbor’s friend at church’s daughter in law works for Gatehouse and she said blah blah blah” type rumors and I don’t think it necessarily had to come to this.

It is right on the website.

By reviewing boundaries, we seek to:

*Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.

*Balance available capacity to make the best use of our school facilities.

*Establish consistent “attendance zones” by removing isolated attendance areas and reducing split feeder patterns. This would increase the likelihood that students from the same neighborhood would be assigned to the same schools which are also the closest option.

*Minimize travel time for students.

Except that those goals often contradict each other and there is no indication as to the relative priority of these factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t everybody think that eliminating split feeders and reducing bus times is a good idea?
But what another commenter said is absolutely correct, if the board isn’t providing information at these meetings, that will just fuel more anger and speculation.

I believe if Reid and the board had said from the beginning, “we are going to hire a consultant to clean up our boundary maps with the goal of eliminating split feeders and attendance islands throughout the county and this will also help us reduce bus times in many places” that they would not be facing this degree of backlash and distrust. But they can’t get their messaging right and no one knows what’s going on. Is it just fixing the weird situations? Is it a full nuke of the map and starting from scratch with a focus on SES equity? Is it something in between? They aren’t being fully transparent and that’s how rumors and distrust gets started. I’ve heard multiple “my neighbor’s friend at church’s daughter in law works for Gatehouse and she said blah blah blah” type rumors and I don’t think it necessarily had to come to this.

It is right on the website.

By reviewing boundaries, we seek to:

*Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.

*Balance available capacity to make the best use of our school facilities.

*Establish consistent “attendance zones” by removing isolated attendance areas and reducing split feeder patterns. This would increase the likelihood that students from the same neighborhood would be assigned to the same schools which are also the closest option.

*Minimize travel time for students.

The second two are what first PP mentioned. But the first two turn the whole thing into meaningless word salad.

[Anonymous]

How can anyone look at this map and go, "yeah, this looks reasonable, we should never adjust boundaries".

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithMiddleSchoolBoundaries.pdf

[Anonymous]

“ Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.”

No one is explaining what this mean though. Equitable facilities are a function of the CIP not boundaries. Programs vary school to school but I highly doubt they plan to put immersion in everywhere nor eliminate all IB so again what does this mean??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can anyone look at this map and go, "yeah, this looks reasonable, we should never adjust boundaries".

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithMiddleSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Because we have brains that function. It’s pretty low level thinking to jump to grand conclusions based off one 2D map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was this when that politician played musical chairs with the trailer park neighborhood to score full day K for her own neighborhood ES.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kathy Smith.

Yes, she zoned the trailer park to Poplar Tree ES for ONE year to get full day K at Poplar Tree (one of the lowest FARM schools in FCPS at the time) and then zoned them to another school the very next year. This was when full day K was only for schools with a certain number of FARMs kids. It was shameless and she paid no political price for it.

Didn't those poor low income kids then end up with the longest commute of any elementary school in the area, passing by several closer schools to get to their final (3rd elementary school in 3 years) destination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm old enough to remember when the School Board stated emphatically that every HS should be around 2000 students.

That is not practical in a school district of 180,000 students with very little free land to create a high school campus.

Look what happened when the county tried to convert Karl Frisch's dog park to a much needed elementary school.

No way that FCPS is getting a new high school if that is the way the school board operates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t everybody think that eliminating split feeders and reducing bus times is a good idea?
But what another commenter said is absolutely correct, if the board isn’t providing information at these meetings, that will just fuel more anger and speculation.

I believe if Reid and the board had said from the beginning, “we are going to hire a consultant to clean up our boundary maps with the goal of eliminating split feeders and attendance islands throughout the county and this will also help us reduce bus times in many places” that they would not be facing this degree of backlash and distrust. But they can’t get their messaging right and no one knows what’s going on. Is it just fixing the weird situations? Is it a full nuke of the map and starting from scratch with a focus on SES equity? Is it something in between? They aren’t being fully transparent and that’s how rumors and distrust gets started. I’ve heard multiple “my neighbor’s friend at church’s daughter in law works for Gatehouse and she said blah blah blah” type rumors and I don’t think it necessarily had to come to this.

It is right on the website.

By reviewing boundaries, we seek to:

*Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.

*Balance available capacity to make the best use of our school facilities.

*Establish consistent “attendance zones” by removing isolated attendance areas and reducing split feeder patterns. This would increase the likelihood that students from the same neighborhood would be assigned to the same schools which are also the closest option.

*Minimize travel time for students.

