FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know 2 families planning on leaving the area entirely due to the federal job cuts. They’re taking the DRP and moving. 30s with early Elementary and preschool-aged kids who would have been in school in the next few years.

They need to put this whole exercise on pause until the dust settles. No 6th to middle either - FCPS won’t have the budget to start a robust UPK program at this rate.

On the flip side there are thousands of retirees on fixed incomes who will be forced out of the area or will voluntarily leave earlier to reduce their tax burden so some neighborhoods could turn over with younger families. It’s a very volatile situation and changing boundaries in the midst of the chaos makes no sense at all.

I’ve seen a few homes go up for sale that were clearly owned by long time, older owners who were downsizing/leaving the area. But it’s still few. Usually they seem to sell to developers/flippers or an adult child inherits the house directly.

You might see some empty nest but still working age adults take the voluntary early retirement - but I feel like they’d be more likely to try to get another job in the area vs. move entirely? Whereas people with young kids, maybe 3rd grade and under, seem like they’re going to cut bait and move to their hometowns or less expensive areas and try to start over. Maybe that’s just my experience though. Everyone kept saying for years that the Boomers and Silent Gens would have to sell and move and flood the market and that has just never happened, even as the oldest boomers are almost 80 now.

My neighborhood consists of a pretty consistent pattern of two types of families. Older people with grown families who retire, may stick around a bit (or not), and then sell their house moving to less expensive areas. And of course young families buy these houses for the schools. It's a pretty consistent pattern.

Same in my neighborhood. Of course a few stay for the duration, but most come with very young children and the move after retirement or shortly after kids graduate from college. Some of the retirees have had children move back in and enrolled grandchildren in the schools. Even though we are in McLean with high property values, our neighborhood has been a net loser in terms of property tax revenue- the entire time we have lived here. We have been here about 30 years and are about to move out of the area due to retirement (planned last spring).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish boundary review opponents would stop coopting every fcps issue with their single issue focus. It does a big disservice to fcps and all of us. The boundaries need to be reviewed and there are other valid issues happening in fcps.

I know this hard to understand, but if FCPS doesn’t first make decisions on things such as AAP Centers, How many, if any IB programs, will MS go to 6-8, then any boundary study result will be essentially meaningless.

But reason and logic are not going to stop a bunch of clowns from putting on a clown show.

I am going through this thread and “AAP centers” comes up from time to time as somehow related to boundary review. I don’t see the connection. What is the connection?

I understand the argument being made for changes to AP and IB and related out-placements for high school, but I don’t see how the same type of thinking applies to an AAP centers for middle schools. While a student might place out of their zoned HS (Herndon) that does not offer IB to attend a HS that offers IB (South Lakes), how would eliminating AAP centers at middle schools have a similar impact?

Regardless of whether a kid goes to an AAP center MS or their base-feeder MS, don’t they end up at the same high school in their pyramid? For example, if a kid attends Waples ES, but is identified as AAP eligible (level IV) wouldn’t they still go to Oakton HS regardless of whether they attended Franklin MS (their base-feeder MS) or Carson MS (the AAP center)?

Unless they end up at TJ?

Ohhhhh…..I see….

Is that why Carson MS has been targeted as “problematic split feeder”? Is it really problematic? Is that why there is some voice on these boards warning people (messaging to the BRAC/future survey respondents) that “Carson is unsafe” and boundaries that include Carson may be responsible for a recent incident at Oakton?

Was this part of a push to split off one of the feeder communities into Carson MS that have historically resulted in Carson MS having the highest concentration of TJ placements? Isn’t that one of the goals of the recent changes to TJ admissions: get TJ attendance from a “better balance” of middle schools? For example, take a look at this website that lays out the impacts of recent changes to TJ admissions on middle school feeders:

https://www.tjtestprep.com/data

I know, a test prep site. But look at the middle school attendance data as it relates to TJ. That is the point.

