FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

They need to look at schools that are well under capacity as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

Oh my god, they aren't going to do this every 5 years. They set rules so that they could potentially do this at a shorter interval, but that doesn't mean that they have to or will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

Oh my god, they aren't going to do this every 5 years. They set rules so that they could potentially do this at a shorter interval, but that doesn't mean that they have to or will.

DP. What are you babbling on about?

Comprehensive boundary review every five years is required. Per the policy that they just passed in July.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

They need to look at schools that are well under capacity as well.

If they want to boost Lewis's numbers, they should move the STEM academy at Edison (which is also predicted to be over capacity) to Lewis and switch to a robust offering of AP classes rather than having IB at that school. I think that would fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

Oh my god, they aren't going to do this every 5 years. They set rules so that they could potentially do this at a shorter interval, but that doesn't mean that they have to or will.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

Oh my god, they aren't going to do this every 5 years. They set rules so that they could potentially do this at a shorter interval, but that doesn't mean that they have to or will.

DP. What are you babbling on about?

Comprehensive boundary review every five years is required. Per the policy that they just passed in July.

+1. A comprehensive boundary review is required “at least” every five years under revised Policy 8130.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

They need to look at schools that are well under capacity as well.

If they want to boost Lewis's numbers, they should move the STEM academy at Edison (which is also predicted to be over capacity) to Lewis and switch to a robust offering of AP classes rather than having IB at that school. I think that would fix it.

Sounds like something worth at least considering. Does Edison have specialized facilities for its Academy program? Would this just turn Edison into Lewis 2.0?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

They need to look at schools that are well under capacity as well.

If they want to boost Lewis's numbers, they should move the STEM academy at Edison (which is also predicted to be over capacity) to Lewis and switch to a robust offering of AP classes rather than having IB at that school. I think that would fix it.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

They need to look at schools that are well under capacity as well.

If they want to boost Lewis's numbers, they should move the STEM academy at Edison (which is also predicted to be over capacity) to Lewis and switch to a robust offering of AP classes rather than having IB at that school. I think that would fix it.

Agree.

It would be really interesting--and maybe revealing--if they would release the current pupil placement numbers, along with the reasons for pupil placement. If a lot are placing from Lewis to Edison for the STEM, that would be useful information. Where are the PP for AP from Lewis going? That would also be useful information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What company are they using to figure this out?

The parameters are vague, to say the least. Is this a situation where the company being used, is a friend of the board and a backroom deal to feed money?

Not sure what company but it’s likely sole source par usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

Oh my god, they aren't going to do this every 5 years. They set rules so that they could potentially do this at a shorter interval, but that doesn't mean that they have to or will.

DP. What are you babbling on about?

Comprehensive boundary review every five years is required. Per the policy that they just passed in July.

Many families don't want to see their kids shifted from school to school every 5 years. Just because the school board passed that resolution earlier this year doesn't mean it was a good idea. It's not "babbling" to want to avoid the kind upheaval and anxiety that can come from potential boundary changes every five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think that if they are doing this every 5 years, they should wait to see if these schools they are saying will be over capacity actually are. I really and truly don't think WSHS will be over capacity.

They need to look at schools that are well under capacity as well.

If they want to boost Lewis's numbers, they should move the STEM academy at Edison (which is also predicted to be over capacity) to Lewis and switch to a robust offering of AP classes rather than having IB at that school. I think that would fix it.

Sounds like something worth at least considering. Does Edison have specialized facilities for its Academy program? Would this just turn Edison into Lewis 2.0?

Edison has demographics closer to Hayfield and West Potomac than to Lewis. It wouldn't be great, but it would be fine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Question: Has any "suggestions" been made about particular moves? Or is everyone just confused?

Do we have theories on who would be moved?

So the starting point would be the schools that are severely overcrowded. Taking those schools and trying to shift those populations to schools not as crowded.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Proposed-FCPS-FY-2025-29-CIP.pdf

Langley at 98% capacity and Herndon at 71% should have great falls worried

Nope. Westfield to Herndon first.

I say leave McLean, Westfield, and Chantilly alone.

McLean needs a renovation plan, not a boundary change. McLean kids deserve better than to be treated as a foil for moving Great Falls kids from Langley to Herndon.

The Westfield kids who would move to Herndon (Coates) would further drive up the poverty at HHS. That doesn’t seem too smart.

Chantilly kids can move, if necessary, after Centreville has been expanded.

