Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted earlier that Reid said that the scenarios had not be "vetted." Does she mean that staff never looked at them to check for known issues?

What do these people get paid to do?

Hard to believe that Reid (who did not know about issues in Rt 1 corridor) is weighing in on boundaries and answering? questions.

She was talking about the 4 maps they posted for the Western High School.

Who created the maps? Staff or THRU?

And why are they showing maps to the public and getting no people all upset if they are not vetted? I swear she just says things to get people to calm down in the moment. As soon as someone is freaking out about a change she’s all “don’t worry that’s just a super drafty draft” regardless of whether that’s true. The school board must be beyond frustrated with her because then they have to clean up her mess. She is just telling everyone what they want to hear while they’re in front of her. I wouldn’t trust anything she says at this point.

Why are they doing 7 revidions to the county wide rezoning maps, based on who complains the most on the previous map?

More like who has the biggest tantrum. Some of these grown adults should be ashamed of themselves.

💯 I can't believe the school board and Dr. Reid are so stupid that they think the people who make the biggest stink are actually the majority. They're not in most instances. In most instances, the majority of the school population is indifferent but the "active families" (meaning the wealthy ones) are the most vocal and have the resources to make their voices loud and their opinions heard. It enrages me that FCPS school board/admin hasn't figured this out yet.

Why would it require extensive “resources” to make your voice heard? You’re basically claiming that FCPS should have a free hand to do whatever it wants, yet many of the proposals of its outside consultants have been ludicrous on their face.

+1. That PP is blowing smoke. Families, rich and poor, don’t want to be moved. Doesn’t take a genius to see that.

Resources aren't just physical. It comes down to time and bandwidth to think and formulate a message. If you are poor and super stressed and just trying to get through each day, you don't have as much mental energy to think about who to contact and what to say to get your point across. You are oblivious if you don't understand this.

It doesn’t change the fact that you’re trying to marshal some invisible army of supporters for whatever it is you favor here, which you haven’t even bothered to identify, by attempting to discredit those who actually take the time to get involved.

Oh are you one of those PTO mommy martyrs? You are so amazing for being so involved! It has nothing to do with your need for control. You are so selfless!!

You’re making a fool out of yourself by seething with resentment, yet no one can tell what you want, other than for others to be ignored.

Not really a great look.

Excuse me? Who do you think you are? How do you know who is involved and who isn't? I can see past my own nose, look around, and notice that some parents/caregivers don't have the same type of free time and mental space to make websites and craft email messages and rally other parents to their cause. I know you are busy patting yourself on the back for having the time to do so, but you are not better than other people just because you have less going on in your life than they do. Their concerns are not less important than yours. You just have more free time on your hands and fewer fires to put out on a daily basis. But I know you don't care.

I'm not sure why you're pretending to be me. I think we're in agreement but please stop pretending to be me.

You realize no one owns a thread right? When there are multiple anonymous posters no one actually knows who they’re responding to? Anyway if your wrote the 💯 comment we are in fact in agreement. No one is pretending to be you.

Now even the pro-boundary change posters are turning against themselves.

The school board has turned neighbors against each other and with the unnecessary boundary changes made me do/consider things that I never thought I would (voting against the school bond and supporting vouchers).

I truly hate the school board for this. They’ve soured public school education for me for no gain but a lot of pain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted earlier that Reid said that the scenarios had not be "vetted." Does she mean that staff never looked at them to check for known issues?

What do these people get paid to do?

Hard to believe that Reid (who did not know about issues in Rt 1 corridor) is weighing in on boundaries and answering? questions.

She was talking about the 4 maps they posted for the Western High School.

Who created the maps? Staff or THRU?

And why are they showing maps to the public and getting no people all upset if they are not vetted? I swear she just says things to get people to calm down in the moment. As soon as someone is freaking out about a change she’s all “don’t worry that’s just a super drafty draft” regardless of whether that’s true. The school board must be beyond frustrated with her because then they have to clean up her mess. She is just telling everyone what they want to hear while they’re in front of her. I wouldn’t trust anything she says at this point.

Why are they doing 7 revidions to the county wide rezoning maps, based on who complains the most on the previous map?

More like who has the biggest tantrum. Some of these grown adults should be ashamed of themselves.

💯 I can't believe the school board and Dr. Reid are so stupid that they think the people who make the biggest stink are actually the majority. They're not in most instances. In most instances, the majority of the school population is indifferent but the "active families" (meaning the wealthy ones) are the most vocal and have the resources to make their voices loud and their opinions heard. It enrages me that FCPS school board/admin hasn't figured this out yet.

