FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If nobody in the community wants to be re-zoned then it makes no sense to do it. Shouldn't the decision be driven by the tax payers who this most impacts? Seems logical to me. In this situation the school board is going against the ENTIRE community. Thats literally dictatorship.

The majority of boundary changes ever made by school systems are not popular. People do not like change.

There's a special brand of smugness among those who want a local school board to go against the will of their constituents.

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

By "people of your ilk" you mean parents, who should have the greatest voice in school issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Relief at Coates and Parklawn has been deferred because they’ve been folded into the larger, unnecessary county-wide review. They have separate studies but they are being reduced to talking about what they can do to ameliorate the conditions next year. The boundary studies for those two schools should have been fast-tracked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS are hypocrites. Preaching DEI but making McLean an island of wealth. I wonder what rich parent at McLean paid them off to remove Timber Lane.

Speaking of islands, that so-called "attendance island" only looks like an island on a map because of a 2013 land exchange with Falls Church city. It's not, in reality, an island.

No, it was always a weird island because there were no residences on the land that was transferred. Only schools. Route 7 is a clear boundary and the Timber Lane area is far from
MHS.

How come no one is saying moving half of Falls Hill to McLean isn’t creating another attendance island? It looks like it’s connected to the other side of Route 7 but really that land is all 66, no one lives there.

It looks a little less like an island and that’s all that matters. For the consultants it’s all about what it looks graphically on the map with the polys.

I would be shocked if that change survives the final draft. It turns Shrevewood into an unbalanced split feeder, and the neighborhood is cut off from McLean by the I-66 interchange. The only place that makes sense to pull more students is from Westgate and Lemon Road on the McLean side of Rt-7. Parts of Pimmit Hills would be walkers if reassigned.

I agree.

The biggest issues I see is that FCHS will go from 109% utilization to 119% which seems insane even with the renovations.
Then you have Marshall with 97% utilization going down to 85%.
McLean does go down from 109% to 100%.

If there is any argument to be made in terms of socioeconomic status it is that the last thing LJMS and FCHS need are more FARMS kids.

The interactive dashboard doesn’t account for the Falls Church HS expansion. The CIP has that completed for the 27-28 school year, so the move is premature. It’ll be at 85% with its current boundaries and 93% if they add the proposed portion of Timber Lane.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

It’s in the CIP. Page 104 (slide 110) has the capacity breakdown for Region 2.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Adopted-Capital-Improvement-Program-FY-2026%E2%80%9330.pdf

Fact is those Timber Lane communities have had about 5 years to be aware of potential impacts from any available capacity, especially new, at select other high schools. Now their site mentions Marshall as a preference to Falls Church. What do they want? Thru changes between Shrevewood + Timber Lane? Some high schools are near each other so one is local and the other is local+regional. Mclean:Langley and Madison:Oakton.

It may not be crisply articulated but their position is clear: they would prefer to stay at McLean, but if they are going to be rezoned they would rather be rezoned to Marshall than Falls Church. The area is contiguous to Marshall, so there would be no concern about an attendance island if they moved there.

Yes I understand. But the fact is Mclean needs relief. Another fact is FCPS has never made an SPA adjustments in the Spring Hill Island. That was brought up by Spring Hill plus ex Spring Hill assigned to Colvin Run over 20 years ago. Completely static SPA even with sites rezoned commercial to residential. SPA 2903= 416 K thru 6 on Kent Gardens study.

SPAs can be reassigned and split or modified. Look at the number of SPAs on Westgate and Lemon Road. Very clear there can be shifts making Westgate rational for 100% Mclean and Lemon Road rational for 100% Marshall. Timber Lane would be duking it out on changes with Shrevewood for who goes 100% where- Marshall or Falls Church.

I don’t think McLean really needs relief now. It has the modular and the enrollment is down this year. Next year is the first year the 2021 boundary change with Langley will be fully phased in and the enrollment is projected to decline further over the next five years.

