FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I find it interesting that there is one tiny street in Franklin Farm (Ashvale) that is its own school planning area. This is the one street zoned to Crossfield that goes to Franklin & Chantilly, too. What's up with that street?

SPA 3521 ? County has 27 residences on Ashvale. That street is split between Lees Corner and Crossfield! Maybe houses were built at different times?
I don't remember exactly, but I think one section may be part of Franklin Farm and the other is not and was built later. It is just as odd if you drive there as it looks on the map. It looks like one neighborhood.

I have no idea how it happened. Lee's Corner is much closer than Crossfield--but Crossfield is closer to other parts of Franklin Farm. The part of Franklin Farm on the other side of FFXCounty Pkwy goes to Oak Hill Elementary.

Are the SPA maps available online somewhere? Haven't been able to locate

DP. As far as I'm aware the SPA maps aren't generally available, but FCPS has posted maps of the SPAs relevant to the current Coates and Parklawn boundary studies. I'd expect them to post similar maps later when the larger county-wide changes are proposed.

Were you looking for maps that included the SPAs for the schools within the scope of the Coates and Parklawn studies, or the SPAs generally?

More generally. They clearly have and use the shapefiles available internally, would be fairly trivial to export a version stripped of any sensitive data, maybe just include some basic data per SPA like the total student yield per level (ES/MS/HS). Can always do the "less than X" thing for areas with small numbers if there are privacy concerns which is a standard practice. I assume by grade level would be too granular. Ideally publish annually and with recent history attached so we can see which SPAs are trending up/down in terms of student yield.

Got it. As I said, I don't think they make that publicly available. The only SPAs I'm aware of are those on maps released in connection with the Coates, Parklawn, and Kent Gardens studies, so that just covers a few areas and indicates the current or then-current enrollments in those particular SPAs at the time of the study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they asked teachers for input at all?
Personally, I was extremely happy with K-6. My kids had great sixth grade teachers who did a terrific job preparing them for middle school. I guess fifth grade teachers could do the same, but I like it like it is.

I went to Junior High School in another state: 7, 8, and 9. I guess that could solve some high school overcrowding, but I don't recommend it.

I like it like it is. Sixth graders are neither fish nor fowl: children or teens. It varies from one day to the next. send them to middle school, and I'm pretty sure they will be teens every day.

The school district I grew up in was K-6, 7-9, and 10-12. They’re now transitioning to K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 because the student population has declined to the point that the HS can absorb the capacity. I wish FCPS would put the idea of 6-8 middle school on ice until they have the MS capacity to support it.

Honestly that's just a way of saying never. If they want the MS capacity to support it, they're going to need to create it. Near-term projections for enrollments are flat or slightly down, but in the longer-term projected to grow. If they don't actively create additional MS capacity then they can never shift to a 6-8 model.

Then they should invest in expanding MSs before they start spitballing the idea during a comprehensive boundary review. They’re expanding high schools by 100s of seats with every renovation, but the middle school capacity remains flat. Remember, the goal isn’t just to put 6th grade into middle school, they also want to make room for universal Pre-K in the elementary schools, so it’s not like they’ll have a bunch of freed up ES seats to consolidate and convert any of those schools to a MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they asked teachers for input at all?
Personally, I was extremely happy with K-6. My kids had great sixth grade teachers who did a terrific job preparing them for middle school. I guess fifth grade teachers could do the same, but I like it like it is.

I went to Junior High School in another state: 7, 8, and 9. I guess that could solve some high school overcrowding, but I don't recommend it.

I like it like it is. Sixth graders are neither fish nor fowl: children or teens. It varies from one day to the next. send them to middle school, and I'm pretty sure they will be teens every day.

The school district I grew up in was K-6, 7-9, and 10-12. They’re now transitioning to K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 because the student population has declined to the point that the HS can absorb the capacity. I wish FCPS would put the idea of 6-8 middle school on ice until they have the MS capacity to support it.

Honestly that's just a way of saying never. If they want the MS capacity to support it, they're going to need to create it. Near-term projections for enrollments are flat or slightly down, but in the longer-term projected to grow. If they don't actively create additional MS capacity then they can never shift to a 6-8 model.

Then they should invest in expanding MSs before they start spitballing the idea during a comprehensive boundary review. They’re expanding high schools by 100s of seats with every renovation, but the middle school capacity remains flat. Remember, the goal isn’t just to put 6th grade into middle school, they also want to make room for universal Pre-K in the elementary schools, so it’s not like they’ll have a bunch of freed up ES seats to consolidate and convert any of those schools to a MS.

Bingo, but these people can only hold one thought in their mind at a time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “leaked” map creates even more high school attendance islands. Moving Waples Mill severs Oakton’s boundaries to Crossfield/Navy and Oakview to Robinson cuts off Woodson from Fairfax Villa. Also, why move Fairhill from newly expanded Falls Church HS (which also would be an attendance island to Fairfax HS?)

They’d need to drastically shift elementary school boundaries for any of this to make sense.

