Boundary Review Meetings

[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!

[Anonymous]

Wondering why they didn’t make a decision about Gunston, Halley, and Lorton Station? The Halley attendance island is still in place. The Hagel Circle students still won’t be attending a neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wondering why they didn’t make a decision about Gunston, Halley, and Lorton Station? The Halley attendance island is still in place. The Hagel Circle students still won’t be attending a neighborhood school.

That’s mentioned in the deck near the end about areas they are focused on for more future changes. This isn’t over. It’s just going to be over for some targeted neighborhoods for now.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t explain why they decided to not make a decision. Halley still has an attendance island. Are they too afraid to make a decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t explain why they decided to not make a decision. Halley still has an attendance island. Are they too afraid to make a decision?

They got a lot of push back. I think for some areas they’re waiting and hoping the temperature drops? I don’t see that happening but whatever.

[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.

She’s just a doorknob.

Every pro boundary change member is.

But Fairfax County is following in the trend of mass redirecting of school boundaries anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t explain why they decided to not make a decision. Halley still has an attendance island. Are they too afraid to make a decision?

They got a lot of push back. I think for some areas they’re waiting and hoping the temperature drops? I don’t see that happening but whatever.

I think they really wanted them at Gunston, but due to the efforts of the Mason Neck Citizens Group, and probably also the physical state of Gunston ES, that’s not going to be feasible without big renovations to the school. So now it’s a big hot potato of do they move kids out of Gunston to I guess Island Creek to make room at Gunston? (That’s a long bus ride). Do they add Hagel to Lorton Station and then try to make moves to get LSES as a SC feeder? Not really possible right now without overcrowding South County MS and HS though. Do they add it to Lorton Station/Hayfield and then wash their hands of the whole thing? Do they try to add it to Laurel Hill which makes a nice border on paper but still ends up with a long bus ride? (And another overcrowded school at Laurel Hill as well). Are they ok with potentially taking LSES, which is a big feeder school, out of Hayfield and leaving Hayfield under-enrolled, assuming they’ll need the capacity at Hayfield to relieve Edison? But if Edison needs relief, the first places to look should be under-enrolled Lewis and over-expanded West Potomac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t explain why they decided to not make a decision. Halley still has an attendance island. Are they too afraid to make a decision?

They got a lot of push back. I think for some areas they’re waiting and hoping the temperature drops? I don’t see that happening but whatever.

Note they backpedaled on changes to the Bren Mar Park split feeder by sending it to Key/Lewis from Holmes/Edison and giving it back it’s 59 sixth graders at Edison.

This is because Beech Tree and Belvedere would have split fed into Poe and Holmes from Glasgow, with Beech Tree having a High School split feeder.

But do note Poe is going to become an AAP center for itself and Holmes, which might result in Glasgow Easing out without needing to lose in boundary students.

When Glasgow was replaced in 2009 or so, wasn’t it built to hold 1500 students?

Only asking because I don’t know that school very well or how many AAP students it holds that would transfer over to Poe.

I also think that Annandale Terrace, Braddock, or Columbia should hold AAP to form greater continuity at that level so that Canterbury Woods’ 5th grade AAP students don’t suddenly have to transfer over to Poe (if they have the capacity to do so).

[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.

I think she just is trying to save face and used wording to make it seem like this is how she planned it to pan out in the first place when we all know that is a lie. She has to spin it so that people who haven’t been paying attention don’t realize what a shitshow it has been and how little is actually changing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t explain why they decided to not make a decision. Halley still has an attendance island. Are they too afraid to make a decision?

They got a lot of push back. I think for some areas they’re waiting and hoping the temperature drops? I don’t see that happening but whatever.

Note they backpedaled on changes to the Bren Mar Park split feeder by sending it to Key/Lewis from Holmes/Edison and giving it back it’s 59 sixth graders at Edison.

This is because Beech Tree and Belvedere would have split fed into Poe and Holmes from Glasgow, with Beech Tree having a High School split feeder.

But do note Poe is going to become an AAP center for itself and Holmes, which might result in Glasgow Easing out without needing to lose in boundary students.

When Glasgow was replaced in 2009 or so, wasn’t it built to hold 1500 students?

Only asking because I don’t know that school very well or how many AAP students it holds that would transfer over to Poe.

I also think that Annandale Terrace, Braddock, or Columbia should hold AAP to form greater continuity at that level so that Canterbury Woods’ 5th grade AAP students don’t suddenly have to transfer over to Poe (if they have the capacity to do so).

Glasgow has a large capacity. They are effectively acknowledging that having 1700-1800 kids at a middle school is too many, regardless of the school’s capacity.

The fix is to move kids from
Glasgow to both Poe and Holmes. It makes sense to also reassign the kids moving out of Glasgow to Poe to Falls Church and those moving to Holmes to Annandale.

It will get Glasgow down to a more manageable size, but it’s going to push up the poverty rates at both Glasgow and Justice. It also means that the recent expansion of Justice to 2500 seats was at least partially unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think she just is trying to save face and used wording to make it seem like this is how she planned it to pan out in the first place when we all know that is a lie. She has to spin it so that people who haven’t been paying attention don’t realize what a shitshow it has been and how little is actually changing

I hope you’re right. She’s my rep and it’s been a nightmare.