How many students from Katherine Johnson MS attend TJ? How many from Carson? Can a review, house by house, of the demographics and other “data” by Thru consulting be used to figure out the relative concentration, by feeder ES, of “near miss” TJ kids?

Where do all those Waples zoned kids that go to Carson MS and don’t get into TJ currently end up: Oakton HS.

Show me how I am wrong. Show me that more “equitable balancing” is not what FCPS is after. I understand the IB placement argument at the HS level. Explain to me how eliminating AAP centers in middle school solves high school level capacity imbalances that otherwise require a boundary change solution. Because I don’t see it.

All I see is the disproportionate impact it would have on a student currently zoned to attend the AAP center at Carson MS if you shift them to Katherine Johnson MS.

I don’t have a dog in the fight of a lot of the schools you just mentioned, but elimination of AAP centers is discussed because in many instances it would solve capacity issues at the middle school level. We need to consider middle school capacities in the same way that we consider high school capacities.

A lot of “we consider” in your response.

Are you on the BRAC? If you were told that the numbers for MS 6-8 were run solely for the purposes of demonstrating how the software works, you have been mislead. I have receipts.

If you are on the BRAC, I can see that you take your role seriously and I appreciate your efforts to keep the public informed with posts on this board. Just consider this: if you have been mislead about the reason FCPS obtained the MS 6-8 data that you were presented, can you entirely trust everything you are told in BRAC meetings? Keep an open mind and a critical eye on what you are presented with. Otherwise, there is a risk that your diligent efforts and good intentions will be used to support a predetermined outcome.

If you are FCPS or one of their representatives, pushing a narrative on this site is highly problematic for other reasons…

I’m not BRAC and I’m not FCPS- the latter is one of the most insulting things I have ever been accused of. 🙂

I was just responding to the poster who had said she didn’t understand the rationale for the push to return AAP centers to their base school, and I was just pointing out that middle schools have capacity issues too. I’m not advocating for any boundary changes, far from it, but i think it’s doubly dumb to be moving kids for supposed capacity issues when so many kids are transferring out of the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish boundary review opponents would stop coopting every fcps issue with their single issue focus. It does a big disservice to fcps and all of us. The boundaries need to be reviewed and there are other valid issues happening in fcps.

I know this hard to understand, but if FCPS doesn’t first make decisions on things such as AAP Centers, How many, if any IB programs, will MS go to 6-8, then any boundary study result will be essentially meaningless.

But reason and logic are not going to stop a bunch of clowns from putting on a clown show.

I am going through this thread and “AAP centers” comes up from time to time as somehow related to boundary review. I don’t see the connection. What is the connection?

I understand the argument being made for changes to AP and IB and related out-placements for high school, but I don’t see how the same type of thinking applies to an AAP centers for middle schools. While a student might place out of their zoned HS (Herndon) that does not offer IB to attend a HS that offers IB (South Lakes), how would eliminating AAP centers at middle schools have a similar impact?

Regardless of whether a kid goes to an AAP center MS or their base-feeder MS, don’t they end up at the same high school in their pyramid? For example, if a kid attends Waples ES, but is identified as AAP eligible (level IV) wouldn’t they still go to Oakton HS regardless of whether they attended Franklin MS (their base-feeder MS) or Carson MS (the AAP center)?

Unless they end up at TJ?

Ohhhhh…..I see….

Is that why Carson MS has been targeted as “problematic split feeder”? Is it really problematic? Is that why there is some voice on these boards warning people (messaging to the BRAC/future survey respondents) that “Carson is unsafe” and boundaries that include Carson may be responsible for a recent incident at Oakton?

Was this part of a push to split off one of the feeder communities into Carson MS that have historically resulted in Carson MS having the highest concentration of TJ placements? Isn’t that one of the goals of the recent changes to TJ admissions: get TJ attendance from a “better balance” of middle schools? For example, take a look at this website that lays out the impacts of recent changes to TJ admissions on middle school feeders:

https://www.tjtestprep.com/data

I know, a test prep site. But look at the middle school attendance data as it relates to TJ. That is the point.

