FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

They’d experience with “equitable access to programming” appears to relate primarily to students with special education needs:

https://www.thru.co/post/special-education-in-early-childhood

Including as a settlement monitor in districts where federally mandated services were not being provided:

https://ride.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur806/files/2023-09/settlement_agreement_-_plee_v._ppsd.pdf

Did anyone tell Thru that “equitable access to programming” in FCPS 8130.8 is viewed through a One Fairfax lens, and is not born of the same “providing access to students with disabilities” that Thru purports to advance?

Was the Thru website copy written to support a bid to FCPS based on the recent revisions to 8130? Maybe.

But it appears Thru’s idea of “access to programming” (“we support school districts in modernizing the business processes of special education”) (link below)is different from the “FARMS balancing” and One Fairfax focus of “equitable access to programming” FCPS appears to desire.

FCPS has a bad track record with meeting its federal obligations for students with special needs and Thru certainly had branded themselves as capable of addressing precisely this issue:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thruconsulting_washington-state-schools-missed-8500-kids-activity-7211060823652233216-TuAJ

Boy, this would all be a lot easier for everyone if FCPS would come out and say they hired Thru to help them ensure that they were meeting federal requirements for students with special education needs as they engage in fixing capacity issues at their schools. If that is all they are doing…

[Anonymous]

“Thru has experience with”

not

“They’d experience with”

But I’m sure you know what I meant.

[Anonymous]

For those of you following along at home:

One Fairfax: https://www.fcps.edu/onefairfax

One Fairfax Policy: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/AT3P5262E051/$file/One%20Fairfax%20Policy_Final.11.20.2017.pdf

Policy 8130.8 (Boundary Review): https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

[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.

The Fairfax HS island is because Fairfax Villa used to feed Fairfax HS. Then Fairfax City decided that too many county kids were in the city HS and kicked them out. Did that change? Why do we think Fairfax City will be okay with moving more kids in now? And if they are, why not move Fairfax Villa back in and fix that giant island?

[Anonymous]

Yes, exactly. That is the type thinking that helps us plan and work forward. Together all things are possible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please explain who "Thru" is? I keep seeing this name mentioned but not sure who they are. Thanks!

Thru is the no-bid consultants that are conducting the boundary review analysis and making recommendations to BRAC and the school board. They are not local and do not know how NOVA functions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally agree!

Disagree. It won't make things better. It will just shift a lot of kids --and it won't necessarily be to closer schools.
Unless they get rid of IB, it will still allow rampant pupil placement.
And, in this time of uncertainty, it will cause more disruption. Not to mention all the families who end up with kids in two high schools at the same time.

Not to mention how much it will cost in a time of scant resources.

Yep. Anyone pushing for boundary changes at this point is blind to public opinion and the state of the county.

Nobody wants their own kids moved.

boundary changes are never popular, but remember more than half the county has no children in the schools and the majority of students will not have their boundary changed - so it doesn’t affect as many voters as some on this board think.

Dopey lecture from someone who pretends there are efficiencies to be gleaned from boundary changes but doesn’t give a crap that the childless dope who is the SB chair is wasting over $85 million of our money on an unnecessary ES at Dunn Loring.

The only good thing about this boundary review is that it may expose just how incompetent Reid is and hypocritical the SB members are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally agree!

Disagree. It won't make things better. It will just shift a lot of kids --and it won't necessarily be to closer schools.
Unless they get rid of IB, it will still allow rampant pupil placement.
And, in this time of uncertainty, it will cause more disruption. Not to mention all the families who end up with kids in two high schools at the same time.

Not to mention how much it will cost in a time of scant resources.

Yep. Anyone pushing for boundary changes at this point is blind to public opinion and the state of the county.

Nobody wants their own kids moved.

boundary changes are never popular, but remember more than half the county has no children in the schools and the majority of students will not have their boundary changed - so it doesn’t affect as many voters as some on this board think.

