FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Turns out that the only people who know their kids won’t move schools are the next door neighbors to Sandy Anderson or the other unaccountable school board members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

It seems so pointless, shuffling kids around when it makes no discernible difference whether 35 percent or 40 percent of a school feeds into another high school.

It makes a bigger difference at the elementary level. Some schools are small. 20% of their grade splitting may mean only a dozen of them are moving on to join a 7th grade class of 500 students.

Does that literally happen anywhere? That seems like an extreme example.

Crossfield sends a handful of kids to Hughes/South Lakes each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

It seems so pointless, shuffling kids around when it makes no discernible difference whether 35 percent or 40 percent of a school feeds into another high school.

It makes a bigger difference at the elementary level. Some schools are small. 20% of their grade splitting may mean only a dozen of them are moving on to join a 7th grade class of 500 students.

Does that literally happen anywhere? That seems like an extreme example.

Crossfield sends a handful of kids to Hughes/South Lakes each year.

That was a VERY deliberate decision during the South Lakes boundary issue. Half of Fox Mill Woods begged for South Lakes and half begged for Oakton. It was very sad. If a situation ever called for generous pupil placement that was it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

It seems so pointless, shuffling kids around when it makes no discernible difference whether 35 percent or 40 percent of a school feeds into another high school.

It makes a bigger difference at the elementary level. Some schools are small. 20% of their grade splitting may mean only a dozen of them are moving on to join a 7th grade class of 500 students.

Does that literally happen anywhere? That seems like an extreme example.

Crossfield sends a handful of kids to Hughes/South Lakes each year.

That was a VERY deliberate decision during the South Lakes boundary issue. Half of Fox Mill Woods begged for South Lakes and half begged for Oakton. It was very sad. If a situation ever called for generous pupil placement that was it.

And now that entire neighborhood is calling for the School Board to send them to Hunters Woods/Hughes/South Lakes. They're not interested in Oakton or the new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this article on The Hill and immediately thought about the boundary review. The Democratic Party has hemorrhaged voters lately, in part for being out of touch on its policies. Exhibit 1 is the boundary review.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5395563-democrats-losing-support-white-voters/

Ignore the URL mention of white voters, because the article is not really about that.

Here’s a quote from the article - “We do better when we first meet voters where they are and then bring them along on other issues. … And nine times out of 10, what they really care about is whether or not they’re going to be able to afford health care, whether or not their kids are going to be able to go to a good school … housing, living paycheck to paycheck.”

Since all politics are local, the school board is doing immense damage to the Democratic brand with the unnecessary comprehensive boundary review.

I wonder how the election of Sandy Anderson, who was already trying to undermine the Thru Consulting recommendations, as the new School Board chair, will affect the boundary review. At some point will there be a confrontation between the School Board and Reid where they throw Reid under a bus?

Sandy Anderson has been one of the worst, if not the worst school board rep on boundaries.

She has actively worked against her Springfield District families on this issue, and has been miserable with communication, alternating between completely ignoring or dismissing constituents from multiple neighborhoods, to promoting neighborhoods from outside her schools over the schools she represents (pushing to displace and rezone Hunt Valley/Irving/WSHS families and replacing them with Lewis/Key neighborhoods)

It is unbelievable that anyone would think that Sandy Anderson is the face of resistance against rezoning. This rezoning is Sandy Anderson's pet project.

It’s her pet project for sure. Interesting that her neighborhood isn’t touched, but a neighborhood right behind hers is slotted to move without much reason.

It is CRAZY to mive those few streets from Silverbrook/South County to Sangster/Lake Braddock.

It easily triples their commute, and forces them on some very busy main roads, one of which has recent teen driving deaths.

Then, they are basically flipping that neighborhood with a similar sized Sangster/Lake Braddock neighborhood that is very happy with their current school, which is about the same distance or closer, who also do not want to change schools.

Why would they even do something like this, flipping two clusters of streets, neither of which want to get rezoned, even though all the new schools are great options.

That Sangster/Silverbrook/Soco/LB rezoning is simply rezoning just to say you rezoned something, particularly for the Silverbrook streets.

I can't help but think that one is a revenge rezoning against someone who ticked off the school board member. It is just such a weird chouce for rezoning to LB

Absolutely. The road safety alone should be enough. It’s an odd choice & Sangster already has portables and large class sizes. Moving another neighborhood in, without any logical reason is odd. Sandy has not been very helpful with listening to her constituents’ worries and concerns. I understand that some changes may make more sense than others, but she comes in on the defense and is very argumentative and protective of that RVES/Key/Lewis pocket.