Why would it require extensive “resources” to make your voice heard? You’re basically claiming that FCPS should have a free hand to do whatever it wants, yet many of the proposals of its outside consultants have been ludicrous on their face.

No, I'm not claiming that at all. I am saying FCPS should not assume that one small group of very loud people who have the time and money to create an advocacy organization out of the blue actually represents an entire community. Some of us have jobs and we don't have the network of some of these pro-Oakton moms (IYKYK) so we couldn't do that. But that doesn't mean that they are the majority and represent everyone.

Got it, but it appears your issue is not just that some parents are more organized than others on whether Crossfield should be zoned to the new western HS, but also that Reid gives off the vibe that FCPS will defer to the last person who spoke.

That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t express their opinions or organize to do so. It may mean that Reid needs to tell them they won’t always get what they want. Or it may mean some people who now think they are getting what they want because of how she interacts with people will be disappointed later.

Taking a contrary stand in a public meeting to a large group of people who’ve built up a head of steam and are cheering each other on isn’t easy. It’s not impossible, but it makes a lot of people uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean you can’t find other ways to express your opinions.

But just shitting on people for being organized or speaking up comes across as passive-aggressive. And if we just left FCPS and their consultants up to their own devices it’s unlikely we’d be well served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything currently is based on September 2024 enrollments and program capacities.

So I guess your point is if they use stale data and program capacities quickly decline or expand due to a change in Title I status some schools could already be targets for future redistricting shortly after new boundaries are adopted in 2026.

I don’t think that’s the case with Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane given the current status and proposed boundary changes affecting those schools, but perhaps it’s more of a possibility with other schools like Gunston depending on where they land.

Yes, they might push brand new Title I schools well over capacity for 5 years only to immediately reshuffle the next cycle. The community deserves more consideration and stability.

The Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane situation is slightly different. Graham Road and Timber Lane are both Title I schools. The scenarios remove all disadvantaged students from Graham Road. It will lose Title I status, its program capacity could expand, and it’ll be under enrolled.

Meanwhile, Timber Lane will have a 70-90% FARM rate with majority of their students coming from an attendance island on the other side of Rt-29. Shrevewood will be about 50% FARMs, so not Title I, and the 119 students who previously received services will lose them.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here with respect to Graham Road and Timber Lane.

If you look at the new Graham Road boundaries, they leave some high-poverty areas at the school. One is off Kalmia Lee Court, and the second is the large complex of garden apartments off Annandale Road (includes the James Lee Apartments). In addition, there are FARMS kids living in single-family houses in that area. It could still end up Title I, just not as high FARMS as Graham Road is now. The main appeal is that Scenario 4 consolidates at Graham Road some Falls Church HS neighborhoods that had been divided among Timber Lane, Graham Road, and Pine Spring previously (even though a piece of Jefferson Village still feeds to Beech Tree ES/Glasgow MS/Justice HS).

I do think Timber Lane will end up around 70-75% FARMS, and it could lead to more of the McLean-zoned families north of Route 29 sending their kids to private schools or angling for AAP at Haycock before Longfellow. The main goal of these families was to stay zoned to Longfellow/McLean, and very little was said about the other changes that will drive up the FARMS rate at Timber Lane. Creating the new Kingsley Commons attendance island at Timber Lane doesn't align with Policy 8130, but it's unclear whether they'll come up with anything different at this point.

I agree Shrevewood will see an increase in its FARMS rate under Scenario 4, and not enough to push it into Title I status. At some point, although it could be years away, Dunn Loring may open, and if/when that happens the Shrevewood neighborhoods outside the Beltway logically would move to Stenwood given how many Stenwood families stand to move to Dunn Loring.

Scenario 4 has Shrevewood at 102% and Timber Lane at 87%. An alternative that puts each below 100% is moving SPA 5015 to Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall and leaving the higher membership counts from SPA 5013 + SPA 4913 total 119 at Timber Lane and 100% of Timber Lane to Jackson /Falls Church. SPA 5015 was about 50% of the total of the other 2 for the Kent Gardens published SPA counts.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/KentGardens-AreaBoundaryMaps-April2023.pdf

[Anonymous]

Best way to achieve results most times:

Argue with facts, not emotion.

Explain why.your option is best. Do not demean other schools. That only works for Great Falls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted earlier that Reid said that the scenarios had not be "vetted." Does she mean that staff never looked at them to check for known issues?

What do these people get paid to do?

Hard to believe that Reid (who did not know about issues in Rt 1 corridor) is weighing in on boundaries and answering? questions.

