FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we all calm down and stop speculating until we see what is actually being planned.

Because the discussion around the new boundary policy has made it clear that they are not going to take community opinion or involvement seriously. Once they come out with their "suggestion" I feel like it will be a done deal no matter what anyone in the community says. This feels like the chance to influence - while they are making decisions and deals behind closed doors.

This is correct. Anyone who was here in 2008 remembers what happened.

[Anonymous]

People, people, people, this is just a shell game. There was so much pushback against the real goal, SBG, that they needed a diversion. What gets everyone fired up, boundary discussions. Let’s pause SBG and start talking about boundaries. We will pause SBG for a year then implement county wide next year while everyone is focused on the boundary wars.

Those folks at Gatehouse are devious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People, people, people, this is just a shell game. There was so much pushback against the real goal, SBG, that they needed a diversion. What gets everyone fired up, boundary discussions. Let’s pause SBG and start talking about boundaries. We will pause SBG for a year then implement county wide next year while everyone is focused on the boundary wars.

Those folks at Gatehouse are devious.

Ha, well, this would be one hell of a diversion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we all calm down and stop speculating until we see what is actually being planned.

Because the discussion around the new boundary policy has made it clear that they are not going to take community opinion or involvement seriously. Once they come out with their "suggestion" I feel like it will be a done deal no matter what anyone in the community says. This feels like the chance to influence - while they are making decisions and deals behind closed doors.

This is correct. Anyone who was here in 2008 remembers what happened.

+1

Better to just accept and prepare your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we all calm down and stop speculating until we see what is actually being planned.

Because the discussion around the new boundary policy has made it clear that they are not going to take community opinion or involvement seriously. Once they come out with their "suggestion" I feel like it will be a done deal no matter what anyone in the community says. This feels like the chance to influence - while they are making decisions and deals behind closed doors.

This is correct. Anyone who was here in 2008 remembers what happened.

+1

Better to just accept and prepare your kids.

Yep, if I were west of Springvale Road in Great Falls, I wouldn't be whining here or on FB, or and showing up at SB meetings with signs. I'd be looking into privates or moving closer to a school I wanted my kids to attend. They were always playing with fire by living so far from Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we all calm down and stop speculating until we see what is actually being planned.

Because the discussion around the new boundary policy has made it clear that they are not going to take community opinion or involvement seriously. Once they come out with their "suggestion" I feel like it will be a done deal no matter what anyone in the community says. This feels like the chance to influence - while they are making decisions and deals behind closed doors.

This is correct. Anyone who was here in 2008 remembers what happened.

+1

Better to just accept and prepare your kids.

Yep, if I were west of Springvale Road in Great Falls, I wouldn't be whining here or on FB, or and showing up at SB meetings with signs. I'd be looking into privates or moving closer to a school I wanted my kids to attend. They were always playing with fire by living so far from Langley.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we all calm down and stop speculating until we see what is actually being planned.

It seems pretty clear what they are going to do imo. Look at the recent redistricting of the magistrate map.

They are going to break WSES 80/20 and RVES 80/20. The 20% of WSES closes to Irving MS are added to The 80% of RVES that stays in the WSHS pyramid. This meets the proximity and busing criteria in the new policy. The 20% of RVES that already goes to Key/Lewis are added to the 80% of WSES that is closest to Key/Lewis and added to Lewis pyramid. This is exactly what they did to the electoral map. And would have almost no political blow back because the upset families would not be in the Springfield District and the Franconia District would welcome the change and overwhelm the voices of the upset families (as we have seen on these boards).

Open question re whether they also move the HV neighborhood south of the parkway to Newington/SoCo. Or move the western KMES split feed to the LBHS pyramid. But maybe? Doing so frees up capacity between OHES and HVES to shuffle the overcrowding at those schools and/or capacity at KM to address overcrowding at CFES. But this is all in the Springfield district, so political consequences are possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we all calm down and stop speculating until we see what is actually being planned.

It seems pretty clear what they are going to do imo. Look at the recent redistricting of the magistrate map.

They are going to break WSES 80/20 and RVES 80/20. The 20% of WSES closes to Irving MS are added to The 80% of RVES that stays in the WSHS pyramid. This meets the proximity and busing criteria in the new policy. The 20% of RVES that already goes to Key/Lewis are added to the 80% of WSES that is closest to Key/Lewis and added to Lewis pyramid. This is exactly what they did to the electoral map. And would have almost no political blow back because the upset families would not be in the Springfield District and the Franconia District would welcome the change and overwhelm the voices of the upset families (as we have seen on these boards).

