FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's my understanding that all of the middle schools have LLIV. There's no need for AAP Centers in middle school.

Or elementary school.

Incorrect, not all ES have a large enough cohort to form a LLIV classroom.

Which is why flexible groupings are a better idea anyway. A segregated LLIV classroom isn't necessary. Kids should be able to switch classrooms based on whatever group they're in for each subject.

No. That would be middle school type setting, not elementary school. Your answer tells me you understand little about children. It is sort of ridiculous to explain this to you because they aren’t getting rid of centers right now, but since you seem to need remedial education classes here goes:

Younger children (mid elementary school- upper elementary) typically take longer to transition between classes and they also need to bond more with one teacher rather than bounce around between 4 different teachers. Also, math and reading blocks are much much longer in elementary school than science and social studies. Because elementary children need more time to learn the fundamentals of reading and math and not as much basic overview of science and social studies. When elementary schools departmentalize, the cohort of kids stay the same typically and reading/social studies and science/math are grouped together. They aren’t going to switch based on each subject. They MIGHT switch for math, but even then most kids switch among the same teachers (ms x and Mr t switch and ms q and Mr r classes switch) so the kids have consistency with teachers and don’t have to get to know 4 different teaching styles at age 8. That is incredibly inappropriate for the age group. Behavior problems would be definitely increase.

That is the way middle and high schools are structured because the children have mastered basic reading and math to read and learn more about science and social studies among other reasons.

Just a quick overview, so you don’t keep putting this ill informed answer into the forum.

I know this might come as a shock but you can group different kids for different subjects in the same classroom with the same teacher. It was done in this country for decades. Really not that hard for a competent teacher at the elementary school level.

Trying to run Level 4 AAP in a general classroom isn't going to work. Teachers already have enough on their hands work IEPs, ESL, special needs, and catching up slower learners. Moving AAP into their classroom adds to burden because now they have to train on AAP material too, find slots to
advance those kids and deal with parent's complaints that the program is diluted- which is effectively what will happen.

I teach at a LL4 with my own class. Every kid is doing benchmark in LA. Some AAP classes are able to do some extensions but AAP LA is nothing like it was in the past. There is no reason for centers anymore. Also, my Level 4 kids are not all acing the benchmark unit tests either, just FYI. I am hoping with the boundary adjustments, centers are a thing of the past.

I have a question for you. I taught first grade for a number of years. During that time, I taught a diverse group of kids. During that time, I taught two extremely bright boys who tested as being dyslexic. I referred them for testing because they displayed great intellectual curiosity. (One was a middle class child and the other was living in extreme poverty.) One of those boys could calculate math problems very quickly in his head. Both wanted to learn to read. When stories were read to them they asked intelligent questions.

I may have taught other kids who had mild dyslexia, but, in the case of both of these boys, it was extreme. I was not successful in teaching them to read. And, they wanted to read so badly.

My question: How do you accommodate twice exceptional students in an AAP class? I've always understood that the purpose of AAP was that the kids could move faster without remediation.

I have had dyslexic students in my class. They just get the interventions they need for decoding. They would use audio for certain readings. Their comprehension was strong. They could keep up with the class but struggled with decoding/spelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Design capacity is based on whatever the Ed Specs were at the time of construction (or last major renovation). If you tore down a school that hasn't been renovated recently and rebuilt an exact replica, the design capacity would be updated to be in line with the current Ed Specs. That updated design capacity would likely in most cases be closer to the current program capacity than the old design capacity.

Then the Design Capacity would be updated in the CIP.

Not sure I understand your comment, but yes, the design capacity would be updated if they built or renovated a school. If they change the ed specs regarding how many students a given size classroom can accommodate, or change the title I designation, or mandate that all ES need to have a dedicated room for FLES, or designate a couple classrooms to serve as a dedicated center for high-needs special education students, or whatever other of the myriad changes they might make to programming, ed specs, or what have you... none of that is reflected in the design capacity and it does not change for a given school year-over-year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

DP. The 6-8 proposal is ridiculous, for so many reasons. That’s the last thing this board should be focused on. It benefits no one.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reid wants 6-8 middle school to make space in elementary schools for universal pre-k. Would have made sense at one time but times have changed.

Reid wants 6-8 middle school because she thinks it's what's best for 6th graders. Many FCPS parents (and the vast majority of researchers and the rest of the USA) agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

DP. The 6-8 proposal is ridiculous, for so many reasons. That’s the last thing this board should be focused on. It benefits no one.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

How does having 6th grades benefit them? I went to a 6th-8th school and the kids were way more advanced. Keeping them young for one more year is a good thing. Secondly, teachers are certified for K-6. So they will be limited on what they teach and if they want to change will need additional certifications or move back down to ES. Middle School teachers can’t teach 6th without an endorsement and certain classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reid wants 6-8 middle school to make space in elementary schools for universal pre-k. Would have made sense at one time but times have changed.

