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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the leaked map information posted on previous thread - what do people think are the chances of entire Wakefield Elementary School getting 5zoned to Poe and Annandale?

This is not on the BRAC agenda. Someone is screwing with you. There are no pre-planned maps. DCUM is good for fake news and angry Republicans. Don't take the bait.

Hate to inform you--but Democrats also want their kids to stay in their present schools.

I think that's what he's in-line with. The Republicans keep bringing up the DEI card as a motivation for rezoning and make that a plan to turn Fairfax Red. Langley/Herndon is an easy fire for them to light.

It's just bus routes and capacity.

It's documented that the Democrat-run school board began planning a county-wide boundary review/redraw due to the commitment to One Fairfax. The point of redoing Policy 8130 was to put a "One Fairfax Lens" on the way boundaries are drawn. "Equity" is at the center of this and it is unreasonable that the Democrats don't stand behind this principle. It is also wild that in a majority blue county anyone would think that the politicians acting according to their party's principles would make the people that voted for them because they are democrats change their votes to republican.

Here is the example - of the DEI card; This is the worse way to mix rich + poor kids is to bus them across county especially with Fairfax traffic. Please show your sources where the Dems explicitly stated that they are redistricting to mix rich + poor kids. Or is it one of those "they wont say that's what they are doing"?

The boundary rezoning has always been with capacity https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/opinions/more-space-for-fcps-students-policy-8130-for-redistricting-under-consideration/article_5e5f73fc-6634-11ef-9af9-b707b04d85e1.html The lone DEI officer is to maintain that one school isn't left behind somehow.

Maybe I’m not following you, but your post seems to attempt to make One Fairfax out to be a SES policy, rather than a racial equity policy. I get why you would want to make that argument, but it just isn’t accurate, if that is what you are trying to do.

If the boundary changes have always been about capacity, please inform us why the BRAC contains many special interest groups, including race-based special interest groups.

And can you also let us know why Mateo Dunne at the publicly-available October 8, 2024 meeting, around 4:02 indicated that he wanted the chief equity officer on certain committees because “One Fairfax”?

You all keep asserting that this isn’t equity-based redistricting and then we provide you with our receipts to show that it is.

Your receipts are - interest groups and a chief equity officer are present. This is circumstantial and not proof - they are there so no future complaints cannot be made such as: what you are implying. I'm looking for a document or meeting minutes that says that the boundary adjustment is about equity and not capacity. So far the meeting slides keep talking about capacity. And I hear the other side repeatedly say it's all about equity. Which is it? Show me the slides or meeting minutes.

Circumstantial and not proof? Wtf are you talking about? Look at policy 8130. At some point it’s less about you not seeing the evidence and more about you not wanting to believe it.

Items not in 8130: equity, race, or one fairfax.

Items in 8130: access to programming, proximity, capacity, transportation, minimizing disruption, minimizing transportation costs, aligning pyramids and eliminating split feeders, and supporting family involvement.

So, yes, I agree with what you said. “At some point it’s less about you not seeing evidence and more about you not wanting to believe it.”

Did you read “access to programming”? I’m guessing not?

Also, One Fairfax is policy for FCPS. They don’t need to cite to it in 8130.

Womp womp.

Per the Oxford dictionary:

“Equitable”: an adjective meaning fair and impartial.

You either don’t understand the English language, or you’re big mad that a public resource will be fairly distributed to everyone.

The school board can legally, and should, fairly distribute tax dollars to the schools and make sure to hire competent principals, teachers, staff, etc. They should make sure that all schools have textbooks, equipment and facilities in good repair, etc.

"rich" kids, white/asian kids, "rich" black kids, middle class hispanic kids, upper-class english language learners, middle class half persian/half german kids ---CHILDREN--are not a public resource to be distributed.

Your last paragraph may reflect your preferences, but it's not the law. School systems can and still do adjust school boundaries based on the economic characteristics of different neighborhoods.