Open question re whether they also move the HV neighborhood south of the parkway to Newington/SoCo. Or move the western KMES split feed to the LBHS pyramid. But maybe? Doing so frees up capacity between OHES and HVES to shuffle the overcrowding at those schools and/or capacity at KM to address overcrowding at CFES. But this is all in the Springfield district, so political consequences are possible.

So you think they'll ignore all their talk about eliminating split feeders and prioritize the "over-crowding" (which most of us think is BS) at WSHS? I think you're probably right, but I'm not happy about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we all calm down and stop speculating until we see what is actually being planned.

It seems pretty clear what they are going to do imo. Look at the recent redistricting of the magistrate map.

They are going to break WSES 80/20 and RVES 80/20. The 20% of WSES closes to Irving MS are added to The 80% of RVES that stays in the WSHS pyramid. This meets the proximity and busing criteria in the new policy. The 20% of RVES that already goes to Key/Lewis are added to the 80% of WSES that is closest to Key/Lewis and added to Lewis pyramid. This is exactly what they did to the electoral map. And would have almost no political blow back because the upset families would not be in the Springfield District and the Franconia District would welcome the change and overwhelm the voices of the upset families (as we have seen on these boards).

Open question re whether they also move the HV neighborhood south of the parkway to Newington/SoCo. Or move the western KMES split feed to the LBHS pyramid. But maybe? Doing so frees up capacity between OHES and HVES to shuffle the overcrowding at those schools and/or capacity at KM to address overcrowding at CFES. But this is all in the Springfield district, so political consequences are possible.

So you think they'll ignore all their talk about eliminating split feeders and prioritize the "over-crowding" (which most of us think is BS) at WSHS? I think you're probably right, but I'm not happy about it.

What I outlined above would eliminate all the split feeders except Sangster, I think. Maybe they do that too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we all calm down and stop speculating until we see what is actually being planned.

It seems pretty clear what they are going to do imo. Look at the recent redistricting of the magistrate map.

They are going to break WSES 80/20 and RVES 80/20. The 20% of WSES closes to Irving MS are added to The 80% of RVES that stays in the WSHS pyramid. This meets the proximity and busing criteria in the new policy. The 20% of RVES that already goes to Key/Lewis are added to the 80% of WSES that is closest to Key/Lewis and added to Lewis pyramid. This is exactly what they did to the electoral map. And would have almost no political blow back because the upset families would not be in the Springfield District and the Franconia District would welcome the change and overwhelm the voices of the upset families (as we have seen on these boards).

Open question re whether they also move the HV neighborhood south of the parkway to Newington/SoCo. Or move the western KMES split feed to the LBHS pyramid. But maybe? Doing so frees up capacity between OHES and HVES to shuffle the overcrowding at those schools and/or capacity at KM to address overcrowding at CFES. But this is all in the Springfield district, so political consequences are possible.

So you think they'll ignore all their talk about eliminating split feeders and prioritize the "over-crowding" (which most of us think is BS) at WSHS? I think you're probably right, but I'm not happy about it.

What I outlined above would eliminate all the split feeders except Sangster, I think. Maybe they do that too?

Maybe I don’t get what you mean about RVES and WSES. I read that as keeping rolling valley as a split feeder and making WSES a split feeder by having Daventry go to key/lewis after WSES. Did you mean something different?

I think it makes more sense to free up even more space at Rolling valley by moving the kids who already go to key/lewis to Saratoga and use the space at rolling valley for Cardinal forest or orange hunt kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to really fix under performing schools is to pool them with a much larger population. Like pooling the entire populations of Lewis SoCo and WS. Something like that. Moving 350 kids will do nothing.

The pro rezoning posts just keep getting crazier and crazier.

It’s not pro or anti rezoning. It’s naked realism. One of these is true:

1) FCPS’s projections on student enrollment by SY 2028-2029 are true. In that case, WSHS will be at 117% whereas South County will be at 86, Lewis will be at 74, Mount Vernon will be at 67, Annandale will be at 84. What’s the point of keeping all of these buildings which are all under capacity in the same region? And these aren’t small affluent schools either.

2) FCPS’s projections on student enrollment are wrong in which case WSHS will likely continue at their current enrollment, more or less, of 110%. Probably less, as student enrollment everywhere remains lower after COVID. However, even the 110% figure does not match with the “boots on the ground” observations of empty classrooms at WSHS.

The school board projections for WSHS are grossly inflated based on the actual enrollment of WSHS, Irving, and the feeder elementary schools.

Class of 2028 is smaller than the class of 2024 that just graduated.

Class of 2029 is smaller than the rising seniors, class of 2025.

