FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They would create a new split feeder at Longfellow that would be about 95% to McLean and 5% to Falls Church. Maybe they solve that on 4/25.

The idea of a 5% split feeder is just breathtakingly cruel and my kid would be in that 5%. There's no way they would actually do this, right? I can't even believe this is on the table.

This is what Carson does to the Fox Mill and handful of Crossfield kids that go to South Lakes.

In fairness, as one of the Fox Mill families at Carson, most of the neighborhood will be very, very angry if moved to Hughes. We were already moved from a strong AP school in Oakton to a not so strong IB school in SLHS. Moving from a strong MS in Carson to Hughes is going to cause lots of anger. We get it, we are a small group who has already been ignored so it will most likely happen again, but everyone I know would strongly prefer to stay at Carson over moving.

I remember watching the SB meetings during that period. There were parents of kids from Westfield being moved to South Lakes. They begged for AP at South Lakes and were given the cold shoulder. The faces have changed on our SB but the arrogance has not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two strong observations:

Why would they send the Navy island in Franklin Farm to Oak Hill? Franklin Farm on that side of the parkway goes to Crossfield. Look at the map. There is something else going on here. These kids currently go to as does Crossfield.

Thru missed a real island--though it is tiny:
Look at the boundary map for Lee's Corner. Compare it with the Crossfield boundary map. There is a street --a cul-de-sac that is split. Some go to Crossfield and some to Lee's Corner. The students that go to Crossfield must drive through the Lee's Corner boundary in order to get to Crossfield. There are a couple of other cul-de-sacs off of the street.
If you want to see it, look at Ashvale Drive. Some of it may be be Franklin Glen instead of Franklin Farm and had the boundary line drawn before the parkway was built. That would be the Lee's Corner portion.

This could be easily missed if you are not familiar with the area.

This is why they should have had people familiar with elementary school boundaries on the committee.

I can try to speak to the bolded info, but with the caveat that I have no inside info.

Navy is an AAP center that kids from Crossfield can choose to attend. If you move Navy kids to Crossfield, you are moving them from an AAP center school to a non-center school. You end up with a weird situation where the kids eligible for AAP in third grade can choose to go (back) to Navy whereas the kids who don't qualify for AAP would not have that choice. Oak Hill is an AAP center, so all the kids in the island would be moved to Oak Hill regardless of AAP or Gen Ed, and there would not be any situation where some of them end up right back at the school they got moved from.

At least some, if not all, of Ashvale Drive is definitely Franklin Glen. Franklin Farm and Franklin Glen were built before Fairfax County Parkway was such a big road. That's why some of FF is east of the parkway and some is west, and same with FG. The developers did not envision such a large highway running through. I know it would never happen, but it seems like all the homes east of the parkway should just become part of the FF HOA and all the homes west of the parkway should be FG.

This is such a stupid AAP-Centric thing to say. 1/5 of those kids are AAP, mama. You can't move all those kids to an AAP center just because one out of every five of them may end up in AAP. So stupid.

There is a teeeeeny tiny portion of Franklin Glen that is east of Fairfax County Parkway. Really, Franklin Farm should just annex those houses like they've done for other neighborhoods, it's so awkward for the families who live there. We specifically did not buy one of those houses because we didn't want our entire neighborhood to be on the other side of a major road.

Kindly F off with your “AAP mama” BS. My children are not in AAP. It’s simply a fact that moving kids from Navy to Crossfield creates a situation where some would end up right back at Navy. Oak Hill eliminates that issue. I think the Navy to Crossfield thing would actually be unfair because then some kids would get to choose to go back to their old school whereas others wouldn’t get that choice. Getting rid of AAP centers seems like it would solve some problems all over, but I will be very surprised if they do it.

Try getting rid of the massive chip on your shoulder about your kids not being in AAP and realize we are probably in agreement here that not moving these kids at all would be the preferred action.