Doesn’t some SB member live in bounds for Sangster? Sangster/LB is losing some kids to Newington Forest/South County due to the attendance island - not too many, and Sangster is so large that losing ~40 kids from K-6 isn’t going to make a huge dent. I feel like Thru saw Sangster losing kids and just said, what’s the most nearby neighborhood we can move in in order to fill those spots and it was the furthest neighborhood off Lee Chapel that still went to Silverbrook/SC. But those spots don’t need to be filled.

And I know right now none of Silverbrook wants to talk about it, but if Silverbrook is at or over capacity (which it usually is) they can easily move a few streets over to Halley, if needed, AND I hate to say it but when Hagel Circle moves out Halley is going to have pretty much the exact same demographics as Silverbrook right now. It’s a neighborhood of $900k+ easily large exurban homes with one large 90%+ FARMS neighborhood that will be on its way out. You can’t complain about it at that point.

No- unaware of a SB member living in sangster boundary. The board member in this district lives in Silverbrook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

It seems so pointless, shuffling kids around when it makes no discernible difference whether 35 percent or 40 percent of a school feeds into another high school.

It makes a bigger difference at the elementary level. Some schools are small. 20% of their grade splitting may mean only a dozen of them are moving on to join a 7th grade class of 500 students.

Does that literally happen anywhere? That seems like an extreme example.

Crossfield sends a handful of kids to Hughes/South Lakes each year.

That was a VERY deliberate decision during the South Lakes boundary issue. Half of Fox Mill Woods begged for South Lakes and half begged for Oakton. It was very sad. If a situation ever called for generous pupil placement that was it.

And now that entire neighborhood is calling for the School Board to send them to Hunters Woods/Hughes/South Lakes. They're not interested in Oakton or the new school.

I think they already go to Hughes rather than Carson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this article on The Hill and immediately thought about the boundary review. The Democratic Party has hemorrhaged voters lately, in part for being out of touch on its policies. Exhibit 1 is the boundary review.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5395563-democrats-losing-support-white-voters/

Ignore the URL mention of white voters, because the article is not really about that.

Here’s a quote from the article - “We do better when we first meet voters where they are and then bring them along on other issues. … And nine times out of 10, what they really care about is whether or not they’re going to be able to afford health care, whether or not their kids are going to be able to go to a good school … housing, living paycheck to paycheck.”

Since all politics are local, the school board is doing immense damage to the Democratic brand with the unnecessary comprehensive boundary review.

I wonder how the election of Sandy Anderson, who was already trying to undermine the Thru Consulting recommendations, as the new School Board chair, will affect the boundary review. At some point will there be a confrontation between the School Board and Reid where they throw Reid under a bus?

Sandy Anderson has been one of the worst, if not the worst school board rep on boundaries.

She has actively worked against her Springfield District families on this issue, and has been miserable with communication, alternating between completely ignoring or dismissing constituents from multiple neighborhoods, to promoting neighborhoods from outside her schools over the schools she represents (pushing to displace and rezone Hunt Valley/Irving/WSHS families and replacing them with Lewis/Key neighborhoods)

It is unbelievable that anyone would think that Sandy Anderson is the face of resistance against rezoning. This rezoning is Sandy Anderson's pet project.

It’s her pet project for sure. Interesting that her neighborhood isn’t touched, but a neighborhood right behind hers is slotted to move without much reason.

It is CRAZY to mive those few streets from Silverbrook/South County to Sangster/Lake Braddock.

It easily triples their commute, and forces them on some very busy main roads, one of which has recent teen driving deaths.

Then, they are basically flipping that neighborhood with a similar sized Sangster/Lake Braddock neighborhood that is very happy with their current school, which is about the same distance or closer, who also do not want to change schools.

Why would they even do something like this, flipping two clusters of streets, neither of which want to get rezoned, even though all the new schools are great options.

That Sangster/Silverbrook/Soco/LB rezoning is simply rezoning just to say you rezoned something, particularly for the Silverbrook streets.

I can't help but think that one is a revenge rezoning against someone who ticked off the school board member. It is just such a weird chouce for rezoning to LB

Absolutely. The road safety alone should be enough. It’s an odd choice & Sangster already has portables and large class sizes. Moving another neighborhood in, without any logical reason is odd. Sandy has not been very helpful with listening to her constituents’ worries and concerns. I understand that some changes may make more sense than others, but she comes in on the defense and is very argumentative and protective of that RVES/Key/Lewis pocket.

