FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say that the school board appears to be intentionally burying the news of this school purchase. It’s at the bottom of the email providing a synopsis of yesterday’s sb meeting. Something seems very suspicious with a $150 million school purchase, that they all seemed to be falling over each other to claim credit for, being jammed into the agenda last minute and buried in a Friday email.

It’s super duper suspicious. Any local press here should really look into this.

It is a bargain. Of course, they all want to take credit. Read these forums. People have been asking about this on here since the closure was announced. Do you really think DCUM was the only place that thought they should purchase it?

But, I do wonder if Fairfax County gave the property to the Saudis. Purchase price is listed as $0--so maybe, it is not quite the bargain first thought. But, the building itself is worth far more than that.

If they keep the pool, I am guessing they will work out something with the Parks to open it for community use. And, it will be available for other high school swim teams to use, as well.

I think you’re missing my point. They spent the last year and a half and upwards of a million dollars on a boundary process to pretend that they are soliciting feedback from the community.

This one KAA purchase will change about the same number of families’ school pyramids as the sum total of the proposed maps put out by thru.

So, on one hand, you have a supposed robust process with an 80-person committee and a shoddy consultant doing public meeting after public meeting, and on the other you have the school board quietly adding an agenda item to the first sb meeting after school is out and passing this two hours into the meeting with little debate and then burying it at the end of the summary email.

As I said, This doesn’t add up. Something is off here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’re concerned about the fuzzier issues of “community” and continuity - the new HS would help with that even if they technically have just enough capacity right now without it. The new HS would immediately become Carson MS’s feeder and those kids would no longer be split up between a larger number of HS. There would have to be other boundary adjustments too of course. But if you want to advocate for keeping kids with a stable cohort as much as possible from elementary-middle-high, another HS is what you need over there.

This would be so nice, but we are a Crossfield family and you all seem to think that we won't be included.

IMO, a logical place to start would be to zone those current zoned to Carson MS as their base MS to the new high school. But who knows what the capacity will be. Very rough back of envelope math would be around 2200 kids, though that might be too much for the existing structure.

That’s what I would assume too but not sure if the new school could accommodate 2200. You might have to change some boundaries or still have some degree of split feeders going on if the new HS couldn’t have all of Carson as its feeder MS. Admittedly I’m less familiar with the western boundaries, but couldn’t you have something like:

Hughes > South Lakes
Thoreau > Madison
Franklin > Oakton
Rocky Run > Chantilly
Stone > Westfield
Carson > New HS

And maybe cut down the split feeders to 1 or 2 HS having 2 middle schools feeding to it instead of the complicated situation they have going on now. And of course, AAP at all MS!

I realized the 2200 estimate is just Carson kids. It wouldn't include oak hill kids, which I assume would be zoned there to relieve Chantilly, another roughly 400. So yes, there's going to still be some split feeders.

Remember the Carson AAP kids wouldn't go to the new HS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how that Great Falls group felt the need to put out a long ass statement about the high school purchase. Why should we care what they think about this? What a bunch of self-important blowhards.

What was their statement?

p.s. I'm shocked that McLean Mom hasn't come on here to cry about desperately her kid's school needs renovations and now they won't get them (they weren't going to get them anyway)

Are non-sequiturs your specialty?

If anything, they’re suggesting this will free up money down the road for other renovations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’re concerned about the fuzzier issues of “community” and continuity - the new HS would help with that even if they technically have just enough capacity right now without it. The new HS would immediately become Carson MS’s feeder and those kids would no longer be split up between a larger number of HS. There would have to be other boundary adjustments too of course. But if you want to advocate for keeping kids with a stable cohort as much as possible from elementary-middle-high, another HS is what you need over there.

This would be so nice, but we are a Crossfield family and you all seem to think that we won't be included.

IMO, a logical place to start would be to zone those current zoned to Carson MS as their base MS to the new high school. But who knows what the capacity will be. Very rough back of envelope math would be around 2200 kids, though that might be too much for the existing structure.

That’s what I would assume too but not sure if the new school could accommodate 2200. You might have to change some boundaries or still have some degree of split feeders going on if the new HS couldn’t have all of Carson as its feeder MS. Admittedly I’m less familiar with the western boundaries, but couldn’t you have something like:

Hughes > South Lakes
Thoreau > Madison
Franklin > Oakton
Rocky Run > Chantilly
Stone > Westfield
Carson > New HS

And maybe cut down the split feeders to 1 or 2 HS having 2 middle schools feeding to it instead of the complicated situation they have going on now. And of course, AAP at all MS!

