FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw in the 4/25 SB meeting agenda that Thru is getting another $23K to build a "boundary explorer website," whatever that means.

This may actually be helpful, if it's going to be a publicly available online tool that allows folks not on the BRAC to see the impact of reassigning specific SPAs to different schools. It might allow people to explore alternatives to some of the weird stuff Thru has come up with so far. APS had something like that when it changed school boundaries a few years ago, and either Fairfax County or Virginia had a tool like that when Fairfax had to modify its magisterial districts to reflect the results of the 2020 census.

I woud welcome that, because I'm hearing anecdotally that the BRAC members from our pyramid aren't the most dutiful so we can't rely on them to push back.

Counterpoint is that they aren’t even listening to the BRAC or incorporating BRAC suggestions/advice, so what good will this do?

BRAC is not directing the boundary changes. Nardos King’s DEI department is directing what the boundary changes are going to take place.

[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:If you've followed these threads, these boundary changes have been described at times as the "Great Reset."

I think that is what Reid and the School Board want. They want to make so many changes that anyone who objects will just be part of the noise (thereby canceling each other out); they want to change the demographics at some schools so much that the historic reputations of some schools will be rendered meaningless; and they want to make grandfathering impossible, so that kids will be shell-shocked and families will be sent the clear message that their preferences count for nothing and that Reid and the School Board are in charge. "If you don't like it, you can leave (see PP today), but don't expect us to let you get in our way."

What is the meaning of "historic reputation" in the context of FCPS's public schools? It's not like there is any selectivity for students to be allowed attend. Only TJHSST and private schools have a claim to a reputation of selective standards that makes any real sense. The rest only amounts to chitchat amongst neighbors.

DP. we get it, you don’t like the USNews or great schools rankings.

Does anyone actually pay attention to those rankings except new parents looking for houses who don't know better? You're an idiot if you think those actually reflect anything other than wealth in an area.

DP. Which schools do your children attend? Serious question.

Shrevewood, which is rated 3 because of a high low-income population. High achieving kids from high achieving families are all doing great. I'm happy with the education my children are receiving.

DP. I’d read some Shrevewood parents aren’t crazy about the recent proposals, which would move more low-income kids from Timber Lane to Shrevewood and also reassign some Shrevewood kids from the Falls Hill area from Marshall to McLean, turning Shrevewood into a split feeder. The ratings for Kilmer may also take a hit if, as proposed, all the Madison-zoned kids at Kilmer are reassigned to Thoreau.

Putting the validity of GS ratings aside, do you welcome all these changes? I assume the Shrevewood boundaries will change yet again after Dunn Loring gets built.

Shrevewood is an interesting situation because a few years pre-Covid parents were saying the school was overcrowded and FCPS should do something.

Then, the situation largely took care of itself, as the enrollment declined. To the point where the 4/11 proposals contemplate moving 119 students into Shrevewood from another school that also isn't currently overcrowded.

Meanwhile Karl Frisch went ahead and starting pushing the Dunn Loring ES, which isn't really needed. But maybe if they overcrowd Shrevewood again they can squint hard and pretend it is.

So was the decline based on students aging out of elementary school? Kilmer is grotesquely overcrowded. Even with a 10 room modular it is 118% and only gets 20 in for AAP and a total of 39 from Thoreau. How is it possible that Kilmer, with no expansion of Kilmer Center square footage, lost about 200 program capacity seats? That is Providence District - Karl Fritsch.

CIP 25-29 984 modular 1227 [10 rooms]
CIP 26-30 791 modular 1023 [10 rooms
difference 193 204

Westbriar Island and Westbriar are under Meren-Hunter Mill District. The Island is between Sunrise Valley [Meren] and Colvin Run {Lady]yet Thru or Thru/FCPS moved it to Wolf Trap.

So Sunrise Valley is to the west of the Westbriar island, Colvin Run is to the east and north, and Wolftrap (not "Wolf Trap") is to the south.

