FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can anyone transfer into a closed-for-transfers school? We tried to transfer into Chantilly for Latin (not offered at our zoned school) and were told no.

They should not be able to


WSHS has been closed for a decade.

The transfer number into WSHS is growin, to more than double what it was 5 years ago.

[Anonymous]

But how are these kids being allowed in, if they are closed?

[Anonymous]

I bet a few kids are attending WSHS after a k-8 private catholic school. Perhaps they need to close WSHS to all German student requests unless a continuation from immersion via orange hunt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is now projected to be at 3000 students and TWICE the size of Lewis.

Those enrollment figures are outright lies

Doesn't matter. WSHS is going to lose one elementary. Now the battle begins with the HVES members throwing WSES to Lewis.

Notice how Irving goes up by 4% while WSHS goes up by 8% over the same time period.

Irving has students pupil placing for AAP. Most of those students return to WSHS for high school. The net transfers are higher at Irving for 2 grades than they are at WSHS over 4 grades.

Irving only has around 50 students per grade who go to LB for AAP.

Most of them (double the amount that go to LB) stay at Irving.

The CIP might be using the pre 2014 transfer formula for AAP students returning from LB, and not the actual number of Irving kids who attend LB for AAP.

I bet the formula they are using is old snd using flawed projections.

How embarrassing for the county that laypeople are pointing out mistakes. Yes, I know they don't care.

I don't think anyone on here has enough information to understand exactly how the county is coming up with the numbers for any of the schools. So saying that laypeople are pointing out mistakes is a bit presumptuous. The best lay people could do is go back and look at the history of projections against the reality that was eventually realized. That is certainly fair game - feel free to do the research to see how far off they have been. Compare old CIPs to the actual enrollments five year out. The county should be doing that itself to adjust their models.

There is a consistent pattern of the four grades at WSHS more than doubling the enrollment at Irving. Private (grades 1-8) to public (grades 9-12) is probably the biggest factor as the tuition for high school tends to run higher than for the lower grades. WSHS should not have many pupil placements based on the formal policy rules (outside of the children of teachers) since WS is closed to transfers. The return of some LB AAP students is a factor. Residency fraud could provide some number - I really can't imagine it is that big - but I would be happy to see it enforced.

Any real decline in the lower elementary grades in WS may not show up for WSHS until years beyond the most recent CIP.

FCPS has a track record of underestimating the enrollment at WSHS in its projections. It's possible they are trying to correct for that and are now overshooting.

Nice try.

You have it backwards.

They are grossly overestimating the enrollment for WSHS and have for a few years.

It appears the last time they overestimated the enrollment was in the 2017-21 CIP, which came out in December 2015.

Most recently, the enrollment in the fall of 2024 was 2791 students, higher than projections in the 2023-27 CIP (2649 students), 2024-28 CIP (2713 students), and 2025-29 CIP (2764 students).

You all kept claiming they were overestimating the future enrollment, only to be proved wrong. As I said, maybe this was a case of crying wolf too often and they've overcorrected in the draft 2026-30 CIP.

[Anonymous]

Doesn’t matter about numbers; Lewis and WSHS have an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is now projected to be at 3000 students and TWICE the size of Lewis.

Those enrollment figures are outright lies

Doesn't matter. WSHS is going to lose one elementary. Now the battle begins with the HVES members throwing WSES to Lewis.

Notice how Irving goes up by 4% while WSHS goes up by 8% over the same time period.

Irving has students pupil placing for AAP. Most of those students return to WSHS for high school. The net transfers are higher at Irving for 2 grades than they are at WSHS over 4 grades.

Irving only has around 50 students per grade who go to LB for AAP.

Most of them (double the amount that go to LB) stay at Irving.

The CIP might be using the pre 2014 transfer formula for AAP students returning from LB, and not the actual number of Irving kids who attend LB for AAP.

I bet the formula they are using is old snd using flawed projections.

