FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that they just “bridge” the Timberlane attendance island shows how dumb this whole thing is.

Let’s not pretend that moving an adjacent street arbitrarily somehow improves the community in any way whatsoever.

What they put out there was half-baked, as they identified moving a relatively small part of Shrevewood to Longfellow/McLean. So they'd "bridge" the Timber Lane island, but in the process turn Shrevewood into a lopsided split feeder to Kilmer/Marshall and Longfellow/McLean.

To your point, would anyone currently in the Timber Lane island assigned to Longfellow/McLean feel more "connected" to the community if the Falls Hill area also on the same side of Route 7 is dragged along for the ride? And, even if they might, wouldn't it come at the expense of Shrevewood families whose kids might end up sent to a different middle and high school than the vast majority of the Shrevewood kids?

Of course, the suggestion is that this process is iterative, and that they may look at the problems they've created on 4/11 in the later sessions in April/May. But, boy, isn't this a lot of potentially moving kids around for relatively little benefit?

To be fair, the majority of th Shrevewood kids live in that one neighborhood. It's already very "elite" so moving it wouldn't make much of a difference in parental snobbery.

The majority of the Shrevewood kids don’t live in that neighborhood. If they did, moving it would have a bigger impact on the Longfellow/McLean numbers than indicated.

If they want to move and don’t mind being in the minority at a new split feeder at Shrevewood, fine, but it’s weird to fix one purported “problem” (an attendance island) by creating another one (a new split feeder).

All of these newly created split feeders will be redefined in the next iteration on 4/25.

As long as the regional BRAC members didn’t say “this is completely wrong” to an attendance island, they’ll move forward.

But in some cases they created the new split feeders to balance the enrollments after they purported to address the attendance islands.

In any event, they can "move forward" with whatever they want, but the fact that BRAC members didn't object on the same day that they first saw the proposed changes to the islands isn't going to mean squat if community members object in large numbers.

We also have no assurance that BRAC members actually are honoring their commitments to attend all the meetings.

These slides are what were presented to BRAC on 4/11 so they don’t have any feedback from them incorporated yet. They are hopefully taking the feedback the regional members provided and making appropriate changes.

I agree that I worry about the true neighborhood representation and attendance. They post the numbers and at least the 3/26 had higher numbers compared to the previous and Hope that maintains.

I also wonder if the special interest group members sit with the regions? Or if it’s just the pyramid reps? Because those numbers could also be skewed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand what these changes are even… like is it 1) this is how we could fix the attendance islands 2) this (future slide show) will show how we can fix split feeders and 3) this (future slide show) will show how we can fix crowding? And then they’ll do all of it? Some combination? Seems cruel to make all the changes, because for some kids that would mean changing schools twice. Like sure if you could start from the ground up and redraw everything from the very beginning, maybe all of these changes would make sense - but they’re making the perfect the enemy of the good here.

I wish they had released everything at once. It’s painful to watch these come out every 2-3 weeks and wonder where you could stand. Alexandria city did this with multiple scenarios to consider.

The FCPS approach doesn’t feel like there’s any options or possible, just this is that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think connecting the timber lane island with a bit from falls hill so it’s “connected” on map is fine if it’s needed but don’t think we need to extend to 50. My kid went to timber lane. Longfellow, and now is at McLean. We are equal distant to McLean, Marshall, and Falls church but the kids by 50 are much closer to falls church.

They are doing anything to bump capacity up at Cooper and Langley to cut FHES to Herndon.

Sending kids that border Loudoun Co. to Langley is insane.

As insane as sending kids near 50 to McLean? because I looked and it adds the exact same amount of time to their commute.

Like it or not, the difference to HMS is within a couple minutes commute of Cooper and less than ten to HHS vs Langley.

Your equity obsession is showing.

They aren't proposing (yet) to send kids near Route 50 to McLean, just to Longfellow. They would leave these kids at Falls Church. Of course, that's even more bizarre, since about 95% of Longfellow goes to McLean. I guess they left them at Falls Church because they didn't want to add kids to overcrowded McLean, and maybe they even realized Falls Church is getting expanded, but all that should have also suggested leaving these kids at Jackson and maintaining the fairly even split feeder at Timber Lane.

Same analysis holds for Longfellow. The person who thinks it’s insane to send great falls to Langley surely feels the same about busing these poor kids to Longfellow, right?

I don't think that the proposed Timber Lane/Longfellow adjustment to 50 makes any sense. But if you are trying to convince me that Forestville should go anywhere other than Herndon, you'll fail. If I pick a nice central location on Seneca, it is 4 miles and less than 10 min from Herndon. It is 11 miles and 22 minutes (non-rush!) to Langley. There's simply no argument except people want to go to the rich school.