Moving the island to Wolftrap, which is already a fairly even split feeder to Madison and Marshall, aligns with keeping those families at Kilmer/Marshall. Sunrise Valley feeds to Hughes/South Lakes, and Colvin Run feeds to Cooper/Langley. Ever since Colvin Run opened, Westbriar kids in the island have been bussed past Colvin Run on their west to Westbriar. Going to Wolftrap is a straight shot south down Beulah Road. This is actually one of the changes that probably makes sense.

It's not credible that Kilmer only has a program capacity of 791 without the modular. The school got renovated in the early 2000s and they would not have left it with so little capacity. Something funny is going on there but, with Frisch as the board member and Kilmer plunked in Region 5 with the rest of the Marshall pyramid, no one seems to be in any hurry to figure out why there was such a big drop in the stated capacities.

What would you do about Kilmer? I posted that stuff including the Karl Fritsch Kilmer mystery. Decades ago it was an undercapacity dump with no AAP/GT...now way over and divested of most transfer in AAP.

So the current island can get to Colvin Run from Beulah driving through Shouse Village. It's a shorter distance than Wolftrap and would move some out of Kilmer.

The Kilmer renovation was over 20 years ago but it was a nice renovation at the time. There's no way that, excluding the modular, it should only have a program capacity of 791. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the formulas that apply to the special programs at the Kilmer Center are being erroneously applied to Kilmer MS, but that's speculation. They really need to audit the building capacity there.

Both Longfellow and Kilmer got overcrowded with AAP kids from the Langley pyramid at some point, as AAP kids from Great Falls zoned for Cooper went to Kilmer and AAP kids from McLean zoned for Cooper went to Longfellow. Adding AAP to Cooper was a good idea and relieved some of the burden at both schools. Without the Cooper kids, Kilmer's demographics are less affluent, but Kilmer is actually better run now that it used to be. It's sending a lot of kids to TJ and, more importantly, most of the families are happy with the current administration.

The Westbriar island could have been moved to Colvin Run, but it probably would have been part of a multi-step adjustment where Colvin Run kids were then moved to Great Falls, Great Falls kids were moved to Forestville, and Forestville kids were moved to Herndon feeders like Dranesville and Armstrong. If they were moved to Colvin Run, they should be moved to Cooper and Langley as well, and then you'd have the same Langley parents who aren't happy that the Tysons island at Spring Hill is probably moving to Cooper/Langley complaining about this as well. Moving the island to Wolftrap, which already has a lot of kids bound for Kilmer and Marshall, is simpler.

The Westbriar island has only $1M+ SFHs; nothing like the apartment-heavy Tysons island. The Westbriar island looks more like the Shouse/wolftrap neighborhoods that got moved from mclean to Langley a couple years back.

That’s true. But what’s your point? The Langley parents would be happy with yet more expensive SFHs but not the Tysons island with apartments?

My point was that, if some aren’t happy with the influx of kids from Spring Hill putting Cooper and Langley slightly over capacity they’d be unhappy with Westbriar kids on top of that. No one at Wolftrap will complain about this island moving there and they already go to Kilmer and Marshall.

yes -thats my point, with evidence from the recent mclean-langley reboundary-ing. Langley parents heavily protested the inclusion of the tysons island and happily welcomed the Shouse neighborhood. They would not protest the westbriar island.

There are two ways to look at it. One is to claim they don’t want anything but affluent areas moved into Langley. The other is to recognize that some (and we’re really just talking about the western areas zoned to LHS) get more antsy about areas with upside growth potential getting moved into Langley, because that’s what will eventually push part of Langley to another school. Shouse and the Westbriar island are built out; Tysons is growing.

Either way they don’t have to make decisions on what’s most palatable to a subset of Langley parents. If they are going to move the Spring Hill island in Tysons, it makes the most sense to move it to Langley and if they are going to move the Westbriar island it makes at least as much sense to move it to Wolftrap as to any other ES.

