FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they point to anything they’ve proposed that would actually help ensure equitable access to programs or minimize travel time for students?

All they’ve really done is punch down and propose to make some random changes to replace one ugly map with another ugly map. I mean, look at the proposed new Chantilly boundaries - they look absurd.

They clearly don’t have the courage to do what they originally set out to do and should just call the whole thing off.

It’s clear that they’ve considered those factors. There is a difference between having considered those factors vs. having considered them with the lens that you want to apply them.

NP.


Only one lens matters here:

Equity.

Everything else discussed will be ignored; the meetings and discussions are merely to provide a fig-leaf covering what the SB and Reid ordered Thru to come up with originally: equity, diversity, and inclusion.

But that’s not what these maps are doing. It’s a bunch of tinkering around the edges for little benefit in most cases. I can imagine what a full “equity” nuke of the maps would look like (to an extent - there’s not much you can do with how the poverty areas are concentrated in our county) and it doesn’t look like what they came up with.

We’ll never know if a full “equity” redrawing of the boundaries really was on the table. Was it planned and then scrapped due to public outcry, or due to the changing of presidential administrations putting a lot of diversity-related programs under a microscope? I personally think there was probably some advocates for a “nuclear option” on boundaries, but overall that wasn’t supported by the school board and important stakeholders in transportation and facilities who advocated for smaller changes due to logistical reasons. Sizemore and Anderson seemed asleep at the wheel at the WS PTSA virtual meeting and not even aware of the maps that were already released to the public.

Hunt Valley parents are completely disappointed with Anderson after her lackluster, disinterested performance at the WSHS PTA meeting last night.

I think it’s part of their act to appear ignorant right now. That way they can take credit if they “find out along with everyone else” what Thru has proposed and blame Thru and Reid if people object strongly.

But it also sounds like Anderson made some comments about Rolling Valley that were affirmatively misleading - that they’d rezone the Lewis part of RV to West Springfield HS rather than rezone it to Saratoga and keep it at Lewis. There’s no excuse for that.

She said what about Rolling Valley? Was that something she was going to suggest/fight for or was she just misunderstanding the map. I thought it was pretty clear. She's the one who keeps insisting some neighborhoods are going to have to leave WSHS to address capacity - why would she say they were going to add some, and from Lewis of all places??

Because that's a neighborhood of FARMS kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster complaining that they aren’t doing enough when these changes are causing massive disruption across the county is delusional.

There is an all Dem school board that picked Reid and thru - all on her side. And she is still complaining about it because they didn’t F over a particular zip code. Truly petty stuff.

And we know this poster because she’s been going at it for years, obsessively trying to will her agenda to happen.

It is time for her to touch grass.

It's not massive disruption, PP. It may be hard for you and your family to adjust, but you will as will everyone else. These are actually relatively minor changes compared to what people were expecting. I'm sorry your child will have to move schools, I know that's really hard, but s/he'll survive, kids (even high schoolers) are so adaptive especially when they have loving and supportive parents, I hope you are one of those.

DP. I think what you’re missing is that minor changes can affect individual families as much as big changes, and perhaps even more if they see they’ve been treated as the low-hanging fruit whose preferences can be just ignored to give School Board members a “win.”

Some of these changes probably are sensible and may be well received. Many seem gratuitous and accomplish very little, and the lack of any compelling need for them will be even clearer in a few years when enrollments at many of the affected schools decline.

Thru appears to have provided very little value. What they’ve produced is mostly low-grade AI-type garbage.

[Anonymous]

Hope they just get on with it already. But in the end, if they don't prevent transfers, doesn't really matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they point to anything they’ve proposed that would actually help ensure equitable access to programs or minimize travel time for students?

All they’ve really done is punch down and propose to make some random changes to replace one ugly map with another ugly map. I mean, look at the proposed new Chantilly boundaries - they look absurd.

They clearly don’t have the courage to do what they originally set out to do and should just call the whole thing off.