Hunt Valley is the farthest WSHS school from Lewis.

This leaked map just does not make sense.

It's also the farthest from WSHS.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “leaked” map creates even more high school attendance islands. Moving Waples Mill severs Oakton’s boundaries to Crossfield/Navy and Oakview to Robinson cuts off Woodson from Fairfax Villa. Also, why move Fairhill from newly expanded Falls Church HS (which also would be an attendance island to Fairfax HS?)

They’d need to drastically shift elementary school boundaries for any of this to make sense.

Hunt Valley is the farthest WSHS school from Lewis.

This leaked map just does not make sense.

It's also the farthest from WSHS.....

It's a lot closer to WSHS and South County HS than it is to Lewis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “leaked” map creates even more high school attendance islands. Moving Waples Mill severs Oakton’s boundaries to Crossfield/Navy and Oakview to Robinson cuts off Woodson from Fairfax Villa. Also, why move Fairhill from newly expanded Falls Church HS (which also would be an attendance island to Fairfax HS?)

They’d need to drastically shift elementary school boundaries for any of this to make sense.

Hunt Valley is the farthest WSHS school from Lewis.

This leaked map just does not make sense.

It's also the farthest from WSHS.....

It doesn't make sense to me either, but if they are really looking to move a whole elementary school out of WSHS, Hunt Valley is the only option. I think there are better ways to alleviate the "crowding" (which I'm not fully convinced of) at WSHS, but nonetheless, if a whole elementary is gonna go, it's gonna be HV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “leaked” map creates even more high school attendance islands. Moving Waples Mill severs Oakton’s boundaries to Crossfield/Navy and Oakview to Robinson cuts off Woodson from Fairfax Villa. Also, why move Fairhill from newly expanded Falls Church HS (which also would be an attendance island to Fairfax HS?)

They’d need to drastically shift elementary school boundaries for any of this to make sense.

Hunt Valley is the farthest WSHS school from Lewis.

This leaked map just does not make sense.

It's also the farthest from WSHS.....

It doesn't make sense to me either, but if they are really looking to move a whole elementary school out of WSHS, Hunt Valley is the only option. I think there are better ways to alleviate the "crowding" (which I'm not fully convinced of) at WSHS, but nonetheless, if a whole elementary is gonna go, it's gonna be HV.

Move Bren Mar Park out of Twain/Holmes/Edison to Key/Lewis (it probably fits better at Annandale, but I believe they are already at capacity). This frees up space at Edison to account for the new neighborhoods they plan to build where the government center currently is located on Franconia and where the old Top Golf used to be. This doesn’t have to be done immediately since those projects haven’t broken ground yet, but it could easily happen when those projects get started.

Move some of the Hunt Valley neighborhoods south of the parkway to Newington Forest and South County. Put LLIV in at HV and Orange Hunt, and then send all of Sangster neighborhood to Lake Braddock, and the Keene Mill attendance island to White Oaks/Lake Braddock. Sangster would have to stay the AAP center for HV/OH, but with LLIV, fewer kids from outside the pyramid would elect to go there. Some rebalancing might have to occur in the elementaries in West Springfield after all this to balance out the capacities at the schools and make sure no one is too crowded, but they could all stay at WSHS, which is the closest school for the vast majority of West Springfield. And it gets some kids out of WSHS. I’m not buying that WSHS is bursting at the seams right now, but apparently the board is concerned about it.

[Anonymous]

A 6-8 model is the last thing I want for my kids. K-6 works just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A 6-8 model is the last thing I want for my kids. K-6 works just fine.

Seems a tad melodramatic... there are pros/cons either way, it being "the last thing" you want for your kids sounds like a pretty "1st world problem" type of perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 6-8 model is the last thing I want for my kids. K-6 works just fine.

Seems a tad melodramatic... there are pros/cons either way, it being "the last thing" you want for your kids sounds like a pretty "1st world problem" type of perspective.

DP. I agree with PP when you consider how disruptive it would be to convert to 6-8 schools throughout the entire county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 6-8 model is the last thing I want for my kids. K-6 works just fine.

Seems a tad melodramatic... there are pros/cons either way, it being "the last thing" you want for your kids sounds like a pretty "1st world problem" type of perspective.

DP. I agree with PP when you consider how disruptive it would be to convert to 6-8 schools throughout the entire county.

There's clearly a logistical problem that they'd need to figure out in terms of creating sufficient MS capacity to support the change, but that's a facilities issue. Once they have a plan for that, they can execute it. If you're referring to the fact that they might need to convert a small number of ES into MS, yes, and that would be more disruptive for any family with ES-aged students at the time of the change. But that's not a valid argument, that's just saying "we can't EVER change ANYTHING because some families might be inconvenienced if we do". That's the same argument as saying we should stay forever married to outdated boundaries that haven't adequately been adjusted as the county and its population has developed over a period of decades. It holds no water.