You are a complete idiot. It's not about AAP, it's about the middle school. Those kids go to Franklin. If you zone them to Oak Hill, they stay at Franklin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, if equity is the goal, they must eliminate IB. I see a lot of communities up in arms over that.

can you expand on what you mean ? What’s the issue with IB? Our HS pyramid only has IB…

We are at an IB school and looking to principal place to an AP school. The IB school, which is not one of the higher rated IB schools, will lose the test scores from our child to a much higher rated AP school, which is close by and accepting kids. If the local high school was AP, we would not be able to principal place at the better school. Getting rid of IB closes the loop hold that allows hundreds of smart kids move from poorly perform IB schools to better performing AP schools. It will help to improve the test scores at the poorly performing schools makign the schools look like they are doing better thent hey are.

Herndon High School is an intersting case of a poorly performing AP school where kids transfer for IB to get to a better school, in this case South Lakes. Some Herndon High kids will principal place at Langley for Russian. The Principal placement out of Herndon costs the school several hundred higher test scores that would help improve the schools average a decent amount.

Not to mention, IB costs a lot more then AP and hardly anyone completes the IB diploma, which is the goal of the program. Schools end up treating IB like AP classes, which is not how IB is supposed to work. But the County claims that those kids taking IB SL classes are the same as kids takign AP classes and look how many kids participate in the IB program. Again, the IB program is built around completing the IB diploma but fewer then 10% of the kids at the IB schools will complete the diploma. So the County is playing a lot of money for a program people are not using properly and is a convient excuse for kids to transfer from an IB school to an AP school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just trying to focus the conversation a bit here.

There things FCPS has started, publicly and in writing, that will inform its next proposal. For example “feeder patterns where less than 25% of students from a lower school (elementary or middle) are split off to a different upper-level school (middle or high).”

I do not see “eliminate AAP centers” anywhere in the boundary review materials. Just like I did not see “a pause after Spring Break” anywhere from FCPS.

Is it helpful to focus on what appears to be an agenda/wishful thinking/goal that is entirely separate from anything that FCPS is considering in its proposals?

Give me a link. One link. Show me where FCPS mentions ending AAP centers in connection with a boundary review proposal. If you can’t, all the AAP discussion comes across like the “they are going to pause” discussion.

We're not talking bout elementary schools, PP. We are talking about Carson VS. Franklin, which also has DEDICATED AAP CLASSES. It's simply not necessary to send children from their base middle school that has separate AAP classes to another middle school that also has AAP classes. It would be one thing if it was like elementary school and the only options were mixed LLIV classes, but these schools both have separate AAP programs AND Franklin is under capacity and zoned to a different high school. It's idiotic to send a bunch of AAP kids to a different middle school that is zoned to two other high schools when the exact same offering is available at their base middle school. It's a huge waste of money. Those busses cost money, PP. The children get the same education with the same level of peers in AAP classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two strong observations:

Why would they send the Navy island in Franklin Farm to Oak Hill? Franklin Farm on that side of the parkway goes to Crossfield. Look at the map. There is something else going on here. These kids currently go to as does Crossfield.

Thru missed a real island--though it is tiny:
Look at the boundary map for Lee's Corner. Compare it with the Crossfield boundary map. There is a street --a cul-de-sac that is split. Some go to Crossfield and some to Lee's Corner. The students that go to Crossfield must drive through the Lee's Corner boundary in order to get to Crossfield. There are a couple of other cul-de-sacs off of the street.
If you want to see it, look at Ashvale Drive. Some of it may be be Franklin Glen instead of Franklin Farm and had the boundary line drawn before the parkway was built. That would be the Lee's Corner portion.

This could be easily missed if you are not familiar with the area.

This is why they should have had people familiar with elementary school boundaries on the committee.

I can try to speak to the bolded info, but with the caveat that I have no inside info.

Navy is an AAP center that kids from Crossfield can choose to attend. If you move Navy kids to Crossfield, you are moving them from an AAP center school to a non-center school. You end up with a weird situation where the kids eligible for AAP in third grade can choose to go (back) to Navy whereas the kids who don't qualify for AAP would not have that choice. Oak Hill is an AAP center, so all the kids in the island would be moved to Oak Hill regardless of AAP or Gen Ed, and there would not be any situation where some of them end up right back at the school they got moved from.

