FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

split-feeder school was not corrected if the school building itself sits in the smaller (< 25 %) area.

Can someone explain this to me? Why would building sitting on smaller area be untouched?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ouch... move from Vienna ES (rated 8/10) to Freedom Hill (rated 3/10) is going to rile up folks.

The roughly 8% of Vienna ES kids (28 per the analysis) who go to Kilmer/Marshall rather than Thoreau/Madison would go to another school that feeds 100% to Kilmer/Marshall (Freedom Hill). They would just be going to school with their future MS/HS classmates earlier.

Freedom hill is a great school! The ratings are not true representation of the schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's interesting. I would have put that section of Cub Run to Brookfield instead of Lee's Corner, and then make Brookfield only go to Rocky Run instead of the split feeder, but perhaps it's too many kids for Chantilly.

Also this would free up some space for the Franklin Farm kids to go to Lee's Corner instead of Oak Hill. I think the western part of Franklin Farm goes to Lee's Corner or is it mainly Franklin Glen? Both Lee's Corner and Brookfield are getting expansions and projected to have low capacity afterwards.

Also, would this screw up Poplar tree AAP? Cub Run AAP has Poplar tree as center, now they would go to... Oak Hill as a center?

I don’t think any of Franklin Farm goes to Lee’s corner. Just Franklin Glen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did they not even touch Franklin? I feel like they went all nutso on attendance islands and backed off on effort (thankfully) on split feeders.

They did. Carson is the one which needed the changes most and was not touched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

split-feeder school was not corrected if the school building itself sits in the smaller (< 25 %) area.

Can someone explain this to me? Why would building sitting on smaller area be untouched?

Their general approach is to propose to reassign the smaller (below 25%) area to eliminate the split feeder in order to affect fewer kids, but then they'd have situations where kids living next door to the school had been reassigned to another school.

[Anonymous]

Any changes proposed for Oakton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did they not even touch Franklin? I feel like they went all nutso on attendance islands and backed off on effort (thankfully) on split feeders.

They did. Carson is the one which needed the changes most and was not touched.

I guess because the area closest to Carson goes to Westfield and below 25% of Carson goes to Westfield (vs. Oakton and South Lakes)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the three boundary adjustments will be combined? I’m trying to figure out how boundary adjustments for attendance islands, split feeders and population with work in the end. For example, if by eliminating an attendance island and split feeder creates over capacity for a MS or HS, then what? A certain portion of those neighborhoods are sent to a different nearby school?

The main thing people are waiting to see is if there are separate analyses around (1) attendance islands, (2) split feeders, and (3) capacity issues, or whether it's iterative, with refinements based on the feedback received on the prior scenarios.

If they are separate analyses, then people won't really know the direction in which they are heading (i.e., what their real priorities are), but if the analysis is iterative it will seem like whatever final recommendation emerges is essentially a fait accompli.

And I think most people still question the need for this entire exercise - the proverbial "is the juice worth the squeeze" at a time of flat enrollments with likely declines on the horizon.

Apparently not iterative. No discussion of shrevewoood becoming a split feeder to Kilmer and Longfellow when it’s currently just Kilmer.

Which is weird, because they claim they claim on slide 21 that they fixed other split feeders in previous sessions, yet their proposed scenarios don’t align with what was previously presented.

Regardless, moving a large portion of Westgate’s walk zone to Franklin Sherman is a choice. Especially when they don’t seem to be considering the phased grandfathering from the Kent Gardens adjustments to their capacity projections. So they’re trying to improve transportation efficiencies by *checks notes * moving a town house community that is 400 ft from their currently assigned elementary school to a school 2 miles away.

[Anonymous]

They are making moves to make some Fairfax City schools overcrowded. This will likely mean blowback from the city. The City can and has made the County redistrict to avoid this issue. Does thru even understand the agreement between the City and the County. The city just passed a bond issue to expand and renovate Providence and Daniels Run and the city taxpayers sure aren't going to want to pay the bill to add space and have the county overcrowd us again. Should have built Blake Lane school especially with the massive development going into the AT&T site.

[Anonymous]

Am I correct in assuming they only adjusted split feeder issues from ES-->MS or MS-->, and not ES-->? I ask because our children go to an ES and are part of 10% of the population that goes to one HS, and the other 90% goes to another HS (however the entire ES goes to the same MS). I'd think they'd fix that as part of the feeder issue, but maybe I misinterpreted it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are making moves to make some Fairfax City schools overcrowded. This will likely mean blowback from the city. The City can and has made the County redistrict to avoid this issue. Does thru even understand the agreement between the City and the County. The city just passed a bond issue to expand and renovate Providence and Daniels Run and the city taxpayers sure aren't going to want to pay the bill to add space and have the county overcrowd us again. Should have built Blake Lane school especially with the massive development going into the AT&T site.

