FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Where are the slides from this meeting? I can't find them in this giant thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are the slides from this meeting? I can't find them in this giant thread!

https://www.fcps.edu/march-26-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you think everyone is either a "school board shill" or a gatehouse employee, then it is your problem to work through. The rest of us are just trying to discuss without some weirdo making silly accusations all the time.
It sounds like he was right: you will NEVER be happy. Accept and move on.

I dunno. Sounds like you are a BRAC member who feels flattered that you're among the first to see a presentation that illustrates one scenario that isn't feasible at all and another one that's still half-baked.

Meanwhile most of us are wondering why they are doing this and when they'll actually engage on the real issues.

School board shill
Gatehouse employee
BRAC member
Did I forget anyone? Who else do your delusions revolve around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you think everyone is either a "school board shill" or a gatehouse employee, then it is your problem to work through. The rest of us are just trying to discuss without some weirdo making silly accusations all the time.
It sounds like he was right: you will NEVER be happy. Accept and move on.

I dunno. Sounds like you are a BRAC member who feels flattered that you're among the first to see a presentation that illustrates one scenario that isn't feasible at all and another one that's still half-baked.

Meanwhile most of us are wondering why they are doing this and when they'll actually engage on the real issues.

School board shill
Gatehouse employee
BRAC member
Did I forget anyone? Who else do your delusions revolve around?

I agree with her sentiments, as I’m sure many others do too. You clearly have nothing to back up your vapid arguments defending the school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you think everyone is either a "school board shill" or a gatehouse employee, then it is your problem to work through. The rest of us are just trying to discuss without some weirdo making silly accusations all the time.
It sounds like he was right: you will NEVER be happy. Accept and move on.

I dunno. Sounds like you are a BRAC member who feels flattered that you're among the first to see a presentation that illustrates one scenario that isn't feasible at all and another one that's still half-baked.

Meanwhile most of us are wondering why they are doing this and when they'll actually engage on the real issues.

School board shill
Gatehouse employee
BRAC member
Did I forget anyone? Who else do your delusions revolve around?

LOL. Unfortunately, these categories are far from mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Cute little stunt earlier today opening up a thread and sock puppetting that Waples families support a move to Johnson/Fairfax, then shutting down the thread when you get called out:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1265947.page

Real cute. Did it make you mad that earlier today I called out your unproductive use of superlative language, taunting, and direct threats to specific communities on this board over the past eight days. Maybe recent shifts in focus have caused you frustration. I don’t know why you did it. But it was foolish and immature.

Like I said earlier, 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 I’m ready for either one. Your choice.

If any ACTUAL Waples families have a view on whether they support moving to Katherine Johnson/Waples, feel free to chime in.

[Anonymous]

Waples families do NOT support any move out of Franklin or Oakton. Such a move would be hugely disruptive to Waples students and the Oakton community. Nobody in Waples community supports such a move and suggestions to the contrary are Gatehouse or its counsel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for the BRAC: On the slides posted for yesterday's meeting it shows how capacity changes if transfers out return to their zoned school. Specifically, Lewis goes to 97%. Why didn't they show the reduced capacity for schools impacted by transfers in (e.g. WSHS)? Presumably returning transfers fixes a lot of the capacity problems at the HS level.

Another question. If you are looking at facilities specifically, why would you use the Program Capacity instead of the Design Capacity (slide 41)? Program capacity can be changed. So real facility usage would be shown by showing enrollment divided by Design Capacity.

For example, the Program Capacity at Lewis right now is 1886, but the Design Capacity (CIP) is 2139. If the enrollment (returning transfers) goes up to 1821, then the utilization of Lewis would be 1821/2139, about 85%, not 97% (1821/1886).

[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.

No, we do not get a bump in salary when we teach AAP. Where on earth did you get that idea?

I am endorsed in gifted education, special education (LD/ED), and general education. I do not receive a single cent more just because I teach AAP. I also did not receive extra money when I taught special education. Teachers' salaries are based on years of service and education level (Masters, Masters +30, Doctorate), not on the class they teach.


In middle school, there are tons of teachers, even in non-centers, who have AAP endorsements. It's not an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the BRAC: On the slides posted for yesterday's meeting it shows how capacity changes if transfers out return to their zoned school. Specifically, Lewis goes to 97%. Why didn't they show the reduced capacity for schools impacted by transfers in (e.g. WSHS)? Presumably returning transfers fixes a lot of the capacity problems at the HS level.

Another question. If you are looking at facilities specifically, why would you use the Program Capacity instead of the Design Capacity (slide 41)? Program capacity can be changed. So real facility usage would be shown by showing enrollment divided by Design Capacity.

For example, the Program Capacity at Lewis right now is 1886, but the Design Capacity (CIP) is 2139. If the enrollment (returning transfers) goes up to 1821, then the utilization of Lewis would be 1821/2139, about 85%, not 97% (1821/1886).

Because then you get rid of a lot of the programs that these communities need. I swear you people are going to try to drown the little good that is left in these communities just so you can soak neighbors in a couple particular zip codes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the BRAC: On the slides posted for yesterday's meeting it shows how capacity changes if transfers out return to their zoned school. Specifically, Lewis goes to 97%. Why didn't they show the reduced capacity for schools impacted by transfers in (e.g. WSHS)? Presumably returning transfers fixes a lot of the capacity problems at the HS level.

Another question. If you are looking at facilities specifically, why would you use the Program Capacity instead of the Design Capacity (slide 41)? Program capacity can be changed. So real facility usage would be shown by showing enrollment divided by Design Capacity.

For example, the Program Capacity at Lewis right now is 1886, but the Design Capacity (CIP) is 2139. If the enrollment (returning transfers) goes up to 1821, then the utilization of Lewis would be 1821/2139, about 85%, not 97% (1821/1886).

Because then you get rid of a lot of the programs that these communities need. I swear you people are going to try to drown the little good that is left in these communities just so you can soak neighbors in a couple particular zip codes.

DP. I honestly do not understand what these programs are. Can you give an example? I admit, I have never understood the program capacity vs design capacity.

[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.

No, we do not get a bump in salary when we teach AAP. Where on earth did you get that idea?

I am endorsed in gifted education, special education (LD/ED), and general education. I do not receive a single cent more just because I teach AAP. I also did not receive extra money when I taught special education. Teachers' salaries are based on years of service and education level (Masters, Masters +30, Doctorate), not on the class they teach.


In middle school, there are tons of teachers, even in non-centers, who have AAP endorsements. It's not an issue.

There are also teachers that are not endorsed teaching AAp. They have three years to get endorsement. They can hire brand new teachers and trainees for these positions too. Yes, even at a center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Waples families do NOT support any move out of Franklin or Oakton. Such a move would be hugely disruptive to Waples students and the Oakton community. Nobody in Waples community supports such a move and suggestions to the contrary are Gatehouse or its counsel.

Another Waples parent here - we absolutely don’t support a move to KJ/fairfax. I think there are better alternatives to solving the Franklin potential overcapacity issue than moving Waples (although I admit on paper I can see why someone would suggest moving us, but in actuality it doesn’t make sense).

What the heck happened in the other thread?

[Anonymous]

Excluding penderbrook, most of Waples has Oakton addresses. Which we pay a premium for.

[Anonymous]

If the McLean attendance islands get cut, students move where? Falls Church HS is also overcrowded (for south area), and didn't they already shift kids between McLean and Langley a few years ago (for north area)?