Reid wants 6-8 middle school because she thinks it's what's best for 6th graders. Many FCPS parents (and the vast majority of researchers and the rest of the USA) agree.

No, she wants it for preK. They looked at the research around 6-8 for MS a couple of years back and there was no clear answer that one format was better for kids than the other.

[Anonymous]

Where is the money for pre-K? We already have special ed pre-K and Head Start. This is not the time for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Design capacity is based on whatever the Ed Specs were at the time of construction (or last major renovation). If you tore down a school that hasn't been renovated recently and rebuilt an exact replica, the design capacity would be updated to be in line with the current Ed Specs. That updated design capacity would likely in most cases be closer to the current program capacity than the old design capacity.

Then the Design Capacity would be updated in the CIP.

Not sure I understand your comment, but yes, the design capacity would be updated if they built or renovated a school. If they change the ed specs regarding how many students a given size classroom can accommodate, or change the title I designation, or mandate that all ES need to have a dedicated room for FLES, or designate a couple classrooms to serve as a dedicated center for high-needs special education students, or whatever other of the myriad changes they might make to programming, ed specs, or what have you... none of that is reflected in the design capacity and it does not change for a given school year-over-year.

So while the average FCPS high school has a Program Capacity that is 98% of Design Capacity, Lewis oddly has a rate that is only 88%? What are they doing so differently at Lewis compared to other schools? Lewis was renovated in 2005 - that is when the Design Capacity was last raised. That is not ancient.

And why does Mount Vernon have a Program Capacity that is 608 seats larger than actual enrollment? Is this an area where we could make some cuts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Design capacity is based on whatever the Ed Specs were at the time of construction (or last major renovation). If you tore down a school that hasn't been renovated recently and rebuilt an exact replica, the design capacity would be updated to be in line with the current Ed Specs. That updated design capacity would likely in most cases be closer to the current program capacity than the old design capacity.

Then the Design Capacity would be updated in the CIP.

Not sure I understand your comment, but yes, the design capacity would be updated if they built or renovated a school. If they change the ed specs regarding how many students a given size classroom can accommodate, or change the title I designation, or mandate that all ES need to have a dedicated room for FLES, or designate a couple classrooms to serve as a dedicated center for high-needs special education students, or whatever other of the myriad changes they might make to programming, ed specs, or what have you... none of that is reflected in the design capacity and it does not change for a given school year-over-year.

So while the average FCPS high school has a Program Capacity that is 98% of Design Capacity, Lewis oddly has a rate that is only 88%? What are they doing so differently at Lewis compared to other schools? Lewis was renovated in 2005 - that is when the Design Capacity was last raised. That is not ancient.

And why does Mount Vernon have a Program Capacity that is 608 seats larger than actual enrollment? Is this an area where we could make some cuts?

I still don't understand design vs program. I guess I'm wondering if this is so the drama department can have several rooms for costumes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reid wants 6-8 middle school to make space in elementary schools for universal pre-k. Would have made sense at one time but times have changed.

Reid wants 6-8 middle school because she thinks it's what's best for 6th graders. Many FCPS parents (and the vast majority of researchers and the rest of the USA) agree.

How are you going to pay for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Design capacity is based on whatever the Ed Specs were at the time of construction (or last major renovation). If you tore down a school that hasn't been renovated recently and rebuilt an exact replica, the design capacity would be updated to be in line with the current Ed Specs. That updated design capacity would likely in most cases be closer to the current program capacity than the old design capacity.

Then the Design Capacity would be updated in the CIP.

Not sure I understand your comment, but yes, the design capacity would be updated if they built or renovated a school. If they change the ed specs regarding how many students a given size classroom can accommodate, or change the title I designation, or mandate that all ES need to have a dedicated room for FLES, or designate a couple classrooms to serve as a dedicated center for high-needs special education students, or whatever other of the myriad changes they might make to programming, ed specs, or what have you... none of that is reflected in the design capacity and it does not change for a given school year-over-year.

So while the average FCPS high school has a Program Capacity that is 98% of Design Capacity, Lewis oddly has a rate that is only 88%? What are they doing so differently at Lewis compared to other schools? Lewis was renovated in 2005 - that is when the Design Capacity was last raised. That is not ancient.

And why does Mount Vernon have a Program Capacity that is 608 seats larger than actual enrollment? Is this an area where we could make some cuts?

I still don't understand design vs program. I guess I'm wondering if this is so the drama department can have several rooms for costumes!