She was talking about the 4 maps they posted for the Western High School.

Who created the maps? Staff or THRU?

And why are they showing maps to the public and getting no people all upset if they are not vetted? I swear she just says things to get people to calm down in the moment. As soon as someone is freaking out about a change she’s all “don’t worry that’s just a super drafty draft” regardless of whether that’s true. The school board must be beyond frustrated with her because then they have to clean up her mess. She is just telling everyone what they want to hear while they’re in front of her. I wouldn’t trust anything she says at this point.

Why are they doing 7 revidions to the county wide rezoning maps, based on who complains the most on the previous map?

More like who has the biggest tantrum. Some of these grown adults should be ashamed of themselves.

💯 I can't believe the school board and Dr. Reid are so stupid that they think the people who make the biggest stink are actually the majority. They're not in most instances. In most instances, the majority of the school population is indifferent but the "active families" (meaning the wealthy ones) are the most vocal and have the resources to make their voices loud and their opinions heard. It enrages me that FCPS school board/admin hasn't figured this out yet.

Why would it require extensive “resources” to make your voice heard? You’re basically claiming that FCPS should have a free hand to do whatever it wants, yet many of the proposals of its outside consultants have been ludicrous on their face.

No, I'm not claiming that at all. I am saying FCPS should not assume that one small group of very loud people who have the time and money to create an advocacy organization out of the blue actually represents an entire community. Some of us have jobs and we don't have the network of some of these pro-Oakton moms (IYKYK) so we couldn't do that. But that doesn't mean that they are the majority and represent everyone.

Got it, but it appears your issue is not just that some parents are more organized than others on whether Crossfield should be zoned to the new western HS, but also that Reid gives off the vibe that FCPS will defer to the last person who spoke.

That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t express their opinions or organize to do so. It may mean that Reid needs to tell them they won’t always get what they want. Or it may mean some people who now think they are getting what they want because of how she interacts with people will be disappointed later.

Taking a contrary stand in a public meeting to a large group of people who’ve built up a head of steam and are cheering each other on isn’t easy. It’s not impossible, but it makes a lot of people uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean you can’t find other ways to express your opinions.

But just shitting on people for being organized or speaking up comes across as passive-aggressive. And if we just left FCPS and their consultants up to their own devices it’s unlikely we’d be well served.

DP. The point of the community boundary meetings is to express concern for when a change doesn't make sense. Like when they proposed to send 2 streets out of Chantilly Highlands to Oakton. That flat out made no sense. But what people are getting annoyed with are people complaining about boundary proposals that logistically DO makes sense, but for whatever superficial reason, that community doesn't WANT to be moved. The entire argument is some emotional argument like a little toddler who doesn't WANT to eat his peas. And then to top it all off, the decision makers give into these people's demands with a these weird carveouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything currently is based on September 2024 enrollments and program capacities.

So I guess your point is if they use stale data and program capacities quickly decline or expand due to a change in Title I status some schools could already be targets for future redistricting shortly after new boundaries are adopted in 2026.

I don’t think that’s the case with Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane given the current status and proposed boundary changes affecting those schools, but perhaps it’s more of a possibility with other schools like Gunston depending on where they land.

Yes, they might push brand new Title I schools well over capacity for 5 years only to immediately reshuffle the next cycle. The community deserves more consideration and stability.

The Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane situation is slightly different. Graham Road and Timber Lane are both Title I schools. The scenarios remove all disadvantaged students from Graham Road. It will lose Title I status, its program capacity could expand, and it’ll be under enrolled.

Meanwhile, Timber Lane will have a 70-90% FARM rate with majority of their students coming from an attendance island on the other side of Rt-29. Shrevewood will be about 50% FARMs, so not Title I, and the 119 students who previously received services will lose them.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here with respect to Graham Road and Timber Lane.

If you look at the new Graham Road boundaries, they leave some high-poverty areas at the school. One is off Kalmia Lee Court, and the second is the large complex of garden apartments off Annandale Road (includes the James Lee Apartments). In addition, there are FARMS kids living in single-family houses in that area. It could still end up Title I, just not as high FARMS as Graham Road is now. The main appeal is that Scenario 4 consolidates at Graham Road some Falls Church HS neighborhoods that had been divided among Timber Lane, Graham Road, and Pine Spring previously (even though a piece of Jefferson Village still feeds to Beech Tree ES/Glasgow MS/Justice HS).

