Anonymous wrote:Why do they want to make Haycock 99% full while leaving other schools in the 80s, especially given the development and infill building in Haycock bounds? Why are so many schools involved for one school’s overcrowding that could easily be fixed by program changes?
They are projecting Haycock at 92-96% under Option B.
If the LLIV program at Franklin Sherman gets stronger with more kids and a new principal, there will be fewer FS AAP kids at Haycock.
If the new WFC development gets built and overcrowd Haycock they can move some kids to Lemon Road.
FS isn't taking on any significant number more kids than it has currently, and there's no reason to think there will be less AAP transfers to Haycock unless centers are wound down county-wide or something.
As for the bolded, 1/ there's no "if", it's happening, and 2/ the most logical SPA to shift to Lemon Road would be 4022 as it sits on Idyllwood/Kirby Road already (same as the school)... but that's the one they're shifting now from KG -> Haycock. Can't imagine the uproar if they just "whoops" and reallocate it again to Lemon Road in a few years.
Scenario B projects Franklin Sherman would pick up an additional 38 kids. In addition, FS sends a lot of kids to Haycock for AAP - more than Chesterbrook, which has more students. If the new FS principal is more committed to LLIV services than Quigley, then it stands to reason the number of LLIV kids from FS at Haycock may decline.
In terms of WFC development, it certainly appears to be coming, but it hasn’t happened yet. If it generates a lot more kids, they could move SPA 4011 or 4018 to Lemon Road, and that would still leave SPA 4022 at Haycock.
To be clear, I’m not super-invested in Scenario B. I get the impression you want to kill the immersion program at KG and then move no one from KG to Haycock. If that’s what you’re angling for, it seems you’re out of luck.
No, I think the immersion program is great, it's popular, and the brain development benefits of language immersion at an early age are well-documented (regardless of whether the second language is deemed "useful" or retained into higher grades / adulthood). No problem there.
My issue is with the lack of long-term planning... heck, I'd take medium-term planning. There's no question that WFC development is happening. It's happening in stages and just happened to commence with the FCC portion, but that's not like "oh they're thinking twice about it" for the County portion.
4018 at Lemon Road would be a terrible attendance island... those families would drive through Haycock territory via Haycock Road and/or Great Falls to go all the way up to Idyllwood and then back down to Lemon Road. That's a sh!t plan.
4011 is at least a bit closer to Lemon Road, but it still makes way more sense just to move 4022 there now rather than 4022->Haycock followed by 4011->Lemon Road in a few years. The other issue is that you'd be moving HS pyramids for those kids as well. It's a only slightly less sh!t plan.
Given the available capacity at Chesterbrook, perhaps 4105 could get moved there in a couple years when they need space at Haycock.
But the point is, moving 4022 to Haycock now is basically guaranteeing a second unnecessary boundary change in the near future (or adding trailers at Haycock), which is just really poor planning when there's space available elsewhere.
They don’t need a boundary change to lower the number of students at Haycock. They just need to eliminate the AAP center program. The feeder ES have robust LL AAP programs. The center is redundant.
That’s fine for Haycock IF that’s the long-term plan, but I suspect it’s not really, leaving Haycock in the lurch. Furthermore, even if that is the plan, we’d need to run the numbers to see if the other schools remain under capacity when they are no longer sending AAP students to Haycock. Again, the absence of a clear long-term plan is the problem, and there’s no hand-waving that can be done to make those anticipatable issues go away without a plan.
If you want to center Haycock in a discussion about an upcoming boundary change that is sure to have much more impact on two other elementary schools (Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman) than on Haycock, have at it. The deadline for signing up to testify at the public hearing on the 30th is 6 PM tonight.
The discussion is about all the schools in the McLean area, including the two you mentioned, Haycock, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road. It is not limited to KG and FS because they have more kids moving in/out. To a lesser extent it should also be thinking about the adjacent Lemon Road, Westgage, and Spring Hill... even if kids aren't moving to/from those schools as part of this particular study, because in the medium-term (5-10 years) we need to be looking at those impacts as well.
Staff did look at Lemon Road, Westgate, and Spring Hill, and concluded kids shouldn’t be moved to those schools because they are more likely to be affected by future growth than Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road.
Anonymous wrote:Why do they want to make Haycock 99% full while leaving other schools in the 80s, especially given the development and infill building in Haycock bounds? Why are so many schools involved for one school’s overcrowding that could easily be fixed by program changes?
They are projecting Haycock at 92-96% under Option B.
If the LLIV program at Franklin Sherman gets stronger with more kids and a new principal, there will be fewer FS AAP kids at Haycock.