FCPS is all over McLean because it has two attendance islands and four split feeders, so it’s the perfect sandbox for Thru to play in. But it’s not acutely overcrowded like Coates, nor is it like it was back in 2019 when it had 21 trailers. If they left the boundaries alone and just gave us some idea when it’s eventually going to get renovated most people would be perfectly content.

FCPS has been well aware of the situation at Mclean. If the Falls Church HS capaity existed when the Colvin Run to Langley process was enacted it is probable there also would have been movement to Falls Church.

Let's not forget the fact that McLean badly needs a renovation now. FCPS keeps slapping band-aids on it, but that only works for so long (look at Falls Church HS). Given how McLean is bordered by Arlington, Falls Church City, and the Potomac River, there are only so many directions its boundary can go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Relief at Coates and Parklawn has been deferred because they’ve been folded into the larger, unnecessary county-wide review. They have separate studies but they are being reduced to talking about what they can do to ameliorate the conditions next year. The boundary studies for those two schools should have been fast-tracked.

The irony of the comprehensive review is that the schools with actual need for relief get screwed.

You know how their favorite talking point is that there hasn’t been a review in the last forty years, well, everyone should know that their push for a comprehensive review rather than just reviewing the schools that actually need it, has done real harm to the Coates and Parklawn communities.

Shame on the school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If nobody in the community wants to be re-zoned then it makes no sense to do it. Shouldn't the decision be driven by the tax payers who this most impacts? Seems logical to me. In this situation the school board is going against the ENTIRE community. Thats literally dictatorship.

The majority of boundary changes ever made by school systems are not popular. People do not like change.

There's a special brand of smugness among those who want a local school board to go against the will of their constituents.

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

By "people of your ilk" you mean parents, who should have the greatest voice in school issues.

Are the parents the only ones paying for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS are hypocrites. Preaching DEI but making McLean an island of wealth. I wonder what rich parent at McLean paid them off to remove Timber Lane.

Speaking of islands, that so-called "attendance island" only looks like an island on a map because of a 2013 land exchange with Falls Church city. It's not, in reality, an island.

No, it was always a weird island because there were no residences on the land that was transferred. Only schools. Route 7 is a clear boundary and the Timber Lane area is far from
MHS.

How come no one is saying moving half of Falls Hill to McLean isn’t creating another attendance island? It looks like it’s connected to the other side of Route 7 but really that land is all 66, no one lives there.

It looks a little less like an island and that’s all that matters. For the consultants it’s all about what it looks graphically on the map with the polys.

I would be shocked if that change survives the final draft. It turns Shrevewood into an unbalanced split feeder, and the neighborhood is cut off from McLean by the I-66 interchange. The only place that makes sense to pull more students is from Westgate and Lemon Road on the McLean side of Rt-7. Parts of Pimmit Hills would be walkers if reassigned.

I agree.

The biggest issues I see is that FCHS will go from 109% utilization to 119% which seems insane even with the renovations.
Then you have Marshall with 97% utilization going down to 85%.
McLean does go down from 109% to 100%.

If there is any argument to be made in terms of socioeconomic status it is that the last thing LJMS and FCHS need are more FARMS kids.

The interactive dashboard doesn’t account for the Falls Church HS expansion. The CIP has that completed for the 27-28 school year, so the move is premature. It’ll be at 85% with its current boundaries and 93% if they add the proposed portion of Timber Lane.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

It’s in the CIP. Page 104 (slide 110) has the capacity breakdown for Region 2.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Adopted-Capital-Improvement-Program-FY-2026%E2%80%9330.pdf

Fact is those Timber Lane communities have had about 5 years to be aware of potential impacts from any available capacity, especially new, at select other high schools. Now their site mentions Marshall as a preference to Falls Church. What do they want? Thru changes between Shrevewood + Timber Lane? Some high schools are near each other so one is local and the other is local+regional. Mclean:Langley and Madison:Oakton.

