FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not agitated, just trying to focus the discussion towards areas that FCPS has actually articulated that it is actively considering.

I can see why some school pyramids are very concerned about transfers. Maybe focus these discussions in the context of capacity when the May 5th proposals come out?

Right now the conversation seems to be awash in wishful thinking as folks cast about for some type of escape hatch. If FCPS is not considering these options, it gets confusing to talk about AAP centers in the context of attendance islands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not agitated, just trying to focus the discussion towards areas that FCPS has actually articulated that it is actively considering.

I can see why some school pyramids are very concerned about transfers. Maybe focus these discussions in the context of capacity when the May 5th proposals come out?

Right now the conversation seems to be awash in wishful thinking as folks cast about for some type of escape hatch. If FCPS is not considering these options, it gets confusing to talk about AAP centers in the context of attendance islands.

None of this is a done deal yet so I don’t begrudge people continuing to bring up what they think really ought to warrant the most attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fox Mill kids can principal place to Oakton for AP and Japanese. Herndon does not offer Japanese but Oakton does. Kids who have been in Japanese Immersion can ask to Principal Place in Oakton. Kids who want Russian can Principal Place to Langley, which I think happens. Kids who want pure AP end up at Herndon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not agitated, just trying to focus the discussion towards areas that FCPS has actually articulated that it is actively considering.

I can see why some school pyramids are very concerned about transfers. Maybe focus these discussions in the context of capacity when the May 5th proposals come out?

Right now the conversation seems to be awash in wishful thinking as folks cast about for some type of escape hatch. If FCPS is not considering these options, it gets confusing to talk about AAP centers in the context of attendance islands.

None of this is a done deal yet so I don’t begrudge people continuing to bring up what they think really ought to warrant the most attention.

That makes sense. It might be more effective advocacy, and less confusing, to frame it as such.

Is it fair to say that some people would not care whether AAP centers existed or not if their students were not at risk of being moved under the current boundary review? In that context the “end AAP centers” argument could come across as focused solely on a result of maintaining current boundaries rather than being driven by genuine problems with the current AAP center model.

Can you see how that type of argument could be received by families who seek out and have benefited from the AAP center model?

I agree that there is much debate over AAP and how it is administered in FCPS. However, when arguments about AAP are really about boundaries, are made by folks that may not use AAP centers, and FCPS does not appear to be interested in adjusting the AAP program as part of boundary review, you might confuse some people into thinking you are more interested in finding any, ANY, argument to keep boundaries the same, even if it costs other families a service they need and use.

[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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Honestly this attack on AAP programs is just a race to the bottom advocated by people who don’t qualify for the services. Speaking from experience, Carson and Franklin AAP programs are not equivalents.

[Anonymous]

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?

This makes no sense. The Franklin kids that go to Chantilly are from Oak Hill and Lees Corner. Some of the Oak Hill kids are walkers to Franklin. I think some of the Lees Corner kids may be, as well. Franklin is on the dividing line of Oak Hill and Lees Corner.

It would make more sense to send the Navy/Waples Mill kids to Carson.

Why not swap the Oakton zoned kids from Carson to Franklin with the Chantilly zoned kids from Franklin to Carson? That would eliminate two split feeders. While we're at it, let's eliminate AAP centers in middle schools so the Navy mamas don't complain about losing that.

1. Franklin Middle School is in the Chantilly boundary between two Chantilly elementary school boundaries (Oak Hill and Lee's Corner). Some of those students are walkers.
2. Sending the Oakton kids to Carson makes far more sense.
3. The only Chantilly boundary kids currently at Carson are AAP.

I would suggest sending the AAP kids back to their base school along with this. There are well enough Chantilly boundary kids in the AAP center at Carson to justify this.

Ah, I think I was confused then, and it should have been the other way around. Basically, eliminate the AAP Center at Carson, it is totally unnecessary since Franklin has AAP classes. It's not like ES where the school has to pull in non-AAP kids, Franklin has DEDICATED AAP classes. I don't understand why there are Navy kids there.

