Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

Isn’t a “priority transfer” the same as a pupil placement except you get bumped to the top of the list? She’s basically saying as long as Madison is open for transfer, families can pupil place if they want. Same as they could today. So I don’t see that number shifting except for UMC flight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

What are boundary streets for Tysons Green? It seems like with the name Tysons in it Marshall would clearly be the school assigned.

[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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

Isn’t a “priority transfer” the same as a pupil placement except you get bumped to the top of the list? She’s basically saying as long as Madison is open for transfer, families can pupil place if they want. Same as they could today. So I don’t see that number shifting except for UMC flight.

When completing transfer request it should be labeled as UMC Flight so it can be properly tracked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

Isn’t a “priority transfer” the same as a pupil placement except you get bumped to the top of the list? She’s basically saying as long as Madison is open for transfer, families can pupil place if they want. Same as they could today. So I don’t see that number shifting except for UMC flight.

I think your description is accurate. However, I think they’ll be more UMC families in Vienna pupil placing to Madison now that the “Vienna wants Madison, not Marshall” theme has been sounded so loudly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Dr Reid stated there were no changes to show since the last publication. It was so confusing because many of the board members made it seem like she stated there were changes earlier in the day

[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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

Isn’t a “priority transfer” the same as a pupil placement except you get bumped to the top of the list? She’s basically saying as long as Madison is open for transfer, families can pupil place if they want. Same as they could today. So I don’t see that number shifting except for UMC flight.

What is "pupil placement"? Thought could only transfer in public school for specific program NOT offered in home school (in which case what does Madison have that Marshall doesn't?) OR if parent teaches at that school etc.?

[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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

Isn’t a “priority transfer” the same as a pupil placement except you get bumped to the top of the list? She’s basically saying as long as Madison is open for transfer, families can pupil place if they want. Same as they could today. So I don’t see that number shifting except for UMC flight.

What is "pupil placement"? Thought could only transfer in public school for specific program NOT offered in home school (in which case what does Madison have that Marshall doesn't?) OR if parent teaches at that school etc.?

Easy. Madison is AP and Marshall is IB. That’s a lot easier pupil placement (transfer to a school other than the school to which you’re assigned based on location) than committing to take four years of Russian at Langley was (and, yes, I know they are halting pupil placements to take a foreign language not offered at your base 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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

Isn’t a “priority transfer” the same as a pupil placement except you get bumped to the top of the list? She’s basically saying as long as Madison is open for transfer, families can pupil place if they want. Same as they could today. So I don’t see that number shifting except for UMC flight.

What is "pupil placement"? Thought could only transfer in public school for specific program NOT offered in home school (in which case what does Madison have that Marshall doesn't?) OR if parent teaches at that school etc.?

Some years ago DS had a friend who "pupil placed" after his freshman year to another high school. His goal: to be on a winning sports team.
Mom told the school that he had "social issues." It was totally bogus. He was captain of a different sports team than his favored sport--and did very well in his favored sport at his freshman school.. However, the other school was state championship material. Parents thought he was D1 material and would get more looks from scouts. He did well at the new school, but was not the star he might have been at the old one. Did not end up playing D1. Did play D3--but not a starter. Mom made no secret of her lie about social issues.

[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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

Isn’t a “priority transfer” the same as a pupil placement except you get bumped to the top of the list? She’s basically saying as long as Madison is open for transfer, families can pupil place if they want. Same as they could today. So I don’t see that number shifting except for UMC flight.

What is "pupil placement"? Thought could only transfer in public school for specific program NOT offered in home school (in which case what does Madison have that Marshall doesn't?) OR if parent teaches at that school etc.?

Some years ago DS had a friend who "pupil placed" after his freshman year to another high school. His goal: to be on a winning sports team.
Mom told the school that he had "social issues." It was totally bogus. He was captain of a different sports team than his favored sport--and did very well in his favored sport at his freshman school.. However, the other school was state championship material. Parents thought he was D1 material and would get more looks from scouts. He did well at the new school, but was not the star he might have been at the old one. Did not end up playing D1. Did play D3--but not a starter. Mom made no secret of her lie about social issues.

Respectfully, this is ancient history. Madison used to be particularly notorious for recruiting kids to pupil place there so they could play sports. But FCPS is tightening its pupil placement rules and VHSL has adopted rules in the wake of the Hayfield scandal to restrict the athletic eligibility of kids attending schools for which they aren’t zoned.

https://www.fcps.edu/get-involved/athletics/athletic-eligibility-and-transfer-gateway

[Anonymous]

So Lewis goes on the five-year review list - but in the meantime its enrollment will continue to plummet? They probably say they will look at transfers, but in the end they won't do anything about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Lewis goes on the five-year review list - but in the meantime its enrollment will continue to plummet? They probably say they will look at transfers, but in the end they won't do anything about that.

Get rid of IB would be a start.

[Anonymous]

Dr. Reid can take a vacation now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Lewis goes on the five-year review list - but in the meantime its enrollment will continue to plummet? They probably say they will look at transfers, but in the end they won't do anything about that.

Get rid of IB would be a start.

If it was only so easy to convince FCPS of this. They won't budge! To the point that it looks like they leave IB in place to allow transfers out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Lewis goes on the five-year review list - but in the meantime its enrollment will continue to plummet? They probably say they will look at transfers, but in the end they won't do anything about that.

If you watch the entire meeting, somewhere in the earlier comments one of them, I think adr. Reid, said they are looking at miving some specialized technical programs into the undpecified severely under enrolled schools.

[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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

What are boundary streets for Tysons Green? It seems like with the name Tysons in it Marshall would clearly be the school assigned.

http://www.greatertysonsgreen.org/location.html

You're right that the area should stay at Marshall, but the homes have Vienna addresses and one result of this boundary review is that many with a Vienna address left at Kilmer and Marshall will now fight to get moved since they've largely redefined Kilmer and Marshall as Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood schools (with one attendance island left in Vienna out towards Reston).

It's a crappy result for Kilmer and Marshall, and Melanie Meren and Karl Frisch are primarily responsible. Neither of them even acknowledged that they turned a Westbriar attendance island into a Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island.