If the new WFC development gets built and overcrowd Haycock they can move some kids to Lemon Road.
FS isn't taking on any significant number more kids than it has currently, and there's no reason to think there will be less AAP transfers to Haycock unless centers are wound down county-wide or something.
As for the bolded, 1/ there's no "if", it's happening, and 2/ the most logical SPA to shift to Lemon Road would be 4022 as it sits on Idyllwood/Kirby Road already (same as the school)... but that's the one they're shifting now from KG -> Haycock. Can't imagine the uproar if they just "whoops" and reallocate it again to Lemon Road in a few years.
Scenario B projects Franklin Sherman would pick up an additional 38 kids. In addition, FS sends a lot of kids to Haycock for AAP - more than Chesterbrook, which has more students. If the new FS principal is more committed to LLIV services than Quigley, then it stands to reason the number of LLIV kids from FS at Haycock may decline.
In terms of WFC development, it certainly appears to be coming, but it hasn’t happened yet. If it generates a lot more kids, they could move SPA 4011 or 4018 to Lemon Road, and that would still leave SPA 4022 at Haycock.
To be clear, I’m not super-invested in Scenario B. I get the impression you want to kill the immersion program at KG and then move no one from KG to Haycock. If that’s what you’re angling for, it seems you’re out of luck.
No, I think the immersion program is great, it's popular, and the brain development benefits of language immersion at an early age are well-documented (regardless of whether the second language is deemed "useful" or retained into higher grades / adulthood). No problem there.
My issue is with the lack of long-term planning... heck, I'd take medium-term planning. There's no question that WFC development is happening. It's happening in stages and just happened to commence with the FCC portion, but that's not like "oh they're thinking twice about it" for the County portion.
4018 at Lemon Road would be a terrible attendance island... those families would drive through Haycock territory via Haycock Road and/or Great Falls to go all the way up to Idyllwood and then back down to Lemon Road. That's a sh!t plan.
4011 is at least a bit closer to Lemon Road, but it still makes way more sense just to move 4022 there now rather than 4022->Haycock followed by 4011->Lemon Road in a few years. The other issue is that you'd be moving HS pyramids for those kids as well. It's a only slightly less sh!t plan.
Given the available capacity at Chesterbrook, perhaps 4105 could get moved there in a couple years when they need space at Haycock.
But the point is, moving 4022 to Haycock now is basically guaranteeing a second unnecessary boundary change in the near future (or adding trailers at Haycock), which is just really poor planning when there's space available elsewhere.
They don’t need a boundary change to lower the number of students at Haycock. They just need to eliminate the AAP center program. The feeder ES have robust LL AAP programs. The center is redundant.
That’s fine for Haycock IF that’s the long-term plan, but I suspect it’s not really, leaving Haycock in the lurch. Furthermore, even if that is the plan, we’d need to run the numbers to see if the other schools remain under capacity when they are no longer sending AAP students to Haycock. Again, the absence of a clear long-term plan is the problem, and there’s no hand-waving that can be done to make those anticipatable issues go away without a plan.
If you want to center Haycock in a discussion about an upcoming boundary change that is sure to have much more impact on two other elementary schools (Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman) than on Haycock, have at it. The deadline for signing up to testify at the public hearing on the 30th is 6 PM tonight.
The discussion is about all the schools in the McLean area, including the two you mentioned, Haycock, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road. It is not limited to KG and FS because they have more kids moving in/out. To a lesser extent it should also be thinking about the adjacent Lemon Road, Westgage, and Spring Hill... even if kids aren't moving to/from those schools as part of this particular study, because in the medium-term (5-10 years) we need to be looking at those impacts as well.
Staff did look at Lemon Road, Westgate, and Spring Hill, and concluded kids shouldn’t be moved to those schools because they are more likely to be affected by future growth than Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road.
I meant the other way around... e.g. probably should move some more of that one weird gerrymandered neighborhood from Spring Hill to Churchill Road to free up a bit more capacity at Spring Hill.
Anonymous wrote:Why do they want to make Haycock 99% full while leaving other schools in the 80s, especially given the development and infill building in Haycock bounds? Why are so many schools involved for one school’s overcrowding that could easily be fixed by program changes?
They are projecting Haycock at 92-96% under Option B.
If the LLIV program at Franklin Sherman gets stronger with more kids and a new principal, there will be fewer FS AAP kids at Haycock.
If the new WFC development gets built and overcrowd Haycock they can move some kids to Lemon Road.
FS isn't taking on any significant number more kids than it has currently, and there's no reason to think there will be less AAP transfers to Haycock unless centers are wound down county-wide or something.
