FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slides from the most recent BRAC meeting: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/3-26-2025SuperintendentBoundaryReviewAdvisoryCommitteePresentation.pdf

At this rate they’re never meeting their June deadline.

At least they are talking about things that have been discussed on this board over the years. The 6th grade to MS thing seems like a non-starter.

Their summary slide is still pretty delusional. They claim some middle schools would only be “moderately” overcrowded when only one middle school that isn’t already a 6-8 middle school would be below 120%. Then they say it will relieve elementary school crowding when only one elementary school is listed as being over 125% capacity.

The presentation already shows a startling lack of knowledge about FCPS. Like Falls Church capacity not reflecting the expansion.

Agree with all of this. More gearing up for solutions in search of a problem.

+2 this 6th to Middle thing was an obvious non starter from the get go. As soon as Reid said it during a work session, her lack of understanding was glaring. No one would think this would work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slides from the most recent BRAC meeting: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/3-26-2025SuperintendentBoundaryReviewAdvisoryCommitteePresentation.pdf

At this rate they’re never meeting their June deadline.

At least they are talking about things that have been discussed on this board over the years. The 6th grade to MS thing seems like a non-starter.

Their summary slide is still pretty delusional. They claim some middle schools would only be “moderately” overcrowded when only one middle school that isn’t already a 6-8 middle school would be below 120%. Then they say it will relieve elementary school crowding when only one elementary school is listed as being over 125% capacity.

The presentation already shows a startling lack of knowledge about FCPS. Like Falls Church capacity not reflecting the expansion.

Agree with all of this. More gearing up for solutions in search of a problem.

+2 this 6th to Middle thing was an obvious non starter from the get go. As soon as Reid said it during a work session, her lack of understanding was glaring. No one would think this would work.

They didn’t need to wait weeks on end for Thru Consulting to show this was a non-starter. Any sentient member of the Facilities staff or the School Board should have been perfectly capable of pointing that out.

But I guess we need a $500K consultant to point out the empress has no clothes.

[Anonymous]

Looking at this, it doesn't seem like this was very useful--except for the returning transfer information--which may not reflect some expansions.

It seems to me that the capacity issues would be best solved by separate boundary studies as they are doing with Coates and Floris.
It looks like the high schools can be left as is. I see no need for changes there. If there is any change, I would suggest the no transfer suggestions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Some of you will object to any potential changes that might move your kids to a higher ESOL/FARMS school, but at least be honest about what the changes might look like. Indeed, it's the fact that the higher ESOL/FARMS schools are still going to be the higher ESOL/FARMS schools after any changes that worries some of you the most.

Some of us also do not want to be reassigned to a lower ESOL/FARMS school. We don't want to be reassigned at all. Period.
The School Board has not shown a need to shift any high schools at this time. And, several of the schools they have expressed concerns about have many students exiting by relying on the AP/IB programs.

🤣🤣🤣 yeah that why there is a study.... just wait. If your kids travel excessive distance and there are closer schools be ready.

DP. So cute that you think that families with means would go along with the social engineering experiment 🤣🤣🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at this, it doesn't seem like this was very useful--except for the returning transfer information--which may not reflect some expansions.

It seems to me that the capacity issues would be best solved by separate boundary studies as they are doing with Coates and Floris.
It looks like the high schools can be left as is. I see no need for changes there. If there is any change, I would suggest the no transfer suggestions.

Get rid of IB. That would eliminate the bulk of HS pupil placements.

It does not seem appropriate to me to allow some schools to have special Academy programs or offer more languages and then adopt a “no transfer” policy even if the receiving school has space.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t look like there is a clear path to removing all split feeders at both levels/attendance islands. How are they going to choose which? And what problem are they solving for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t look like there is a clear path to removing all split feeders at both levels/attendance islands. How are they going to choose which? And what problem are they solving for?

Most of those with split feeders have been that way for years, I think. Maybe, leave it alone. I think there is a problem if the elementary and the middle school are split feeders. The kids need some kind of cohort. Mine went to a split feeder middle, but the elementary was not split and all went to same high school --with exception of TJ and a couple who PP for sports.

[Anonymous]

So the two scenarios confirmed the ridiculously obvious fact that moving 6th to middle schools not designed for three grades would lead to somewhere between serious and massive overcrowding and eliminating transfers would cause utilization to go up at the underperforming schools from which students are fleeing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I would like to know more about the scenarios. Two were mentioned in the FCPS email yesterday. Are they actual possibilities, or is the purpose of the scenarios to just give the BRAC more background knowledge on what the whole situation looks like?

From the email:

“Dr. Reid welcomed the group and reminded the committee that at the next meetings the first two scenarios will be reviewed, to include evaluation of 6th grade in middle school, and a scenario that assumes all students attend the school that they are zoned to attend based on the current boundary.”

Those were just test scenarios to understand what the data would look like and to help explain the Frontline GIS tool. At this time, neither of those scenarios are ACTUAL plans for boundary change. They were helpful to understand the impact on capacity and enrollment at schools.

It is basically a meeting to ensure that we all understand the flexibility of the GIS tool as well.

I respect and appreciate the parents who applied and were selected for BRAC. But they most likely aren’t statisticians or data scientists to analyze this information unless it was an occupational chance. Same goes for the special committee representation and others.