But I'm not just going to call out Forestville. Why is Westbriar the way it is, and why on earth would the western kids go to Marshall? Langley, Marshall, Madison, and McLean need to be more compact and be prepped to divide up any growth in Tysons.

You are picking the furthest point in Forestville intentionally, and it’s clear what your agenda is. The fact is that on average from Forestville you save two minutes to HMS than Cooper, and 9 to HHS from Langley. Those are rounding errors, despite you trying to convince everyone that it’s otherwise.

[Anonymous]

I was just looking at the slides again, and it seems like they set the capacity parameters to 60% capacity to 105% capacity. Just flagging that there are very few schools that are under 60, so undercapacity shouldn’t really be a consideration when they role out the capacity changes in a couple of weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the slides again, and it seems like they set the capacity parameters to 60% capacity to 105% capacity. Just flagging that there are very few schools that are under 60, so undercapacity shouldn’t really be a consideration when they role out the capacity changes in a couple of weeks.

I think you’re just drawing an inference there, for an obvious reason. We’ll see in a few weeks how they propose to address the capacity issues not associated with islands or split feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the slides again, and it seems like they set the capacity parameters to 60% capacity to 105% capacity. Just flagging that there are very few schools that are under 60, so undercapacity shouldn’t really be a consideration when they role out the capacity changes in a couple of weeks.

I think you’re just drawing an inference there, for an obvious reason. We’ll see in a few weeks how they propose to address the capacity issues not associated with islands or split feeders.

Drawing an inference from the Thru slides seems like a solid approach, no? Why would those numbers change going forward? 60% appears to be the critical under capacity threshold, or they wouldn’t have directly stated it in the PowerPoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think connecting the timber lane island with a bit from falls hill so it’s “connected” on map is fine if it’s needed but don’t think we need to extend to 50. My kid went to timber lane. Longfellow, and now is at McLean. We are equal distant to McLean, Marshall, and Falls church but the kids by 50 are much closer to falls church.

They are doing anything to bump capacity up at Cooper and Langley to cut FHES to Herndon.

Sending kids that border Loudoun Co. to Langley is insane.

As insane as sending kids near 50 to McLean? because I looked and it adds the exact same amount of time to their commute.

Like it or not, the difference to HMS is within a couple minutes commute of Cooper and less than ten to HHS vs Langley.

Your equity obsession is showing.

They aren't proposing (yet) to send kids near Route 50 to McLean, just to Longfellow. They would leave these kids at Falls Church. Of course, that's even more bizarre, since about 95% of Longfellow goes to McLean. I guess they left them at Falls Church because they didn't want to add kids to overcrowded McLean, and maybe they even realized Falls Church is getting expanded, but all that should have also suggested leaving these kids at Jackson and maintaining the fairly even split feeder at Timber Lane.

Same analysis holds for Longfellow. The person who thinks it’s insane to send great falls to Langley surely feels the same about busing these poor kids to Longfellow, right?

I don't think that the proposed Timber Lane/Longfellow adjustment to 50 makes any sense. But if you are trying to convince me that Forestville should go anywhere other than Herndon, you'll fail. If I pick a nice central location on Seneca, it is 4 miles and less than 10 min from Herndon. It is 11 miles and 22 minutes (non-rush!) to Langley. There's simply no argument except people want to go to the rich school.

But I'm not just going to call out Forestville. Why is Westbriar the way it is, and why on earth would the western kids go to Marshall? Langley, Marshall, Madison, and McLean need to be more compact and be prepped to divide up any growth in Tysons.

You are picking the furthest point in Forestville intentionally, and it’s clear what your agenda is. The fact is that on average from Forestville you save two minutes to HMS than Cooper, and 9 to HHS from Langley. Those are rounding errors, despite you trying to convince everyone that it’s otherwise.

DP

10 min from Herndon High School to Holly Knoll Circle leaving tomorrow at 2:55 pm vs. 25 min from Langley High School. That's less than half the time if that street is rezoned to Herndon. Multiply that twice a day and 180 days. That's not an insignificant amount of gas and time savings, not to mention less pollution in the environment.

IF

and only IF

capacity numbers would justify it and we all know the CIP and the wild swings in capacity projections are sketch, sus, and otherwise not to be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think connecting the timber lane island with a bit from falls hill so it’s “connected” on map is fine if it’s needed but don’t think we need to extend to 50. My kid went to timber lane. Longfellow, and now is at McLean. We are equal distant to McLean, Marshall, and Falls church but the kids by 50 are much closer to falls church.

