FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And how did we hear it would be paused?? And when will the public know?

I’m pretty sure it’s just someone trolling.

It's someone with a high school sophomore or junior trying to make "fetch" happen. The problem for them is that all of us with 7th graders and below don't want a pause. Either scrap the whole thing or get it over with. I am hoping the scope is dialed way back after all the pushback though.

[Anonymous]

They better not pause. This review is way overdue and they already expended money and caused angst (especially among a small percentage of people who post on her constantly- “school board shill”; “boundary changes for thee but not for me” and “where do your kids go to school?!”. This work needs to be done and they should see it through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They better not pause. This review is way overdue and they already expended money and caused angst (especially among a small percentage of people who post on her constantly- “school board shill”; “boundary changes for thee but not for me” and “where do your kids go to school?!”. This work needs to be done and they should see it through.

Why are you so agitated about this? Just how badly do you want kids moved into your school or for your kids to get moved to another school?

Enrollment is flat. Enrollment projections, never great, are going to be particularly unreliable given all the economic uncertainty in the region. People are losing their jobs and seeing their ability to remain in this area impaired by Trump's economic "policies."

The least they can do is show some grace and put this boundary project on hold for now.

[Anonymous]

DP... there will never be a perfect time, which is how we got in the current mess with ridiculous attendance islands like Fort Hunt to begin with.

That said, they're also cart before the horse here on boundaries... if we're sticking with MS 7-8, IB programs, AAP centers, and other current programming (Special Ed centers, Immersion, etc.) ALL remaining as status quo, then by all means proceed. But if they're looking to change any of these things, that needs to get sorted out first before we go about doing boundary changes... unless the want to narrow scope to ONLY making changes needed to eliminate attendance islands and reduce split feeders or similar low-hanging fruit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP... there will never be a perfect time, which is how we got in the current mess with ridiculous attendance islands like Fort Hunt to begin with.

That said, they're also cart before the horse here on boundaries... if we're sticking with MS 7-8, IB programs, AAP centers, and other current programming (Special Ed centers, Immersion, etc.) ALL remaining as status quo, then by all means proceed. But if they're looking to change any of these things, that needs to get sorted out first before we go about doing boundary changes... unless the want to narrow scope to ONLY making changes needed to eliminate attendance islands and reduce split feeders or similar low-hanging fruit.

Maybe it’s low-hanging fruit at the ES level. Getting rid of the attendance island that goes to Johnson MS and Fairfax HS, for example, would be complicated.

[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.

+100
DP. They need to return all kids to their base schools - elementary and middle, AAP, IB, etc. Only THEN should they take a good hard look at capacities and boundaries and adjust at that point. AAP centers are redundant and wasteful. Sending these kids back to their base schools and ending their free busing to other schools is a good step in the right direction. At that point, boundaries can be adjusted depending on capacities at various schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is very sensible. I-66 is major geographic boundary. Much more so than route 7, even with its barriers and multiple lanes of traffic. I-66 and route 7 are not the same thing.

Sending a students zoned in Waples across I-66 to Johnson/Fairfax would be absurd. You would be trading 2 years of whatever “benefit” you believe exists from a MS shift from Carson/Franklin to Johnson for 6 years of cross-66 transit through the heart of Fairfax, with 2-3 of those years being new, teenage drivers. That would be a ridiculous move.

I’m not advocating for the change, but highways as barriers is much different than something like Rt-7 or Rt-50. In most cases when a highway is a barrier, there is an overpass or underpass to cross it. There are McLean walkers who “cross” 267 daily. The bigger hassle Waples parents would experience is traffic on Rt-50 to get to Fairfax HS. Not the act of crossing I-66.

Wow, Langley. Aren’t you the least bit concerned that throwing so many other parts of the county under the bus to keep Herndon addresses that are on the Herndon High side of route 7 zoned to Langley will slow the busses down so much that FCPS has a transit base case for boundary change? Wow.

DP. WTF. You have no idea which school the PP's kids go to. None whatsoever. She sounds very knowledgeable about several different regions. Maybe you should dial back your constant griping about "Langley." You just look ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP... there will never be a perfect time, which is how we got in the current mess with ridiculous attendance islands like Fort Hunt to begin with.

That said, they're also cart before the horse here on boundaries... if we're sticking with MS 7-8, IB programs, AAP centers, and other current programming (Special Ed centers, Immersion, etc.) ALL remaining as status quo, then by all means proceed. But if they're looking to change any of these things, that needs to get sorted out first before we go about doing boundary changes... unless the want to narrow scope to ONLY making changes needed to eliminate attendance islands and reduce split feeders or similar low-hanging fruit.

Maybe it’s low-hanging fruit at the ES level. Getting rid of the attendance island that goes to Johnson MS and Fairfax HS, for example, would be complicated.

Does Oakton build from 3 split feeders? This would also be complicated as well.

But there is definitely some low-hanging fruit they could change and call it “comprehensive”.

[Anonymous]

The attendance islands also don’t want to be moved - it gets back to “why” and if there is not specific reasons we should be be disrupting kids and families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP... there will never be a perfect time, which is how we got in the current mess with ridiculous attendance islands like Fort Hunt to begin with.

That said, they're also cart before the horse here on boundaries... if we're sticking with MS 7-8, IB programs, AAP centers, and other current programming (Special Ed centers, Immersion, etc.) ALL remaining as status quo, then by all means proceed. But if they're looking to change any of these things, that needs to get sorted out first before we go about doing boundary changes... unless the want to narrow scope to ONLY making changes needed to eliminate attendance islands and reduce split feeders or similar low-hanging fruit.

Maybe it’s low-hanging fruit at the ES level. Getting rid of the attendance island that goes to Johnson MS and Fairfax HS, for example, would be complicated.

