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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically if you have more money, you will move to a school district where more wealthy people live. Low income students will continue to rot in poorly rated schools. I didn’t grow up here, so the PUBLIC school system here seems to benefit high income families for the most part. I wish this system could be fixed in the future.

Isn't that the system everywhere? FCPS cannot fix kids' home life or socioeconomic status.

Sure, but doesn’t this system just perpetuate and reinforce the socioeconomic divide?

It's not the school system's role to fix this.

+1. At some point these SJWs need to realize that their advocacy to upset the apple cart is going to diminish the entire system and leave everyone, especially the kids they believe they are trying to help, worse off.

The neighborhoods effected by boundary changes will be infuriated. The rest of the county will not care. Do you think families in McLean really care about West Springfield's boundaries?

Yes, we do. Because we care about the integrity and quality of the FCPS system. I care about every area of the county that might see an equity redistricting. These moves are going to significantly diminish FCPS as a whole, but the sb echo chamber doesn’t seem to care.

When is changing boundaries between schools at or over capacity next to under capacity schools allowed? Are the boundaries just set in stone for all eternity?

When there is an urgent compelling need (eg, park lawn and Coates). Rather, the comprehensive review has ill defined conflicting criteria that is meant to allow the school board to do the equity boundary moves started five years ago with a thin veneer if it being for other purposes.

WSHS is at 112% of capacity, Lewis is at 87%. Is that not enough of a disparity?

It’s actually not. Not compelling at all.

What number is compelling? Does WSHS have to get to 125? Lewis below 70?

I think FCPS says in the CIP that 115 is a substantial capacity deficit and under 85 is considered a capacity surplus.

That’s their definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They actually consider capacity in the mid 80s and lower 90s to be ideal from what I’m hearing. It means kids don’t have to eat lunch super early or late, the parking situation is better at the HS level, there is room to move around in the hallways, there are some classrooms not constantly in use that they can use in case they need to start another section of a class, or for extra storage, or for flexible groupings/more pull outs at the ES level. So a school at 87%, they wouldn’t necessarily consider terribly under enrolled. Lewis’s capacity is also a lot less than WS and many other schools, keep that in mind as well. Adding even 200 students would be a significant change there.

The CIP categorizes:
> 115% as substantial capacity deficit
105-114% as moderate deficit
95-104% as approaching deficit
85-94% as sufficient capacity
< 85% as surplus

What makes Lewis unique is that their program capacity is much lower than any other high school. Only 1886. So with 1632 enrolled, it’s at 87%. Five years ago, the program capacity was 2028, which would put Lewis at 77% today.

The fact that they’re incrementally decreasing the program capacity year after year makes me wonder if they’re preparing to shut it down.

While they may not be transparent as to why the program capacities at specific schools change, I doubt they just randomly reduce program capacities to justify boundary changes or as a prelude to closing a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lewis has a big new housing building going in by the mall with dozens of units that will be filled with families with kids. It appears that it will be operational in a matter of months.

Isn't there also a big housing development going in where Lewis, Hayfield and Edison meet? And a housing development near edison?

The mall development is zoned for Lewis already.

The one between the 3 high schools should be zoned for Lewis.

FCPS can easily make up capacity at Lewis with just those 2 new developments.

Edison is full. There could be some adjustments on that end with special programs or new housing.

FCPS can increase Lewis enrollment with minimum rezoning and disruption, just by new housing plus closing the IB program at Lewis.

How do you know the apartments going in by the mall will be filled with families with kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lewis has a big new housing building going in by the mall with dozens of units that will be filled with families with kids. It appears that it will be operational in a matter of months.

Isn't there also a big housing development going in where Lewis, Hayfield and Edison meet? And a housing development near edison?

The mall development is zoned for Lewis already.

The one between the 3 high schools should be zoned for Lewis.

FCPS can easily make up capacity at Lewis with just those 2 new developments.

Edison is full. There could be some adjustments on that end with special programs or new housing.

FCPS can increase Lewis enrollment with minimum rezoning and disruption, just by new housing plus closing the IB program at Lewis.