In terms of our kids, it's no more "disruptive" to shift from ES to MS in 7th than it is in 6th. It's a one-time change that every student needs to make at some point. Changing school start times. would also be "disruptive" and clearly the benefit and health of our kids. Sometimes we need to deal with a bit of disruption to change things for the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 6-8 model is the last thing I want for my kids. K-6 works just fine.

Seems a tad melodramatic... there are pros/cons either way, it being "the last thing" you want for your kids sounds like a pretty "1st world problem" type of perspective.

DP. I agree with PP when you consider how disruptive it would be to convert to 6-8 schools throughout the entire county.

There's clearly a logistical problem that they'd need to figure out in terms of creating sufficient MS capacity to support the change, but that's a facilities issue. Once they have a plan for that, they can execute it. If you're referring to the fact that they might need to convert a small number of ES into MS, yes, and that would be more disruptive for any family with ES-aged students at the time of the change. But that's not a valid argument, that's just saying "we can't EVER change ANYTHING because some families might be inconvenienced if we do". That's the same argument as saying we should stay forever married to outdated boundaries that haven't adequately been adjusted as the county and its population has developed over a period of decades. It holds no water.

In terms of our kids, it's no more "disruptive" to shift from ES to MS in 7th than it is in 6th. It's a one-time change that every student needs to make at some point. Changing school start times. would also be "disruptive" and clearly the benefit and health of our kids. Sometimes we need to deal with a bit of disruption to change things for the better.

Too bad most of these things aren’t changing anything for the better, but please do go on. You’re truly inspiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 6-8 model is the last thing I want for my kids. K-6 works just fine.

Seems a tad melodramatic... there are pros/cons either way, it being "the last thing" you want for your kids sounds like a pretty "1st world problem" type of perspective.

DP. I agree with PP when you consider how disruptive it would be to convert to 6-8 schools throughout the entire county.

There's clearly a logistical problem that they'd need to figure out in terms of creating sufficient MS capacity to support the change, but that's a facilities issue. Once they have a plan for that, they can execute it. If you're referring to the fact that they might need to convert a small number of ES into MS, yes, and that would be more disruptive for any family with ES-aged students at the time of the change. But that's not a valid argument, that's just saying "we can't EVER change ANYTHING because some families might be inconvenienced if we do". That's the same argument as saying we should stay forever married to outdated boundaries that haven't adequately been adjusted as the county and its population has developed over a period of decades. It holds no water.

In terms of our kids, it's no more "disruptive" to shift from ES to MS in 7th than it is in 6th. It's a one-time change that every student needs to make at some point. Changing school start times. would also be "disruptive" and clearly the benefit and health of our kids. Sometimes we need to deal with a bit of disruption to change things for the better.

Too bad most of these things aren’t changing anything for the better, but please do go on. You’re truly inspiring.

Plus one. Her view is that our kids are a resource for the school board. Nothing more.

She’s repugnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I find it interesting that there is one tiny street in Franklin Farm (Ashvale) that is its own school planning area. This is the one street zoned to Crossfield that goes to Franklin & Chantilly, too. What's up with that street?

SPA 3521 ? County has 27 residences on Ashvale. That street is split between Lees Corner and Crossfield! Maybe houses were built at different times?
I don't remember exactly, but I think one section may be part of Franklin Farm and the other is not and was built later. It is just as odd if you drive there as it looks on the map. It looks like one neighborhood.

I have no idea how it happened. Lee's Corner is much closer than Crossfield--but Crossfield is closer to other parts of Franklin Farm. The part of Franklin Farm on the other side of FFXCounty Pkwy goes to Oak Hill Elementary.

Are the SPA maps available online somewhere? Haven't been able to locate

DP. As far as I'm aware the SPA maps aren't generally available, but FCPS has posted maps of the SPAs relevant to the current Coates and Parklawn boundary studies. I'd expect them to post similar maps later when the larger county-wide changes are proposed.

Were you looking for maps that included the SPAs for the schools within the scope of the Coates and Parklawn studies, or the SPAs generally?

More generally. They clearly have and use the shapefiles available internally, would be fairly trivial to export a version stripped of any sensitive data, maybe just include some basic data per SPA like the total student yield per level (ES/MS/HS). Can always do the "less than X" thing for areas with small numbers if there are privacy concerns which is a standard practice. I assume by grade level would be too granular. Ideally publish annually and with recent history attached so we can see which SPAs are trending up/down in terms of student yield.

Grade 7 and 8 intermediate schools are ideal from a learning and social development perspective. They also keep the size of the middle schools down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “leaked” map creates even more high school attendance islands. Moving Waples Mill severs Oakton’s boundaries to Crossfield/Navy and Oakview to Robinson cuts off Woodson from Fairfax Villa. Also, why move Fairhill from newly expanded Falls Church HS (which also would be an attendance island to Fairfax HS?)

They’d need to drastically shift elementary school boundaries for any of this to make sense.

Hunt Valley is the farthest WSHS school from Lewis.

This leaked map just does not make sense.

It's also the farthest from WSHS.....

Most of it is actually closer to WSHS than Daventry and a lot of Keene Mill