FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. They’ve had to sign NDA so how are they supposed to engage the community in any way? We are lucky if a member posts here, on fair facts matters, or Reddit…

Again, respect the parent volunteers putting in the time.

[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?

Honestly, I’m glad it was so publicly presented, then analyzed, then reported. The stats on 6th to middle school are actually insane to even be considered a possibly.

[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?

Honestly, I’m glad it was so publicly presented, then analyzed, then reported. The stats on 6th to middle school are actually insane to even be considered a possibly.

It takes like third grade math to see if you increase enrollment from two grades to three grades then utilization will increase by 50%, and schools near 100% now would go to 150%. Didn’t need a study for that.

[Anonymous]

- Eliminate IB, put AP in all high schools
- Eliminate AAP centers, return all kids to their base schools

Those two things alone would correct much of the ridiculous imbalance, transfer and busing issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I like that for you.
Since there are about 50 BRAC pyramid parents, I'm sure you can accurately assess all of them and how well they know their communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. They’ve had to sign NDA so how are they supposed to engage the community in any way? We are lucky if a member posts here, on fair facts matters, or Reddit…

Again, respect the parent volunteers putting in the time.

The NDA is for student-specific GIS data, not for broad discussions. BRAC members can and are engaging their communities. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Honestly, I’m glad it was so publicly presented, then analyzed, then reported. The stats on 6th to middle school are actually insane to even be considered a possibly.

It takes like third grade math to see if you increase enrollment from two grades to three grades then utilization will increase by 50%, and schools near 100% now would go to 150%. Didn’t need a study for that.

It never was a possibility. 6-8th was just a test scenario. Not a plan. How many times must this be repeated?

[Anonymous]

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.

They are looking at information as of now, not when the expansion is done. They need a time cutoff to look at test scenarios.

[Anonymous]

AAP falls under special education and FCPS is required to make it available. AAP teachers are specifically trained to teach AAP material, work with AAP kids, and have stricter continuing education requirements. For this they get a bit of a bump in salary too. Getting rid of AAP center and moving kids back to their base school may be too expensive and not feasible. Elementary school will be required to have atleast one AAP classroom because again it falls under special education. To accomplish this they will need to hire, train, and pay more teachers which will be expensive. Some schools may not have enough AAP eligible kids to build a class so they'll have to bring in other kids which will slow down the teachers ability to move at a faster pace and piss off parents who will complain the program is diluted. Removing Middle School AAP centers will be a whole different headache since everything is subject based.

[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?

Honestly, I’m glad it was so publicly presented, then analyzed, then reported. The stats on 6th to middle school are actually insane to even be considered a possibly.

The issue isn’t so much that the information was publicly presented, etc. It’s more that it took so darn long and quite possibly they will end presenting information about the scenarios they actually have in mind later in a compressed time period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AAP falls under special education and FCPS is required to make it available. AAP teachers are specifically trained to teach AAP material, work with AAP kids, and have stricter continuing education requirements. For this they get a bit of a bump in salary too. Getting rid of AAP center and moving kids back to their base school may be too expensive and not feasible. Elementary school will be required to have atleast one AAP classroom because again it falls under special education. To accomplish this they will need to hire, train, and pay more teachers which will be expensive. Some schools may not have enough AAP eligible kids to build a class so they'll have to bring in other kids which will slow down the teachers ability to move at a faster pace and piss off parents who will complain the program is diluted. Removing Middle School AAP centers will be a whole different headache since everything is subject based.

AAP is NOT special education. By saying that, you show great ignorance about both AAP and Special Ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I like that for you.
Since there are about 50 BRAC pyramid parents, I'm sure you can accurately assess all of them and how well they know their communities.

See the inclusion of the word “necessarily” in the prior post. No need to be so snippy.

But, FWIW, I was at a meeting of fairly well connected folks in our community and no one knew the BRAC members for our pyramid or was aware of any efforts on their part to solicit any feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. They’ve had to sign NDA so how are they supposed to engage the community in any way? We are lucky if a member posts here, on fair facts matters, or Reddit…

Again, respect the parent volunteers putting in the time.

The NDA is for student-specific GIS data, not for broad discussions. BRAC members can and are engaging their communities. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Some are, some aren’t. You have no basis to make such a categorical statement.

[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.

They are looking at information as of now, not when the expansion is done. They need a time cutoff to look at test scenarios.

LOL. It just underscores the scenarios are primarily for show and otherwise useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:- Eliminate IB, put AP in all high schools
- Eliminate AAP centers, return all kids to their base schools

Those two things alone would correct much of the ridiculous imbalance, transfer and busing issues.

+1. Too bad they didn’t model that and show the results for all schools.