If the first building near the mall is already under construction the projected student yield should already be taken into account in the latest projections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They actually consider capacity in the mid 80s and lower 90s to be ideal from what I’m hearing. It means kids don’t have to eat lunch super early or late, the parking situation is better at the HS level, there is room to move around in the hallways, there are some classrooms not constantly in use that they can use in case they need to start another section of a class, or for extra storage, or for flexible groupings/more pull outs at the ES level. So a school at 87%, they wouldn’t necessarily consider terribly under enrolled. Lewis’s capacity is also a lot less than WS and many other schools, keep that in mind as well. Adding even 200 students would be a significant change there.

The CIP categorizes:
> 115% as substantial capacity deficit
105-114% as moderate deficit
95-104% as approaching deficit
85-94% as sufficient capacity
< 85% as surplus

What makes Lewis unique is that their program capacity is much lower than any other high school. Only 1886. So with 1632 enrolled, it’s at 87%. Five years ago, the program capacity was 2028, which would put Lewis at 77% today.

The fact that they’re incrementally decreasing the program capacity year after year makes me wonder if they’re preparing to shut it down.

While they may not be transparent as to why the program capacities at specific schools change, I doubt they just randomly reduce program capacities to justify boundary changes or as a prelude to closing a school.

They shrank Herndon High and McLean in this CIP too. Starting to feel liked a pattern and very deceptive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They actually consider capacity in the mid 80s and lower 90s to be ideal from what I’m hearing. It means kids don’t have to eat lunch super early or late, the parking situation is better at the HS level, there is room to move around in the hallways, there are some classrooms not constantly in use that they can use in case they need to start another section of a class, or for extra storage, or for flexible groupings/more pull outs at the ES level. So a school at 87%, they wouldn’t necessarily consider terribly under enrolled. Lewis’s capacity is also a lot less than WS and many other schools, keep that in mind as well. Adding even 200 students would be a significant change there.

The CIP categorizes:
> 115% as substantial capacity deficit
105-114% as moderate deficit
95-104% as approaching deficit
85-94% as sufficient capacity
< 85% as surplus

What makes Lewis unique is that their program capacity is much lower than any other high school. Only 1886. So with 1632 enrolled, it’s at 87%. Five years ago, the program capacity was 2028, which would put Lewis at 77% today.

The fact that they’re incrementally decreasing the program capacity year after year makes me wonder if they’re preparing to shut it down.

While they may not be transparent as to why the program capacities at specific schools change, I doubt they just randomly reduce program capacities to justify boundary changes or as a prelude to closing a school.

They shrank Herndon High and McLean in this CIP too. Starting to feel liked a pattern and very deceptive.

Herndon High’s capacity actually increased from 2709 to 2749, even though the demand has steadily been around 2300 students. I wish FCPS would be more transparent about these capacity adjustments. Whether they be reallocated building space, staffing, or matching enrollment numbers. Several middle schools decreased their program capacity this year too. Not just Kilmer. Herndon MS, Franklin, Hughes, and Glasgow (although I think that’s modular related) saw a huge decrease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They actually consider capacity in the mid 80s and lower 90s to be ideal from what I’m hearing. It means kids don’t have to eat lunch super early or late, the parking situation is better at the HS level, there is room to move around in the hallways, there are some classrooms not constantly in use that they can use in case they need to start another section of a class, or for extra storage, or for flexible groupings/more pull outs at the ES level. So a school at 87%, they wouldn’t necessarily consider terribly under enrolled. Lewis’s capacity is also a lot less than WS and many other schools, keep that in mind as well. Adding even 200 students would be a significant change there.

The CIP categorizes:
> 115% as substantial capacity deficit
105-114% as moderate deficit
95-104% as approaching deficit
85-94% as sufficient capacity
< 85% as surplus

What makes Lewis unique is that their program capacity is much lower than any other high school. Only 1886. So with 1632 enrolled, it’s at 87%. Five years ago, the program capacity was 2028, which would put Lewis at 77% today.

The fact that they’re incrementally decreasing the program capacity year after year makes me wonder if they’re preparing to shut it down.

While they may not be transparent as to why the program capacities at specific schools change, I doubt they just randomly reduce program capacities to justify boundary changes or as a prelude to closing a school.

They shrank Herndon High and McLean in this CIP too. Starting to feel liked a pattern and very deceptive.

Herndon High’s capacity actually increased from 2709 to 2749, even though the demand has steadily been around 2300 students. I wish FCPS would be more transparent about these capacity adjustments. Whether they be reallocated building space, staffing, or matching enrollment numbers. Several middle schools decreased their program capacity this year too. Not just Kilmer. Herndon MS, Franklin, Hughes, and Glasgow (although I think that’s modular related) saw a huge decrease.

