FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:at the BRAC meeting someone asked reid how the western high school acquisition would affect the boundary review and she said it isn’t being considered as part of the review! but that it should open fall 2026. how? how can it not be included when it seems like it will affect so many schools

What a farce. As between this School Board and Reid, FCPS has never been in the hands of so many deeply incompetent people.

Agree that they should acknowledge it. This whole study has been a farce. However, this does not create problems but solves them.
Except for Western Fairfax, it should not have much impact.

It meets stated goals:

Proximity
Keeping neighborhoods together
Reduces transportation costs
Eliminates overcrowding.
Chantilly has been cited as overcrowded and one of the schools that needs relief. It frees up space at Westfield (which has new construction nearby) and allows it to take students from Centreville. This, in turn, would allow a neighborhood right next to Centreville to go to Centreville instead of making the long trek to Fairfax.
It might eliminate the need for Centreville to have a large expansion when they get their new update.
This is a win for all these students.
Two of the scenarios by Thru include splitting Oak Hill between Oakton and Chantilly. This would resolve that.

If Crossfield is included, it eliminates a very long bus ride on I66 or winding back roads. And, it keeps Franklin Farm together. A big development is going to be built near Oakton. This will result in overcrowding.

So, this does not have as many far reaching tentacles as some would think. It resolves problems. It will have little impact outside of this area which was on THRU's chopping block anyway.

I understand you want to stress the positives of the KAA acquisition and a new HS in the Carson area, but PPs are spot on that the related boundary adjustments need to be part of the county-wide review. For example, under the sceanario that you outline, you're pulling kids out of Fairfax, which in turn could have implications for the boundaries at Woodson and other schools. That can't just be ignored.

If they were smart the only MS/HS boundary changes they'd pursue this round would be those that are a result of the KAA acquisition. They can call it a superseding event or whatever, but they've shown over and over again they are not equipped to take on dozens of boundary changes at the same time. Figure out what they need to do near KAA/Carson and get that right, and maybe change some super funky ES boundaries if they can actually keep track of what they are doing and not create problems just as bad as the ones they purport to be solving. But right now this is a giant train wreck unfolding before our eyes in slow motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:at the BRAC meeting someone asked reid how the western high school acquisition would affect the boundary review and she said it isn’t being considered as part of the review! but that it should open fall 2026. how? how can it not be included when it seems like it will affect so many schools

What a farce. As between this School Board and Reid, FCPS has never been in the hands of so many deeply incompetent people.

Agree that they should acknowledge it. This whole study has been a farce. However, this does not create problems but solves them.
Except for Western Fairfax, it should not have much impact.

It meets stated goals:

Proximity
Keeping neighborhoods together
Reduces transportation costs
Eliminates overcrowding.
Chantilly has been cited as overcrowded and one of the schools that needs relief. It frees up space at Westfield (which has new construction nearby) and allows it to take students from Centreville. This, in turn, would allow a neighborhood right next to Centreville to go to Centreville instead of making the long trek to Fairfax.
It might eliminate the need for Centreville to have a large expansion when they get their new update.
This is a win for all these students.
Two of the scenarios by Thru include splitting Oak Hill between Oakton and Chantilly. This would resolve that.

If Crossfield is included, it eliminates a very long bus ride on I66 or winding back roads. And, it keeps Franklin Farm together. A big development is going to be built near Oakton. This will result in overcrowding.

So, this does not have as many far reaching tentacles as some would think. It resolves problems. It will have little impact outside of this area which was on THRU's chopping block anyway.

I understand you want to stress the positives of the KAA acquisition and a new HS in the Carson area, but PPs are spot on that the related boundary adjustments need to be part of the county-wide review. For example, under the sceanario that you outline, you're pulling kids out of Fairfax, which in turn could have implications for the boundaries at Woodson and other schools. That can't just be ignored.