Dopey lecture from someone who pretends there are efficiencies to be gleaned from boundary changes but doesn’t give a crap that the childless dope who is the SB chair is wasting over $85 million of our money on an unnecessary ES at Dunn Loring.

The only good thing about this boundary review is that it may expose just how incompetent Reid is and hypocritical the SB members are.

From the arguments I see here most FCPS residents don’t see the folly of the boundary study. After all they elected this inept SB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally agree!

Disagree. It won't make things better. It will just shift a lot of kids --and it won't necessarily be to closer schools.
Unless they get rid of IB, it will still allow rampant pupil placement.
And, in this time of uncertainty, it will cause more disruption. Not to mention all the families who end up with kids in two high schools at the same time.

Not to mention how much it will cost in a time of scant resources.

Yep. Anyone pushing for boundary changes at this point is blind to public opinion and the state of the county.

Nobody wants their own kids moved.

boundary changes are never popular, but remember more than half the county has no children in the schools and the majority of students will not have their boundary changed - so it doesn’t affect as many voters as some on this board think.

Dopey lecture from someone who pretends there are efficiencies to be gleaned from boundary changes but doesn’t give a crap that the childless dope who is the SB chair is wasting over $85 million of our money on an unnecessary ES at Dunn Loring.

The only good thing about this boundary review is that it may expose just how incompetent Reid is and hypocritical the SB members are.

From the arguments I see here most FCPS residents don’t see the folly of the boundary study. After all they elected this inept SB.

They don’t see the folly because the school board members absolutely hid this from the voters when they were running for school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally agree!

Disagree. It won't make things better. It will just shift a lot of kids --and it won't necessarily be to closer schools.
Unless they get rid of IB, it will still allow rampant pupil placement.
And, in this time of uncertainty, it will cause more disruption. Not to mention all the families who end up with kids in two high schools at the same time.

Not to mention how much it will cost in a time of scant resources.

Yep. Anyone pushing for boundary changes at this point is blind to public opinion and the state of the county.

Nobody wants their own kids moved.

boundary changes are never popular, but remember more than half the county has no children in the schools and the majority of students will not have their boundary changed - so it doesn’t affect as many voters as some on this board think.

Dopey lecture from someone who pretends there are efficiencies to be gleaned from boundary changes but doesn’t give a crap that the childless dope who is the SB chair is wasting over $85 million of our money on an unnecessary ES at Dunn Loring.

The only good thing about this boundary review is that it may expose just how incompetent Reid is and hypocritical the SB members are.

From the arguments I see here most FCPS residents don’t see the folly of the boundary study. After all they elected this inept SB.

They don’t see the folly because the school board members absolutely hid this from the voters when they were running for school board.

I was primarily referring to the failure to first address issues that cause students to move from home schools such as IB and AAP and the truly silly idea of moving to 6-8 MS. Although Stevie Wonder would have seen the boundary issue was part of the dems plan to enforce equity across the system.

[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.

The Fairfax HS island is because Fairfax Villa used to feed Fairfax HS. Then Fairfax City decided that too many county kids were in the city HS and kicked them out. Did that change? Why do we think Fairfax City will be okay with moving more kids in now? And if they are, why not move Fairfax Villa back in and fix that giant island?

If Fairfax City wants to kick Fairfax County kids out of a school, they need to run their own schools. They shouldn’t be allowed to do that

[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.

The Fairfax HS island is because Fairfax Villa used to feed Fairfax HS. Then Fairfax City decided that too many county kids were in the city HS and kicked them out. Did that change? Why do we think Fairfax City will be okay with moving more kids in now? And if they are, why not move Fairfax Villa back in and fix that giant island?

If Fairfax City wants to kick Fairfax County kids out of a school, they need to run their own schools. They shouldn’t be allowed to do that

What do you propose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally agree!

Disagree. It won't make things better. It will just shift a lot of kids --and it won't necessarily be to closer schools.
Unless they get rid of IB, it will still allow rampant pupil placement.
And, in this time of uncertainty, it will cause more disruption. Not to mention all the families who end up with kids in two high schools at the same time.

