FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the behavior of the Langley parents tonight at the SB meeting virtually guarantee that much of Great Falls will get moved to Herndon? It seemed very antagonistic.

Are you suggesting the board will make decisions based on something other than data and educational excellence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the behavior of the Langley parents tonight at the SB meeting virtually guarantee that much of Great Falls will get moved to Herndon? It seemed very antagonistic.

That is already predetermined based on the transportation criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best nugget of info out of this meeting (because boundary adjustments are a foregone conclusion) is from Dr. Reid's response to Mateo Dunne's question about boundary changes: she stated that HS boundaries will not change much at all, and most of the boundary changes will be at the ES level.

That’s interesting, I wonder why they decided to do that. Most kids attend the closest ES unless they’re at a split feeder or in an attendance island. The kids who have a long ES bus ride would have one regardless because they live in a far-flung area like Clifton or Great Falls. Or they’re getting bussed to the AAP center …

This is false. Anyone with eyes can look at a map of the school boundaries to see lots of elementary schools completely disconnected from their communities.

Such as??

Westbriar, Keene Mill, Flint Hill, Sangster, etc.

The one no-brainer move coming from a savant who spends too much time on Zillow and has no dog in the fight, the Groveland/Green Garland drive area zoned for Sangster will move to Newington Forest and will become part of the South County pyramid.

I can see that happening, although that’s a really small neighborhood that probably won’t make too much of a difference either way.

As a Lorton resident I wonder if the infamous Hagel Circle will continue to get bussed past 95 to Halley or if they will get sent to the much closer Gunston. That’s a hot potato.

I was shocked to learn that Hagel Ct students didn’t go to Lorton Station ES. It’s only a mile away!

That’s one of the equity bussing situations. Sending those kids to the comparatively rich Halley makes Halley and Gunston both around 40% FARMS, and Lorton Station around 55%. Otherwise Halley would have demographics similar to Silverbrook which has single digit FARMS, and Gunston or Lorton Station would be much higher needs.

I imagine if they changed it it would be to send those kids to Gunston so they can stay at South County, as opposed to Lorton Station/Hayfield. But also, without that big neighborhood Halley’s population would drop quite a bit and there’s really nowhere for them to pick up kids from since that is not a growth area of the county.

[Anonymous]

So what is their plan with the elementary schools? Get rid of attendance islands?

[Anonymous]

What is an attendance island?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is an attendance island?

An area assigned to a school that is detached from the contiguous area that includes the school. To get to a school from an attendance island you go through one or more areas assigned to other schools.

A few high/secondary schools have attendance islands, but there are far more at the ES level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is an attendance island?

School that don’t have continuous boundaries. McLean high school is the easiest one to spot on a map, but there are several elementary schools that have them too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parts of they are possibly throwing out and not including in the policy vote tonight? Or is this a done deal vote?

Might be a few who abstain or oppose but hard to see it not getting a majority of votes.

Anderson traded away her concerns for the Glasgow deal and there were no other comments or proposed changes. It's over.

Actually, just checked the agenda and it looks like Anderson and Meren are proposing amendments, including grandfathering in 10th-12th grade. That is a big change and this could get interesting.

You can’t grandfather that much and achieve the purpose of a 5 year cyclical review. And what about transportation? Makes no sense.

Right- so it was an opening bid. The will give lip service to grandfathering (what Mc Daniel and Sizemore just did) and then pass it.

It would be the ultimate bait-and-switch to pass an amendment that speaks to phasing in boundary changes "where feasible," and then declare later it's not feasible because the bus fleet can't handle it. They really need to be honest about how they see this being implemented in practice.

I think they already did the ultimate bait and switch: getting elected whilst staying quiet about boundaries and then going nuclear on the boundaries, so sadly, I see this is a possibility for this board.

They are just continuing the work of the last board and the board before that. Boundary policy is only one if the things they work on.

It’s your dumb asz fault for voting in Democrats when they have been on this since 2018.

The good news is, at least there are no more mean Republicans on the board.

Maybe if all you genius Republicans had brought up the fact the Dems were planning to do this, you might have won a few seats.

Why would a democrat listen to anything a republican has to say about any democrat?
The county is mostly highly educated, highly intelligent dem voters. We like democrat policies and that’s why we vote for democrats.
Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Halfway through the school board members speaking, I am officially switching my party from Democrat to Republican. Smug Sandy Anderson was the final nail in the coffin, but to be fair, I was already heading that way after the board started down this path.

Let’s go vouchers!

Good idea.

In the meantime get that private school tuition money ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Halfway through the school board members speaking, I am officially switching my party from Democrat to Republican. Smug Sandy Anderson was the final nail in the coffin, but to be fair, I was already heading that way after the board started down this path.

Let’s go vouchers!

Good idea.

In the meantime get that private school tuition money ready.

Already lined up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is an attendance island?

School that don’t have continuous boundaries. McLean high school is the easiest one to spot on a map, but there are several elementary schools that have them too.

I guess I’m just confused by the comment that high schools will change very little and that this will mostly impact elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best nugget of info out of this meeting (because boundary adjustments are a foregone conclusion) is from Dr. Reid's response to Mateo Dunne's question about boundary changes: she stated that HS boundaries will not change much at all, and most of the boundary changes will be at the ES level.

That was a prediction, not a promise, but what it means is that ES boundaries could change dramatically whereas at the MS or HS level you might see an individual feeder or two reassigned to a different school.

It was a prediction from the person who is in charge of redistricting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you Dr. Anderson!!!!!! Preach.

You know, this comment would be a lot more meaningful if anyone knew what you were referring to.

Dr. Anderson gave a very passionate speech in favor of grandfathering, pushing back on the other members.

Did the amendment ultimately pass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best nugget of info out of this meeting (because boundary adjustments are a foregone conclusion) is from Dr. Reid's response to Mateo Dunne's question about boundary changes: she stated that HS boundaries will not change much at all, and most of the boundary changes will be at the ES level.

That’s interesting, I wonder why they decided to do that. Most kids attend the closest ES unless they’re at a split feeder or in an attendance island. The kids who have a long ES bus ride would have one regardless because they live in a far-flung area like Clifton or Great Falls. Or they’re getting bussed to the AAP center …

This is false. Anyone with eyes can look at a map of the school boundaries to see lots of elementary schools completely disconnected from their communities.

Our ES is one of those - I hope they change our boundaries for the sake of the younger kids in our neighborhood. Ours will be gone in two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best nugget of info out of this meeting (because boundary adjustments are a foregone conclusion) is from Dr. Reid's response to Mateo Dunne's question about boundary changes: she stated that HS boundaries will not change much at all, and most of the boundary changes will be at the ES level.

That’s interesting, I wonder why they decided to do that. Most kids attend the closest ES unless they’re at a split feeder or in an attendance island. The kids who have a long ES bus ride would have one regardless because they live in a far-flung area like Clifton or Great Falls. Or they’re getting bussed to the AAP center …

This is false. Anyone with eyes can look at a map of the school boundaries to see lots of elementary schools completely disconnected from their communities.

Our ES is one of those - I hope they change our boundaries for the sake of the younger kids in our neighborhood. Ours will be gone in two years.

What school to what school?