Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Coates realignment is interesting. 190 students move to Herndon ES, which would diminish the number of kids head to Western by 190 and increase Herndon HS by 190 kids.

No. Coates was already a split feeder between Herndon and Westfield. These students were already assigned to Herndon.

Got it, thanks for the clarification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But they left Madison students at Kilmer. The first step should have been to get all Madison students out of Kilmer. It doesn’t make sense to send all of Westbriar to Kilmer and then send 2 SPAs worth of kids to Madison. I get ToV wanted to stay at Madison, but rip the bandaid off and fix the split at MS. They would have gotten Kilmer to 105% if they had only removed Madison students and left Wolftrap/Marshall and Westbriar/Marshall students at Kilmer.

I guess you are right about that, but then you get into the split feeders. Having only 2 SPAs as split feeders, when those two ToV SPAs advocated very aggressively to remain at Madison, is still a lot better than the number of SPAs that were split up previously in this area. I think the lack of clarity on what took precedence - overcapacity vs split feeders vs making loud voices happy - made it very difficult for either scenario we are discussing, or even to leave it all as it was prior.

What does SPA stand for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does SPA stand for?

Student planning areas. Those are the numbers in each small section on the maps showing which groups moved where. They keep everyone in an SPA together.

[Anonymous]

I wonder whether with the continued scaling back of changes they will go ahead and vote to provide transportation to all grandfathered kids. The prior cost estimate would no longer be valid.

[Anonymous]

I’m concerned about this plan to continue to tweak boundaries in between their already new 5-year review cycle. Or am I reading the slides wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the maps.

They are moving people to Chantilly from Fairfax HS? Really?

Coates is addressed.

I am surprised by the number of schools below capacity across the County.

They must assume that Western will get a good number of Chantilly kids. If not, Chantilly is likely to hit 3100.

Oak Hill is slated to move but I thought that was it out of Chantilly. I could be wrong and there could be more.

I think all the scenarios have part of Brooksfield and the rest of Cub Run going to Westfield.

Those are scenarios for the new high school. I don't think they included them in this, I'll look again, but i don't remember seeing it.

There was a group that lobbied to stay at Chantilly and switch from Franklin to Rocky Run. Reid appeared to entertain the idea at one of the community meetings. You know how she is... Those changes were in the Western boundary map, not this one though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

Sandy Anderson just put out her email (which erroneously says the draft CIP is out) and she says this: “Thank you for your patience and for the thoughtful, constructive engagement you have brought to this process. This work represents [b] an important first step toward the incremental changes needed [b] to ensure our school boundaries remain responsive to shifting enrollment, community needs, and the long-term health of Fairfax County Public Schools.”

They’re incremental changes now, huh? Quite a change from where we started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

Sandy Anderson just put out her email (which erroneously says the draft CIP is out) and she says this: “Thank you for your patience and for the thoughtful, constructive engagement you have brought to this process. This work represents [b] an important first step toward the incremental changes needed [b] to ensure our school boundaries remain responsive to shifting enrollment, community needs, and the long-term health of Fairfax County Public Schools.”

They’re incremental changes now, huh? Quite a change from where we started.

That’s what is so despicable about Sandy Anderson. She doesn’t even pretend to be candid or honest. It’s always as if people have no brains and will just accept whatever BS she serves up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

Sandy Anderson just put out her email (which erroneously says the draft CIP is out) and she says this: “Thank you for your patience and for the thoughtful, constructive engagement you have brought to this process. This work represents [b] an important first step toward the incremental changes needed [b] to ensure our school boundaries remain responsive to shifting enrollment, community needs, and the long-term health of Fairfax County Public Schools.”

They’re incremental changes now, huh? Quite a change from where we started.

I hate her.

The “incremental” phrasing seems intentional, to denote either a smaller change or one of a series.

They need to stop with the comprehensive boundary change BS. It’s a complete failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the maps.

They are moving people to Chantilly from Fairfax HS? Really?

Coates is addressed.

I am surprised by the number of schools below capacity across the County.

They must assume that Western will get a good number of Chantilly kids. If not, Chantilly is likely to hit 3100.

If you've been paying attention to the Western boundary discussion you'd see that they are also moving Chantilly kids to Centreville. I looked at the map, and depending on option 351-358 Chantilly students move to Western, with 340 Chantilly Students (The part of Brookfield that feeds to Franklin and the Chantilly Feeding Part of Cub Run to Westfield).

I was shocked seeing it was 340, but Westfield is estimated to gain 702 students (362 from Centreville), and 702-362=340.

Westfield donates the most amount of students to Western (940-1005), but also is the 2nd largest receiver in the option maps.

Oakton is the Second Largest Donor at 436 (per options A and C)

South Lakes Donates 370-408 students (per options B, C, and D)

If Westfield donated 1005 students, Oakton donated 436, South Lakes Donated 408, and Chantilly donated 358, the school would have 2207 students.

If they did it with 9 and 10, that figure would be less and either remain, increase, or decrease per enrollment trends in that section of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

Sandy Anderson just put out her email (which erroneously says the draft CIP is out) and she says this: “Thank you for your patience and for the thoughtful, constructive engagement you have brought to this process. This work represents [b] an important first step toward the incremental changes needed [b] to ensure our school boundaries remain responsive to shifting enrollment, community needs, and the long-term health of Fairfax County Public Schools.”

They’re incremental changes now, huh? Quite a change from where we started.

I hate her.

The “incremental” phrasing seems intentional, to denote either a smaller change or one of a series.

They need to stop with the comprehensive boundary change BS. It’s a complete failure.

I read this as that’s what she’s signaling. Along with their permanent BRAC that was mentioned in the slides. They’re going to be doing boundary changes non-stop from here on out from what this sounds like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

Sandy Anderson just put out her email (which erroneously says the draft CIP is out) and she says this: “Thank you for your patience and for the thoughtful, constructive engagement you have brought to this process. This work represents [b] an important first step toward the incremental changes needed [b] to ensure our school boundaries remain responsive to shifting enrollment, community needs, and the long-term health of Fairfax County Public Schools.”

They’re incremental changes now, huh? Quite a change from where we started.

When all is said and done, FCPS spent well over the initial $500,000 Thru contract on these "incremental changes."

What a waste of money and time.

All of this could have been accomplished under the original Policy 8130, with no changes to the policy, and necessary changes implemented 2 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

Sandy Anderson just put out her email (which erroneously says the draft CIP is out) and she says this: “Thank you for your patience and for the thoughtful, constructive engagement you have brought to this process. This work represents [b] an important first step toward the incremental changes needed [b] to ensure our school boundaries remain responsive to shifting enrollment, community needs, and the long-term health of Fairfax County Public Schools.”

They’re incremental changes now, huh? Quite a change from where we started.

I hate her.

The “incremental” phrasing seems intentional, to denote either a smaller change or one of a series.

They need to stop with the comprehensive boundary change BS. It’s a complete failure.

I read this as that’s what she’s signaling. Along with their permanent BRAC that was mentioned in the slides. They’re going to be doing boundary changes non-stop from here on out from what this sounds like.

You mean more frequently than 5 years? Springfield, vote this person out please!