FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Rezoning is more expensive.

So yes, the parents' voices should carry the most weight in the rezoning process.

Having kids in trailers and Modular’s is more expensive when there are high schools close by with room.

Trailers are cheap and modulars, once installed, are a sunk cost.

We should be spending more time asking why some of these schools have empty seats and less time plotting to move kids around like widgets.

Well, in regards to Falls Church HS and Langley HS it was because of very expensive renovations (many times more than a modular). We should get our money’s worth from both of them. Transfer students to both and lose the modular at McLean.

Get rid of all split feeders. Kids who go to elementary and middle school together should have the opportunity to graduate with each other. They should not be split up. Get rid of attendance islands too. Lets keep kids as close to their peers and schools as possible.

All of you screaming about kids having a say and maintaining the current community as a reason to push back against boundary adjustments are just using "politically correct" arguments that are code for you don't want your kids going to school with too many of "the poors".

Those arguments are reminiscent of those used by segregationists back in the 40s and 50s arguing against school integration. Examples of some of those arguments - People should have their own say in where their kids go to school. It's important to preserve continuity for their children. There will be weaker educational standards. What about Taxpayer rights? I've seen tidbits of all of these arguments made in this chain over the last couple of days.

At least be honest like the PP above who complained about FARM kids being behind and not wanting that to affect their child's education.

You have no idea! Sure, we'd like to get rid of split feeders. Do you know what would happen? We'd have to shift and criss cross kids all across Fairfax County. When you have middle schools very close to one another and high schools walking distance from each other, there is going to be confusion.

I don't know where you live, but I can tell you that I would love that pyramid model, but Fairfax County where I live could not work that way because of where the schools are.
I can also tell you that THRU did nothing to make it better. They made my neigborhood worse. And, half of my neighbors are extremely upset with the plan to send their kids to a school with a much better FARMS rate. Why? Because, instead of sending them to their current closest school, they suggest sending them on a very long bus ride.

People want to stay with their neighborhoods and they want to stay where they are--even if the carrot is a wealthier school.

[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: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?

Rezoning is more expensive.

So yes, the parents' voices should carry the most weight in the rezoning process.

Having kids in trailers and Modular’s is more expensive when there are high schools close by with room.

Trailers are cheap and modulars, once installed, are a sunk cost.

We should be spending more time asking why some of these schools have empty seats and less time plotting to move kids around like widgets.

Well, in regards to Falls Church HS and Langley HS it was because of very expensive renovations (many times more than a modular). We should get our money’s worth from both of them. Transfer students to both and lose the modular at McLean.

Get rid of all split feeders. Kids who go to elementary and middle school together should have the opportunity to graduate with each other. They should not be split up. Get rid of attendance islands too. Lets keep kids as close to their peers and schools as possible.

All of you screaming about kids having a say and maintaining the current community as a reason to push back against boundary adjustments are just using "politically correct" arguments that are code for you don't want your kids going to school with too many of "the poors".

Those arguments are reminiscent of those used by segregationists back in the 40s and 50s arguing against school integration. Examples of some of those arguments - People should have their own say in where their kids go to school. It's important to preserve continuity for their children. There will be weaker educational standards. What about Taxpayer rights? I've seen tidbits of all of these arguments made in this chain over the last couple of days.

At least be honest like the PP above who complained about FARM kids being behind and not wanting that to affect their child's education.

Oh please

South County parents are upset about being rezoned to equivalent Lake Braddock.

Lake Braddock and West Springfield parents are upset about being rezoned to equivalent South County.

All of those schools are quite diverse with similar socioeconomic levels and similar communities.

People want to stay in their neighborhood schools, within their home communities, in the schools they were zoned for when they purchased their houses, where their kids have put down roots.

So we should keep attendance islands and split feeders because it'll be a little less convenient for some of you all in West Springfield and Lake Braddock. Got it. Maintaining schools within a specific pyramid (i.e. neighborhood/home community) by removing attendance islands and split feeders is not important unless it is the one you are currently in. God the entitlement on this board is so completely disturbing.