People got used to FCPS adjusting school boundaries in ways that concentrated poverty at certain schools or widened demographic gaps between nearby schools. The fact this happened for over a decade with Democratic School Board members often leading the charged convinced the wealthier that this was the natural order of things. Now it looks like things may swing in the opposite direction, hence the predictable hissy fits from those used to always getting their way.

This seems like the Republican view - the lines were drawn under Republican rule. The whole equity thing came about when people complained that the rich kids were getting tutors for classes and tests. The idea was to give help to anyone that wanted it no one would get ahead simply because they had money in fcps anyways. Somehow this became a rally cry and spread fear, division, and mis-information. Agree or disagree - equity is to give everyone the same opportunity. Equity is not churni a melting pot.

No, equity is to make sure everyone gets to the same point. Please listen to the leader of the Democratic party. (She gives a less than one minute explanation) https://youtu.be/w4kowE_YIVw?si=fya5wtZSV6wGYvYT

"equitable treatment means that we all end up at the same place"

If everyone gets the same good curriculum, competent teachers, discipline, quality facilities, equipment, but does not end up at the same place, you have to try something else.

As it applies to boundaries, as much as possible they don't want 9/10 scores on Great Schools for some and 2/10 for others. If each school needs to be 5/10, or at least some 6/10 and others 5/10, that is preferable to having vast disparities in achievement and perceived value.

NP.

Thank you. “Equity” - when that concept/action is applied by FCPS, means one very specific, impactful goal:

EQUITY OF OUTCOME

That type of equity is very, VERY different than “equity of opportunity.” FCPS wants “equity of outcome.”

Think about the implications here for your child.

I understand that the politicians who run for the School Board think they need to mimic the “equity” arguments of Ibram Kendi and Kamala Harris to get the endorsements of the FCDC, but they don’t represent the views of most county residents, including the Democratic voters (who are generally closer to the center than the FCDC activists are).

If they really mess with boundaries it will backfire on them badly. It will also mean the end of the political careers of local supervisors like McKay, Alcorn, Walkinshaw, Palchik, and Bierman.

Maybe they want to FAFO, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they are getting a message behind the scenes to tread carefully. This isn’t the mid-1980s any longer, so pretending they can redistrict the way they may have decades ago is very foolish.

Lots of MC and UMC families are ready with cash and passion to demolish the political careers of the current sb members or board of supervisors who support these boundary changes.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the leaked map information posted on previous thread - what do people think are the chances of entire Wakefield Elementary School getting 5zoned to Poe and Annandale?

This is not on the BRAC agenda. Someone is screwing with you. There are no pre-planned maps. DCUM is good for fake news and angry Republicans. Don't take the bait.

Hate to inform you--but Democrats also want their kids to stay in their present schools.

I think that's what he's in-line with. The Republicans keep bringing up the DEI card as a motivation for rezoning and make that a plan to turn Fairfax Red. Langley/Herndon is an easy fire for them to light.

It's just bus routes and capacity.

It's documented that the Democrat-run school board began planning a county-wide boundary review/redraw due to the commitment to One Fairfax. The point of redoing Policy 8130 was to put a "One Fairfax Lens" on the way boundaries are drawn. "Equity" is at the center of this and it is unreasonable that the Democrats don't stand behind this principle. It is also wild that in a majority blue county anyone would think that the politicians acting according to their party's principles would make the people that voted for them because they are democrats change their votes to republican.

Here is the example - of the DEI card; This is the worse way to mix rich + poor kids is to bus them across county especially with Fairfax traffic. Please show your sources where the Dems explicitly stated that they are redistricting to mix rich + poor kids. Or is it one of those "they wont say that's what they are doing"?

The boundary rezoning has always been with capacity https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/opinions/more-space-for-fcps-students-policy-8130-for-redistricting-under-consideration/article_5e5f73fc-6634-11ef-9af9-b707b04d85e1.html The lone DEI officer is to maintain that one school isn't left behind somehow.