I realized the 2200 estimate is just Carson kids. It wouldn't include oak hill kids, which I assume would be zoned there to relieve Chantilly, another roughly 400. So yes, there's going to still be some split feeders.

Remember the Carson AAP kids wouldn't go to the new HS

DP, but PP clearly made that assumption. If Carson AAP kids were going to the school the estimate would be over 2500.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’re concerned about the fuzzier issues of “community” and continuity - the new HS would help with that even if they technically have just enough capacity right now without it. The new HS would immediately become Carson MS’s feeder and those kids would no longer be split up between a larger number of HS. There would have to be other boundary adjustments too of course. But if you want to advocate for keeping kids with a stable cohort as much as possible from elementary-middle-high, another HS is what you need over there.

This would be so nice, but we are a Crossfield family and you all seem to think that we won't be included.

IMO, a logical place to start would be to zone those current zoned to Carson MS as their base MS to the new high school. But who knows what the capacity will be. Very rough back of envelope math would be around 2200 kids, though that might be too much for the existing structure.

That’s what I would assume too but not sure if the new school could accommodate 2200. You might have to change some boundaries or still have some degree of split feeders going on if the new HS couldn’t have all of Carson as its feeder MS. Admittedly I’m less familiar with the western boundaries, but couldn’t you have something like:

Hughes > South Lakes
Thoreau > Madison
Franklin > Oakton
Rocky Run > Chantilly
Stone > Westfield
Carson > New HS

And maybe cut down the split feeders to 1 or 2 HS having 2 middle schools feeding to it instead of the complicated situation they have going on now. And of course, AAP at all MS!

I realized the 2200 estimate is just Carson kids. It wouldn't include oak hill kids, which I assume would be zoned there to relieve Chantilly, another roughly 400. So yes, there's going to still be some split feeders.

Remember the Carson AAP kids wouldn't go to the new HS

I really don't see them not pulling Chantilly kids into new high school. I believe they will leave Fox Mill at South Lakes and pull Crossfield and Oak Hill into the new high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’re concerned about the fuzzier issues of “community” and continuity - the new HS would help with that even if they technically have just enough capacity right now without it. The new HS would immediately become Carson MS’s feeder and those kids would no longer be split up between a larger number of HS. There would have to be other boundary adjustments too of course. But if you want to advocate for keeping kids with a stable cohort as much as possible from elementary-middle-high, another HS is what you need over there.

This would be so nice, but we are a Crossfield family and you all seem to think that we won't be included.

IMO, a logical place to start would be to zone those current zoned to Carson MS as their base MS to the new high school. But who knows what the capacity will be. Very rough back of envelope math would be around 2200 kids, though that might be too much for the existing structure.

That’s what I would assume too but not sure if the new school could accommodate 2200. You might have to change some boundaries or still have some degree of split feeders going on if the new HS couldn’t have all of Carson as its feeder MS. Admittedly I’m less familiar with the western boundaries, but couldn’t you have something like:

Hughes > South Lakes
Thoreau > Madison
Franklin > Oakton
Rocky Run > Chantilly
Stone > Westfield
Carson > New HS

And maybe cut down the split feeders to 1 or 2 HS having 2 middle schools feeding to it instead of the complicated situation they have going on now. And of course, AAP at all MS!

I realized the 2200 estimate is just Carson kids. It wouldn't include oak hill kids, which I assume would be zoned there to relieve Chantilly, another roughly 400. So yes, there's going to still be some split feeders.

Remember the Carson AAP kids wouldn't go to the new HS

I really don't see them not pulling Chantilly kids into new high school. I believe they will leave Fox Mill at South Lakes and pull Crossfield and Oak Hill into the new high school.

Maybe we should retain Thru Consulting to come up with three scenarios for an extra $500K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’re concerned about the fuzzier issues of “community” and continuity - the new HS would help with that even if they technically have just enough capacity right now without it. The new HS would immediately become Carson MS’s feeder and those kids would no longer be split up between a larger number of HS. There would have to be other boundary adjustments too of course. But if you want to advocate for keeping kids with a stable cohort as much as possible from elementary-middle-high, another HS is what you need over there.

This would be so nice, but we are a Crossfield family and you all seem to think that we won't be included.

IMO, a logical place to start would be to zone those current zoned to Carson MS as their base MS to the new high school. But who knows what the capacity will be. Very rough back of envelope math would be around 2200 kids, though that might be too much for the existing structure.

