FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Westfield has 2700 students already. Isn't it already one of the largest HS? Why are you trying to move more kids there?

Yes, only West Springfield, Chantilly and Lake Braddock have more students than Westfield. Westfield has never been renovated. When it opened in the late 90s, it was already over the 2500 student design/building capacity--they had to put trailers in the parking lots-- so they added modular classrooms to the original building. The common areas (cafeteria, gym, halls, bathrooms) were not expanded. It is crowded now at 2700 and there is a lot of new construction in-zone. Re-zoning additional existing neighborhoods to Westfield would not make sense.

Presumably they would move kids from Westfield to Herndon.

There are new housing developments in Westfield zone--very close to Westfield-some are right by the Sully government center.

And, some are very expensive--close to Loudoun border, but in Westfield school district.

No all the new developments are townhomes and condo. Not expensive SFHs.

Look again. There are some very expensive large homes off Pleasant Valley.

What new development?

Looks like it has not yet been built. Fairfax Manor Dr off of Herndon Ave. Not many homes, but VERY expensive.

8 lots? Completely neglible.
May not have any public school kids in any of the eventsul 8 houses.

Sure. But those developments across from Sully government and near Costco add up and they are going up now.

There are new condos/townhouses near Costco that are supposed to be occupied beginning in September.
There are condos by Wegmanns that are being sold still that will go to Westfield.
There is a new development across from Sully government center.
There is an upcoming development on Stonecroft near the DMV.

That's quite a few dwellings that will be upcoming for Westfield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The capacity of WESTFIELD vs. enrollment is under that of Oakton's.

If you look at a map, it’s pretty obvious — shifting some neighborhoods could totally help balance things out. Franklin Farm, for example, would make a ton of sense to go to Westfield. A lot of the neighborhoods right around Franklin Farm already feed into Westfield anyway, so it’s not like it would be some big, out-of-the-way move.

It wouldn’t fix everything overnight, but freeing up space at Oakton would make a real difference. Just feels like an easy option that’s sitting right there.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Why move kids in Franklin Farm from one school 9 miles away to another school 9 miles away (especially one that would require them getting on 28 and crossing 50 during rush hour, hahahaha, you clearly don't live here) when there are two other high schools both of which are even closer than Westfields. If you're moving my kids anywhere, you are moving them to Chantilly which is 3.5 miles away from my house, not another school that will take even LONGER to get to in the mornings.

You will be iced out of Chantilly because there's many more kids who are closer to that school than you are. One reason why I didn't buy in Franklin Farms or Franklin Glen, Oak Hill area for that matter. That whole area could easily be transferred to Westfield and it's not even that crazy because as PP said there are surrounding neighborhoods even further away already going to Westfield.

I'm confused about who you think is going to fill up Oakton if we're moving all the Crossfield and Navy kids to Westfield? Oakton is newly renovated and is not overcapacity. Who else would you put there?

There is a guy who lives in the western part of the Falls Church HS district (apparently the Fairhill ES area outside the Beltway) obsessed about the fact that he's not zoned to Madison, Oakton, Woodson, or Fairfax instead. He posts on multiple forums about various redistricting scenarios that he thinks might increase the likehihood of his getting rezoned into Oakton in particular, but he doesn't know that much about some of the areas further west that he wants redistricted to make that more likely. Of course, since Falls Church is getting expanded now, he's fighting a losing battle.

He's also gotten into big fights with some Langley posters, which explains much of the venom directed towards Langley and Great Falls recently.

If he’s on multiple forums, it sounds like you’ve just found one of the two boundary proponents in this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, those who are most knowledgeable about the factors relevant to boundary discussions are a mix of current and former parents. The BRAC process is designed to select a group of current parents who may or may not be very knowledgeable and can be led down the desired path by FCPS staff and Thru Consulting. Of course, some are sharp and will challenge them and ask the right questions, but a lot of them seem unlikely to do much more than make sure they aren’t personally affected in what they’d consider a negative way.

That’s not intended as an insult, just a reminder that folks shouldn’t assume that what comes out of the BRAC process reflects the best possible thinking on the topic. People who’ve been largely sidelined should absolutely continue to monitor these proposals and challenge those they believe are ill-advised.

Agree. I follow this forum because I became interested during earlier boundary studies. I do post on this thread because I see similarities of earlier efforts. I understand some of the decisions and was a close observer of the 2008 study when I saw how politics (specifically the South Lakes PTA) could drive the results. Watching the SB meetings at that time when so many parents who had kids affected stood up to respectfully request that South Lakes switch to AP, was enlightening to me. The SB ignored those requests which were heartfelt. Another meeting for the community had SB members sitting with their backs to the attendees.
That boundary "study" we predetermined and I believe this one is, as well. Just look at the way they selected the BRAC committee. The groups selected are comprised mostly of activists. The selection of the pyramid reps--intended to give the appearance of a lack of bias--is just the opposite. The parents from my pyramid come from the same neighborhood school. I've no idea if they have children in the high school or not. The fact that they applied, would indicate that they do have a specific interest.