They are doing anything to bump capacity up at Cooper and Langley to cut FHES to Herndon.

Sending kids that border Loudoun Co. to Langley is insane.

As insane as sending kids near 50 to McLean? because I looked and it adds the exact same amount of time to their commute.

Like it or not, the difference to HMS is within a couple minutes commute of Cooper and less than ten to HHS vs Langley.

Your equity obsession is showing.

They aren't proposing (yet) to send kids near Route 50 to McLean, just to Longfellow. They would leave these kids at Falls Church. Of course, that's even more bizarre, since about 95% of Longfellow goes to McLean. I guess they left them at Falls Church because they didn't want to add kids to overcrowded McLean, and maybe they even realized Falls Church is getting expanded, but all that should have also suggested leaving these kids at Jackson and maintaining the fairly even split feeder at Timber Lane.

Same analysis holds for Longfellow. The person who thinks it’s insane to send great falls to Langley surely feels the same about busing these poor kids to Longfellow, right?

I don't think that the proposed Timber Lane/Longfellow adjustment to 50 makes any sense. But if you are trying to convince me that Forestville should go anywhere other than Herndon, you'll fail. If I pick a nice central location on Seneca, it is 4 miles and less than 10 min from Herndon. It is 11 miles and 22 minutes (non-rush!) to Langley. There's simply no argument except people want to go to the rich school.

But I'm not just going to call out Forestville. Why is Westbriar the way it is, and why on earth would the western kids go to Marshall? Langley, Marshall, Madison, and McLean need to be more compact and be prepped to divide up any growth in Tysons.

You are picking the furthest point in Forestville intentionally, and it’s clear what your agenda is. The fact is that on average from Forestville you save two minutes to HMS than Cooper, and 9 to HHS from Langley. Those are rounding errors, despite you trying to convince everyone that it’s otherwise.

DP

10 min from Herndon High School to Holly Knoll Circle leaving tomorrow at 2:55 pm vs. 25 min from Langley High School. That's less than half the time if that street is rezoned to Herndon. Multiply that twice a day and 180 days. That's not an insignificant amount of gas and time savings, not to mention less pollution in the environment.

IF

and only IF

capacity numbers would justify it and we all know the CIP and the wild swings in capacity projections are sketch, sus, and otherwise not to be trusted.

Oh, wow, color me totally shocked that you again pick the furthest point in the entire school boundary to make your point.

Again, we get that you’re agenda driven, but have some respect for yourself if you are going to try to use data to argue your point. The fact is that you both are arguing to try to take buses off the road for a handful of hours each year, which will produce no savings whatsoever, in time and certainly not money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the slides again, and it seems like they set the capacity parameters to 60% capacity to 105% capacity. Just flagging that there are very few schools that are under 60, so undercapacity shouldn’t really be a consideration when they role out the capacity changes in a couple of weeks.

I think you’re just drawing an inference there, for an obvious reason. We’ll see in a few weeks how they propose to address the capacity issues not associated with islands or split feeders.

Drawing an inference from the Thru slides seems like a solid approach, no? Why would those numbers change going forward? 60% appears to be the critical under capacity threshold, or they wouldn’t have directly stated it in the PowerPoint.

Maybe, maybe not. It’s certainly stated in the slides with respect to the attendance island analysis.

But it may not be followed by the time they get to the capacity review, especially when they are confronted with the fact that the potential attendance island changes, if adopted, might shrink some schools to levels that aren’t typically considered desirable in FCPS (for example, elementary schools with only 300 kids).

Honestly, it’s all very amateurish so far. They played with software to generate a particular result, without fully acknowledging potentially negative side effects.

[Anonymous]

Is the entire purpose of the potential boundary adjustment to “even the playing field” by shuffling kids from “highly rated” schools to “lower rated” schools and vise versa? Is FCPS hoping all/ most of its schools will have similar test scores and therefore rated equally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not either of last two PP's.

Do you really think that a group who does not want to grandfather kids currently in a high school cares about that?

No, I'm not sure what this is, but this casts a far wider net. The question has been on here for years as to why a small portion of Franklin Farm goes to Navy. I think it goes back to the early history of Crossfield which was likely overcrowded by that time. However, that no longer stands as an excuse.

Look at the map. There is no reason to send these kids to Oak Hill and not Crossfield --unless it is part of the overall plan which will come later. This neighborhood is within Franklin Farm--it is not an isolated island of Franklin Farm. They are part of the Franklin Farm community on that side of 286. It makes no sense. And, as a prior poster says (as a negative), it would allow the AAP kids to stay in the same center. Why is that a bad thing?