Maybe I’m not following you, but your post seems to attempt to make One Fairfax out to be a SES policy, rather than a racial equity policy. I get why you would want to make that argument, but it just isn’t accurate, if that is what you are trying to do.

If the boundary changes have always been about capacity, please inform us why the BRAC contains many special interest groups, including race-based special interest groups.

And can you also let us know why Mateo Dunne at the publicly-available October 8, 2024 meeting, around 4:02 indicated that he wanted the chief equity officer on certain committees because “One Fairfax”?

You all keep asserting that this isn’t equity-based redistricting and then we provide you with our receipts to show that it is.

Your receipts are - interest groups and a chief equity officer are present. This is circumstantial and not proof - they are there so no future complaints cannot be made such as: what you are implying. I'm looking for a document or meeting minutes that says that the boundary adjustment is about equity and not capacity. So far the meeting slides keep talking about capacity. And I hear the other side repeatedly say it's all about equity. Which is it? Show me the slides or meeting minutes.

Circumstantial and not proof? Wtf are you talking about? Look at policy 8130. At some point it’s less about you not seeing the evidence and more about you not wanting to believe it.

Items not in 8130: equity, race, or one fairfax.

Items in 8130: access to programming, proximity, capacity, transportation, minimizing disruption, minimizing transportation costs, aligning pyramids and eliminating split feeders, and supporting family involvement.

So, yes, I agree with what you said. “At some point it’s less about you not seeing evidence and more about you not wanting to believe it.”

Did you read “access to programming”? I’m guessing not?

Also, One Fairfax is policy for FCPS. They don’t need to cite to it in 8130.

Womp womp.

Per the Oxford dictionary:

“Equitable”: an adjective meaning fair and impartial.

You either don’t understand the English language, or you’re big mad that a public resource will be fairly distributed to everyone.

The school board can legally, and should, fairly distribute tax dollars to the schools and make sure to hire competent principals, teachers, staff, etc. They should make sure that all schools have textbooks, equipment and facilities in good repair, etc.

"rich" kids, white/asian kids, "rich" black kids, middle class hispanic kids, upper-class english language learners, middle class half persian/half german kids ---CHILDREN--are not a public resource to be distributed.

Your last paragraph may reflect your preferences, but it's not the law. School systems can and still do adjust school boundaries based on the economic characteristics of different neighborhoods.

People got used to FCPS adjusting school boundaries in ways that concentrated poverty at certain schools or widened demographic gaps between nearby schools. The fact this happened for over a decade with Democratic School Board members often leading the charged convinced the wealthier that this was the natural order of things. Now it looks like things may swing in the opposite direction, hence the predictable hissy fits from those used to always getting their way.

This seems like the Republican view - the lines were drawn under Republican rule. The whole equity thing came about when people complained that the rich kids were getting tutors for classes and tests. The idea was to give help to anyone that wanted it no one would get ahead simply because they had money in fcps anyways. Somehow this became a rally cry and spread fear, division, and mis-information. Agree or disagree - equity is to give everyone the same opportunity. Equity is not churni a melting pot.

No, equity is to make sure everyone gets to the same point. Please listen to the leader of the Democratic party. (She gives a less than one minute explanation) https://youtu.be/w4kowE_YIVw?si=fya5wtZSV6wGYvYT

"equitable treatment means that we all end up at the same place"

If everyone gets the same good curriculum, competent teachers, discipline, quality facilities, equipment, but does not end up at the same place, you have to try something else.

As it applies to boundaries, as much as possible they don't want 9/10 scores on Great Schools for some and 2/10 for others. If each school needs to be 5/10, or at least some 6/10 and others 5/10, that is preferable to having vast disparities in achievement and perceived value.

NP.

Thank you. “Equity” - when that concept/action is applied by FCPS, means one very specific, impactful goal:

EQUITY OF OUTCOME

That type of equity is very, VERY different than “equity of opportunity.” FCPS wants “equity of outcome.”

