Wiki version of what happened at Lemon Road

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never understood the freak out people have about the idea that some kids will go to a different middle school than most of thei classmates. This happens all over the county. There are lots of split feeders. In fact, Lemon Road is actually a split feeder and a small group of those kids will go to Longfellow instead of Kilmer.

In middle school it all shakes up anyway because a bunch of different schools join. Friendships shuffle. It's not a big deal at all. I have a middle schooler so I've seen it firsthand.

Yes, there are other split feeders. If you are referring to the prior post, however, FCPS would have ended up with an incredibly small cohort of kids going from Haycock to Kilmer, compared even to the number of Lemon Road kids who go to Longfellow. There aren't a lot of the latter, but Lemon Road actually sits within the Longfellow/McLean boundaries.

What on earth does that even mean? Most LR kids go to Kilmer and Marshall. A few go to LR. By definition, it's in the Kilmer/Marshall and the Longfellow/McLean boundaries. Do you mean the area immediately surrounding the school on all sides sends its kids to Longfellow/McLean? That seems like a weird technicality to me. I know during the AAP boundary shift, all we heard was that LR was a "Cluster 2" school so the "Cluster 2 kids" should go there to be in "their" cluster (of course, it's not cluster 2 anymore since the structure changed). Now all of a sudden it's in the McLean boundaries? It's amazing how it all shifts depending on the argument one wants to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never understood the freak out people have about the idea that some kids will go to a different middle school than most of thei classmates. This happens all over the county. There are lots of split feeders. In fact, Lemon Road is actually a split feeder and a small group of those kids will go to Longfellow instead of Kilmer.

In middle school it all shakes up anyway because a bunch of different schools join. Friendships shuffle. It's not a big deal at all. I have a middle schooler so I've seen it firsthand.

Yes, there are other split feeders. If you are referring to the prior post, however, FCPS would have ended up with an incredibly small cohort of kids going from Haycock to Kilmer, compared even to the number of Lemon Road kids who go to Longfellow. There aren't a lot of the latter, but Lemon Road actually sits within the Longfellow/McLean boundaries.

What on earth does that even mean? Most LR kids go to Kilmer and Marshall. A few go to LR. By definition, it's in the Kilmer/Marshall and the Longfellow/McLean boundaries. Do you mean the area immediately surrounding the school on all sides sends its kids to Longfellow/McLean? That seems like a weird technicality to me. I know during the AAP boundary shift, all we heard was that LR was a "Cluster 2" school so the "Cluster 2 kids" should go there to be in "their" cluster (of course, it's not cluster 2 anymore since the structure changed). Now all of a sudden it's in the McLean boundaries? It's amazing how it all shifts depending on the argument one wants to make.

You seem a little...tense? Lemon Road is in the Marshall pyramid but it physically sits amid neighborhoods east of Pimmit Run that feed into Longfellow/McLean. It's one of many split feeders in FCPS but, as skewed towards Kilmer/Marshall as it is, more LR kids go to Longfellow than Haycock kids would have gone to Kilmer had a specific exception been made for the group that had previously moved from Archer. FCPS was going to face criticism no matter what it did.

[Anonymous]

I'm not tense at all. I just think it's a non-issue when entering middle school because there are so many new kids and, in a sense, everyone is new. I happen to think it was much more disruptive to have to change again in elementary school.

What's past is past, but please don't pretend you were doing our kids a favor. It was never about our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not tense at all. I just think it's a non-issue when entering middle school because there are so many new kids and, in a sense, everyone is new. I happen to think it was much more disruptive to have to change again in elementary school.

What's past is past, but please don't pretend you were doing our kids a favor. It was never about our kids.

It was about what was best for all the students, given where there was severe overcrowding, where there was surplus capacity, and where the various AAP students lived. There was never really a better alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not tense at all. I just think it's a non-issue when entering middle school because there are so many new kids and, in a sense, everyone is new. I happen to think it was much more disruptive to have to change again in elementary school.

What's past is past, but please don't pretend you were doing our kids a favor. It was never about our kids.

It was about what was best for all the students, given where there was severe overcrowding, where there was surplus capacity, and where the various AAP students lived. There was never really a better alternative.