If they were smart the only MS/HS boundary changes they'd pursue this round would be those that are a result of the KAA acquisition. They can call it a superseding event or whatever, but they've shown over and over again they are not equipped to take on dozens of boundary changes at the same time. Figure out what they need to do near KAA/Carson and get that right, and maybe change some super funky ES boundaries if they can actually keep track of what they are doing and not create problems just as bad as the ones they purport to be solving. But right now this is a giant train wreck unfolding before our eyes in slow motion.

I'm the poster to whom you are responding. I see your point.
I have thought from the beginning that this whole thing is a mess. I know my area is a mess and reading these forums I realize that there are other areas just as disturbed.

I had high hopes that KAA would give them an excuse to stop the process and resolve it first.

I've watched these boundary studies before. There are too many moving parts to resolve this county-wide.

[Anonymous]

Fairfacts Matters has posted a great recap of the meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they still think Irving/WSHS needs relief from overcrowding? There is no new development in that area - no new neighborhoods of tightly packed 3 bedroom TH’s being built that will attract many new families. Just older homes eventually, and very gradually, turning over from the original owners and empty nesters. And it’s common knowledge that birth rates started to fall in 2008 with the recession. Most of the 2007 kids turned 18 and graduated this year, then you’d have a few of the late birthday ones graduating at the end of this coming school year and then the graduating classes should start to drop in size.

They can’t shuffle kids out of Irving/WS to South County MS/HS and also keep the Hagel Circle island at SC. There isn’t enough room. The original proposal was to move Hagel Circle out of Halley/SC to Lorton Station/Hayfield. The current scenarios have it at Gunston/SC AND (they estimate) 35% of HV also at SC, AND a smaller number of students currently at Lake Braddock to South County. This also would almost certainly create another Title 1 school at Gunston, and with all the uncertainty around federal funding for education, that doesn’t seem to be the smartest move (Halley was never Title 1 so it’s not as though it’s just moving a designation from one school to another).

Anyone else out here in the hinterlands care to weigh in?

Well according to the newly posted slides, the new HV split was an “error”. Just like this whole stupid thing is an error.

The way they worded it, though, made it clear Thru didn’t think it was an error.

This whole thing is a mess. We’re in West Springfield and the KAA won’t impact us at all but I cannot for the life of me figure out how you don’t include that new school in these scenarios. Or postpone the review until they figure out what they’re doing with that school.

These people are truly incompetent.

It really is mind blowing. The new high school is gonna have such a big cascading effect on boundaries. To continue on with the current process is negligent.

They feel like they can’t delay, because then changes happen in August 2027 - two months before sb elections.

They haven’t quite caught on to the fact that it doesn’t matter if it is 2026 or 2027. Voters won’t stand for these boundary changes, and they’ll be screwed election season either way.

They won’t be screwed for election season. Most voters do not have children in the public schools. Most students will not be changing schools. Will there be ticked off voters, yes. Will it be enough to sway more than one or two seats? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fairfacts Matters has posted a great recap of the meeting.

Reading the summary of that debacle, I come away thinking Thru's contract should be terminated, Reid should be fired, and Frisch should be recalled. These people are all so ridiculously bad at their jobs. At what point does the Board of Supervisors step in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfacts Matters has posted a great recap of the meeting.

Reading the summary of that debacle, I come away thinking Thru's contract should be terminated, Reid should be fired, and Frisch should be recalled. These people are all so ridiculously bad at their jobs. At what point does the Board of Supervisors step in?

While there have been poor School Board members for years, this one takes the cake. At least we had some with the voice of reason in the past. And, say what you will, at least we heard an opposing view from Schultz. We desperately need an opposing view now. When have we had that?

Who would think that two men who take their oath on stacks of "banned books" like Gender Queer would be elected to the School Board. When banned books are a religion, there is a problem.

What we need is a strong media presence that reports on this School Board. We need common sense members that care about the education of our students--not political agendas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfacts Matters has posted a great recap of the meeting.

