Where should the county move the Kent Gardens kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they added haycock to the study.

Wondering if they will send an updated email

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they added haycock to the study.

Wondering if they will send an updated email

The next step is for the staff to develop options but they have updated the web page to reflect Haycock’s inclusion within the scope of the study.

https://www.fcps.edu/facilities-planning-future/kent-gardens-capacity

[Anonymous]

Why not just move them all to Westgate elementary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not just move them all to Westgate elementary?

Westgate wasn’t included in the boundary study because FCPS knows Westgate will be getting more kids from Tysons and Pimmit Hills (even if it’s not reflected yet in the official enrollment projections).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should include Haycock. Given that Haycock is almost at 100% they could adjust boundaries with Haycock/Chesterbrook. It just didn't get enough votes? This is beyond stupid. Do they have any professionals?

It wasn’t a matter of Board votes. Staff recommended keeping Haycock out of a boundary study, except with respect to possibly AAP assignments (so example they could make Haycock the AAP center option for KG and send Franklin Sherman AAP kids to Churchill Road instead).

The Board will vote on the scope of the boundary study next month. You can take it up with Elaine Tholen before then if you want. But the goal is to address overcrowding at KG, not the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundaries.

I know this and there's a huge chunk of students that live across Kirby that are zoned for KG instead of Haycock. If their objection to moving those kids out of KG is because Haycock might be closer to 100%, that's not OK. They can open the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundary in that case.

It does really seem to me that reasonable and rational boundaries weren't taken into consideration for the selection of schools. Parents voted for FS and Chesterbrook, bc they want their kids there. Do you see any other reasoning in the presentation for how staff selected schools to include? here's a link to the presentation: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/CT5UU77DB47B/$file/Kent%20Gardens%20ES%20School%20Board%20Scope%20Presentation.pdf

FS and Chesterbrook have more projected excess capacity than Haycock, Lemon Road, and Westgate. That’s clear from the presentation.

It certainly wouldn’t be crazy, though, to move part of KG near Kirby to Haycock, and part of Haycock to Chesterbrook.

Lemon Road and Westgate will have to handle more Tysons growth, especially Westgate, so moving KG kids there objectively seems like a bad idea.

Not saying it isn’t true, but the projections for lemon road and west gate do not match this narrative. Those schools are projected to have less demand on capacity over the next 5 years.

Yeah, they do. Five-year projections excluding modulars have Chesterbrook at 64% and FS at 82% vs 86% at each of Lemon Road and Westgate and 92% at Haycock. And the longer-term projections in the CIP still don’t factor in some of the Tysons growth that will feed into Westgate and to a lesser extent Lemon Road.

If you look again chesterbrook capacity include the disgusting trailers , lemon and Westgate don't have that so in theory Westgate and lemons road have a massive capacity potential

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should include Haycock. Given that Haycock is almost at 100% they could adjust boundaries with Haycock/Chesterbrook. It just didn't get enough votes? This is beyond stupid. Do they have any professionals?

It wasn’t a matter of Board votes. Staff recommended keeping Haycock out of a boundary study, except with respect to possibly AAP assignments (so example they could make Haycock the AAP center option for KG and send Franklin Sherman AAP kids to Churchill Road instead).

The Board will vote on the scope of the boundary study next month. You can take it up with Elaine Tholen before then if you want. But the goal is to address overcrowding at KG, not the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundaries.

I know this and there's a huge chunk of students that live across Kirby that are zoned for KG instead of Haycock. If their objection to moving those kids out of KG is because Haycock might be closer to 100%, that's not OK. They can open the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundary in that case.

It does really seem to me that reasonable and rational boundaries weren't taken into consideration for the selection of schools. Parents voted for FS and Chesterbrook, bc they want their kids there. Do you see any other reasoning in the presentation for how staff selected schools to include? here's a link to the presentation: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/CT5UU77DB47B/$file/Kent%20Gardens%20ES%20School%20Board%20Scope%20Presentation.pdf

FS and Chesterbrook have more projected excess capacity than Haycock, Lemon Road, and Westgate. That’s clear from the presentation.

It certainly wouldn’t be crazy, though, to move part of KG near Kirby to Haycock, and part of Haycock to Chesterbrook.

Lemon Road and Westgate will have to handle more Tysons growth, especially Westgate, so moving KG kids there objectively seems like a bad idea.