Thanks, I meant to say Herndon high program capacity increased not decreased. That and the McLean capacity decreased are very suspicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically if you have more money, you will move to a school district where more wealthy people live. Low income students will continue to rot in poorly rated schools. I didn’t grow up here, so the PUBLIC school system here seems to benefit high income families for the most part. I wish this system could be fixed in the future.

Isn't that the system everywhere? FCPS cannot fix kids' home life or socioeconomic status.

Sure, but doesn’t this system just perpetuate and reinforce the socioeconomic divide?

It's not the school system's role to fix this.

+1. At some point these SJWs need to realize that their advocacy to upset the apple cart is going to diminish the entire system and leave everyone, especially the kids they believe they are trying to help, worse off.

The neighborhoods effected by boundary changes will be infuriated. The rest of the county will not care. Do you think families in McLean really care about West Springfield's boundaries?

Yes, we do. Because we care about the integrity and quality of the FCPS system. I care about every area of the county that might see an equity redistricting. These moves are going to significantly diminish FCPS as a whole, but the sb echo chamber doesn’t seem to care.

When is changing boundaries between schools at or over capacity next to under capacity schools allowed? Are the boundaries just set in stone for all eternity?

When there is an urgent compelling need (eg, park lawn and Coates). Rather, the comprehensive review has ill defined conflicting criteria that is meant to allow the school board to do the equity boundary moves started five years ago with a thin veneer if it being for other purposes.

WSHS is at 112% of capacity, Lewis is at 87%. Is that not enough of a disparity?

SCHS is at 88% capacity and is closer to current HVES neighborhoods.

Stop suggesting another school. It goes against your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lewis has a big new housing building going in by the mall with dozens of units that will be filled with families with kids. It appears that it will be operational in a matter of months.

Isn't there also a big housing development going in where Lewis, Hayfield and Edison meet? And a housing development near edison?

The mall development is zoned for Lewis already.

The one between the 3 high schools should be zoned for Lewis.

FCPS can easily make up capacity at Lewis with just those 2 new developments.

Edison is full. There could be some adjustments on that end with special programs or new housing.

FCPS can increase Lewis enrollment with minimum rezoning and disruption, just by new housing plus closing the IB program at Lewis.

How do you know the apartments going in by the mall will be filled with families with kids?

They won't be. This is just a HVES parent throwing every excuse out there.

[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:So basically if you have more money, you will move to a school district where more wealthy people live. Low income students will continue to rot in poorly rated schools. I didn’t grow up here, so the PUBLIC school system here seems to benefit high income families for the most part. I wish this system could be fixed in the future.

Isn't that the system everywhere? FCPS cannot fix kids' home life or socioeconomic status.

Sure, but doesn’t this system just perpetuate and reinforce the socioeconomic divide?

It's not the school system's role to fix this.

+1. At some point these SJWs need to realize that their advocacy to upset the apple cart is going to diminish the entire system and leave everyone, especially the kids they believe they are trying to help, worse off.

The neighborhoods effected by boundary changes will be infuriated. The rest of the county will not care. Do you think families in McLean really care about West Springfield's boundaries?

Yes, we do. Because we care about the integrity and quality of the FCPS system. I care about every area of the county that might see an equity redistricting. These moves are going to significantly diminish FCPS as a whole, but the sb echo chamber doesn’t seem to care.

When is changing boundaries between schools at or over capacity next to under capacity schools allowed? Are the boundaries just set in stone for all eternity?

When there is an urgent compelling need (eg, park lawn and Coates). Rather, the comprehensive review has ill defined conflicting criteria that is meant to allow the school board to do the equity boundary moves started five years ago with a thin veneer if it being for other purposes.

WSHS is at 112% of capacity, Lewis is at 87%. Is that not enough of a disparity?

SCHS is at 88% capacity and is closer to current HVES neighborhoods.

Stop suggesting another school. It goes against your argument.

No it doesn’t. You’re grasping at straws to justify moving HVES kids to Lewis. If WSHS is truly overcapacity, and transpo times are a concern, SCHS makes the most sense. It’s weird how obsessed some people seem to be with moving WSHS kids from HV to a school that is further away.