How embarrassing for the county that laypeople are pointing out mistakes. Yes, I know they don't care.

I don't think anyone on here has enough information to understand exactly how the county is coming up with the numbers for any of the schools. So saying that laypeople are pointing out mistakes is a bit presumptuous. The best lay people could do is go back and look at the history of projections against the reality that was eventually realized. That is certainly fair game - feel free to do the research to see how far off they have been. Compare old CIPs to the actual enrollments five year out. The county should be doing that itself to adjust their models.

There is a consistent pattern of the four grades at WSHS more than doubling the enrollment at Irving. Private (grades 1-8) to public (grades 9-12) is probably the biggest factor as the tuition for high school tends to run higher than for the lower grades. WSHS should not have many pupil placements based on the formal policy rules (outside of the children of teachers) since WS is closed to transfers. The return of some LB AAP students is a factor. Residency fraud could provide some number - I really can't imagine it is that big - but I would be happy to see it enforced.

Any real decline in the lower elementary grades in WS may not show up for WSHS until years beyond the most recent CIP.

FCPS has a track record of underestimating the enrollment at WSHS in its projections. It's possible they are trying to correct for that and are now overshooting.

Nice try.

You have it backwards.

They are grossly overestimating the enrollment for WSHS and have for a few years.

It appears the last time they overestimated the enrollment was in the 2017-21 CIP, which came out in December 2015.

Most recently, the enrollment in the fall of 2024 was 2791 students, higher than projections in the 2023-27 CIP (2649 students), 2024-28 CIP (2713 students), and 2025-29 CIP (2764 students).

You all kept claiming they were overestimating the future enrollment, only to be proved wrong. As I said, maybe this was a case of crying wolf too often and they've overcorrected in the draft 2026-30 CIP.

2764 is not the enrollment at WSHS.

Look at the transfer dashboard.

The "membership" is the total number of zoned kids prior to any transfers in or out.

WSHS membership is 2791 + 58 - 139 = 2710 students attending WSHS this school year, which matches the dashboard number

The CIP is overestimating the enrollment at WSHS by around 54 students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet a few kids are attending WSHS after a k-8 private catholic school. Perhaps they need to close WSHS to all German student requests unless a continuation from immersion via orange hunt.

The gross transfer data for HS immersion is 1 meaning <10. That is only listed for Langley so any WS German is not properly coded. So why are 12 AP Lake Braddock plus 20 AP South County plus <10 from these AP schools transferring in- West Potomac, Westfield, Hayfield? Also gets <10 from the 6 IB schools. Westfield weirdly has 12 transferring to Langley. FCPS needs to stick additional Russian at an academy and consolidate Langley pyramid JIP into Fox Mill/Floris.

Spreadsheet work on transfers shows massive movement out of IB except for AP Herndon 164 to IB South Lakes. IB Edison picks up IB transfers which might be related to Global Stem. IB Robinson 85 to AP Lake Braddock while LB sent 19 to Robinson.

Similar thing happens with IB Marshall [receives 14] and AP Madison [receives 42]. Time for FCPS to give the details on transfer reg and miscellanous. No count provided to the public on IB, AP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet a few kids are attending WSHS after a k-8 private catholic school. Perhaps they need to close WSHS to all German student requests unless a continuation from immersion via orange hunt.

The gross transfer data for HS immersion is 1 meaning <10. That is only listed for Langley so any WS German is not properly coded. So why are 12 AP Lake Braddock plus 20 AP South County plus <10 from these AP schools transferring in- West Potomac, Westfield, Hayfield? Also gets <10 from the 6 IB schools. Westfield weirdly has 12 transferring to Langley. FCPS needs to stick additional Russian at an academy and consolidate Langley pyramid JIP into Fox Mill/Floris.

Spreadsheet work on transfers shows massive movement out of IB except for AP Herndon 164 to IB South Lakes. IB Edison picks up IB transfers which might be related to Global Stem. IB Robinson 85 to AP Lake Braddock while LB sent 19 to Robinson.