Which doesn’t put Langley overcapacity, but does provide a great opportunity to rent an affordable apartment in the Langley area!

[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:If you've followed these threads, these boundary changes have been described at times as the "Great Reset."

I think that is what Reid and the School Board want. They want to make so many changes that anyone who objects will just be part of the noise (thereby canceling each other out); they want to change the demographics at some schools so much that the historic reputations of some schools will be rendered meaningless; and they want to make grandfathering impossible, so that kids will be shell-shocked and families will be sent the clear message that their preferences count for nothing and that Reid and the School Board are in charge. "If you don't like it, you can leave (see PP today), but don't expect us to let you get in our way."

What is the meaning of "historic reputation" in the context of FCPS's public schools? It's not like there is any selectivity for students to be allowed attend. Only TJHSST and private schools have a claim to a reputation of selective standards that makes any real sense. The rest only amounts to chitchat amongst neighbors.

DP. we get it, you don’t like the USNews or great schools rankings.

Does anyone actually pay attention to those rankings except new parents looking for houses who don't know better? You're an idiot if you think those actually reflect anything other than wealth in an area.

DP. Which schools do your children attend? Serious question.

Shrevewood, which is rated 3 because of a high low-income population. High achieving kids from high achieving families are all doing great. I'm happy with the education my children are receiving.

DP. I’d read some Shrevewood parents aren’t crazy about the recent proposals, which would move more low-income kids from Timber Lane to Shrevewood and also reassign some Shrevewood kids from the Falls Hill area from Marshall to McLean, turning Shrevewood into a split feeder. The ratings for Kilmer may also take a hit if, as proposed, all the Madison-zoned kids at Kilmer are reassigned to Thoreau.

Putting the validity of GS ratings aside, do you welcome all these changes? I assume the Shrevewood boundaries will change yet again after Dunn Loring gets built.

Shrevewood is an interesting situation because a few years pre-Covid parents were saying the school was overcrowded and FCPS should do something.

Then, the situation largely took care of itself, as the enrollment declined. To the point where the 4/11 proposals contemplate moving 119 students into Shrevewood from another school that also isn't currently overcrowded.

Meanwhile Karl Frisch went ahead and starting pushing the Dunn Loring ES, which isn't really needed. But maybe if they overcrowd Shrevewood again they can squint hard and pretend it is.

So was the decline based on students aging out of elementary school? Kilmer is grotesquely overcrowded. Even with a 10 room modular it is 118% and only gets 20 in for AAP and a total of 39 from Thoreau. How is it possible that Kilmer, with no expansion of Kilmer Center square footage, lost about 200 program capacity seats? That is Providence District - Karl Fritsch.

CIP 25-29 984 modular 1227 [10 rooms]
CIP 26-30 791 modular 1023 [10 rooms
difference 193 204

Westbriar Island and Westbriar are under Meren-Hunter Mill District. The Island is between Sunrise Valley [Meren] and Colvin Run {Lady]yet Thru or Thru/FCPS moved it to Wolf Trap.

So Sunrise Valley is to the west of the Westbriar island, Colvin Run is to the east and north, and Wolftrap (not "Wolf Trap") is to the south.

Moving the island to Wolftrap, which is already a fairly even split feeder to Madison and Marshall, aligns with keeping those families at Kilmer/Marshall. Sunrise Valley feeds to Hughes/South Lakes, and Colvin Run feeds to Cooper/Langley. Ever since Colvin Run opened, Westbriar kids in the island have been bussed past Colvin Run on their west to Westbriar. Going to Wolftrap is a straight shot south down Beulah Road. This is actually one of the changes that probably makes sense.

It's not credible that Kilmer only has a program capacity of 791 without the modular. The school got renovated in the early 2000s and they would not have left it with so little capacity. Something funny is going on there but, with Frisch as the board member and Kilmer plunked in Region 5 with the rest of the Marshall pyramid, no one seems to be in any hurry to figure out why there was such a big drop in the stated capacities.