It’s clear that they’ve considered those factors. There is a difference between having considered those factors vs. having considered them with the lens that you want to apply them.

NP.


Only one lens matters here:

Equity.

Everything else discussed will be ignored; the meetings and discussions are merely to provide a fig-leaf covering what the SB and Reid ordered Thru to come up with originally: equity, diversity, and inclusion.

But that’s not what these maps are doing. It’s a bunch of tinkering around the edges for little benefit in most cases. I can imagine what a full “equity” nuke of the maps would look like (to an extent - there’s not much you can do with how the poverty areas are concentrated in our county) and it doesn’t look like what they came up with.

We’ll never know if a full “equity” redrawing of the boundaries really was on the table. Was it planned and then scrapped due to public outcry, or due to the changing of presidential administrations putting a lot of diversity-related programs under a microscope? I personally think there was probably some advocates for a “nuclear option” on boundaries, but overall that wasn’t supported by the school board and important stakeholders in transportation and facilities who advocated for smaller changes due to logistical reasons. Sizemore and Anderson seemed asleep at the wheel at the WS PTSA virtual meeting and not even aware of the maps that were already released to the public.

Hunt Valley parents are completely disappointed with Anderson after her lackluster, disinterested performance at the WSHS PTA meeting last night.

I think it’s part of their act to appear ignorant right now. That way they can take credit if they “find out along with everyone else” what Thru has proposed and blame Thru and Reid if people object strongly.

But it also sounds like Anderson made some comments about Rolling Valley that were affirmatively misleading - that they’d rezone the Lewis part of RV to West Springfield HS rather than rezone it to Saratoga and keep it at Lewis. There’s no excuse for that.

She said what about Rolling Valley? Was that something she was going to suggest/fight for or was she just misunderstanding the map. I thought it was pretty clear. She's the one who keeps insisting some neighborhoods are going to have to leave WSHS to address capacity - why would she say they were going to add some, and from Lewis of all places??

There are going to be a lot of furious constituents if Hunt Valley gets zoned out of WSHS under the guise of overcrowding, and Anderson moves Rolling Valley Lewis students into their place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster complaining that they aren’t doing enough when these changes are causing massive disruption across the county is delusional.

There is an all Dem school board that picked Reid and thru - all on her side. And she is still complaining about it because they didn’t F over a particular zip code. Truly petty stuff.

And we know this poster because she’s been going at it for years, obsessively trying to will her agenda to happen.

It is time for her to touch grass.

It's not massive disruption, PP. It may be hard for you and your family to adjust, but you will as will everyone else. These are actually relatively minor changes compared to what people were expecting. I'm sorry your child will have to move schools, I know that's really hard, but s/he'll survive, kids (even high schoolers) are so adaptive especially when they have loving and supportive parents, I hope you are one of those.

To what end? Our family will be disrupted so can lower WSHS enrollment by 5 percent or so? When it's not clear their CIP projections are real? They certainly haven't been particularly accurate in the past. There are some maps they released yesterday where as few as 7 kids will be moved at some schools. Why on earth would you move just 7 kids? Unless the point is to be cruel.

Can someone explain the Fort Belvoir recommendation? Like they’re recommending they send a bus right outside the main gate just to pick up that one group of houses/apartments off Backlick Rd that isn’t on base and take them to Gunston? And this is to move 10 kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster complaining that they aren’t doing enough when these changes are causing massive disruption across the county is delusional.

There is an all Dem school board that picked Reid and thru - all on her side. And she is still complaining about it because they didn’t F over a particular zip code. Truly petty stuff.

And we know this poster because she’s been going at it for years, obsessively trying to will her agenda to happen.

It is time for her to touch grass.

It's not massive disruption, PP. It may be hard for you and your family to adjust, but you will as will everyone else. These are actually relatively minor changes compared to what people were expecting. I'm sorry your child will have to move schools, I know that's really hard, but s/he'll survive, kids (even high schoolers) are so adaptive especially when they have loving and supportive parents, I hope you are one of those.