As for the bolded, 1/ there's no "if", it's happening, and 2/ the most logical SPA to shift to Lemon Road would be 4022 as it sits on Idyllwood/Kirby Road already (same as the school)... but that's the one they're shifting now from KG -> Haycock. Can't imagine the uproar if they just "whoops" and reallocate it again to Lemon Road in a few years.
Scenario B projects Franklin Sherman would pick up an additional 38 kids. In addition, FS sends a lot of kids to Haycock for AAP - more than Chesterbrook, which has more students. If the new FS principal is more committed to LLIV services than Quigley, then it stands to reason the number of LLIV kids from FS at Haycock may decline.
In terms of WFC development, it certainly appears to be coming, but it hasn’t happened yet. If it generates a lot more kids, they could move SPA 4011 or 4018 to Lemon Road, and that would still leave SPA 4022 at Haycock.
To be clear, I’m not super-invested in Scenario B. I get the impression you want to kill the immersion program at KG and then move no one from KG to Haycock. If that’s what you’re angling for, it seems you’re out of luck.
No, I think the immersion program is great, it's popular, and the brain development benefits of language immersion at an early age are well-documented (regardless of whether the second language is deemed "useful" or retained into higher grades / adulthood). No problem there.
My issue is with the lack of long-term planning... heck, I'd take medium-term planning. There's no question that WFC development is happening. It's happening in stages and just happened to commence with the FCC portion, but that's not like "oh they're thinking twice about it" for the County portion.
4018 at Lemon Road would be a terrible attendance island... those families would drive through Haycock territory via Haycock Road and/or Great Falls to go all the way up to Idyllwood and then back down to Lemon Road. That's a sh!t plan.
4011 is at least a bit closer to Lemon Road, but it still makes way more sense just to move 4022 there now rather than 4022->Haycock followed by 4011->Lemon Road in a few years. The other issue is that you'd be moving HS pyramids for those kids as well. It's a only slightly less sh!t plan.
Given the available capacity at Chesterbrook, perhaps 4105 could get moved there in a couple years when they need space at Haycock.
But the point is, moving 4022 to Haycock now is basically guaranteeing a second unnecessary boundary change in the near future (or adding trailers at Haycock), which is just really poor planning when there's space available elsewhere.
They don’t need a boundary change to lower the number of students at Haycock. They just need to eliminate the AAP center program. The feeder ES have robust LL AAP programs. The center is redundant.
That’s fine for Haycock IF that’s the long-term plan, but I suspect it’s not really, leaving Haycock in the lurch. Furthermore, even if that is the plan, we’d need to run the numbers to see if the other schools remain under capacity when they are no longer sending AAP students to Haycock. Again, the absence of a clear long-term plan is the problem, and there’s no hand-waving that can be done to make those anticipatable issues go away without a plan.
If you want to center Haycock in a discussion about an upcoming boundary change that is sure to have much more impact on two other elementary schools (Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman) than on Haycock, have at it. The deadline for signing up to testify at the public hearing on the 30th is 6 PM tonight.
The discussion is about all the schools in the McLean area, including the two you mentioned, Haycock, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road. It is not limited to KG and FS because they have more kids moving in/out. To a lesser extent it should also be thinking about the adjacent Lemon Road, Westgage, and Spring Hill... even if kids aren't moving to/from those schools as part of this particular study, because in the medium-term (5-10 years) we need to be looking at those impacts as well.
Staff did look at Lemon Road, Westgate, and Spring Hill, and concluded kids shouldn’t be moved to those schools because they are more likely to be affected by future growth than Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road.
I meant the other way around... e.g. probably should move some more of that one weird gerrymandered neighborhood from Spring Hill to Churchill Road to free up a bit more capacity at Spring Hill.
Don’t you have it backwards? The weird gerrymandered neighborhood is surrounded by areas in the Spring Hill district but goes to Churchill Road.
Anonymous wrote:Why do they want to make Haycock 99% full while leaving other schools in the 80s, especially given the development and infill building in Haycock bounds? Why are so many schools involved for one school’s overcrowding that could easily be fixed by program changes?
They are projecting Haycock at 92-96% under Option B.
If the LLIV program at Franklin Sherman gets stronger with more kids and a new principal, there will be fewer FS AAP kids at Haycock.
If the new WFC development gets built and overcrowd Haycock they can move some kids to Lemon Road.
FS isn't taking on any significant number more kids than it has currently, and there's no reason to think there will be less AAP transfers to Haycock unless centers are wound down county-wide or something.
