FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[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.

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)


^^ IF FCPS did a residency check, they would likely discover that many of those are students zoned for other schools.

You are missing the point. THis is already happening. All of it. IF they double the population ( I tracked it and it increased by about 70-90 kids per grade level) from Irving to WSHS fine. That is already happening and is included in the current enrollment and level of capacity.

They are doubling down on that. They are saying Irving is going up by 4% but WSHS will inflate more even counting in the fact that the population goes up more than Irving. Those numbers have already been there and are included in the current student body. They add in 100 kids, but those 100 kids are already in the current level of over capacity.

Why then do they think that will increase even more NOW? It doesn’t make sense. The number of private school kids and AAP returners shouldn’t all of a sudden balloon and make WSHS so huge.

They could be guessing that a continuing decrease in living standards will cause many to cut the expense of private schools.

It would be irresponsible to base CIP numbers on guesses, but the board these past years hasn't exactly been known for responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we’re supposed to believe there’s no money to expand schools that have been overcrowded for years, but we can launch new aviation Academy programs? FTS.

I think the aviation academy is a priority for the school board and superintendent.

I agree I’d focus on the basics, but just not sure you’ll get that from this board.

[Anonymous]

Seeing how difficult it is to come up with a plan to get kids to school three days after a snow event, I don't have a whole lot of faith in FCPS doing a massive boundary review very well.

[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?

Oh, their Republican neighbors have been mercilessly reminding them that they were warned in 2019 and decided to vote for Dems after they had already been made aware of their plans to break up the existing Langley pyramid. Or at least they were doing that last summer. Haven't heard much about it in awhile.

[Anonymous]

Both Chantilly and West Springfield have compact boundaries and a similar housing mix. Chantilly enrollment - now projected to start declining - hovered around 2900 for years so it doesn’t seem crazy that West Springfield could reach that level or even slightly higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seeing how difficult it is to come up with a plan to get kids to school three days after a snow event, I don't have a whole lot of faith in FCPS doing a massive boundary review very well.

FCPS is under-achieving but they can't control snowfall, plowing services across the county and unusual cold.

By the way are they still talking about electric buses? It's my understanding that electric vehicles have issues in the cold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The membership #s are best guesses, but more likely deliberately manipulated.

Irving MS membership peaked two years ago and currently has 577 (class of 2030) and 634 (class of 2029). Yet WSHS is projected to continue growing? So there are 100+ students each grade level who transfer in or are moving from private to public or are committing residency fraud. Which means ~500, or 20% of the population should be at a different school.

The more I objectively look at this, the more I can see it's not about addressing over capacity at WSHS, it's about saving Lewis. The elementary school populations are in a YoY decline, so it makes more sense to begin planning a high school shutdown now versus changing boundaries only to have multiple HS at 60-70% capacity in 10 years.

Here's the tableau dashboard for the membership #s:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25StudentMembershipDashboard/ReadMe?

Class of 2030 (Irving 7th grade) is almost 150 fewer students than the class of 2026 (WSHS juniors) they are replacing. A class of 577 students replacing a graduating class of 722 students and FCPS is projecting an increase in WSHS enrollment?

That is not mathematically possible, even if they stop AAP placement and bring back all of the Irving zoned AAP kids back (around 50 per grade go to LB for AAP).

Those CIP numbers re completely fabricated.

FCPS must look at residency before rezoning.

WSHS membership is at apogee with the classes of 28-29 and is only declining from there. Very near sighted of the SB to attempt to shuffle boundaries around using flawed data and without an optic on beyond 5 years out. Certain population centers will increase memberships, those population centers are not in the WSHS pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The membership #s are best guesses, but more likely deliberately manipulated.

Irving MS membership peaked two years ago and currently has 577 (class of 2030) and 634 (class of 2029). Yet WSHS is projected to continue growing? So there are 100+ students each grade level who transfer in or are moving from private to public or are committing residency fraud. Which means ~500, or 20% of the population should be at a different school.

The more I objectively look at this, the more I can see it's not about addressing over capacity at WSHS, it's about saving Lewis. The elementary school populations are in a YoY decline, so it makes more sense to begin planning a high school shutdown now versus changing boundaries only to have multiple HS at 60-70% capacity in 10 years.

Here's the tableau dashboard for the membership #s:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25StudentMembershipDashboard/ReadMe?

Class of 2030 (Irving 7th grade) is almost 150 fewer students than the class of 2026 (WSHS juniors) they are replacing. A class of 577 students replacing a graduating class of 722 students and FCPS is projecting an increase in WSHS enrollment?

That is not mathematically possible, even if they stop AAP placement and bring back all of the Irving zoned AAP kids back (around 50 per grade go to LB for AAP).

Those CIP numbers re completely fabricated.

FCPS must look at residency before rezoning.

WSHS membership is at apogee with the classes of 28-29 and is only declining from there. Very near sighted of the SB to attempt to shuffle boundaries around using flawed data and without an optic on beyond 5 years out. Certain population centers will increase memberships, those population centers are not in the WSHS pyramid.