Similar thing happens with IB Marshall [receives 14] and AP Madison [receives 42]. Time for FCPS to give the details on transfer reg and miscellanous. No count provided to the public on IB, AP.

Isn’t Marshall closed to transfers while Madison isn’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is now projected to be at 3000 students and TWICE the size of Lewis.

Those enrollment figures are outright lies

Doesn't matter. WSHS is going to lose one elementary. Now the battle begins with the HVES members throwing WSES to Lewis.

Notice how Irving goes up by 4% while WSHS goes up by 8% over the same time period.

Irving has students pupil placing for AAP. Most of those students return to WSHS for high school. The net transfers are higher at Irving for 2 grades than they are at WSHS over 4 grades.

Irving only has around 50 students per grade who go to LB for AAP.

Most of them (double the amount that go to LB) stay at Irving.

The CIP might be using the pre 2014 transfer formula for AAP students returning from LB, and not the actual number of Irving kids who attend LB for AAP.

I bet the formula they are using is old snd using flawed projections.

How embarrassing for the county that laypeople are pointing out mistakes. Yes, I know they don't care.

I don't think anyone on here has enough information to understand exactly how the county is coming up with the numbers for any of the schools. So saying that laypeople are pointing out mistakes is a bit presumptuous. The best lay people could do is go back and look at the history of projections against the reality that was eventually realized. That is certainly fair game - feel free to do the research to see how far off they have been. Compare old CIPs to the actual enrollments five year out. The county should be doing that itself to adjust their models.

There is a consistent pattern of the four grades at WSHS more than doubling the enrollment at Irving. Private (grades 1-8) to public (grades 9-12) is probably the biggest factor as the tuition for high school tends to run higher than for the lower grades. WSHS should not have many pupil placements based on the formal policy rules (outside of the children of teachers) since WS is closed to transfers. The return of some LB AAP students is a factor. Residency fraud could provide some number - I really can't imagine it is that big - but I would be happy to see it enforced.

Any real decline in the lower elementary grades in WS may not show up for WSHS until years beyond the most recent CIP.

FCPS has a track record of underestimating the enrollment at WSHS in its projections. It's possible they are trying to correct for that and are now overshooting.

Nice try.

You have it backwards.

They are grossly overestimating the enrollment for WSHS and have for a few years.

It appears the last time they overestimated the enrollment was in the 2017-21 CIP, which came out in December 2015.

Most recently, the enrollment in the fall of 2024 was 2791 students, higher than projections in the 2023-27 CIP (2649 students), 2024-28 CIP (2713 students), and 2025-29 CIP (2764 students).

You all kept claiming they were overestimating the future enrollment, only to be proved wrong. As I said, maybe this was a case of crying wolf too often and they've overcorrected in the draft 2026-30 CIP.

2764 is not the enrollment at WSHS.

Look at the transfer dashboard.

The "membership" is the total number of zoned kids prior to any transfers in or out.

WSHS membership is 2791 + 58 - 139 = 2710 students attending WSHS this school year, which matches the dashboard number

The CIP is overestimating the enrollment at WSHS by around 54 students.

You’re reading the numbers wrong. The current enrollment is 2791 after the net transfer has been accounted, not before. The CIP numbers of 2764 is an estimate from last year on what they thought the enrollment would be for the 2024-25 school year. They underestimated by 27 students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is now projected to be at 3000 students and TWICE the size of Lewis.

Those enrollment figures are outright lies

Doesn't matter. WSHS is going to lose one elementary. Now the battle begins with the HVES members throwing WSES to Lewis.

Notice how Irving goes up by 4% while WSHS goes up by 8% over the same time period.

Irving has students pupil placing for AAP. Most of those students return to WSHS for high school. The net transfers are higher at Irving for 2 grades than they are at WSHS over 4 grades.