What would you do about Kilmer? I posted that stuff including the Karl Fritsch Kilmer mystery. Decades ago it was an undercapacity dump with no AAP/GT...now way over and divested of most transfer in AAP.

So the current island can get to Colvin Run from Beulah driving through Shouse Village. It's a shorter distance than Wolftrap and would move some out of Kilmer.

The Kilmer renovation was over 20 years ago but it was a nice renovation at the time. There's no way that, excluding the modular, it should only have a program capacity of 791. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the formulas that apply to the special programs at the Kilmer Center are being erroneously applied to Kilmer MS, but that's speculation. They really need to audit the building capacity there.

Both Longfellow and Kilmer got overcrowded with AAP kids from the Langley pyramid at some point, as AAP kids from Great Falls zoned for Cooper went to Kilmer and AAP kids from McLean zoned for Cooper went to Longfellow. Adding AAP to Cooper was a good idea and relieved some of the burden at both schools. Without the Cooper kids, Kilmer's demographics are less affluent, but Kilmer is actually better run now that it used to be. It's sending a lot of kids to TJ and, more importantly, most of the families are happy with the current administration.

The Westbriar island could have been moved to Colvin Run, but it probably would have been part of a multi-step adjustment where Colvin Run kids were then moved to Great Falls, Great Falls kids were moved to Forestville, and Forestville kids were moved to Herndon feeders like Dranesville and Armstrong. If they were moved to Colvin Run, they should be moved to Cooper and Langley as well, and then you'd have the same Langley parents who aren't happy that the Tysons island at Spring Hill is probably moving to Cooper/Langley complaining about this as well. Moving the island to Wolftrap, which already has a lot of kids bound for Kilmer and Marshall, is simpler.

The Westbriar island has only $1M+ SFHs; nothing like the apartment-heavy Tysons island. The Westbriar island looks more like the Shouse/wolftrap neighborhoods that got moved from mclean to Langley a couple years back.

That’s true. But what’s your point? The Langley parents would be happy with yet more expensive SFHs but not the Tysons island with apartments?

My point was that, if some aren’t happy with the influx of kids from Spring Hill putting Cooper and Langley slightly over capacity they’d be unhappy with Westbriar kids on top of that. No one at Wolftrap will complain about this island moving there and they already go to Kilmer and Marshall.

yes -thats my point, with evidence from the recent mclean-langley reboundary-ing. Langley parents heavily protested the inclusion of the tysons island and happily welcomed the Shouse neighborhood. They would not protest the westbriar island.

There are two ways to look at it. One is to claim they don’t want anything but affluent areas moved into Langley. The other is to recognize that some (and we’re really just talking about the western areas zoned to LHS) get more antsy about areas with upside growth potential getting moved into Langley, because that’s what will eventually push part of Langley to another school. Shouse and the Westbriar island are built out; Tysons is growing.

Either way they don’t have to make decisions on what’s most palatable to a subset of Langley parents. If they are going to move the Spring Hill island in Tysons, it makes the most sense to move it to Langley and if they are going to move the Westbriar island it makes at least as much sense to move it to Wolftrap as to any other ES.

Which doesn’t put Langley overcapacity, but does provide a great opportunity to rent an affordable apartment in the Langley area!

They project it will put Langley slightly over capacity, but it’s not enough to warrant any other changes to Langley’s boundaries unless they are stretching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw in the 4/25 SB meeting agenda that Thru is getting another $23K to build a "boundary explorer website," whatever that means.

This may actually be helpful, if it's going to be a publicly available online tool that allows folks not on the BRAC to see the impact of reassigning specific SPAs to different schools. It might allow people to explore alternatives to some of the weird stuff Thru has come up with so far. APS had something like that when it changed school boundaries a few years ago, and either Fairfax County or Virginia had a tool like that when Fairfax had to modify its magisterial districts to reflect the results of the 2020 census.

