FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a parent of school aged kids and support boundary changes. Because I have looked at a map and seen all the ridiculous lines that create inefficiencies and waste money.

When you looked at the map, did you notice the distance between Langley and McLean? Madison and Oakton? Lewis and Edison? Fairfax and Woodson? Carson and Franklin? etc.

We would all like schools with neat, compact, and logical boundaries. When two schools are very close together then lines have to go in different and longer directions. Add to that certain restrictions--Langley is practically on the Arlington border. All Fairfax City kids are required to go to Fairfax High.

Want to talk about inefficiencies? IB is far more expensive than AP. It is also less preferred by most Fairfax county parents. So, we are going to shift kids from IB to AP-and vice versa--as well as shifting them out of their current communities.

Teachers will have to be shifted to staff schools. And, they may not be shifted with the kids because of the programs at different high schools. Some will be shifted to schools that are not as convenient, and some may be happy with the shift. But, either way, it is a new and learning experience. There will need to be adjustments in counselors and programs. None of this is efficient. These issues are not being considered.

All our SB is concerned about is demographics. Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest.

I agree emphatically with everything you wrote except the implications of the last paragraph. I don't agree that they prioritize demographic balance across the county. They prioritize demographic balance so long as it benefits their own neighborhoods and schools. Otherwise it's not a priority of theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah no one is moving in to Woodson without significant numbers moving out first. FCPS’s own projections show only Woodson and WSHS significantly over capacity in the 5 year projections (which obviously are sus but that’s what they’re going by). Isn’t Mantua ES basically right across the street from Woodson HS though? I can’t see that change happening.

The 5 year projections include modulars. Without modulars, McLean is still at 118%, Marshall at 109%, Chantilly at 112%, and Robinson at 105%. Also, Annandale also goes from 89% to 102% when you take the modular away.

Chantilly has had modular for years. It has been overcrowded for years, and yet no one wants to move out. If you look at the membership, the freshman class is much lower in number and it is likely the population may go down. The boundaries are compact and there is no logical shift that does not involve greater distance for any of the students.

Very few want to move out of McLean either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah no one is moving in to Woodson without significant numbers moving out first. FCPS’s own projections show only Woodson and WSHS significantly over capacity in the 5 year projections (which obviously are sus but that’s what they’re going by). Isn’t Mantua ES basically right across the street from Woodson HS though? I can’t see that change happening.

You could be within four blocks of Oakton HS and zoned for Madison HS.

True.

We are 0.2 miles from an elementary school to which we are not zoned. Our house is zoned to a school 1.3 miles away. That's not far, of course, but it's a lot farther than 0.2 miles!

We are 0.6 miles from a middle school to which we are not zoned. We are zoned to a school 1.4 miles away.

Our high school probably is the closest one geographically though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a parent of school aged kids and support boundary changes. Because I have looked at a map and seen all the ridiculous lines that create inefficiencies and waste money.

I agree with you, but the process thus far has done little to show this is a problem they’re interested in solving.

I think they have a high likelihood of failure because the board messes many things up. But I am hoping that the third party analysis will hold - use the objective criteria and don’t fold to preferences of board members or the noisiest constituents with a personal interest. We need a rational approach to fix the boundaries and then leave them alone for five years when minor tweaks weight be necessary.

I don’t think anything has gone wrong yet but the many pages of crazy speculation (when no special changes have been proposed yet) on this thread don’t give me hope that rationality will prevail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chantilly kids can shift to Westfield if they move the northern boundary to Herndon. They could also move some to Fairfax, especially if they move others out of Fairfax to Woodson or Robinson.

Westfield already has 2800 students with hundreds of new townhouses being built in its boundary. No room for CHS kids. They will
need to go to an expanded CVHS or the open seats at Herndon.

Coates will go first to Herndon. It borders Herndon boundary. And, I'm not sure there are hundreds of townshouses, but that is not a yield of hundreds of high school students.

Westfield was built out to accommodate 3000 students.

I don't believe this will happen. There are tipping points and then there are tipping points. Increasing Herndon's enrollment by moving a 64% FARMS ES into a 55% FARMS HS is not what Robyn Lady and her buddies have in mind. Given their projections and Westifield's capacity, if they were committed to moving kids out of Chantilly now, they could move 150 or so kids from Chantilly to Westfield without bumping any of Westfield into Herndon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah no one is moving in to Woodson without significant numbers moving out first. FCPS’s own projections show only Woodson and WSHS significantly over capacity in the 5 year projections (which obviously are sus but that’s what they’re going by). Isn’t Mantua ES basically right across the street from Woodson HS though? I can’t see that change happening.