Irving only has around 50 students per grade who go to LB for AAP.

Most of them (double the amount that go to LB) stay at Irving.

The CIP might be using the pre 2014 transfer formula for AAP students returning from LB, and not the actual number of Irving kids who attend LB for AAP.

I bet the formula they are using is old snd using flawed projections.

How embarrassing for the county that laypeople are pointing out mistakes. Yes, I know they don't care.

I don't think anyone on here has enough information to understand exactly how the county is coming up with the numbers for any of the schools. So saying that laypeople are pointing out mistakes is a bit presumptuous. The best lay people could do is go back and look at the history of projections against the reality that was eventually realized. That is certainly fair game - feel free to do the research to see how far off they have been. Compare old CIPs to the actual enrollments five year out. The county should be doing that itself to adjust their models.

There is a consistent pattern of the four grades at WSHS more than doubling the enrollment at Irving. Private (grades 1-8) to public (grades 9-12) is probably the biggest factor as the tuition for high school tends to run higher than for the lower grades. WSHS should not have many pupil placements based on the formal policy rules (outside of the children of teachers) since WS is closed to transfers. The return of some LB AAP students is a factor. Residency fraud could provide some number - I really can't imagine it is that big - but I would be happy to see it enforced.

Any real decline in the lower elementary grades in WS may not show up for WSHS until years beyond the most recent CIP.

FCPS has a track record of underestimating the enrollment at WSHS in its projections. It's possible they are trying to correct for that and are now overshooting.

Nice try.

You have it backwards.

They are grossly overestimating the enrollment for WSHS and have for a few years.

It appears the last time they overestimated the enrollment was in the 2017-21 CIP, which came out in December 2015.

Most recently, the enrollment in the fall of 2024 was 2791 students, higher than projections in the 2023-27 CIP (2649 students), 2024-28 CIP (2713 students), and 2025-29 CIP (2764 students).

You all kept claiming they were overestimating the future enrollment, only to be proved wrong. As I said, maybe this was a case of crying wolf too often and they've overcorrected in the draft 2026-30 CIP.

2764 is not the enrollment at WSHS.

Look at the transfer dashboard.

The "membership" is the total number of zoned kids prior to any transfers in or out.

WSHS membership is 2791 + 58 - 139 = 2710 students attending WSHS this school year, which matches the dashboard number

The CIP is overestimating the enrollment at WSHS by around 54 students.

You’re reading the numbers wrong. The current enrollment is 2791 after the net transfer has been accounted, not before. The CIP numbers of 2764 is an estimate from last year on what they thought the enrollment would be for the 2024-25 school year. They underestimated by 27 students.

No


Membership is not enrollment.

Membership is everyone zoned for the school prior to transfers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is now projected to be at 3000 students and TWICE the size of Lewis.

Those enrollment figures are outright lies

Doesn't matter. WSHS is going to lose one elementary. Now the battle begins with the HVES members throwing WSES to Lewis.

Notice how Irving goes up by 4% while WSHS goes up by 8% over the same time period.

Irving has students pupil placing for AAP. Most of those students return to WSHS for high school. The net transfers are higher at Irving for 2 grades than they are at WSHS over 4 grades.

Irving only has around 50 students per grade who go to LB for AAP.

Most of them (double the amount that go to LB) stay at Irving.

The CIP might be using the pre 2014 transfer formula for AAP students returning from LB, and not the actual number of Irving kids who attend LB for AAP.

I bet the formula they are using is old snd using flawed projections.

How embarrassing for the county that laypeople are pointing out mistakes. Yes, I know they don't care.

I don't think anyone on here has enough information to understand exactly how the county is coming up with the numbers for any of the schools. So saying that laypeople are pointing out mistakes is a bit presumptuous. The best lay people could do is go back and look at the history of projections against the reality that was eventually realized. That is certainly fair game - feel free to do the research to see how far off they have been. Compare old CIPs to the actual enrollments five year out. The county should be doing that itself to adjust their models.

