FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Time for the state to step in and take over FCPS. Forget about trying to keep schools from failing. The comprehensive boundary review effort has demonstrated beyond doubt that the entire district has failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Also, would like to know. Someone had mentioned moving Chantilly kids to Rocky Run. i pointed out that Franklin Middle School is surrounded by Chantilly neighborhoods and that some are walkers. It was closed shortly after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's start putting affordable multi family housing in SFH neighborhoods. That's the answer I say. And enough with the silly arguments about oh the transportation, they won't be able to get to school if they miss their buses, or to work if there is no public transportation. Many of these people journeyed thousands of miles on foot, with babies on their backs, through dense and dangerous jungles, or swam through rivers full of excrement to get to a better life. They are resourceful and strong and they will no doubt figure it out.

Written by someone who has never taught kids with great poverty. A person who has no idea what life is like for these people. Please tell me why truancy is already a great problem with this population, and, yet, magically they are going to be resourceful enough to get their kids to a public bus if they miss the school bus.

Tell me how, when it is already difficult to get parents in poverty into the schools, you are magically going to get them to visit the school that is extra miles away.

I have been there and done that as a teacher. You have no clue.

Graham Road ES is an interesting example. It used to be an older building on a small lot adjacent to a bunch of low-income apartments. It was a community hub and, for a while, the academic performance of kids there was exceptional.

Then the school came up for renovation and they decided to build a new school at a different location that was actually outside the school’s catchment area. Some parents said they’d prefer if the existing location was renovated but their SB member wanted to give them a new school instead.

So now the kids get bused to a newer school a few miles away and the academic performance is lower than it was before.

Let's be clear about Graham Road - the new school is 0.7 miles away, on the same road, between 50 and 29. FCPS owned both locations. It is more of a fluke that the boundaries of Ping Spring, Timber Lane, and Graham Road are jumbled right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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)?

And that's why there needs to be a COMPREHENSIVE boundary review - moving tiny pieces creates a ripple-effect. Pulling up the boundaries and redrawing them is upsetting, but the actual way to do it.

Not a Gatehouse shill, just someone with an analysis background.

[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.

Not following your logic. The programs don't go anywhere. The program capacity would go up to something closer to the Design Capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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)?

Falls Church HS is currently undergoing a renovation that will increase its capacity. That’s why its appearance on the “hot list” is mind boggling.

[Anonymous]

Let's be clear about Graham Road - the new school is 0.7 miles away, on the same road, between 50 and 29. FCPS owned both locations. It is more of a fluke that the boundaries of Ping Spring, Timber Lane, and Graham Road are jumbled right there.

Written by someone who does not understand the population.

Please note: Look at the boundary map. The school may be .7 miles away, but it is NOT within the boundary. It is totally separate. Sure it is on the same street--which happens to be a busy street that is a cut through from 29 to 50.
The old school was within the boundary. It was far more convenient and was walkable for most.

This was a very poor decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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)?

And that's why there needs to be a COMPREHENSIVE boundary review - moving tiny pieces creates a ripple-effect. Pulling up the boundaries and redrawing them is upsetting, but the actual way to do it.

Not a Gatehouse shill, just someone with an analysis background.

What school are you zoned for? Do you really think it’s good for a school to see its boundaries adjusted repeatedly? They just changed the Langley/McLean boundaries in 2021.

Anyone with both an analysis background and familiarity with the area would know they are planning to waste over $85 million on an unnecessary new school in Dunn Loring when some of that money could have been used to expand McLean. That would have mooted further discussions about yet another boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Let's be clear about Graham Road - the new school is 0.7 miles away, on the same road, between 50 and 29. FCPS owned both locations. It is more of a fluke that the boundaries of Ping Spring, Timber Lane, and Graham Road are jumbled right there.

Written by someone who does not understand the population.

Please note: Look at the boundary map. The school may be .7 miles away, but it is NOT within the boundary. It is totally separate. Sure it is on the same street--which happens to be a busy street that is a cut through from 29 to 50.
The old school was within the boundary. It was far more convenient and was walkable for most.

This was a very poor decision.

I completely understand that the apartments on Lee are a huge feeder to Graham Road, and the old location was extremely convenient. And FCPS clearly determined that it was infeasible to renovate/build on the current site. They didn't move it up the road for fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Program Capacity basically equates to the amount of current staffing. It can be adjusted. Design Capacity is the physical limit of how many students the school can hold. Though some schools have an enrollment above their Design Capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's be clear about Graham Road - the new school is 0.7 miles away, on the same road, between 50 and 29. FCPS owned both locations. It is more of a fluke that the boundaries of Ping Spring, Timber Lane, and Graham Road are jumbled right there.

Written by someone who does not understand the population.

Please note: Look at the boundary map. The school may be .7 miles away, but it is NOT within the boundary. It is totally separate. Sure it is on the same street--which happens to be a busy street that is a cut through from 29 to 50.
The old school was within the boundary. It was far more convenient and was walkable for most.

This was a very poor decision.

I completely understand that the apartments on Lee are a huge feeder to Graham Road, and the old location was extremely convenient. And FCPS clearly determined that it was infeasible to renovate/build on the current site. They didn't move it up the road for fun.

This all happened before they converted an office building on a small site on Route 7 to Bailey’s Upper. In retrospect the community might have been better served had they renovated at the original site off Route 50 (not Route 29/Lee Highway).

[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.

https://weareoakton.org/mission

Further supporting evidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Program Capacity basically equates to the amount of current staffing. It can be adjusted. Design Capacity is the physical limit of how many students the school can hold. Though some schools have an enrollment above their Design Capacity.

Program capacity also includes other programs unique to the school. It’s reductionist to just pretend it’s just staffing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's start putting affordable multi family housing in SFH neighborhoods. That's the answer I say. And enough with the silly arguments about oh the transportation, they won't be able to get to school if they miss their buses, or to work if there is no public transportation. Many of these people journeyed thousands of miles on foot, with babies on their backs, through dense and dangerous jungles, or swam through rivers full of excrement to get to a better life. They are resourceful and strong and they will no doubt figure it out.

Written by someone who has never taught kids with great poverty. A person who has no idea what life is like for these people. Please tell me why truancy is already a great problem with this population, and, yet, magically they are going to be resourceful enough to get their kids to a public bus if they miss the school bus.

Tell me how, when it is already difficult to get parents in poverty into the schools, you are magically going to get them to visit the school that is extra miles away.

I have been there and done that as a teacher. You have no clue.

Graham Road ES is an interesting example. It used to be an older building on a small lot adjacent to a bunch of low-income apartments. It was a community hub and, for a while, the academic performance of kids there was exceptional.

Then the school came up for renovation and they decided to build a new school at a different location that was actually outside the school’s catchment area. Some parents said they’d prefer if the existing location was renovated but their SB member wanted to give them a new school instead.

So now the kids get bused to a newer school a few miles away and the academic performance is lower than it was before.

Let's be clear about Graham Road - the new school is 0.7 miles away, on the same road, between 50 and 29. FCPS owned both locations. It is more of a fluke that the boundaries of Ping Spring, Timber Lane, and Graham Road are jumbled right there.

I used to drive that “same road” daily. Let’s be clear, anyone pretending that the intersection with 50 is anything less than a total nightmare is an ignorant fool.

[Anonymous]

I just keep going back to - what is the problem we are solving for?