The 5 year projections include modulars. Without modulars, McLean is still at 118%, Marshall at 109%, Chantilly at 112%, and Robinson at 105%. Also, Annandale also goes from 89% to 102% when you take the modular away.

They spent decades telling people that modulars, while not permanent seats, were a suitable learning environment and counted towards capacity when determining whether schools were overcrowded.

It's only when they want to move kids around like widgets for demographic reasons that they do an about-face and assert that getting kids out of modulars - which cost several million to install per modular - is critical. Ask the families at schools with modulars if they want to be redistricted. The answer generally will be no.

The hypocrisy in FCPS never stops.

[Anonymous]

They spent decades telling people that modulars, while not permanent seats, were a suitable learning environment and counted towards capacity when determining whether schools were overcrowded.

It's only when they want to move kids around like widgets for demographic reasons that they do an about-face and assert that getting kids out of modulars - which cost several million to install per modular - is critical. Ask the families at schools with modulars if they want to be redistricted. The answer generally will be no.

The hypocrisy in FCPS never stops.

This!

In 2008, the South Lakes boundary study was "based" on the fact that all FCPS high schools should have 2000 students (or no more). They had JUST completed expanding capacity at Westfield to 3000 and had to find a way to justify moving them out to South Lakes. That boundary study was run by South Lakes PTSA which wanted more affluent demographics. They got it at Westfield's expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah no one is moving in to Woodson without significant numbers moving out first. FCPS’s own projections show only Woodson and WSHS significantly over capacity in the 5 year projections (which obviously are sus but that’s what they’re going by). Isn’t Mantua ES basically right across the street from Woodson HS though? I can’t see that change happening.

The 5 year projections include modulars. Without modulars, McLean is still at 118%, Marshall at 109%, Chantilly at 112%, and Robinson at 105%. Also, Annandale also goes from 89% to 102% when you take the modular away.

They spent decades telling people that modulars, while not permanent seats, were a suitable learning environment and counted towards capacity when determining whether schools were overcrowded.

It's only when they want to move kids around like widgets for demographic reasons that they do an about-face and assert that getting kids out of modulars - which cost several million to install per modular - is critical. Ask the families at schools with modulars if they want to be redistricted. The answer generally will be no.

The hypocrisy in FCPS never stops.

Is the goal to get rid of modulars? It sounded like they wanted to get rid of them as much as possible because of school safety/security reasons. Is it just going to be used as a tool to let them do whatever they want? They’re good when they get us to the right result and bad otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a parent of school aged kids and support boundary changes. Because I have looked at a map and seen all the ridiculous lines that create inefficiencies and waste money.

I agree with you, but the process thus far has done little to show this is a problem they’re interested in solving.

I think they have a high likelihood of failure because the board messes many things up. But I am hoping that the third party analysis will hold - use the objective criteria and don’t fold to preferences of board members or the noisiest constituents with a personal interest. We need a rational approach to fix the boundaries and then leave them alone for five years when minor tweaks weight be necessary.

I don’t think anything has gone wrong yet but the many pages of crazy speculation (when no special changes have been proposed yet) on this thread don’t give me hope that rationality will prevail.

If the school board breaks the system with these changes, they and their party own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah no one is moving in to Woodson without significant numbers moving out first. FCPS’s own projections show only Woodson and WSHS significantly over capacity in the 5 year projections (which obviously are sus but that’s what they’re going by). Isn’t Mantua ES basically right across the street from Woodson HS though? I can’t see that change happening.

The 5 year projections include modulars. Without modulars, McLean is still at 118%, Marshall at 109%, Chantilly at 112%, and Robinson at 105%. Also, Annandale also goes from 89% to 102% when you take the modular away.

They spent decades telling people that modulars, while not permanent seats, were a suitable learning environment and counted towards capacity when determining whether schools were overcrowded.

It's only when they want to move kids around like widgets for demographic reasons that they do an about-face and assert that getting kids out of modulars - which cost several million to install per modular - is critical. Ask the families at schools with modulars if they want to be redistricted. The answer generally will be no.

The hypocrisy in FCPS never stops.