Class of 2030 is significantly smaller than the 720 plus class of 2026.

WSHS will slowly shrink over the next 2 graduating classes, and drop by perhaps 100 students or more when class of 2026 graduates.

There is no hard data that backs the school board's estimated projections of WSHS growing by hundreds of students to almost 3000 students over the next 2 years.

You have no hard data on the WSHS class of 2028 or later classes. You can make assumptions, just like FCPS, but until we see the fall enrollment numbers we won’t actually know the size of the class.

Well, you can.

The irving classes are all around 100 fewer students than the graduating high school classes they are replacing.

WSHS never gains 100 or more kids in a year between 8th and 9th. It is usually around 30 students max.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to really fix under performing schools is to pool them with a much larger population. Like pooling the entire populations of Lewis SoCo and WS. Something like that. Moving 350 kids will do nothing.

The pro rezoning posts just keep getting crazier and crazier.

It’s not pro or anti rezoning. It’s naked realism. One of these is true:

1) FCPS’s projections on student enrollment by SY 2028-2029 are true. In that case, WSHS will be at 117% whereas South County will be at 86, Lewis will be at 74, Mount Vernon will be at 67, Annandale will be at 84. What’s the point of keeping all of these buildings which are all under capacity in the same region? And these aren’t small affluent schools either.

2) FCPS’s projections on student enrollment are wrong in which case WSHS will likely continue at their current enrollment, more or less, of 110%. Probably less, as student enrollment everywhere remains lower after COVID. However, even the 110% figure does not match with the “boots on the ground” observations of empty classrooms at WSHS.

The school board projections for WSHS are grossly inflated based on the actual enrollment of WSHS, Irving, and the feeder elementary schools.

Class of 2028 is smaller than the class of 2024 that just graduated.

Class of 2029 is smaller than the rising seniors, class of 2025.

Class of 2030 is significantly smaller than the 720 plus class of 2026.

WSHS will slowly shrink over the next 2 graduating classes, and drop by perhaps 100 students or more when class of 2026 graduates.

There is no hard data that backs the school board's estimated projections of WSHS growing by hundreds of students to almost 3000 students over the next 2 years.

You have no hard data on the WSHS class of 2028 or later classes. You can make assumptions, just like FCPS, but until we see the fall enrollment numbers we won’t actually know the size of the class.

Well, you can.

The irving classes are all around 100 fewer students than the graduating high school classes they are replacing.

WSHS never gains 100 or more kids in a year between 8th and 9th. It is usually around 30 students max.

This past year there were 90 more freshmen at WS than there had been in 8th grade at Irving the prior year. And Irving had about 625 7th grade kids this past year so it points to sustained large enrollments at WS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to really fix under performing schools is to pool them with a much larger population. Like pooling the entire populations of Lewis SoCo and WS. Something like that. Moving 350 kids will do nothing.

The pro rezoning posts just keep getting crazier and crazier.

It’s not pro or anti rezoning. It’s naked realism. One of these is true:

1) FCPS’s projections on student enrollment by SY 2028-2029 are true. In that case, WSHS will be at 117% whereas South County will be at 86, Lewis will be at 74, Mount Vernon will be at 67, Annandale will be at 84. What’s the point of keeping all of these buildings which are all under capacity in the same region? And these aren’t small affluent schools either.

2) FCPS’s projections on student enrollment are wrong in which case WSHS will likely continue at their current enrollment, more or less, of 110%. Probably less, as student enrollment everywhere remains lower after COVID. However, even the 110% figure does not match with the “boots on the ground” observations of empty classrooms at WSHS.

The school board projections for WSHS are grossly inflated based on the actual enrollment of WSHS, Irving, and the feeder elementary schools.

Class of 2028 is smaller than the class of 2024 that just graduated.

Class of 2029 is smaller than the rising seniors, class of 2025.

Class of 2030 is significantly smaller than the 720 plus class of 2026.

WSHS will slowly shrink over the next 2 graduating classes, and drop by perhaps 100 students or more when class of 2026 graduates.

There is no hard data that backs the school board's estimated projections of WSHS growing by hundreds of students to almost 3000 students over the next 2 years.

You have no hard data on the WSHS class of 2028 or later classes. You can make assumptions, just like FCPS, but until we see the fall enrollment numbers we won’t actually know the size of the class.

Well, you can.

The irving classes are all around 100 fewer students than the graduating high school classes they are replacing.

WSHS never gains 100 or more kids in a year between 8th and 9th. It is usually around 30 students max.