Think about the implications here for your child.

This. The problem is that their idea of "equity of outcome" results in a "low outcome." But, hey, we're for EQUITY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any way to get the School Board to scale back the Centreville expansion to 2500 permanent seats (not 3000), cancel the Dunn Loring ES project, and use the savings to expand Chantilly to 2750 and McLean to 2500?

I cannot see why that would not make more sense than expanding Centreville to 3000, building an unnecessary 900-seat ES in Dunn Loring, and leaving McLean with under 2000 permanent seats.

If they did this, many of the boundary changes people are concerned about would be moot. If they don’t, it suggests they are neglecting to make sound investment decisions because they want to change boundaries for purely demographic reasons.

Chantilly has an extremely small footprint. Ironic, since when they gave away the site next to Carson, the excuse was that there was not enough land for a high school. Chantilly acreage is much smaller than King Abdullah acreage.

Expansion of Centreville makes far more sense. And, Chantilly population is going down. Anyone can look at the menbership numbers and see that.

Chantilly has exactly 1 less acre than Centreville (35 vs. 36); it had a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers this year; and it’s had an enrollment of 2800-2900 for years (but now projected to declined to around 2600 in five years).

They could expand the number of permanent seats at Chantilly and get rid of some of the temporary classrooms.

Chant
Where are you getting your information? Chantilly only has 16 acres. Centreville 26. This is from Fairfax County website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chantilly can't be expanded. It is on a tiny scrap of land.

It may be on a smaller plot but Chantilly is loaded with academies. FCPS needs to come clean on each course- in bounary/out of boundary, square footage used for each academy class. If it can provide square footage on sped centers then it can do this...same for the Region 5 island-Marshall.

The Coates study has some SPA numbers on K-6. Hunters Woods is in that thing and gets 98 from Waples Mill and general numbers have about 50% transferring in from other schools. Entire area cannot be done with precision comsidering Chantilly Academies, program transfers, etc. And in the middle is South Lakes IB like a rotten core on a flower with AP petals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any way to get the School Board to scale back the Centreville expansion to 2500 permanent seats (not 3000), cancel the Dunn Loring ES project, and use the savings to expand Chantilly to 2750 and McLean to 2500?

I cannot see why that would not make more sense than expanding Centreville to 3000, building an unnecessary 900-seat ES in Dunn Loring, and leaving McLean with under 2000 permanent seats.

If they did this, many of the boundary changes people are concerned about would be moot. If they don’t, it suggests they are neglecting to make sound investment decisions because they want to change boundaries for purely demographic reasons.

Chantilly has an extremely small footprint. Ironic, since when they gave away the site next to Carson, the excuse was that there was not enough land for a high school. Chantilly acreage is much smaller than King Abdullah acreage.

Expansion of Centreville makes far more sense. And, Chantilly population is going down. Anyone can look at the menbership numbers and see that.

Chantilly has exactly 1 less acre than Centreville (35 vs. 36); it had a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers this year; and it’s had an enrollment of 2800-2900 for years (but now projected to declined to around 2600 in five years).

They could expand the number of permanent seats at Chantilly and get rid of some of the temporary classrooms.

Chant
Where are you getting your information? Chantilly only has 16 acres. Centreville 26. This is from Fairfax County website.

Chantilly and Centreville are identified as having 35 and 36 acres, respectively, in both the latest Capital Improvement Program (p. 268) and the FCPS SY 2024-25 Capacity Dashboard, available at https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25CapacityDashboard/ReadMe

In any event, if Chantilly could accommodate 2900 kids at a site with a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers, additional permanent seats could replace the land-intensive trailers and modular.

[Anonymous]

Justice has 21 acres and it was expanded to 2500 seats. FCPS is full of excuses when it comes to denying Chantilly and McLean additions, but they would avoid boundary changes and could be funded if the School Board wasn't planning on an over-the-top expansion of Centreville to 3000 seats and budgeting $86 million to build an unnecessary ES in Dunn Loring.