Not to mention how much it will cost in a time of scant resources.

Yep. Anyone pushing for boundary changes at this point is blind to public opinion and the state of the county.

Nobody wants their own kids moved.

boundary changes are never popular, but remember more than half the county has no children in the schools and the majority of students will not have their boundary changed - so it doesn’t affect as many voters as some on this board think.

Dopey lecture from someone who pretends there are efficiencies to be gleaned from boundary changes but doesn’t give a crap that the childless dope who is the SB chair is wasting over $85 million of our money on an unnecessary ES at Dunn Loring.

The only good thing about this boundary review is that it may expose just how incompetent Reid is and hypocritical the SB members are.

From the arguments I see here most FCPS residents don’t see the folly of the boundary study. After all they elected this inept SB.

They don’t see the folly because the school board members absolutely hid this from the voters when they were running for school board.

I was primarily referring to the failure to first address issues that cause students to move from home schools such as IB and AAP and the truly silly idea of moving to 6-8 MS. Although Stevie Wonder would have seen the boundary issue was part of the dems plan to enforce equity across the system.

It’s easy with hindsight to say this, but the school board members really did a great job of hiding their plan from the public.

We know why they did, because it is immensely unpopular. That’s also why they are rushing to get the maps drawn soon rather than on a reasonable time frame. They know these changes could damage reelection chances, and they want them to be fully baked before next election.

I think they underestimate the blowback they’ll get, even a year after the changes. The school board has shown nothing but disdain for the will of its constituents.

They’ve paid more attention to New Orleans strippers than they have reviewing the notes from the community meetings which show overwhelming opposition to these changes.

[Anonymous]

Let’s go step-by-step. Identify whether there is a “problem” that current policy is intended to address.

Policy 8130.8 states includes the following “eliminate…attendance islands.” (Let’s set aside whether this phrase is a mandate for a change or merely a consideration of changes are otherwise necessitated).

Now, look at the maps. Start with these two:

City of Fairfax:

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/630fb684d51d479bb88a438ddf788043/

Currently ES boundaries with current HS boundaries:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithHighSchoolBoundaries.pdf

There is an attendance island. All of Willow Springs ES and Eagle View ES and parts of Powell ES and Greenbrier East ES are on an attendance island cause by Fairfax Villa ES. Accordingly to a PP, Fairfax Villa ES previously attended Fairfax HS. None of these schools is in city of Fairfax. What to do? Back to the policy.

Policy 8130.8 requires the superintendent to use enrollment and capacity projections. That would be the CIP, which accounts for a renovation of Centreville HS, and a future capacity projections of 68% (holy cats!!!). The policy also requires “focusing on long-term attendance zone stability.”

Look at this map again:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithHighSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Does it make sense to “fix” the Fairfax Villa attendance island “problem” now, or do it the next time around, when the Centreville expansion is completed. Fairfax HS can’t take any more students now. Centreville can’t either. But when the renovation is completed, Willow Springs and Eagle view could feed into Centreville and Fairfax Villa could return to Fairfax HS.

Isn’t that a bit more of a balanced approach that follows existing policy?

[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.

The Fairfax HS island is because Fairfax Villa used to feed Fairfax HS. Then Fairfax City decided that too many county kids were in the city HS and kicked them out. Did that change? Why do we think Fairfax City will be okay with moving more kids in now? And if they are, why not move Fairfax Villa back in and fix that giant island?

If Fairfax City wants to kick Fairfax County kids out of a school, they need to run their own schools. They shouldn’t be allowed to do that

They didn’t do it unilaterally. They asked and FCPS complied with the request. The county still gets to send some kids to a city-owned school, and the school contracts with FCPS to operate it. It’s been a mutually beneficial but at times uncomfortable arrangement.

Long term it would be better if Fairfax HS only served city kids but that would require additional capacity in western Fairfax. Maybe the Centreville expansion will come closer to making it possible.