That’s what I would assume too but not sure if the new school could accommodate 2200. You might have to change some boundaries or still have some degree of split feeders going on if the new HS couldn’t have all of Carson as its feeder MS. Admittedly I’m less familiar with the western boundaries, but couldn’t you have something like:

Hughes > South Lakes
Thoreau > Madison
Franklin > Oakton
Rocky Run > Chantilly
Stone > Westfield
Carson > New HS

And maybe cut down the split feeders to 1 or 2 HS having 2 middle schools feeding to it instead of the complicated situation they have going on now. And of course, AAP at all MS!

I realized the 2200 estimate is just Carson kids. It wouldn't include oak hill kids, which I assume would be zoned there to relieve Chantilly, another roughly 400. So yes, there's going to still be some split feeders.

Remember the Carson AAP kids wouldn't go to the new HS

I really don't see them not pulling Chantilly kids into new high school. I believe they will leave Fox Mill at South Lakes and pull Crossfield and Oak Hill into the new high school.

Maybe we should retain Thru Consulting to come up with three scenarios for an extra $500K.

Why not skip the middle man and just ask Emerald Chase what they want directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’re concerned about the fuzzier issues of “community” and continuity - the new HS would help with that even if they technically have just enough capacity right now without it. The new HS would immediately become Carson MS’s feeder and those kids would no longer be split up between a larger number of HS. There would have to be other boundary adjustments too of course. But if you want to advocate for keeping kids with a stable cohort as much as possible from elementary-middle-high, another HS is what you need over there.

This would be so nice, but we are a Crossfield family and you all seem to think that we won't be included.

IMO, a logical place to start would be to zone those current zoned to Carson MS as their base MS to the new high school. But who knows what the capacity will be. Very rough back of envelope math would be around 2200 kids, though that might be too much for the existing structure.

That’s what I would assume too but not sure if the new school could accommodate 2200. You might have to change some boundaries or still have some degree of split feeders going on if the new HS couldn’t have all of Carson as its feeder MS. Admittedly I’m less familiar with the western boundaries, but couldn’t you have something like:

Hughes > South Lakes
Thoreau > Madison
Franklin > Oakton
Rocky Run > Chantilly
Stone > Westfield
Carson > New HS

And maybe cut down the split feeders to 1 or 2 HS having 2 middle schools feeding to it instead of the complicated situation they have going on now. And of course, AAP at all MS!

This would make so much sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say that the school board appears to be intentionally burying the news of this school purchase. It’s at the bottom of the email providing a synopsis of yesterday’s sb meeting. Something seems very suspicious with a $150 million school purchase, that they all seemed to be falling over each other to claim credit for, being jammed into the agenda last minute and buried in a Friday email.

It’s super duper suspicious. Any local press here should really look into this.

You're being paranoid. The email was in the order of the agenda. This was late in the agenda, so it's at the bottom of the email.

[Anonymous]

Can someone post the Great Falls parents statement on this? I am not part of their Facebook group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say that the school board appears to be intentionally burying the news of this school purchase. It’s at the bottom of the email providing a synopsis of yesterday’s sb meeting. Something seems very suspicious with a $150 million school purchase, that they all seemed to be falling over each other to claim credit for, being jammed into the agenda last minute and buried in a Friday email.

It’s super duper suspicious. Any local press here should really look into this.

You're being paranoid. The email was in the order of the agenda. This was late in the agenda, so it's at the bottom of the email.

Oh yeah, I always believe that communications about actions that impact half the county should be placed behind the section discussing replacing lights on a middle school baseball field.

No one believes your argument. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say that the school board appears to be intentionally burying the news of this school purchase. It’s at the bottom of the email providing a synopsis of yesterday’s sb meeting. Something seems very suspicious with a $150 million school purchase, that they all seemed to be falling over each other to claim credit for, being jammed into the agenda last minute and buried in a Friday email.

It’s super duper suspicious. Any local press here should really look into this.

You're being paranoid. The email was in the order of the agenda. This was late in the agenda, so it's at the bottom of the email.

Oh yeah, I always believe that communications about actions that impact half the county should be placed behind the section discussing replacing lights on a middle school baseball field.

No one believes your argument. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

DP, I believe their argument. I watched the school board meeting and followed the agenda and can confirm the discussion on baseball lights occurred before the land acquisition. Hence the order of the meeting minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say that the school board appears to be intentionally burying the news of this school purchase. It’s at the bottom of the email providing a synopsis of yesterday’s sb meeting. Something seems very suspicious with a $150 million school purchase, that they all seemed to be falling over each other to claim credit for, being jammed into the agenda last minute and buried in a Friday email.

It’s super duper suspicious. Any local press here should really look into this.

You're being paranoid. The email was in the order of the agenda. This was late in the agenda, so it's at the bottom of the email.