I do think Timber Lane will end up around 70-75% FARMS, and it could lead to more of the McLean-zoned families north of Route 29 sending their kids to private schools or angling for AAP at Haycock before Longfellow. The main goal of these families was to stay zoned to Longfellow/McLean, and very little was said about the other changes that will drive up the FARMS rate at Timber Lane. Creating the new Kingsley Commons attendance island at Timber Lane doesn't align with Policy 8130, but it's unclear whether they'll come up with anything different at this point.

I agree Shrevewood will see an increase in its FARMS rate under Scenario 4, and not enough to push it into Title I status. At some point, although it could be years away, Dunn Loring may open, and if/when that happens the Shrevewood neighborhoods outside the Beltway logically would move to Stenwood given how many Stenwood families stand to move to Dunn Loring.

Scenario 4 has Shrevewood at 102% and Timber Lane at 87%. An alternative that puts each below 100% is moving SPA 5015 to Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall and leaving the higher membership counts from SPA 5013 + SPA 4913 total 119 at Timber Lane and 100% of Timber Lane to Jackson /Falls Church. SPA 5015 was about 50% of the total of the other 2 for the Kent Gardens published SPA counts.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/KentGardens-AreaBoundaryMaps-April2023.pdf

That ship has sailed. Once the Timber Lane island got moved back to McLean in scenario 4, I doubt they’d accept anything less. And while your suggestion more fairly balances capacity, it also concentrates even more poverty at Timber Lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything currently is based on September 2024 enrollments and program capacities.

So I guess your point is if they use stale data and program capacities quickly decline or expand due to a change in Title I status some schools could already be targets for future redistricting shortly after new boundaries are adopted in 2026.

I don’t think that’s the case with Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane given the current status and proposed boundary changes affecting those schools, but perhaps it’s more of a possibility with other schools like Gunston depending on where they land.

Yes, they might push brand new Title I schools well over capacity for 5 years only to immediately reshuffle the next cycle. The community deserves more consideration and stability.

The Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane situation is slightly different. Graham Road and Timber Lane are both Title I schools. The scenarios remove all disadvantaged students from Graham Road. It will lose Title I status, its program capacity could expand, and it’ll be under enrolled.

Meanwhile, Timber Lane will have a 70-90% FARM rate with majority of their students coming from an attendance island on the other side of Rt-29. Shrevewood will be about 50% FARMs, so not Title I, and the 119 students who previously received services will lose them.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here with respect to Graham Road and Timber Lane.

If you look at the new Graham Road boundaries, they leave some high-poverty areas at the school. One is off Kalmia Lee Court, and the second is the large complex of garden apartments off Annandale Road (includes the James Lee Apartments). In addition, there are FARMS kids living in single-family houses in that area. It could still end up Title I, just not as high FARMS as Graham Road is now. The main appeal is that Scenario 4 consolidates at Graham Road some Falls Church HS neighborhoods that had been divided among Timber Lane, Graham Road, and Pine Spring previously (even though a piece of Jefferson Village still feeds to Beech Tree ES/Glasgow MS/Justice HS).

I do think Timber Lane will end up around 70-75% FARMS, and it could lead to more of the McLean-zoned families north of Route 29 sending their kids to private schools or angling for AAP at Haycock before Longfellow. The main goal of these families was to stay zoned to Longfellow/McLean, and very little was said about the other changes that will drive up the FARMS rate at Timber Lane. Creating the new Kingsley Commons attendance island at Timber Lane doesn't align with Policy 8130, but it's unclear whether they'll come up with anything different at this point.

I agree Shrevewood will see an increase in its FARMS rate under Scenario 4, and not enough to push it into Title I status. At some point, although it could be years away, Dunn Loring may open, and if/when that happens the Shrevewood neighborhoods outside the Beltway logically would move to Stenwood given how many Stenwood families stand to move to Dunn Loring.

Scenario 4 has Shrevewood at 102% and Timber Lane at 87%. An alternative that puts each below 100% is moving SPA 5015 to Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall and leaving the higher membership counts from SPA 5013 + SPA 4913 total 119 at Timber Lane and 100% of Timber Lane to Jackson /Falls Church. SPA 5015 was about 50% of the total of the other 2 for the Kent Gardens published SPA counts.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/KentGardens-AreaBoundaryMaps-April2023.pdf

Pulls too many kids out of Longfellow/McLean, pushes Timber Lane up to 90% FARMS, and still leaves Kingsley Gardens as an attendance island. Shrevewood might like it but it’s not a good suggestion.