Not saying it isn’t true, but the projections for lemon road and west gate do not match this narrative. Those schools are projected to have less demand on capacity over the next 5 years.

Yeah, they do. Five-year projections excluding modulars have Chesterbrook at 64% and FS at 82% vs 86% at each of Lemon Road and Westgate and 92% at Haycock. And the longer-term projections in the CIP still don’t factor in some of the Tysons growth that will feed into Westgate and to a lesser extent Lemon Road.

If you look again chesterbrook capacity include the disgusting trailers , lemon and Westgate don't have that so in theory Westgate and lemons road have a massive capacity potential

No one is getting moved from Kent Gardens to Westgate or Lemon Road. That decision has now been made as they are not part of the boundary study.

Go whine somewhere else. I doubt anyone will have the least sympathy for someone implying Chesterbrook can't be part of the solution to the KG overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should include Haycock. Given that Haycock is almost at 100% they could adjust boundaries with Haycock/Chesterbrook. It just didn't get enough votes? This is beyond stupid. Do they have any professionals?

It wasn’t a matter of Board votes. Staff recommended keeping Haycock out of a boundary study, except with respect to possibly AAP assignments (so example they could make Haycock the AAP center option for KG and send Franklin Sherman AAP kids to Churchill Road instead).

The Board will vote on the scope of the boundary study next month. You can take it up with Elaine Tholen before then if you want. But the goal is to address overcrowding at KG, not the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundaries.

I know this and there's a huge chunk of students that live across Kirby that are zoned for KG instead of Haycock. If their objection to moving those kids out of KG is because Haycock might be closer to 100%, that's not OK. They can open the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundary in that case.

It does really seem to me that reasonable and rational boundaries weren't taken into consideration for the selection of schools. Parents voted for FS and Chesterbrook, bc they want their kids there. Do you see any other reasoning in the presentation for how staff selected schools to include? here's a link to the presentation: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/CT5UU77DB47B/$file/Kent%20Gardens%20ES%20School%20Board%20Scope%20Presentation.pdf

FS and Chesterbrook have more projected excess capacity than Haycock, Lemon Road, and Westgate. That’s clear from the presentation.

It certainly wouldn’t be crazy, though, to move part of KG near Kirby to Haycock, and part of Haycock to Chesterbrook.

Lemon Road and Westgate will have to handle more Tysons growth, especially Westgate, so moving KG kids there objectively seems like a bad idea.

Not saying it isn’t true, but the projections for lemon road and west gate do not match this narrative. Those schools are projected to have less demand on capacity over the next 5 years.

Yeah, they do. Five-year projections excluding modulars have Chesterbrook at 64% and FS at 82% vs 86% at each of Lemon Road and Westgate and 92% at Haycock. And the longer-term projections in the CIP still don’t factor in some of the Tysons growth that will feed into Westgate and to a lesser extent Lemon Road.

If you look again chesterbrook capacity include the disgusting trailers , lemon and Westgate don't have that so in theory Westgate and lemons road have a massive capacity potential

No one is getting moved from Kent Gardens to Westgate or Lemon Road. That decision has now been made as they are not part of the boundary study.

Go whine somewhere else. I doubt anyone will have the least sympathy for someone implying Chesterbrook can't be part of the solution to the KG overcrowding.

Yes, whine elsewhere. Kent Gardens students are mostly white / Asian; ie - extremely privileged. And the whole area is affluent/ filthy rich people.

That area is the last place FCPS should waste money on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should include Haycock. Given that Haycock is almost at 100% they could adjust boundaries with Haycock/Chesterbrook. It just didn't get enough votes? This is beyond stupid. Do they have any professionals?

It wasn’t a matter of Board votes. Staff recommended keeping Haycock out of a boundary study, except with respect to possibly AAP assignments (so example they could make Haycock the AAP center option for KG and send Franklin Sherman AAP kids to Churchill Road instead).

The Board will vote on the scope of the boundary study next month. You can take it up with Elaine Tholen before then if you want. But the goal is to address overcrowding at KG, not the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundaries.

I know this and there's a huge chunk of students that live across Kirby that are zoned for KG instead of Haycock. If their objection to moving those kids out of KG is because Haycock might be closer to 100%, that's not OK. They can open the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundary in that case.

