Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anybody able to share actual, real justification that is being used to move Rolling Valley into WSHS?
I understand why neighborhoods would be moved out. I can't understand at all why neighborhoods would be moved into WSHS, especially Rolling Valley. Makes sense to leave it where it is.

Can anybody at least share the STATED justification? If this happens, feel like this whole thing is just corrupt.

The Springfield rep has stated more than once that RV is a split feeder that has been asking for many years to go to WSHS as the reason to move them into WSHS.

But why wpuld they all go to WSHS instead.of Lewis?

Many, many WSHS and Lewis parents have brought this up to Anderson over the past year, but she doesn't listen.

She says that it will only be 20 kids, and states she won't use Daventry as an example of how much those numbers will potentially balloon. Yet in the next breath she blames Daventry for WSHS overcrowding, acknowledging that many more students showed up at WSHS from Daventry's original projection. Then she points out that RV has been asking for a really long time to go to WSHS.

This is what she has been repeating over and over to multiple parents, not just WSHS parents but also Lewis parents.

Hooray to the Lewis parents for finally getting the absurdity of this scenario 4 moving students into WSHS through to someone at FCPS.

Absolute yes to this! If she really cared she would have showed up to directly face Lewis parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Why would you want to make it harder for students to leave?

Also interested why you'd want note students in? Expanding the size of teams and clubs?

Because 300 kids pupil place out of Lewis every year which is the reason why it’s under enrolled. Better to bring them back to their home school with AP and language classes then to try to force hundreds of other kids from different neighborhoods to move into Lewis to replace them. If you don’t close the pupil place loopholes those kids will pupil place out too. That’s why we have to start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Why would you want to make it harder for students to leave?

Also interested why you'd want note students in? Expanding the size of teams and clubs?

Because 300 kids pupil place out of Lewis every year which is the reason why it’s under enrolled. Better to bring them back to their home school with AP and language classes then to try to force hundreds of other kids from different neighborhoods to move into Lewis to replace them. If you don’t close the pupil place loopholes those kids will pupil place out too. That’s why we have to start there.

They need to do both. Slowing pupil placement won't fully solve the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Why would you want to make it harder for students to leave?

Also interested why you'd want note students in? Expanding the size of teams and clubs?

Because 300 kids pupil place out of Lewis every year which is the reason why it’s under enrolled. Better to bring them back to their home school with AP and language classes then to try to force hundreds of other kids from different neighborhoods to move into Lewis to replace them. If you don’t close the pupil place loopholes those kids will pupil place out too. That’s why we have to start there.

They need to do both. Slowing pupil placement won't fully solve the problem.

.

NP and I agree! Slow transfers AND add students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Are you lobbying to get rid of IB? That is the ticket out.

Edison HS receives the most Lewis transfers and is also an IB school.

Those are transfers in for Edison’s specialty programs - the STEM academy and the career/vocational programs. They half-heartedly tried to get a special program at Lewis in the leadership academy, but it doesn’t seem to be drawing too many out of boundary students - especially now with the immigration crack downs and fears.

I feel like they have two options, realistically, if they actually want to boost Lewis. One is cut out IB entirely for all AP classes. That would end the IB>AP transfer loophole - presumably most of those students end up at Hayfield or Lake Braddock so they would then return to Lewis. The second option is more drastic and that is eliminate IB at all the other nearby schools, but keep it at Lewis and allow transfers in for any student who wanted to do a full IB program. However neither of these would help with the numbers of transfers to Edison for their specialty programs, which sounds like the biggest destination for students who would otherwise be attending Lewis. So maybe Lewis needs more career/technical programs at their own campus … but that would likely require a lot of physical renovations that they also don’t seem likely to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Why would you want to make it harder for students to leave?

Also interested why you'd want note students in? Expanding the size of teams and clubs?

Because 300 kids pupil place out of Lewis every year which is the reason why it’s under enrolled. Better to bring them back to their home school with AP and language classes then to try to force hundreds of other kids from different neighborhoods to move into Lewis to replace them. If you don’t close the pupil place loopholes those kids will pupil place out too. That’s why we have to start there.

They need to do both. Slowing pupil placement won't fully solve the problem.

.

NP and I agree! Slow transfers AND add students.

If the 300 lewis zoned kids remained at Lewis, the school would be at full capacity with no room for any additional students.

Start with the families that bought houses zoned for Lewis before experimenting on moving kids who live in schools zones from other neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Why would you want to make it harder for students to leave?

Also interested why you'd want note students in? Expanding the size of teams and clubs?