As for the bolded, 1/ there's no "if", it's happening, and 2/ the most logical SPA to shift to Lemon Road would be 4022 as it sits on Idyllwood/Kirby Road already (same as the school)... but that's the one they're shifting now from KG -> Haycock. Can't imagine the uproar if they just "whoops" and reallocate it again to Lemon Road in a few years.
Scenario B projects Franklin Sherman would pick up an additional 38 kids. In addition, FS sends a lot of kids to Haycock for AAP - more than Chesterbrook, which has more students. If the new FS principal is more committed to LLIV services than Quigley, then it stands to reason the number of LLIV kids from FS at Haycock may decline.
In terms of WFC development, it certainly appears to be coming, but it hasn’t happened yet. If it generates a lot more kids, they could move SPA 4011 or 4018 to Lemon Road, and that would still leave SPA 4022 at Haycock.
To be clear, I’m not super-invested in Scenario B. I get the impression you want to kill the immersion program at KG and then move no one from KG to Haycock. If that’s what you’re angling for, it seems you’re out of luck.
No, I think the immersion program is great, it's popular, and the brain development benefits of language immersion at an early age are well-documented (regardless of whether the second language is deemed "useful" or retained into higher grades / adulthood). No problem there.
My issue is with the lack of long-term planning... heck, I'd take medium-term planning. There's no question that WFC development is happening. It's happening in stages and just happened to commence with the FCC portion, but that's not like "oh they're thinking twice about it" for the County portion.
4018 at Lemon Road would be a terrible attendance island... those families would drive through Haycock territory via Haycock Road and/or Great Falls to go all the way up to Idyllwood and then back down to Lemon Road. That's a sh!t plan.
4011 is at least a bit closer to Lemon Road, but it still makes way more sense just to move 4022 there now rather than 4022->Haycock followed by 4011->Lemon Road in a few years. The other issue is that you'd be moving HS pyramids for those kids as well. It's a only slightly less sh!t plan.
Given the available capacity at Chesterbrook, perhaps 4105 could get moved there in a couple years when they need space at Haycock.
But the point is, moving 4022 to Haycock now is basically guaranteeing a second unnecessary boundary change in the near future (or adding trailers at Haycock), which is just really poor planning when there's space available elsewhere.
They don’t need a boundary change to lower the number of students at Haycock. They just need to eliminate the AAP center program. The feeder ES have robust LL AAP programs. The center is redundant.
That’s fine for Haycock IF that’s the long-term plan, but I suspect it’s not really, leaving Haycock in the lurch. Furthermore, even if that is the plan, we’d need to run the numbers to see if the other schools remain under capacity when they are no longer sending AAP students to Haycock. Again, the absence of a clear long-term plan is the problem, and there’s no hand-waving that can be done to make those anticipatable issues go away without a plan.
If you want to center Haycock in a discussion about an upcoming boundary change that is sure to have much more impact on two other elementary schools (Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman) than on Haycock, have at it. The deadline for signing up to testify at the public hearing on the 30th is 6 PM tonight.
The discussion is about all the schools in the McLean area, including the two you mentioned, Haycock, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road. It is not limited to KG and FS because they have more kids moving in/out. To a lesser extent it should also be thinking about the adjacent Lemon Road, Westgage, and Spring Hill... even if kids aren't moving to/from those schools as part of this particular study, because in the medium-term (5-10 years) we need to be looking at those impacts as well.
Staff did look at Lemon Road, Westgate, and Spring Hill, and concluded kids shouldn’t be moved to those schools because they are more likely to be affected by future growth than Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road.
I meant the other way around... e.g. probably should move some more of that one weird gerrymandered neighborhood from Spring Hill to Churchill Road to free up a bit more capacity at Spring Hill.
Don’t you have it backwards? The weird gerrymandered neighborhood is surrounded by areas in the Spring Hill district but goes to Churchill Road.
You can slice it either way. Swinks Mill and Georgetown Pike is actually closer to Churchill Road than it is to Spring Hill. 2101 would make sense to join 2102 at Churchill Road, and it's not a lot of kids (17 K-6) and then it's a cohesive area (minus that one carveout on Canal Rd, don't know what that's about). If they wanted to shift more capacity to Spring Hill they could also shift 2004 to Churchill Road which is a bit more substantial (50 K-6). If Churchill Road is keeping their modular, they've got a lot more space than the capacity numbers show, because they dropped the program capacity down to 700 (which had been 870 for the better part of the past decade). That space didn't disappear, it's just not being used as traditional classrooms currently.
Anonymous wrote:Why do they want to make Haycock 99% full while leaving other schools in the 80s, especially given the development and infill building in Haycock bounds? Why are so many schools involved for one school’s overcrowding that could easily be fixed by program changes?
They are projecting Haycock at 92-96% under Option B.