[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:So basically if you have more money, you will move to a school district where more wealthy people live. Low income students will continue to rot in poorly rated schools. I didn’t grow up here, so the PUBLIC school system here seems to benefit high income families for the most part. I wish this system could be fixed in the future.

Isn't that the system everywhere? FCPS cannot fix kids' home life or socioeconomic status.

Sure, but doesn’t this system just perpetuate and reinforce the socioeconomic divide?

It's not the school system's role to fix this.

+1. At some point these SJWs need to realize that their advocacy to upset the apple cart is going to diminish the entire system and leave everyone, especially the kids they believe they are trying to help, worse off.

The neighborhoods effected by boundary changes will be infuriated. The rest of the county will not care. Do you think families in McLean really care about West Springfield's boundaries?

Yes, we do. Because we care about the integrity and quality of the FCPS system. I care about every area of the county that might see an equity redistricting. These moves are going to significantly diminish FCPS as a whole, but the sb echo chamber doesn’t seem to care.

When is changing boundaries between schools at or over capacity next to under capacity schools allowed? Are the boundaries just set in stone for all eternity?

When there is an urgent compelling need (eg, park lawn and Coates). Rather, the comprehensive review has ill defined conflicting criteria that is meant to allow the school board to do the equity boundary moves started five years ago with a thin veneer if it being for other purposes.

WSHS is at 112% of capacity, Lewis is at 87%. Is that not enough of a disparity?

SCHS is at 88% capacity and is closer to current HVES neighborhoods.

Stop suggesting another school. It goes against your argument.

No it doesn’t. You’re grasping at straws to justify moving HVES kids to Lewis. If WSHS is truly overcapacity, and transpo times are a concern, SCHS makes the most sense. It’s weird how obsessed some people seem to be with moving WSHS kids from HV to a school that is further away.

Not sure "some" is the right descriptor here. One person, maybe two. Who live in Saratoga.

[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:So basically if you have more money, you will move to a school district where more wealthy people live. Low income students will continue to rot in poorly rated schools. I didn’t grow up here, so the PUBLIC school system here seems to benefit high income families for the most part. I wish this system could be fixed in the future.

Isn't that the system everywhere? FCPS cannot fix kids' home life or socioeconomic status.

Sure, but doesn’t this system just perpetuate and reinforce the socioeconomic divide?

It's not the school system's role to fix this.

+1. At some point these SJWs need to realize that their advocacy to upset the apple cart is going to diminish the entire system and leave everyone, especially the kids they believe they are trying to help, worse off.

The neighborhoods effected by boundary changes will be infuriated. The rest of the county will not care. Do you think families in McLean really care about West Springfield's boundaries?

Yes, we do. Because we care about the integrity and quality of the FCPS system. I care about every area of the county that might see an equity redistricting. These moves are going to significantly diminish FCPS as a whole, but the sb echo chamber doesn’t seem to care.

When is changing boundaries between schools at or over capacity next to under capacity schools allowed? Are the boundaries just set in stone for all eternity?

When there is an urgent compelling need (eg, park lawn and Coates). Rather, the comprehensive review has ill defined conflicting criteria that is meant to allow the school board to do the equity boundary moves started five years ago with a thin veneer if it being for other purposes.

WSHS is at 112% of capacity, Lewis is at 87%. Is that not enough of a disparity?

SCHS is at 88% capacity and is closer to current HVES neighborhoods.

Stop suggesting another school. It goes against your argument.

No it doesn’t. You’re grasping at straws to justify moving HVES kids to Lewis. If WSHS is truly overcapacity, and transpo times are a concern, SCHS makes the most sense. It’s weird how obsessed some people seem to be with moving WSHS kids from HV to a school that is further away.

Not sure "some" is the right descriptor here. One person, maybe two. Who live in Saratoga.

All kids south of the parkway will shift to Saratoga. That creates room at HVES for Orange Hunt students.

All kids currently south of the parkway near Lake Mercer/St. Raymonds will shift to Newington Forest and SCHS.

[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:So basically if you have more money, you will move to a school district where more wealthy people live. Low income students will continue to rot in poorly rated schools. I didn’t grow up here, so the PUBLIC school system here seems to benefit high income families for the most part. I wish this system could be fixed in the future.

Isn't that the system everywhere? FCPS cannot fix kids' home life or socioeconomic status.

Sure, but doesn’t this system just perpetuate and reinforce the socioeconomic divide?

It's not the school system's role to fix this.