How many students from Katherine Johnson MS attend TJ? How many from Carson? Can a review, house by house, of the demographics and other “data” by Thru consulting be used to figure out the relative concentration, by feeder ES, of “near miss” TJ kids?

Where do all those Waples zoned kids that go to Carson MS and don’t get into TJ currently end up: Oakton HS.

Show me how I am wrong. Show me that more “equitable balancing” is not what FCPS is after. I understand the IB placement argument at the HS level. Explain to me how eliminating AAP centers in middle school solves high school level capacity imbalances that otherwise require a boundary change solution. Because I don’t see it.

All I see is the disproportionate impact it would have on a student currently zoned to attend the AAP center at Carson MS if you shift them to Katherine Johnson MS.

Two things:

Some high schools end up with a lot of pupil placements because kids who’ve gone to a middle school AAP center outside the pyramid want to stay with their MS classmates. That accounts for a fair number of pupil placements to both Lake Braddock and South Lakes and out of Robinson and Herndon. If every MS had AAP that would change.

Also, Carson sends the most kids to TJ because it’s a huge AAP center that pulls from parts of four pyramids. Other middle schools (Longfellow, in particular) often have a higher percentage of TJ applicants admitted. If Franklin wasn’t sending so many AAP kids to Carson, it would send a lot of kids to TJ as well.

[Anonymous]

If Franklin wasn’t sending so many AAP kids to Carson, it would send a lot of kids to TJ as well.

[/b]

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If Franklin wasn’t sending so many AAP kids to Carson, it would send a lot of kids to TJ as well.

[/b]

This.

Carson was built big and at that time most reasonable people assumed there would be a HS to go with it....It is not in the Oakton boundary and when the massive geographic feed to Longfellow for AAP/GT was broken up, some to Carson was even a scenario.

It has always been easier for fCPS to change AAP/GT boundaries than base school. Only 3 MS AAP centers are single feed- Cooper [by default since orignals were over capacity Longfellow and Kilmer], Longfellow [the great disperal to Kilmer], and South County.

Can't look at Carson isolated without considering all this mess and more:
Rocky Run [Chantilly]-248 transfers in
Stone 86 [Westfield]
Liberty 124 [Centreville]
Franklin 29 [Chantilly]
AAP transfer in 225
student transfer reg 21
Utilization 73%-AAP feeds Franklin, Liberty, Robinson, Stone

So Thru should have had a spreadsheet showing all MS for current and transfers back in for AAP. FCPS/Thru decided to produce high verbage garbage instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Franklin wasn’t sending so many AAP kids to Carson, it would send a lot of kids to TJ as well.

[/b]

This.

Carson was built big and at that time most reasonable people assumed there would be a HS to go with it....It is not in the Oakton boundary and when the massive geographic feed to Longfellow for AAP/GT was broken up, some to Carson was even a scenario.

It has always been easier for fCPS to change AAP/GT boundaries than base school. Only 3 MS AAP centers are single feed- Cooper [by default since orignals were over capacity Longfellow and Kilmer], Longfellow [the great disperal to Kilmer], and South County.

Can't look at Carson isolated without considering all this mess and more:
Rocky Run [Chantilly]-248 transfers in
Stone 86 [Westfield]
Liberty 124 [Centreville]
Franklin 29 [Chantilly]
AAP transfer in 225
student transfer reg 21
Utilization 73%-AAP feeds Franklin, Liberty, Robinson, Stone

So Thru should have had a spreadsheet showing all MS for current and transfers back in for AAP. FCPS/Thru decided to produce high verbage garbage instead.

Johnson is also an AAP center that feeds into a single school (Fairfax).