There is a consistent pattern of the four grades at WSHS more than doubling the enrollment at Irving. Private (grades 1-8) to public (grades 9-12) is probably the biggest factor as the tuition for high school tends to run higher than for the lower grades. WSHS should not have many pupil placements based on the formal policy rules (outside of the children of teachers) since WS is closed to transfers. The return of some LB AAP students is a factor. Residency fraud could provide some number - I really can't imagine it is that big - but I would be happy to see it enforced.

Any real decline in the lower elementary grades in WS may not show up for WSHS until years beyond the most recent CIP.

FCPS has a track record of underestimating the enrollment at WSHS in its projections. It's possible they are trying to correct for that and are now overshooting.

Nice try.

You have it backwards.

They are grossly overestimating the enrollment for WSHS and have for a few years.

It appears the last time they overestimated the enrollment was in the 2017-21 CIP, which came out in December 2015.

Most recently, the enrollment in the fall of 2024 was 2791 students, higher than projections in the 2023-27 CIP (2649 students), 2024-28 CIP (2713 students), and 2025-29 CIP (2764 students).

You all kept claiming they were overestimating the future enrollment, only to be proved wrong. As I said, maybe this was a case of crying wolf too often and they've overcorrected in the draft 2026-30 CIP.

2764 is not the enrollment at WSHS.

Look at the transfer dashboard.

The "membership" is the total number of zoned kids prior to any transfers in or out.

WSHS membership is 2791 + 58 - 139 = 2710 students attending WSHS this school year, which matches the dashboard number

The CIP is overestimating the enrollment at WSHS by around 54 students.

You’re reading the numbers wrong. The current enrollment is 2791 after the net transfer has been accounted, not before. The CIP numbers of 2764 is an estimate from last year on what they thought the enrollment would be for the 2024-25 school year. They underestimated by 27 students.

No


Membership is not enrollment.

Membership is everyone zoned for the school prior to transfers.

I sure would like the source of that because it changes monthly. It makes no sense. I think membership is the total number of kids in the school. Why would enrollment and membership be different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is now projected to be at 3000 students and TWICE the size of Lewis.

Those enrollment figures are outright lies

Doesn't matter. WSHS is going to lose one elementary. Now the battle begins with the HVES members throwing WSES to Lewis.

Notice how Irving goes up by 4% while WSHS goes up by 8% over the same time period.

Irving has students pupil placing for AAP. Most of those students return to WSHS for high school. The net transfers are higher at Irving for 2 grades than they are at WSHS over 4 grades.

Irving only has around 50 students per grade who go to LB for AAP.

Most of them (double the amount that go to LB) stay at Irving.

The CIP might be using the pre 2014 transfer formula for AAP students returning from LB, and not the actual number of Irving kids who attend LB for AAP.

I bet the formula they are using is old snd using flawed projections.

How embarrassing for the county that laypeople are pointing out mistakes. Yes, I know they don't care.

I don't think anyone on here has enough information to understand exactly how the county is coming up with the numbers for any of the schools. So saying that laypeople are pointing out mistakes is a bit presumptuous. The best lay people could do is go back and look at the history of projections against the reality that was eventually realized. That is certainly fair game - feel free to do the research to see how far off they have been. Compare old CIPs to the actual enrollments five year out. The county should be doing that itself to adjust their models.

There is a consistent pattern of the four grades at WSHS more than doubling the enrollment at Irving. Private (grades 1-8) to public (grades 9-12) is probably the biggest factor as the tuition for high school tends to run higher than for the lower grades. WSHS should not have many pupil placements based on the formal policy rules (outside of the children of teachers) since WS is closed to transfers. The return of some LB AAP students is a factor. Residency fraud could provide some number - I really can't imagine it is that big - but I would be happy to see it enforced.

Any real decline in the lower elementary grades in WS may not show up for WSHS until years beyond the most recent CIP.