Reading the summary of that debacle, I come away thinking Thru's contract should be terminated, Reid should be fired, and Frisch should be recalled. These people are all so ridiculously bad at their jobs. At what point does the Board of Supervisors step in?

Reid should have been fired several scandals ago. She's terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfacts Matters has posted a great recap of the meeting.

Reading the summary of that debacle, I come away thinking Thru's contract should be terminated, Reid should be fired, and Frisch should be recalled. These people are all so ridiculously bad at their jobs. At what point does the Board of Supervisors step in?

While there have been poor School Board members for years, this one takes the cake. At least we had some with the voice of reason in the past. And, say what you will, at least we heard an opposing view from Schultz. We desperately need an opposing view now. When have we had that?

Who would think that two men who take their oath on stacks of "banned books" like Gender Queer would be elected to the School Board. When banned books are a religion, there is a problem.

What we need is a strong media presence that reports on this School Board. We need common sense members that care about the education of our students--not political agendas.

The swearing-in on stacks of "banned books" is a symptom of the problem, but not the problem. It's a symptom of the fact that the current School Board is heavy on performative acts, and utterly negligent when it comes to the oversight of FCPS operations. They've set in motion a county-wide boundary study that is being executed about as poorly as one can imagine, but when questioned they typically profess ignorance of the details.

If they got sworn in with their hand on Gender Queer, but then actually focused on their responsibilities they'd still get crap from MAGA types, but most of us wouldn't care. It's the fact that they expect to be applauded because of their stances that have nothing to do with education, while neglecting their basic oversight role, that is so infuriating.

This boundary review was always fraught with peril because nothing similar had been done for decades, and FCPS is a very different school system than it was in the mid-1980s. But it was conducted thougtfully and overseen carefully, it had a chance. Instead, we have outside consultants who are simpletons, a superintendent who is utterly clueless, and a School Board that can't be bothered to figure out why this is so off track and stepping in to either salvage it or scrap it. They all deserve nothing but utter scorn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do they still think Irving/WSHS needs relief from overcrowding? There is no new development in that area - no new neighborhoods of tightly packed 3 bedroom TH’s being built that will attract many new families. Just older homes eventually, and very gradually, turning over from the original owners and empty nesters. And it’s common knowledge that birth rates started to fall in 2008 with the recession. Most of the 2007 kids turned 18 and graduated this year, then you’d have a few of the late birthday ones graduating at the end of this coming school year and then the graduating classes should start to drop in size.

They can’t shuffle kids out of Irving/WS to South County MS/HS and also keep the Hagel Circle island at SC. There isn’t enough room. The original proposal was to move Hagel Circle out of Halley/SC to Lorton Station/Hayfield. The current scenarios have it at Gunston/SC AND (they estimate) 35% of HV also at SC, AND a smaller number of students currently at Lake Braddock to South County. This also would almost certainly create another Title 1 school at Gunston, and with all the uncertainty around federal funding for education, that doesn’t seem to be the smartest move (Halley was never Title 1 so it’s not as though it’s just moving a designation from one school to another).

Anyone else out here in the hinterlands care to weigh in?

Gunston will definitely turn title 1 if the Hagel Circle island is moved there. The Mason Neck NIMBYs are up in arms, as they should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did they just completely gloss over how the KAA acquisition will impact this? Anyone in the meeting know if that was discussed at any point?

Fcps said they are opening the school in 2026, and not including it in rezoning scenarios...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they just completely gloss over how the KAA acquisition will impact this? Anyone in the meeting know if that was discussed at any point?

Fcps said they are opening the school in 2026, and not including it in rezoning scenarios...

Step 1: buy school.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they still think Irving/WSHS needs relief from overcrowding? There is no new development in that area - no new neighborhoods of tightly packed 3 bedroom TH’s being built that will attract many new families. Just older homes eventually, and very gradually, turning over from the original owners and empty nesters. And it’s common knowledge that birth rates started to fall in 2008 with the recession. Most of the 2007 kids turned 18 and graduated this year, then you’d have a few of the late birthday ones graduating at the end of this coming school year and then the graduating classes should start to drop in size.

