FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

Agree. The history of boundary review has been that FCPS caved to the loud and wealthy voices. I had hope this time would be different since it’s supposed to be comprehensive. We could make changes that make sense for the whole district’s efficiency. How on earth is 60% considered good utilization of a school? Why did that threshold get set? And allowing some at 60% and some at 105% is not justifiable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You show your true colors when you say stuff like this. Communities absolutely should have a voice when you are talking about disrupting their lives, especially when the changes are supposedly to help those communities.

Politicians who are unresponsive to the community won’t be in politics for long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You show your true colors when you say stuff like this. Communities absolutely should have a voice when you are talking about disrupting their lives, especially when the changes are supposedly to help those communities.

Politicians who are unresponsive to the community won’t be in politics for long.

DP. If they were really going to move people only when they wanted to be moved they should give twice as much funding to those left behind at the schools they are leaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You show your true colors when you say stuff like this. Communities absolutely should have a voice when you are talking about disrupting their lives, especially when the changes are supposedly to help those communities.

Politicians who are unresponsive to the community won’t be in politics for long.

Agree.

Why should we move kids just because we can?

[Anonymous]

DP. If they were really going to move people only when they wanted to be moved they should give twice as much funding to those left behind at the schools they are leaving.

I don't understand this. Which communities want to leave a school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That's how the WSHS parents feel. Will be VERY interested to see the capacity adjustments.

[Anonymous]

When is the capacity meeting?

[Anonymous]

Are there more split feeder changes going to come out? I thought Lemon Road was a split feeder where very few students go to Longfellow/McLean. I did not see them mentioned in this iteration. I saw they moved the small neighborhood out of Westgate to Franklin-Sherman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there more split feeder changes going to come out? I thought Lemon Road was a split feeder where very few students go to Longfellow/McLean. I did not see them mentioned in this iteration. I saw they moved the small neighborhood out of Westgate to Franklin-Sherman.

Lemon Road wasn’t considered because the school is located in the smaller catchment area (McLean) and they can’t reassign the McLean zone to Marshall because it would cut off their bridge to Timber Lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there more split feeder changes going to come out? I thought Lemon Road was a split feeder where very few students go to Longfellow/McLean. I did not see them mentioned in this iteration. I saw they moved the small neighborhood out of Westgate to Franklin-Sherman.

Lemon Road is physically located in the area that feeds to Longfellow/McLean. They said in the deck they didn’t look at such split feeders.

Franklin Sherman needs more kids but reassigning kids who literally live next door to Westgate to FS doesn’t make sense.

They need to take a look at the new split feeders they created at schools like Shrevewood, Kilmer, and Longfellow. Sending a very small number of Kilmer kids to McLean or Longfellow kids to Falls Church makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That's how the WSHS parents feel. Will be VERY interested to see the capacity adjustments.

I don’t know if there’s going to be that change at this point, especially with 100+ leaving Rolling Valley for Saratoga. Yes those kids already (nominally) went to Key and Lewis, but 100 kids out of Rolling Valley is a lot, and will give some flexibility to change the ES boundaries to avoid crowding at the elementary level. Plus they also said that capacity in the 60%s was acceptable. Previously I had heard that they considered under 80% to be under-enrolled.

I think students being reassigned to Lewis will come from Annandale or Edison, which are also both crowded and both closer and an easier drive between the schools. Edison and Lewis are located on the same road and you could easily walk between them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It appears they are sending Navy Island to Oak Hill. That keeps them at Franklin. So, will they send them to Chantilly? That would even out the Chantilly/Oakton split.

Franklin only feeds to Chantilly and Oakton right? Won’t they have to move some kids out of Chantilly to make room for the Navy island kids?

Some of Franklin goes to Westfield.

I still maintain they should have made that area east of 28 and south of 50 brookfield-rocky run-chantilly instead of keeping brookfield as a split feeder and would have freed up Franklin to help with Carson kids. Plus, those kids going from Cub Run to Lee's Corner basically drive by Brookfield
to get to Lee's Corner.

So are those Cub run kids at Lees Corner going to Chantilly? I thought we’re trying to reduce enrollment at Chantilly. Same with Navy Island going to Franklin, are they moving to chantilly HS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That's how the WSHS parents feel. Will be VERY interested to see the capacity adjustments.

I don’t know if there’s going to be that change at this point, especially with 100+ leaving Rolling Valley for Saratoga. Yes those kids already (nominally) went to Key and Lewis, but 100 kids out of Rolling Valley is a lot, and will give some flexibility to change the ES boundaries to avoid crowding at the elementary level. Plus they also said that capacity in the 60%s was acceptable. Previously I had heard that they considered under 80% to be under-enrolled.

I think students being reassigned to Lewis will come from Annandale or Edison, which are also both crowded and both closer and an easier drive between the schools. Edison and Lewis are located on the same road and you could easily walk between them.

But they have WSHS at such a high capacity, I feel like they'll need to address it somehow. Maybe moving some Hunt Valley kids to South County? But then they create a split feeder at Hunt Valley. I'll be watching for those May 5 meeting slides.

[Anonymous]

[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That's how the WSHS parents feel. Will be VERY interested to see the capacity adjustments.

I don’t know if there’s going to be that change at this point, especially with 100+ leaving Rolling Valley for Saratoga. Yes those kids already (nominally) went to Key and Lewis, but 100 kids out of Rolling Valley is a lot, and will give some flexibility to change the ES boundaries to avoid crowding at the elementary level. Plus they also said that capacity in the 60%s was acceptable. Previously I had heard that they considered under 80% to be under-enrolled.

I think students being reassigned to Lewis will come from Annandale or Edison, which are also both crowded and both closer and an easier drive between the schools. Edison and Lewis are located on the same road and you could easily walk between them.

But they have WSHS at such a high capacity, I feel like they'll need to address it somehow. Maybe moving some Hunt Valley kids to South County? But then they create a split feeder at Hunt Valley. I'll be watching for those May 5 meeting slides.

I could see a new split feeder at HV. Some of those neighborhoods close to Pohick Rd. Are roughly equidistant to Irving/WSHS and South County, but the bus ride to SC is probably easier on roads with less traffic. It might be hard to get the requisite 25%+ of students though without getting into parts of HV’s boundaries that really are closer to WS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That's how the WSHS parents feel. Will be VERY interested to see the capacity adjustments.

I don’t know if there’s going to be that change at this point, especially with 100+ leaving Rolling Valley for Saratoga. Yes those kids already (nominally) went to Key and Lewis, but 100 kids out of Rolling Valley is a lot, and will give some flexibility to change the ES boundaries to avoid crowding at the elementary level. Plus they also said that capacity in the 60%s was acceptable. Previously I had heard that they considered under 80% to be under-enrolled.

I think students being reassigned to Lewis will come from Annandale or Edison, which are also both crowded and both closer and an easier drive between the schools. Edison and Lewis are located on the same road and you could easily walk between them.

But they have WSHS at such a high capacity, I feel like they'll need to address it somehow. Maybe moving some Hunt Valley kids to South County? But then they create a split feeder at Hunt Valley. I'll be watching for those May 5 meeting slides.

The school board did not address the Sangster split feeder where one neighborhood goes to Irving and WSHS while the rest of the students go to Lake Braddock. Moving all of Sangster to LB might be enough to stave off rezoning WSHS.

But on the note of Rolling Valley, those apartments inside the parkway that are marked to mive to Saratoga don't currently go to Lewis. Those students go to WSHS. Are they not currently zoned for WSHS? I think many of the Rolling Valley students outside the parkway also attend WSHS, although they are definitely zoned for Lewis.