The distinction between design capacity and program capacity is discussed at p. 46 of the latest CIP. Others have tried to explain it earlier, but you can read FCPS's description: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Adopted-Capital-Improvement-Program-FY-2026%E2%80%9330.pdf

In general, schools that have lower class sizes and special programs are going to have a bigger gap between their design capacities and program capacities. And an under-enrolled school such as Mount Vernon can still have a program capacity that is hundreds of students greater than the program capacity. If that bothers you (or the School Board or the BRAC) they can propose to move some kids from West Potomac to Mount Vernon. But courtesy of our brilliant School Board West Potomac also got a huge expansion to over 3000 seats (design capacity) or 2900 seats (program capacity), so if you move kids between those schools you're decreasing the gap between program capacity and actual enrollment at Mount Vernon and increasing it at West Potomac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Design capacity is based on whatever the Ed Specs were at the time of construction (or last major renovation). If you tore down a school that hasn't been renovated recently and rebuilt an exact replica, the design capacity would be updated to be in line with the current Ed Specs. That updated design capacity would likely in most cases be closer to the current program capacity than the old design capacity.

Then the Design Capacity would be updated in the CIP.

Not sure I understand your comment, but yes, the design capacity would be updated if they built or renovated a school. If they change the ed specs regarding how many students a given size classroom can accommodate, or change the title I designation, or mandate that all ES need to have a dedicated room for FLES, or designate a couple classrooms to serve as a dedicated center for high-needs special education students, or whatever other of the myriad changes they might make to programming, ed specs, or what have you... none of that is reflected in the design capacity and it does not change for a given school year-over-year.

So while the average FCPS high school has a Program Capacity that is 98% of Design Capacity, Lewis oddly has a rate that is only 88%? What are they doing so differently at Lewis compared to other schools? Lewis was renovated in 2005 - that is when the Design Capacity was last raised. That is not ancient.

And why does Mount Vernon have a Program Capacity that is 608 seats larger than actual enrollment? Is this an area where we could make some cuts?

I still don't understand design vs program. I guess I'm wondering if this is so the drama department can have several rooms for costumes!

The distinction between design capacity and program capacity is discussed at p. 46 of the latest CIP. Others have tried to explain it earlier, but you can read FCPS's description: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Adopted-Capital-Improvement-Program-FY-2026%E2%80%9330.pdf

In general, schools that have lower class sizes and special programs are going to have a bigger gap between their design capacities and program capacities. And an under-enrolled school such as Mount Vernon can still have a program capacity that is hundreds of students greater than the program capacity. If that bothers you (or the School Board or the BRAC) they can propose to move some kids from West Potomac to Mount Vernon. But courtesy of our brilliant School Board West Potomac also got a huge expansion to over 3000 seats (design capacity) or 2900 seats (program capacity), so if you move kids between those schools you're decreasing the gap between program capacity and actual enrollment at Mount Vernon and increasing it at West Potomac.

Interesting that each school's administration gets to decide what space is being used for programs. So in all likelihood that is done inconsistently across the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's my understanding that all of the middle schools have LLIV. There's no need for AAP Centers in middle school.

Or elementary school.

Incorrect, not all ES have a large enough cohort to form a LLIV classroom.

Which is why flexible groupings are a better idea anyway. A segregated LLIV classroom isn't necessary. Kids should be able to switch classrooms based on whatever group they're in for each subject.

No. That would be middle school type setting, not elementary school. Your answer tells me you understand little about children. It is sort of ridiculous to explain this to you because they aren’t getting rid of centers right now, but since you seem to need remedial education classes here goes:

Younger children (mid elementary school- upper elementary) typically take longer to transition between classes and they also need to bond more with one teacher rather than bounce around between 4 different teachers. Also, math and reading blocks are much much longer in elementary school than science and social studies. Because elementary children need more time to learn the fundamentals of reading and math and not as much basic overview of science and social studies. When elementary schools departmentalize, the cohort of kids stay the same typically and reading/social studies and science/math are grouped together. They aren’t going to switch based on each subject. They MIGHT switch for math, but even then most kids switch among the same teachers (ms x and Mr t switch and ms q and Mr r classes switch) so the kids have consistency with teachers and don’t have to get to know 4 different teaching styles at age 8. That is incredibly inappropriate for the age group. Behavior problems would be definitely increase.

That is the way middle and high schools are structured because the children have mastered basic reading and math to read and learn more about science and social studies among other reasons.

Just a quick overview, so you don’t keep putting this ill informed answer into the forum.

I know this might come as a shock but you can group different kids for different subjects in the same classroom with the same teacher. It was done in this country for decades. Really not that hard for a competent teacher at the elementary school level.

Trying to run Level 4 AAP in a general classroom isn't going to work. Teachers already have enough on their hands work IEPs, ESL, special needs, and catching up slower learners. Moving AAP into their classroom adds to burden because now they have to train on AAP material too, find slots to
advance those kids and deal with parent's complaints that the program is diluted- which is effectively what will happen.