I woud welcome that, because I'm hearing anecdotally that the BRAC members from our pyramid aren't the most dutiful so we can't rely on them to push back.

I hope it’s actually interactive. From the 4/11 meeting, they have posted that a new tool will be released to the public that will allow you to get down to street level. If it’s just a zoom feature to look at their poor Powepoint graphs, that $23k will be disappointing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw in the 4/25 SB meeting agenda that Thru is getting another $23K to build a "boundary explorer website," whatever that means.

This may actually be helpful, if it's going to be a publicly available online tool that allows folks not on the BRAC to see the impact of reassigning specific SPAs to different schools. It might allow people to explore alternatives to some of the weird stuff Thru has come up with so far. APS had something like that when it changed school boundaries a few years ago, and either Fairfax County or Virginia had a tool like that when Fairfax had to modify its magisterial districts to reflect the results of the 2020 census.

I woud welcome that, because I'm hearing anecdotally that the BRAC members from our pyramid aren't the most dutiful so we can't rely on them to push back.

I hope it’s actually interactive. From the 4/11 meeting, they have posted that a new tool will be released to the public that will allow you to get down to street level. If it’s just a zoom feature to look at their poor Powepoint graphs, that $23k will be disappointing

+1. In that case it would be another instance of over-promising and under-delivering.

[Anonymous]

Just looked at the Thru website. The sample boundary review they show is for Lancaster PA--a district of 10,000 students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just looked at the Thru website. The sample boundary review they show is for Lancaster PA--a district of 10,000 students.

It figures. Everything about this current review screams that they have bitten off more than they can chew. FCPS is 18X larger than the Lancaster system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just looked at the Thru website. The sample boundary review they show is for Lancaster PA--a district of 10,000 students.

If you really want to see how bad it is, the original omnibus RfP from Texas was a generic one seemingly meant to allow other county’s to piggy back off of the bid. If I recall correctly, Thru didn’t mention boundaries work at all, they just threw out a whole bunch of possible things that they could help with, including broadband consulting and career coaching. It’s a real disappointment that Thru is running point on this process.

Who thought to hit them? McDaniel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looked at the Thru website. The sample boundary review they show is for Lancaster PA--a district of 10,000 students.

If you really want to see how bad it is, the original omnibus RfP from Texas was a generic one seemingly meant to allow other county’s to piggy back off of the bid. If I recall correctly, Thru didn’t mention boundaries work at all, they just threw out a whole bunch of possible things that they could help with, including broadband consulting and career coaching. It’s a real disappointment that Thru is running point on this process.

Who thought to hit them? McDaniel?

Hire, not hit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just looked at the Thru website. The sample boundary review they show is for Lancaster PA--a district of 10,000 students.

There are two high schools in Lancaster. Must have been a complex analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looked at the Thru website. The sample boundary review they show is for Lancaster PA--a district of 10,000 students.

If you really want to see how bad it is, the original omnibus RfP from Texas was a generic one seemingly meant to allow other county’s to piggy back off of the bid. If I recall correctly, Thru didn’t mention boundaries work at all, they just threw out a whole bunch of possible things that they could help with, including broadband consulting and career coaching. It’s a real disappointment that Thru is running point on this process.

Who thought to hit them? McDaniel?

Hire, not hit.

They wanted a no bid contract so they could rush it through without eyes on the RFP. Thru was probably the only one available that had the boundary review buzz words in their materials that FCPS could latch on to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looked at the Thru website. The sample boundary review they show is for Lancaster PA--a district of 10,000 students.

If you really want to see how bad it is, the original omnibus RfP from Texas was a generic one seemingly meant to allow other county’s to piggy back off of the bid. If I recall correctly, Thru didn’t mention boundaries work at all, they just threw out a whole bunch of possible things that they could help with, including broadband consulting and career coaching. It’s a real disappointment that Thru is running point on this process.

Who thought to hit them? McDaniel?

Hire, not hit.

