Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

At the end of this 2 year process - it is clear families want to stay at the school they are at 99% of the time. We don’t need five year boundary reviews but only targeted review when capacity thresholds are approaching.

[Anonymous]

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.

Wow. I don't live near that area--though I am a little familiar with it.
I remember when the community begged to keep the school at the old site. Why? Because it was truly a community school.

I was a Title I teacher. Do you have any idea how difficult it can be for families to access a school that is outside their community? Those are the communities who need a school close by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow. I don't live near that area--though I am a little familiar with it.
I remember when the community begged to keep the school at the old site. Why? Because it was truly a community school.

I was a Title I teacher. Do you have any idea how difficult it can be for families to access a school that is outside their community? Those are the communities who need a school close by.

The alternate they’re proposing is moving the Title I kids across RT-29 to a school that’s even further than the new Graham Road site, FYI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow. I don't live near that area--though I am a little familiar with it.
I remember when the community begged to keep the school at the old site. Why? Because it was truly a community school.

I was a Title I teacher. Do you have any idea how difficult it can be for families to access a school that is outside their community? Those are the communities who need a school close by.

DP, but dropping the idea that Graham Road needs to be in its attendance area is what would put the poorer community closer to their school. The latest FCPS proposal takes that community - Kingsley Commons - and turns it into a new attendance island zoned for another school further away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow. I don't live near that area--though I am a little familiar with it.
I remember when the community begged to keep the school at the old site. Why? Because it was truly a community school.

I was a Title I teacher. Do you have any idea how difficult it can be for families to access a school that is outside their community? Those are the communities who need a school close by.

The alternate they’re proposing is moving the Title I kids across RT-29 to a school that’s even further than the new Graham Road site, FYI.

You know, for all their emphasis on helping the poor and needy, FCPS really does not know what they are doing. I guess they thought a pretty new school would solve the problems.

The problem is the home situation and the school system should do everything possible at the school to support the community. This ain't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow. I don't live near that area--though I am a little familiar with it.
I remember when the community begged to keep the school at the old site. Why? Because it was truly a community school.

I was a Title I teacher. Do you have any idea how difficult it can be for families to access a school that is outside their community? Those are the communities who need a school close by.

The alternate they’re proposing is moving the Title I kids across RT-29 to a school that’s even further than the new Graham Road site, FYI.

You know, for all their emphasis on helping the poor and needy, FCPS really does not know what they are doing. I guess they thought a pretty new school would solve the problems.

The problem is the home situation and the school system should do everything possible at the school to support the community. This ain't it.

I urge everyone to contact Karl Frisch at the at large board members so they’re paying attention to what the scenario is proposing.

At the FCHS meeting, Thru and Reid were only listening to the praise from the neighborhoods that are getting McLean and their community school at Graham Road. The comments concerning Kingsley Commons were largely swept aside. There were several speakers on the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow. I don't live near that area--though I am a little familiar with it.
I remember when the community begged to keep the school at the old site. Why? Because it was truly a community school.

I was a Title I teacher. Do you have any idea how difficult it can be for families to access a school that is outside their community? Those are the communities who need a school close by.

The alternate they’re proposing is moving the Title I kids across RT-29 to a school that’s even further than the new Graham Road site, FYI.

You know, for all their emphasis on helping the poor and needy, FCPS really does not know what they are doing. I guess they thought a pretty new school would solve the problems.

The problem is the home situation and the school system should do everything possible at the school to support the community. This ain't it.

I urge everyone to contact Karl Frisch at the at large board members so they’re paying attention to what the scenario is proposing.

At the FCHS meeting, Thru and Reid were only listening to the praise from the neighborhoods that are getting McLean and their community school at Graham Road. The comments concerning Kingsley Commons were largely swept aside. There were several speakers on the matter.

They are well aware that Scenario 4 leaves Kingsley Commons as an attendance island. It has absolutely been brought to their attention.

The most obvious solution is to bridge that island by reassigning some areas that Scenario 4 puts at Pine Spring. It doesn’t change any MS/HS assignments.

Some of the objections about what FCPS is doing with these schools is coming from Shrevewood parents who don’t want some high FARMS areas north of Route 29 moved to their school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow. I don't live near that area--though I am a little familiar with it.
I remember when the community begged to keep the school at the old site. Why? Because it was truly a community school.