This past year there were 90 more freshmen at WS than there had been in 8th grade at Irving the prior year. And Irving had about 625 7th grade kids this past year so it points to sustained large enrollments at WS.

625 kids is smaller than the class they are replacing. 625 represents a shrinking enrollment.

Also, FCPS has not released the 2023-2024 school year enrollment numbers yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to really fix under performing schools is to pool them with a much larger population. Like pooling the entire populations of Lewis SoCo and WS. Something like that. Moving 350 kids will do nothing.

The pro rezoning posts just keep getting crazier and crazier.

It’s not pro or anti rezoning. It’s naked realism. One of these is true:

1) FCPS’s projections on student enrollment by SY 2028-2029 are true. In that case, WSHS will be at 117% whereas South County will be at 86, Lewis will be at 74, Mount Vernon will be at 67, Annandale will be at 84. What’s the point of keeping all of these buildings which are all under capacity in the same region? And these aren’t small affluent schools either.

2) FCPS’s projections on student enrollment are wrong in which case WSHS will likely continue at their current enrollment, more or less, of 110%. Probably less, as student enrollment everywhere remains lower after COVID. However, even the 110% figure does not match with the “boots on the ground” observations of empty classrooms at WSHS.

The school board projections for WSHS are grossly inflated based on the actual enrollment of WSHS, Irving, and the feeder elementary schools.

Class of 2028 is smaller than the class of 2024 that just graduated.

Class of 2029 is smaller than the rising seniors, class of 2025.

Class of 2030 is significantly smaller than the 720 plus class of 2026.

WSHS will slowly shrink over the next 2 graduating classes, and drop by perhaps 100 students or more when class of 2026 graduates.

There is no hard data that backs the school board's estimated projections of WSHS growing by hundreds of students to almost 3000 students over the next 2 years.

You have no hard data on the WSHS class of 2028 or later classes. You can make assumptions, just like FCPS, but until we see the fall enrollment numbers we won’t actually know the size of the class.

Well, you can.

The irving classes are all around 100 fewer students than the graduating high school classes they are replacing.

WSHS never gains 100 or more kids in a year between 8th and 9th. It is usually around 30 students max.

This past year there were 90 more freshmen at WS than there had been in 8th grade at Irving the prior year. And Irving had about 625 7th grade kids this past year so it points to sustained large enrollments at WS.

625 kids is smaller than the class they are replacing. 625 represents a shrinking enrollment.

Also, FCPS has not released the 2023-2024 school year enrollment numbers yet.

When do they usually release the past years enrollment numbers? Or will everything “freeze” mysteriously this year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we all calm down and stop speculating until we see what is actually being planned.

It seems pretty clear what they are going to do imo. Look at the recent redistricting of the magistrate map.

They are going to break WSES 80/20 and RVES 80/20. The 20% of WSES closes to Irving MS are added to The 80% of RVES that stays in the WSHS pyramid. This meets the proximity and busing criteria in the new policy. The 20% of RVES that already goes to Key/Lewis are added to the 80% of WSES that is closest to Key/Lewis and added to Lewis pyramid. This is exactly what they did to the electoral map. And would have almost no political blow back because the upset families would not be in the Springfield District and the Franconia District would welcome the change and overwhelm the voices of the upset families (as we have seen on these boards).

Open question re whether they also move the HV neighborhood south of the parkway to Newington/SoCo. Or move the western KMES split feed to the LBHS pyramid. But maybe? Doing so frees up capacity between OHES and HVES to shuffle the overcrowding at those schools and/or capacity at KM to address overcrowding at CFES. But this is all in the Springfield district, so political consequences are possible.

So you think they'll ignore all their talk about eliminating split feeders and prioritize the "over-crowding" (which most of us think is BS) at WSHS? I think you're probably right, but I'm not happy about it.

What I outlined above would eliminate all the split feeders except Sangster, I think. Maybe they do that too?

Maybe I don’t get what you mean about RVES and WSES. I read that as keeping rolling valley as a split feeder and making WSES a split feeder by having Daventry go to key/lewis after WSES. Did you mean something different?

I think it makes more sense to free up even more space at Rolling valley by moving the kids who already go to key/lewis to Saratoga and use the space at rolling valley for Cardinal forest or orange hunt kids.

Fair enough. I’m probably not being clear.

I think they will take the 20% of RVES that already attends Key/Lewis and add it to WSES. Then take the 20% of WSES that is walking distance to Irving MS and add it to RVES. Effectively swapping kids between WSES and RVES.

Then 100% of the new/adjusted WSES goes to Key/Lewis. And 100% of the new/adjusted RVES goes to Irving/WSHS.