To what end? Our family will be disrupted so can lower WSHS enrollment by 5 percent or so? When it's not clear their CIP projections are real? They certainly haven't been particularly accurate in the past. There are some maps they released yesterday where as few as 7 kids will be moved at some schools. Why on earth would you move just 7 kids? Unless the point is to be cruel.

Can someone explain the Fort Belvoir recommendation? Like they’re recommending they send a bus right outside the main gate just to pick up that one group of houses/apartments off Backlick Rd that isn’t on base and take them to Gunston? And this is to move 10 kids?

It’s what happens when you hire a consultant with no ties to the area who brings unthinking bot-like skills to the table.

1. Get all schools below 105% capacity based on current enrollment (ignore projections).

2. Move fewest kids kids possible to reach that goal.

3. Ignore kids on base at Fort Belvoir.

4. Result - move 7 kids even though most would probably say not worth the effort.

This is one such example of what Thru has offered up.

[Anonymous]

When you move from the idea that county-wide boundary changes have a host of potential benefits to the defensive mode that they are a necessary evil and the fewest kids possible should be moved to cause the least harm, you’ve changed the paradigm.

At that point the focus absolutely has to be on whether the issues being addressed are truly problems. In most cases, I would submit the answer is “no,” so even the “low-impact” solutions become very hard to justify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster complaining that they aren’t doing enough when these changes are causing massive disruption across the county is delusional.

There is an all Dem school board that picked Reid and thru - all on her side. And she is still complaining about it because they didn’t F over a particular zip code. Truly petty stuff.

And we know this poster because she’s been going at it for years, obsessively trying to will her agenda to happen.

It is time for her to touch grass.

It's not massive disruption, PP. It may be hard for you and your family to adjust, but you will as will everyone else. These are actually relatively minor changes compared to what people were expecting. I'm sorry your child will have to move schools, I know that's really hard, but s/he'll survive, kids (even high schoolers) are so adaptive especially when they have loving and supportive parents, I hope you are one of those.

DP. I think what you’re missing is that minor changes can affect individual families as much as big changes, and perhaps even more if they see they’ve been treated as the low-hanging fruit whose preferences can be just ignored to give School Board members a “win.”

Some of these changes probably are sensible and may be well received. Many seem gratuitous and accomplish very little, and the lack of any compelling need for them will be even clearer in a few years when enrollments at many of the affected schools decline.

Thru appears to have provided very little value. What they’ve produced is mostly low-grade AI-type garbage.

Agree with second PP. Especially, when you see two streets in one contiguous neighborhood community being separated from their neighborhood friends and sent from a school that is less than three miles to a school that is eleven miles away.
For an estimated 34 students in a high school.

And, you say this is not a big disruption?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these actually the proposed changes or just some draft to further show how the tool works?

This is just showing over capacity. Last time it was split feeders and next it’s supposed to be another factor. I believe they are supposed to merge the 3 into a reasonable solution.

I’m pretty certain these are the merged maps. This is what they are soliciting feedback on

I think these are the merged maps.

The Sangster island moved to Newington and SoCo is shown on this map.

This map does not have the little Navy island that they shift to Oak Hill/Chantilly. I guess that's another part of Oak Hill that will go to Oakton?

It always went to Oakton. Not sure where it will be going to middle school. Franklin Farm currently on that side of the parkway goes to Carson, but Oak Hill goes to Franklin along with Navy, Waples Mill, and Lee's Corner.
The map shows them going to Oakton. Still doesn't make sense that they didn't send them to Crossfield unless this was a play to make it easier to send a portion of Oak Hill to Oakton.

For those who don't know, there will be houses with adjoining yards going to different schools from Chantilly Highlands. It violates #3 about keeping neighborhoods together and increases the commute four fold to high school. If Thru was not working with real maps, they may not have realized that there are limited outlets. It makes no sense at all--for 34 students, according to the chart.

That section-- the section off Nestlewood-- of Franklin Farm currently goes to Franklin, not Carson.