I teach at a LL4 with my own class. Every kid is doing benchmark in LA. Some AAP classes are able to do some extensions but AAP LA is nothing like it was in the past. There is no reason for centers anymore. Also, my Level 4 kids are not all acing the benchmark unit tests either, just FYI. I am hoping with the boundary adjustments, centers are a thing of the past.

I have a question for you. I taught first grade for a number of years. During that time, I taught a diverse group of kids. During that time, I taught two extremely bright boys who tested as being dyslexic. I referred them for testing because they displayed great intellectual curiosity. (One was a middle class child and the other was living in extreme poverty.) One of those boys could calculate math problems very quickly in his head. Both wanted to learn to read. When stories were read to them they asked intelligent questions.

I may have taught other kids who had mild dyslexia, but, in the case of both of these boys, it was extreme. I was not successful in teaching them to read. And, they wanted to read so badly.

My question: How do you accommodate twice exceptional students in an AAP class? I've always understood that the purpose of AAP was that the kids could move faster without remediation.

The accommodations are different from the remediations. The children with dyslexia or dysgraphia can use audio books and dictation software to keep up with the AAP curriculum. The remediation should be done separately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Design capacity is based on whatever the Ed Specs were at the time of construction (or last major renovation). If you tore down a school that hasn't been renovated recently and rebuilt an exact replica, the design capacity would be updated to be in line with the current Ed Specs. That updated design capacity would likely in most cases be closer to the current program capacity than the old design capacity.

Then the Design Capacity would be updated in the CIP.

Not sure I understand your comment, but yes, the design capacity would be updated if they built or renovated a school. If they change the ed specs regarding how many students a given size classroom can accommodate, or change the title I designation, or mandate that all ES need to have a dedicated room for FLES, or designate a couple classrooms to serve as a dedicated center for high-needs special education students, or whatever other of the myriad changes they might make to programming, ed specs, or what have you... none of that is reflected in the design capacity and it does not change for a given school year-over-year.

So while the average FCPS high school has a Program Capacity that is 98% of Design Capacity, Lewis oddly has a rate that is only 88%? What are they doing so differently at Lewis compared to other schools? Lewis was renovated in 2005 - that is when the Design Capacity was last raised. That is not ancient.

And why does Mount Vernon have a Program Capacity that is 608 seats larger than actual enrollment? Is this an area where we could make some cuts?

I still don't understand design vs program. I guess I'm wondering if this is so the drama department can have several rooms for costumes!

The distinction between design capacity and program capacity is discussed at p. 46 of the latest CIP. Others have tried to explain it earlier, but you can read FCPS's description: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Adopted-Capital-Improvement-Program-FY-2026%E2%80%9330.pdf

In general, schools that have lower class sizes and special programs are going to have a bigger gap between their design capacities and program capacities. And an under-enrolled school such as Mount Vernon can still have a program capacity that is hundreds of students greater than the program capacity. If that bothers you (or the School Board or the BRAC) they can propose to move some kids from West Potomac to Mount Vernon. But courtesy of our brilliant School Board West Potomac also got a huge expansion to over 3000 seats (design capacity) or 2900 seats (program capacity), so if you move kids between those schools you're decreasing the gap between program capacity and actual enrollment at Mount Vernon and increasing it at West Potomac.

It sounds like you are talking about staffing formulas, is that right?

The budget talks about staffing formulas on pages 110-112:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/FY-2026-Proposed-Budget.pdf

Do staffing formulas affect program capacity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

DP. The 6-8 proposal is ridiculous, for so many reasons. That’s the last thing this board should be focused on. It benefits no one.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

Moving 6th to middle school will hurt far more kids than it helps.

For every one kid who gets to advance in math, there will be dozens or more who discover vaping, sex, alcohol and drugs a year earlier than currently. You can guarantee there will be far more 6th graders learning to vape 8n the bathroom, than learning algebra 1 in 6th.

Middle school drama and peer pressure occuring a year earlier.

Adjusting from 30 minute daily classes to 90 minutes classes every other day.

6th graders riding the bus with high schools students at secondary schools.

The youngest 6th graders are 10 years old at the start of school. This puts 10/11 year olds in social and academic scenarios with kids as old as 15 in the middle schools and adults as old as 18/19/20/21 in the secondary schools. Some 6th graders are 12 years old but the vast majority are only 11. N9ne of them are teenagers.

There are many 6th graders who are still kids, playing legos and running around at recess. Not just the 10 year old 6th graders but also many of the 11 year old 6th graders. This puts a s8gnificant number of the kids into an environment they are jot quite ready for emotionally or socially, or gives some kids pressure to mature faster than is natural for them.

There are far more downsides than benefits to moving 6th to middle school.