Forum Index
»
Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
FCPS Boundary Review Updates
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
300 in boundary leave with pupil transfer out for Herndon |
Anonymous
Langley has a little over 2,000. Don’t know about Herndon. |
Anonymous
PP! But move some westbriar island to Colvin run/cooper/langley, other westbriar island to wolftrap , most of Spring Hill island to westbriar …remaining Spring Hill island to cooper/langley. FCPS is really going downhill with those utilization percentages of 60 and 105 including modulars and trailers. And now a 500k plus wiz of a consultant buses walkers. |
Anonymous
Herndon is 2230. The only reason it’s considered under enrolled is because they gave it an expansion it didn’t need. Based on the fact they’ve dropped the transportation narrative, and Thru has in some cases introduced transportation inefficiencies to eliminate attendance islands and split feeders, I’d say it’s highly unlikely any of Langley is moved to Herndon. I’d say South Lakes to Herndon is the more likely scenario and the question will be whether they handle it by closing transfers or by rezoning. |
Anonymous
Of course you would. It is the rich kid school. But that's not how these things should be determined. |
Anonymous
What do the people in these islands want? I would imagine some in the Westbriar island, after years of getting bussed past Colvin Run on their way to Westbriar, might want to move there and switch over to Cooper/Langley. Others might prefer to move to Wolftrap, which is a straight shoot down Beulah, and stay zoned to Kilmer/Marshall. As for the Spring Hill island, Spring Hill is a split feeder to Langley and McLean, so I assume they’d be a lot happier moving to Cooper/Langley with the rest of their Spring Hill classmates than getting moved into Westbriar, which is in the Marshall pyramid. Elaine Tholen created a really shitty dynamic at Spring Hill in 2021, where she spearheaded a change to the boundaries so that every kid at Spring Hill living in a single-family house goes to Cooper/Langley and every apartment or condo goes to Longfellow/Mclean. Zoning every Spring Hill kid to Cooper/Langley, as now proposed, would clean that up. Plus they need to limit moving more kids into Kilmer, which is overcrowded It’s easy to play redistricting tzar when it’s not your kids. We should at least make sure we know what these families prefer. |
Anonymous
I don’t get the sense Thru has any agency to recommend closing transfers. If they were going to dabble in that space, they should have focused on it earlier. That’s really a SB call. There is no current justification for moving anyone directly to Herndon from South Lakes. Given their current framework, they would have to focus on Chantilly first, and then chart a path that moves Chantilly kids to Westfield and Westfield kids to Herndon. And then the SB has to grapple with the implications of further concentrating poverty at Herndon. Langley may escape any move to Herndon now, but if it picks up some of Tysons and FCPS creates plenty of surplus capacity at Dranesville ES and Armstrong ES when renovating those schools, they may get redistricted in the next cycle if the SB really is committing to five-year reviews. |
Anonymous
The problem is that Herndon can’t absorb all of Coates ES and that’s the only path between their boundaries. Herndon ES is already taking the Coates kids who are already assigned to Herndon HS. That means they’ll have to shift South Lakes students to Herndon in order for South Lakes to pick up Westfield and/or Oakton kids. Then Oakton and/or Westfield will pick up Chantilly. This is my speculation based on their recommendations so far. Tysons growth has yet to be fully realized. I don’t think they’ll preemptively create capacity for it when they’re supposed to be doing another comprehensive review in five years anyway. That’s why we’ve only seen current enrollment numbers in these proposals. |
Anonymous
The answer for Herndon is to get the already in boundary kids back. Period. |
Anonymous
DP. No, she wants her kid to go there because that’s the school pyramid that her family chose when they selected their house, and there is no legitimate reason to move (as is abundantly clear from this thread). |
Anonymous
being rich doesn't make a kid or a school bad. Our son is perfectly happy there. |
Anonymous
I don't follow your first paragraph. You're implying that Thru would propose boundary changes that involve at least four schools (Chantilly, South Lakes, Herndon, and either Oakton or Westfield) to address overcapacity above 105% at Chantilly. That's now how Thru is operating so far. So far, they are operating as if they have to solve a particular problem (attendance island, school outside boundary, split feeder), and then generally looking to move the fewest SPAs possible to fix that problem. In this case, Chantilly is their "problem" to fix at 110% capacity, including the modular. The other schools are not "problems" because they are within the 60-105% range, only parts of a potential "fix." And it seems to me the simpler solution from Thru's perspective is to move part of Chantilly to Westfield, part of Westfield to Herndon, and leave South Lakes and Oakton out of it. Thru doesn't care if moving more of Coates to Herndon drives up the FARMS percentage at Herndon, because there's no "guiding principle" to avoid that (other than the most general reference to Policy 8130), and they've already proposed several "fixes" that would drive up FARMS percentages at some schools. If that's something to be avoided, it will need to come from the School Board later, not Thru. I agree Thru's proposals likely won't reflect anticipated future growth in Tysons. It either will continue, or it won't, and other things could happen to depress it (regional job losses, declining student cohorts, etc.). Note that their "Guiding Principle" #8 is to propose adjustments "[w]hen possible * * * with future enrollment trends in mind to help ensure boundaries remain effective and stable over time," but this principle may largely be ignored. |
Anonymous
They absolutely should count in boundary kids. This skews everything. If so many kids are placing out, this is not about not having enough students, it is about why these kids are placing out. Lewis and Herndon are both much discussed on this forum. Both would have more students if we eliminated the IB option. It is malpractice if the SB does not take this into consideration and admit the problem publicly. You know they have to admit it privately. |
Anonymous
I don't disagree that the SB should have considered this earlier. I just don't see Thru changing its approach right now. It's developing proposals and indicating what the school capacities would be if various boundaries adjustments were made, and those capacities reflect the transfers that are currently taking place, not what the enrollments might be if transfers were limited or program changes were to occur. |
Anonymous
There is still time. We have yet to see capacity addressed. So, Langley, since Herndon is underenrolled because so many people are placing out for IB, y |