Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why are they asking people to respond to the three scenario maps they released by mid-month when it’s been made very clear they’re totally redoing the maps? I’m getting tired of being nagged by my neighborhood’s activists to keep voting frown-y faces on these scenarios multiple times a day every day of the week. Is this really how we’re going to set policies in this county? Meanwhile Moon is just peacing out and ignoring this whole mess?
And do the multiple frowny faces from one account or household matter? If so, one person can sit there all day and click frowny faces. How is that constructive feedback?
It’s hard to tell based on the sheer volume of comments concentrated in the Timber Lane area (which is also merged with Shrevewood, Lemon Road, and Westgate comments.) Maybe? Then again, tech savvy Emerald Chase only seemed to garner 277 comments.
It's no surprise they are getting so many comments from the Timber Lane area, although I agree the comments from Timber Lane are getting combined with comments from Shrevewood, Lemon Road, and Westgate on the heat maps, etc. There are no schools in FCPS that the Thru proposals would alter as much as Graham Road and Timber Lane.
To put this in context, you have to know the history of Graham Road. It once was an aging school on a small lot on the corner of Graham Road and Route 50 that primarily served a high-FARMS, high-ESOL Hispanic community that resides primarily in the large Kingsley Commons garden apartments just north of Route 50. When Graham Road came up for a renovation, the decision was made to build a new school further up Graham Road closer to Route 29. However, when the school was built, since it was supposed to benefit the kids then at Graham Road, they left the boundaries unchanged, which meant Graham Road has sat within the Timber Lane boundaries for the better part of 20 years.
Thru understands that its mandate is to "fix" situations where schools lies outside their attendance boundaries, so they've redrawn the boundaries of a number of elementary schools in the area, including Graham Road, Timber Lane, Pine Spring, and Shrevewood. Graham Road would retain some of its current neighborhoods, but shed Kingsley Commons and pick up everything south of Route 29 that currently attends Timber Lane. It would continue to feed 100% to Falls Church, but the ESOL and FARMS rates would decline significantly, especially if it also picks up a Pine Spring island that Thru oddly proposed to move to Westlawn rather than Graham Road.
The changes at Timber Lane would be almost as great. Currently, 60% of Timber Lane students live north of 29 and are zoned to McLean, with 40% living south of 29 and zoned to Falls Church. Under the proposals, 119 of the students north of 29 would be moved to Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall, while Timber Lane would pick up areas south of 29 now zoned to Pine Spring and Graham Road, including the entire Kingsley Commons project. As a result, 36% of its students would live north of 29 and 64% would live south of 29%. It would remain a Title I school, because the number of additional FARMS kids it would pick up south of 29 would exceed the number of FARMS kids north of 29 who'd move over to Shrevewood.
The Thru proposals would shrink Pine Spring and all of the areas moved out of Pine Spring, whether to Timber Lane, Graham Road, or Westlawn, would be single-family neighborhoods. As a result, the ESOL and FARMS rates at Pine Spring could be expected to increase. Shrevewood would pick up 119 kids from Timber Lane, and most of them would be FARMS-eligible kids living just west of Hollywood Road and north of Route 29. These kids are currently separated from the rest of the Timber Lane area by the National Memorial Park. While their reassignment would push up the overall FARMS rate at Shrevewood, it would still likely leave Shrevewood under the current Title I threshold. If those kids did not move to Shrevewood, and the other proposed changes were made, Timber Lane would be severely overcrowded.
Add to this the uncertainty as to whether FCPS might reassign the remaining Timber Lane area north of 29 from Longfellow/McLean to Jackson/Falls Church and you've got a lot of potential change in that area. It's no surprise that the parents at Timber Lane who want to stay at Longfellow/McLean make the argument that they think will resonate the most with the School Board, which is that FCPS shouldn't move kids at a Title I school out of Longfellow/McLean. There would still be a large concentration of FARMS-eligible kids at Timber Lane north of 29, even if some moved to Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall.
It also wouldn't be a surprise that people in that general area might just decide they don't want to hang around until this all gets sorted out and look to move now, although it's unclear if that's actually happening in significant numbers. Realistically, under the Thru proposals, those who'd end up at the "new" Graham Road would probably be happy that more of the Greenway Downs area is assigned to a single school, and they could see a boost in their property values. Others, whether at Timber Lane, Pine Spring, or Shrevewood, stand to take a potential hit. For that not to happen, FCPS would likely need to leave the boundaries as is, with Graham Road lying within the Timber Lane attendance area.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}