They might have been well served earlier to consider an option where all of Timber Lane north of 29 moved to Kilmer/Marshall, and much of Pimmit Hills moved to Longfellow/McLean, but that moment has likely passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted earlier that Reid said that the scenarios had not be "vetted." Does she mean that staff never looked at them to check for known issues?

What do these people get paid to do?

Hard to believe that Reid (who did not know about issues in Rt 1 corridor) is weighing in on boundaries and answering? questions.

She was talking about the 4 maps they posted for the Western High School.

Who created the maps? Staff or THRU?

And why are they showing maps to the public and getting no people all upset if they are not vetted? I swear she just says things to get people to calm down in the moment. As soon as someone is freaking out about a change she’s all “don’t worry that’s just a super drafty draft” regardless of whether that’s true. The school board must be beyond frustrated with her because then they have to clean up her mess. She is just telling everyone what they want to hear while they’re in front of her. I wouldn’t trust anything she says at this point.

Why are they doing 7 revidions to the county wide rezoning maps, based on who complains the most on the previous map?

More like who has the biggest tantrum. Some of these grown adults should be ashamed of themselves.

💯 I can't believe the school board and Dr. Reid are so stupid that they think the people who make the biggest stink are actually the majority. They're not in most instances. In most instances, the majority of the school population is indifferent but the "active families" (meaning the wealthy ones) are the most vocal and have the resources to make their voices loud and their opinions heard. It enrages me that FCPS school board/admin hasn't figured this out yet.

Why would it require extensive “resources” to make your voice heard? You’re basically claiming that FCPS should have a free hand to do whatever it wants, yet many of the proposals of its outside consultants have been ludicrous on their face.

+1. That PP is blowing smoke. Families, rich and poor, don’t want to be moved. Doesn’t take a genius to see that.

Resources aren't just physical. It comes down to time and bandwidth to think and formulate a message. If you are poor and super stressed and just trying to get through each day, you don't have as much mental energy to think about who to contact and what to say to get your point across. You are oblivious if you don't understand this.

It doesn’t change the fact that you’re trying to marshal some invisible army of supporters for whatever it is you favor here, which you haven’t even bothered to identify, by attempting to discredit those who actually take the time to get involved.

Oh are you one of those PTO mommy martyrs? You are so amazing for being so involved! It has nothing to do with your need for control. You are so selfless!!

You’re making a fool out of yourself by seething with resentment, yet no one can tell what you want, other than for others to be ignored.

Not really a great look.

Excuse me? Who do you think you are? How do you know who is involved and who isn't? I can see past my own nose, look around, and notice that some parents/caregivers don't have the same type of free time and mental space to make websites and craft email messages and rally other parents to their cause. I know you are busy patting yourself on the back for having the time to do so, but you are not better than other people just because you have less going on in your life than they do. Their concerns are not less important than yours. You just have more free time on your hands and fewer fires to put out on a daily basis. But I know you don't care.

I'm not sure why you're pretending to be me. I think we're in agreement but please stop pretending to be me.

You realize no one owns a thread right? When there are multiple anonymous posters no one actually knows who they’re responding to? Anyway if your wrote the 💯 comment we are in fact in agreement. No one is pretending to be you.

Now even the pro-boundary change posters are turning against themselves.

The school board has turned neighbors against each other and with the unnecessary boundary changes made me do/consider things that I never thought I would (voting against the school bond and supporting vouchers).

I truly hate the school board for this. They’ve soured public school education for me for no gain but a lot of pain.

I mean how far you take your anger is up to you. You can tantrum it out and take your anger out on unrelated things if you want to.

I am anti the boundary policy and changes. I will vote for the SCHOOL BOARD accordingly. If I don’t get what I want because the majority of voters in my district do not agree with me, I will be mad and keep fighting for fewer changes.

However,

I will not cut off my nose to spite my face and vote for vouchers or against the school bond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted earlier that Reid said that the scenarios had not be "vetted." Does she mean that staff never looked at them to check for known issues?

What do these people get paid to do?

Hard to believe that Reid (who did not know about issues in Rt 1 corridor) is weighing in on boundaries and answering? questions.

She was talking about the 4 maps they posted for the Western High School.

Who created the maps? Staff or THRU?

And why are they showing maps to the public and getting no people all upset if they are not vetted? I swear she just says things to get people to calm down in the moment. As soon as someone is freaking out about a change she’s all “don’t worry that’s just a super drafty draft” regardless of whether that’s true. The school board must be beyond frustrated with her because then they have to clean up her mess. She is just telling everyone what they want to hear while they’re in front of her. I wouldn’t trust anything she says at this point.