One thing I learned is that almost everyone wants to stay put. I cannot speak to the elementary schools across the county as there are too many to understand. However, no high school is going to continue to be overcrowded (maybe McLean and Centreville). And, no high school has too small a membership to offer a rigorous course selection.

I do not understand why we are going through this. It is not good for the students, their families, or the community, And, it will cost money we do not have.

They can talk about efficiency, but any time a change is made there will be a domino effect that makes it less efficient for others.

In my quick cursory review of the members, I found at least four that live in neighborhoods that are much closer to a different high school than they are zoned for. Hm maybe those people have ulterior motives for joining the BRAc?

Yeah, it really needs to be each elementary school. The fact that they pull a couple from each pyramid means it’s meaningless.

They'd say it would be too unwieldy to have that many BRAC members, and they might not be wrong, but the flip side is that folks should insist that there be separate community meetings later for every pyramid, where parents from each ES that feeds into a MS and HS in the pyramid have a chance to express their views.

It doesn’t matter who is on BRAC. They won’t be making any decisions. I don’t understand the posters here who are so obsessed with BRAC and seem to think they will be selecting changes. They provide feedback just like any of the many other advisory committees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, those who are most knowledgeable about the factors relevant to boundary discussions are a mix of current and former parents. The BRAC process is designed to select a group of current parents who may or may not be very knowledgeable and can be led down the desired path by FCPS staff and Thru Consulting. Of course, some are sharp and will challenge them and ask the right questions, but a lot of them seem unlikely to do much more than make sure they aren’t personally affected in what they’d consider a negative way.

That’s not intended as an insult, just a reminder that folks shouldn’t assume that what comes out of the BRAC process reflects the best possible thinking on the topic. People who’ve been largely sidelined should absolutely continue to monitor these proposals and challenge those they believe are ill-advised.

Agree. I follow this forum because I became interested during earlier boundary studies. I do post on this thread because I see similarities of earlier efforts. I understand some of the decisions and was a close observer of the 2008 study when I saw how politics (specifically the South Lakes PTA) could drive the results. Watching the SB meetings at that time when so many parents who had kids affected stood up to respectfully request that South Lakes switch to AP, was enlightening to me. The SB ignored those requests which were heartfelt. Another meeting for the community had SB members sitting with their backs to the attendees.
That boundary "study" we predetermined and I believe this one is, as well. Just look at the way they selected the BRAC committee. The groups selected are comprised mostly of activists. The selection of the pyramid reps--intended to give the appearance of a lack of bias--is just the opposite. The parents from my pyramid come from the same neighborhood school. I've no idea if they have children in the high school or not. The fact that they applied, would indicate that they do have a specific interest.

One thing I learned is that almost everyone wants to stay put. I cannot speak to the elementary schools across the county as there are too many to understand. However, no high school is going to continue to be overcrowded (maybe McLean and Centreville). And, no high school has too small a membership to offer a rigorous course selection.

I do not understand why we are going through this. It is not good for the students, their families, or the community, And, it will cost money we do not have.

They can talk about efficiency, but any time a change is made there will be a domino effect that makes it less efficient for others.

In my quick cursory review of the members, I found at least four that live in neighborhoods that are much closer to a different high school than they are zoned for. Hm maybe those people have ulterior motives for joining the BRAc?

Yeah, it really needs to be each elementary school. The fact that they pull a couple from each pyramid means it’s meaningless.

They'd say it would be too unwieldy to have that many BRAC members, and they might not be wrong, but the flip side is that folks should insist that there be separate community meetings later for every pyramid, where parents from each ES that feeds into a MS and HS in the pyramid have a chance to express their views.

It doesn’t matter who is on BRAC. They won’t be making any decisions. I don’t understand the posters here who are so obsessed with BRAC and seem to think they will be selecting changes. They provide feedback just like any of the many other advisory committees.

The expectation is that, when a set of specific recommendations or options is presented, Reid and the School Board will play up the idea that they were developed by independent consultants (Thru) and vetted with the BRAC, whether the BRAC formally endorses them or not. And then others will have an opportunity to weigh in, but they'll feel like they are fighting an uphill battle at that point. So there's understandible irritation that FCPS stacked the deck with "friendly" BRAC members from various special interest groups and that even the pyramid members may not prove representative of the pyramids they are supposed to represent.

I think that's the issue more than an assumption that the BRAC will actually make the decisions. Ultimately, that's on the School Board, and they'll be held accountable for that, as much as they might like to claim they are just ratifying Thru/BRAC recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, those who are most knowledgeable about the factors relevant to boundary discussions are a mix of current and former parents. The BRAC process is designed to select a group of current parents who may or may not be very knowledgeable and can be led down the desired path by FCPS staff and Thru Consulting. Of course, some are sharp and will challenge them and ask the right questions, but a lot of them seem unlikely to do much more than make sure they aren’t personally affected in what they’d consider a negative way.

That’s not intended as an insult, just a reminder that folks shouldn’t assume that what comes out of the BRAC process reflects the best possible thinking on the topic. People who’ve been largely sidelined should absolutely continue to monitor these proposals and challenge those they believe are ill-advised.