What on earth are you talking about? In Scenario 3, Thru proposes creating a new split feeder in WSHS (for Hunt Valley) and swapping some Lake Braddock and South County students (roughly 20 or so students) simply to make the maps look cleaner. That's now got both of those neighborhoods up in arms because their kids will get sent to different schools for no obvious benefit (transportation times aren't better, they don't really impact capacity). It's insane. And that's just one example in one part of the county.

Maybe stop making everything about you. Residents have a lot of legitimate complaints about this process. And the idea that kids shouldn't be taken into account during the process is absolutely bizarre.

I am making nothing about me. Thru is also maintaining split feeders in Vienna and Chantilly, amongst others. I find that unfortunate. They should get rid of all of them. Kids should have the opportunity to continue through school with all their peers. They should also live in the same general communities. That should be the goal. And any movement towards that is a positive.

[Anonymous]

I am making nothing about me. Thru is also maintaining split feeders in Vienna and Chantilly, amongst others. I find that unfortunate. They should get rid of all of them. Kids should have the opportunity to continue through school with all their peers. They should also live in the same general communities. That should be the goal. And any movement towards that is a positive.

Yes. They said that was the goal. Unfortunately, perhaps they achieved that in some places at the expense of others.

First, Do not harm. They forgot that part.

[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: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?

Rezoning is more expensive.

So yes, the parents' voices should carry the most weight in the rezoning process.

Having kids in trailers and Modular’s is more expensive when there are high schools close by with room.

Trailers are cheap and modulars, once installed, are a sunk cost.

We should be spending more time asking why some of these schools have empty seats and less time plotting to move kids around like widgets.

Well, in regards to Falls Church HS and Langley HS it was because of very expensive renovations (many times more than a modular). We should get our money’s worth from both of them. Transfer students to both and lose the modular at McLean.

Get rid of all split feeders. Kids who go to elementary and middle school together should have the opportunity to graduate with each other. They should not be split up. Get rid of attendance islands too. Lets keep kids as close to their peers and schools as possible.

All of you screaming about kids having a say and maintaining the current community as a reason to push back against boundary adjustments are just using "politically correct" arguments that are code for you don't want your kids going to school with too many of "the poors".

Those arguments are reminiscent of those used by segregationists back in the 40s and 50s arguing against school integration. Examples of some of those arguments - People should have their own say in where their kids go to school. It's important to preserve continuity for their children. There will be weaker educational standards. What about Taxpayer rights? I've seen tidbits of all of these arguments made in this chain over the last couple of days.

At least be honest like the PP above who complained about FARM kids being behind and not wanting that to affect their child's education.

Oh please

South County parents are upset about being rezoned to equivalent Lake Braddock.

Lake Braddock and West Springfield parents are upset about being rezoned to equivalent South County.

All of those schools are quite diverse with similar socioeconomic levels and similar communities.

People want to stay in their neighborhood schools, within their home communities, in the schools they were zoned for when they purchased their houses, where their kids have put down roots.

So we should keep attendance islands and split feeders because it'll be a little less convenient for some of you all in West Springfield and Lake Braddock. Got it. Maintaining schools within a specific pyramid (i.e. neighborhood/home community) by removing attendance islands and split feeders is not important unless it is the one you are currently in. God the entitlement on this board is so completely disturbing.

What on earth are you talking about? In Scenario 3, Thru proposes creating a new split feeder in WSHS (for Hunt Valley) and swapping some Lake Braddock and South County students (roughly 20 or so students) simply to make the maps look cleaner. That's now got both of those neighborhoods up in arms because their kids will get sent to different schools for no obvious benefit (transportation times aren't better, they don't really impact capacity). It's insane. And that's just one example in one part of the county.

Maybe stop making everything about you. Residents have a lot of legitimate complaints about this process. And the idea that kids shouldn't be taken into account during the process is absolutely bizarre.

I am making nothing about me. Thru is also maintaining split feeders in Vienna and Chantilly, amongst others. I find that unfortunate. They should get rid of all of them. Kids should have the opportunity to continue through school with all their peers. They should also live in the same general communities. That should be the goal. And any movement towards that is a positive.