Why are they doing 7 revidions to the county wide rezoning maps, based on who complains the most on the previous map?

More like who has the biggest tantrum. Some of these grown adults should be ashamed of themselves.

💯 I can't believe the school board and Dr. Reid are so stupid that they think the people who make the biggest stink are actually the majority. They're not in most instances. In most instances, the majority of the school population is indifferent but the "active families" (meaning the wealthy ones) are the most vocal and have the resources to make their voices loud and their opinions heard. It enrages me that FCPS school board/admin hasn't figured this out yet.

Why would it require extensive “resources” to make your voice heard? You’re basically claiming that FCPS should have a free hand to do whatever it wants, yet many of the proposals of its outside consultants have been ludicrous on their face.

No, I'm not claiming that at all. I am saying FCPS should not assume that one small group of very loud people who have the time and money to create an advocacy organization out of the blue actually represents an entire community. Some of us have jobs and we don't have the network of some of these pro-Oakton moms (IYKYK) so we couldn't do that. But that doesn't mean that they are the majority and represent everyone.

Got it, but it appears your issue is not just that some parents are more organized than others on whether Crossfield should be zoned to the new western HS, but also that Reid gives off the vibe that FCPS will defer to the last person who spoke.

That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t express their opinions or organize to do so. It may mean that Reid needs to tell them they won’t always get what they want. Or it may mean some people who now think they are getting what they want because of how she interacts with people will be disappointed later.

Taking a contrary stand in a public meeting to a large group of people who’ve built up a head of steam and are cheering each other on isn’t easy. It’s not impossible, but it makes a lot of people uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean you can’t find other ways to express your opinions.

But just shitting on people for being organized or speaking up comes across as passive-aggressive. And if we just left FCPS and their consultants up to their own devices it’s unlikely we’d be well served.

DP. The point of the community boundary meetings is to express concern for when a change doesn't make sense. Like when they proposed to send 2 streets out of Chantilly Highlands to Oakton. That flat out made no sense. But what people are getting annoyed with are people complaining about boundary proposals that logistically DO makes sense, but for whatever superficial reason, that community doesn't WANT to be moved. The entire argument is some emotional argument like a little toddler who doesn't WANT to eat his peas. And then to top it all off, the decision makers give into these people's demands with a these weird carveouts.

Also, hardly anybody wants these boundary changes. But Reid and the board have set up a dynamic where the people who show up and stomp their feet the loudest get what they want. THAT is what is pissing other people off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The split at wolftrap should not have been a priority as it was an almost even split. But Kilmer needed help.

Capacity at Kilmer can be resolved by sending existing Kilmer/Madison students to Thoreau. That is the only change needed to get them below 105%

Wolftrap/Marshall families’ dream of moving to Madison was put into peril when Westbriar/Madison families demanded to stay at Madison. If those students stay at Madison, they either need to move to Thoreau, which pushes the school above 105% or they will stay at Kilmer and it will remain a split feeder (something like 4%)

Marshall families will not be happy if the result of this exercise leaves them with more split feeders in their pyramid than what they started with (only Madison schools are being fixed and Shrevewood is turning into a split feeder) and an attendance island for Kilmer/Marshall.

Reid was asked multiple times "If the Westbriar families that Scenario 4 proposes to move to Marshall remain at Madison, will the Wolftrap families that Scenario 4 proposes to move to Madison still move to Madison?"

In each instance, she said yes. In at least one instance, she interrupted someone asking the question to say yes. She said she'd met with the principals of both Marshall (Litz) and Madison (Calvert) and the numbers still worked.

I don't see how they do a 180 turn without Reid forever losing credibility in the community. At a minimum, she ought to schedule an in-person meeting at Wolftrap, apologize profusely in person, and explain why they might have since concluded they need to leave Wolftrap a split feeder, whether it's to avoid overcrowding Thoreau, avoid driving up the FARMS rate at Marshall, avoid making the existing attendance island at Westbriar worse, etc.

And even then more will start pupil placing to Madison, because they've had Madison and AP dangled right in front of their faces by FCPS and Reid.

What is driving the love for Madison amongst Wolf Trap families? Is it AP in some cases providing more college credits or receiving an IB diploma takes more effort than just AP courses? Is it these families struggle with economic and ethnic diversity and would rather go to a less diverse or "more well off" school? Is it sports oriented families that recognize Madison as the stronger school from that perspective? As mentioned before, it is currently a fairly equal split between Marshall and Madison at Madison and the distance these neighborhoods are to Madison or Marshall are very similar / almost identical.

