FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is making Langley over capacity the first step to moving Forestville back to HHS?

Probably

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is making Langley over capacity the first step to moving Forestville back to HHS?

Not necessarily. By their own estimate, moving the Tysons island to Cooper/Langley just puts Cooper at 101% and Langley at 102% capacity. That's no big deal.

But they haven't gotten to the part yet where they focus on capacity imbalances (which they would actually increase in some other cases with their proposed solutions to the attendance islands).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like in the course of proposing to "fix" the attendance islands at Longfellow/McLean, and the current situation where Graham Road ES is located its current boundaries, they would potentially, among other things:

* Move the "Tysons island" from Longfellow/McLean to Cooper/Langley (which would eliminate the current split feeder at Spring Hill);

* Move part of Shrevewood (Falls Hill) from Kilmer/Marshall to Longfellow/McLean, and turn Shrevewood into a new split feeder;

* Move part of Shrevewood to Timber Lane and part of Timber Lane to Graham Road; and

* Move part of Jackson to Longfellow, while keeping those kids at Falls Church, thereby turning Longfellow into a new split feeder.

It's a lot of changes for comparatively little benefit and some new split feeders. They end up with a lot of boundaries that look highly gerrymandered but without attendance islands.

They also show, as part of the domino effect of "fixing" the Graham Road situation, moving the Madison kids at Kilmer over to Thoreau. That's probably fine with Madison parents but doubt they would have anticipated it as a outgrowth of dealing with Graham Road ES.

The other bizzare part of Timber Lane/Graham Road is that the Pine Spring island fix leaves part of the area between 29 and 50 as a Timber Lane/Longfellow/Falls Church pyramid.

Yeah, I tried to point that out, but maybe it didn't come across clearly.

I understand they were trying to fix the fact that Graham Road sits in an area currently zoned to Timber Lane and Pine Spring has an attendance island. So they came up with a scenario to change the boundaries of those schools, and some other schools, including Shrevewood and Westlawn. Then they considered whether they could make Timber Lane a 100% feeder to Longfellow/McLean. Longfellow has extra capacity and McLean does not, so the proposed solution was to have "new" Timber Lane feed 100% to Longfellow (it's currently a fairly even split feeder to Longfellow/McLean and Jackson/Falls Church), but then still split to McLean and Falls Church. That would create a situation where maybe only 5% of Longfellow would go to Falls Church and the rest would still go to McLean - the exact type of situation, in other words, that they have separately called out as a "split feeder" problem and plan to focus on at the next meeting. They might be better off just leaving Timber Lane as a split feeder, since it would be a fairly even split even under the new proposal if the kids south of 29 still went to Jackson/Falls Church.

In any event, it all raises a question as to whether the next meeting will just focus on the existing split feeders that are lopsided, or also consider the ones that they may be looking to create now.

The current Timberlane/longfellow/mclean area should be moved to Jackson and Falls Church. For the sake of equity, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is making Langley over capacity the first step to moving Forestville back to HHS?

Probably

You can’t knock down the dominoes without first setting them up the way you want them to fall.

[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.

You're remarkably ill-informed and narrow-minded if you think the CTs at AAP middle schools are the only ones who have spent years planning and perfecting rich lessons for advanced learners.

I sent children through both the AAP center and the local program at our base MS, and I was far more impressed with the instruction at the base MS, in the local AAP program.

I teach at a center MS, and I can assure you that our honors and AAP teachers are no more qualified or well-versed in planning for advanced learners than the teachers at non-center schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What part of greater Fort Hunt area would be moved from Sandburg/WestPo to Whitman/MVHS?

Is that Hollin Hall? It's the neighborhood right around Whitman but can't see which one on the map....

I think the lines on the map are the waterways, it looks like it might be Candlewood Drive from Collingwood up to Sherwood Hall. It looks like the other side of Candlewood up to Hinson Farm road is not included. Also looks like Evening/Midday/Wellington/Courtland Road/that area around Mt. Vernon Presbyterian Church might be included in Whitman now. It doesn't look like a ton of streets, they clearly just carved enough out that Whitman is actually in its boundaries now.

[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.

You're remarkably ill-informed and narrow-minded if you think the CTs at AAP middle schools are the only ones who have spent years planning and perfecting rich lessons for advanced learners.

I sent children through both the AAP center and the local program at our base MS, and I was far more impressed with the instruction at the base MS, in the local AAP program.

I teach at a center MS, and I can assure you that our honors and AAP teachers are no more qualified or well-versed in planning for advanced learners than the teachers at non-center schools.

Ok. That is an odd response to my post. I don’t see how it is responsive to anything I said in bold, but ok. What is your point, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Thankful there’s nothing about Waples moved to Fairfax HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 99.5% sure that moving the boundaries for Ravensworth to fix the attendance island would put Kings Glen (4-6) in Ravensworth territory, increasing the amount of bussing necessary as those kids would have been able to walk to both kings park and kings Glen.

Yes I think you're right. The Ravensworth change makes no sense. They are taking 3 schools that are balanced in capacity use and then removing part of the Kings Park neighborhood. We're in the signal hill part of the Ravensworth boundary and are fine with how it's set up now. This is a solution in search of a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thankful there’s nothing about Waples moved to Fairfax HS.

Also a Waples parent! I think that would be in the next one (split feeders) but I’m trying to figure out how much of Franklin feeds to Oakton.

[Anonymous]

All the Navy ES and Waples kids feed into Oakton.

[Anonymous]

New to the discussion, forgive my ignorance. Is "Scenario 1" meant to be Phase 1, i.e. more proposed changes are coming perhaps pertaining to other regions or schools? Or "Scenario 1" as in there is another option that will be proposed possibly with completely different makeups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thankful there’s nothing about Waples moved to Fairfax HS.

Also a Waples parent! I think that would be in the next one (split feeders) but I’m trying to figure out how much of Franklin feeds to Oakton.

I think it is mostly just kids from Navy and Waples Mill. Maybe all of Navy? Parts of Navy might go to Chantilly. But it appears they plan to move the Franklin Farm portion of Navy to Oak Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have there been any discussions about student transfers for high school? Seems like the numbers in the slides assume that transfers are held constant.

This would not be case with many of these changes.

No this is being ignored

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thankful there’s nothing about Waples moved to Fairfax HS.

Also a Waples parent! I think that would be in the next one (split feeders) but I’m trying to figure out how much of Franklin feeds to Oakton.

I think it is mostly just kids from Navy and Waples Mill. Maybe all of Navy? Parts of Navy might go to Chantilly. But it appears they plan to move the Franklin Farm portion of Navy to Oak Hill.

Just checked the maps. Looks like a very small part of Navy goes to Chantilly. Probably a very small number.