At least some, if not all, of Ashvale Drive is definitely Franklin Glen. Franklin Farm and Franklin Glen were built before Fairfax County Parkway was such a big road. That's why some of FF is east of the parkway and some is west, and same with FG. The developers did not envision such a large highway running through. I know it would never happen, but it seems like all the homes east of the parkway should just become part of the FF HOA and all the homes west of the parkway should be FG.

This is such a stupid AAP-Centric thing to say. 1/5 of those kids are AAP, mama. You can't move all those kids to an AAP center just because one out of every five of them may end up in AAP. So stupid.

There is a teeeeeny tiny portion of Franklin Glen that is east of Fairfax County Parkway. Really, Franklin Farm should just annex those houses like they've done for other neighborhoods, it's so awkward for the families who live there. We specifically did not buy one of those houses because we didn't want our entire neighborhood to be on the other side of a major road.

Kindly F off with your “AAP mama” BS. My children are not in AAP. It’s simply a fact that moving kids from Navy to Crossfield creates a situation where some would end up right back at Navy. Oak Hill eliminates that issue. I think the Navy to Crossfield thing would actually be unfair because then some kids would get to choose to go back to their old school whereas others wouldn’t get that choice. Getting rid of AAP centers seems like it would solve some problems all over, but I will be very surprised if they do it.

Try getting rid of the massive chip on your shoulder about your kids not being in AAP and realize we are probably in agreement here that not moving these kids at all would be the preferred action.

I think the real reason they are moving that island to Oak Hill is because Oak Hill has an AAP center. It’s a more equitable transfer - kids will still have AAP at their base.

It's not about AAP, it's about the pyramid. Crossfield is in a different pyramid than Navy and Oak Hill.

[Anonymous]

It’s quite obvious they are setting this up so that the capacity meeting involves wholesale moves of elementary schools from a current highly rated HS to low rates HS to “solve capacity while minimizing disruption.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, if equity is the goal, they must eliminate IB. I see a lot of communities up in arms over that.

can you expand on what you mean ? What’s the issue with IB? Our HS pyramid only has IB…

DP. In the context of boundary discussions, the issue is not the merits of IB academically, so much as that having two academic programs (AP and IB) allows families at schools like Lewis and Herndon to pupil place, ostensibly to get AP rather than IB (example: Lewis transfers to Lake Braddock, Mount Vernon transfers to Hayfield) or IB rather than AP (example: Herndon transfers to South Lakes). Overall, because IB schools are lower-income, you see more pupil placements and the families who pupil place tend to be wealthier, because they have to be able to arrange their kids' transportation.

So the argument is that if you view avoiding concentrations of poverty or having a wider economic spectrum of students as serving equity goals, getting rid of IB would reduce the number of pupil placements, increase the enrollments of some schools, and mitigate the current concentration of poverty at some schools.

I’m going to have to research this more. I thought FCPS makes it pretty damn hard to transfer out of the base school.

[Anonymous]

Thru clearly lacks the tools and expertise and local area understanding to do this. This was sold as a thorough data driven process, but it’s been all smoke and mirrors. Everything so far is a set up that leads towards rehoming select elementary schools to paper up specific HS pyramids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just trying to focus the conversation a bit here.

There things FCPS has started, publicly and in writing, that will inform its next proposal. For example “feeder patterns where less than 25% of students from a lower school (elementary or middle) are split off to a different upper-level school (middle or high).”

I do not see “eliminate AAP centers” anywhere in the boundary review materials. Just like I did not see “a pause after Spring Break” anywhere from FCPS.

Is it helpful to focus on what appears to be an agenda/wishful thinking/goal that is entirely separate from anything that FCPS is considering in its proposals?

Give me a link. One link. Show me where FCPS mentions ending AAP centers in connection with a boundary review proposal. If you can’t, all the AAP discussion comes across like the “they are going to pause” discussion.

