Shrevewood Elementary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrevewood was also part of the priority boundary adjustment in the CIP for 2020-2024. The timing was to do the scoping in Fall 2019, boundary study in Spring 2020, with adjustments for the 2021-2022 school year. See pg 46: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/amended-FY2020-24-CIP.pdf

As far as I can tell, the scoping has not yet been done.

Everything got put on hold while the last School Board twiddled their thumbs and engaged in philosophical debates about One Fairfax throughout much of 2018 and 2019.

You can thank members like Corbett Sanders and Keys Gamarra for that nonsense (it mattered not to them, because the schools in their neighborhoods were already getting plenty of money and attention), and of course Brabrand was no help at all.

Nearly two years and NOW we get to wait for a consultant to deliver an analysis.

Hooray for efficiency and good governance!

They don’t have the bandwidth to address the overcrowding at Shrevewood. Some bathrooms still don’t have free menstrual products and Lee HS needs a new name.

[Anonymous]

hey don’t have the bandwidth to address the overcrowding at Shrevewood. Some bathrooms still don’t have free menstrual products and Lee HS needs a new name.

And, don't forget that some of the high school bathrooms are lacking partitions, but we need to get "solar schools." See SB meeting 2/06/20.

[Anonymous]

We have a family friend who is zoned for Shrevewood, but they opted to enter the lottery for an immersion program and got in. They indicated that while they like the immersion program, quietly their real motivation was less about that specific language, but more that they felt Shrevewood was struggling due to capacity and the immersion program was a way to get out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a family friend who is zoned for Shrevewood, but they opted to enter the lottery for an immersion program and got in. They indicated that while they like the immersion program, quietly their real motivation was less about that specific language, but more that they felt Shrevewood was struggling due to capacity and the immersion program was a way to get out.

As a long-time Shrevewood parent, I totally get this perspective. It's so disappointing, seeing lots of other ES get renovated and expanded just bc they are in the queue and knowing that Shrevewood is going to be overlooked again and again by the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a family friend who is zoned for Shrevewood, but they opted to enter the lottery for an immersion program and got in. They indicated that while they like the immersion program, quietly their real motivation was less about that specific language, but more that they felt Shrevewood was struggling due to capacity and the immersion program was a way to get out.

As a long-time Shrevewood parent, I totally get this perspective. It's so disappointing, seeing lots of other ES get renovated and expanded just bc they are in the queue and knowing that Shrevewood is going to be overlooked again and again by the county.

We know at least two families who are going private next year. If we could afford it, we probably would too.

[Anonymous]

They uploaded the new CIP on the official website and Shrevewood is on Table 7, p. 40, same timeline. https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/facilities-planning-future/capital-improvement-program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They uploaded the new CIP on the official website and Shrevewood is on Table 7, p. 40, same timeline. https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/facilities-planning-future/capital-improvement-program

So pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They uploaded the new CIP on the official website and Shrevewood is on Table 7, p. 40, same timeline. https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/facilities-planning-future/capital-improvement-program

They actually updated it so that scoping is supposed to be in the Spring 2020 (now), and implemented a year later (21-22 instead of 20-21).

[Anonymous]

So what’s the prediction on what will happen with redistricting?

[Anonymous]

If you look at the notes online, at the PTA meeting, Mr. D said we were third in line for a redistricting study. I don't know what that means - how long does a redistricting study take? I'd say if they do implement, it won't be for another 2-3 years. My kid will be out of elementary my then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: So what’s the prediction on what will happen with redistricting?

The straightforward route would be for the area west of the beltway (Dunn Loring) to switch to Stenwood, and then the northern half of Stenwood's area goes to Freedom Hill. I have no idea whether the northern Stenwood families would raise enough of a major stick to avoid going to Freedom Hill.

In theory, you could also take the area along Idlywood north of 66 and send that to Lemon Road, and then some of Lemon Road goes up to Westgate, but that looks less straightforward and I don't know if it would be enough kids out of Shrevewood.

The real problem here is that any boundary adjustment is going to have to include at least 2 other elementary schools since Shrevewood is surrounded by schools that are projected to be at or above capacity for the long haul. (Stenwood 97%, Lemon Road 96%, Timber Lane 94%, Pine Spring 117%, Fairhill 108%, all from pg 88).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: So what’s the prediction on what will happen with redistricting?