[Anonymous]

Rachna of the Braddock district held a town hall last night at WFES. Key points including the decrease of split feeders and not allowing any more to occur. That should glean some insights to Thru’s suggestions per their circled split feeder map. Would imagine attendance islands as well.

Did sound like a lot of geographical factors will be taking into consideration too (not crossing our major highways).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rachna of the Braddock district held a town hall last night at WFES. Key points including the decrease of split feeders and not allowing any more to occur. That should glean some insights to Thru’s suggestions per their circled split feeder map. Would imagine attendance islands as well.

Did sound like a lot of geographical factors will be taking into consideration too (not crossing our major highways).

Was the 'not crossing our major highways' her words?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rachna of the Braddock district held a town hall last night at WFES. Key points including the decrease of split feeders and not allowing any more to occur. That should glean some insights to Thru’s suggestions per their circled split feeder map. Would imagine attendance islands as well.

Did sound like a lot of geographical factors will be taking into consideration too (not crossing our major highways).

What's considered a major highway? Route 7 from the Loudoun line to Tysons has crossings to get to schools. That is simple versus the residences that feed to schools where a bus or vehicle has to drive on that strip of Route 7 to get to a school.

6 lanes and add 4rth for turn offs- 8 in spots, 55MPH, sound barriers. https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/northern-virginia-district/connect-route-7/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rachna of the Braddock district held a town hall last night at WFES. Key points including the decrease of split feeders and not allowing any more to occur. That should glean some insights to Thru’s suggestions per their circled split feeder map. Would imagine attendance islands as well.

Did sound like a lot of geographical factors will be taking into consideration too (not crossing our major highways).

Was the 'not crossing our major highways' her words?

She mentioned the Beltway which is applicable for her district, not sure on others. Also, in my virtual community engagement session, the FCPS staff member mentioned “natural borders” like beltway, 66, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rachna of the Braddock district held a town hall last night at WFES. Key points including the decrease of split feeders and not allowing any more to occur. That should glean some insights to Thru’s suggestions per their circled split feeder map. Would imagine attendance islands as well.

Did sound like a lot of geographical factors will be taking into consideration too (not crossing our major highways).

Did Rachna acknowledge the data the commission is using to plan the boundary adjustment is now worthless because of the massive changes occurring from RIFS, immigration actions, and the “ripple effect” resulting from both of these changes?

This adjustment has to be paused.

[Anonymous]

The fact that the rest of the School
Board seems to have McDaniel’s back, after he’s been plausibly sued for embezzlement, is deeply troubling.

Perhaps party loyalty trumps common sense and putting kids first, but unless he steps aside shortly I won’t be voting for any of these folks for any office again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish boundary review opponents would stop coopting every fcps issue with their single issue focus. It does a big disservice to fcps and all of us. The boundaries need to be reviewed and there are other valid issues happening in fcps.

I know this hard to understand, but if FCPS doesn’t first make decisions on things such as AAP Centers, How many, if any IB programs, will MS go to 6-8, then any boundary study result will be essentially meaningless.

But reason and logic are not going to stop a bunch of clowns from putting on a clown show.

I am going through this thread and “AAP centers” comes up from time to time as somehow related to boundary review. I don’t see the connection. What is the connection?

I understand the argument being made for changes to AP and IB and related out-placements for high school, but I don’t see how the same type of thinking applies to an AAP centers for middle schools. While a student might place out of their zoned HS (Herndon) that does not offer IB to attend a HS that offers IB (South Lakes), how would eliminating AAP centers at middle schools have a similar impact?

Regardless of whether a kid goes to an AAP center MS or their base-feeder MS, don’t they end up at the same high school in their pyramid? For example, if a kid attends Waples ES, but is identified as AAP eligible (level IV) wouldn’t they still go to Oakton HS regardless of whether they attended Franklin MS (their base-feeder MS) or Carson MS (the AAP center)?

Unless they end up at TJ?

Ohhhhh…..I see….