We're not talking bout elementary schools, PP. We are talking about Carson VS. Franklin, which also has DEDICATED AAP CLASSES. It's simply not necessary to send children from their base middle school that has separate AAP classes to another middle school that also has AAP classes. It would be one thing if it was like elementary school and the only options were mixed LLIV classes, but these schools both have separate AAP programs AND Franklin is under capacity and zoned to a different high school. It's idiotic to send a bunch of AAP kids to a different middle school that is zoned to two other high schools when the exact same offering is available at their base middle school. It's a huge waste of money. Those busses cost money, PP. The children get the same education with the same level of peers in AAP classes.

DP. I know our SB member has said she favors making every middle school an AAP center so that no kids are transferrring out of their base middle school for AAP.

It seems like the discussion about the future of middle school AAP centers should have occurred before Thru Consulting was retained. It wasn't, so trying to throw that into the mix now seems logistically impracticable. Some of us pointed out that, without considering issues like this before they sent Thru off to play with software and come up with potential boundary changes, they probably were locking themselves into the current AAP model for another five years

Of course we were ignored because Reid and the School Board want to change some boundaries for equity reasons, and the best cover for doing that is to launch a county-wide study and start tossing out scenarios ASAP. It's hilarious in a way, because giving some kids, but not others, the options to attend multiple schools ought to raise an "equity" issue as much as anything else, but they aren't honest enough to acknowledge it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, if equity is the goal, they must eliminate IB. I see a lot of communities up in arms over that.

can you expand on what you mean ? What’s the issue with IB? Our HS pyramid only has IB…

DP. In the context of boundary discussions, the issue is not the merits of IB academically, so much as that having two academic programs (AP and IB) allows families at schools like Lewis and Herndon to pupil place, ostensibly to get AP rather than IB (example: Lewis transfers to Lake Braddock, Mount Vernon transfers to Hayfield) or IB rather than AP (example: Herndon transfers to South Lakes). Overall, because IB schools are lower-income, you see more pupil placements and the families who pupil place tend to be wealthier, because they have to be able to arrange their kids' transportation.

So the argument is that if you view avoiding concentrations of poverty or having a wider economic spectrum of students as serving equity goals, getting rid of IB would reduce the number of pupil placements, increase the enrollments of some schools, and mitigate the current concentration of poverty at some schools.

I’m going to have to research this more. I thought FCPS makes it pretty damn hard to transfer out of the base school.

This is an exception. And, PP is correct. It gives parents in poorer performing schools an "out." Ironically, if those kids stayed, the school's performance would look much better.

One caveat: When there is a redistricting, FCPS makes it extremely difficult to pupil place to the former school. I think I have this right. Maybe, the Fox Mill parent on here can correct me. But, I'm pretty sure that Fox Mill kids were not allowed to pupil place to Oakton after the boundary change and Westfield kids were not allowed to pupil place there. I think they had to pupil place to Herndon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just trying to focus the conversation a bit here.

There things FCPS has started, publicly and in writing, that will inform its next proposal. For example “feeder patterns where less than 25% of students from a lower school (elementary or middle) are split off to a different upper-level school (middle or high).”

I do not see “eliminate AAP centers” anywhere in the boundary review materials. Just like I did not see “a pause after Spring Break” anywhere from FCPS.

Is it helpful to focus on what appears to be an agenda/wishful thinking/goal that is entirely separate from anything that FCPS is considering in its proposals?

Give me a link. One link. Show me where FCPS mentions ending AAP centers in connection with a boundary review proposal. If you can’t, all the AAP discussion comes across like the “they are going to pause” discussion.

We're not talking bout elementary schools, PP. We are talking about Carson VS. Franklin, which also has DEDICATED AAP CLASSES. It's simply not necessary to send children from their base middle school that has separate AAP classes to another middle school that also has AAP classes. It would be one thing if it was like elementary school and the only options were mixed LLIV classes, but these schools both have separate AAP programs AND Franklin is under capacity and zoned to a different high school. It's idiotic to send a bunch of AAP kids to a different middle school that is zoned to two other high schools when the exact same offering is available at their base middle school. It's a huge waste of money. Those busses cost money, PP. The children get the same education with the same level of peers in AAP classes.

Again:

Is it helpful to focus on what appears to be an agenda/wishful thinking/goal that is entirely separate from anything that FCPS is considering in its proposals?

