FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when is the next BRAC meeting? I’d like to attend.

Public can attend?

It’s gotta be this week or next. The last one was 3/10 but was canceled because the scenarios weren’t ready (aka this is an impossible task within the time frame). The website specially states they’ll be reviewing 1) students returning to base schools and 2) the option of moving 6th to middle school.

And no, not open to the public. They do post the materials afterwards though not recordings. I would imagine they’ll have to post the scenarios or else they will have major claims of non-transparency and FairFacts Matters will FOIA them anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when is the next BRAC meeting? I’d like to attend.

Public can attend?

It’s gotta be this week or next. The last one was 3/10 but was canceled because the scenarios weren’t ready (aka this is an impossible task within the time frame). The website specially states they’ll be reviewing 1) students returning to base schools and 2) the option of moving 6th to middle school.

And no, not open to the public. They do post the materials afterwards though not recordings. I would imagine they’ll have to post the scenarios or else they will have major claims of non-transparency and FairFacts Matters will FOIA them anyways.

So they are behind schedule and the scenarios they plan to present are patently absurd. First scenario apparently ignores TJ placements and wouldn’t give people in IB schools a pupil placement option to an AP school or vice versa; second scenario would grossly overcrowd most current 7-8 middle schools.

Sounds like exactly the shit show everyone predicted. At one point do they abandon this nonsense and fire Reid?

[Anonymous]

Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

If they don’t address the bolded issues upfront any large scale boundary initiative is doomed to fail.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone please tell if this is for the 2025-2026 school year or 2026-2027 school year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

Add to the program list the massive movement for Hunters Woods Magnet program. The Bailey's gets <20 total. Even a school the size of Waples Mill [Hunters Woods only AAP center feed] doesn't have local level iv. And the complete mystery of who/what is taking up space in the Chantilly building for academy programs. Move out acadmies would it need 9 trailers plus a 14 student modular at the compact boundary site? Marshall also is academy loaded.

All the 2024 community meetings and the 2025 virtual meetings should have included fundamentals: membership, transfer data, with TJ as a separate line on the bottom. CIP breakouts on academies. Example is Kilmer sq footage and net Kilner Center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone please tell if this is for the 2025-2026 school year or 2026-2027 school year?

Their plan is to implement changes beginning in the fall of 2026 (so 2026-27 school year), but they are floundering now. They are still in the early stages of their work and it's already clear it's going to be a fiasco.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone please tell if this is for the 2025-2026 school year or 2026-2027 school year?

Their plan is to implement changes beginning in the fall of 2026 (so 2026-27 school year), but they are floundering now. They are still in the early stages of their work and it's already clear it's going to be a fiasco.

Seems like it. Why would the first two scenarios for consideration be two proposals that were nowhere disucssed during the 8130 policy revision discussions or the Thru Consulting initial scoping meetings? Need to keep full attention and pressure on them. They seem to be just flinging ideas around now with no real thought.

[Anonymous]

Waples PTA is doing a presentation today from the school boundary review advocacy committee. Curious to see if there is anything of interest that they’ve learned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

Agree with your suggestion about the correct procedures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone please tell if this is for the 2025-2026 school year or 2026-2027 school year?

Their plan is to implement changes beginning in the fall of 2026 (so 2026-27 school year), but they are floundering now. They are still in the early stages of their work and it's already clear it's going to be a fiasco.

Seems like it. Why would the first two scenarios for consideration be two proposals that were nowhere disucssed during the 8130 policy revision discussions or the Thru Consulting initial scoping meetings? Need to keep full attention and pressure on them. They seem to be just flinging ideas around now with no real thought.

Someone on the BRAC wrote that the two scenarios were primarily intended to demonstrate how the modeling software worked. My guess is that they pulled back when they realized the second scenario was going to show just how far-fetched Reid’s goal of 6-8 middle schools across the county would be, unless they made other assumptions that would be expensive and controversial, namely converting some elementary schools to middle schools. I don’t think the people in charge of this process really know what they’re doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone please tell if this is for the 2025-2026 school year or 2026-2027 school year?

Their plan is to implement changes beginning in the fall of 2026 (so 2026-27 school year), but they are floundering now. They are still in the early stages of their work and it's already clear it's going to be a fiasco.

Seems like it. Why would the first two scenarios for consideration be two proposals that were nowhere disucssed during the 8130 policy revision discussions or the Thru Consulting initial scoping meetings? Need to keep full attention and pressure on them. They seem to be just flinging ideas around now with no real thought.

Someone on the BRAC wrote that the two scenarios were primarily intended to demonstrate how the modeling software worked. My guess is that they pulled back when they realized the second scenario was going to show just how far-fetched Reid’s goal of 6-8 middle schools across the county would be, unless they made other assumptions that would be expensive and controversial, namely converting some elementary schools to middle schools. I don’t think the people in charge of this process really know what they’re doing.

Agree. But, who is in charge and how much are they being paid.

They have been tasked with a ridiculous assignment.

There is not $$$ for this. The expenses were vague (likely high), but adding in 6-8 middle school is a step too far. And, the AP/IB issue--so easily fixed-is off the table?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone please tell if this is for the 2025-2026 school year or 2026-2027 school year?

Their plan is to implement changes beginning in the fall of 2026 (so 2026-27 school year), but they are floundering now. They are still in the early stages of their work and it's already clear it's going to be a fiasco.

Seems like it. Why would the first two scenarios for consideration be two proposals that were nowhere disucssed during the 8130 policy revision discussions or the Thru Consulting initial scoping meetings? Need to keep full attention and pressure on them. They seem to be just flinging ideas around now with no real thought.

Someone on the BRAC wrote that the two scenarios were primarily intended to demonstrate how the modeling software worked. My guess is that they pulled back when they realized the second scenario was going to show just how far-fetched Reid’s goal of 6-8 middle schools across the county would be, unless they made other assumptions that would be expensive and controversial, namely converting some elementary schools to middle schools. I don’t think the people in charge of this process really know what they’re doing.

How they can even think 6-8 conversion county wide can happen by 2026 is beyond me.

Even if they are just showing what their GIS software can perform, I would like to see the possibilities. Alexandria Public Schools just did the same thing with “proposed scenarios” and publicly shared the maps. FCPS should as well.