FCPS has a track record of underestimating the enrollment at WSHS in its projections. It's possible they are trying to correct for that and are now overshooting.

Nice try.

You have it backwards.

They are grossly overestimating the enrollment for WSHS and have for a few years.

It appears the last time they overestimated the enrollment was in the 2017-21 CIP, which came out in December 2015.

Most recently, the enrollment in the fall of 2024 was 2791 students, higher than projections in the 2023-27 CIP (2649 students), 2024-28 CIP (2713 students), and 2025-29 CIP (2764 students).

You all kept claiming they were overestimating the future enrollment, only to be proved wrong. As I said, maybe this was a case of crying wolf too often and they've overcorrected in the draft 2026-30 CIP.

2764 is not the enrollment at WSHS.

Look at the transfer dashboard.

The "membership" is the total number of zoned kids prior to any transfers in or out.

WSHS membership is 2791 + 58 - 139 = 2710 students attending WSHS this school year, which matches the dashboard number

The CIP is overestimating the enrollment at WSHS by around 54 students.

You’re reading the numbers wrong. The current enrollment is 2791 after the net transfer has been accounted, not before. The CIP numbers of 2764 is an estimate from last year on what they thought the enrollment would be for the 2024-25 school year. They underestimated by 27 students.

No


Membership is not enrollment.

Membership is everyone zoned for the school prior to transfers.

DP. If that were the case how could they have membership numbers for TJ? No one is zoned to TJ and every kid there is recorded by FCPS as a transfer from another school or jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only people with an agenda to move boundaries believe that is defensible for FCPS to ignore its own February 2024 projections of 406-452 additional students for the TRG approved large developments projected to be at least partially completed by 2030.

But don’t just trust me, look at how abysmal the CIP projections have been historically. It’s why we are where we are, with recent expansions for schools with decreasing capacity and significant membership growth in ignored schools.

Shame on FCPS.

Only people with an agenda would want FCPS to consider projections for one district when projections are not considered for any other district. FCPS projects more than 2,000 students for FCPS from approved Tyson’s developments not-yet-under-construction and the CIP considers none of them. None.

Whether you agree or disagree with FCPS not considering projected students (which are for all schools within a boundary, not necessarily all children of the age to attend a particular school) in proposed or approved developments, FCPS has been consistent in only considering students in developments under construction. They’ve been doing the same thing for at least the last 10 years.

It’s just insane that you would consider someone doing something consistently wrong over the last ten years to be laudable.

They’ve been doing the same quality (bad) projections over the last few years, which is why they continue to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into unnecessary capital expansions, while ignoring pressing needs.

Now they seem to be goosing the program capacities to support their agenda.

Whoever is in charge of this process should be fired.

Dranesville has Langley, McClean, and Herndon within it's borders. Langley was renovated in 2018 and Herndon in 2021. That as much as any other district has received.

They should have invested where the growth was occurring, regardless of the magisterial district. And creating a projected 900 or so surplus seats at Herndon doesn’t suggest they’re even close to getting it right.

One district is not getting all of it's schools renovated. Once Langley was chosen, McLean was going to be left out. The lists are political and McLean keeps on voting for representatives who don't care about McLean.

DP. No one "chose" Langley - it was in the queue because it had never had a renovation and was due. There was nothing political about the fact that it got a much-deserved reno. But yes, I do agree that if McLean continues to vote for Democrats, they'll never see relief of their overcrowded school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only people with an agenda to move boundaries believe that is defensible for FCPS to ignore its own February 2024 projections of 406-452 additional students for the TRG approved large developments projected to be at least partially completed by 2030.

But don’t just trust me, look at how abysmal the CIP projections have been historically. It’s why we are where we are, with recent expansions for schools with decreasing capacity and significant membership growth in ignored schools.

Shame on FCPS.

Only people with an agenda would want FCPS to consider projections for one district when projections are not considered for any other district. FCPS projects more than 2,000 students for FCPS from approved Tyson’s developments not-yet-under-construction and the CIP considers none of them. None.