They can’t shuffle kids out of Irving/WS to South County MS/HS and also keep the Hagel Circle island at SC. There isn’t enough room. The original proposal was to move Hagel Circle out of Halley/SC to Lorton Station/Hayfield. The current scenarios have it at Gunston/SC AND (they estimate) 35% of HV also at SC, AND a smaller number of students currently at Lake Braddock to South County. This also would almost certainly create another Title 1 school at Gunston, and with all the uncertainty around federal funding for education, that doesn’t seem to be the smartest move (Halley was never Title 1 so it’s not as though it’s just moving a designation from one school to another).

Anyone else out here in the hinterlands care to weigh in?

Well according to the newly posted slides, the new HV split was an “error”. Just like this whole stupid thing is an error.

The way they worded it, though, made it clear Thru didn’t think it was an error.

This whole thing is a mess. We’re in West Springfield and the KAA won’t impact us at all but I cannot for the life of me figure out how you don’t include that new school in these scenarios. Or postpone the review until they figure out what they’re doing with that school.

These people are truly incompetent.

It really is mind blowing. The new high school is gonna have such a big cascading effect on boundaries. To continue on with the current process is negligent.

They feel like they can’t delay, because then changes happen in August 2027 - two months before sb elections.

They haven’t quite caught on to the fact that it doesn’t matter if it is 2026 or 2027. Voters won’t stand for these boundary changes, and they’ll be screwed election season either way.

They won’t be screwed for election season. Most voters do not have children in the public schools. Most students will not be changing schools. Will there be ticked off voters, yes. Will it be enough to sway more than one or two seats? No.

The springfield rep will lose her spot if the Rs run someone who can halfway form a coherent sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they still think Irving/WSHS needs relief from overcrowding? There is no new development in that area - no new neighborhoods of tightly packed 3 bedroom TH’s being built that will attract many new families. Just older homes eventually, and very gradually, turning over from the original owners and empty nesters. And it’s common knowledge that birth rates started to fall in 2008 with the recession. Most of the 2007 kids turned 18 and graduated this year, then you’d have a few of the late birthday ones graduating at the end of this coming school year and then the graduating classes should start to drop in size.

They can’t shuffle kids out of Irving/WS to South County MS/HS and also keep the Hagel Circle island at SC. There isn’t enough room. The original proposal was to move Hagel Circle out of Halley/SC to Lorton Station/Hayfield. The current scenarios have it at Gunston/SC AND (they estimate) 35% of HV also at SC, AND a smaller number of students currently at Lake Braddock to South County. This also would almost certainly create another Title 1 school at Gunston, and with all the uncertainty around federal funding for education, that doesn’t seem to be the smartest move (Halley was never Title 1 so it’s not as though it’s just moving a designation from one school to another).

Anyone else out here in the hinterlands care to weigh in?

Well according to the newly posted slides, the new HV split was an “error”. Just like this whole stupid thing is an error.

The way they worded it, though, made it clear Thru didn’t think it was an error.

This whole thing is a mess. We’re in West Springfield and the KAA won’t impact us at all but I cannot for the life of me figure out how you don’t include that new school in these scenarios. Or postpone the review until they figure out what they’re doing with that school.

These people are truly incompetent.

It really is mind blowing. The new high school is gonna have such a big cascading effect on boundaries. To continue on with the current process is negligent.

They feel like they can’t delay, because then changes happen in August 2027 - two months before sb elections.

They haven’t quite caught on to the fact that it doesn’t matter if it is 2026 or 2027. Voters won’t stand for these boundary changes, and they’ll be screwed election season either way.

They won’t be screwed for election season. Most voters do not have children in the public schools. Most students will not be changing schools. Will there be ticked off voters, yes. Will it be enough to sway more than one or two seats? No.