They don't want to do the sensible things because it interferes with their equity-based redistricting scheme. And people like Karl Frisch will lie about it over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any way to get the School Board to scale back the Centreville expansion to 2500 permanent seats (not 3000), cancel the Dunn Loring ES project, and use the savings to expand Chantilly to 2750 and McLean to 2500?

I cannot see why that would not make more sense than expanding Centreville to 3000, building an unnecessary 900-seat ES in Dunn Loring, and leaving McLean with under 2000 permanent seats.

If they did this, many of the boundary changes people are concerned about would be moot. If they don’t, it suggests they are neglecting to make sound investment decisions because they want to change boundaries for purely demographic reasons.

Chantilly has an extremely small footprint. Ironic, since when they gave away the site next to Carson, the excuse was that there was not enough land for a high school. Chantilly acreage is much smaller than King Abdullah acreage.

Expansion of Centreville makes far more sense. And, Chantilly population is going down. Anyone can look at the menbership numbers and see that.

Chantilly has exactly 1 less acre than Centreville (35 vs. 36); it had a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers this year; and it’s had an enrollment of 2800-2900 for years (but now projected to declined to around 2600 in five years).

They could expand the number of permanent seats at Chantilly and get rid of some of the temporary classrooms.

Chant
Where are you getting your information? Chantilly only has 16 acres. Centreville 26. This is from Fairfax County website.

Chantilly and Centreville are identified as having 35 and 36 acres, respectively, in both the latest Capital Improvement Program (p. 268) and the FCPS SY 2024-25 Capacity Dashboard, available at https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25CapacityDashboard/ReadMe

In any event, if Chantilly could accommodate 2900 kids at a site with a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers, additional permanent seats could replace the land-intensive trailers and modular.

I'd love to know where those acres are at Chantilly. Wonder if it was what it had originally and they sold off acreage for something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any way to get the School Board to scale back the Centreville expansion to 2500 permanent seats (not 3000), cancel the Dunn Loring ES project, and use the savings to expand Chantilly to 2750 and McLean to 2500?

I cannot see why that would not make more sense than expanding Centreville to 3000, building an unnecessary 900-seat ES in Dunn Loring, and leaving McLean with under 2000 permanent seats.

If they did this, many of the boundary changes people are concerned about would be moot. If they don’t, it suggests they are neglecting to make sound investment decisions because they want to change boundaries for purely demographic reasons.

Chantilly has an extremely small footprint. Ironic, since when they gave away the site next to Carson, the excuse was that there was not enough land for a high school. Chantilly acreage is much smaller than King Abdullah acreage.

Expansion of Centreville makes far more sense. And, Chantilly population is going down. Anyone can look at the menbership numbers and see that.

Chantilly has exactly 1 less acre than Centreville (35 vs. 36); it had a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers this year; and it’s had an enrollment of 2800-2900 for years (but now projected to declined to around 2600 in five years).

They could expand the number of permanent seats at Chantilly and get rid of some of the temporary classrooms.

Chant
Where are you getting your information? Chantilly only has 16 acres. Centreville 26. This is from Fairfax County website.

Chantilly and Centreville are identified as having 35 and 36 acres, respectively, in both the latest Capital Improvement Program (p. 268) and the FCPS SY 2024-25 Capacity Dashboard, available at https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25CapacityDashboard/ReadMe

In any event, if Chantilly could accommodate 2900 kids at a site with a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers, additional permanent seats could replace the land-intensive trailers and modular.

I'd love to know where those acres are at Chantilly. Wonder if it was what it had originally and they sold off acreage for something else.

My theory: Maybe the Greenbrier West site was included (it is adjacent to Chantilly.) GW has 10 acres--that would make Chantilly 26 if it were included--of course, it is too late for that.

Or, maybe the library acreage across the street. Or, they sold it to Shenandoah Crossing for the apartments. And, no one ever changed it.

