FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Didn’t say everyone was happy with the process or the result. But South Lakes emerged a stronger school, so blanket insinuations that no kids or no lower-income kids ever benefit from a boundary change are off the mark.

South Lakes took SEVERAL affluent neighborhoods. This was not just one neighborhood or elementary school. Parts of Wolf Trap from Madison. Most of Floris from Westfield. Fox Mill from Oakton. Parts of Crossfield from Oakton. These were all high achieving neighborhoods. And, one of the high schools involved lost two affluent areas and were left with a growing low socioeconomic neighborhood.

Herndon? Because it sounds like they then take hundreds more through IB transfers.

No, Herndon was excluded completely from those boundary changes. I think she’s saying Westfield took a hit when some Westfield neighborhoods got moved to South Lakes. It was really a wash for Oakton since Oakton picked up part of Chantilly and the number of Madison kids moved to South Lakes was quite small.

Yes. South Lakes PTA especially wanted Armstrong and Aldrin from Herndon since they are in Reston. But, Herndon said "no way." Then South Lakes wanted them to take Coates (I can't remember if Coates was open yet--so it might have been McNair) but Herndon said "no."

It was amazing that one group of women (South Lakes PTA) was given so much power by Stu Gibson.

I fear that this boundary study is going to give committee members that kind of power. We've already heard about one of the members fighting to keep her neighborhood put.

There are always groups that seem to have an outsized influence. FCPS staff made a proposal for the Langley/McLean boundary change in 2021 and the Great Falls Citizens Association leaned on Elaine Tholen to move a different area that only included single-family homes and no apartments. She did what they asked and they said publicly afterwards it was the best of the possible options from their perspective. It's not unique to the South Lakes situation and, if they push forward with more boundary changes, some people are going to get heard and others ignored.

Pffft. GFCA didn't "lean on" Tholen. You don't even know them. They don't have the disposition to exert that kind of pressure, although they did obviously express an opinion. It is true that they are on record saying that they favored the outcome since it moved an area with no future planned developments and was so unlikely to cause an overcrowding that would eventually justify removing part of Great Falls from Langley. Elaine does have an easygoing disposition but that doesn't mean she jumps everytime someone frowns at her a little.

I know she's glad she finished serving her time on the school board for the democrats and is now out of that whole ridiculous scene.

She lived in Great Falls and she primarily served the interests of that community, just like Stu Gibson lived in Reston and prioritized the interests of South Lakes. If people want to criticize Gibson, she’s a more recent example of a board member putting her own neighbors first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, one more thing, the SB decided that all high schools should be 2000 in order to justify the South Lakes adjustment. This is right after they had expanded Westfield to hold more than 3000, like the year before. Kind of likethe kind of thing they are doing with capacity projections in the CIP.

Since they took a whole elementary school from Oakton, they backfilled it from Chantilly--and the neighborhood was not happy.

Who got moved from Chantilly to Oakton at that time? Was it Franklin Farm or somewhere else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, one more thing, the SB decided that all high schools should be 2000 in order to justify the South Lakes adjustment. This is right after they had expanded Westfield to hold more than 3000, like the year before. Kind of likethe kind of thing they are doing with capacity projections in the CIP.

Since they took a whole elementary school from Oakton, they backfilled it from Chantilly--and the neighborhood was not happy.

What neighborhood did they move from Chantilly to Oakton?

[Anonymous]

Haha, jinx PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, one more thing, the SB decided that all high schools should be 2000 in order to justify the South Lakes adjustment. This is right after they had expanded Westfield to hold more than 3000, like the year before. Kind of likethe kind of thing they are doing with capacity projections in the CIP.

Since they took a whole elementary school from Oakton, they backfilled it from Chantilly--and the neighborhood was not happy.

What neighborhood did they move from Chantilly to Oakton?

It was an area at Navy ES.

[Anonymous]

I’ve read through much of this thread. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what the future timelines might look like. A general expectation of what ‘grandfathered in’ rules might be for kids; if any.

I understand it’s all still just speculation, but is there a general consensus on what is expected for implementing changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read through much of this thread. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what the future timelines might look like. A general expectation of what ‘grandfathered in’ rules might be for kids; if any.

I understand it’s all still just speculation, but is there a general consensus on what is expected for implementing changes?

No, they gave themselves maximum flexibility. There could be few boundary changes and generous grandfathering or many boundary changes and no/limited grandfathering. Your peace of mind is not important to them, and any “consensus” is wishful thinking.

Their timeline is to have draft proposals by May/June and approve boundary changes by early 2026. Implementation would begin in the fall of 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read through much of this thread. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what the future timelines might look like. A general expectation of what ‘grandfathered in’ rules might be for kids; if any.

I understand it’s all still just speculation, but is there a general consensus on what is expected for implementing changes?

No, they gave themselves maximum flexibility. There could be few boundary changes and generous grandfathering or many boundary changes and no/limited grandfathering. Your peace of mind is not important to them, and any “consensus” is wishful thinking.

Their timeline is to have draft proposals by May/June and approve boundary changes by early 2026. Implementation would begin in the fall of 2026.

By fall of 2026 FCPS will have at least 20 thousand fewer students. The school board and administration will look very foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read through much of this thread. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what the future timelines might look like. A general expectation of what ‘grandfathered in’ rules might be for kids; if any.

I understand it’s all still just speculation, but is there a general consensus on what is expected for implementing changes?