Oh yeah, I always believe that communications about actions that impact half the county should be placed behind the section discussing replacing lights on a middle school baseball field.

No one believes your argument. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

DP, I believe their argument. I watched the school board meeting and followed the agenda and can confirm the discussion on baseball lights occurred before the land acquisition. Hence the order of the meeting minutes.

You shills really will carry any water for them.

When did you stop believing that government should be open and accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post the Great Falls parents statement on this? I am not part of their Facebook group.

Community Group Comments on School Board Plan to Acquire a New Western High School

Today, Citizens For Great Falls President John Halacy and Vice President Manny Dacoba responded to action taken last night by the Fairfax County School Board to authorize the $150 million purchase of the now-shuttered King Abdullah Academy in Herndon.

With nine members voting to support the motion and three abstaining, the Fairfax County School Board authorized the acquisition of the King Abdullah Academy. Located in Herndon, the 40-acre site previously housed high school and middle school students for an enrollment of about 800 students. Currently assessed at $117,665,760 by Fairfax County, it is described on the former school’s website as a fully equipped high school complete with state-of-the-art classrooms, labs, indoor and outdoor athletic facilities, as well as an eight-lane Olympic-style, 25-yard competition pool.

According to Halacy and Dacoba, “The timing of this announcement is incredible for several reasons. While the need for more high school capacity in the western area of the county has been under discussion for at least 20 years, due to increased residential development, the school board and administrators have been heavily engaged in the debate surrounding the method and policies involving a revision of school boundaries to address capacity issues, given the differences in enrollments throughout the county. The vote by the school board to acquire a new facility will have a sweeping effect on current planning efforts that have involved a contentious relationship between the administration and the community. This tends to overshadow months of work and meetings by residents who have been participating in the county’s Boundary Review Advisory Committee (BRAC).”

They added: “Based on the comments at last night’s meeting of the board, some board members consider the purchase price a rare bargain and characterize this as a windfall, given the current cost of land acquisition and construction. It could present opportunities to ease capacity issues and reduce time and effort in the process of addressing needs for the western part of the county. But the decision to proceed with this by the Superintendent and her staff without engagement with the ongoing planning process is a disappointing factor. Even with the cost that has been reported, we agree with the school board members who did not vote for this because of numerous unanswered questions and the lack of transparency surrounding this initiative.

The county recently struggled to achieve a balanced budget, proposing severe cuts to avoid negatively affecting the school system’s budget and other essential county services. So, initiatives like buying a new school are likely to have a significant budget impact going forward. Though we are not surprised that the school administrators undertook this significant financial commitment without full public disclosure and debate, particularly without including such plans in the current discussions with the Boundary Review Advisory Committee (BRAC) community members.

Purchasing a high school by a county public school authority without adequate public disclosure and input from the community that has been involved in this effort for decades is an example of an administratively unsound choice. Just as the School Board’s negotiated its labor agreements that granted a 7% salary increase for their employees without involving the Board of Supervisors (which is the county’s budget authority), taking this action behind closed doors is another striking example of the lack of transparency and disregard for citizen participation typical of this school and its administrators.

School board officials and Superintendent Reid should be reminded that they don’t operate in a policy and decision-making vacuum. Major policy choices like building new schools in our community or acquiring major new facilities should involve public engagement and not be decided behind closed doors. We are eager to learn more about how this planned proposal will fit into the overall strategy for addressing school capacity issues, boundaries, and budget.

Citizens For Great Falls looks forward to engaging with the community organizations like FairFACTS Matters Foundation and the other organizations across Fairfax County involved in the efforts to
support high-quality education in our community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how that Great Falls group felt the need to put out a long ass statement about the high school purchase. Why should we care what they think about this? What a bunch of self-important blowhards.

Oh please - read the countless accusations over the past 400+ pages betting that they were only in the fight to protect their Langley piece, oh they’re just self-interested and don’t care about their rest of the county because they’re rich bla bla bla. And now you’re over here, all how dare they be civic-minded when they’re rich bla bla bla. This group is going to get flak no matter what.

This opposition is completely self interested like everything else they do. They’re worried about creating even more unused capacity at Herndon for them to fill. They’re the gift that keeps giving.

Everything else, like when they continued to fight unneeded boundary changes after the tentative maps didn’t move Langley kids?

You are just a straight-up liar with an agenda.

DP. I've been very impressed by how some of the Great Falls/FairFACTS Matters folks, especially those on the BRAC, have been willing to continue to raise questions on behalf of others even after none of the Thru proposals involved moving anyone out of Langley.

Can someone please paste the statement you're talking about? I don't have Facebook.