It does really seem to me that reasonable and rational boundaries weren't taken into consideration for the selection of schools. Parents voted for FS and Chesterbrook, bc they want their kids there. Do you see any other reasoning in the presentation for how staff selected schools to include? here's a link to the presentation: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/CT5UU77DB47B/$file/Kent%20Gardens%20ES%20School%20Board%20Scope%20Presentation.pdf

FS and Chesterbrook have more projected excess capacity than Haycock, Lemon Road, and Westgate. That’s clear from the presentation.

It certainly wouldn’t be crazy, though, to move part of KG near Kirby to Haycock, and part of Haycock to Chesterbrook.

Lemon Road and Westgate will have to handle more Tysons growth, especially Westgate, so moving KG kids there objectively seems like a bad idea.

Not saying it isn’t true, but the projections for lemon road and west gate do not match this narrative. Those schools are projected to have less demand on capacity over the next 5 years.

Yeah, they do. Five-year projections excluding modulars have Chesterbrook at 64% and FS at 82% vs 86% at each of Lemon Road and Westgate and 92% at Haycock. And the longer-term projections in the CIP still don’t factor in some of the Tysons growth that will feed into Westgate and to a lesser extent Lemon Road.

If you look again chesterbrook capacity include the disgusting trailers , lemon and Westgate don't have that so in theory Westgate and lemons road have a massive capacity potential

No one is getting moved from Kent Gardens to Westgate or Lemon Road. That decision has now been made as they are not part of the boundary study.

Go whine somewhere else. I doubt anyone will have the least sympathy for someone implying Chesterbrook can't be part of the solution to the KG overcrowding.

Yes, whine elsewhere. Kent Gardens students are mostly white / Asian; ie - extremely privileged. And the whole area is affluent/ filthy rich people.

That area is the last place FCPS should waste money on.

You're the biggest idiot yet to show up on this thread. Congratulations, moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Start another French immersion program somewhere
else.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should include Haycock. Given that Haycock is almost at 100% they could adjust boundaries with Haycock/Chesterbrook. It just didn't get enough votes? This is beyond stupid. Do they have any professionals?

It wasn’t a matter of Board votes. Staff recommended keeping Haycock out of a boundary study, except with respect to possibly AAP assignments (so example they could make Haycock the AAP center option for KG and send Franklin Sherman AAP kids to Churchill Road instead).

The Board will vote on the scope of the boundary study next month. You can take it up with Elaine Tholen before then if you want. But the goal is to address overcrowding at KG, not the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundaries.

I know this and there's a huge chunk of students that live across Kirby that are zoned for KG instead of Haycock. If their objection to moving those kids out of KG is because Haycock might be closer to 100%, that's not OK. They can open the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundary in that case.

It does really seem to me that reasonable and rational boundaries weren't taken into consideration for the selection of schools. Parents voted for FS and Chesterbrook, bc they want their kids there. Do you see any other reasoning in the presentation for how staff selected schools to include? here's a link to the presentation: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/CT5UU77DB47B/$file/Kent%20Gardens%20ES%20School%20Board%20Scope%20Presentation.pdf

FS and Chesterbrook have more projected excess capacity than Haycock, Lemon Road, and Westgate. That’s clear from the presentation.

It certainly wouldn’t be crazy, though, to move part of KG near Kirby to Haycock, and part of Haycock to Chesterbrook.

Lemon Road and Westgate will have to handle more Tysons growth, especially Westgate, so moving KG kids there objectively seems like a bad idea.

Not saying it isn’t true, but the projections for lemon road and west gate do not match this narrative. Those schools are projected to have less demand on capacity over the next 5 years.

Yeah, they do. Five-year projections excluding modulars have Chesterbrook at 64% and FS at 82% vs 86% at each of Lemon Road and Westgate and 92% at Haycock. And the longer-term projections in the CIP still don’t factor in some of the Tysons growth that will feed into Westgate and to a lesser extent Lemon Road.

If you look again chesterbrook capacity include the disgusting trailers , lemon and Westgate don't have that so in theory Westgate and lemons road have a massive capacity potential

No one is getting moved from Kent Gardens to Westgate or Lemon Road. That decision has now been made as they are not part of the boundary study.

Go whine somewhere else. I doubt anyone will have the least sympathy for someone implying Chesterbrook can't be part of the solution to the KG overcrowding.