Agree. I follow this forum because I became interested during earlier boundary studies. I do post on this thread because I see similarities of earlier efforts. I understand some of the decisions and was a close observer of the 2008 study when I saw how politics (specifically the South Lakes PTA) could drive the results. Watching the SB meetings at that time when so many parents who had kids affected stood up to respectfully request that South Lakes switch to AP, was enlightening to me. The SB ignored those requests which were heartfelt. Another meeting for the community had SB members sitting with their backs to the attendees.
That boundary "study" we predetermined and I believe this one is, as well. Just look at the way they selected the BRAC committee. The groups selected are comprised mostly of activists. The selection of the pyramid reps--intended to give the appearance of a lack of bias--is just the opposite. The parents from my pyramid come from the same neighborhood school. I've no idea if they have children in the high school or not. The fact that they applied, would indicate that they do have a specific interest.

One thing I learned is that almost everyone wants to stay put. I cannot speak to the elementary schools across the county as there are too many to understand. However, no high school is going to continue to be overcrowded (maybe McLean and Centreville). And, no high school has too small a membership to offer a rigorous course selection.

I do not understand why we are going through this. It is not good for the students, their families, or the community, And, it will cost money we do not have.

They can talk about efficiency, but any time a change is made there will be a domino effect that makes it less efficient for others.

In my quick cursory review of the members, I found at least four that live in neighborhoods that are much closer to a different high school than they are zoned for. Hm maybe those people have ulterior motives for joining the BRAc?

Yeah, it really needs to be each elementary school. The fact that they pull a couple from each pyramid means it’s meaningless.

They'd say it would be too unwieldy to have that many BRAC members, and they might not be wrong, but the flip side is that folks should insist that there be separate community meetings later for every pyramid, where parents from each ES that feeds into a MS and HS in the pyramid have a chance to express their views.

It doesn’t matter who is on BRAC. They won’t be making any decisions. I don’t understand the posters here who are so obsessed with BRAC and seem to think they will be selecting changes. They provide feedback just like any of the many other advisory committees.

The expectation is that, when a set of specific recommendations or options is presented, Reid and the School Board will play up the idea that they were developed by independent consultants (Thru) and vetted with the BRAC, whether the BRAC formally endorses them or not. And then others will have an opportunity to weigh in, but they'll feel like they are fighting an uphill battle at that point. So there's understandible irritation that FCPS stacked the deck with "friendly" BRAC members from various special interest groups and that even the pyramid members may not prove representative of the pyramids they are supposed to represent.

I think that's the issue more than an assumption that the BRAC will actually make the decisions. Ultimately, that's on the School Board, and they'll be held accountable for that, as much as they might like to claim they are just ratifying Thru/BRAC recommendations.

Unless they have gag orders in place for BRAC post map release, I anticipate that a lot of committee members are going to go public with their disapproval of the changes. BRAC members from all over the county are opposed to the changes. Even their own hand - picked committee doesn’t want the comprehensive changes discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, those who are most knowledgeable about the factors relevant to boundary discussions are a mix of current and former parents. The BRAC process is designed to select a group of current parents who may or may not be very knowledgeable and can be led down the desired path by FCPS staff and Thru Consulting. Of course, some are sharp and will challenge them and ask the right questions, but a lot of them seem unlikely to do much more than make sure they aren’t personally affected in what they’d consider a negative way.

That’s not intended as an insult, just a reminder that folks shouldn’t assume that what comes out of the BRAC process reflects the best possible thinking on the topic. People who’ve been largely sidelined should absolutely continue to monitor these proposals and challenge those they believe are ill-advised.

Agree. I follow this forum because I became interested during earlier boundary studies. I do post on this thread because I see similarities of earlier efforts. I understand some of the decisions and was a close observer of the 2008 study when I saw how politics (specifically the South Lakes PTA) could drive the results. Watching the SB meetings at that time when so many parents who had kids affected stood up to respectfully request that South Lakes switch to AP, was enlightening to me. The SB ignored those requests which were heartfelt. Another meeting for the community had SB members sitting with their backs to the attendees.
That boundary "study" we predetermined and I believe this one is, as well. Just look at the way they selected the BRAC committee. The groups selected are comprised mostly of activists. The selection of the pyramid reps--intended to give the appearance of a lack of bias--is just the opposite. The parents from my pyramid come from the same neighborhood school. I've no idea if they have children in the high school or not. The fact that they applied, would indicate that they do have a specific interest.

One thing I learned is that almost everyone wants to stay put. I cannot speak to the elementary schools across the county as there are too many to understand. However, no high school is going to continue to be overcrowded (maybe McLean and Centreville). And, no high school has too small a membership to offer a rigorous course selection.

I do not understand why we are going through this. It is not good for the students, their families, or the community, And, it will cost money we do not have.

They can talk about efficiency, but any time a change is made there will be a domino effect that makes it less efficient for others.

In my quick cursory review of the members, I found at least four that live in neighborhoods that are much closer to a different high school than they are zoned for. Hm maybe those people have ulterior motives for joining the BRAc?

Yeah, it really needs to be each elementary school. The fact that they pull a couple from each pyramid means it’s meaningless.