BRAC should be use to guide “are we approaching this correctly? How can we get your communities engaged for feedback? Does the data collection feel representative?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I would like to know more about the scenarios. Two were mentioned in the FCPS email yesterday. Are they actual possibilities, or is the purpose of the scenarios to just give the BRAC more background knowledge on what the whole situation looks like?

From the email:

“Dr. Reid welcomed the group and reminded the committee that at the next meetings the first two scenarios will be reviewed, to include evaluation of 6th grade in middle school, and a scenario that assumes all students attend the school that they are zoned to attend based on the current boundary.”

Those were just test scenarios to understand what the data would look like and to help explain the Frontline GIS tool. At this time, neither of those scenarios are ACTUAL plans for boundary change. They were helpful to understand the impact on capacity and enrollment at schools.

It is basically a meeting to ensure that we all understand the flexibility of the GIS tool as well.

I respect and appreciate the parents who applied and were selected for BRAC. But they most likely aren’t statisticians or data scientists to analyze this information unless it was an occupational chance. Same goes for the special committee representation and others.

BRAC should be use to guide “are we approaching this correctly? How can we get your communities engaged for feedback? Does the data collection feel representative?”

Good points. You also identified one of the main purposes of the BRAC volunteers: "are we approaching this correctly?" Also, they are parents and people on the ground who know their communities and can engage with others to gather feedback and input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the two scenarios confirmed the ridiculously obvious fact that moving 6th to middle schools not designed for three grades would lead to somewhere between serious and massive overcrowding and eliminating transfers would cause utilization to go up at the underperforming schools from which students are fleeing?

Yes. Things that were pointed out here weeks ago as soon as these scenarios were identified.

Maybe it makes the BRAC members feel engaged to get spoon fed such tidbits, but it also feels like no one is engaging yet on the issues that really matter. At some later point Thru will unveil the potential changes that staff (based on discussions with the SB) likely already has in mind and they’ll get most if the BRAC to endorse it, but the real issues still won’t have been addressed nor will they have gone away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I would like to know more about the scenarios. Two were mentioned in the FCPS email yesterday. Are they actual possibilities, or is the purpose of the scenarios to just give the BRAC more background knowledge on what the whole situation looks like?

From the email:

“Dr. Reid welcomed the group and reminded the committee that at the next meetings the first two scenarios will be reviewed, to include evaluation of 6th grade in middle school, and a scenario that assumes all students attend the school that they are zoned to attend based on the current boundary.”

Those were just test scenarios to understand what the data would look like and to help explain the Frontline GIS tool. At this time, neither of those scenarios are ACTUAL plans for boundary change. They were helpful to understand the impact on capacity and enrollment at schools.

It is basically a meeting to ensure that we all understand the flexibility of the GIS tool as well.

I respect and appreciate the parents who applied and were selected for BRAC. But they most likely aren’t statisticians or data scientists to analyze this information unless it was an occupational chance. Same goes for the special committee representation and others.

BRAC should be use to guide “are we approaching this correctly? How can we get your communities engaged for feedback? Does the data collection feel representative?”

Good points. You also identified one of the main purposes of the BRAC volunteers: "are we approaching this correctly?" Also, they are parents and people on the ground who know their communities and can engage with others to gather feedback and input.

I don’t think the BRAC members necessarily know many of the communities in their pyramids nor are they necessarily engaging in much outreach on their own. They have their own priorities and may know some others in their immediate neighborhoods or at their current schools. But it’s not like they are scheduling office hours or going on their own listening tours.

[Anonymous]

I know the two scenarios presented yesterday were test scenarios but two things were very obvious to me: If FCPS removes middle school AAP Centers, Franklin MS would be at 131% capacity with all the kids who can't go to Carson. HOWEVER Rocky run is only at 73% capacity. The super easy solution would be shift some kids from Franklin who are already zoned to Chantilly to Rocky Run. Boom, problem solved very easily. I know this is wishful thinking but it would solve so many problems, and Carson would be able to rid itself of some of the more intense AAP families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know the two scenarios presented yesterday were test scenarios but two things were very obvious to me: If FCPS removes middle school AAP Centers, Franklin MS would be at 131% capacity with all the kids who can't go to Carson. HOWEVER Rocky run is only at 73% capacity. The super easy solution would be shift some kids from Franklin who are already zoned to Chantilly to Rocky Run. Boom, problem solved very easily. I know this is wishful thinking but it would solve so many problems, and Carson would be able to rid itself of some of the more intense AAP families.

I should also have noted the second obvious thing is that maybe we could turn Carson into a two HS feeder instead of a 3 HS feeder this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the two scenarios confirmed the ridiculously obvious fact that moving 6th to middle schools not designed for three grades would lead to somewhere between serious and massive overcrowding and eliminating transfers would cause utilization to go up at the underperforming schools from which students are fleeing?

Yes. Things that were pointed out here weeks ago as soon as these scenarios were identified.

Maybe it makes the BRAC members feel engaged to get spoon fed such tidbits, but it also feels like no one is engaging yet on the issues that really matter. At some later point Thru will unveil the potential changes that staff (based on discussions with the SB) likely already has in mind and they’ll get most if the BRAC to endorse it, but the real issues still won’t have been addressed nor will they have gone away.

Why on Earth did we pay a consultant to work up and present two scenarios that were never under consideration? What a waste.