But it’s the “equitable access to facilities” and the “balance available capacity” pieces that have given people a lot of concern. It’s coming across as a catch-all for doing whatever they want and trying to achieve the mythical “30% FARMS” at every school, or at least every high school. Again - if they had left it at “cleaning up attendance islands” and “reducing as many split feeders as possible” I don’t think people would have a huge problem. There are some weirdo boundaries on the current map for sure, and fixing these probably would reduce transit times/costs as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.”

No one is explaining what this mean though. Equitable facilities are a function of the CIP not boundaries. Programs vary school to school but I highly doubt they plan to put immersion in everywhere nor eliminate all IB so again what does this mean??

I think this is the super-secret way to eliminate the IB/AP transfer option. If both programs are viewed as “equitable”…..no need to allow transfers. We don’t have choice enrollment in FCPS, unlike other school districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.”

No one is explaining what this mean though. Equitable facilities are a function of the CIP not boundaries. Programs vary school to school but I highly doubt they plan to put immersion in everywhere nor eliminate all IB so again what does this mean??

I think this is the super-secret way to eliminate the IB/AP transfer option. If both programs are viewed as “equitable”…..no need to allow transfers. We don’t have choice enrollment in FCPS, unlike other school districts.

I doubt that. They’ll keep pupil placements only because that’s what allows them to maintain equitable access to programming without offering uniform courses across the board.

Mateo Dunne is being the most transparent about his approach and he lists equitable access to programming under crowding. It aligns with the thought that by moving students from a school that’s over capacity to a school that’s under capacity, the under capacity school can offer more extracurriculars. The problem is the schools that are grossly over capacity have very tight boundaries, so they can’t shift students without violating their first objective of sending kids to their closest school and staying in their community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.”

No one is explaining what this mean though. Equitable facilities are a function of the CIP not boundaries. Programs vary school to school but I highly doubt they plan to put immersion in everywhere nor eliminate all IB so again what does this mean??

I think this is the super-secret way to eliminate the IB/AP transfer option. If both programs are viewed as “equitable”…..no need to allow transfers. We don’t have choice enrollment in FCPS, unlike other school districts.

I doubt that. They’ll keep pupil placements only because that’s what allows them to maintain equitable access to programming without offering uniform courses across the board.

Mateo Dunne is being the most transparent about his approach and he lists equitable access to programming under crowding. It aligns with the thought that by moving students from a school that’s over capacity to a school that’s under capacity, the under capacity school can offer more extracurriculars. The problem is the schools that are grossly over capacity have very tight boundaries, so they can’t shift students without violating their first objective of sending kids to their closest school and staying in their community.

Let’s hear Dunne go public with the specific West Potomac feeders he favors moving to Mount Vernon to advance these goals and then I’ll listen to him. Until then he’s just another sleazy politician like Karen Corbett Sanders and Scott Surovell who spend inordinate amounts of timing pushing to screw the northern and western parts of the county because they always want their corner of the county seen as the neglected step-sister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t everybody think that eliminating split feeders and reducing bus times is a good idea?
But what another commenter said is absolutely correct, if the board isn’t providing information at these meetings, that will just fuel more anger and speculation.

Eliminating split feeders, sure, I guess.

Bus time is pretext. They are considering adding 196 buses for middle school start times. One hundred and ninety six. Option D. No one can say worry a straight face that transportation costs are motivating any part of this process, especially when even minimal grandfathering will increase the transportation costs immensely.

Regarding transportation time for kids, parents are in the best position to determine how much time on the bus is too much time. We chose where we live knowing full well commute time to schools in our pyramid. So again, not a concern for anyone but my family.

This sounds like somebody in Herndon that is getting bussed to Langely, which, let's be real - doens't make a lot of practical sense when it's time to relook boundaries. But at the risk of being accused of wanting changes for other children, and not my own, let me address your points.
The conversation on additional middle school buses seem to have gone nowhere, and does not appear to be funded. Also many/most (I try not to make sweeping generalizations) would prefer less time on a bus than more. I do understand there are likely people that bought FAR from a "good" school assuming their kids would always go there. But, there was some writing on the walls with adjacent/newer neighborhoods not getting districted for the same schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can anyone look at this map and go, "yeah, this looks reasonable, we should never adjust boundaries".

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithMiddleSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Because we have brains that function. It’s pretty low level thinking to jump to grand conclusions based off one 2D map.

and when you ask an actual question, this is what ignorant adults resort to. This is why whatever is going to happen will happen and the public will get not a lot of say. That "one 2d map" provides a LOT of data.