Is that why Carson MS has been targeted as “problematic split feeder”? Is it really problematic? Is that why there is some voice on these boards warning people (messaging to the BRAC/future survey respondents) that “Carson is unsafe” and boundaries that include Carson may be responsible for a recent incident at Oakton?

Was this part of a push to split off one of the feeder communities into Carson MS that have historically resulted in Carson MS having the highest concentration of TJ placements? Isn’t that one of the goals of the recent changes to TJ admissions: get TJ attendance from a “better balance” of middle schools? For example, take a look at this website that lays out the impacts of recent changes to TJ admissions on middle school feeders:

https://www.tjtestprep.com/data

I know, a test prep site. But look at the middle school attendance data as it relates to TJ. That is the point.

How many students from Katherine Johnson MS attend TJ? How many from Carson? Can a review, house by house, of the demographics and other “data” by Thru consulting be used to figure out the relative concentration, by feeder ES, of “near miss” TJ kids?

Where do all those Waples zoned kids that go to Carson MS and don’t get into TJ currently end up: Oakton HS.

Show me how I am wrong. Show me that more “equitable balancing” is not what FCPS is after. I understand the IB placement argument at the HS level. Explain to me how eliminating AAP centers in middle school solves high school level capacity imbalances that otherwise require a boundary change solution. Because I don’t see it.

All I see is the disproportionate impact it would have on a student currently zoned to attend the AAP center at Carson MS if you shift them to Katherine Johnson MS.

I don’t have a dog in the fight of a lot of the schools you just mentioned, but elimination of AAP centers is discussed because in many instances it would solve capacity issues at the middle school level. We need to consider middle school capacities in the same way that we consider high school capacities.

A lot of “we consider” in your response.

Are you on the BRAC? If you were told that the numbers for MS 6-8 were run solely for the purposes of demonstrating how the software works, you have been mislead. I have receipts.

If you are on the BRAC, I can see that you take your role seriously and I appreciate your efforts to keep the public informed with posts on this board. Just consider this: if you have been mislead about the reason FCPS obtained the MS 6-8 data that you were presented, can you entirely trust everything you are told in BRAC meetings? Keep an open mind and a critical eye on what you are presented with. Otherwise, there is a risk that your diligent efforts and good intentions will be used to support a predetermined outcome.

If you are FCPS or one of their representatives, pushing a narrative on this site is highly problematic for other reasons…

I’m not BRAC and I’m not FCPS- the latter is one of the most insulting things I have ever been accused of. 🙂

I was just responding to the poster who had said she didn’t understand the rationale for the push to return AAP centers to their base school, and I was just pointing out that middle schools have capacity issues too. I’m not advocating for any boundary changes, far from it, but i think it’s doubly dumb to be moving kids for supposed capacity issues when so many kids are transferring out of the schools.

If you are not from Fairfax County, why are you here arguing about our rezoning?

Are you one of the childless out of state activists that are fixated on our schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rachna of the Braddock district held a town hall last night at WFES. Key points including the decrease of split feeders and not allowing any more to occur. That should glean some insights to Thru’s suggestions per their circled split feeder map. Would imagine attendance islands as well.

Did sound like a lot of geographical factors will be taking into consideration too (not crossing our major highways).

What's considered a major highway? Route 7 from the Loudoun line to Tysons has crossings to get to schools. That is simple versus the residences that feed to schools where a bus or vehicle has to drive on that strip of Route 7 to get to a school.

6 lanes and add 4rth for turn offs- 8 in spots, 55MPH, sound barriers. https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/northern-virginia-district/connect-route-7/

The mixing bowl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish boundary review opponents would stop coopting every fcps issue with their single issue focus. It does a big disservice to fcps and all of us. The boundaries need to be reviewed and there are other valid issues happening in fcps.

I know this hard to understand, but if FCPS doesn’t first make decisions on things such as AAP Centers, How many, if any IB programs, will MS go to 6-8, then any boundary study result will be essentially meaningless.

