FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

I can't believe they are trying to solve this problem by creating a split feeder and breaking apart a neighborhood where families have lived for years and whose children have been friends since birth? Now our kids may not end up in middle school with kids just a street over that they play with every day?

[Anonymous]

I'm just seeing where they are increasing attendance at Shrevewood by over 100 kids. Is this Karl Frisch's way of justifying his Dunn Loring project? Why are they even touching Timberland/Shrevewood when Dunn Loring is going to completely change boundaries in a few years again?

[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.

I can't believe they are trying to solve this problem by creating a split feeder and breaking apart a neighborhood where families have lived for years and whose children have been friends since birth? Now our kids may not end up in middle school with kids just a street over that they play with every day?

Are you at Shrevewood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just seeing where they are increasing attendance at Shrevewood by over 100 kids. Is this Karl Frisch's way of justifying his Dunn Loring project? Why are they even touching Timberland/Shrevewood when Dunn Loring is going to completely change boundaries in a few years again?

They’re moving 120 kids from low income apartments into a school with 40% FARM rates so they might trigger the Title I threshold which would put a cap on Shrevewood’s program capacity and change Thru’s 102% capacity projections to something like 125%

Meanwhile, if they left Shrevewood out of it, and kept the solution focused on the schools already assigned to Falls Church HS, they can balance capacity to around 101% between Timber Lane, Graham Road, and Pine Springs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just seeing where they are increasing attendance at Shrevewood by over 100 kids. Is this Karl Frisch's way of justifying his Dunn Loring project? Why are they even touching Timberland/Shrevewood when Dunn Loring is going to completely change boundaries in a few years again?

They were trying to do two different things - bridge the Timber Lane attendance island to the rest of McLean but also, further south, changing the boundaries of Graham Road, Timber Lane and some other schools so that Graham Road actually lies within its attendance area. Currently Graham Road sits in an area assigned to Timber Lane. That’s been the case ever since Graham Road got a new building in 2012 at a different location.

The approach to addressing both these issues was incredibly sloppy.

I don’t think they were trying to justify Dunn Loring with these changes, but when Dunn Loring gets built it will probably lead to further changes to Shrevewood’s boundaries. In general, Thru’s approach was to propose changes based entirely on 2024-25 boundaries and enrollments and largely ignore future developments that are already planned.

[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.

WFES cannot go to Poe Middle School which feeds Annandale. WFES goes until 6th grade and Poe is 6-8. Remember when Reid wanted the analysis of moving all 6th to middle school? Thankfully that analysis proved nutso.

Therefore WFES will go to Frost and they will not split-feed them to Annandale High. They also adjusted the Holmes middle school split feeder to now attend Annandale which boosted their capacity to limit.

Rachna Sizemore also spoke at a WFES townhall and said she didn’t see any new school boundaries crossing the beltway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WFES cannot go to Poe Middle School which feeds Annandale. WFES goes until 6th grade and Poe is 6-8. Remember when Reid wanted the analysis of moving all 6th to middle school? Thankfully that analysis proved nutso.

Therefore WFES will go to Frost and they will not split-feed them to Annandale High. They also adjusted the Holmes middle school split feeder to now attend Annandale which boosted their capacity to limit.

Rachna Sizemore also spoke at a WFES townhall and said she didn’t see any new school boundaries crossing the beltway.

Not saying they would change the Wakefield Forest boundary - clearly that isn't their intent - but Wakefield Forest was a split feeder to Poe/Annandale and Frost/Woodson for many years when Poe was a 6-8 middle school. That changed in 2011 when the Poe/Annandale portion of Wakefield Forest moved to Frost/Woodson.

[Anonymous]

Rachna told WFES that she couldn't see why their middle/high school would change because Woodson is at 104% capacity (at this very minute).

What's unclear is if Woodson goes to 105 or 106% capacity next year, then what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rachna told WFES that she couldn't see why their middle/high school would change because Woodson is at 104% capacity (at this very minute).

What's unclear is if Woodson goes to 105 or 106% capacity next year, then what?

Woodson is now at 100% with a chunk moved to Fairfax HS from the attendance island maps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rachna told WFES that she couldn't see why their middle/high school would change because Woodson is at 104% capacity (at this very minute).

What's unclear is if Woodson goes to 105 or 106% capacity next year, then what?

Rachna is pushing to inflict unnecessary changes on other kids, probably without grandfathering, while running around giving her own constituents comfort.

She is just a garbage human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?)

Sadly you are making to much sense for the dimwits on the school board and at Gatehouse.

[Anonymous]

Have you guys actually looked at the slides? It says quite clearly that nothing on there represents any changes that have been formally agreed upon, it's for discussion only?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys actually looked at the slides? It says quite clearly that nothing on there represents any changes that have been formally agreed upon, it's for discussion only?

So, $500K for a discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys actually looked at the slides? It says quite clearly that nothing on there represents any changes that have been formally agreed upon, it's for discussion only?

Well, people are discussing them. Mission accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys actually looked at the slides? It says quite clearly that nothing on there represents any changes that have been formally agreed upon, it's for discussion only?

Shoot, I wish FCPS had given me a no-bid contract to come up with discussion points, especially since thru was wholly unqualified for the job.