They'd say it would be too unwieldy to have that many BRAC members, and they might not be wrong, but the flip side is that folks should insist that there be separate community meetings later for every pyramid, where parents from each ES that feeds into a MS and HS in the pyramid have a chance to express their views.

It doesn’t matter who is on BRAC. They won’t be making any decisions. I don’t understand the posters here who are so obsessed with BRAC and seem to think they will be selecting changes. They provide feedback just like any of the many other advisory committees.

The expectation is that, when a set of specific recommendations or options is presented, Reid and the School Board will play up the idea that they were developed by independent consultants (Thru) and vetted with the BRAC, whether the BRAC formally endorses them or not. And then others will have an opportunity to weigh in, but they'll feel like they are fighting an uphill battle at that point. So there's understandible irritation that FCPS stacked the deck with "friendly" BRAC members from various special interest groups and that even the pyramid members may not prove representative of the pyramids they are supposed to represent.

I think that's the issue more than an assumption that the BRAC will actually make the decisions. Ultimately, that's on the School Board, and they'll be held accountable for that, as much as they might like to claim they are just ratifying Thru/BRAC recommendations.

Unless they have gag orders in place for BRAC post map release, I anticipate that a lot of committee members are going to go public with their disapproval of the changes. BRAC members from all over the county are opposed to the changes. Even their own hand - picked committee doesn’t want the comprehensive changes discussed.

But, the NDA's!

When Thru did Lancaster, they moved 10% of the community--at least I think that is what I read. Can you imagine the response if they move 20,000 students in FCPS?

Just looking at the limited area I know, it seems that some of the adjustments are not practical--and those were pretty simple opportunities. This split feeder thing should be very interesting. Lots in my area and I don't see any easy solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, those who are most knowledgeable about the factors relevant to boundary discussions are a mix of current and former parents. The BRAC process is designed to select a group of current parents who may or may not be very knowledgeable and can be led down the desired path by FCPS staff and Thru Consulting. Of course, some are sharp and will challenge them and ask the right questions, but a lot of them seem unlikely to do much more than make sure they aren’t personally affected in what they’d consider a negative way.

That’s not intended as an insult, just a reminder that folks shouldn’t assume that what comes out of the BRAC process reflects the best possible thinking on the topic. People who’ve been largely sidelined should absolutely continue to monitor these proposals and challenge those they believe are ill-advised.

Agree. I follow this forum because I became interested during earlier boundary studies. I do post on this thread because I see similarities of earlier efforts. I understand some of the decisions and was a close observer of the 2008 study when I saw how politics (specifically the South Lakes PTA) could drive the results. Watching the SB meetings at that time when so many parents who had kids affected stood up to respectfully request that South Lakes switch to AP, was enlightening to me. The SB ignored those requests which were heartfelt. Another meeting for the community had SB members sitting with their backs to the attendees.
That boundary "study" we predetermined and I believe this one is, as well. Just look at the way they selected the BRAC committee. The groups selected are comprised mostly of activists. The selection of the pyramid reps--intended to give the appearance of a lack of bias--is just the opposite. The parents from my pyramid come from the same neighborhood school. I've no idea if they have children in the high school or not. The fact that they applied, would indicate that they do have a specific interest.

One thing I learned is that almost everyone wants to stay put. I cannot speak to the elementary schools across the county as there are too many to understand. However, no high school is going to continue to be overcrowded (maybe McLean and Centreville). And, no high school has too small a membership to offer a rigorous course selection.

I do not understand why we are going through this. It is not good for the students, their families, or the community, And, it will cost money we do not have.

They can talk about efficiency, but any time a change is made there will be a domino effect that makes it less efficient for others.

In my quick cursory review of the members, I found at least four that live in neighborhoods that are much closer to a different high school than they are zoned for. Hm maybe those people have ulterior motives for joining the BRAc?

Yeah, it really needs to be each elementary school. The fact that they pull a couple from each pyramid means it’s meaningless.

They'd say it would be too unwieldy to have that many BRAC members, and they might not be wrong, but the flip side is that folks should insist that there be separate community meetings later for every pyramid, where parents from each ES that feeds into a MS and HS in the pyramid have a chance to express their views.

It doesn’t matter who is on BRAC. They won’t be making any decisions. I don’t understand the posters here who are so obsessed with BRAC and seem to think they will be selecting changes. They provide feedback just like any of the many other advisory committees.

The expectation is that, when a set of specific recommendations or options is presented, Reid and the School Board will play up the idea that they were developed by independent consultants (Thru) and vetted with the BRAC, whether the BRAC formally endorses them or not. And then others will have an opportunity to weigh in, but they'll feel like they are fighting an uphill battle at that point. So there's understandible irritation that FCPS stacked the deck with "friendly" BRAC members from various special interest groups and that even the pyramid members may not prove representative of the pyramids they are supposed to represent.

I think that's the issue more than an assumption that the BRAC will actually make the decisions. Ultimately, that's on the School Board, and they'll be held accountable for that, as much as they might like to claim they are just ratifying Thru/BRAC recommendations.

Unless they have gag orders in place for BRAC post map release, I anticipate that a lot of committee members are going to go public with their disapproval of the changes. BRAC members from all over the county are opposed to the changes. Even their own hand - picked committee doesn’t want the comprehensive changes discussed.