Whatever you say.

[Anonymous]

ok, this change argument is so goofy. It was used in the recent battle, as well. WTF - you already moved your child once. Stop acting like your little snowflake is going to break if they are moved again. It isn't ideal and I get not wanting to start over again, but that really shouldn't even factor into what is essentially a redistrict for overcrowding reasons.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so it's no big deal that my snowflake had to move again. Fine.

But let's also agree it was not done to protect my child from being one of a few kids at Kilmer from Haycock as the earlier poster would like everyone to believe. It was done because Haycock was crowded and someone had to go.

They could have redistricted the base district. They could have done many things, but they chose to redistrict my child. Fine. It happens.

But let's not pretend it was done in my child's best interest. My child's best interest would have been to stay and finish there. I get it that they balanced the interests of all of the snowflakes and our snowflakes lost. I can live with it. Really. But let's be honest about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so it's no big deal that my snowflake had to move again. Fine.

But let's also agree it was not done to protect my child from being one of a few kids at Kilmer from Haycock as the earlier poster would like everyone to believe. It was done because Haycock was crowded and someone had to go.

They could have redistricted the base district. They could have done many things, but they chose to redistrict my child. Fine. It happens.

But let's not pretend it was done in my child's best interest. My child's best interest would have been to stay and finish there. I get it that they balanced the interests of all of the snowflakes and our snowflakes lost. I can live with it. Really. But let's be honest about it.

You are misconstruing what I said. I never said the primary reason for the move was to keep kids from Haycock from being a minority at Kilmer. The primary reason was to relieve overcrowding at Haycock. A secondary benefit was to align feeder patterns so that the Marshall pyramid had its own AAP Center(s).

As a result, some kids ended up switching schools a lot, so they could stay in AAP programs their parents wanted them to attend. My point was only that, had FCPS formally grandfathered at Haycock the group that stood to have switched the most (kids zoned for Freedom Hill who started AAP at Archer, then moved to Haycock when part of Freedom Hill got moved to Lemon Road, and then got moved to Lemon Road AAP when a new center opened), there would have been a very small cohort of kids moving from Haycock to Kilmer. You say that would have been no big deal, but someone else would have complained. Had FCPS grandfathered more kids at Haycock and left Lemon Road under-capacity, someone would have complained. Had FCPS changed Haycock's base boundaries, so that an even smaller percentage of Haycock students were in the GenEd program, someone would have complained.

They had a messy situation due to the growth near Tysons, the growth of the AAP enrollment, and an upcoming, major renovation at Haycock. Taking advantage of the space at Lemon Road, while trying to balance the AAP and GenEd enrollments, was the obvious solution. We get that it was a pain for you, but stop trying to make others out to be the bad guys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so it's no big deal that my snowflake had to move again. Fine.

But let's also agree it was not done to protect my child from being one of a few kids at Kilmer from Haycock as the earlier poster would like everyone to believe. It was done because Haycock was crowded and someone had to go.

They could have redistricted the base district. They could have done many things, but they chose to redistrict my child. Fine. It happens.

But let's not pretend it was done in my child's best interest. My child's best interest would have been to stay and finish there. I get it that they balanced the interests of all of the snowflakes and our snowflakes lost. I can live with it. Really. But let's be honest about it.

NP. I think it was in your child's best interest to be moved out of Haycock and into a smaller setting with the same children who were already attending Haycock, just not all of them. You act as if your child had to go to a school where they didn't know anyone. They did. All the kids moved were Haycock kids. Haycock is undergoing a renovation and there is no benefit to your child being there right now verses Lemon Road, Shrevewood, or Westgate.

[Anonymous]

I'm glad you think it was in my child's best interest. If it was such a good thing, I wonder why you didn't consider a pupil placement to Lemon Road for your child. After all, there would be kids from Haycock there and there was no benefit to your child being at Haycock as opposed to Lemon Road, Shrevewood or Westgate.

It's over and done and I have accepted it. The only thing that really bothers me at this point is when folks like you can't acknowledge that it isn't as cut and dried as you are pretending here.