I'm all for fixing split feeders, but I'd prefer the method to be to find a way to keep the kids that are currently together at a walkable community school as opposed to splitting out a large group and sending them to a school twice as far away across a highway. It's like cutting my hand off to fix a sprained finger.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think THRU is doing a good job with the boundaries (they do not seem to know the area at all and communication is poor) and there should be rules about grandfathering seniors etc. But, what I do not understand how so many people are absolutely shocked their school might be in a boundary change. Especially schools that have closer options. Our kids go to public schools, every county around us has had relatively recent boundary changes, it is not a surprise that things need to change. I am not saying do not advocate for the changes that do not make sense, but some of the outrage is not justified.

[Anonymous]

I am making nothing about me. Thru is also maintaining split feeders in Vienna and Chantilly, amongst others. I find that unfortunate. They should get rid of all of them. Kids should have the opportunity to continue through school with all their peers. They should also live in the same general communities. That should be the goal. And any movement towards that is a positive.

We'd all like that. However, (exempting secondary schools) there are 23 middle schools and 28 high schools.

Why don't you take a little time and plan which middle schools will feed to which high schools. I'm sure we would all be grateful. If you really feel strongly, then take all those elementary schools and decide which will feed where. I think you will find it is a lot harder than you realize.

The boundaries were drawn the way they were for various reasons--mostly when new schools were built. Don't you think they would have gone with the pyramid if they could have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think THRU is doing a good job with the boundaries (they do not seem to know the area at all and communication is poor) and there should be rules about grandfathering seniors etc. But, what I do not understand how so many people are absolutely shocked their school might be in a boundary change. Especially schools that have closer options. Our kids go to public schools, every county around us has had relatively recent boundary changes, it is not a surprise that things need to change. I am not saying do not advocate for the changes that do not make sense, but some of the outrage is not justified.

Amen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think THRU is doing a good job with the boundaries (they do not seem to know the area at all and communication is poor) and there should be rules about grandfathering seniors etc. But, what I do not understand how so many people are absolutely shocked their school might be in a boundary change. Especially schools that have closer options. Our kids go to public schools, every county around us has had relatively recent boundary changes, it is not a surprise that things need to change. I am not saying do not advocate for the changes that do not make sense, but some of the outrage is not justified.

Because when they move one school, there is a domino effect. And, then that changes the feeder issue and the neighborhood issue.

For some changes that move one neighborhood to a closer high school, that means in some cases, that their elementary school becomes a split feeder. Follow through, and this also affects middle schools.

And, then, they bump a different school to a high school further away.

The maps will never look clean and pretty. The geographic locations don't adapt to this.

[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: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?

Rezoning is more expensive.

So yes, the parents' voices should carry the most weight in the rezoning process.

Having kids in trailers and Modular’s is more expensive when there are high schools close by with room.

Trailers are cheap and modulars, once installed, are a sunk cost.

We should be spending more time asking why some of these schools have empty seats and less time plotting to move kids around like widgets.

Well, in regards to Falls Church HS and Langley HS it was because of very expensive renovations (many times more than a modular). We should get our money’s worth from both of them. Transfer students to both and lose the modular at McLean.

Get rid of all split feeders. Kids who go to elementary and middle school together should have the opportunity to graduate with each other. They should not be split up. Get rid of attendance islands too. Lets keep kids as close to their peers and schools as possible.

All of you screaming about kids having a say and maintaining the current community as a reason to push back against boundary adjustments are just using "politically correct" arguments that are code for you don't want your kids going to school with too many of "the poors".

Those arguments are reminiscent of those used by segregationists back in the 40s and 50s arguing against school integration. Examples of some of those arguments - People should have their own say in where their kids go to school. It's important to preserve continuity for their children. There will be weaker educational standards. What about Taxpayer rights? I've seen tidbits of all of these arguments made in this chain over the last couple of days.

At least be honest like the PP above who complained about FARM kids being behind and not wanting that to affect their child's education.