You're correct. Franklin has had dedicated AAP classes for at least 12 years, and their program, at least when two of my kids were in it, was very strong. There is no reason not to move all the Franklin kids back to Franklin.

Franklin stated they clustered the AAP kids in classes, but it didn’t appear they actually have dedicated classes to AAP. They are not called AAP classes and it’s not clear if it included kids who aren’t in AAP.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly this attack on AAP programs is just a race to the bottom advocated by people who don’t qualify for the services. Speaking from experience, Carson and Franklin AAP programs are not equivalents.

You're right that they are not equivalent programs.

I sent my own kids through both programs, and my brother did the same for his kids. We both found Franklin's program to be far superior to Carson's program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly this attack on AAP programs is just a race to the bottom advocated by people who don’t qualify for the services. Speaking from experience, Carson and Franklin AAP programs are not equivalents.

You're right that they are not equivalent programs.

I sent my own kids through both programs, and my brother did the same for his kids. We both found Franklin's program to be far superior to Carson's program.

DP. I am glad you had a good experience at Franklin. Both the center program and local level four are available for students who qualify. Is your good experience with the option you chose a valid reason to seek the removal of the other option that may be better fit for others? Would you even be making this argument outside of the context of concern about a boundary result?

[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.

+1

All of the aap buses only amount to 8$ million. It is not a HUGE waste of money. It is less than 1% of the budget. And that is counting elementary and secondary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly this attack on AAP programs is just a race to the bottom advocated by people who don’t qualify for the services. Speaking from experience, Carson and Franklin AAP programs are not equivalents.

You're right that they are not equivalent programs.

I sent my own kids through both programs, and my brother did the same for his kids. We both found Franklin's program to be far superior to Carson's program.

DP. I am glad you had a good experience at Franklin. Both the center program and local level four are available for students who qualify. Is your good experience with the option you chose a valid reason to seek the removal of the other option that may be better fit for others? Would you even be making this argument outside of the context of concern about a boundary result?

I don't have a kid in AAP, but I have noticed with neighbors that they get really weird about the Carson vs. Franklin thing for AAP. They seem to be convinced that Franklin isn't good enough for their kids and that their kids "need" Carson. I think it is inherently inequitable that kids who qualify for AAP get to choose their school when other kids do not, if the base school offers a program that is deemed by the district to be equivalent.

[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.

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.

Um... you do realize why Crossfield/Carson won't work? Because of... AAP! Carson is crowded partly because it gets AAP kids that would normally go to Franklin. So, it actually is about AAP. More than one thing can be true, but maybe that's too hard of a concept for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

All of the aap buses only amount to 8$ million. It is not a HUGE waste of money. It is less than 1% of the budget. And that is counting elementary and secondary.

Do you really think that is the only additional expense? It's not. And, $$ are not the only disadvantage.

Check out the elementary schools with AAP. It makes the staffing more difficult. It makes it more difficult for the principal to even out the numbers in the classes. I've been told some kids get put into AAP in order to adjust class sizes.
I cannot speak to the middle schools on this, but I suspect it requires adjustment there, as well.

And, $8 million is not peanuts.

[Anonymous]

Well, I tried to focus the discussion in terms that FCPS has presented. I thought that might result in a robust discussion that is responsive to their approach. But DCUM gonna DCUM ….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, I tried to focus the discussion in terms that FCPS has presented. I thought that might result in a robust discussion that is responsive to their approach. But DCUM gonna DCUM ….

Well, one thing leads to another.

When a PP uses AAP center as an example of why an island is sent to one school over the more obvious solution, it is difficult not to address it.

When another PP (I think), brings up middle school AAP at schools that some think should shift elementary attendees and uses AAP as a reason, it is difficult to leave it out.

Whether you like it or not, AAP centers must remain part of the discussion as it does affect the different moves between schools. If AAP kids are changing base schools, then they may also be changing center schools.