Give me a link. One link. Show me where FCPS mentions ending AAP centers in connection with a boundary review proposal. If you can’t, all the AAP discussion comes across like the “they are going to pause” discussion.

When FCPS considers a

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, if equity is the goal, they must eliminate IB. I see a lot of communities up in arms over that.

can you expand on what you mean ? What’s the issue with IB? Our HS pyramid only has IB…

DP. In the context of boundary discussions, the issue is not the merits of IB academically, so much as that having two academic programs (AP and IB) allows families at schools like Lewis and Herndon to pupil place, ostensibly to get AP rather than IB (example: Lewis transfers to Lake Braddock, Mount Vernon transfers to Hayfield) or IB rather than AP (example: Herndon transfers to South Lakes). Overall, because IB schools are lower-income, you see more pupil placements and the families who pupil place tend to be wealthier, because they have to be able to arrange their kids' transportation.

So the argument is that if you view avoiding concentrations of poverty or having a wider economic spectrum of students as serving equity goals, getting rid of IB would reduce the number of pupil placements, increase the enrollments of some schools, and mitigate the current concentration of poverty at some schools.

I’m going to have to research this more. I thought FCPS makes it pretty damn hard to transfer out of the base school.

You can read about transfers here: https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/registration/student-transfer-information

As long as the "receiving" school isn't overcrowded, it is fairly straightforward to pupil place from an IB school to the closest AP school with space (or vice versa). If the closest AP schools are overcrowded and not accepting pupil placements, it gets a bit trickier and your transfer option could be an AP school a long way from your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just trying to focus the conversation a bit here.

There things FCPS has started, publicly and in writing, that will inform its next proposal. For example “feeder patterns where less than 25% of students from a lower school (elementary or middle) are split off to a different upper-level school (middle or high).”

I do not see “eliminate AAP centers” anywhere in the boundary review materials. Just like I did not see “a pause after Spring Break” anywhere from FCPS.

Is it helpful to focus on what appears to be an agenda/wishful thinking/goal that is entirely separate from anything that FCPS is considering in its proposals?

Give me a link. One link. Show me where FCPS mentions ending AAP centers in connection with a boundary review proposal. If you can’t, all the AAP discussion comes across like the “they are going to pause” discussion.

We're not talking bout elementary schools, PP. We are talking about Carson VS. Franklin, which also has DEDICATED AAP CLASSES. It's simply not necessary to send children from their base middle school that has separate AAP classes to another middle school that also has AAP classes. It would be one thing if it was like elementary school and the only options were mixed LLIV classes, but these schools both have separate AAP programs AND Franklin is under capacity and zoned to a different high school. It's idiotic to send a bunch of AAP kids to a different middle school that is zoned to two other high schools when the exact same offering is available at their base middle school. It's a huge waste of money. Those busses cost money, PP. The children get the same education with the same level of peers in AAP classes.

Again:

Is it helpful to focus on what appears to be an agenda/wishful thinking/goal that is entirely separate from anything that FCPS is considering in its proposals?

Give me a link. One link. Show me where FCPS mentions ending AAP centers in connection with a boundary review proposal. If you can’t, all the AAP discussion comes across like the “they are going to pause” discussion.

When FCPS considers a

DP. Our local SB member told a group of us, in connection with a discussion of the boundary review, that she favors making every middle school an AAP center, such that no one would transfer from their assigned middle school to a different middle school for AAP.

Has FCPS mentioned that on its web page in connection with the boundary review? I don't think so.

Has Thru Consulting modeled for that scenario? Only to the extent that one of their earlier scenarios from March dealt with every student attending their base school.

Is it on the mind of some SB members and could it possibly be raised later? Yes.

Would changing the AAP model likely require major revisions to the work that Thru is now doing? It would appear so.

You seem really agitated that PP keeps raising this, but until Reid or the SB say definitively that changes to the AAP model are off the table until further notice, it's fair for people to ask why FCPS isn't focusing on some fundamental questions like the future of AAP and IB before they task Thru Consulting to go off and play with the software they licensed.