Oh please

South County parents are upset about being rezoned to equivalent Lake Braddock.

Lake Braddock and West Springfield parents are upset about being rezoned to equivalent South County.

All of those schools are quite diverse with similar socioeconomic levels and similar communities.

People want to stay in their neighborhood schools, within their home communities, in the schools they were zoned for when they purchased their houses, where their kids have put down roots.

So we should keep attendance islands and split feeders because it'll be a little less convenient for some of you all in West Springfield and Lake Braddock. Got it. Maintaining schools within a specific pyramid (i.e. neighborhood/home community) by removing attendance islands and split feeders is not important unless it is the one you are currently in. God the entitlement on this board is so completely disturbing.

The changes THRU is proposing is moving kids farther ay, and in the case of Silverbrook, more than doubling the bus time.

[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: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?

Rezoning is more expensive.

So yes, the parents' voices should carry the most weight in the rezoning process.

Having kids in trailers and Modular’s is more expensive when there are high schools close by with room.

Trailers are cheap and modulars, once installed, are a sunk cost.

We should be spending more time asking why some of these schools have empty seats and less time plotting to move kids around like widgets.

Well, in regards to Falls Church HS and Langley HS it was because of very expensive renovations (many times more than a modular). We should get our money’s worth from both of them. Transfer students to both and lose the modular at McLean.

Get rid of all split feeders. Kids who go to elementary and middle school together should have the opportunity to graduate with each other. They should not be split up. Get rid of attendance islands too. Lets keep kids as close to their peers and schools as possible.

All of you screaming about kids having a say and maintaining the current community as a reason to push back against boundary adjustments are just using "politically correct" arguments that are code for you don't want your kids going to school with too many of "the poors".

Those arguments are reminiscent of those used by segregationists back in the 40s and 50s arguing against school integration. Examples of some of those arguments - People should have their own say in where their kids go to school. It's important to preserve continuity for their children. There will be weaker educational standards. What about Taxpayer rights? I've seen tidbits of all of these arguments made in this chain over the last couple of days.

At least be honest like the PP above who complained about FARM kids being behind and not wanting that to affect their child's education.

Oh please

South County parents are upset about being rezoned to equivalent Lake Braddock.

Lake Braddock and West Springfield parents are upset about being rezoned to equivalent South County.

All of those schools are quite diverse with similar socioeconomic levels and similar communities.

People want to stay in their neighborhood schools, within their home communities, in the schools they were zoned for when they purchased their houses, where their kids have put down roots.

So we should keep attendance islands and split feeders because it'll be a little less convenient for some of you all in West Springfield and Lake Braddock. Got it. Maintaining schools within a specific pyramid (i.e. neighborhood/home community) by removing attendance islands and split feeders is not important unless it is the one you are currently in. God the entitlement on this board is so completely disturbing.

First you slur the people upset about their kids being rezoned as racist, jim crow segregationists.

Then, when the facts are presented to you that everyone with kids is upset, even families getting rezoned to equivalent SES, geographical and demographically similar schools, you switch from calling them modern klan types who are only upset because they don't want to mix with people you deam undesireable, to "entitled" and disturbing.

People don't want to get rezoned. Not to a worse school. Not to a better school. Not even to equivalent school

The only people in favor of rezoning are those who want to move other people's kids out of their neighborhood schools and into your school to improve your property calue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think THRU is doing a good job with the boundaries (they do not seem to know the area at all and communication is poor) and there should be rules about grandfathering seniors etc. But, what I do not understand how so many people are absolutely shocked their school might be in a boundary change. Especially schools that have closer options. Our kids go to public schools, every county around us has had relatively recent boundary changes, it is not a surprise that things need to change. I am not saying do not advocate for the changes that do not make sense, but some of the outrage is not justified.

Because when they move one school, there is a domino effect. And, then that changes the feeder issue and the neighborhood issue.

For some changes that move one neighborhood to a closer high school, that means in some cases, that their elementary school becomes a split feeder. Follow through, and this also affects middle schools.