In the "attendance island" proposal, they moved them to Oak Hill/Franklin/Chantilly, I think. But now it looks like they will go to Oakton. I don't think yesterday's maps showed their elementary school, so not sure if they'll now just send them to Crossfield with everyone else on that side of the parkway.

The three sets of maps we have seen are meant to layer on top of one another. In the first round, they moved that island from Navy to Oak Hill for elementary. In the second map, they showed this change along with confirming that the island would continue to go to Franklin for middle as they always have. In the third round, they showed that the island would stay at Oakton and that the Oakton map would slightly expand by moving a couple of streets zone for Oak Hill and Franklin to Oakton. Instead of Chantilly. They’re not changing the Navy island to Crossfield or Carson just because they are remaining at Oakton. If you look at all three maps together, which is how they’re meant to be looked at, that island is Oak Hill/Franklin/Oakton.

Are there other families at Oakton (other than the new little cut out behind Franklin Farm shopping center) that go to Oak Hill? If not, that seems silly when they are supposed to be eliminating split feeders not creating them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster complaining that they aren’t doing enough when these changes are causing massive disruption across the county is delusional.

There is an all Dem school board that picked Reid and thru - all on her side. And she is still complaining about it because they didn’t F over a particular zip code. Truly petty stuff.

And we know this poster because she’s been going at it for years, obsessively trying to will her agenda to happen.

It is time for her to touch grass.

It's not massive disruption, PP. It may be hard for you and your family to adjust, but you will as will everyone else. These are actually relatively minor changes compared to what people were expecting. I'm sorry your child will have to move schools, I know that's really hard, but s/he'll survive, kids (even high schoolers) are so adaptive especially when they have loving and supportive parents, I hope you are one of those.

DP. I think what you’re missing is that minor changes can affect individual families as much as big changes, and perhaps even more if they see they’ve been treated as the low-hanging fruit whose preferences can be just ignored to give School Board members a “win.”

Some of these changes probably are sensible and may be well received. Many seem gratuitous and accomplish very little, and the lack of any compelling need for them will be even clearer in a few years when enrollments at many of the affected schools decline.

Thru appears to have provided very little value. What they’ve produced is mostly low-grade AI-type garbage.

Agree with second PP. Especially, when you see two streets in one contiguous neighborhood community being separated from their neighborhood friends and sent from a school that is less than three miles to a school that is eleven miles away.
For an estimated 34 students in a high school.

And, you say this is not a big disruption?

Yeah, this is what happens when a consultant company is looking at the picture from a SPA level, but neighborhoods are made of several SPAs and there are only 2 representatives giving feedback for your pyramid, and they don’t know the bounds of every neighborhood and the map they’re given has no roads, and the only notes are “we covered this last week” and not a comprehensive view of the proposed changes…

The community feedback is going to be brutal.

[Anonymous]

It’s clear this has been a really poorly run process. I think it’s time the School Board start dealing with the fact that Michelle Reid is not up to the task of managing a school district this size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they point to anything they’ve proposed that would actually help ensure equitable access to programs or minimize travel time for students?

All they’ve really done is punch down and propose to make some random changes to replace one ugly map with another ugly map. I mean, look at the proposed new Chantilly boundaries - they look absurd.

They clearly don’t have the courage to do what they originally set out to do and should just call the whole thing off.

It’s clear that they’ve considered those factors. There is a difference between having considered those factors vs. having considered them with the lens that you want to apply them.

NP.


Only one lens matters here:

Equity.

Everything else discussed will be ignored; the meetings and discussions are merely to provide a fig-leaf covering what the SB and Reid ordered Thru to come up with originally: equity, diversity, and inclusion.

But that’s not what these maps are doing. It’s a bunch of tinkering around the edges for little benefit in most cases. I can imagine what a full “equity” nuke of the maps would look like (to an extent - there’s not much you can do with how the poverty areas are concentrated in our county) and it doesn’t look like what they came up with.