Good thing the Chantilly membership is set to diminish.

In any case, the CIP is not correct on the acreage. Centreville certainly looks like it has a lot more acreage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Justice has 21 acres and it was expanded to 2500 seats. FCPS is full of excuses when it comes to denying Chantilly and McLean additions, but they would avoid boundary changes and could be funded if the School Board wasn't planning on an over-the-top expansion of Centreville to 3000 seats and budgeting $86 million to build an unnecessary ES in Dunn Loring.

They don't want to do the sensible things because it interferes with their equity-based redistricting scheme. And people like Karl Frisch will lie about it over and over again.

The real reason Frisch, his SB, and Reid hate McLean is they view it as full of:

- unearned Asian and white privilege

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any way to get the School Board to scale back the Centreville expansion to 2500 permanent seats (not 3000), cancel the Dunn Loring ES project, and use the savings to expand Chantilly to 2750 and McLean to 2500?

I cannot see why that would not make more sense than expanding Centreville to 3000, building an unnecessary 900-seat ES in Dunn Loring, and leaving McLean with under 2000 permanent seats.

If they did this, many of the boundary changes people are concerned about would be moot. If they don’t, it suggests they are neglecting to make sound investment decisions because they want to change boundaries for purely demographic reasons.

Chantilly has an extremely small footprint. Ironic, since when they gave away the site next to Carson, the excuse was that there was not enough land for a high school. Chantilly acreage is much smaller than King Abdullah acreage.

Expansion of Centreville makes far more sense. And, Chantilly population is going down. Anyone can look at the menbership numbers and see that.

Chantilly has exactly 1 less acre than Centreville (35 vs. 36); it had a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers this year; and it’s had an enrollment of 2800-2900 for years (but now projected to declined to around 2600 in five years).

They could expand the number of permanent seats at Chantilly and get rid of some of the temporary classrooms.

Chant
Where are you getting your information? Chantilly only has 16 acres. Centreville 26. This is from Fairfax County website.

Chantilly and Centreville are identified as having 35 and 36 acres, respectively, in both the latest Capital Improvement Program (p. 268) and the FCPS SY 2024-25 Capacity Dashboard, available at https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25CapacityDashboard/ReadMe

In any event, if Chantilly could accommodate 2900 kids at a site with a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers, additional permanent seats could replace the land-intensive trailers and modular.

I'd love to know where those acres are at Chantilly. Wonder if it was what it had originally and they sold off acreage for something else.

My theory: Maybe the Greenbrier West site was included (it is adjacent to Chantilly.) GW has 10 acres--that would make Chantilly 26 if it were included--of course, it is too late for that.

Or, maybe the library acreage across the street. Or, they sold it to Shenandoah Crossing for the apartments. And, no one ever changed it.

Good thing the Chantilly membership is set to diminish.

In any case, the CIP is not correct on the acreage. Centreville certainly looks like it has a lot more acreage.

The county, as opposed to FCPS, identifies 4201 Stringfellow Road (Chantilly's address) as having 16 acres. However, the FCPS School Board owns the adjacent 19-acre parcel, which does not have a street address, but on which a number of the school's athletic fields are located. Add the two FCPS-owned parcels together, and it's 35 acres.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any way to get the School Board to scale back the Centreville expansion to 2500 permanent seats (not 3000), cancel the Dunn Loring ES project, and use the savings to expand Chantilly to 2750 and McLean to 2500?

I cannot see why that would not make more sense than expanding Centreville to 3000, building an unnecessary 900-seat ES in Dunn Loring, and leaving McLean with under 2000 permanent seats.

If they did this, many of the boundary changes people are concerned about would be moot. If they don’t, it suggests they are neglecting to make sound investment decisions because they want to change boundaries for purely demographic reasons.

Chantilly has an extremely small footprint. Ironic, since when they gave away the site next to Carson, the excuse was that there was not enough land for a high school. Chantilly acreage is much smaller than King Abdullah acreage.