They wanted a no bid contract so they could rush it through without eyes on the RFP. Thru was probably the only one available that had the boundary review buzz words in their materials that FCPS could latch on to.

I’m fairly certain their response to the Texas rfp didn’t even mention boundaries. I am confident it was rushed through so that they could make the changes a year before the election. Hence the current rush to cram the changes in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just looked at the Thru website. The sample boundary review they show is for Lancaster PA--a district of 10,000 students.

Kyle McDaniel vetted them at a New Orleans strip club

[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:If you've followed these threads, these boundary changes have been described at times as the "Great Reset."

I think that is what Reid and the School Board want. They want to make so many changes that anyone who objects will just be part of the noise (thereby canceling each other out); they want to change the demographics at some schools so much that the historic reputations of some schools will be rendered meaningless; and they want to make grandfathering impossible, so that kids will be shell-shocked and families will be sent the clear message that their preferences count for nothing and that Reid and the School Board are in charge. "If you don't like it, you can leave (see PP today), but don't expect us to let you get in our way."

What is the meaning of "historic reputation" in the context of FCPS's public schools? It's not like there is any selectivity for students to be allowed attend. Only TJHSST and private schools have a claim to a reputation of selective standards that makes any real sense. The rest only amounts to chitchat amongst neighbors.

DP. we get it, you don’t like the USNews or great schools rankings.

Does anyone actually pay attention to those rankings except new parents looking for houses who don't know better? You're an idiot if you think those actually reflect anything other than wealth in an area.

DP. Which schools do your children attend? Serious question.

Shrevewood, which is rated 3 because of a high low-income population. High achieving kids from high achieving families are all doing great. I'm happy with the education my children are receiving.

DP. I’d read some Shrevewood parents aren’t crazy about the recent proposals, which would move more low-income kids from Timber Lane to Shrevewood and also reassign some Shrevewood kids from the Falls Hill area from Marshall to McLean, turning Shrevewood into a split feeder. The ratings for Kilmer may also take a hit if, as proposed, all the Madison-zoned kids at Kilmer are reassigned to Thoreau.

Putting the validity of GS ratings aside, do you welcome all these changes? I assume the Shrevewood boundaries will change yet again after Dunn Loring gets built.

Shrevewood is an interesting situation because a few years pre-Covid parents were saying the school was overcrowded and FCPS should do something.

Then, the situation largely took care of itself, as the enrollment declined. To the point where the 4/11 proposals contemplate moving 119 students into Shrevewood from another school that also isn't currently overcrowded.

Meanwhile Karl Frisch went ahead and starting pushing the Dunn Loring ES, which isn't really needed. But maybe if they overcrowd Shrevewood again they can squint hard and pretend it is.

So was the decline based on students aging out of elementary school? Kilmer is grotesquely overcrowded. Even with a 10 room modular it is 118% and only gets 20 in for AAP and a total of 39 from Thoreau. How is it possible that Kilmer, with no expansion of Kilmer Center square footage, lost about 200 program capacity seats? That is Providence District - Karl Fritsch.

CIP 25-29 984 modular 1227 [10 rooms]
CIP 26-30 791 modular 1023 [10 rooms
difference 193 204

Westbriar Island and Westbriar are under Meren-Hunter Mill District. The Island is between Sunrise Valley [Meren] and Colvin Run {Lady]yet Thru or Thru/FCPS moved it to Wolf Trap.

So Sunrise Valley is to the west of the Westbriar island, Colvin Run is to the east and north, and Wolftrap (not "Wolf Trap") is to the south.

Moving the island to Wolftrap, which is already a fairly even split feeder to Madison and Marshall, aligns with keeping those families at Kilmer/Marshall. Sunrise Valley feeds to Hughes/South Lakes, and Colvin Run feeds to Cooper/Langley. Ever since Colvin Run opened, Westbriar kids in the island have been bussed past Colvin Run on their west to Westbriar. Going to Wolftrap is a straight shot south down Beulah Road. This is actually one of the changes that probably makes sense.