Ummm, you realize the only pretext for moving Great Falls to HHS is if they move some of McLean to Langley? Langley is under capacity. McLean kids wouldn’t be the foil in any way shape or form.

Gotta get your facts straight before trying to stir up a hornets nest.

McLean kids do not want to go to Langley.

Kids already at McLean don't want to go to Langley. The schools are rivals.

But the families of the younger kids at Spring Hill ES, which is a split feeder to Langley/McLean, who are zoned for McLean now likely would be happy to get moved there. Those kids are in the Tysons "attendance island." Spring Hill splits about 65-70% to Langley and 30-35% to McLean now.

As to whether moving those kids to Cooper/Langley, considered in conjunction with the additional growth planned in that part of Tysons, would play into the SB's potentially moving part of
Great Falls from Langley to Herndon is a question best left to others.

Well, if we’re going to consider growth in Tyson’s shouldn’t we also factor in the many thousands of units coming online in Herndon over the coming years? Or are we just planning to alleviate overcrowding at McLean by overcrowding Herndon?

Comstock just pulled out of its planned development in Herndon. So you shouldn’t count it.

Comstock pulled out of a plan to develop 200 residences. There are over 8,000 anticipated housing units for Herndon in the coming years.

Where will 8k units fit in TOH? Is this the county deciding to concentrate poverty in that area? Most of the development has been outside TOH limits. Don’t think for one moment the county isn’t picking winners and losers.

[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:

Question: Has any "suggestions" been made about particular moves? Or is everyone just confused?

Do we have theories on who would be moved?

So the starting point would be the schools that are severely overcrowded. Taking those schools and trying to shift those populations to schools not as crowded.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Proposed-FCPS-FY-2025-29-CIP.pdf

Langley at 98% capacity and Herndon at 71% should have great falls worried

If you go through past "anticipated" development, you will find that a lot of it never materialized. I am very doubtful about 8,000 units. I doubt there would ever be that much. There has been a lot of construction around the new Metro across Toll Road from Town of Herndon (Westfield; Coates) but 8000? I live in the nearby and I have NEVER heard that. It's possible that it included Loudoun development. There was also some more recent development in Reston that is South Lakes Boundary.
Where does that 8000 number come from?

Nope. Westfield to Herndon first.

I say leave McLean, Westfield, and Chantilly alone.

McLean needs a renovation plan, not a boundary change. McLean kids deserve better than to be treated as a foil for moving Great Falls kids from Langley to Herndon.

The Westfield kids who would move to Herndon (Coates) would further drive up the poverty at HHS. That doesn’t seem too smart.

Chantilly kids can move, if necessary, after Centreville has been expanded.

Ummm, you realize the only pretext for moving Great Falls to HHS is if they move some of McLean to Langley? Langley is under capacity. McLean kids wouldn’t be the foil in any way shape or form.

Gotta get your facts straight before trying to stir up a hornets nest.

McLean kids do not want to go to Langley.

Kids already at McLean don't want to go to Langley. The schools are rivals.

But the families of the younger kids at Spring Hill ES, which is a split feeder to Langley/McLean, who are zoned for McLean now likely would be happy to get moved there. Those kids are in the Tysons "attendance island." Spring Hill splits about 65-70% to Langley and 30-35% to McLean now.

As to whether moving those kids to Cooper/Langley, considered in conjunction with the additional growth planned in that part of Tysons, would play into the SB's potentially moving part of
Great Falls from Langley to Herndon is a question best left to others.

Well, if we’re going to consider growth in Tyson’s shouldn’t we also factor in the many thousands of units coming online in Herndon over the coming years? Or are we just planning to alleviate overcrowding at McLean by overcrowding Herndon?

Comstock just pulled out of its planned development in Herndon. So you shouldn’t count it.

Comstock pulled out of a plan to develop 200 residences. There are over 8,000 anticipated housing units for Herndon in the coming years.

Where will 8k units fit in TOH? Is this the county deciding to concentrate poverty in that area? Most of the development has been outside TOH limits. Don’t think for one moment the county isn’t picking winners and losers.

[Anonymous]

Misplaced this statement in prior post:


If you go through past "anticipated" development, you will find that a lot of it never materialized. I am very doubtful about 8,000 units. I doubt there would ever be that much. There has been a lot of construction around the new Metro across Toll Road from Town of Herndon (Westfield; Coates) but 8000? I live in the nearby and I have NEVER heard that. It's possible that it included Loudoun development. There was also some more recent development in Reston that is South Lakes Boundary.
Where does that 8000 number come from?