FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Click capacity overview and select school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To all of our good friends collectively known as “Langley” on this board, the 60-105 threshold should keep you right where you are, for now. I can’t find any school in or adjacent to the Forestville/Cooper/Langley progression that is currently outside this 60-105 range.

Your biggest concern appears to be that Armstrong ES is currently at 71% capacity but is projected to be at 41% in 29/30 (renovations underway, expected completion by FY2028). By all indications, Thru appears to be focused solely on schools that are currently outside of the 60-105 threshold for this current review.

Moving a portion of Forestville to Armstrong will likely be a focus of the next round of review, in five years, if Armstrong meets its sub-60% projection.

So, Langley, if you have kids that are 6th grade or higher and you don’t care where your house will be zoned when your DC are out of school, you can breath a sigh of relief.

If you do care about where your school is zoned and/or your DC are 5th or lower, maybe focus your energy on getting a different SB elected that tears up policy 8130.8 before the next 5-year review.

I have been following this topic long enough to just flag that nobody who lives in Fairfax County should be breathing a sigh of relief when it comes to boundaries at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25CapacityDashboard/ReadMe

Wow. This useful. The slider on the capacity utilization maps tab is very helpful.

[Anonymous]

Did the attendance island slides show where they recommended moving the attendance islands?

Moving a chunk of kids from Rolling Valley to Saratoga makes room at Rolling Valley for the Keene Mill attendance island, which borders RVES boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is supposed to be focus of next presentation?

Capacity - the big one.

This is the one that’s going to rock so many. I feel like they’ve been desensitizing us with attendance islands and split feeders.

You mean like you were OK with these dozens of proposals on 4/11 and 4/25 to move other kids around but now you’re thinking the other shoe might drop?

These attendance islands and split feeders make geographical sense to a degree. Thru has done a nice job of now explaining the capacity thresholds but for those well over the 105%, it’s going to hurt to see movement if there aren’t renovations planned to expand (and we know there aren’t many)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To all of our good friends collectively known as “Langley” on this board, the 60-105 threshold should keep you right where you are, for now. I can’t find any school in or adjacent to the Forestville/Cooper/Langley progression that is currently outside this 60-105 range.

Your biggest concern appears to be that Armstrong ES is currently at 71% capacity but is projected to be at 41% in 29/30 (renovations underway, expected completion by FY2028). By all indications, Thru appears to be focused solely on schools that are currently outside of the 60-105 threshold for this current review.

Moving a portion of Forestville to Armstrong will likely be a focus of the next round of review, in five years, if Armstrong meets its sub-60% projection.

So, Langley, if you have kids that are 6th grade or higher and you don’t care where your house will be zoned when your DC are out of school, you can breath a sigh of relief.

If you do care about where your school is zoned and/or your DC are 5th or lower, maybe focus your energy on getting a different SB elected that tears up policy 8130.8 before the next 5-year review.

Very telling that they apparently set the under-utilization capacity threshold low enough to placate the noisiest parents in the county while proposing to move lots of other kids around to avoid islands and split feeders that weren’t hurting anyone and involve kids traveling far shorter distances to schools than Forestville kids travel to Langley.

FCPS sucks.

[Anonymous]

BRAC has a great piece of advice in the feedback: survey the attendance islands and split feeders to see if they actually want to move.

NOBODY should be moved for either reason unless the community wants to be moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of our good friends collectively known as “Langley” on this board, the 60-105 threshold should keep you right where you are, for now. I can’t find any school in or adjacent to the Forestville/Cooper/Langley progression that is currently outside this 60-105 range.

Your biggest concern appears to be that Armstrong ES is currently at 71% capacity but is projected to be at 41% in 29/30 (renovations underway, expected completion by FY2028). By all indications, Thru appears to be focused solely on schools that are currently outside of the 60-105 threshold for this current review.

Moving a portion of Forestville to Armstrong will likely be a focus of the next round of review, in five years, if Armstrong meets its sub-60% projection.

So, Langley, if you have kids that are 6th grade or higher and you don’t care where your house will be zoned when your DC are out of school, you can breath a sigh of relief.

If you do care about where your school is zoned and/or your DC are 5th or lower, maybe focus your energy on getting a different SB elected that tears up policy 8130.8 before the next 5-year review.

Very telling that they apparently set the under-utilization capacity threshold low enough to placate the noisiest parents in the county while proposing to move lots of other kids around to avoid islands and split feeders that weren’t hurting anyone and involve kids traveling far shorter distances to schools than Forestville kids travel to Langley.

FCPS sucks.

Hi, you don’t have to always make this us vs. them. I’m sure these “noisiest parents” support minimal moves across the county. You should try sugar, not vinegar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the attendance island slides show where they recommended moving the attendance islands?

Moving a chunk of kids from Rolling Valley to Saratoga makes room at Rolling Valley for the Keene Mill attendance island, which borders RVES boundary.

The keene mill attendance island went to White Oaks and Cardinal Forest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of our good friends collectively known as “Langley” on this board, the 60-105 threshold should keep you right where you are, for now. I can’t find any school in or adjacent to the Forestville/Cooper/Langley progression that is currently outside this 60-105 range.

Your biggest concern appears to be that Armstrong ES is currently at 71% capacity but is projected to be at 41% in 29/30 (renovations underway, expected completion by FY2028). By all indications, Thru appears to be focused solely on schools that are currently outside of the 60-105 threshold for this current review.

Moving a portion of Forestville to Armstrong will likely be a focus of the next round of review, in five years, if Armstrong meets its sub-60% projection.

So, Langley, if you have kids that are 6th grade or higher and you don’t care where your house will be zoned when your DC are out of school, you can breath a sigh of relief.