Everyone is different, but changing pyramids for families is very unpopular and often emotionally detrimental to the kids. Families crave stability.

That is what the school board is taking away from all of us. Every five years, in perpetuity.

Then take your kids private or move to a smaller jurisdiction with its own school district that allows you to self-segregate from nearby areas.

School boundaries are never guaranteed and every family buying into Fairfax County should be aware of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything currently is based on September 2024 enrollments and program capacities.

So I guess your point is if they use stale data and program capacities quickly decline or expand due to a change in Title I status some schools could already be targets for future redistricting shortly after new boundaries are adopted in 2026.

I don’t think that’s the case with Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane given the current status and proposed boundary changes affecting those schools, but perhaps it’s more of a possibility with other schools like Gunston depending on where they land.

Yes, they might push brand new Title I schools well over capacity for 5 years only to immediately reshuffle the next cycle. The community deserves more consideration and stability.

The Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane situation is slightly different. Graham Road and Timber Lane are both Title I schools. The scenarios remove all disadvantaged students from Graham Road. It will lose Title I status, its program capacity could expand, and it’ll be under enrolled.

Meanwhile, Timber Lane will have a 70-90% FARM rate with majority of their students coming from an attendance island on the other side of Rt-29. Shrevewood will be about 50% FARMs, so not Title I, and the 119 students who previously received services will lose them.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here with respect to Graham Road and Timber Lane.

If you look at the new Graham Road boundaries, they leave some high-poverty areas at the school. One is off Kalmia Lee Court, and the second is the large complex of garden apartments off Annandale Road (includes the James Lee Apartments). In addition, there are FARMS kids living in single-family houses in that area. It could still end up Title I, just not as high FARMS as Graham Road is now. The main appeal is that Scenario 4 consolidates at Graham Road some Falls Church HS neighborhoods that had been divided among Timber Lane, Graham Road, and Pine Spring previously (even though a piece of Jefferson Village still feeds to Beech Tree ES/Glasgow MS/Justice HS).

I do think Timber Lane will end up around 70-75% FARMS, and it could lead to more of the McLean-zoned families north of Route 29 sending their kids to private schools or angling for AAP at Haycock before Longfellow. The main goal of these families was to stay zoned to Longfellow/McLean, and very little was said about the other changes that will drive up the FARMS rate at Timber Lane. Creating the new Kingsley Commons attendance island at Timber Lane doesn't align with Policy 8130, but it's unclear whether they'll come up with anything different at this point.

I agree Shrevewood will see an increase in its FARMS rate under Scenario 4, and not enough to push it into Title I status. At some point, although it could be years away, Dunn Loring may open, and if/when that happens the Shrevewood neighborhoods outside the Beltway logically would move to Stenwood given how many Stenwood families stand to move to Dunn Loring.

Scenario 4 has Shrevewood at 102% and Timber Lane at 87%. An alternative that puts each below 100% is moving SPA 5015 to Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall and leaving the higher membership counts from SPA 5013 + SPA 4913 total 119 at Timber Lane and 100% of Timber Lane to Jackson /Falls Church. SPA 5015 was about 50% of the total of the other 2 for the Kent Gardens published SPA counts.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/KentGardens-AreaBoundaryMaps-April2023.pdf

Pulls too many kids out of Longfellow/McLean, pushes Timber Lane up to 90% FARMS, and still leaves Kingsley Gardens as an attendance island. Shrevewood might like it but it’s not a good suggestion.

They might have been well served earlier to consider an option where all of Timber Lane north of 29 moved to Kilmer/Marshall, and much of Pimmit Hills moved to Longfellow/McLean, but that moment has likely passed.

I posted it because all the Thru Scenarios are drafts including Scenario 4. It is not a final going to the SB and the SB has not done any adjustments on scenarios. Pine Spring scenario 3 was 88% and scenario 4 is 101%. That scenario did not make Kingsley Commons an island.

So use Scenario 3 for Pine Spring and Timber Lane but move SPA 5015 to Shrevewood from Timber Lane instead of 5013+4913.

FCHS scenarios do not include the 2500 capacity post renovation for 2026.

FYI it's Kingsley Commons not Kingsley Gardens. 3036 Graham Rd is the site of the original ES and now has: SACC, adult ESOL, interagency alternative program. No clue on utilization rate of the building during normal school hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best way to achieve results most times:

Argue with facts, not emotion.

Explain why.your option is best. Do not demean other schools. That only works for Great Falls.