But the doggggsssss Won’t somebody think of the dog parks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rolling Valley split feeder to Saratoga/Key/Lewis as someone on this thread already predicted. They didn’t touch Gunston or Sangster - both schools that cover a very large geographical area and are thus hard to “fix” without some area getting totally screwed on commute time.

Didn’t they say how the changes would affect high school attendance last time? They didn’t state this here.

It doesn't affect middle or high school, because for Rolling Valley, they took the kids who went to RVES/Key/Lewis already. So they switched them to Saratoga/Key/Lewis, changing only the elementary school, not the MS and HS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the three boundary adjustments will be combined? I’m trying to figure out how boundary adjustments for attendance islands, split feeders and population with work in the end. For example, if by eliminating an attendance island and split feeder creates over capacity for a MS or HS, then what? A certain portion of those neighborhoods are sent to a different nearby school?

The main thing people are waiting to see is if there are separate analyses around (1) attendance islands, (2) split feeders, and (3) capacity issues, or whether it's iterative, with refinements based on the feedback received on the prior scenarios.

If they are separate analyses, then people won't really know the direction in which they are heading (i.e., what their real priorities are), but if the analysis is iterative it will seem like whatever final recommendation emerges is essentially a fait accompli.

And I think most people still question the need for this entire exercise - the proverbial "is the juice worth the squeeze" at a time of flat enrollments with likely declines on the horizon.

Apparently not iterative. No discussion of shrevewoood becoming a split feeder to Kilmer and Longfellow when it’s currently just Kilmer.

Which is weird, because they claim they claim on slide 21 that they fixed other split feeders in previous sessions, yet their proposed scenarios don’t align with what was previously presented.

Regardless, moving a large portion of Westgate’s walk zone to Franklin Sherman is a choice. Especially when they don’t seem to be considering the phased grandfathering from the Kent Gardens adjustments to their capacity projections. So they’re trying to improve transportation efficiencies by *checks notes * moving a town house community that is 400 ft from their currently assigned elementary school to a school 2 miles away.

The 4/11 presentation "fixed" one part of the split feeder by moving all of Wolftrap ES out of Kilmer into Thoreau. But then, they added the Westbriar island to Wolftrap, making Wolftrap a split

[Anonymous]

Looks like they heard the resounding feedback from the Community Boundary Review Meetings to minimize disruptions to MS' and HS'. The email from Reid says: "The consultant shared that we are primarily focused on resolving split feeders at the elementary school level, because we can make the most targeted adjustments with the least disruptions."

That may explain why we did not see Carson, Oakton, Langley impacts. This would nicely also nicely solve for the issues of grandfathering and transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the three boundary adjustments will be combined? I’m trying to figure out how boundary adjustments for attendance islands, split feeders and population with work in the end. For example, if by eliminating an attendance island and split feeder creates over capacity for a MS or HS, then what? A certain portion of those neighborhoods are sent to a different nearby school?

The main thing people are waiting to see is if there are separate analyses around (1) attendance islands, (2) split feeders, and (3) capacity issues, or whether it's iterative, with refinements based on the feedback received on the prior scenarios.

If they are separate analyses, then people won't really know the direction in which they are heading (i.e., what their real priorities are), but if the analysis is iterative it will seem like whatever final recommendation emerges is essentially a fait accompli.

And I think most people still question the need for this entire exercise - the proverbial "is the juice worth the squeeze" at a time of flat enrollments with likely declines on the horizon.

Apparently not iterative. No discussion of shrevewoood becoming a split feeder to Kilmer and Longfellow when it’s currently just Kilmer.

Which is weird, because they claim they claim on slide 21 that they fixed other split feeders in previous sessions, yet their proposed scenarios don’t align with what was previously presented.

Regardless, moving a large portion of Westgate’s walk zone to Franklin Sherman is a choice. Especially when they don’t seem to be considering the phased grandfathering from the Kent Gardens adjustments to their capacity projections. So they’re trying to improve transportation efficiencies by *checks notes * moving a town house community that is 400 ft from their currently assigned elementary school to a school 2 miles away.

The 4/11 presentation "fixed" one part of the split feeder by moving all of Wolftrap ES out of Kilmer into Thoreau. But then, they added the Westbriar island to Wolftrap, making Wolftrap a split

That's not quite correct. The 4/11 presentation would have moved the part of Wolftrap ES that is currently assigned to Kilmer/Madison to Thoreau. Other parts of Wolftrap would stay at Kilmer/Marshall, and the Westbriar island would be added to that area. And both currently and under the proposal involving the Westbriar island, Wolftrap would be an even enough split feeder that they wouldn't prioritize it.