If the LLIV program at Franklin Sherman gets stronger with more kids and a new principal, there will be fewer FS AAP kids at Haycock.
If the new WFC development gets built and overcrowd Haycock they can move some kids to Lemon Road.
FS isn't taking on any significant number more kids than it has currently, and there's no reason to think there will be less AAP transfers to Haycock unless centers are wound down county-wide or something.
As for the bolded, 1/ there's no "if", it's happening, and 2/ the most logical SPA to shift to Lemon Road would be 4022 as it sits on Idyllwood/Kirby Road already (same as the school)... but that's the one they're shifting now from KG -> Haycock. Can't imagine the uproar if they just "whoops" and reallocate it again to Lemon Road in a few years.
Scenario B projects Franklin Sherman would pick up an additional 38 kids. In addition, FS sends a lot of kids to Haycock for AAP - more than Chesterbrook, which has more students. If the new FS principal is more committed to LLIV services than Quigley, then it stands to reason the number of LLIV kids from FS at Haycock may decline.
In terms of WFC development, it certainly appears to be coming, but it hasn’t happened yet. If it generates a lot more kids, they could move SPA 4011 or 4018 to Lemon Road, and that would still leave SPA 4022 at Haycock.
To be clear, I’m not super-invested in Scenario B. I get the impression you want to kill the immersion program at KG and then move no one from KG to Haycock. If that’s what you’re angling for, it seems you’re out of luck.
No, I think the immersion program is great, it's popular, and the brain development benefits of language immersion at an early age are well-documented (regardless of whether the second language is deemed "useful" or retained into higher grades / adulthood). No problem there.
My issue is with the lack of long-term planning... heck, I'd take medium-term planning. There's no question that WFC development is happening. It's happening in stages and just happened to commence with the FCC portion, but that's not like "oh they're thinking twice about it" for the County portion.
4018 at Lemon Road would be a terrible attendance island... those families would drive through Haycock territory via Haycock Road and/or Great Falls to go all the way up to Idyllwood and then back down to Lemon Road. That's a sh!t plan.
4011 is at least a bit closer to Lemon Road, but it still makes way more sense just to move 4022 there now rather than 4022->Haycock followed by 4011->Lemon Road in a few years. The other issue is that you'd be moving HS pyramids for those kids as well. It's a only slightly less sh!t plan.
Given the available capacity at Chesterbrook, perhaps 4105 could get moved there in a couple years when they need space at Haycock.
But the point is, moving 4022 to Haycock now is basically guaranteeing a second unnecessary boundary change in the near future (or adding trailers at Haycock), which is just really poor planning when there's space available elsewhere.
They don’t need a boundary change to lower the number of students at Haycock. They just need to eliminate the AAP center program. The feeder ES have robust LL AAP programs. The center is redundant.
That’s fine for Haycock IF that’s the long-term plan, but I suspect it’s not really, leaving Haycock in the lurch. Furthermore, even if that is the plan, we’d need to run the numbers to see if the other schools remain under capacity when they are no longer sending AAP students to Haycock. Again, the absence of a clear long-term plan is the problem, and there’s no hand-waving that can be done to make those anticipatable issues go away without a plan.
If you want to center Haycock in a discussion about an upcoming boundary change that is sure to have much more impact on two other elementary schools (Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman) than on Haycock, have at it. The deadline for signing up to testify at the public hearing on the 30th is 6 PM tonight.
The discussion is about all the schools in the McLean area, including the two you mentioned, Haycock, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road. It is not limited to KG and FS because they have more kids moving in/out. To a lesser extent it should also be thinking about the adjacent Lemon Road, Westgage, and Spring Hill... even if kids aren't moving to/from those schools as part of this particular study, because in the medium-term (5-10 years) we need to be looking at those impacts as well.
Staff did look at Lemon Road, Westgate, and Spring Hill, and concluded kids shouldn’t be moved to those schools because they are more likely to be affected by future growth than Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road.
I meant the other way around... e.g. probably should move some more of that one weird gerrymandered neighborhood from Spring Hill to Churchill Road to free up a bit more capacity at Spring Hill.
Don’t you have it backwards? The weird gerrymandered neighborhood is surrounded by areas in the Spring Hill district but goes to Churchill Road.
You can slice it either way. Swinks Mill and Georgetown Pike is actually closer to Churchill Road than it is to Spring Hill. 2101 would make sense to join 2102 at Churchill Road, and it's not a lot of kids (17 K-6) and then it's a cohesive area (minus that one carveout on Canal Rd, don't know what that's about). If they wanted to shift more capacity to Spring Hill they could also shift 2004 to Churchill Road which is a bit more substantial (50 K-6). If Churchill Road is keeping their modular, they've got a lot more space than the capacity numbers show, because they dropped the program capacity down to 700 (which had been 870 for the better part of the past decade). That space didn't disappear, it's just not being used as traditional classrooms currently.
