FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just changed the boundaries for McLean HS in 2021 and for the elementary school feeders last year. If there's any area that deserves a pass from additional boundary changes, and instead needs a real plan to deal with the growth in and near Tysons, it's that pyramid. We're not falling for the line about how no one has looked at boundaries in 40 years, because that's not the case where our pyramid is concerned.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

By that logic, Langley also had a boundary change in 2021 and also should not have one this round. Besides, it will be at least four years before any more changes happen, how long should a HS be exempt from boundary changes, in your opinion? Keep in mind, the policy is to review every five years.

No one got moved out of Langley in 2021, so logic fail on your part.

You said boundary change - Langley had a boundary change - McLean kids moved in. That’s a boundary change.

Do you really think it's as disruptive to a school community to add kids as to redistrict communities out of the school? If so, you're not playing with a full deck.

It is mostly disruptive to the students who are moved in the middle of high school. I would say that the school that is joined by the transferring students are impacted slightly more as they will have to make sure the transferring students have as smooth a transfer as possible. This area is very transient - people move in and out frequently. For the students that moved, another boundary change five years later will not affect them.

If they actually try to move kids in the middle of high school they are doing something they haven't done outside the context of opening a brand new school. In that case, they will be inviting a whole different level of opposition.

No doubt shills like you will have their back if they try it, but it will not be pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just changed the boundaries for McLean HS in 2021 and for the elementary school feeders last year. If there's any area that deserves a pass from additional boundary changes, and instead needs a real plan to deal with the growth in and near Tysons, it's that pyramid. We're not falling for the line about how no one has looked at boundaries in 40 years, because that's not the case where our pyramid is concerned.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

By that logic, Langley also had a boundary change in 2021 and also should not have one this round. Besides, it will be at least four years before any more changes happen, how long should a HS be exempt from boundary changes, in your opinion? Keep in mind, the policy is to review every five years.

No one got moved out of Langley in 2021, so logic fail on your part.

You said boundary change - Langley had a boundary change - McLean kids moved in. That’s a boundary change.

Do you really think it's as disruptive to a school community to add kids as to redistrict communities out of the school? If so, you're not playing with a full deck.

It is mostly disruptive to the students who are moved in the middle of high school. I would say that the school that is joined by the transferring students are impacted slightly more as they will have to make sure the transferring students have as smooth a transfer as possible. This area is very transient - people move in and out frequently. For the students that moved, another boundary change five years later will not affect them.

If they actually try to move kids in the middle of high school they are doing something they haven't done outside the context of opening a brand new school. In that case, they will be inviting a whole different level of opposition.

No doubt shills like you will have their back if they try it, but it will not be pretty.

DP. They’ll have to limit grandfathering because they’ve boxed themselves into a corner on transportation costs being one of their primary “goals”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just changed the boundaries for McLean HS in 2021 and for the elementary school feeders last year. If there's any area that deserves a pass from additional boundary changes, and instead needs a real plan to deal with the growth in and near Tysons, it's that pyramid. We're not falling for the line about how no one has looked at boundaries in 40 years, because that's not the case where our pyramid is concerned.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

By that logic, Langley also had a boundary change in 2021 and also should not have one this round. Besides, it will be at least four years before any more changes happen, how long should a HS be exempt from boundary changes, in your opinion? Keep in mind, the policy is to review every five years.

No one got moved out of Langley in 2021, so logic fail on your part.

You said boundary change - Langley had a boundary change - McLean kids moved in. That’s a boundary change.

Do you really think it's as disruptive to a school community to add kids as to redistrict communities out of the school? If so, you're not playing with a full deck.

It is mostly disruptive to the students who are moved in the middle of high school. I would say that the school that is joined by the transferring students are impacted slightly more as they will have to make sure the transferring students have as smooth a transfer as possible. This area is very transient - people move in and out frequently. For the students that moved, another boundary change five years later will not affect them.

If they actually try to move kids in the middle of high school they are doing something they haven't done outside the context of opening a brand new school. In that case, they will be inviting a whole different level of opposition.