Because 300 kids pupil place out of Lewis every year which is the reason why it’s under enrolled. Better to bring them back to their home school with AP and language classes then to try to force hundreds of other kids from different neighborhoods to move into Lewis to replace them. If you don’t close the pupil place loopholes those kids will pupil place out too. That’s why we have to start there.

They need to do both. Slowing pupil placement won't fully solve the problem.

Stopping pupil placements would indeed directly solve the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Why would you want to make it harder for students to leave?

Also interested why you'd want note students in? Expanding the size of teams and clubs?

Because 300 kids pupil place out of Lewis every year which is the reason why it’s under enrolled. Better to bring them back to their home school with AP and language classes then to try to force hundreds of other kids from different neighborhoods to move into Lewis to replace them. If you don’t close the pupil place loopholes those kids will pupil place out too. That’s why we have to start there.

They need to do both. Slowing pupil placement won't fully solve the problem.

.

NP and I agree! Slow transfers AND add students.

If the 300 lewis zoned kids remained at Lewis, the school would be at full capacity with no room for any additional students.

Start with the families that bought houses zoned for Lewis before experimenting on moving kids who live in schools zones from other neighborhoods.

So, you’re advocating that there be no transfers from any school and not just from Lewis, right? Or are you singling out Lewis? IMO, I say don’t allow any transfers for any reason other than SpecialEd. It will make planning easier. Singling out Lewis is indefensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Why would you want to make it harder for students to leave?

Also interested why you'd want note students in? Expanding the size of teams and clubs?

Because 300 kids pupil place out of Lewis every year which is the reason why it’s under enrolled. Better to bring them back to their home school with AP and language classes then to try to force hundreds of other kids from different neighborhoods to move into Lewis to replace them. If you don’t close the pupil place loopholes those kids will pupil place out too. That’s why we have to start there.

They need to do both. Slowing pupil placement won't fully solve the problem.

.

NP and I agree! Slow transfers AND add students.

If the 300 lewis zoned kids remained at Lewis, the school would be at full capacity with no room for any additional students.

Start with the families that bought houses zoned for Lewis before experimenting on moving kids who live in schools zones from other neighborhoods.

So, you’re advocating that there be no transfers from any school and not just from Lewis, right? Or are you singling out Lewis? IMO, I say don’t allow any transfers for any reason other than SpecialEd. It will make planning easier. Singling out Lewis is indefensible.

Well, the discussion was about Lewis.

Sure, stop school transfers everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Why would you want to make it harder for students to leave?

Also interested why you'd want note students in? Expanding the size of teams and clubs?

Because 300 kids pupil place out of Lewis every year which is the reason why it’s under enrolled. Better to bring them back to their home school with AP and language classes then to try to force hundreds of other kids from different neighborhoods to move into Lewis to replace them. If you don’t close the pupil place loopholes those kids will pupil place out too. That’s why we have to start there.

They need to do both. Slowing pupil placement won't fully solve the problem.

.

NP and I agree! Slow transfers AND add students.

If the 300 lewis zoned kids remained at Lewis, the school would be at full capacity with no room for any additional students.

Start with the families that bought houses zoned for Lewis before experimenting on moving kids who live in schools zones from other neighborhoods.

So, you’re advocating that there be no transfers from any school and not just from Lewis, right? Or are you singling out Lewis? IMO, I say don’t allow any transfers for any reason other than SpecialEd. It will make planning easier. Singling out Lewis is indefensible.

How did everything become about Lewis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Why would you want to make it harder for students to leave?

Also interested why you'd want note students in? Expanding the size of teams and clubs?

Because 300 kids pupil place out of Lewis every year which is the reason why it’s under enrolled. Better to bring them back to their home school with AP and language classes then to try to force hundreds of other kids from different neighborhoods to move into Lewis to replace them. If you don’t close the pupil place loopholes those kids will pupil place out too. That’s why we have to start there.

They need to do both. Slowing pupil placement won't fully solve the problem.

.

NP and I agree! Slow transfers AND add students.

If the 300 lewis zoned kids remained at Lewis, the school would be at full capacity with no room for any additional students.

Start with the families that bought houses zoned for Lewis before experimenting on moving kids who live in schools zones from other neighborhoods.

So, you’re advocating that there be no transfers from any school and not just from Lewis, right? Or are you singling out Lewis? IMO, I say don’t allow any transfers for any reason other than SpecialEd. It will make planning easier. Singling out Lewis is indefensible.

Well, the discussion was about Lewis.

Sure, stop school transfers everywhere

One of the SB members did say in the discussion on start times that 30% of bus routes are for transfer students, which feels like a really big number. Feels like if they dropped IB that would solve a lot at the HS level and if they do follow through with AAP centers at every middle school that will help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did meeting go tonight? Takeaways?