The straightforward route would be for the area west of the beltway (Dunn Loring) to switch to Stenwood, and then the northern half of Stenwood's area goes to Freedom Hill. I have no idea whether the northern Stenwood families would raise enough of a major stick to avoid going to Freedom Hill.

In theory, you could also take the area along Idlywood north of 66 and send that to Lemon Road, and then some of Lemon Road goes up to Westgate, but that looks less straightforward and I don't know if it would be enough kids out of Shrevewood.

The real problem here is that any boundary adjustment is going to have to include at least 2 other elementary schools since Shrevewood is surrounded by schools that are projected to be at or above capacity for the long haul. (Stenwood 97%, Lemon Road 96%, Timber Lane 94%, Pine Spring 117%, Fairhill 108%, all from pg 88).

I don’t know why FCPS should pay much attention to people complaining about moving from one Marshall feeder (Stenwood) to another (Freedom Hill). Especially when the areas that will be moved to Stenwood from Shrevewood will end up balancing the demographics among the three schools.

[Anonymous]

They need to move kids west - all the McLean and Great Falls schools are projected to be well below capacity in 5 years.

As someone who lives along Idylwood, I'll be unhappy if my kids get sent to Lemon Road. I don't want them in an AAP center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: So what’s the prediction on what will happen with redistricting?

The straightforward route would be for the area west of the beltway (Dunn Loring) to switch to Stenwood, and then the northern half of Stenwood's area goes to Freedom Hill. I have no idea whether the northern Stenwood families would raise enough of a major stick to avoid going to Freedom Hill.

In theory, you could also take the area along Idlywood north of 66 and send that to Lemon Road, and then some of Lemon Road goes up to Westgate, but that looks less straightforward and I don't know if it would be enough kids out of Shrevewood.

The real problem here is that any boundary adjustment is going to have to include at least 2 other elementary schools since Shrevewood is surrounded by schools that are projected to be at or above capacity for the long haul. (Stenwood 97%, Lemon Road 96%, Timber Lane 94%, Pine Spring 117%, Fairhill 108%, all from pg 88).

Couldn't they do it piecemeal to spread the kids out and have it make more sense when looking at a map? The Dunn Loring apartments go to Stenwood. The townhomes/SFHs behind the golf course/funeral home go to Timber Lane. Some of the houses between Shreve and West go to Timber Lane (we have friends at Shrevewood whose next door neighbors go to Timber Lane). The apartments and SFHs off of Pimmit near the Whole Foods go to Lemon Road. All of those schools are physically closer to those neighborhoods than Shrevewood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: So what’s the prediction on what will happen with redistricting?

The straightforward route would be for the area west of the beltway (Dunn Loring) to switch to Stenwood, and then the northern half of Stenwood's area goes to Freedom Hill. I have no idea whether the northern Stenwood families would raise enough of a major stick to avoid going to Freedom Hill.

In theory, you could also take the area along Idlywood north of 66 and send that to Lemon Road, and then some of Lemon Road goes up to Westgate, but that looks less straightforward and I don't know if it would be enough kids out of Shrevewood.

The real problem here is that any boundary adjustment is going to have to include at least 2 other elementary schools since Shrevewood is surrounded by schools that are projected to be at or above capacity for the long haul. (Stenwood 97%, Lemon Road 96%, Timber Lane 94%, Pine Spring 117%, Fairhill 108%, all from pg 88).

Couldn't they do it piecemeal to spread the kids out and have it make more sense when looking at a map? The Dunn Loring apartments go to Stenwood. The townhomes/SFHs behind the golf course/funeral home go to Timber Lane. Some of the houses between Shreve and West go to Timber Lane (we have friends at Shrevewood whose next door neighbors go to Timber Lane). The apartments and SFHs off of Pimmit near the Whole Foods go to Lemon Road. All of those schools are physically closer to those neighborhoods than Shrevewood.

In other words, please move all the lower-income areas at Shrevewood to other schools, including one that is already Title I? Some of the areas you are describing have very few SFHs. LOL.