It may not be crisply articulated but their position is clear: they would prefer to stay at McLean, but if they are going to be rezoned they would rather be rezoned to Marshall than Falls Church. The area is contiguous to Marshall, so there would be no concern about an attendance island if they moved there.

Yes I understand. But the fact is Mclean needs relief. Another fact is FCPS has never made an SPA adjustments in the Spring Hill Island. That was brought up by Spring Hill plus ex Spring Hill assigned to Colvin Run over 20 years ago. Completely static SPA even with sites rezoned commercial to residential. SPA 2903= 416 K thru 6 on Kent Gardens study.

SPAs can be reassigned and split or modified. Look at the number of SPAs on Westgate and Lemon Road. Very clear there can be shifts making Westgate rational for 100% Mclean and Lemon Road rational for 100% Marshall. Timber Lane would be duking it out on changes with Shrevewood for who goes 100% where- Marshall or Falls Church.

I don’t think McLean really needs relief now. It has the modular and the enrollment is down this year. Next year is the first year the 2021 boundary change with Langley will be fully phased in and the enrollment is projected to decline further over the next five years.

FCPS is all over McLean because it has two attendance islands and four split feeders, so it’s the perfect sandbox for Thru to play in. But it’s not acutely overcrowded like Coates, nor is it like it was back in 2019 when it had 21 trailers. If they left the boundaries alone and just gave us some idea when it’s eventually going to get renovated most people would be perfectly content.

FCPS has been well aware of the situation at Mclean. If the Falls Church HS capaity existed when the Colvin Run to Langley process was enacted it is probable there also would have been movement to Falls Church.

Let's not forget the fact that McLean badly needs a renovation now. FCPS keeps slapping band-aids on it, but that only works for so long (look at Falls Church HS). Given how McLean is bordered by Arlington, Falls Church City, and the Potomac River, there are only so many directions its boundary can go.

McLean may need a renovation and even more so an expansion but it’s in much better shape than Falls Church was before its renovation. I’ve spent time in both schools and it’s not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Why did they wait this long? I just checked the growth over the last three years. Plus at least 300. There is tons of new construction in that area and it is continuing.

This is malpractice on the part of the School Board. They could have at least taken out the portion on the other side of the DTR and put them in Huthicson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Relief at Coates and Parklawn has been deferred because they’ve been folded into the larger, unnecessary county-wide review. They have separate studies but they are being reduced to talking about what they can do to ameliorate the conditions next year. The boundary studies for those two schools should have been fast-tracked.

The irony of the comprehensive review is that the schools with actual need for relief get screwed.

You know how their favorite talking point is that there hasn’t been a review in the last forty years, well, everyone should know that their push for a comprehensive review rather than just reviewing the schools that actually need it, has done real harm to the Coates and Parklawn communities.

Shame on the school board.

I blame Karl Frisch. He is a complete idiot. He set all this nonsense in motion and then he and other School Board members like Sandy Anderson pretend they don’t know what’s going on now.

I’m hearing some FCPS staff members who don’t want to be the scapegoats for this insanity are already giving notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Why did they wait this long? I just checked the growth over the last three years. Plus at least 300. There is tons of new construction in that area and it is continuing.

This is malpractice on the part of the School Board. They could have at least taken out the portion on the other side of the DTR and put them in Huthicson.

It really is crazy. They were suppose to build a new elementary school at the corner of Frying Pan Rd and Sunrise Valley, which I assume would relieve Coates, but they've made zero progress on that from what I can see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Why did they wait this long? I just checked the growth over the last three years. Plus at least 300. There is tons of new construction in that area and it is continuing.

This is malpractice on the part of the School Board. They could have at least taken out the portion on the other side of the DTR and put them in Huthicson.

I suspect that a good number of parents would object to being moved to Hutchinson. We have friends who bought in the nieghborhood and moved after kindergarten. The admin and teachers were wonderful but any kid who knew their letters, numbers, colors, shapes, and the like was ignored in K. First grade did not look promising. They moved to a different school with a lower FARMs percentage and were far happier with the results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Why did they wait this long? I just checked the growth over the last three years. Plus at least 300. There is tons of new construction in that area and it is continuing.