We’ll never know if a full “equity” redrawing of the boundaries really was on the table. Was it planned and then scrapped due to public outcry, or due to the changing of presidential administrations putting a lot of diversity-related programs under a microscope? I personally think there was probably some advocates for a “nuclear option” on boundaries, but overall that wasn’t supported by the school board and important stakeholders in transportation and facilities who advocated for smaller changes due to logistical reasons. Sizemore and Anderson seemed asleep at the wheel at the WS PTSA virtual meeting and not even aware of the maps that were already released to the public.

Hunt Valley parents are completely disappointed with Anderson after her lackluster, disinterested performance at the WSHS PTA meeting last night.

I think it’s part of their act to appear ignorant right now. That way they can take credit if they “find out along with everyone else” what Thru has proposed and blame Thru and Reid if people object strongly.

But it also sounds like Anderson made some comments about Rolling Valley that were affirmatively misleading - that they’d rezone the Lewis part of RV to West Springfield HS rather than rezone it to Saratoga and keep it at Lewis. There’s no excuse for that.

She said what about Rolling Valley? Was that something she was going to suggest/fight for or was she just misunderstanding the map. I thought it was pretty clear. She's the one who keeps insisting some neighborhoods are going to have to leave WSHS to address capacity - why would she say they were going to add some, and from Lewis of all places??

There are going to be a lot of furious constituents if Hunt Valley gets zoned out of WSHS under the guise of overcrowding, and Anderson moves Rolling Valley Lewis students into their place.

That’s not going to happen, the Rolling Valley split feeder was resolved in one of the earlier maps by sending those neighborhoods to Saratoga so they stay at a Lewis-feeding school throughout.

The SB members clearly had no idea in advance what was going on with these maps and the proposals and they all seemed surprised that we, the public, even cared so much. Mateo Dunne was yammering about fixing the split feeder at Gunston by sending them all to South County, but the majority of the area lives quite close to Gunston ES and thus is much closer to Hayfield. Not every split feeder can be resolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s clear this has been a really poorly run process. I think it’s time the School Board start dealing with the fact that Michelle Reid is not up to the task of managing a school district this size.

You can go on and on blaming Michelle Reid, but really you should be blaming the people that work on the boundary studies - they have ALWAYS done a crappy job. Well before her. They are the ones who let Karl forking Frisch cancel the boundary study originally planned for Shrevewood for his pet Dunn Loring project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they point to anything they’ve proposed that would actually help ensure equitable access to programs or minimize travel time for students?

All they’ve really done is punch down and propose to make some random changes to replace one ugly map with another ugly map. I mean, look at the proposed new Chantilly boundaries - they look absurd.

They clearly don’t have the courage to do what they originally set out to do and should just call the whole thing off.

It’s clear that they’ve considered those factors. There is a difference between having considered those factors vs. having considered them with the lens that you want to apply them.

NP.


Only one lens matters here:

Equity.

Everything else discussed will be ignored; the meetings and discussions are merely to provide a fig-leaf covering what the SB and Reid ordered Thru to come up with originally: equity, diversity, and inclusion.

But that’s not what these maps are doing. It’s a bunch of tinkering around the edges for little benefit in most cases. I can imagine what a full “equity” nuke of the maps would look like (to an extent - there’s not much you can do with how the poverty areas are concentrated in our county) and it doesn’t look like what they came up with.

We’ll never know if a full “equity” redrawing of the boundaries really was on the table. Was it planned and then scrapped due to public outcry, or due to the changing of presidential administrations putting a lot of diversity-related programs under a microscope? I personally think there was probably some advocates for a “nuclear option” on boundaries, but overall that wasn’t supported by the school board and important stakeholders in transportation and facilities who advocated for smaller changes due to logistical reasons. Sizemore and Anderson seemed asleep at the wheel at the WS PTSA virtual meeting and not even aware of the maps that were already released to the public.

I think this is spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have the community feedback session times been posted?

They are supposed to start May 15 which is next week. I’m sure they’ll be posted (sneakily) this week