The vote is scheduled tonight, and according to the agenda they are still proposing to adopt "Scenario B." So it doesn't appear they'll be making last-minute changes to move kids from one Langley feeder (Spring Hill) to another (Churchill Road) that hadn't been teed up previously.
As among the five scenarios presented, Scenario B makes as much sense as the others, and it will provide Kent Gardens with some capacity relief over time. The grandfathering is fairly generous, but a lot of current K students will have to attend new schools next year and siblings may end up at different elementary schools with different start times. It's unfortunate they didn't present at least one option that merely involved moving kids out of the overcrowded school (KG) to other schools with surplus capacity.
Anonymous wrote:Why do they want to make Haycock 99% full while leaving other schools in the 80s, especially given the development and infill building in Haycock bounds? Why are so many schools involved for one school’s overcrowding that could easily be fixed by program changes?
They are projecting Haycock at 92-96% under Option B.
If the LLIV program at Franklin Sherman gets stronger with more kids and a new principal, there will be fewer FS AAP kids at Haycock.
If the new WFC development gets built and overcrowd Haycock they can move some kids to Lemon Road.
FS isn't taking on any significant number more kids than it has currently, and there's no reason to think there will be less AAP transfers to Haycock unless centers are wound down county-wide or something.
As for the bolded, 1/ there's no "if", it's happening, and 2/ the most logical SPA to shift to Lemon Road would be 4022 as it sits on Idyllwood/Kirby Road already (same as the school)... but that's the one they're shifting now from KG -> Haycock. Can't imagine the uproar if they just "whoops" and reallocate it again to Lemon Road in a few years.
Scenario B projects Franklin Sherman would pick up an additional 38 kids. In addition, FS sends a lot of kids to Haycock for AAP - more than Chesterbrook, which has more students. If the new FS principal is more committed to LLIV services than Quigley, then it stands to reason the number of LLIV kids from FS at Haycock may decline.
In terms of WFC development, it certainly appears to be coming, but it hasn’t happened yet. If it generates a lot more kids, they could move SPA 4011 or 4018 to Lemon Road, and that would still leave SPA 4022 at Haycock.
To be clear, I’m not super-invested in Scenario B. I get the impression you want to kill the immersion program at KG and then move no one from KG to Haycock. If that’s what you’re angling for, it seems you’re out of luck.
No, I think the immersion program is great, it's popular, and the brain development benefits of language immersion at an early age are well-documented (regardless of whether the second language is deemed "useful" or retained into higher grades / adulthood). No problem there.
My issue is with the lack of long-term planning... heck, I'd take medium-term planning. There's no question that WFC development is happening. It's happening in stages and just happened to commence with the FCC portion, but that's not like "oh they're thinking twice about it" for the County portion.
4018 at Lemon Road would be a terrible attendance island... those families would drive through Haycock territory via Haycock Road and/or Great Falls to go all the way up to Idyllwood and then back down to Lemon Road. That's a sh!t plan.
4011 is at least a bit closer to Lemon Road, but it still makes way more sense just to move 4022 there now rather than 4022->Haycock followed by 4011->Lemon Road in a few years. The other issue is that you'd be moving HS pyramids for those kids as well. It's a only slightly less sh!t plan.
Given the available capacity at Chesterbrook, perhaps 4105 could get moved there in a couple years when they need space at Haycock.
But the point is, moving 4022 to Haycock now is basically guaranteeing a second unnecessary boundary change in the near future (or adding trailers at Haycock), which is just really poor planning when there's space available elsewhere.
They don’t need a boundary change to lower the number of students at Haycock. They just need to eliminate the AAP center program. The feeder ES have robust LL AAP programs. The center is redundant.
That’s fine for Haycock IF that’s the long-term plan, but I suspect it’s not really, leaving Haycock in the lurch. Furthermore, even if that is the plan, we’d need to run the numbers to see if the other schools remain under capacity when they are no longer sending AAP students to Haycock. Again, the absence of a clear long-term plan is the problem, and there’s no hand-waving that can be done to make those anticipatable issues go away without a plan.
If you want to center Haycock in a discussion about an upcoming boundary change that is sure to have much more impact on two other elementary schools (Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman) than on Haycock, have at it. The deadline for signing up to testify at the public hearing on the 30th is 6 PM tonight.