Expansion of Centreville makes far more sense. And, Chantilly population is going down. Anyone can look at the menbership numbers and see that.

Chantilly has exactly 1 less acre than Centreville (35 vs. 36); it had a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers this year; and it’s had an enrollment of 2800-2900 for years (but now projected to declined to around 2600 in five years).

They could expand the number of permanent seats at Chantilly and get rid of some of the temporary classrooms.

Chant
Where are you getting your information? Chantilly only has 16 acres. Centreville 26. This is from Fairfax County website.

Chantilly and Centreville are identified as having 35 and 36 acres, respectively, in both the latest Capital Improvement Program (p. 268) and the FCPS SY 2024-25 Capacity Dashboard, available at https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25CapacityDashboard/ReadMe

In any event, if Chantilly could accommodate 2900 kids at a site with a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers, additional permanent seats could replace the land-intensive trailers and modular.

I'd love to know where those acres are at Chantilly. Wonder if it was what it had originally and they sold off acreage for something else.

I just drew a crude perimeter using google maps including parking lots and fields and got 33 acres, so 35 is believable. This does not include Greenbriar West.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any way to get the School Board to scale back the Centreville expansion to 2500 permanent seats (not 3000), cancel the Dunn Loring ES project, and use the savings to expand Chantilly to 2750 and McLean to 2500?

I cannot see why that would not make more sense than expanding Centreville to 3000, building an unnecessary 900-seat ES in Dunn Loring, and leaving McLean with under 2000 permanent seats.

If they did this, many of the boundary changes people are concerned about would be moot. If they don’t, it suggests they are neglecting to make sound investment decisions because they want to change boundaries for purely demographic reasons.

Chantilly has an extremely small footprint. Ironic, since when they gave away the site next to Carson, the excuse was that there was not enough land for a high school. Chantilly acreage is much smaller than King Abdullah acreage.

Expansion of Centreville makes far more sense. And, Chantilly population is going down. Anyone can look at the menbership numbers and see that.

Chantilly has exactly 1 less acre than Centreville (35 vs. 36); it had a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers this year; and it’s had an enrollment of 2800-2900 for years (but now projected to declined to around 2600 in five years).

They could expand the number of permanent seats at Chantilly and get rid of some of the temporary classrooms.

Chant
Where are you getting your information? Chantilly only has 16 acres. Centreville 26. This is from Fairfax County website.

Chantilly and Centreville are identified as having 35 and 36 acres, respectively, in both the latest Capital Improvement Program (p. 268) and the FCPS SY 2024-25 Capacity Dashboard, available at https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25CapacityDashboard/ReadMe

In any event, if Chantilly could accommodate 2900 kids at a site with a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers, additional permanent seats could replace the land-intensive trailers and modular.

I'd love to know where those acres are at Chantilly. Wonder if it was what it had originally and they sold off acreage for something else.

My theory: Maybe the Greenbrier West site was included (it is adjacent to Chantilly.) GW has 10 acres--that would make Chantilly 26 if it were included--of course, it is too late for that.

Or, maybe the library acreage across the street. Or, they sold it to Shenandoah Crossing for the apartments. And, no one ever changed it.

Good thing the Chantilly membership is set to diminish.

In any case, the CIP is not correct on the acreage. Centreville certainly looks like it has a lot more acreage.

The county, as opposed to FCPS, identifies 4201 Stringfellow Road (Chantilly's address) as having 16 acres. However, the FCPS School Board owns the adjacent 19-acre parcel, which does not have a street address, but on which a number of the school's athletic fields are located. Add the two FCPS-owned parcels together, and it's 35 acres.

^ These two parcels are identified as Map # 0451 01 0009A (16 acres) and MAP # 0451 01 0009 (19 acres) in the county's property records. FCPS owns both of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any way to get the School Board to scale back the Centreville expansion to 2500 permanent seats (not 3000), cancel the Dunn Loring ES project, and use the savings to expand Chantilly to 2750 and McLean to 2500?