I was a Title I teacher. Do you have any idea how difficult it can be for families to access a school that is outside their community? Those are the communities who need a school close by.

The alternate they’re proposing is moving the Title I kids across RT-29 to a school that’s even further than the new Graham Road site, FYI.

You know, for all their emphasis on helping the poor and needy, FCPS really does not know what they are doing. I guess they thought a pretty new school would solve the problems.

The problem is the home situation and the school system should do everything possible at the school to support the community. This ain't it.

I urge everyone to contact Karl Frisch at the at large board members so they’re paying attention to what the scenario is proposing.

At the FCHS meeting, Thru and Reid were only listening to the praise from the neighborhoods that are getting McLean and their community school at Graham Road. The comments concerning Kingsley Commons were largely swept aside. There were several speakers on the matter.

They are well aware that Scenario 4 leaves Kingsley Commons as an attendance island. It has absolutely been brought to their attention.

The most obvious solution is to bridge that island by reassigning some areas that Scenario 4 puts at Pine Spring. It doesn’t change any MS/HS assignments.

Some of the objections about what FCPS is doing with these schools is coming from Shrevewood parents who don’t want some high FARMS areas north of Route 29 moved to their school.

The “bridging” the island makes no difference. It’s the forcing KC to a school across from RT-29 that’s the issue.

[Anonymous]

I think the people championing for Kingsley Commons not to go to Timber Lane are likely the families north of 29(who petitioned to stay in McLean/not go to FCHS) since it will make the school more FARMs. If you put it into google maps Kingsley Commons is 5 min from both Graham Rd and Timber Lane. The neighborhood that is being moved to Graham Rd currently passes Graham Rd to get to Timber Lane. It’s understandable for that neighborhood to want to finally want to not be split into three elementary school and be at their neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the people championing for Kingsley Commons not to go to Timber Lane are likely the families north of 29(who petitioned to stay in McLean/not go to FCHS) since it will make the school more FARMs. If you put it into google maps Kingsley Commons is 5 min from both Graham Rd and Timber Lane. The neighborhood that is being moved to Graham Rd currently passes Graham Rd to get to Timber Lane. It’s understandable for that neighborhood to want to finally want to not be split into three elementary school and be at their neighborhood school.

The folks north of Route 29 now at Longfellow/McLean have only asked to stay at those schools. They haven't said anything on their web site or in their public comments at community meetings about whether Kingsley Commons goes to Timber Lane or another school, and both Scenarios 3 and 4 move that area to Timber Lane.

It's Pine Spring parents who lobbied for the boundary changes that resulted in turning Kingsley Commons into an attendance island in Scenario 4. They wanted the single-family neighborhoods north of Kingsley Commons and south of Route 29 for Pine Spring. And it now appears to be Shrevewood parents who are trying to avoid the reassignment of the low-income apartments now at Timber Lane that are north of Route 29 and west of Hollywood Road (SPAs 5013 and 4913) to Shrevewood. These areas are separated by the rest of Timber Lane north of Route 29 by the King David Memorial Gardens. If more areas south of Route 29 are moving to Timber Lane, it makes more sense to move this area to Shrevewood than Poplar Heights (SPA 5015), unless you want to create a 90% FARMS school at Timber Lane.

PP is right that Kingsley Commons is already a good distance to Graham Road and will be even further from Timber Lane, but it's not like they are going to get a new school at the old site that was once next door, and turning Kingsley Commons into a new attendance island, when it's not necessary, seems like a particularly bad idea. At this point the best solution is likely adding SPAs 5006 and 5018 back to Timber Lane, as proposed in Scenario 3. But we'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the people championing for Kingsley Commons not to go to Timber Lane are likely the families north of 29(who petitioned to stay in McLean/not go to FCHS) since it will make the school more FARMs. If you put it into google maps Kingsley Commons is 5 min from both Graham Rd and Timber Lane. The neighborhood that is being moved to Graham Rd currently passes Graham Rd to get to Timber Lane. It’s understandable for that neighborhood to want to finally want to not be split into three elementary school and be at their neighborhood school.

I looked at the BRAC feedback on Scenario 3 provided by Region 2 (Falls Church, Justice, and McLean).

Here's what it said about Timber Lane boundaries: "We are not recommending a reversion to the old Timber Lane boundaries. The community is ok with the new draft boundaries for Timber Lane and Graham Road and is in support of putting Graham Road in its own attendance area. What we would like to see is a change to the middle and high school boundaries for the new proposed Timber Lane boundary (at least north of Route 29) to be Longfellow/McLean (not Jackson/Falls Church)."