It's not credible that Kilmer only has a program capacity of 791 without the modular. The school got renovated in the early 2000s and they would not have left it with so little capacity. Something funny is going on there but, with Frisch as the board member and Kilmer plunked in Region 5 with the rest of the Marshall pyramid, no one seems to be in any hurry to figure out why there was such a big drop in the stated capacities.

What would you do about Kilmer? I posted that stuff including the Karl Fritsch Kilmer mystery. Decades ago it was an undercapacity dump with no AAP/GT...now way over and divested of most transfer in AAP.

So the current island can get to Colvin Run from Beulah driving through Shouse Village. It's a shorter distance than Wolftrap and would move some out of Kilmer.

The Kilmer renovation was over 20 years ago but it was a nice renovation at the time. There's no way that, excluding the modular, it should only have a program capacity of 791. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the formulas that apply to the special programs at the Kilmer Center are being erroneously applied to Kilmer MS, but that's speculation. They really need to audit the building capacity there.

Both Longfellow and Kilmer got overcrowded with AAP kids from the Langley pyramid at some point, as AAP kids from Great Falls zoned for Cooper went to Kilmer and AAP kids from McLean zoned for Cooper went to Longfellow. Adding AAP to Cooper was a good idea and relieved some of the burden at both schools. Without the Cooper kids, Kilmer's demographics are less affluent, but Kilmer is actually better run now that it used to be. It's sending a lot of kids to TJ and, more importantly, most of the families are happy with the current administration.

The Westbriar island could have been moved to Colvin Run, but it probably would have been part of a multi-step adjustment where Colvin Run kids were then moved to Great Falls, Great Falls kids were moved to Forestville, and Forestville kids were moved to Herndon feeders like Dranesville and Armstrong. If they were moved to Colvin Run, they should be moved to Cooper and Langley as well, and then you'd have the same Langley parents who aren't happy that the Tysons island at Spring Hill is probably moving to Cooper/Langley complaining about this as well. Moving the island to Wolftrap, which already has a lot of kids bound for Kilmer and Marshall, is simpler.

The Westbriar island has only $1M+ SFHs; nothing like the apartment-heavy Tysons island. The Westbriar island looks more like the Shouse/wolftrap neighborhoods that got moved from mclean to Langley a couple years back.

That’s true. But what’s your point? The Langley parents would be happy with yet more expensive SFHs but not the Tysons island with apartments?

My point was that, if some aren’t happy with the influx of kids from Spring Hill putting Cooper and Langley slightly over capacity they’d be unhappy with Westbriar kids on top of that. No one at Wolftrap will complain about this island moving there and they already go to Kilmer and Marshall.

yes -thats my point, with evidence from the recent mclean-langley reboundary-ing. Langley parents heavily protested the inclusion of the tysons island and happily welcomed the Shouse neighborhood. They would not protest the westbriar island.

When did Langley parents get together and make this "heavy protesting" happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw in the 4/25 SB meeting agenda that Thru is getting another $23K to build a "boundary explorer website," whatever that means.

This may actually be helpful, if it's going to be a publicly available online tool that allows folks not on the BRAC to see the impact of reassigning specific SPAs to different schools. It might allow people to explore alternatives to some of the weird stuff Thru has come up with so far. APS had something like that when it changed school boundaries a few years ago, and either Fairfax County or Virginia had a tool like that when Fairfax had to modify its magisterial districts to reflect the results of the 2020 census.

I woud welcome that, because I'm hearing anecdotally that the BRAC members from our pyramid aren't the most dutiful so we can't rely on them to push back.

Counterpoint is that they aren’t even listening to the BRAC or incorporating BRAC suggestions/advice, so what good will this do?

BRAC is not directing the boundary changes. Nardos King’s DEI department is directing what the boundary changes are going to take place.

Oh my god, shut up MAGA freak.