But reason and logic are not going to stop a bunch of clowns from putting on a clown show.

I am going through this thread and “AAP centers” comes up from time to time as somehow related to boundary review. I don’t see the connection. What is the connection?

I understand the argument being made for changes to AP and IB and related out-placements for high school, but I don’t see how the same type of thinking applies to an AAP centers for middle schools. While a student might place out of their zoned HS (Herndon) that does not offer IB to attend a HS that offers IB (South Lakes), how would eliminating AAP centers at middle schools have a similar impact?

Regardless of whether a kid goes to an AAP center MS or their base-feeder MS, don’t they end up at the same high school in their pyramid? For example, if a kid attends Waples ES, but is identified as AAP eligible (level IV) wouldn’t they still go to Oakton HS regardless of whether they attended Franklin MS (their base-feeder MS) or Carson MS (the AAP center)?

Unless they end up at TJ?

Ohhhhh…..I see….

Is that why Carson MS has been targeted as “problematic split feeder”? Is it really problematic? Is that why there is some voice on these boards warning people (messaging to the BRAC/future survey respondents) that “Carson is unsafe” and boundaries that include Carson may be responsible for a recent incident at Oakton?

Was this part of a push to split off one of the feeder communities into Carson MS that have historically resulted in Carson MS having the highest concentration of TJ placements? Isn’t that one of the goals of the recent changes to TJ admissions: get TJ attendance from a “better balance” of middle schools? For example, take a look at this website that lays out the impacts of recent changes to TJ admissions on middle school feeders:

https://www.tjtestprep.com/data

I know, a test prep site. But look at the middle school attendance data as it relates to TJ. That is the point.

How many students from Katherine Johnson MS attend TJ? How many from Carson? Can a review, house by house, of the demographics and other “data” by Thru consulting be used to figure out the relative concentration, by feeder ES, of “near miss” TJ kids?

Where do all those Waples zoned kids that go to Carson MS and don’t get into TJ currently end up: Oakton HS.

Show me how I am wrong. Show me that more “equitable balancing” is not what FCPS is after. I understand the IB placement argument at the HS level. Explain to me how eliminating AAP centers in middle school solves high school level capacity imbalances that otherwise require a boundary change solution. Because I don’t see it.

All I see is the disproportionate impact it would have on a student currently zoned to attend the AAP center at Carson MS if you shift them to Katherine Johnson MS.

I don’t have a dog in the fight of a lot of the schools you just mentioned, but elimination of AAP centers is discussed because in many instances it would solve capacity issues at the middle school level. We need to consider middle school capacities in the same way that we consider high school capacities.

A lot of “we consider” in your response.

Are you on the BRAC? If you were told that the numbers for MS 6-8 were run solely for the purposes of demonstrating how the software works, you have been mislead. I have receipts.

If you are on the BRAC, I can see that you take your role seriously and I appreciate your efforts to keep the public informed with posts on this board. Just consider this: if you have been mislead about the reason FCPS obtained the MS 6-8 data that you were presented, can you entirely trust everything you are told in BRAC meetings? Keep an open mind and a critical eye on what you are presented with. Otherwise, there is a risk that your diligent efforts and good intentions will be used to support a predetermined outcome.

If you are FCPS or one of their representatives, pushing a narrative on this site is highly problematic for other reasons…

I’m not BRAC and I’m not FCPS- the latter is one of the most insulting things I have ever been accused of. 🙂

I was just responding to the poster who had said she didn’t understand the rationale for the push to return AAP centers to their base school, and I was just pointing out that middle schools have capacity issues too. I’m not advocating for any boundary changes, far from it, but i think it’s doubly dumb to be moving kids for supposed capacity issues when so many kids are transferring out of the schools.

If you are not from Fairfax County, why are you here arguing about our rezoning?

Are you one of the childless out of state activists that are fixated on our schools?

Try to keep up. She was accusing me of working for FCPS. Over react much?