Yes, I'm confused about why that PP is insisting that the non-AAP kids need to be at an AAP center, too. They'll be in general ed classes either way. It seems to me that it would make the most sense for the kids who are in AAP (and let's be real, this is a very small number of kids - 10 at most in AAP) to be able to stay at Navy and everyone else to be able to go to the same school as their surrounding neighbors in Franklin Farm and the neighborhoods it is connected to via Ashburton Ave. This is why I'm thinking the reason they're moving these kids to Oak Hill is solely because Franklin is under capacity so they want those kids to stay zoned to Franklin.

Do you realize that kids tend to make more friends at their school than in their neighborhood? Kids who spend all day together at school are much more likely to form strong bonds. Living a few streets away from someone who doesn’t go to your school does not exactly create a friendship. Think about neighborhoods where a lot of people go to private school and the kids all go different places. It’s not some small deal to move kids who have been at Navy for years over to a different school just because some of their neighbors have been going there. The majority of these Navy kids’ friends are kids who live outside of Franklin Farm because it’s such a small number from Franklin Farm kids that go there anyway. If someone thinks it’s fine to uproot kids as late as fifth grade because they will have neighbors they don’t know all that well at their new school, they are seriously misguided.

If Navy stays zoned for Franklin, moving those Navy kids to Oak Hill is probably better than moving them to Crossfield. They will at least be back with old friends for middle school as opposed to ending up on a completely different path.

Gee. My kids were friends with their neighbors and made friends at school, as well. In fact, DS's best friend was a neighbor who left to go to the center and ended up at TJ. They are still friends. Still friends with other elementary school friends/neighbors--walking distance.

If Navy island switches to Crossfield, then friends will be walking distance. Oak Hill across 286? Hardly walking distance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the entire purpose of the potential boundary adjustment to “even the playing field” by shuffling kids from “highly rated” schools to “lower rated” schools and vise versa? Is FCPS hoping all/ most of its schools will have similar test scores and therefore rated equally?

Yes. They just can't come out and say that, so we have this theater show where they pretend to care about split feeders and attendance islands and capacity instead. The consultant isn't being paid to figure out what's best, they're being paid to find convoluted justification for what FCPS wants to do.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

You do realize there are other middle schools that feed into those high schools?

But, in any case, a better solve would be:

Carson: Oakton
Franklin: Chantilly
But, this would entail creating another AAP center at Franklin --unless AAP centers are eliminated.
Crossfield is already assigned to Carson. Just add Navy and Waples MIll kids who go to Oakton.

You know Rocky Run is right next to Chantilly High School.

Crossfield/Carson/Oakton is not safe.

[Anonymous]

According to the 3/26 slides, they circled the Oak Hill split feeder (into Carson and Franklin) and the Carson three-way split (Westfield, South Lakes High School, and Oakton).

How will they address these issues?

If they send all Oak Hill students to Franklin and reassign Fox Mill kids and Crossfield kids from Carson to Hughes/Franklin, Carson could lose too many students.

This is a potentially explosive issue because there’s no easy solution.

Would they send all Oak Hill students to Carson and then to Westfield? This would upset many parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the slides again, and it seems like they set the capacity parameters to 60% capacity to 105% capacity. Just flagging that there are very few schools that are under 60, so undercapacity shouldn’t really be a consideration when they role out the capacity changes in a couple of weeks.

I think you’re just drawing an inference there, for an obvious reason. We’ll see in a few weeks how they propose to address the capacity issues not associated with islands or split feeders.

Drawing an inference from the Thru slides seems like a solid approach, no? Why would those numbers change going forward? 60% appears to be the critical under capacity threshold, or they wouldn’t have directly stated it in the PowerPoint.

Maybe, maybe not. It’s certainly stated in the slides with respect to the attendance island analysis.

But it may not be followed by the time they get to the capacity review, especially when they are confronted with the fact that the potential attendance island changes, if adopted, might shrink some schools to levels that aren’t typically considered desirable in FCPS (for example, elementary schools with only 300 kids).

Honestly, it’s all very amateurish so far. They played with software to generate a particular result, without fully acknowledging potentially negative side effects.

They don’t seem to be using software.

A mediocre 7th grade FCPS student could do what Thru is doing. There is clearly no actual analysis and it’s most likely being spoon fed to them behind the scenes by The Embezzler and his Sniveling compatriot.

More than anything, I’m really pissed that our tax dollars were spent on such an incredibly shoddy consultant.