Whether you agree or disagree with FCPS not considering projected students (which are for all schools within a boundary, not necessarily all children of the age to attend a particular school) in proposed or approved developments, FCPS has been consistent in only considering students in developments under construction. They’ve been doing the same thing for at least the last 10 years.

It’s just insane that you would consider someone doing something consistently wrong over the last ten years to be laudable.

They’ve been doing the same quality (bad) projections over the last few years, which is why they continue to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into unnecessary capital expansions, while ignoring pressing needs.

Now they seem to be goosing the program capacities to support their agenda.

Whoever is in charge of this process should be fired.

Dranesville has Langley, McClean, and Herndon within it's borders. Langley was renovated in 2018 and Herndon in 2021. That as much as any other district has received.

They should have invested where the growth was occurring, regardless of the magisterial district. And creating a projected 900 or so surplus seats at Herndon doesn’t suggest they’re even close to getting it right.

One district is not getting all of it's schools renovated. Once Langley was chosen, McLean was going to be left out. The lists are political and McLean keeps on voting for representatives who don't care about McLean.

DP. No one "chose" Langley - it was in the queue because it had never had a renovation and was due. There was nothing political about the fact that it got a much-deserved reno. But yes, I do agree that if McLean continues to vote for Democrats, they'll never see relief of their overcrowded school.

Apart from a few precincts in Great Falls, Langley mostly votes for Democrats, too. Do you plan to remind them about that if/when they get rezoned to Herndon against their wishes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only people with an agenda to move boundaries believe that is defensible for FCPS to ignore its own February 2024 projections of 406-452 additional students for the TRG approved large developments projected to be at least partially completed by 2030.

But don’t just trust me, look at how abysmal the CIP projections have been historically. It’s why we are where we are, with recent expansions for schools with decreasing capacity and significant membership growth in ignored schools.

Shame on FCPS.

Only people with an agenda would want FCPS to consider projections for one district when projections are not considered for any other district. FCPS projects more than 2,000 students for FCPS from approved Tyson’s developments not-yet-under-construction and the CIP considers none of them. None.

Whether you agree or disagree with FCPS not considering projected students (which are for all schools within a boundary, not necessarily all children of the age to attend a particular school) in proposed or approved developments, FCPS has been consistent in only considering students in developments under construction. They’ve been doing the same thing for at least the last 10 years.

It’s just insane that you would consider someone doing something consistently wrong over the last ten years to be laudable.

They’ve been doing the same quality (bad) projections over the last few years, which is why they continue to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into unnecessary capital expansions, while ignoring pressing needs.

Now they seem to be goosing the program capacities to support their agenda.

Whoever is in charge of this process should be fired.

Dranesville has Langley, McClean, and Herndon within it's borders. Langley was renovated in 2018 and Herndon in 2021. That as much as any other district has received.

They should have invested where the growth was occurring, regardless of the magisterial district. And creating a projected 900 or so surplus seats at Herndon doesn’t suggest they’re even close to getting it right.

One district is not getting all of it's schools renovated. Once Langley was chosen, McLean was going to be left out. The lists are political and McLean keeps on voting for representatives who don't care about McLean.

DP. No one "chose" Langley - it was in the queue because it had never had a renovation and was due. There was nothing political about the fact that it got a much-deserved reno. But yes, I do agree that if McLean continues to vote for Democrats, they'll never see relief of their overcrowded school.

Apart from a few precincts in Great Falls, Langley mostly votes for Democrats, too. Do you plan to remind them about that if/when they get rezoned to Herndon against their wishes?

DP. Remind us if you’d like, but I will point out that Robyn Lady and her fellow board members did not run on boundary changes. These boundary moves are out of line with mainstream democrats, and certainly the democrats’ professional base. GF will veer significantly to the right in future elections - that’s on the SB.