And, then, they bump a different school to a high school further away.

The maps will never look clean and pretty. The geographic locations don't adapt to this.

There is also a ton of history that produced the unusual lines that Thru and the current board didn't bother to learn at all - despite their being a whole FCPS page dedicated to it. The consultant at the Oakton meeting even made a snide comment about how stupid it is some schools aren't in their district as if someone picked that from other better options at some point, totally ignoring that a 100+ year old school system has had to adapt during several period of massive growth.

Many schools, including Clifton recently (https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/history/closed/clifton) had to close because the cost of bringing it up to code was prohibitive. Things like that happen over 100 years and cause anomalies that wouldn't exist if you designed a system for 180k students fresh. But this is the structure we have.

This history is filled with stories of rapid construction and student shifting during the Boomer years, only to have to close schools (at a greater expense) after the bubble passed and move kids all around again. Sounds like a familiar situation...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think THRU is doing a good job with the boundaries (they do not seem to know the area at all and communication is poor) and there should be rules about grandfathering seniors etc. But, what I do not understand how so many people are absolutely shocked their school might be in a boundary change. Especially schools that have closer options. Our kids go to public schools, every county around us has had relatively recent boundary changes, it is not a surprise that things need to change. I am not saying do not advocate for the changes that do not make sense, but some of the outrage is not justified.

Because when they move one school, there is a domino effect. And, then that changes the feeder issue and the neighborhood issue.

For some changes that move one neighborhood to a closer high school, that means in some cases, that their elementary school becomes a split feeder. Follow through, and this also affects middle schools.

And, then, they bump a different school to a high school further away.

The maps will never look clean and pretty. The geographic locations don't adapt to this.

There is also a ton of history that produced the unusual lines that Thru and the current board didn't bother to learn at all - despite their being a whole FCPS page dedicated to it. The consultant at the Oakton meeting even made a snide comment about how stupid it is some schools aren't in their district as if someone picked that from other better options at some point, totally ignoring that a 100+ year old school system has had to adapt during several period of massive growth.

Many schools, including Clifton recently (https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/history/closed/clifton) had to close because the cost of bringing it up to code was prohibitive. Things like that happen over 100 years and cause anomalies that wouldn't exist if you designed a system for 180k students fresh. But this is the structure we have.

This history is filled with stories of rapid construction and student shifting during the Boomer years, only to have to close schools (at a greater expense) after the bubble passed and move kids all around again. Sounds like a familiar situation...

Rapid growth is why Sangsters boundaries look so crazy. FCPS just sent every new hoa neighborhood to Sangster as they were built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think THRU is doing a good job with the boundaries (they do not seem to know the area at all and communication is poor) and there should be rules about grandfathering seniors etc. But, what I do not understand how so many people are absolutely shocked their school might be in a boundary change. Especially schools that have closer options. Our kids go to public schools, every county around us has had relatively recent boundary changes, it is not a surprise that things need to change. I am not saying do not advocate for the changes that do not make sense, but some of the outrage is not justified.

Because when they move one school, there is a domino effect. And, then that changes the feeder issue and the neighborhood issue.

For some changes that move one neighborhood to a closer high school, that means in some cases, that their elementary school becomes a split feeder. Follow through, and this also affects middle schools.

And, then, they bump a different school to a high school further away.

The maps will never look clean and pretty. The geographic locations don't adapt to this.

There is also a ton of history that produced the unusual lines that Thru and the current board didn't bother to learn at all - despite their being a whole FCPS page dedicated to it. The consultant at the Oakton meeting even made a snide comment about how stupid it is some schools aren't in their district as if someone picked that from other better options at some point, totally ignoring that a 100+ year old school system has had to adapt during several period of massive growth.

Many schools, including Clifton recently (https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/history/closed/clifton) had to close because the cost of bringing it up to code was prohibitive. Things like that happen over 100 years and cause anomalies that wouldn't exist if you designed a system for 180k students fresh. But this is the structure we have.

This history is filled with stories of rapid construction and student shifting during the Boomer years, only to have to close schools (at a greater expense) after the bubble passed and move kids all around again. Sounds like a familiar situation...