To be fair, Great Falls residents are concerned about the drive-by murder of the Herndon High student near Hutchison Elementary after the victim allegedly received death threats at Herndon High and the victim’s father claims to have called the school and claims that the school did not follow up with him.

Those happen to be the facts/allegations, and so when you say Great Falls demeans other schools, it is only indirectly by highlighting facts like these. I wish that FCPS and HHS were more proactive in solving this clear problem rather than trying to sweep it under the rug.

Would be nice to have an honest conversation about how to actually make Herndon High safe, rather than be gaslit with false claims that HHS is a safe school, despite all recent violent evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything currently is based on September 2024 enrollments and program capacities.

So I guess your point is if they use stale data and program capacities quickly decline or expand due to a change in Title I status some schools could already be targets for future redistricting shortly after new boundaries are adopted in 2026.

I don’t think that’s the case with Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane given the current status and proposed boundary changes affecting those schools, but perhaps it’s more of a possibility with other schools like Gunston depending on where they land.

Yes, they might push brand new Title I schools well over capacity for 5 years only to immediately reshuffle the next cycle. The community deserves more consideration and stability.

The Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane situation is slightly different. Graham Road and Timber Lane are both Title I schools. The scenarios remove all disadvantaged students from Graham Road. It will lose Title I status, its program capacity could expand, and it’ll be under enrolled.

Meanwhile, Timber Lane will have a 70-90% FARM rate with majority of their students coming from an attendance island on the other side of Rt-29. Shrevewood will be about 50% FARMs, so not Title I, and the 119 students who previously received services will lose them.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here with respect to Graham Road and Timber Lane.

If you look at the new Graham Road boundaries, they leave some high-poverty areas at the school. One is off Kalmia Lee Court, and the second is the large complex of garden apartments off Annandale Road (includes the James Lee Apartments). In addition, there are FARMS kids living in single-family houses in that area. It could still end up Title I, just not as high FARMS as Graham Road is now. The main appeal is that Scenario 4 consolidates at Graham Road some Falls Church HS neighborhoods that had been divided among Timber Lane, Graham Road, and Pine Spring previously (even though a piece of Jefferson Village still feeds to Beech Tree ES/Glasgow MS/Justice HS).

I do think Timber Lane will end up around 70-75% FARMS, and it could lead to more of the McLean-zoned families north of Route 29 sending their kids to private schools or angling for AAP at Haycock before Longfellow. The main goal of these families was to stay zoned to Longfellow/McLean, and very little was said about the other changes that will drive up the FARMS rate at Timber Lane. Creating the new Kingsley Commons attendance island at Timber Lane doesn't align with Policy 8130, but it's unclear whether they'll come up with anything different at this point.

I agree Shrevewood will see an increase in its FARMS rate under Scenario 4, and not enough to push it into Title I status. At some point, although it could be years away, Dunn Loring may open, and if/when that happens the Shrevewood neighborhoods outside the Beltway logically would move to Stenwood given how many Stenwood families stand to move to Dunn Loring.

Scenario 4 has Shrevewood at 102% and Timber Lane at 87%. An alternative that puts each below 100% is moving SPA 5015 to Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall and leaving the higher membership counts from SPA 5013 + SPA 4913 total 119 at Timber Lane and 100% of Timber Lane to Jackson /Falls Church. SPA 5015 was about 50% of the total of the other 2 for the Kent Gardens published SPA counts.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/KentGardens-AreaBoundaryMaps-April2023.pdf

Pulls too many kids out of Longfellow/McLean, pushes Timber Lane up to 90% FARMS, and still leaves Kingsley Gardens as an attendance island. Shrevewood might like it but it’s not a good suggestion.

They might have been well served earlier to consider an option where all of Timber Lane north of 29 moved to Kilmer/Marshall, and much of Pimmit Hills moved to Longfellow/McLean, but that moment has likely passed.

What should be considered is dropping the idea that Graham Road needs to be in its attendance zone. Put everyone back where they were. Send SPA 5021 from Pine Spring to Timber Lane. Send SPA 5018 from Graham Road to Pine Spring. I don’t know if that will get them all under 105%, but it keeps all impacts within the FCHS pyramid. It screws over that one neighborhood that wants to go to elementary school together, though.

[Anonymous]

Moving 5015 to Shrevewood/kilmer/marshall has always made most sense from community perspective but ship has sailed on that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moving 5015 to Shrevewood/kilmer/marshall has always made most sense from community perspective but ship has sailed on that one.

No ships have sailed. I posted about 5015 and FCPS has historically made "late" or even surprise changes in scoped boundary processes. This stuff isn't even scoped by FCPS.