FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses on the likelihood that changes so far will stick? Trying to determine how worried I should be…

According to the timeline, these are draft scenarios. They are collecting initial BRAC feedback per region and releasing these one by one iterations, attendance islands, split feeders, then capacity.

Looks like next month will open to community feedback for more context. After all that, they will present the final scenario for the school board to approve.

So I am sure some of these will stick. Others will evolve with the other scenario releases and feedback.

The pyramid representatives may know nothing about your own neighborhood. These are from high school pyramids and not the neighborhood elementary schools.

They should have spread a wider net.

The committee size is already unwieldy. Besides, it’s fairly easy to become familiar with a High School and its elementary school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses on the likelihood that changes so far will stick? Trying to determine how worried I should be…

According to the timeline, these are draft scenarios. They are collecting initial BRAC feedback per region and releasing these one by one iterations, attendance islands, split feeders, then capacity.

Looks like next month will open to community feedback for more context. After all that, they will present the final scenario for the school board to approve.

So I am sure some of these will stick. Others will evolve with the other scenario releases and feedback.

The pyramid representatives may know nothing about your own neighborhood. These are from high school pyramids and not the neighborhood elementary schools.

They should have spread a wider net.

The committee size is already unwieldy. Besides, it’s fairly easy to become familiar with a High School and its elementary school boundaries.

When both reps are from the same neighborhood at the other end of the boundaries, your confidence is questionable. Especially, if their own children have not reached high school age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses on the likelihood that changes so far will stick? Trying to determine how worried I should be…

According to the timeline, these are draft scenarios. They are collecting initial BRAC feedback per region and releasing these one by one iterations, attendance islands, split feeders, then capacity.

Looks like next month will open to community feedback for more context. After all that, they will present the final scenario for the school board to approve.

So I am sure some of these will stick. Others will evolve with the other scenario releases and feedback.

The pyramid representatives may know nothing about your own neighborhood. These are from high school pyramids and not the neighborhood elementary schools.

They should have spread a wider net.

The committee size is already unwieldy. Besides, it’s fairly easy to become familiar with a High School and its elementary school boundaries.

When both reps are from the same neighborhood at the other end of the boundaries, your confidence is questionable. Especially, if their own children have not reached high school age.

cont. i was not familiar with many other neighborhoods until my kids were in high school and interacted with people who lived there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh man there are definitely some Oakton elementary parents that are upset today with the suggested map putting a good chunk to flint hill.

There are a good chunk of Flint Hill parents upset about Oakton. That switch makes no sense. The boundaries look odd, I’ll give you that. But, the bus routes make sense. And it doesn’t change anything.

The change truly makes no sense. Ostensibly, the purpose of the change was to get rid of the FHES island off of Vale, right? They made the Island problem more egregious by doing this.

By any reasonable definition, if someone has to drive through a different school zone to get to their school, then they're on an island. Under the proposed plan, a section of Vale that is now zoned to Oakton would need to make a significant incursion through either FHES or Waples territory before they could reach Oakton ES. They proposal puts them on an island.

Under the original zoning, they were on an island, but only because the Vale neighborhoods happened to cross paths with the Hunter Mill neighborhoods, incidentally creating an island. Not nearly as bad as what they're proposing now.

What makes it ridiculous is that it's obvious what happened - the people who came up with this looked at the uniform colored blobs on the map and said, "hey, look, no islands!" They didn't even stop to think for a moment what an island actually means, in practical terms - or how being disconnected from your classmates might impact an ES kid. When you lack the confidence that the people making decisions possess reasonable intelligence, it's hard to have faith that changes will turn out well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s revisit Franklin/Carson/Rocky Run.

If we move (1) Franklin kids who are already zoned to Chantilly to Rocky Run, (2) Carson kids zoned to SLHS (fox mill and some Floris kids) to Hughes, and (3) Crossfield kids from Carson to Franklin, will this solve the split feeder problem?

Carson is not overcrowded, why would you move all these kids out of Carson without moving new kids in? Also Crossfield is zoned to Oakton, it doesn't make sense to move those kids to Franklin unless you are moving all those kids to Chantilly too, which is ridiculous given how overcrowded Chantilly HS is. The post several weeks ago about moving anyone from Carson that is zoned to Chantilly to Franklin makes the most sense. But don't move kids zoned to Oakton to yet another MS.