There is a separate comment: "Explore the demographic impact of moving Pine Spring elementary students who currently live east of Strathmeade to Timber Lane elementary."

The revisions to Scenario 3 that left Kingsley Commons an isolated attendance island appear to have come out of concerns from Falls Church members of the BRAC that the FARMS rate at Pine Spring would increase. So Thru pulled this area out of Timber Lane, which pushes up the FARMS rate there.

Given that the FARMS rate at Graham Road (also in the Falls Church pyramid) is going to go down quite a bit, it follows that the FARMS rate at one or both of Pine Spring and Timber Lane will go up. They might as well not create a new attendance island in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the people championing for Kingsley Commons not to go to Timber Lane are likely the families north of 29(who petitioned to stay in McLean/not go to FCHS) since it will make the school more FARMs. If you put it into google maps Kingsley Commons is 5 min from both Graham Rd and Timber Lane. The neighborhood that is being moved to Graham Rd currently passes Graham Rd to get to Timber Lane. It’s understandable for that neighborhood to want to finally want to not be split into three elementary school and be at their neighborhood school.

I looked at the BRAC feedback on Scenario 3 provided by Region 2 (Falls Church, Justice, and McLean).

Here's what it said about Timber Lane boundaries: "We are not recommending a reversion to the old Timber Lane boundaries. The community is ok with the new draft boundaries for Timber Lane and Graham Road and is in support of putting Graham Road in its own attendance area. What we would like to see is a change to the middle and high school boundaries for the new proposed Timber Lane boundary (at least north of Route 29) to be Longfellow/McLean (not Jackson/Falls Church)."

There is a separate comment: "Explore the demographic impact of moving Pine Spring elementary students who currently live east of Strathmeade to Timber Lane elementary."

The revisions to Scenario 3 that left Kingsley Commons an isolated attendance island appear to have come out of concerns from Falls Church members of the BRAC that the FARMS rate at Pine Spring would increase. So Thru pulled this area out of Timber Lane, which pushes up the FARMS rate there.

Given that the FARMS rate at Graham Road (also in the Falls Church pyramid) is going to go down quite a bit, it follows that the FARMS rate at one or both of Pine Spring and Timber Lane will go up. They might as well not create a new attendance island in the process.

+1

There are a lot of sweeping demographics here. Scenario 4 creates a new split feeder, creates a new attendance island, and likely loses a Title I school. Moving Graham Road into its attendance island deserves a more focused study that I don’t think a bunch of overwhelmed consultants can achieve.

[Anonymous]

I posted the SPA 5015 to Shrevewood and other SPA changes not in any given scenario. The point of the exercise was all the schools are below 100%.

Marshall deserves a solid 100% ES feeder not in contention to be Madison. FCHS capacity will be 2500 fresh renovation with NO modular and trailers required for the POS.

Scenario 4 utilization:
Marshall- 2018 modular 95%, 12 classrooms CIP. No modular 100%
Mclean -2021 relocated a used modular, 12 classrooms + 4 trailers CIP. 100%, no modular 115%.
Falls Church at 2500-87%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted the SPA 5015 to Shrevewood and other SPA changes not in any given scenario. The point of the exercise was all the schools are below 100%.

Marshall deserves a solid 100% ES feeder not in contention to be Madison. FCHS capacity will be 2500 fresh renovation with NO modular and trailers required for the POS.

Scenario 4 utilization:
Marshall- 2018 modular 95%, 12 classrooms CIP. No modular 100%
Mclean -2021 relocated a used modular, 12 classrooms + 4 trailers CIP. 100%, no modular 115%.
Falls Church at 2500-87%.

Less controversial would be to SPA 5015 to Haycock. That keeps those kids in the McLean pyramid. Then rework TL, GR, and PS without involving Shrevewood. Existing TL/McLean kids continue to split to McLean. You are not moving that island out of McLean. It’s a dead end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of this 2 year process - it is clear families want to stay at the school they are at 99% of the time. We don’t need five year boundary reviews but only targeted review when capacity thresholds are approaching.

+1. It was clear from the start that very few wanted the boundary review, but the school board insisted. Hopefully the members realize the anger that they cause from the boundary reviews. I look forward to reminding them at the ballot box in two years.