No, they gave themselves maximum flexibility. There could be few boundary changes and generous grandfathering or many boundary changes and no/limited grandfathering. Your peace of mind is not important to them, and any “consensus” is wishful thinking.

Their timeline is to have draft proposals by May/June and approve boundary changes by early 2026. Implementation would begin in the fall of 2026.

By fall of 2026 FCPS will have at least 20 thousand fewer students. The school board and administration will look very foolish.

Doesn't change the image of WSHS and Lewis. Those boundaries will shift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read through much of this thread. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what the future timelines might look like. A general expectation of what ‘grandfathered in’ rules might be for kids; if any.

I understand it’s all still just speculation, but is there a general consensus on what is expected for implementing changes?

No, they gave themselves maximum flexibility. There could be few boundary changes and generous grandfathering or many boundary changes and no/limited grandfathering. Your peace of mind is not important to them, and any “consensus” is wishful thinking.

Their timeline is to have draft proposals by May/June and approve boundary changes by early 2026. Implementation would begin in the fall of 2026.

The timeline listed is correct. Grandfathering, at minimum, will be rising 6th, 8th, and 12th graders (rising 5th graders for K-5 schools.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read through much of this thread. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what the future timelines might look like. A general expectation of what ‘grandfathered in’ rules might be for kids; if any.

I understand it’s all still just speculation, but is there a general consensus on what is expected for implementing changes?

No, they gave themselves maximum flexibility. There could be few boundary changes and generous grandfathering or many boundary changes and no/limited grandfathering. Your peace of mind is not important to them, and any “consensus” is wishful thinking.

Their timeline is to have draft proposals by May/June and approve boundary changes by early 2026. Implementation would begin in the fall of 2026.

The timeline listed is correct. Grandfathering, at minimum, will be rising 6th, 8th, and 12th graders (rising 5th graders for K-5 schools.)

That may be a prediction but the revised boundary policy continues to state that even this limited grandfathering is “at the discretion of the School Board.” There is no firm commitment to grandfather rising 6th (or 5th), 8th and 12 graders.

When you grandfather, you end up running multiple bus routes through the rezoned neighborhoods. That limits the number of boundaries you can change, due to constraints on the size of the bus fleet, and flies in the face of the argument that boundary changes are needed to save money. They refused to commit to grandfathering because they wanted to reserve the ability to change a lot of boundaries with no grandfathering. It was a very lawyerly but politically stupid decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read through much of this thread. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what the future timelines might look like. A general expectation of what ‘grandfathered in’ rules might be for kids; if any.

I understand it’s all still just speculation, but is there a general consensus on what is expected for implementing changes?

No, they gave themselves maximum flexibility. There could be few boundary changes and generous grandfathering or many boundary changes and no/limited grandfathering. Your peace of mind is not important to them, and any “consensus” is wishful thinking.

Their timeline is to have draft proposals by May/June and approve boundary changes by early 2026. Implementation would begin in the fall of 2026.

The timeline listed is correct. Grandfathering, at minimum, will be rising 6th, 8th, and 12th graders (rising 5th graders for K-5 schools.)

That may be a prediction but the revised boundary policy continues to state that even this limited grandfathering is “at the discretion of the School Board.” There is no firm commitment to grandfather rising 6th (or 5th), 8th and 12 graders.

When you grandfather, you end up running multiple bus routes through the rezoned neighborhoods. That limits the number of boundaries you can change, due to constraints on the size of the bus fleet, and flies in the face of the argument that boundary changes are needed to save money. They refused to commit to grandfathering because they wanted to reserve the ability to change a lot of boundaries with no grandfathering. It was a very lawyerly but politically stupid decision.

I think it was Sniveling Sandy Anderson who was adamantly against grandfathering so they could have maximum flexibility for the changes. Go back and watch the July sb meeting where they shot down grandfathering amendments for more insight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read through much of this thread. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what the future timelines might look like. A general expectation of what ‘grandfathered in’ rules might be for kids; if any.

I understand it’s all still just speculation, but is there a general consensus on what is expected for implementing changes?

No, they gave themselves maximum flexibility. There could be few boundary changes and generous grandfathering or many boundary changes and no/limited grandfathering. Your peace of mind is not important to them, and any “consensus” is wishful thinking.

Their timeline is to have draft proposals by May/June and approve boundary changes by early 2026. Implementation would begin in the fall of 2026.

The timeline listed is correct. Grandfathering, at minimum, will be rising 6th, 8th, and 12th graders (rising 5th graders for K-5 schools.)

That may be a prediction but the revised boundary policy continues to state that even this limited grandfathering is “at the discretion of the School Board.” There is no firm commitment to grandfather rising 6th (or 5th), 8th and 12 graders.

When you grandfather, you end up running multiple bus routes through the rezoned neighborhoods. That limits the number of boundaries you can change, due to constraints on the size of the bus fleet, and flies in the face of the argument that boundary changes are needed to save money. They refused to commit to grandfathering because they wanted to reserve the ability to change a lot of boundaries with no grandfathering. It was a very lawyerly but politically stupid decision.

More than just a stupid political decision, it causes harm to many children and shows their priorities are children and communities.

[Anonymous]

are *NOT*

[Anonymous]

Fareed Zakaria has a piece in the Washington post about gore the Dems should post attention to its base - the professional class, rather than move further to the left.

Will the school board listen, or are they going to charge full bore into the boundary changes. Hard to think of an issue that can turn off the professional class quicker than depriving their kids of an education.