But, the NDA's!

When Thru did Lancaster, they moved 10% of the community--at least I think that is what I read. Can you imagine the response if they move 20,000 students in FCPS?

Just looking at the limited area I know, it seems that some of the adjustments are not practical--and those were pretty simple opportunities. This split feeder thing should be very interesting. Lots in my area and I don't see any easy solutions.

Sure there are. Just unpopular. Easy, but unpopular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, those who are most knowledgeable about the factors relevant to boundary discussions are a mix of current and former parents. The BRAC process is designed to select a group of current parents who may or may not be very knowledgeable and can be led down the desired path by FCPS staff and Thru Consulting. Of course, some are sharp and will challenge them and ask the right questions, but a lot of them seem unlikely to do much more than make sure they aren’t personally affected in what they’d consider a negative way.

That’s not intended as an insult, just a reminder that folks shouldn’t assume that what comes out of the BRAC process reflects the best possible thinking on the topic. People who’ve been largely sidelined should absolutely continue to monitor these proposals and challenge those they believe are ill-advised.

Agree. I follow this forum because I became interested during earlier boundary studies. I do post on this thread because I see similarities of earlier efforts. I understand some of the decisions and was a close observer of the 2008 study when I saw how politics (specifically the South Lakes PTA) could drive the results. Watching the SB meetings at that time when so many parents who had kids affected stood up to respectfully request that South Lakes switch to AP, was enlightening to me. The SB ignored those requests which were heartfelt. Another meeting for the community had SB members sitting with their backs to the attendees.
That boundary "study" we predetermined and I believe this one is, as well. Just look at the way they selected the BRAC committee. The groups selected are comprised mostly of activists. The selection of the pyramid reps--intended to give the appearance of a lack of bias--is just the opposite. The parents from my pyramid come from the same neighborhood school. I've no idea if they have children in the high school or not. The fact that they applied, would indicate that they do have a specific interest.

One thing I learned is that almost everyone wants to stay put. I cannot speak to the elementary schools across the county as there are too many to understand. However, no high school is going to continue to be overcrowded (maybe McLean and Centreville). And, no high school has too small a membership to offer a rigorous course selection.

I do not understand why we are going through this. It is not good for the students, their families, or the community, And, it will cost money we do not have.

They can talk about efficiency, but any time a change is made there will be a domino effect that makes it less efficient for others.

In my quick cursory review of the members, I found at least four that live in neighborhoods that are much closer to a different high school than they are zoned for. Hm maybe those people have ulterior motives for joining the BRAc?

Yeah, it really needs to be each elementary school. The fact that they pull a couple from each pyramid means it’s meaningless.

They'd say it would be too unwieldy to have that many BRAC members, and they might not be wrong, but the flip side is that folks should insist that there be separate community meetings later for every pyramid, where parents from each ES that feeds into a MS and HS in the pyramid have a chance to express their views.

It doesn’t matter who is on BRAC. They won’t be making any decisions. I don’t understand the posters here who are so obsessed with BRAC and seem to think they will be selecting changes. They provide feedback just like any of the many other advisory committees.

The expectation is that, when a set of specific recommendations or options is presented, Reid and the School Board will play up the idea that they were developed by independent consultants (Thru) and vetted with the BRAC, whether the BRAC formally endorses them or not. And then others will have an opportunity to weigh in, but they'll feel like they are fighting an uphill battle at that point. So there's understandible irritation that FCPS stacked the deck with "friendly" BRAC members from various special interest groups and that even the pyramid members may not prove representative of the pyramids they are supposed to represent.

I think that's the issue more than an assumption that the BRAC will actually make the decisions. Ultimately, that's on the School Board, and they'll be held accountable for that, as much as they might like to claim they are just ratifying Thru/BRAC recommendations.

Unless they have gag orders in place for BRAC post map release, I anticipate that a lot of committee members are going to go public with their disapproval of the changes. BRAC members from all over the county are opposed to the changes. Even their own hand - picked committee doesn’t want the comprehensive changes discussed.

But, the NDA's!

When Thru did Lancaster, they moved 10% of the community--at least I think that is what I read. Can you imagine the response if they move 20,000 students in FCPS?

Just looking at the limited area I know, it seems that some of the adjustments are not practical--and those were pretty simple opportunities. This split feeder thing should be very interesting. Lots in my area and I don't see any easy solutions.

Sure there are. Just unpopular. Easy, but unpopular.

You have no clue. Not easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Westfield has 2700 students already. Isn't it already one of the largest HS? Why are you trying to move more kids there?

Yes, only West Springfield, Chantilly and Lake Braddock have more students than Westfield. Westfield has never been renovated. When it opened in the late 90s, it was already over the 2500 student design/building capacity--they had to put trailers in the parking lots-- so they added modular classrooms to the original building. The common areas (cafeteria, gym, halls, bathrooms) were not expanded. It is crowded now at 2700 and there is a lot of new construction in-zone. Re-zoning additional existing neighborhoods to Westfield would not make sense.

Presumably they would move kids from Westfield to Herndon.

There are new housing developments in Westfield zone--very close to Westfield-some are right by the Sully government center.