Boundaries change. I get it. Keep that in mind when you are on the receiving end of a boundary change. I expect you will not complain or try to prevent it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad you think it was in my child's best interest. If it was such a good thing, I wonder why you didn't consider a pupil placement to Lemon Road for your child. After all, there would be kids from Haycock there and there was no benefit to your child being at Haycock as opposed to Lemon Road, Shrevewood or Westgate.

It's over and done and I have accepted it. The only thing that really bothers me at this point is when folks like you can't acknowledge that it isn't as cut and dried as you are pretending here.

Boundaries change. I get it. Keep that in mind when you are on the receiving end of a boundary change. I expect you will not complain or try to prevent it.

Not the pp, but I did pupil place one of my children to Lemon Road when he was in the 6th grade. It was a great choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad you think it was in my child's best interest. If it was such a good thing, I wonder why you didn't consider a pupil placement to Lemon Road for your child. After all, there would be kids from Haycock there and there was no benefit to your child being at Haycock as opposed to Lemon Road, Shrevewood or Westgate.

It's over and done and I have accepted it. The only thing that really bothers me at this point is when folks like you can't acknowledge that it isn't as cut and dried as you are pretending here.

Boundaries change. I get it. Keep that in mind when you are on the receiving end of a boundary change. I expect you will not complain or try to prevent it.

Not the pp, but I did pupil place one of my children to Lemon Road when he was in the 6th grade. It was a great choice.

I'm the poster you quoted. I don't disagree that there is a lot to love about Lemon Road. I don't mean to put the school down. That's not my point at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad you think it was in my child's best interest. If it was such a good thing, I wonder why you didn't consider a pupil placement to Lemon Road for your child. After all, there would be kids from Haycock there and there was no benefit to your child being at Haycock as opposed to Lemon Road, Shrevewood or Westgate.

It's over and done and I have accepted it. The only thing that really bothers me at this point is when folks like you can't acknowledge that it isn't as cut and dried as you are pretending here.

Boundaries change. I get it. Keep that in mind when you are on the receiving end of a boundary change. I expect you will not complain or try to prevent it.

Everyone acknowledges it was messy, and that feelings were hurt and perhaps still mending. I honestly think the kids handle it better than some parents.

Ironically, some of the Marshall pyramid parents who like to portray themselves as getting the short end of the stick in the Haycock redistricting are now advocating to move the Cooper AAP kids out of Kilmer due to overcrowding at Kilmer. I guess it shows that you get dealt lots of different hands in FCPS if you send your kids to county schools long enough.

[Anonymous]

Is the program at Lemon Road inferior to Westbriar's or Haycock's or Churchill Road's LIV? What does the percentage of FARMS have to with the quality /implementation of the AAP curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad you think it was in my child's best interest. If it was such a good thing, I wonder why you didn't consider a pupil placement to Lemon Road for your child. After all, there would be kids from Haycock there and there was no benefit to your child being at Haycock as opposed to Lemon Road, Shrevewood or Westgate.

It's over and done and I have accepted it. The only thing that really bothers me at this point is when folks like you can't acknowledge that it isn't as cut and dried as you are pretending here.

Boundaries change. I get it. Keep that in mind when you are on the receiving end of a boundary change. I expect you will not complain or try to prevent it.

I would love to pupil place my child at Lemon Road. Lemon Road did not have an AAP center before your child was moved there, so there would have been no reason for anyone to have pupil placed an AAP child to the school. I really don't know what you're still so upset about and why you feel your child had such a disservice. Your child (presumably at Shrevewood or Westgate and not Lemon Road) went to Haycock for AAP for 1-2 years and then was forced to transfer with about a third of the kids from Haycock to Lemon Road for another year or so. Then they will or already went on to Kilmer with those same children who went to school with them at both Haycock, Lemon Road, and their base school. They will continue on with those same children into high school. I would think differently if your child got moved into an entire new high school pyramid or something, but they've probably been with their same Shrevewood or Westgate friends from kindergarten on. They've just changed buildings more than once. What do you think was so traumatic? A new cafeteria and principal to get used to?