Carson is a three way split feeder. Tell me how to fix it.

Is that really a “problem” that needs solving?

Yes it does. My kids made friends and they all went to different schools. One way to do this is to get rid of AAP at Carson.

OMG. “Get rid of AAP centers because my kid made friends that went to different schools.”

I bet that is your argument for getting rid of TJ, too. Some kids don’t get in and they end up going to a different school.

Wait for high school: not everyone goes to the same school after that, either.

I don't know about other center schools, but over half of Carson is AAP. There are well enough AAP kids in Franklin boundary to have a center there and a center at Carson if you send the Navy kids there along with the AAP kids from Crossfield. And, you would still have Floris and Fox Mill there, too.

+ 1. There is no reason that consolidating all of the Navy/Waples/Crossfields kids that feed into Oakton at a renovated Franklin can’t form a new AAP center.

The point is getting rid of AAP centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses on the likelihood that changes so far will stick? Trying to determine how worried I should be…

According to the timeline, these are draft scenarios. They are collecting initial BRAC feedback per region and releasing these one by one iterations, attendance islands, split feeders, then capacity.

Looks like next month will open to community feedback for more context. After all that, they will present the final scenario for the school board to approve.

So I am sure some of these will stick. Others will evolve with the other scenario releases and feedback.

The pyramid representatives may know nothing about your own neighborhood. These are from high school pyramids and not the neighborhood elementary schools.

They should have spread a wider net.

The committee size is already unwieldy. Besides, it’s fairly easy to become familiar with a High School and its elementary school boundaries.

When both reps are from the same neighborhood at the other end of the boundaries, your confidence is questionable. Especially, if their own children have not reached high school age.

Our high school pyramid has that.

But the families live on polar opposite ends of the elementary zone, and the 2 people chosen represent 2 different elementary schools in 2 different pyramids, the middle school and the high school, and are connected with families from our entire pyramid through sports, activities, church the middle school and the high school.

Collectively, they give a fairly comprehensive insight into the needs of our high school pyramid, even if they happen to be zoned for the same elementary.

[Anonymous]

Split feeders and capacity should be done simultaneously. What happened to this advanced visualization tool that used several data sources and could be manipulated to show real time changes?

The data on the slide look like outputs of basic excel formulas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses on the likelihood that changes so far will stick? Trying to determine how worried I should be…

According to the timeline, these are draft scenarios. They are collecting initial BRAC feedback per region and releasing these one by one iterations, attendance islands, split feeders, then capacity.

Looks like next month will open to community feedback for more context. After all that, they will present the final scenario for the school board to approve.

So I am sure some of these will stick. Others will evolve with the other scenario releases and feedback.

The pyramid representatives may know nothing about your own neighborhood. These are from high school pyramids and not the neighborhood elementary schools.

They should have spread a wider net.

The committee size is already unwieldy. Besides, it’s fairly easy to become familiar with a High School and its elementary school boundaries.

When both reps are from the same neighborhood at the other end of the boundaries, your confidence is questionable. Especially, if their own children have not reached high school age.

You do know that with AAP centers, people can be zone for the same base schools but not actually have kids attending the same elementary or middle school?

With differing aged kids, you could have 2 people zoned for the same elementary school, but one has teenagers and the other a kindergartner, who don't know each other and have very different perspectives and priorities on rezoning.

Some of the elementary zones are quite large, and cross through major roads. The priorities and perspective of a rep from one end of the zone might be very different than the person on the other end of the zone.

There are a lot of variables that make "from the same elementary" not as big of an issue that you might think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses on the likelihood that changes so far will stick? Trying to determine how worried I should be…

According to the timeline, these are draft scenarios. They are collecting initial BRAC feedback per region and releasing these one by one iterations, attendance islands, split feeders, then capacity.

Looks like next month will open to community feedback for more context. After all that, they will present the final scenario for the school board to approve.

So I am sure some of these will stick. Others will evolve with the other scenario releases and feedback.

The pyramid representatives may know nothing about your own neighborhood. These are from high school pyramids and not the neighborhood elementary schools.

They should have spread a wider net.

The committee size is already unwieldy. Besides, it’s fairly easy to become familiar with a High School and its elementary school boundaries.

When both reps are from the same neighborhood at the other end of the boundaries, your confidence is questionable. Especially, if their own children have not reached high school age.