And, some are very expensive--close to Loudoun border, but in Westfield school district.

No all the new developments are townhomes and condo. Not expensive SFHs.

Which means they are even more likely to be occupied by families. Look at the development off Rt 50 behind Harris Teeter near Fair Oaks. Condos and townhomes. TONS of young families in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, those who are most knowledgeable about the factors relevant to boundary discussions are a mix of current and former parents. The BRAC process is designed to select a group of current parents who may or may not be very knowledgeable and can be led down the desired path by FCPS staff and Thru Consulting. Of course, some are sharp and will challenge them and ask the right questions, but a lot of them seem unlikely to do much more than make sure they aren’t personally affected in what they’d consider a negative way.

That’s not intended as an insult, just a reminder that folks shouldn’t assume that what comes out of the BRAC process reflects the best possible thinking on the topic. People who’ve been largely sidelined should absolutely continue to monitor these proposals and challenge those they believe are ill-advised.

Agree. I follow this forum because I became interested during earlier boundary studies. I do post on this thread because I see similarities of earlier efforts. I understand some of the decisions and was a close observer of the 2008 study when I saw how politics (specifically the South Lakes PTA) could drive the results. Watching the SB meetings at that time when so many parents who had kids affected stood up to respectfully request that South Lakes switch to AP, was enlightening to me. The SB ignored those requests which were heartfelt. Another meeting for the community had SB members sitting with their backs to the attendees.
That boundary "study" we predetermined and I believe this one is, as well. Just look at the way they selected the BRAC committee. The groups selected are comprised mostly of activists. The selection of the pyramid reps--intended to give the appearance of a lack of bias--is just the opposite. The parents from my pyramid come from the same neighborhood school. I've no idea if they have children in the high school or not. The fact that they applied, would indicate that they do have a specific interest.

One thing I learned is that almost everyone wants to stay put. I cannot speak to the elementary schools across the county as there are too many to understand. However, no high school is going to continue to be overcrowded (maybe McLean and Centreville). And, no high school has too small a membership to offer a rigorous course selection.

I do not understand why we are going through this. It is not good for the students, their families, or the community, And, it will cost money we do not have.

They can talk about efficiency, but any time a change is made there will be a domino effect that makes it less efficient for others.

In my quick cursory review of the members, I found at least four that live in neighborhoods that are much closer to a different high school than they are zoned for. Hm maybe those people have ulterior motives for joining the BRAc?

Yeah, it really needs to be each elementary school. The fact that they pull a couple from each pyramid means it’s meaningless.

They'd say it would be too unwieldy to have that many BRAC members, and they might not be wrong, but the flip side is that folks should insist that there be separate community meetings later for every pyramid, where parents from each ES that feeds into a MS and HS in the pyramid have a chance to express their views.

It doesn’t matter who is on BRAC. They won’t be making any decisions. I don’t understand the posters here who are so obsessed with BRAC and seem to think they will be selecting changes. They provide feedback just like any of the many other advisory committees.

I like to monitor the BRAC schedule only because it means slides are coming out.

I applaud the parent members who are taking the time to interact but knowing one of them directly, I wouldn’t be impressed with his analytic skills of this. I worry that so much is being put on their shoulders and they aren’t qualified nor trained to assess a county of this magnitude. I don’t mean for it to be a diss to them, it’s just highly unlikely they do this type of work - any that goes with the special interest groups too.

However, FCPS will be able to say they stood up and had the maps vetted by these groups so it looks good on paper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, those who are most knowledgeable about the factors relevant to boundary discussions are a mix of current and former parents. The BRAC process is designed to select a group of current parents who may or may not be very knowledgeable and can be led down the desired path by FCPS staff and Thru Consulting. Of course, some are sharp and will challenge them and ask the right questions, but a lot of them seem unlikely to do much more than make sure they aren’t personally affected in what they’d consider a negative way.

That’s not intended as an insult, just a reminder that folks shouldn’t assume that what comes out of the BRAC process reflects the best possible thinking on the topic. People who’ve been largely sidelined should absolutely continue to monitor these proposals and challenge those they believe are ill-advised.

Agree. I follow this forum because I became interested during earlier boundary studies. I do post on this thread because I see similarities of earlier efforts. I understand some of the decisions and was a close observer of the 2008 study when I saw how politics (specifically the South Lakes PTA) could drive the results. Watching the SB meetings at that time when so many parents who had kids affected stood up to respectfully request that South Lakes switch to AP, was enlightening to me. The SB ignored those requests which were heartfelt. Another meeting for the community had SB members sitting with their backs to the attendees.
That boundary "study" we predetermined and I believe this one is, as well. Just look at the way they selected the BRAC committee. The groups selected are comprised mostly of activists. The selection of the pyramid reps--intended to give the appearance of a lack of bias--is just the opposite. The parents from my pyramid come from the same neighborhood school. I've no idea if they have children in the high school or not. The fact that they applied, would indicate that they do have a specific interest.

One thing I learned is that almost everyone wants to stay put. I cannot speak to the elementary schools across the county as there are too many to understand. However, no high school is going to continue to be overcrowded (maybe McLean and Centreville). And, no high school has too small a membership to offer a rigorous course selection.