Yes, whine elsewhere. Kent Gardens students are mostly white / Asian; ie - extremely privileged. And the whole area is affluent/ filthy rich people.

That area is the last place FCPS should waste money on.

That area pays for the likes of you. Do you have any idea how much tax we pay in McLean and how little we receive in return? It’s almost like being in an abusive relationship. So, just because this area is affluent, FCPS shouldn’t bother ?? GTFO of here. What’s wrong with you people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Start another French immersion program somewhere
else. Perhaps get rid of Japanese immersion at GF and make it french.

Why would they do that? It's an incredibly well-respected program that draws many families to the area. It's not going anywhere.

What? How many are in the program now for each grade level and what are the base schools and pyramids? Same info should be provided for Kent Gardens especially due to the overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the very obvious answer to move the French immersion program elsewhere?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should include Haycock. Given that Haycock is almost at 100% they could adjust boundaries with Haycock/Chesterbrook. It just didn't get enough votes? This is beyond stupid. Do they have any professionals?

It wasn’t a matter of Board votes. Staff recommended keeping Haycock out of a boundary study, except with respect to possibly AAP assignments (so example they could make Haycock the AAP center option for KG and send Franklin Sherman AAP kids to Churchill Road instead).

The Board will vote on the scope of the boundary study next month. You can take it up with Elaine Tholen before then if you want. But the goal is to address overcrowding at KG, not the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundaries.

I know this and there's a huge chunk of students that live across Kirby that are zoned for KG instead of Haycock. If their objection to moving those kids out of KG is because Haycock might be closer to 100%, that's not OK. They can open the Haycock/Chesterbrook boundary in that case.

It does really seem to me that reasonable and rational boundaries weren't taken into consideration for the selection of schools. Parents voted for FS and Chesterbrook, bc they want their kids there. Do you see any other reasoning in the presentation for how staff selected schools to include? here's a link to the presentation: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/CT5UU77DB47B/$file/Kent%20Gardens%20ES%20School%20Board%20Scope%20Presentation.pdf

FS and Chesterbrook have more projected excess capacity than Haycock, Lemon Road, and Westgate. That’s clear from the presentation.

It certainly wouldn’t be crazy, though, to move part of KG near Kirby to Haycock, and part of Haycock to Chesterbrook.

Lemon Road and Westgate will have to handle more Tysons growth, especially Westgate, so moving KG kids there objectively seems like a bad idea.

Not saying it isn’t true, but the projections for lemon road and west gate do not match this narrative. Those schools are projected to have less demand on capacity over the next 5 years.

Yeah, they do. Five-year projections excluding modulars have Chesterbrook at 64% and FS at 82% vs 86% at each of Lemon Road and Westgate and 92% at Haycock. And the longer-term projections in the CIP still don’t factor in some of the Tysons growth that will feed into Westgate and to a lesser extent Lemon Road.

If you look again chesterbrook capacity include the disgusting trailers , lemon and Westgate don't have that so in theory Westgate and lemons road have a massive capacity potential

No one is getting moved from Kent Gardens to Westgate or Lemon Road. That decision has now been made as they are not part of the boundary study.

Go whine somewhere else. I doubt anyone will have the least sympathy for someone implying Chesterbrook can't be part of the solution to the KG overcrowding.

Yes, whine elsewhere. Kent Gardens students are mostly white / Asian; ie - extremely privileged. And the whole area is affluent/ filthy rich people.

That area is the last place FCPS should waste money on.

That area pays for the likes of you. Do you have any idea how much tax we pay in McLean and how little we receive in return? It’s almost like being in an abusive relationship. So, just because this area is affluent, FCPS shouldn’t bother ?? GTFO of here. What’s wrong with you people?

I pay the exact same tax rate that you do. In fact, I feel that I pay far too much given that my pyramid is rated 3/10 and test scores are terrible. So I think I'm the one that is receiving very little in return here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the very obvious answer to move the French immersion program elsewhere?

Yes.

The Kent Gardens district has the most native French speakers of any school district in FCPS. Moving the program would be a terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

My kid is in Franklin Sherman, it’s a cute school with super involved PTA and around 400 kids, just move extra Kent Gardens kids to FS, I thought this was a no brainer.

Lots of personal attention and activities at FS, that’s the one Kent Gardens parents should be fighting for.