Is the goal to get rid of modulars? It sounded like they wanted to get rid of them as much as possible because of school safety/security reasons. Is it just going to be used as a tool to let them do whatever they want? They’re good when they get us to the right result and bad otherwise.

That’s Mateo Dunne pretext, not an actual reason.

[Anonymous]

Waples is in pure panic. PTA just assembled a committee for the boundary situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a parent of school aged kids and support boundary changes. Because I have looked at a map and seen all the ridiculous lines that create inefficiencies and waste money.

I agree with you, but the process thus far has done little to show this is a problem they’re interested in solving.

I think they have a high likelihood of failure because the board messes many things up. But I am hoping that the third party analysis will hold - use the objective criteria and don’t fold to preferences of board members or the noisiest constituents with a personal interest. We need a rational approach to fix the boundaries and then leave them alone for five years when minor tweaks weight be necessary.

I don’t think anything has gone wrong yet but the many pages of crazy speculation (when no special changes have been proposed yet) on this thread don’t give me hope that rationality will prevail.

Criteria can be objective and still lead to a very bad result. For the most part, they are manufacturing a problem so they can supply the desired solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of IB and put AP at every school or these boundary changes are pointless

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a parent of school aged kids and support boundary changes. Because I have looked at a map and seen all the ridiculous lines that create inefficiencies and waste money.

I agree with you, but the process thus far has done little to show this is a problem they’re interested in solving.

I think they have a high likelihood of failure because the board messes many things up. But I am hoping that the third party analysis will hold - use the objective criteria and don’t fold to preferences of board members or the noisiest constituents with a personal interest. We need a rational approach to fix the boundaries and then leave them alone for five years when minor tweaks weight be necessary.

I don’t think anything has gone wrong yet but the many pages of crazy speculation (when no special changes have been proposed yet) on this thread don’t give me hope that rationality will prevail.

Criteria can be objective and still lead to a very bad result. For the most part, they are manufacturing a problem so they can supply the desired solution.

+1. Walking into a trap of their own design created by their own echo chamber where Sniveling Sandy Anderson barks orders from the dais.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hey #fairFACTS Matters please help the community that wants this boundary review scrapped:

1) we need a catchier domain URL like FCPSboundarychanges.com. Should be a splash page of the elevator pitch talking points regarding unethical/questionable things during this process.

2) we need volunteers to hold up signs at major intersections advertising that URL and "You're kids school boundary is changing!"

I think it could double, triple the eyes on this now and pressure on the SB this spring once new boundaries are proposed

You do realize a lot families will be thrilled about the bolded. Do not assume all parents are on your side. You might just wake up a sleeping giant with your banners.

Yeah, you don't know many parents with school aged kids if you think that.

I would think parents of older kids would be more enraged. Elementary kids usually have a much easier time making new friends. I see it all the time at the private school where I teach. Now,
Now, if the kid is a jerk, they won’t be making friends, period!

Sorry, but you are absolutely clueless if you think there is some "sleeping giant" of FCPS who want rezoning.

NO parents of school aged kids want this rezoning.

This is nonsense. While I doubt that most people want rezoning, some people absolutely do. I remember sitting on the sidelines with a fellow team parent who cheerfully said, "I hear they're going to change the boundaries." We are Langly pyramid, and she is Herndon pyramid. She was happy at the prospect that some GF kids would be coming to Herndon.

I never heard her complain about HHS, but I suppose she wanted the new boundaries for reasons that have been expressed in the past by Herndon High parents on this board. I doubt she was writing emails to Gatehouse encouraging the change but she was absolutely happy about the possibility.

I'm sure there are other parents in other pyramids who would welcome a change of school or to have new streets added to their current zone. Maybe they want AP instead of IB, maybe a change would mean their kid stays with a best friend instead of splitting off to different high schools when they get older, maybe with traffic patterns and a new job a different school would be more convenient to get to for sports and events.

Likely the people who are REALLY against new boundaries are more numerous and more passionate than those who would be merely happy with new boundaries, and that's something any board member who wants to continue a career in FC politics would be wise to consider.

This is spot on. I’ve heard Langley parents who live in McLean saying they would have no problem if some of Tysons was assigned to Langley and some of Great Falls was reassigned from Langley to Herndon.

As you point out, those who are unhappy with the proposed boundary changes are going to be far more vocal and organized in their opposition than those who are indifferent or supportive.

Correct. McLean parents zoned for Langley could give a isht if part of Great Falls is sent to Herndon.