No doubt shills like you will have their back if they try it, but it will not be pretty.

DP. They’ll have to limit grandfathering because they’ve boxed themselves into a corner on transportation costs being one of their primary “goals”.

Not quite. They refused to commit to grandfathering, but they also didn't commit to reducing transportation costs to a particular level, or to reduce transportation lengths or times to a certain distance or duration. They wanted some things they could point to in order to justify whatever they eventually come up with, but it's not like they've come up with anything yet that can be objectively applied to yield a specific set of results.

It's possible, of course, that they could recommend a sufficient volume of changes that grandfathering would not be feasible, but in that case the level of community opposition is going to escalate quickly, and then the SB - being a bunch of politicians - will have to decide what to do with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just changed the boundaries for McLean HS in 2021 and for the elementary school feeders last year. If there's any area that deserves a pass from additional boundary changes, and instead needs a real plan to deal with the growth in and near Tysons, it's that pyramid. We're not falling for the line about how no one has looked at boundaries in 40 years, because that's not the case where our pyramid is concerned.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

By that logic, Langley also had a boundary change in 2021 and also should not have one this round. Besides, it will be at least four years before any more changes happen, how long should a HS be exempt from boundary changes, in your opinion? Keep in mind, the policy is to review every five years.

No one got moved out of Langley in 2021, so logic fail on your part.

You said boundary change - Langley had a boundary change - McLean kids moved in. That’s a boundary change.

Do you really think it's as disruptive to a school community to add kids as to redistrict communities out of the school? If so, you're not playing with a full deck.

It is mostly disruptive to the students who are moved in the middle of high school. I would say that the school that is joined by the transferring students are impacted slightly more as they will have to make sure the transferring students have as smooth a transfer as possible. This area is very transient - people move in and out frequently. For the students that moved, another boundary change five years later will not affect them.

If they actually try to move kids in the middle of high school they are doing something they haven't done outside the context of opening a brand new school. In that case, they will be inviting a whole different level of opposition.

No doubt shills like you will have their back if they try it, but it will not be pretty.

DP. They’ll have to limit grandfathering because they’ve boxed themselves into a corner on transportation costs being one of their primary “goals”.

Not quite. They refused to commit to grandfathering, but they also didn't commit to reducing transportation costs to a particular level, or to reduce transportation lengths or times to a certain distance or duration. They wanted some things they could point to in order to justify whatever they eventually come up with, but it's not like they've come up with anything yet that can be objectively applied to yield a specific set of results.

It's possible, of course, that they could recommend a sufficient volume of changes that grandfathering would not be feasible, but in that case the level of community opposition is going to escalate quickly, and then the SB - being a bunch of politicians - will have to decide what to do with that.

Double bus runs are expensive and will swamp any “transportation savings” and there is already a bus driver shortage.

I’m not advocating for limited grandfathering, but if you want your kids to stay at their school, I’d be focused on trying to kill the boundary changes, not trying to thread a needle that they should make changes, just not ones that affect your kids…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ They need to change and add more gen ed preschool slots to allow the SPED preschool to have inclusion peers because that is a new mandate by the state.”

No. That don’t. If they had one group of preschoolers in FCps who were Gen Ed and another that is sped and they are intentionally keeping them segregated then yes that would apply. But having a service that is only offered to sped does not mean it now needs offered to all the Gen Ed kids too. That makes zero sense.

Sweetie they do.
They don’t have to invite ALL preschoolers into the schools.

Many schools have sped only Prek and no gen ed peers to integrate with. They have to expand the ECE program to get at least a few typical peers in with the sped peers or they will not be complying with the new demands.

Getting more kids into elementary schools still
Takes room. Prek is optional in Virginia so you don’t have to send a kid even if it is offered but they do need more gen ed pre k kids.

[Anonymous]

I am curious- will it be changes for all schools? I’m guessing if part of HV moves to SC then they go to SC middle too? No split feeder middle schools anymore?

Or key/lewis.