If you do care about where your school is zoned and/or your DC are 5th or lower, maybe focus your energy on getting a different SB elected that tears up policy 8130.8 before the next 5-year review.

Very telling that they apparently set the under-utilization capacity threshold low enough to placate the noisiest parents in the county while proposing to move lots of other kids around to avoid islands and split feeders that weren’t hurting anyone and involve kids traveling far shorter distances to schools than Forestville kids travel to Langley.

FCPS sucks.

Hi, you don’t have to always make this us vs. them. I’m sure these “noisiest parents” support minimal moves across the county. You should try sugar, not vinegar.

Once they come out with the capacity proposals in May that leave Langley untouched you will declare victory and walk away, leaving others as the sacrificial lambs so FCPS can say it “did something.” I’m so sick of this shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of our good friends collectively known as “Langley” on this board, the 60-105 threshold should keep you right where you are, for now. I can’t find any school in or adjacent to the Forestville/Cooper/Langley progression that is currently outside this 60-105 range.

Your biggest concern appears to be that Armstrong ES is currently at 71% capacity but is projected to be at 41% in 29/30 (renovations underway, expected completion by FY2028). By all indications, Thru appears to be focused solely on schools that are currently outside of the 60-105 threshold for this current review.

Moving a portion of Forestville to Armstrong will likely be a focus of the next round of review, in five years, if Armstrong meets its sub-60% projection.

So, Langley, if you have kids that are 6th grade or higher and you don’t care where your house will be zoned when your DC are out of school, you can breath a sigh of relief.

If you do care about where your school is zoned and/or your DC are 5th or lower, maybe focus your energy on getting a different SB elected that tears up policy 8130.8 before the next 5-year review.

Very telling that they apparently set the under-utilization capacity threshold low enough to placate the noisiest parents in the county while proposing to move lots of other kids around to avoid islands and split feeders that weren’t hurting anyone and involve kids traveling far shorter distances to schools than Forestville kids travel to Langley.

FCPS sucks.

Hi, you don’t have to always make this us vs. them. I’m sure these “noisiest parents” support minimal moves across the county. You should try sugar, not vinegar.

Once they come out with the capacity proposals in May that leave Langley untouched you will declare victory and walk away, leaving others as the sacrificial lambs so FCPS can say it “did something.” I’m so sick of this shit.

Who’s going to be the sacrificial lambs? West Springfield parents who are redistributed to Lee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of our good friends collectively known as “Langley” on this board, the 60-105 threshold should keep you right where you are, for now. I can’t find any school in or adjacent to the Forestville/Cooper/Langley progression that is currently outside this 60-105 range.

Your biggest concern appears to be that Armstrong ES is currently at 71% capacity but is projected to be at 41% in 29/30 (renovations underway, expected completion by FY2028). By all indications, Thru appears to be focused solely on schools that are currently outside of the 60-105 threshold for this current review.

Moving a portion of Forestville to Armstrong will likely be a focus of the next round of review, in five years, if Armstrong meets its sub-60% projection.

So, Langley, if you have kids that are 6th grade or higher and you don’t care where your house will be zoned when your DC are out of school, you can breath a sigh of relief.

If you do care about where your school is zoned and/or your DC are 5th or lower, maybe focus your energy on getting a different SB elected that tears up policy 8130.8 before the next 5-year review.

Very telling that they apparently set the under-utilization capacity threshold low enough to placate the noisiest parents in the county while proposing to move lots of other kids around to avoid islands and split feeders that weren’t hurting anyone and involve kids traveling far shorter distances to schools than Forestville kids travel to Langley.

FCPS sucks.

Hi, you don’t have to always make this us vs. them. I’m sure these “noisiest parents” support minimal moves across the county. You should try sugar, not vinegar.

Once they come out with the capacity proposals in May that leave Langley untouched you will declare victory and walk away, leaving others as the sacrificial lambs so FCPS can say it “did something.” I’m so sick of this shit.

That’s more vinegar, not sugar. This is a county-wide issue where the school board views all of our kids as pawns and doesn’t consider mental health issues stemming from unnecessary changes. It’s the community against the school board, not locality vs locality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BRAC has a great piece of advice in the feedback: survey the attendance islands and split feeders to see if they actually want to move.

NOBODY should be moved for either reason unless the community wants to be moved.

This is a stupid idea that stood out to me in the feedback document. We can’t make district wide policy based on what one set of current residents believe at this moment in time.

[Anonymous]

That capacity dashboard projection is really interesting with the ability to see a bigger picture..

However, with the shifts in elementary and middle, how accurate is the current projection to 2029? Once the shifts are included, it could like quite different.

I would suggest those concerned about the high schools, that it may not be very accurate (and it is likely not accurate now, either.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is a county-wide issue where the school board views all of our kids as pawns and doesn’t consider mental health issues stemming from unnecessary changes. It’s the community against the school board, not locality vs locality.

I hear you... My kids aren't impacted as of now, and I would be unhappy if they were. That said, I strongly felt that they should NOT mess with high schoolers, who have mapped out 4 years of courses, majors, clubs, teacher recommendations, sports et al. I wished they wouldn't disrupt 2 years of MS, which are hard enough as is.. I am glad that some sense prevailed, that they heard what many many parents gave as community feedback - that it would be disastrous to make this change at the HS level. I feel like making these changes at the ES level is the way to go, so that they sow the seeds to fix the future MS and HS numbers with minimal disruption.

I am NOT a proponent of boundary change, though if it has to be done, I am glad to see that they are being sensitive about it, and that they did take community feedback into account.