This is malpractice on the part of the School Board. They could have at least taken out the portion on the other side of the DTR and put them in Huthicson.

I suspect that a good number of parents would object to being moved to Hutchinson. We have friends who bought in the nieghborhood and moved after kindergarten. The admin and teachers were wonderful but any kid who knew their letters, numbers, colors, shapes, and the like was ignored in K. First grade did not look promising. They moved to a different school with a lower FARMs percentage and were far happier with the results.

Can someone help me understand what "FARMs" means/stands for? Seen it used on here a lot, but never heard the term before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Why did they wait this long? I just checked the growth over the last three years. Plus at least 300. There is tons of new construction in that area and it is continuing.

This is malpractice on the part of the School Board. They could have at least taken out the portion on the other side of the DTR and put them in Huthicson.

I suspect that a good number of parents would object to being moved to Hutchinson. We have friends who bought in the nieghborhood and moved after kindergarten. The admin and teachers were wonderful but any kid who knew their letters, numbers, colors, shapes, and the like was ignored in K. First grade did not look promising. They moved to a different school with a lower FARMs percentage and were far happier with the results.

Can someone help me understand what "FARMs" means/stands for? Seen it used on here a lot, but never heard the term before.

Free and reduced meal kids aka poor, mostly minority, kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Why did they wait this long? I just checked the growth over the last three years. Plus at least 300. There is tons of new construction in that area and it is continuing.

This is malpractice on the part of the School Board. They could have at least taken out the portion on the other side of the DTR and put them in Huthicson.

I suspect that a good number of parents would object to being moved to Hutchinson. We have friends who bought in the nieghborhood and moved after kindergarten. The admin and teachers were wonderful but any kid who knew their letters, numbers, colors, shapes, and the like was ignored in K. First grade did not look promising. They moved to a different school with a lower FARMs percentage and were far happier with the results.

Can someone help me understand what "FARMs" means/stands for? Seen it used on here a lot, but never heard the term before.

Free and reduced meal kids aka poor, mostly minority, kids.

And aparently people think their special little snow flake can't learn when they are in the same class as them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Why did they wait this long? I just checked the growth over the last three years. Plus at least 300. There is tons of new construction in that area and it is continuing.

This is malpractice on the part of the School Board. They could have at least taken out the portion on the other side of the DTR and put them in Huthicson.

I suspect that a good number of parents would object to being moved to Hutchinson. We have friends who bought in the nieghborhood and moved after kindergarten. The admin and teachers were wonderful but any kid who knew their letters, numbers, colors, shapes, and the like was ignored in K. First grade did not look promising. They moved to a different school with a lower FARMs percentage and were far happier with the results.

Can someone help me understand what "FARMs" means/stands for? Seen it used on here a lot, but never heard the term before.

Free and reduced meal kids aka poor, mostly minority, kids.

And aparently people think their special little snow flake can't learn when they are in the same class as them.

Give a SJW a bone…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

Why did they wait this long? I just checked the growth over the last three years. Plus at least 300. There is tons of new construction in that area and it is continuing.

This is malpractice on the part of the School Board. They could have at least taken out the portion on the other side of the DTR and put them in Huthicson.

I suspect that a good number of parents would object to being moved to Hutchinson. We have friends who bought in the nieghborhood and moved after kindergarten. The admin and teachers were wonderful but any kid who knew their letters, numbers, colors, shapes, and the like was ignored in K. First grade did not look promising. They moved to a different school with a lower FARMs percentage and were far happier with the results.

Can someone help me understand what "FARMs" means/stands for? Seen it used on here a lot, but never heard the term before.

Free and reduced meal kids aka poor, mostly minority, kids.

And aparently people think their special little snow flake can't learn when they are in the same class as them.

Hutchinson has almost 1000 kids. It's not like they really need to be adding kids there, especially given the high needs of its student population.