I do not understand why we are going through this. It is not good for the students, their families, or the community, And, it will cost money we do not have.

They can talk about efficiency, but any time a change is made there will be a domino effect that makes it less efficient for others.

In my quick cursory review of the members, I found at least four that live in neighborhoods that are much closer to a different high school than they are zoned for. Hm maybe those people have ulterior motives for joining the BRAc?

Yeah, it really needs to be each elementary school. The fact that they pull a couple from each pyramid means it’s meaningless.

They'd say it would be too unwieldy to have that many BRAC members, and they might not be wrong, but the flip side is that folks should insist that there be separate community meetings later for every pyramid, where parents from each ES that feeds into a MS and HS in the pyramid have a chance to express their views.

It doesn’t matter who is on BRAC. They won’t be making any decisions. I don’t understand the posters here who are so obsessed with BRAC and seem to think they will be selecting changes. They provide feedback just like any of the many other advisory committees.

I like to monitor the BRAC schedule only because it means slides are coming out.

I applaud the parent members who are taking the time to interact but knowing one of them directly, I wouldn’t be impressed with his analytic skills of this. I worry that so much is being put on their shoulders and they aren’t qualified nor trained to assess a county of this magnitude. I don’t mean for it to be a diss to them, it’s just highly unlikely they do this type of work - any that goes with the special interest groups too.

However, FCPS will be able to say they stood up and had the maps vetted by these groups so it looks good on paper.

I also look forward to the 4/25 slides to see if they made changes to attendance islands after any 4/11 BRAC feedback.

I believe one BRAC member posted there was something utterly wrong with their region that they provided feedback on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You will be iced out of Chantilly because there's many more kids who are closer to that school than you are. One reason why I didn't buy in Franklin Farms or Franklin Glen, Oak Hill area for that matter. That whole area could easily be transferred to Westfield and it's not even that crazy because as PP said there are surrounding neighborhoods even further away already going to Westfield.

That's because the South Lakes and Herndon PTA's refused them during the 2008 boundary study. And, yes, it was the South Lakes PTA that made the decisions.

It doesn't matter. As far as I'm concerned, if kids living off of Sunrise Valley can attend Westfield, so can PP in Franklin Farms.

Yep. And Centreville can relieve Westfield when the renovation is finished. Virginia Run elementary could shift to Centreville.

Many people want to ignore the possible changes.

And, whether serious or not, all these suggestions do not change anything. You are just moving the chess pieces and it won't make anything better. Shifting neighborhoods for no good reason.
There were reasons that the neighborhoods were assigned where they are--and most of those reasons still exist.

When/if Centreville is expanded, is the time to adjust. Not now. And, likely, Centreville will take kids from Fairfax whose boundary boundary borders the Centreville High property.

The only simple fix to all of this is to eliminate IB. That fixes the so-called "issues" at Lewis and Herndon.

What issues are at Lewis and Herndon?

DP. The "issues" are (1) under-enrollment relative to capacity; and (2) a perception of "brain drain" to nearby, more affluent schools (i.e., a lot of Lewis kids transfer to Lake Braddock purportedly for AP and a lot of Herndon kids transfer to South Lakes purportedly for IB). Eliminate IB and these transfers aren't possible.

Note that PP put "issues" in quotes because they presumably question whether this is really the problem that some boundary change advocates suggest.

The Advanced Academic Advisory Committee is spending the year analyzing AP and IB.


“2024-25 Committee Charge

AAPAC will learn more about the Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) options for FCPS high school students, including analyzing access, participation rates, and numbers of student exams in order to make recommendations about effective practices and possible areas for improvement”

https://www.fcps.edu/committee/advanced-academic-programs-aap-advisory-committee#committee-purpose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You will be iced out of Chantilly because there's many more kids who are closer to that school than you are. One reason why I didn't buy in Franklin Farms or Franklin Glen, Oak Hill area for that matter. That whole area could easily be transferred to Westfield and it's not even that crazy because as PP said there are surrounding neighborhoods even further away already going to Westfield.

That's because the South Lakes and Herndon PTA's refused them during the 2008 boundary study. And, yes, it was the South Lakes PTA that made the decisions.

It doesn't matter. As far as I'm concerned, if kids living off of Sunrise Valley can attend Westfield, so can PP in Franklin Farms.

Yep. And Centreville can relieve Westfield when the renovation is finished. Virginia Run elementary could shift to Centreville.

Many people want to ignore the possible changes.

And, whether serious or not, all these suggestions do not change anything. You are just moving the chess pieces and it won't make anything better. Shifting neighborhoods for no good reason.
There were reasons that the neighborhoods were assigned where they are--and most of those reasons still exist.

When/if Centreville is expanded, is the time to adjust. Not now. And, likely, Centreville will take kids from Fairfax whose boundary boundary borders the Centreville High property.

The only simple fix to all of this is to eliminate IB. That fixes the so-called "issues" at Lewis and Herndon.

What issues are at Lewis and Herndon?