One big takeaway is that they seem to be planning to reduce transfers and are managing that process differently next school year. It may be harder for a student to transfer out for language, for example, because they will make alternative options available.

My takeaways:

--Lewis parents (like myself) are very upset that this boundary process did nothing to actually move more students to Lewis.
--We are upset that they would even consider moving more kids out of Lewis (Rolling Valley). But it seems that this came to a surprise at Dr. Reid so I'm hopeful this will be fixed in scenero 5.
--We need to be supportive of cracking down on reasons for kids to leave Lewis
--Our parents and community are wonderful and Lewis is a great school, but we need more students

Why would you want to make it harder for students to leave?

Also interested why you'd want note students in? Expanding the size of teams and clubs?

Because 300 kids pupil place out of Lewis every year which is the reason why it’s under enrolled. Better to bring them back to their home school with AP and language classes then to try to force hundreds of other kids from different neighborhoods to move into Lewis to replace them. If you don’t close the pupil place loopholes those kids will pupil place out too. That’s why we have to start there.

They need to do both. Slowing pupil placement won't fully solve the problem.

.

NP and I agree! Slow transfers AND add students.

If the 300 lewis zoned kids remained at Lewis, the school would be at full capacity with no room for any additional students.

Start with the families that bought houses zoned for Lewis before experimenting on moving kids who live in schools zones from other neighborhoods.

So, you’re advocating that there be no transfers from any school and not just from Lewis, right? Or are you singling out Lewis? IMO, I say don’t allow any transfers for any reason other than SpecialEd. It will make planning easier. Singling out Lewis is indefensible.

Well, the discussion was about Lewis.

Sure, stop school transfers everywhere

One of the SB members did say in the discussion on start times that 30% of bus routes are for transfer students, which feels like a really big number. Feels like if they dropped IB that would solve a lot at the HS level and if they do follow through with AAP centers at every middle school that will help.

What do you mean? Pupil placements under the student transfer regulation are not provided transportation.

[Anonymous]

it could be for AAP centers which they want to do away with

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it could be for AAP centers which they want to do away with

I think it’s AAP centers too. Could save a lot of money that way

[Anonymous]

Common themes are neighborhoods wanting out of Lewis, Falls Church, and major opposition to using the 2026 FCHS 2500 new capacity. Concurrently FCPS is fooling around with the new Western HS and adding optional programming for transfers when in that part of the county Herndon HS has available bricks and mortar square footage to handle optional programs.

No base school boundaries should be moved out of Lewis to West Springfield. SY 2024-25 Lewis transfer out net TJ 39, Edison 54 [Global STEM?], Bryant 15 was 143:
South County 11
Lake Braddock 32
Unidentified schools totaling 100 were 9 AP HS and 5 IB HS all the way to South Lakes. FCPS should provide the totals out to AP and IB - dashboard shows less than as <10 so there's no way to determine how many transferred where. Could be max 81 out for AP including language [Langley Russian] No large number like the 164 AP Herndon to IB South Lakes or 199 Mount Vernon to Hayfield.

Since Reid now admitted IB costs more to operate than AP it really is time for FCPS to come clean on actual costs per school, class sizes for diploma candidates, number of diploma candidates. VDOE had Lewis at 10 senior candidates and 10 IB diplomas for SY2023-24.

And no base schools should be moved out of Falls Church. I guess it's the Battle of Madison. Fairhill wants out of FCHS. https://www.change.org/p/reassign-fairhill-elementary-school-to-madison-high-school-pyramid?recruiter=1392392597&recruited_by_id=847b2350-aaf4-11f0-b2b6-17c661373205&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=starter_onboarding_share_personal&utm_medium=copylink

Town of Vienna residents also want Madison. Timber Lane refuses to go to FCHS but as per their website would consider Marshall acceptable. https://timberlanemcleanpyramid.com/?page_id=23

There is a lack of consideration for other scenarios: Why were Kilmer Middle School and Marshall High School not included in the proposed scenarios? Given the proximity of our neighborhood to residential borders of the Marshall High School Pyramid, this seems like a logical and feasible alternative scenario if one must be considered..."

Scenario 3 has the expanded FCHS at 93%, Scenario 4 87%. Mclean 100% with the modular and 115% without. Marshall 95% with the modular and 100% without. Put Town of Vienna back into Madison and what are the numbers? Thru tool now has % with and without modulars.

Timber Lane to Mclean HS or FCHS appeared to be 190 students. Shrevewood is a mess at 102%. Where is an AAP elementary school center in the Falls Church pyramid? Can't find one.