If West Springfield only had 2200 kids and Lewis had 1500 there would still be a case for adjusting the boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The membership #s are best guesses, but more likely deliberately manipulated.

Irving MS membership peaked two years ago and currently has 577 (class of 2030) and 634 (class of 2029). Yet WSHS is projected to continue growing? So there are 100+ students each grade level who transfer in or are moving from private to public or are committing residency fraud. Which means ~500, or 20% of the population should be at a different school.

The more I objectively look at this, the more I can see it's not about addressing over capacity at WSHS, it's about saving Lewis. The elementary school populations are in a YoY decline, so it makes more sense to begin planning a high school shutdown now versus changing boundaries only to have multiple HS at 60-70% capacity in 10 years.

Here's the tableau dashboard for the membership #s:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25StudentMembershipDashboard/ReadMe?

Class of 2030 (Irving 7th grade) is almost 150 fewer students than the class of 2026 (WSHS juniors) they are replacing. A class of 577 students replacing a graduating class of 722 students and FCPS is projecting an increase in WSHS enrollment?

That is not mathematically possible, even if they stop AAP placement and bring back all of the Irving zoned AAP kids back (around 50 per grade go to LB for AAP).

Those CIP numbers re completely fabricated.

FCPS must look at residency before rezoning.

WSHS membership is at apogee with the classes of 28-29 and is only declining from there. Very near sighted of the SB to attempt to shuffle boundaries around using flawed data and without an optic on beyond 5 years out. Certain population centers will increase memberships, those population centers are not in the WSHS pyramid.

If West Springfield only had 2200 kids and Lewis had 1500 there would still be a case for adjusting the boundaries.

Not a particularly compelling one.

[Anonymous]

If they don’t adjust the West Springfield/Lewis boundaries then they shouldn’t touch ANY high school boundaries. It’s the high school projected to be the most overcrowded sitting next to the one with the lowest enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they don’t adjust the West Springfield/Lewis boundaries then they shouldn’t touch ANY high school boundaries. It’s the high school projected to be the most overcrowded sitting next to the one with the lowest enrollment.

Hoping for a property value bump, eh?

It won’t be anything near what you’d need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted that there is a large group of Carson families zoned for Westfield who contracr for a private bus to take their kids from Carson to Langley "for Russian" ie to avoid sending them to Westfield with the poors.

The language transfers need to stop. Either every school needs to offer the same two basic languages or the other languages can be offered online only.

And what would those 2 languages be?

Whichever two have the highest enrollment and are easiest to staff with qualified teachers. I don't really care which two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Someone posted that there is a large group of Carson families zoned for Westfield who contracr for a private bus to take their kids from Carson to Langley "for Russian" ie to avoid sending them to Westfield with the poors.

There are 12 that go to Langley from Westfield according to the dashboard.
There are 30 that transfer to "overcrowded" Chantilly according to the dashboard.

Chantilly is more convenient for many families in Westfield district--closer in some cases, but 30 is a lot of transfer to a crowded school. And, Chantilly is not significantly "wealthier" than Westfield.

As for the "Russian" draw at Langley. There are a number of Russian born parents in the area. But, 12 is a lot.

How would I, as a Westfield parent, transfer my kid to Chantilly? Its closed to transfers so you can't use the language loophole.

[Anonymous]

Chantilly is significantly wealthier than Westfield. 22% FARMS at Chantilly; 36% at Westfield. That's why you don't see Chantilly to Westfield transfers, even though Westfield is OPEN to transfers and Chantilly is supposed to be closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted that there is a large group of Carson families zoned for Westfield who contracr for a private bus to take their kids from Carson to Langley "for Russian" ie to avoid sending them to Westfield with the poors.

The language transfers need to stop. Either every school needs to offer the same two basic languages or the other languages can be offered online only.

There are multiple carpool groups from outside the district that do the same thing to attend Langley.

I don’t know if it still goes on, but in the past (as of ~4 years ago), there were multiple instances of out-of-district kids who started in the Russian language program and later dropped out of that program, but were permitted to continue to attend the school.

Does FCPS have an OIG? Seems like so much of this fraud waste and abuse in the system. Maybe instead of hiring a law firm when the superintendent messes up, they could actually exercise an oversight function? Is that too much to ask in our county?

These aren’t examples of fraud. If a school is open to transfers, they allow students to attend for programming such as foreign language, IB, and AP. The transfers are accounted for on the dashboard (12 students transfer from Westview to Langley, for example.) If the student doesn’t meet the threshold for those programs (ie drops the language or doesn’t take enough APs) they can be sent back to their home school, but principals can make exceptions to allow them to continue.

Oversight is key. I didn’t say transfers were fraud, but they should be scrutinized in an environment where they are looking to move students from other pyramids to backfill those student spots who are transferring out.

Closed to transfers should mean CLOSED to transfers, especially if FCPS is using jacked up enrollment numbers to justify rezoning kids from their neighborhood high school.

Before rezoning any high school, FCPS needs to:

Send transfers back to their base schools.

Close the IB schools to eliminate the IB to AP transfer loophole.

Do a full residency check of all students at any high school under consideration for rezoning.