I cannot see why that would not make more sense than expanding Centreville to 3000, building an unnecessary 900-seat ES in Dunn Loring, and leaving McLean with under 2000 permanent seats.

If they did this, many of the boundary changes people are concerned about would be moot. If they don’t, it suggests they are neglecting to make sound investment decisions because they want to change boundaries for purely demographic reasons.

Chantilly has an extremely small footprint. Ironic, since when they gave away the site next to Carson, the excuse was that there was not enough land for a high school. Chantilly acreage is much smaller than King Abdullah acreage.

Expansion of Centreville makes far more sense. And, Chantilly population is going down. Anyone can look at the menbership numbers and see that.

Chantilly has exactly 1 less acre than Centreville (35 vs. 36); it had a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers this year; and it’s had an enrollment of 2800-2900 for years (but now projected to declined to around 2600 in five years).

They could expand the number of permanent seats at Chantilly and get rid of some of the temporary classrooms.

Chant
Where are you getting your information? Chantilly only has 16 acres. Centreville 26. This is from Fairfax County website.

Chantilly and Centreville are identified as having 35 and 36 acres, respectively, in both the latest Capital Improvement Program (p. 268) and the FCPS SY 2024-25 Capacity Dashboard, available at https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25CapacityDashboard/ReadMe

In any event, if Chantilly could accommodate 2900 kids at a site with a 14-unit modular and 9 trailers, additional permanent seats could replace the land-intensive trailers and modular.

I'd love to know where those acres are at Chantilly. Wonder if it was what it had originally and they sold off acreage for something else.

My theory: Maybe the Greenbrier West site was included (it is adjacent to Chantilly.) GW has 10 acres--that would make Chantilly 26 if it were included--of course, it is too late for that.

Or, maybe the library acreage across the street. Or, they sold it to Shenandoah Crossing for the apartments. And, no one ever changed it.

Good thing the Chantilly membership is set to diminish.

In any case, the CIP is not correct on the acreage. Centreville certainly looks like it has a lot more acreage.

As explained above, the CIP is correct on the acreage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Justice has 21 acres and it was expanded to 2500 seats. FCPS is full of excuses when it comes to denying Chantilly and McLean additions, but they would avoid boundary changes and could be funded if the School Board wasn't planning on an over-the-top expansion of Centreville to 3000 seats and budgeting $86 million to build an unnecessary ES in Dunn Loring.

They don't want to do the sensible things because it interferes with their equity-based redistricting scheme. And people like Karl Frisch will lie about it over and over again.

Justice’s expansion has generated a parking crisis but expanding Chantilly around the existing modular footprint could actually buy some parking spaces back from the excess trailers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justice has 21 acres and it was expanded to 2500 seats. FCPS is full of excuses when it comes to denying Chantilly and McLean additions, but they would avoid boundary changes and could be funded if the School Board wasn't planning on an over-the-top expansion of Centreville to 3000 seats and budgeting $86 million to build an unnecessary ES in Dunn Loring.

They don't want to do the sensible things because it interferes with their equity-based redistricting scheme. And people like Karl Frisch will lie about it over and over again.

Justice’s expansion has generated a parking crisis but expanding Chantilly around the existing modular footprint could actually buy some parking spaces back from the excess trailers.

FCPS and the Park Authority had worked out a deal to allow FCPS to add parking at the little-used park across from the school to compensate for the parking that would be lost with Justice’s expansion. But some local activists pitched a fit about the loss of green space, even though the park is rarely used, except by Justice kids sneaking off to get high. So they came up with a different plan to add back some but not all of the lost spaces.

What the Justice folks really seem to want now is for FCPS to pay for a concrete parking garage, but that seems highly unlikely (too expensive and also unsafe). They got a big addition outside the renovation queue so they really have no grounds to complain.