[Anonymous]

So I could have a grandfathered senior- WSHS and grandfathered 8th grader- Irving but 10th grade SOCO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just changed the boundaries for McLean HS in 2021 and for the elementary school feeders last year. If there's any area that deserves a pass from additional boundary changes, and instead needs a real plan to deal with the growth in and near Tysons, it's that pyramid. We're not falling for the line about how no one has looked at boundaries in 40 years, because that's not the case where our pyramid is concerned.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

Why build an addition when Langley and Fall Church High Schools have space to accommodate McLean’s overage? Seems like a waste of resources.

If there was any waste of resources, it was expanding Langley and Falls Church when the growth is in the Tysons/McLean area. Those schools may well see more kids over time, but McLean - which serves a growing area but has or will have the smallest number of permanent seats of any FCPS high school - fully deserves an addition.

Here's what the now-Chair of the School Board said in writing back in 2019:

"Though it may take years to complete, we should begin scoping for a permanent addition/expansion to McLean High School to further address capacity issues. That may require adjusting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) renovation calendar and including additional funding for planning and construction in the next school bond referendum. There has been some chatter about a modular trailer being relocated to McLean High School using funds from the 2019 school bond referendum. This would be a welcome alternative to a traditional classroom trailer, but it is important that this capacity stopgap be tied directly to plans for a physical expansion of McLean High School – and that it not be used as a permanent solution."

​

The McLean islands can be moved. Boundaries can be changed to take from McLean and shift more towards Langley and Falls Church. Hence "comprehensive" boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I could have a grandfathered senior- WSHS and grandfathered 8th grader- Irving but 10th grade SOCO.

Or WSHS+Irving + one at Lewis.

Talk about a disparity in education quality within a single family.

Shame on the school board for using kids as political pawns.

[Anonymous]

Does McLwan still have trailers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does McLwan still have trailers?

yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just changed the boundaries for McLean HS in 2021 and for the elementary school feeders last year. If there's any area that deserves a pass from additional boundary changes, and instead needs a real plan to deal with the growth in and near Tysons, it's that pyramid. We're not falling for the line about how no one has looked at boundaries in 40 years, because that's not the case where our pyramid is concerned.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

Why build an addition when Langley and Fall Church High Schools have space to accommodate McLean’s overage? Seems like a waste of resources.

If there was any waste of resources, it was expanding Langley and Falls Church when the growth is in the Tysons/McLean area. Those schools may well see more kids over time, but McLean - which serves a growing area but has or will have the smallest number of permanent seats of any FCPS high school - fully deserves an addition.

Here's what the now-Chair of the School Board said in writing back in 2019:

"Though it may take years to complete, we should begin scoping for a permanent addition/expansion to McLean High School to further address capacity issues. That may require adjusting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) renovation calendar and including additional funding for planning and construction in the next school bond referendum. There has been some chatter about a modular trailer being relocated to McLean High School using funds from the 2019 school bond referendum. This would be a welcome alternative to a traditional classroom trailer, but it is important that this capacity stopgap be tied directly to plans for a physical expansion of McLean High School – and that it not be used as a permanent solution."

​

The McLean islands can be moved. Boundaries can be changed to take from McLean and shift more towards Langley and Falls Church. Hence "comprehensive" boundary change.

Agree. If McLean is over capacity using trailers, then students should be shifted to nearby schools with capacity. If Tyson’s does generate more HS students, then more neighborhoods should be shifted so that we take advantage of existing capacity before considering expansions or new schools. Surely, DCUM won’t have qualms sending McLean kids to nearby Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am curious- will it be changes for all schools? I’m guessing if part of HV moves to SC then they go to SC middle too? No split feeder middle schools anymore?

Or key/lewis.

I would have to assume that since they want to get rid of split feeders, that they would move kids out of HVES entirely and draw a boundary to get them into a South County or Lewis-feeding elementary. For SC they could pretty easily go to Newington Forest, not sure how to get kids to I guess Saratoga(?) without drawing a massive gerrymander. South County can accept more students and is under enrolled at the moment, but I’m not sure the status of the various elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just changed the boundaries for McLean HS in 2021 and for the elementary school feeders last year. If there's any area that deserves a pass from additional boundary changes, and instead needs a real plan to deal with the growth in and near Tysons, it's that pyramid. We're not falling for the line about how no one has looked at boundaries in 40 years, because that's not the case where our pyramid is concerned.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

Why build an addition when Langley and Fall Church High Schools have space to accommodate McLean’s overage? Seems like a waste of resources.