You do know that with AAP centers, people can be zone for the same base schools but not actually have kids attending the same elementary or middle school?

With differing aged kids, you could have 2 people zoned for the same elementary school, but one has teenagers and the other a kindergartner, who don't know each other and have very different perspectives and priorities on rezoning.

Some of the elementary zones are quite large, and cross through major roads. The priorities and perspective of a rep from one end of the zone might be very different than the person on the other end of the zone.

There are a lot of variables that make "from the same elementary" not as big of an issue that you might think.

I know which neighborhoods they are in and they are adjacent to each other and in the same elementary school boundary which has an AAP center.

[Anonymous]

Having looked at the changes from the recent BRAC meeting, it’s clear that Thru is as competent at drawing maps as McDaniel is at spending his own money at the strip club.

In this case, Thru is embezzling consistency out of FCPS.

Thru and the school board treat our kids as fungible. So much for mental health. To them equity trumps student welfare. And if you don’t believe that, look at the proposed change where they bus students who live right off 50 to Longfellow. They suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses on the likelihood that changes so far will stick? Trying to determine how worried I should be…

According to the timeline, these are draft scenarios. They are collecting initial BRAC feedback per region and releasing these one by one iterations, attendance islands, split feeders, then capacity.

Looks like next month will open to community feedback for more context. After all that, they will present the final scenario for the school board to approve.

So I am sure some of these will stick. Others will evolve with the other scenario releases and feedback.

The pyramid representatives may know nothing about your own neighborhood. These are from high school pyramids and not the neighborhood elementary schools.

They should have spread a wider net.

The committee size is already unwieldy. Besides, it’s fairly easy to become familiar with a High School and its elementary school boundaries.

When both reps are from the same neighborhood at the other end of the boundaries, your confidence is questionable. Especially, if their own children have not reached high school age.

You do know that with AAP centers, people can be zone for the same base schools but not actually have kids attending the same elementary or middle school?

With differing aged kids, you could have 2 people zoned for the same elementary school, but one has teenagers and the other a kindergartner, who don't know each other and have very different perspectives and priorities on rezoning.

Some of the elementary zones are quite large, and cross through major roads. The priorities and perspective of a rep from one end of the zone might be very different than the person on the other end of the zone.

There are a lot of variables that make "from the same elementary" not as big of an issue that you might think.

I know which neighborhoods they are in and they are adjacent to each other and in the same elementary school boundary which has an AAP center.

I think that is a non issue if it is the situation I am aware of.

[Anonymous]

Is this it? Is this all the proposed changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s revisit Franklin/Carson/Rocky Run.

If we move (1) Franklin kids who are already zoned to Chantilly to Rocky Run, (2) Carson kids zoned to SLHS (fox mill and some Floris kids) to Hughes, and (3) Crossfield kids from Carson to Franklin, will this solve the split feeder problem?

Carson is not overcrowded, why would you move all these kids out of Carson without moving new kids in? Also Crossfield is zoned to Oakton, it doesn't make sense to move those kids to Franklin unless you are moving all those kids to Chantilly too, which is ridiculous given how overcrowded Chantilly HS is. The post several weeks ago about moving anyone from Carson that is zoned to Chantilly to Franklin makes the most sense. But don't move kids zoned to Oakton to yet another MS.

Carson is a three way split feeder. Tell me how to fix it.

Is that really a “problem” that needs solving?

Whether you like it or not, they considered it a problem and will develop a proposal (see the March slide).

The easiest way to eliminate middle school split feeders is to make middle school and high school boundaries fully align, such as:

Hughes - SLHS
Franklin - Oakton
Rocky Run - Chantilly
Stone - Westfield
Carson - ?

As you can see, Carson is the odd one out, and we could have really used a mythical western high school.

That’s not happening. Most likely, Carson will be a split feeder, but not a three-way split like it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this it? Is this all the proposed changes?

This site lists that split feeders are coming 4/25 and capacity changes 5/5

https://www.fcps.edu/april-11-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Split feeders and capacity should be done simultaneously. What happened to this advanced visualization tool that used several data sources and could be manipulated to show real time changes?

The data on the slide look like outputs of basic excel formulas

Haha right? The website said a tool was coming out where you could see down to the street level of these current scenarios. So a map with a zoom feature?