The Fairfax attendance island is so strange. I guess you could flip that Woodson chunk into Fairfax but not sure how would could then boost their capacity. That area is so crammed with Fairfax, Woodson, Braddock, Robinson, Annandale so close. Even West Springfield, Falls Church, and Oakton squish it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP... there will never be a perfect time, which is how we got in the current mess with ridiculous attendance islands like Fort Hunt to begin with.

That said, they're also cart before the horse here on boundaries... if we're sticking with MS 7-8, IB programs, AAP centers, and other current programming (Special Ed centers, Immersion, etc.) ALL remaining as status quo, then by all means proceed. But if they're looking to change any of these things, that needs to get sorted out first before we go about doing boundary changes... unless the want to narrow scope to ONLY making changes needed to eliminate attendance islands and reduce split feeders or similar low-hanging fruit.

Maybe it’s low-hanging fruit at the ES level. Getting rid of the attendance island that goes to Johnson MS and Fairfax HS, for example, would be complicated.

The Fairfax attendance island is so strange. I guess you could flip that Woodson chunk into Fairfax but not sure how would could then boost their capacity. That area is so crammed with Fairfax, Woodson, Braddock, Robinson, Annandale so close. Even West Springfield, Falls Church, and Oakton squish it.

This is why students need to be brought back and stay at their base schools BEFORE massive rezoning occurs. If Thru looks at the latest CIP projections, it makes sense for them to recommend Herndon expand the northwest side of FCPS, taking the Langley and West field chunks. Everything else for Chantilly, Centerville and that Fairfax island continue to flow west then. But as pointed out previously, the CIP numbers are off and how are they even predicting them with all the insane transfer outs and ins as shown from the recent BRAC analysis.

Though that Fairfax island is wild, most of it is geographically closer to Centreville AND would follow a better traffic pattern if flipped there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The attendance islands also don’t want to be moved - it gets back to “why” and if there is not specific reasons we should be be disrupting kids and families.

I think there’s an argument if bus routes and transit timing. They are trying to bring everything geographically tighter and more defined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The attendance islands also don’t want to be moved - it gets back to “why” and if there is not specific reasons we should be be disrupting kids and families.

There are certain islands and boundaries at the elementary level in higher FARMS areas where returning those neighborhoods to a closer school might have a positive impact on attendance and parent participation at the school vs. the kids being bussed to a school that’s further away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP... there will never be a perfect time, which is how we got in the current mess with ridiculous attendance islands like Fort Hunt to begin with.

That said, they're also cart before the horse here on boundaries... if we're sticking with MS 7-8, IB programs, AAP centers, and other current programming (Special Ed centers, Immersion, etc.) ALL remaining as status quo, then by all means proceed. But if they're looking to change any of these things, that needs to get sorted out first before we go about doing boundary changes... unless the want to narrow scope to ONLY making changes needed to eliminate attendance islands and reduce split feeders or similar low-hanging fruit.

Maybe it’s low-hanging fruit at the ES level. Getting rid of the attendance island that goes to Johnson MS and Fairfax HS, for example, would be complicated.

The Fairfax attendance island is so strange. I guess you could flip that Woodson chunk into Fairfax but not sure how would could then boost their capacity. That area is so crammed with Fairfax, Woodson, Braddock, Robinson, Annandale so close. Even West Springfield, Falls Church, and Oakton squish it.

This is why students need to be brought back and stay at their base schools BEFORE massive rezoning occurs. If Thru looks at the latest CIP projections, it makes sense for them to recommend Herndon expand the northwest side of FCPS, taking the Langley and West field chunks. Everything else for Chantilly, Centerville and that Fairfax island continue to flow west then. But as pointed out previously, the CIP numbers are off and how are they even predicting them with all the insane transfer outs and ins as shown from the recent BRAC analysis.

Though that Fairfax island is wild, most of it is geographically closer to Centreville AND would follow a better traffic pattern if flipped there.

If I were Thru, I would be so confused how this county has been developed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP... there will never be a perfect time, which is how we got in the current mess with ridiculous attendance islands like Fort Hunt to begin with.

That said, they're also cart before the horse here on boundaries... if we're sticking with MS 7-8, IB programs, AAP centers, and other current programming (Special Ed centers, Immersion, etc.) ALL remaining as status quo, then by all means proceed. But if they're looking to change any of these things, that needs to get sorted out first before we go about doing boundary changes... unless the want to narrow scope to ONLY making changes needed to eliminate attendance islands and reduce split feeders or similar low-hanging fruit.

Maybe it’s low-hanging fruit at the ES level. Getting rid of the attendance island that goes to Johnson MS and Fairfax HS, for example, would be complicated.

The Fairfax attendance island is so strange. I guess you could flip that Woodson chunk into Fairfax but not sure how would could then boost their capacity. That area is so crammed with Fairfax, Woodson, Braddock, Robinson, Annandale so close. Even West Springfield, Falls Church, and Oakton squish it.

This is why students need to be brought back and stay at their base schools BEFORE massive rezoning occurs. If Thru looks at the latest CIP projections, it makes sense for them to recommend Herndon expand the northwest side of FCPS, taking the Langley and West field chunks. Everything else for Chantilly, Centerville and that Fairfax island continue to flow west then. But as pointed out previously, the CIP numbers are off and how are they even predicting them with all the insane transfer outs and ins as shown from the recent BRAC analysis.

Though that Fairfax island is wild, most of it is geographically closer to Centreville AND would follow a better traffic pattern if flipped there.

If I were Thru, I would be so confused how this county has been developed.

Thru is wholly unqualified and was selected on a no bid basis.

Thru was always going to be confused, they just aren’t up to the task