Boundary Review Meetings
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
That just underscores what an unnecessary waste of money it would be. They wasted money on an architectural firm to draw up plans for a school that isn’t needed and now they are going to mothball the site. |
Anonymous
Grumble grumble, great falls, Langley, great falls, grumble grumble. Never anything original, you just think volume will somehow convince us. |
Anonymous
Good morning Miss Grumble Lady, Do you realize there are many posters here who support this move? You seem to lack any reasonable responses to this possible boundary change. Seems all you have are middle school-type come backs. |
Anonymous
No one wants rezoning every five years. The rezoning is a 2 year process, followed by a year of fighting the rezoning and disrupting the kids. Then it starts up again as everyone gears up for the next rezoning fight in 1-2 years. Best case scenario, the five year rezoning fight gives kids and families only 1 year of stability per 5 year cycle. A set county wide 5 year cycle is one of the stupidest ideas this school board and superintendent ever created, and there are a lot of stupid ideas from this school board. A sensible change would have been to put in policy an automatic boundary review once a school hits 105% capacity, starting with a residency check, then sending all kids not living in the boundaries back to their neighborhood schools or whatever schools are open to pupil placement. Rezoning should be minimal, on the fringes only, and the last case scenario only after exhausting all other options including sending back all studdnts who do not live in bounds, excluding teachers' kids, and bringing the incoming transfer number to zero. BTW, that is how the pupil placement is supposed to work. It is only supposed to be one year at a time, with no ability to stay if the school is overcapacity and closed to transfers. Start enforcing transfer policies. |
Anonymous
No, it is not standard in other places. Quit making up things. Most places only rezone when they build new schools. |
Anonymous
| That type of boundary policy would make more sense - if capacity reached study follows - first residency checks. This would help boundaries but provide stability to our kids. Have they said when next map I coming out with new HS and any other changes? |
Anonymous
Donnie Wahlberg? |
Anonymous
We keep suggesting residency checks to BRAC and SB members - and they all blow us off saying they don't think they would find enough students actually wrongly places to make it worth their while. This is so frustrating as a parent whose student has friends living way out of bounds without pupil placement/split family situation etc. I think there are more kids under the radar than they realize |
Anonymous
There’s just one of you who brings up it repeatedly without any insight or new info. You seem to think if you repeat it enough that You can Will it into existence. I don’t report it as spam, but maybe I’ll start. |
Anonymous
where do you live so we can make suggestions for your pyramid too |
Anonymous
This largely seems sensible to me, although I think they need a trigger for under-enrolled schools to determine if they can operate efficiently and, if not, whether the school should be closed or the boundaries adjusted. With enrollments likely to continue to decline, they need to pay as much attention to potential consolidation (and, yes, the boundary changes associated with that) as potential overcrowding. |
Anonymous
I think we can probably guess, given her agenda. |
Anonymous
Sure. Put a set trigger for underenrolled schools too. I think the underenrolled threshold should only be for high school though. No one complains about a middle or elementary school being small. It is only an issue at the high school level, because too small affects programs and course offerings, while smaller middle and elementary schools are a huge benefit to kids, socially and academically. |
Anonymous
That hasn't been the case in the past, as the majority of FCPS schools closed over the years were elementary and middle schools, and there have been quite a few closed. I think the only high schools closed since the 1950s were Fort Hunt (merged with Groveton and converted to a MS), Jefferson (merged with Annandale and converted to TJHSST), and Luther Jackson (an all-Black high school that closed and was converted to a MS). https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/history/closed#:~:text=Beginning%20in%20the%20mid%2D1970s,period%20of%201974%20to%202011. |
Anonymous
Fun fact: a 1,500 student high school is three times the size of a lot of high schools across the country. We all focus on capacity and percentages and pretend that a 1,500 membership means that the school is a ghost town, but you’d really have to have enrollment cut by a lot more to see it actually impact programming. In fact, lower membership can be a really good thing for making teams/clubs and generally being a big fish in a small pond. Regardless, no high school in the county is even close to a concerning threshold. |