The discussion is about all the schools in the McLean area, including the two you mentioned, Haycock, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road. It is not limited to KG and FS because they have more kids moving in/out. To a lesser extent it should also be thinking about the adjacent Lemon Road, Westgage, and Spring Hill... even if kids aren't moving to/from those schools as part of this particular study, because in the medium-term (5-10 years) we need to be looking at those impacts as well.
Staff did look at Lemon Road, Westgate, and Spring Hill, and concluded kids shouldn’t be moved to those schools because they are more likely to be affected by future growth than Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road.
I meant the other way around... e.g. probably should move some more of that one weird gerrymandered neighborhood from Spring Hill to Churchill Road to free up a bit more capacity at Spring Hill.
Don’t you have it backwards? The weird gerrymandered neighborhood is surrounded by areas in the Spring Hill district but goes to Churchill Road.
You can slice it either way. Swinks Mill and Georgetown Pike is actually closer to Churchill Road than it is to Spring Hill. 2101 would make sense to join 2102 at Churchill Road, and it's not a lot of kids (17 K-6) and then it's a cohesive area (minus that one carveout on Canal Rd, don't know what that's about). If they wanted to shift more capacity to Spring Hill they could also shift 2004 to Churchill Road which is a bit more substantial (50 K-6). If Churchill Road is keeping their modular, they've got a lot more space than the capacity numbers show, because they dropped the program capacity down to 700 (which had been 870 for the better part of the past decade). That space didn't disappear, it's just not being used as traditional classrooms currently.
The vote is scheduled tonight, and according to the agenda they are still proposing to adopt "Scenario B." So it doesn't appear they'll be making last-minute changes to move kids from one Langley feeder (Spring Hill) to another (Churchill Road) that hadn't been teed up previously.
As among the five scenarios presented, Scenario B makes as much sense as the others, and it will provide Kent Gardens with some capacity relief over time. The grandfathering is fairly generous, but a lot of current K students will have to attend new schools next year and siblings may end up at different elementary schools with different start times. It's unfortunate they didn't present at least one option that merely involved moving kids out of the overcrowded school (KG) to other schools with surplus capacity.
As for the former bolded, thank you Captain Obvious. The discussion here is around what they ought to do, not what they ARE doing.
As for the latter bolded, no, it's not unfortunate, as any such plan would have inevitably been even more short-sighted than the ones that were proposed and the one they are adopting.
Anonymous wrote:Why do they want to make Haycock 99% full while leaving other schools in the 80s, especially given the development and infill building in Haycock bounds? Why are so many schools involved for one school’s overcrowding that could easily be fixed by program changes?
They are projecting Haycock at 92-96% under Option B.
If the LLIV program at Franklin Sherman gets stronger with more kids and a new principal, there will be fewer FS AAP kids at Haycock.
If the new WFC development gets built and overcrowd Haycock they can move some kids to Lemon Road.
FS isn't taking on any significant number more kids than it has currently, and there's no reason to think there will be less AAP transfers to Haycock unless centers are wound down county-wide or something.
As for the bolded, 1/ there's no "if", it's happening, and 2/ the most logical SPA to shift to Lemon Road would be 4022 as it sits on Idyllwood/Kirby Road already (same as the school)... but that's the one they're shifting now from KG -> Haycock. Can't imagine the uproar if they just "whoops" and reallocate it again to Lemon Road in a few years.
Scenario B projects Franklin Sherman would pick up an additional 38 kids. In addition, FS sends a lot of kids to Haycock for AAP - more than Chesterbrook, which has more students. If the new FS principal is more committed to LLIV services than Quigley, then it stands to reason the number of LLIV kids from FS at Haycock may decline.
In terms of WFC development, it certainly appears to be coming, but it hasn’t happened yet. If it generates a lot more kids, they could move SPA 4011 or 4018 to Lemon Road, and that would still leave SPA 4022 at Haycock.
To be clear, I’m not super-invested in Scenario B. I get the impression you want to kill the immersion program at KG and then move no one from KG to Haycock. If that’s what you’re angling for, it seems you’re out of luck.
No, I think the immersion program is great, it's popular, and the brain development benefits of language immersion at an early age are well-documented (regardless of whether the second language is deemed "useful" or retained into higher grades / adulthood). No problem there.
My issue is with the lack of long-term planning... heck, I'd take medium-term planning. There's no question that WFC development is happening. It's happening in stages and just happened to commence with the FCC portion, but that's not like "oh they're thinking twice about it" for the County portion.
4018 at Lemon Road would be a terrible attendance island... those families would drive through Haycock territory via Haycock Road and/or Great Falls to go all the way up to Idyllwood and then back down to Lemon Road. That's a sh!t plan.
