FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 to the bold.

[Anonymous]

Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

[Anonymous]

“Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty”
- John Philpot Curran (and anyone with students in a grade lower than 10th in FCPS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Telling, of course, that you never bother to define the “problem.” That’s because this has long been a solution in search of a problem, started without any effort to first tackle the issues that actually warrant attention, such as the future of AAP centers and underwhelming IB programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

A pause is a de facto end to the boundary study but SB and Reid would never go so far to say it was a mistake to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

A pause is a de facto end to the boundary study but SB and Reid would never go so far to say it was a mistake to begin with.

+1 a pause on the large scale boundary study would push it out past the next SB election at the VERY least and that’s tantamount to canceling it altogether.

I guess they’d just keep the Coates and Parklawn ES boundary studies on the table (with whatever trickle down changes have been identified as a result of those schools being over crowded) and punt on everything else for now …

I wonder if they’ll hold the boundary study indefinitely while pushing ahead on MS start times and 6th to middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

[Anonymous]

Ugg. I meant:

“Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch IS WISHFUL THINKING.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

DP. Look, we all want to be able to rely on the CIP, but there are known significant issues with the projections contained therein. Specifically, there is an undercount of new students from residential developments. It’s a known issue and an easy fix, but it has not been fixed yet.

Until then, we’re flying blind with the CIP, and we can thank this issue for the unnecessary expansions that have been made over the last decade or so. These expansions are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you want the CIP to be reliable, tell FCPS to fix the way it considers residential development projected to be completed in five years or less that has not broken ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

AAP centers and IB schools are the drivers for kids not attending their home schools and so are a core element in making decisions to address boundaries.

If you can’t see that then, you will never see why the current effort if continued is not going to solve the problem.

If you can’t see that local economy is about to be disrupted and CIP data may no longer be reliable you will be disappointed with whatever changes are made.

If you are unaware that the K-12 student population will continue to drop going forward then you are as uniformed as the SB and Reid.

Agree no need for name calling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

DP. Look, we all want to be able to rely on the CIP, but there are known significant issues with the projections contained therein. Specifically, there is an undercount of new students from residential developments. It’s a known issue and an easy fix, but it has not been fixed yet.

Until then, we’re flying blind with the CIP, and we can thank this issue for the unnecessary expansions that have been made over the last decade or so. These expansions are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you want the CIP to be reliable, tell FCPS to fix the way it considers residential development projected to be completed in five years or less that has not broken ground.

And you are not making a self-serving argument….

Under your path of logic, we should not rely on the CIP projections that include a much-needed renovation/expansion to Centreville that would relieve over-capacity and send several ES that are closer to Centreville into Centreville and out of Fairfax. It would directly address capacity and allow FCPS to 1) fix an attendance island and 2) make Fairfax HS just for Fairfax city.

Your arguments are weak and do collateral damage to strong, planning-based arguments across the county.