FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think sophomores, juniors, seniors should be grandfathered but should have to provide their own transportation. I think middle school is ok without grandfathering. I think 6th graders should be grandfathered as well. I think parents should have to provide transportation.

Just my opinion.

So wealthier kids who either have a car or a parent to drive them can remain at their current schools, but poorer kids without access to a car or driver have to switch?

Sounds very equitable to me.

That is how transferring for AP/IB or languages works

Any student who can arrange their own transportation should be grandfathered.

Hard disagree. Beggars can't be choosers. Be thankful if they offer grandfathering at all.

Any rising 8th grader or any current high schooler should be grandfathered with transportation provided, or not grandfathered at all.

Nope.

IB to AP transfers provide their own transportation.

All high schoolers able to provide their own transportation should be allowed to grandfather.

Grandfather with transportation or don’t grandfather at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think sophomores, juniors, seniors should be grandfathered but should have to provide their own transportation. I think middle school is ok without grandfathering. I think 6th graders should be grandfathered as well. I think parents should have to provide transportation.

Just my opinion.

So wealthier kids who either have a car or a parent to drive them can remain at their current schools, but poorer kids without access to a car or driver have to switch?

Sounds very equitable to me.

That is how transferring for AP/IB or languages works

Any student who can arrange their own transportation should be grandfathered.

Any rising 8th grader or any current high schooler should be grandfathered with transportation provided, or not grandfathered at all.

Nope.

IB to AP transfers provide their own transportation.

All high schoolers able to provide their own transportation should be allowed to grandfather.

Grandfather with transportation or don’t grandfather at all.

I choose none at all.

[Anonymous]

I wish we didn’t have to wait for 2026 for the changes to go into effect whatever they may be. I can’t take another year of this. The longer this drags on the worse the fighting will get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish we didn’t have to wait for 2026 for the changes to go into effect whatever they may be. I can’t take another year of this. The longer this drags on the worse the fighting will get.

No one to blame but the school board. Sniveling Sandy and Strip Club Kyle brought this on us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish we didn’t have to wait for 2026 for the changes to go into effect whatever they may be. I can’t take another year of this. The longer this drags on the worse the fighting will get.

No one to blame but the school board. Sniveling Sandy and Strip Club Kyle brought this on us all.

Since the SB which is supposed to be apolitical is so political and we haven’t had suitable alternatives to the Dems running for the SB (as if FX voters would elect anyone but them) this is what we get. So just rip the bandaid off already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish we didn’t have to wait for 2026 for the changes to go into effect whatever they may be. I can’t take another year of this. The longer this drags on the worse the fighting will get.

No one to blame but the school board. Sniveling Sandy and Strip Club Kyle brought this on us all.

Since the SB which is supposed to be apolitical is so political and we haven’t had suitable alternatives to the Dems running for the SB (as if FX voters would elect anyone but them) this is what we get. So just rip the bandaid off already.

You must have one of those mental disorders where you can’t feel feelings and are incapable of recognizing feelings in others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think sophomores, juniors, seniors should be grandfathered but should have to provide their own transportation. I think middle school is ok without grandfathering. I think 6th graders should be grandfathered as well. I think parents should have to provide transportation.

Just my opinion.

So wealthier kids who either have a car or a parent to drive them can remain at their current schools, but poorer kids without access to a car or driver have to switch?

Sounds very equitable to me.

That is how transferring for AP/IB or languages works

Any student who can arrange their own transportation should be grandfathered.

Any rising 8th grader or any current high schooler should be grandfathered with transportation provided, or not grandfathered at all.

Then the same should go for AP/IB and languages if we’re going to focus on equity. Either parents can provide transportation for pupil placements or they can’t. If county provided transportation for grandfathering is going to be the sticking point, get rid of pupil placements all together since only families with means can take advantage of those as well.

Fine, then don't grandfather and just continue to allow for pupil placements. Because grandfathering without transportion is the least equitable of the scenarios.

Nope. Try again. If parent transportation is inequitable for grandfathering it is also inequitable for pupil placements since both are contingent on parents having the means to facilitate it.

Here we go again with equity. The whole reason for this stupid boundary exercise, equity. Life is not equitable, nor should it be. If you want equity move to mother Russia.

I can’t believe how many people are wasting so much time and so many resources trying to solve a problem that won’t exist in 5 years.

Moving a few high performing kids to low performing schools is a band aid. Hire competent administrators, give competent teachers the resources they need and get rid of the ones that don’t belong in education. Restore discipline to schools, that will fix the problem.

Reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic did nothing in 1912. Executing unnecessary boundary changes will do nothing to save FCPS now.