4011 is at least a bit closer to Lemon Road, but it still makes way more sense just to move 4022 there now rather than 4022->Haycock followed by 4011->Lemon Road in a few years. The other issue is that you'd be moving HS pyramids for those kids as well. It's a only slightly less sh!t plan.
Given the available capacity at Chesterbrook, perhaps 4105 could get moved there in a couple years when they need space at Haycock.
But the point is, moving 4022 to Haycock now is basically guaranteeing a second unnecessary boundary change in the near future (or adding trailers at Haycock), which is just really poor planning when there's space available elsewhere.
They don’t need a boundary change to lower the number of students at Haycock. They just need to eliminate the AAP center program. The feeder ES have robust LL AAP programs. The center is redundant.
That’s fine for Haycock IF that’s the long-term plan, but I suspect it’s not really, leaving Haycock in the lurch. Furthermore, even if that is the plan, we’d need to run the numbers to see if the other schools remain under capacity when they are no longer sending AAP students to Haycock. Again, the absence of a clear long-term plan is the problem, and there’s no hand-waving that can be done to make those anticipatable issues go away without a plan.
If you want to center Haycock in a discussion about an upcoming boundary change that is sure to have much more impact on two other elementary schools (Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman) than on Haycock, have at it. The deadline for signing up to testify at the public hearing on the 30th is 6 PM tonight.
The discussion is about all the schools in the McLean area, including the two you mentioned, Haycock, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road. It is not limited to KG and FS because they have more kids moving in/out. To a lesser extent it should also be thinking about the adjacent Lemon Road, Westgage, and Spring Hill... even if kids aren't moving to/from those schools as part of this particular study, because in the medium-term (5-10 years) we need to be looking at those impacts as well.
Staff did look at Lemon Road, Westgate, and Spring Hill, and concluded kids shouldn’t be moved to those schools because they are more likely to be affected by future growth than Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, and Churchill Road.
I meant the other way around... e.g. probably should move some more of that one weird gerrymandered neighborhood from Spring Hill to Churchill Road to free up a bit more capacity at Spring Hill.
Don’t you have it backwards? The weird gerrymandered neighborhood is surrounded by areas in the Spring Hill district but goes to Churchill Road.
You can slice it either way. Swinks Mill and Georgetown Pike is actually closer to Churchill Road than it is to Spring Hill. 2101 would make sense to join 2102 at Churchill Road, and it's not a lot of kids (17 K-6) and then it's a cohesive area (minus that one carveout on Canal Rd, don't know what that's about). If they wanted to shift more capacity to Spring Hill they could also shift 2004 to Churchill Road which is a bit more substantial (50 K-6). If Churchill Road is keeping their modular, they've got a lot more space than the capacity numbers show, because they dropped the program capacity down to 700 (which had been 870 for the better part of the past decade). That space didn't disappear, it's just not being used as traditional classrooms currently.
The vote is scheduled tonight, and according to the agenda they are still proposing to adopt "Scenario B." So it doesn't appear they'll be making last-minute changes to move kids from one Langley feeder (Spring Hill) to another (Churchill Road) that hadn't been teed up previously.
As among the five scenarios presented, Scenario B makes as much sense as the others, and it will provide Kent Gardens with some capacity relief over time. The grandfathering is fairly generous, but a lot of current K students will have to attend new schools next year and siblings may end up at different elementary schools with different start times. It's unfortunate they didn't present at least one option that merely involved moving kids out of the overcrowded school (KG) to other schools with surplus capacity.
As for the former bolded, thank you Captain Obvious. The discussion here is around what they ought to do, not what they ARE doing.
As for the latter bolded, no, it's not unfortunate, as any such plan would have inevitably been even more short-sighted than the ones that were proposed and the one they are adopting.
Threads like this are a mix of views about what people think should be done (about which there is rarely a consensus) and people wanting to know what's actually going to happen. In this case, it got posted today that Scenario B was not just the staff recommendation, but what the SB is actually voting on tonight. That's not always the case - sometimes there is a staff recommendation, but then a SB member offers an alternative or an amendment that is what actually ends up getting voted upon.
We can disagree about whether it would have been nice to see an alternative that just moved kids out of the overcrowded school, and isn't going to move almost 1/2 of the neighborhoods at another school that isn't currently overcrowded. When the Langley/McLean boundary was changed in 2021, Elaine Tholen was incredibly solicitous not to inconvenience anyone at Langley, which wasn't overcrowded, one bit. But with this boundary change, she wasn't nearly as solicitous of the families at Franklin Sherman, which also isn't overcrowded, even though many FS families may now end up with kids at different elementary schools.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}