The springfield rep will lose her spot if the Rs run someone who can halfway form a coherent sentence.

Ditto Dranesville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they still think Irving/WSHS needs relief from overcrowding? There is no new development in that area - no new neighborhoods of tightly packed 3 bedroom TH’s being built that will attract many new families. Just older homes eventually, and very gradually, turning over from the original owners and empty nesters. And it’s common knowledge that birth rates started to fall in 2008 with the recession. Most of the 2007 kids turned 18 and graduated this year, then you’d have a few of the late birthday ones graduating at the end of this coming school year and then the graduating classes should start to drop in size.

They can’t shuffle kids out of Irving/WS to South County MS/HS and also keep the Hagel Circle island at SC. There isn’t enough room. The original proposal was to move Hagel Circle out of Halley/SC to Lorton Station/Hayfield. The current scenarios have it at Gunston/SC AND (they estimate) 35% of HV also at SC, AND a smaller number of students currently at Lake Braddock to South County. This also would almost certainly create another Title 1 school at Gunston, and with all the uncertainty around federal funding for education, that doesn’t seem to be the smartest move (Halley was never Title 1 so it’s not as though it’s just moving a designation from one school to another).

Anyone else out here in the hinterlands care to weigh in?

Gunston will definitely turn title 1 if the Hagel Circle island is moved there. The Mason Neck NIMBYs are up in arms, as they should be.

Why should Hagel Circle travel so far out of their neighborhood over so many years, when they should have been going to their neighborhood school the entire time??

Move them out of Halley back to their neighborhood school, then leave them be.

Kids are not social experiment pawns, especiallt not poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they still think Irving/WSHS needs relief from overcrowding? There is no new development in that area - no new neighborhoods of tightly packed 3 bedroom TH’s being built that will attract many new families. Just older homes eventually, and very gradually, turning over from the original owners and empty nesters. And it’s common knowledge that birth rates started to fall in 2008 with the recession. Most of the 2007 kids turned 18 and graduated this year, then you’d have a few of the late birthday ones graduating at the end of this coming school year and then the graduating classes should start to drop in size.

They can’t shuffle kids out of Irving/WS to South County MS/HS and also keep the Hagel Circle island at SC. There isn’t enough room. The original proposal was to move Hagel Circle out of Halley/SC to Lorton Station/Hayfield. The current scenarios have it at Gunston/SC AND (they estimate) 35% of HV also at SC, AND a smaller number of students currently at Lake Braddock to South County. This also would almost certainly create another Title 1 school at Gunston, and with all the uncertainty around federal funding for education, that doesn’t seem to be the smartest move (Halley was never Title 1 so it’s not as though it’s just moving a designation from one school to another).

Anyone else out here in the hinterlands care to weigh in?

Well according to the newly posted slides, the new HV split was an “error”. Just like this whole stupid thing is an error.

The way they worded it, though, made it clear Thru didn’t think it was an error.

This whole thing is a mess. We’re in West Springfield and the KAA won’t impact us at all but I cannot for the life of me figure out how you don’t include that new school in these scenarios. Or postpone the review until they figure out what they’re doing with that school.

These people are truly incompetent.

It really is mind blowing. The new high school is gonna have such a big cascading effect on boundaries. To continue on with the current process is negligent.

They feel like they can’t delay, because then changes happen in August 2027 - two months before sb elections.

They haven’t quite caught on to the fact that it doesn’t matter if it is 2026 or 2027. Voters won’t stand for these boundary changes, and they’ll be screwed election season either way.

They won’t be screwed for election season. Most voters do not have children in the public schools. Most students will not be changing schools. Will there be ticked off voters, yes. Will it be enough to sway more than one or two seats? No.

The springfield rep will lose her spot if the Rs run someone who can halfway form a coherent sentence.

Ditto Dranesville.

Why? What changes are there?