[Anonymous]

Executing unnecessary boundary changes will do nothing to save FCPS now.

+1

What would save FCPS? Go back to the purpose of schools. To teach children basic tools to work and live: reading, writing, arithmetic.
Determine where the students are and teach them from there.

It requires no boundary adjustment except in extreme circumstances. Coates is the example. There are no high schools that need a boundary adjustment at this time.

Every five years is stupid. There could be extreme circumstances next year-or not. Only adjust when needed.

Look at the schools that are struggling and determine the problem. The problem is not that the kids are poor. The problem is that FCPS does not want to figure out what to do about teaching them.

Eliminate IB. That will save a few dollars and encourage people to stay in their current schools. If a child PP for language, then he must take that language for four years or go back. (Does anyone ever check?)

[Anonymous]

Gotta love the “draft” watermark on the May 5 presentation that completely covers relevant numbers. No need for it to be size 1,000,000,000 font.

[Anonymous]

I still can’t believe they “solve” the Timber Lane attendance island by bridging a few streets and significantly expanding it southward.

Shocking incompetence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love the “draft” watermark on the May 5 presentation that completely covers relevant numbers. No need for it to be size 1,000,000,000 font.

Don't forget the maps that leave out the streets so that my neighborhood cannot figure out which small group is being sent on an eleven mile bus ride and the rest of the neighborhood gets to stay put at less than three miles.

[Anonymous]

I am following this thread intermittently but was out of town for last couple of weeks. If I am repeating this question that someone asked before I apologize.

The latest BRAC slides show the timeline that seems to indicate that the three step incremental adjustment is the proposal. Will
there be additional scenario? Or what they proposed so far may be close to the final with some tweaks. We are in Wakefield/Frost/ Woodson pyramid and it looks like that is intact as opposed to the leaked map of a Wakefield ES moving to Annandale High. So can we assume that given these slides most likely we will stay with current pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am following this thread intermittently but was out of town for last couple of weeks. If I am repeating this question that someone asked before I apologize.

The latest BRAC slides show the timeline that seems to indicate that the three step incremental adjustment is the proposal. Will
there be additional scenario? Or what they proposed so far may be close to the final with some tweaks. We are in Wakefield/Frost/ Woodson pyramid and it looks like that is intact as opposed to the leaked map of a Wakefield ES moving to Annandale High. So can we assume that given these slides most likely we will stay with current pyramid.

The school board paid an exorbitant amount of money to thru to put these scenarios together. If the school board tries to add changes rather than scrutinize the changes in the existing maps, there will be significant fury. That said, I’ve never understood how they operate, so that is still a possibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still can’t believe they “solve” the Timber Lane attendance island by bridging a few streets and significantly expanding it southward.

Shocking incompetence.

But only for Longfellow. They moved some apartments currently zoned to Longfellow to Kilmer and then picked up some of Jackson MS for middle school only. It showed a complete lack of comprehension for feeder patterns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can’t believe they “solve” the Timber Lane attendance island by bridging a few streets and significantly expanding it southward.

Shocking incompetence.

But only for Longfellow. They moved some apartments currently zoned to Longfellow to Kilmer and then picked up some of Jackson MS for middle school only. It showed a complete lack of comprehension for feeder patterns.

The 4/11 proposals around bridging the Timber Lane island and changing the Graham Road boundaries were perhaps the sloppiest work done by Thru to date.

First, they proposed to move a small part of Shrevewood from Kilmer/Marshall to Longfellow/McLean. That would create a new split feeder at Shrevewood and it’s unlikely over 25% would go to Longfellow/McLean. In other words, they created the type of split feeder they then turned around and tried to address on 4/25 (but they didn’t acknowledge what they’d done on 4/11).

Second, given the land that Falls Church City owns near Meridian HS (Haycock/Route 7) it’s unclear the proposal would even bridge the island.

Third, in proposing to move some kids now at Timber Lane/Longfellow to Shrevewood/Kilmer, while leaving them at McLean, they would create a situation where a very small percentage of Kilmer kids would go to McLean.

Fourth, in proposing to move all of Timber Lane to Longfellow, but not McLean, they would create a new split feeder at Longfellow where only 7-8% of Longfellow would go to Falls Church. Anyone south of 29 currently attends Jackson and Falls Church, and if they’d preserved Timber Lane as a split feeder it would still be a fairly even split feeder to Longfellow/McLean and Jackson/Falls Church (unlike the uneven split feeders they’ve now proposed to create at Shrevewood, Kilmer, and Longfellow).

BRAC members immediately picked up on some of these issues according to the posted notes from the 4/11 meetings, so maybe Thru will come back with something more sensible, but overall they took a situation that wasn’t really a problem and made it far worse.