Fixing attendance islands and split feeders is important but we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture. If FCPS could fix Coates so 400 kids weren't sharing 1 outdoor bathroom with a split feeder or attendance island, that seems worth doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think THRU is doing a good job with the boundaries (they do not seem to know the area at all and communication is poor) and there should be rules about grandfathering seniors etc. But, what I do not understand how so many people are absolutely shocked their school might be in a boundary change. Especially schools that have closer options. Our kids go to public schools, every county around us has had relatively recent boundary changes, it is not a surprise that things need to change. I am not saying do not advocate for the changes that do not make sense, but some of the outrage is not justified.

Because when they move one school, there is a domino effect. And, then that changes the feeder issue and the neighborhood issue.

For some changes that move one neighborhood to a closer high school, that means in some cases, that their elementary school becomes a split feeder. Follow through, and this also affects middle schools.

And, then, they bump a different school to a high school further away.

The maps will never look clean and pretty. The geographic locations don't adapt to this.

There is also a ton of history that produced the unusual lines that Thru and the current board didn't bother to learn at all - despite their being a whole FCPS page dedicated to it. The consultant at the Oakton meeting even made a snide comment about how stupid it is some schools aren't in their district as if someone picked that from other better options at some point, totally ignoring that a 100+ year old school system has had to adapt during several period of massive growth.

Many schools, including Clifton recently (https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/history/closed/clifton) had to close because the cost of bringing it up to code was prohibitive. Things like that happen over 100 years and cause anomalies that wouldn't exist if you designed a system for 180k students fresh. But this is the structure we have.

This history is filled with stories of rapid construction and student shifting during the Boomer years, only to have to close schools (at a greater expense) after the bubble passed and move kids all around again. Sounds like a familiar situation...

FCPS does prioritize bringing some very old schools up to code like Vienna Elementary which is about 120 years old. I suppose it depends on the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think THRU is doing a good job with the boundaries (they do not seem to know the area at all and communication is poor) and there should be rules about grandfathering seniors etc. But, what I do not understand how so many people are absolutely shocked their school might be in a boundary change. Especially schools that have closer options. Our kids go to public schools, every county around us has had relatively recent boundary changes, it is not a surprise that things need to change. I am not saying do not advocate for the changes that do not make sense, but some of the outrage is not justified.

Because when they move one school, there is a domino effect. And, then that changes the feeder issue and the neighborhood issue.

For some changes that move one neighborhood to a closer high school, that means in some cases, that their elementary school becomes a split feeder. Follow through, and this also affects middle schools.

And, then, they bump a different school to a high school further away.

The maps will never look clean and pretty. The geographic locations don't adapt to this.

There is also a ton of history that produced the unusual lines that Thru and the current board didn't bother to learn at all - despite their being a whole FCPS page dedicated to it. The consultant at the Oakton meeting even made a snide comment about how stupid it is some schools aren't in their district as if someone picked that from other better options at some point, totally ignoring that a 100+ year old school system has had to adapt during several period of massive growth.

Many schools, including Clifton recently (https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/history/closed/clifton) had to close because the cost of bringing it up to code was prohibitive. Things like that happen over 100 years and cause anomalies that wouldn't exist if you designed a system for 180k students fresh. But this is the structure we have.

This history is filled with stories of rapid construction and student shifting during the Boomer years, only to have to close schools (at a greater expense) after the bubble passed and move kids all around again. Sounds like a familiar situation...

Fixing attendance islands and split feeders is important but we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture. If FCPS could fix Coates so 400 kids weren't sharing 1 outdoor bathroom with a split feeder or attendance island, that seems worth doing.

Coates was stopped due to a pivot to rezoning everyone else in the county.

It was more important for FCPS to flip 20 kids from Lake Braddock with 20 kids from South County, than it is to take care of a poor farms elementary school that is grossly over capacity and in the middle of a rezoning study. Gotta have priorities, and unnecessary performative expensive busy work appears to rule the day over taking care of Coates.