+1. At some point these SJWs need to realize that their advocacy to upset the apple cart is going to diminish the entire system and leave everyone, especially the kids they believe they are trying to help, worse off.

The neighborhoods effected by boundary changes will be infuriated. The rest of the county will not care. Do you think families in McLean really care about West Springfield's boundaries?

Yes, we do. Because we care about the integrity and quality of the FCPS system. I care about every area of the county that might see an equity redistricting. These moves are going to significantly diminish FCPS as a whole, but the sb echo chamber doesn’t seem to care.

When is changing boundaries between schools at or over capacity next to under capacity schools allowed? Are the boundaries just set in stone for all eternity?

When there is an urgent compelling need (eg, park lawn and Coates). Rather, the comprehensive review has ill defined conflicting criteria that is meant to allow the school board to do the equity boundary moves started five years ago with a thin veneer if it being for other purposes.

WSHS is at 112% of capacity, Lewis is at 87%. Is that not enough of a disparity?

SCHS is at 88% capacity and is closer to current HVES neighborhoods.

Stop suggesting another school. It goes against your argument.

No it doesn’t. You’re grasping at straws to justify moving HVES kids to Lewis. If WSHS is truly overcapacity, and transpo times are a concern, SCHS makes the most sense. It’s weird how obsessed some people seem to be with moving WSHS kids from HV to a school that is further away.

That's not a concern. Ask the Great Falls parents. And, it literally takes about 12 minutes to get from Gambrill to Lewis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chantilly is gaining new students every month. There is not much new construction--a very small amount--to justify that growth. Where are these kids coming from? Looks to me like they are transferring for one reason or another.
Compare it to the other high schools.

Ask yourself why?

At the CIP hearing this week one thing that Dr. Reid said is that they are seeing situations where large numbers of families will quickly move in and out of school zones when rents at a particular complex increase. It can result in unanticipated spikes and declines in school enrollments.

I don’t know if that accounts for any of the spikes at Chantilly. They could also have families doubling up in single-family homes for access to Chantilly and its Academy courses for all I know. Or maybe it’s just residential turnover. But it was an interesting observation on her part.

But, if you check other area high schools, we are not seeing the same thing at all. It's around 36 additional students since September. New construction is not the reason for this. It does not make sense.

[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:So basically if you have more money, you will move to a school district where more wealthy people live. Low income students will continue to rot in poorly rated schools. I didn’t grow up here, so the PUBLIC school system here seems to benefit high income families for the most part. I wish this system could be fixed in the future.

Isn't that the system everywhere? FCPS cannot fix kids' home life or socioeconomic status.

Sure, but doesn’t this system just perpetuate and reinforce the socioeconomic divide?

It's not the school system's role to fix this.

+1. At some point these SJWs need to realize that their advocacy to upset the apple cart is going to diminish the entire system and leave everyone, especially the kids they believe they are trying to help, worse off.

The neighborhoods effected by boundary changes will be infuriated. The rest of the county will not care. Do you think families in McLean really care about West Springfield's boundaries?

Yes, we do. Because we care about the integrity and quality of the FCPS system. I care about every area of the county that might see an equity redistricting. These moves are going to significantly diminish FCPS as a whole, but the sb echo chamber doesn’t seem to care.

When is changing boundaries between schools at or over capacity next to under capacity schools allowed? Are the boundaries just set in stone for all eternity?

When there is an urgent compelling need (eg, park lawn and Coates). Rather, the comprehensive review has ill defined conflicting criteria that is meant to allow the school board to do the equity boundary moves started five years ago with a thin veneer if it being for other purposes.

WSHS is at 112% of capacity, Lewis is at 87%. Is that not enough of a disparity?

SCHS is at 88% capacity and is closer to current HVES neighborhoods.

Stop suggesting another school. It goes against your argument.

No it doesn’t. You’re grasping at straws to justify moving HVES kids to Lewis. If WSHS is truly overcapacity, and transpo times are a concern, SCHS makes the most sense. It’s weird how obsessed some people seem to be with moving WSHS kids from HV to a school that is further away.

DP. It's been pointed out that merely looking at whether WSHS is overcrowded ignores the current and projected under-enrollment at Lewis. You can keep pretending that's not also an issue, or that it will self-correct with a few additional buildings within Lewis's current catchment area, but others will be looking at the inequity of having a projected 3000-student school sharing a border with one projected to have only 1425 kids.