FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thanks pal. Why was your girl Reid pushing for it relentlessly at every meeting if it was never a possibility? Just spouting nonsense?

[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.

This is so logical…meaning FCPS won’t do it.

[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.

Genuinely curious how to get involved. I respectfully would like to be connected to our representatives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thanks pal. Why was your girl Reid pushing for it relentlessly at every meeting if it was never a possibility? Just spouting nonsense?

We have a superintendent touting major changes that aren’t remotely feasible and a consultant modeling nonsense just to show the software it licensed can do addition and subtraction. It’s hard to know whether to be depressed or amused.

[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.

As a parent whose kid is zoned to Franklin but goes to Carson I honestly wish this had happened years ago. I'd rather my kid go to Franklin to be with more of his ultimate high school cohort, but almost all the AAP friends he's had since 3rd grade at our ES center (Hunters Woods) were going to Carson, so he wanted to as well. If all those kids were forced to go to Franklin the AAP program there would be much more expansive. I will say one thing Carson has going for it is all those AAP teachers have been there many years doing the same job and are very good. Franklin could get there too with a bigger AAP pool.

[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.

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.

You will never be happy. Just admit that and move on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You will never be happy. Just admit that and move on

When you spend so much time defending these inane pony shows, you really do deserve the “School Board shill” label.

[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.

This is the winning answer and the necessary first step before doing any boundary study.

IB at FCPS is poorly done at all but perhaps 1 school. Look at demand and keep at 1 school if you need to but also offer a host of AP courses as well.

Get rid of AAP centers. AAP is what Gen Ed was a decade ago. Keep kids at home school and group them.

Use this realignment to see if boundary changes are needed. Rather simple but effective way to go about it. I won’t even charge $500K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is the winning answer and the necessary first step before doing any boundary study.

IB at FCPS is poorly done at all but perhaps 1 school. Look at demand and keep at 1 school if you need to but also offer a host of AP courses as well.

Get rid of AAP centers. AAP is what Gen Ed was a decade ago. Keep kids at home school and group them.

Use this realignment to see if boundary changes are needed. Rather simple but effective way to go about it. I won’t even charge $500K.

Think through this. Here are some of the effects of your idea:

For AAP:

1- It doesn’t help bussing that much cost of efficiency wise

2- AAP in its current center form allows teachers and parents to regroup kids every year and kids aren’t stuck in grades 3-6 with the same teacher (if you want to track everyone,ALL the kids are stuck in the same AAP group or middle group or low group for 4 years together)

3- It would make redistricting more impactful to more students instead of less impactful (eg a center school that pulls from a large area would lose a quarter of its students and then you would have to redistrict all the elementary schools around it)

4- You will lose some families that are helping the school system and move here for this program. The district needs to keep these families or the tipping point between UMC/MC flight and FARMS kids will dip in the wrong direction. FCPS is already playing with this balance with redistricting and doing this would be catastrophic at this point.

[Anonymous]

I get people are dismissive of the 6-8 middle schools, and the slides from the recent BRAC meeting show that it would take nuclear changes to achieve it, but it’s clearly a priority for Reid, so the BRAC should do what it needs to do to explore what it would take to accomplish it.

I’m not saying that they ultimately should adopt the plan, but they should at least work up that scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

AAP teachers do not receive higher pay nor have more stringent continuing ed requirements - only initial requirements.

I support keeping the centers: our base schools - both elementary and middle -
are woefully under supportive of true AAP students and DC would be extremely bored or get in trouble due to boredom (like I did).

[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'm on the BRAC. We (the other BRAC member in our pyramid and I) have contacted all the PTA's in our pyramid. We have attended or will attend each school's PTA meeting to introduce ourselves. At our BRAC meeting this week, there were other members who said they were doing the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Nice to know we have a BRACer (can we call you that???) on here following a long! I think there are some really good suggestions on here! It takes a village.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thanks pal. Why was your girl Reid pushing for it relentlessly at every meeting if it was never a possibility? Just spouting nonsense?

We have a superintendent touting major changes that aren’t remotely feasible and a consultant modeling nonsense just to show the software it licensed can do addition and subtraction. It’s hard to know whether to be depressed or amused.

She has also co-opted the boundary review to prioritize 6-8 middle schools which no board member other than Anderson has requested (and I don’t think it is mentioned in policy 8130). I wish the board would exert control. It’s like congress ceding its authority to Trump.

[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.

DP. This post highlights the benefits of full disclosure of data to the public in an accessible format. When the public has a clear understanding of the goals, scope, and supporting data related to the boundary review, community participation in the form of comments and feedback is not only meaningful, it is productive.

I recognize that one intention of the BRAC may have been to connect the public to the process via local ambassadors. Unfortunately, this intention has not been uniformly realized. Nevertheless, a genuine sharing of supporting data can fill this gap. If a future proposal is accompanied by both a clear indication of the needs the proposal is meant to address and a clear indication of how the data supports the proposal meeting those needs, the impacted community can add the missing pieces: how they are impacted by the proposal and potential alternatives to better meet the stated need based on the available data. That would be a productive discussion.

In my view, the facilities and capital services team has a Herculean task on their hands with the CIP. The boundary review process can be additive to their difficult work if the public is given the opportunity to understand the underlying data and the goals of the review.

I will note, however, there has been quite a bit of unproductive use of superlative language, taunting, and direct threats to specific communities made on this board over the past eight days. Some of it appears to come from within FCPS, and some from their representatives, legal and otherwise. These actions give people like me good cause to be fully prepared for whatever happens next.

I would much rather spend my time on productive, mutually beneficial discussions based on a complete sharing of relevant goals and information than an adversarial endeavor. But that’s just me. I’m ready for either one.