DP. The "issues" are (1) under-enrollment relative to capacity; and (2) a perception of "brain drain" to nearby, more affluent schools (i.e., a lot of Lewis kids transfer to Lake Braddock purportedly for AP and a lot of Herndon kids transfer to South Lakes purportedly for IB). Eliminate IB and these transfers aren't possible.

Note that PP put "issues" in quotes because they presumably question whether this is really the problem that some boundary change advocates suggest.

The Advanced Academic Advisory Committee is spending the year analyzing AP and IB.


“2024-25 Committee Charge

AAPAC will learn more about the Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) options for FCPS high school students, including analyzing access, participation rates, and numbers of student exams in order to make recommendations about effective practices and possible areas for improvement”

https://www.fcps.edu/committee/advanced-academic-programs-aap-advisory-committee#committee-purpose

They should really update that page. Seven of eight meeting dates have passed for this year and all that is listed on the webpage is “Information Coming Soon” for each meeting. Given the level of interest in the future of IB/AP programming I have seen on this board, it would be helpful to get some insight in how FCPS is looking at this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The capacity of WESTFIELD vs. enrollment is under that of Oakton's.

If you look at a map, it’s pretty obvious — shifting some neighborhoods could totally help balance things out. Franklin Farm, for example, would make a ton of sense to go to Westfield. A lot of the neighborhoods right around Franklin Farm already feed into Westfield anyway, so it’s not like it would be some big, out-of-the-way move.

It wouldn’t fix everything overnight, but freeing up space at Oakton would make a real difference. Just feels like an easy option that’s sitting right there.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Why move kids in Franklin Farm from one school 9 miles away to another school 9 miles away (especially one that would require them getting on 28 and crossing 50 during rush hour, hahahaha, you clearly don't live here) when there are two other high schools both of which are even closer than Westfields. If you're moving my kids anywhere, you are moving them to Chantilly which is 3.5 miles away from my house, not another school that will take even LONGER to get to in the mornings.

You will be iced out of Chantilly because there's many more kids who are closer to that school than you are. One reason why I didn't buy in Franklin Farms or Franklin Glen, Oak Hill area for that matter. That whole area could easily be transferred to Westfield and it's not even that crazy because as PP said there are surrounding neighborhoods even further away already going to Westfield.

I'm confused about who you think is going to fill up Oakton if we're moving all the Crossfield and Navy kids to Westfield? Oakton is newly renovated and is not overcapacity. Who else would you put there?

There is a guy who lives in the western part of the Falls Church HS district (apparently the Fairhill ES area outside the Beltway) obsessed about the fact that he's not zoned to Madison, Oakton, Woodson, or Fairfax instead. He posts on multiple forums about various redistricting scenarios that he thinks might increase the likehihood of his getting rezoned into Oakton in particular, but he doesn't know that much about some of the areas further west that he wants redistricted to make that more likely. Of course, since Falls Church is getting expanded now, he's fighting a losing battle.

He's also gotten into big fights with some Langley posters, which explains much of the venom directed towards Langley and Great Falls recently.

The bolded is why capacity projections matter. Kicking some people out of Oakton HS to make room for Fairhill ES would be an exercise in willful ignorance of the investments that FCPS has made in Falls Church HS.

Shuffling students around now to “fix” an attendance island (or a split feeder) and then shuffling them again after a projected/planned/in-progress renovation is disruptive and unnecessary. It prioritizes a compulsive need to make a map look pretty over long-term stability.

For example, why “solve” an attendance island for Fairfax HS now that could be “fixed” after the renovation of Centreville HS is completed. Instead of creating a weird bridge in Fairfax Villa, couldn’t you wait until the renovation of Centreville HS is completed and THEN move the neighborhood that is right next door to Centreville HS (Willow Springs) from Fairfax HS to Centreville HS?

Another point: can Thru propose these type of “post-renovation” moves as eventual, potential moves based on large scale changes on the horizon (like a high school renovation) that are currently part of FCPS’s own projections? Why is the only answer “fix it now”?

Can Thru put these “solutions” in different buckets: 1) can be fixed now utilizing current facilities/projected completions prior to fall 2026 without disrupting long-term stability, 2) can minimize disruption by addressing next round (in five years) with additional, planned capital investments that are currently projected to be completed prior to the next 5-year cycle?

If Thru is not considering FCPS’s own planned/existing/in-progress renovations in its proposals, it is not providing proposals that are consistent with policy 8130.8.

A more future-looking approach would “[p]romote stability by focusing on long-term attendance-zone stability” (take a look at page three of this: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/%24file/P8130.pdf)

[Anonymous]

When are the slides coming out? My kids go to Gunston and live on Mason Neck due to its largely rural nature. I think less than 20% of the total kids at the school end up at South County, but that's because Gunston is physically located on Mason Neck and has weird boundaries to pull in kids off of Mason Neck. Those kids all go to Hayfield while the kids who live on Mason Neck go to South County which is half the distance as Hayfield. Just want to be sure I can be aware of any potential situation where they are trying to rezone kids from the southern most portion of Fairfax to a school more than twice the distance away. Before South County opened kids on Mason Neck had close to an hour long one way bus trip. Since there aren't very many of these kids, I'm worried that there won't be enough advocates if the county tries to make any changes.