If there was any waste of resources, it was expanding Langley and Falls Church when the growth is in the Tysons/McLean area. Those schools may well see more kids over time, but McLean - which serves a growing area but has or will have the smallest number of permanent seats of any FCPS high school - fully deserves an addition.

Here's what the now-Chair of the School Board said in writing back in 2019:

"Though it may take years to complete, we should begin scoping for a permanent addition/expansion to McLean High School to further address capacity issues. That may require adjusting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) renovation calendar and including additional funding for planning and construction in the next school bond referendum. There has been some chatter about a modular trailer being relocated to McLean High School using funds from the 2019 school bond referendum. This would be a welcome alternative to a traditional classroom trailer, but it is important that this capacity stopgap be tied directly to plans for a physical expansion of McLean High School – and that it not be used as a permanent solution."

​

The McLean islands can be moved. Boundaries can be changed to take from McLean and shift more towards Langley and Falls Church. Hence "comprehensive" boundary change.

Agree. If McLean is over capacity using trailers, then students should be shifted to nearby schools with capacity. If Tyson’s does generate more HS students, then more neighborhoods should be shifted so that we take advantage of existing capacity before considering expansions or new schools. Surely, DCUM won’t have qualms sending McLean kids to nearby Langley.

No objection, and Langley can take the attendance island without going overcapacity.

Longer term, McLean will need an expansion. Borderline criminal that it’s been neglected for so long, while they expand schools with declining populations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just changed the boundaries for McLean HS in 2021 and for the elementary school feeders last year. If there's any area that deserves a pass from additional boundary changes, and instead needs a real plan to deal with the growth in and near Tysons, it's that pyramid. We're not falling for the line about how no one has looked at boundaries in 40 years, because that's not the case where our pyramid is concerned.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

Why build an addition when Langley and Fall Church High Schools have space to accommodate McLean’s overage? Seems like a waste of resources.

If there was any waste of resources, it was expanding Langley and Falls Church when the growth is in the Tysons/McLean area. Those schools may well see more kids over time, but McLean - which serves a growing area but has or will have the smallest number of permanent seats of any FCPS high school - fully deserves an addition.

Here's what the now-Chair of the School Board said in writing back in 2019:

"Though it may take years to complete, we should begin scoping for a permanent addition/expansion to McLean High School to further address capacity issues. That may require adjusting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) renovation calendar and including additional funding for planning and construction in the next school bond referendum. There has been some chatter about a modular trailer being relocated to McLean High School using funds from the 2019 school bond referendum. This would be a welcome alternative to a traditional classroom trailer, but it is important that this capacity stopgap be tied directly to plans for a physical expansion of McLean High School – and that it not be used as a permanent solution."

​

The McLean islands can be moved. Boundaries can be changed to take from McLean and shift more towards Langley and Falls Church. Hence "comprehensive" boundary change.

Agree. If McLean is over capacity using trailers, then students should be shifted to nearby schools with capacity. If Tyson’s does generate more HS students, then more neighborhoods should be shifted so that we take advantage of existing capacity before considering expansions or new schools. Surely, DCUM won’t have qualms sending McLean kids to nearby Langley.

DCUM isn't doing this. Could likely be accomplished quickly by scrapping most IB, ie Lewis AP +remove its academy + move in Edison academies. South Lakes AP. Mount Vernon AP. Marshall remove academies. Chantilly move academies tothe supersized square footage sites [Westfield, Oakton + Herndon new excess after max it to what fits in Herndon MS times 2 - TJ feed].

Look at the committee- *** split feeder and island for each Marshall and Madison. Mclean is 1*** and 1 **split feeder. The none pyramid ones live somewhere found on the boundary locator unless out of county staff.