[Anonymous]

The ES-MS-HS patterns are so convoluted with AAP, especially MS AAP. I can see that the centers are needed in certain areas at the elementary level, because you might not have a critical mass of students for LLIV at every school. Especially the smaller or lower income schools. But MS AAP either needs to be at every MS, or none of them, and just rely on MS honors and HS level classes.

As an example, a family in bounds for Saratoga/Key/Lewis in Springfield could have a kid at Saratoga for K-2, LIV at Lorton Station in the Hayfield pyramid for 3-6, Lake Braddock for MS AAP 7-8, and then if they wanted AP in HS, they’d have to pupil place. If they could stay at LB, that’s easy enough, but if not it would mean switching schools again back to Hayfield or South County, whichever was accepting student placements. And they’re sending at least some of the elementary schools that feed to Hayfield up to Springfield Estates and Twain Middle for AAP. It’s just a crazy situation IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two strong observations:

Why would they send the Navy island in Franklin Farm to Oak Hill? Franklin Farm on that side of the parkway goes to Crossfield. Look at the map. There is something else going on here. These kids currently go to as does Crossfield.

Thru missed a real island--though it is tiny:
Look at the boundary map for Lee's Corner. Compare it with the Crossfield boundary map. There is a street --a cul-de-sac that is split. Some go to Crossfield and some to Lee's Corner. The students that go to Crossfield must drive through the Lee's Corner boundary in order to get to Crossfield. There are a couple of other cul-de-sacs off of the street.
If you want to see it, look at Ashvale Drive. Some of it may be be Franklin Glen instead of Franklin Farm and had the boundary line drawn before the parkway was built. That would be the Lee's Corner portion.

This could be easily missed if you are not familiar with the area.

This is why they should have had people familiar with elementary school boundaries on the committee.

I can try to speak to the bolded info, but with the caveat that I have no inside info.

Navy is an AAP center that kids from Crossfield can choose to attend. If you move Navy kids to Crossfield, you are moving them from an AAP center school to a non-center school. You end up with a weird situation where the kids eligible for AAP in third grade can choose to go (back) to Navy whereas the kids who don't qualify for AAP would not have that choice. Oak Hill is an AAP center, so all the kids in the island would be moved to Oak Hill regardless of AAP or Gen Ed, and there would not be any situation where some of them end up right back at the school they got moved from.

At least some, if not all, of Ashvale Drive is definitely Franklin Glen. Franklin Farm and Franklin Glen were built before Fairfax County Parkway was such a big road. That's why some of FF is east of the parkway and some is west, and same with FG. The developers did not envision such a large highway running through. I know it would never happen, but it seems like all the homes east of the parkway should just become part of the FF HOA and all the homes west of the parkway should be FG.

This is such a stupid AAP-Centric thing to say. 1/5 of those kids are AAP, mama. You can't move all those kids to an AAP center just because one out of every five of them may end up in AAP. So stupid.

There is a teeeeeny tiny portion of Franklin Glen that is east of Fairfax County Parkway. Really, Franklin Farm should just annex those houses like they've done for other neighborhoods, it's so awkward for the families who live there. We specifically did not buy one of those houses because we didn't want our entire neighborhood to be on the other side of a major road.

Kindly F off with your “AAP mama” BS. My children are not in AAP. It’s simply a fact that moving kids from Navy to Crossfield creates a situation where some would end up right back at Navy. Oak Hill eliminates that issue. I think the Navy to Crossfield thing would actually be unfair because then some kids would get to choose to go back to their old school whereas others wouldn’t get that choice. Getting rid of AAP centers seems like it would solve some problems all over, but I will be very surprised if they do it.

Try getting rid of the massive chip on your shoulder about your kids not being in AAP and realize we are probably in agreement here that not moving these kids at all would be the preferred action.

I think the real reason they are moving that island to Oak Hill is because Oak Hill has an AAP center. It’s a more equitable transfer - kids will still have AAP at their base.

It's not about AAP, it's about the pyramid. Crossfield is in a different pyramid than Navy and Oak Hill.

Incorrect. Navy and Crossfield are in the same pyramid (Oakton). Oak Hill is in Chantilly pyramid.