Doesn’t some SB member live in bounds for Sangster? Sangster/LB is losing some kids to Newington Forest/South County due to the attendance island - not too many, and Sangster is so large that losing ~40 kids from K-6 isn’t going to make a huge dent. I feel like Thru saw Sangster losing kids and just said, what’s the most nearby neighborhood we can move in in order to fill those spots and it was the furthest neighborhood off Lee Chapel that still went to Silverbrook/SC. But those spots don’t need to be filled.

And I know right now none of Silverbrook wants to talk about it, but if Silverbrook is at or over capacity (which it usually is) they can easily move a few streets over to Halley, if needed, AND I hate to say it but when Hagel Circle moves out Halley is going to have pretty much the exact same demographics as Silverbrook right now. It’s a neighborhood of $900k+ easily large exurban homes with one large 90%+ FARMS neighborhood that will be on its way out. You can’t complain about it at that point.

No- unaware of a SB member living in sangster boundary. The board member in this district lives in Silverbrook.

Are they in the section that is being proposed to move to Sangster? I don’t know why they would want kids out of Silverbrook. I feel like that was a rogue move by Thru.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this article on The Hill and immediately thought about the boundary review. The Democratic Party has hemorrhaged voters lately, in part for being out of touch on its policies. Exhibit 1 is the boundary review.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5395563-democrats-losing-support-white-voters/

Ignore the URL mention of white voters, because the article is not really about that.

Here’s a quote from the article - “We do better when we first meet voters where they are and then bring them along on other issues. … And nine times out of 10, what they really care about is whether or not they’re going to be able to afford health care, whether or not their kids are going to be able to go to a good school … housing, living paycheck to paycheck.”

Since all politics are local, the school board is doing immense damage to the Democratic brand with the unnecessary comprehensive boundary review.

I wonder how the election of Sandy Anderson, who was already trying to undermine the Thru Consulting recommendations, as the new School Board chair, will affect the boundary review. At some point will there be a confrontation between the School Board and Reid where they throw Reid under a bus?

Sandy Anderson has been one of the worst, if not the worst school board rep on boundaries.

She has actively worked against her Springfield District families on this issue, and has been miserable with communication, alternating between completely ignoring or dismissing constituents from multiple neighborhoods, to promoting neighborhoods from outside her schools over the schools she represents (pushing to displace and rezone Hunt Valley/Irving/WSHS families and replacing them with Lewis/Key neighborhoods)

It is unbelievable that anyone would think that Sandy Anderson is the face of resistance against rezoning. This rezoning is Sandy Anderson's pet project.

It’s her pet project for sure. Interesting that her neighborhood isn’t touched, but a neighborhood right behind hers is slotted to move without much reason.

It is CRAZY to mive those few streets from Silverbrook/South County to Sangster/Lake Braddock.

It easily triples their commute, and forces them on some very busy main roads, one of which has recent teen driving deaths.

Then, they are basically flipping that neighborhood with a similar sized Sangster/Lake Braddock neighborhood that is very happy with their current school, which is about the same distance or closer, who also do not want to change schools.

Why would they even do something like this, flipping two clusters of streets, neither of which want to get rezoned, even though all the new schools are great options.

That Sangster/Silverbrook/Soco/LB rezoning is simply rezoning just to say you rezoned something, particularly for the Silverbrook streets.

I can't help but think that one is a revenge rezoning against someone who ticked off the school board member. It is just such a weird chouce for rezoning to LB

Absolutely. The road safety alone should be enough. It’s an odd choice & Sangster already has portables and large class sizes. Moving another neighborhood in, without any logical reason is odd. Sandy has not been very helpful with listening to her constituents’ worries and concerns. I understand that some changes may make more sense than others, but she comes in on the defense and is very argumentative and protective of that RVES/Key/Lewis pocket.

Doesn’t some SB member live in bounds for Sangster? Sangster/LB is losing some kids to Newington Forest/South County due to the attendance island - not too many, and Sangster is so large that losing ~40 kids from K-6 isn’t going to make a huge dent. I feel like Thru saw Sangster losing kids and just said, what’s the most nearby neighborhood we can move in in order to fill those spots and it was the furthest neighborhood off Lee Chapel that still went to Silverbrook/SC. But those spots don’t need to be filled.

And I know right now none of Silverbrook wants to talk about it, but if Silverbrook is at or over capacity (which it usually is) they can easily move a few streets over to Halley, if needed, AND I hate to say it but when Hagel Circle moves out Halley is going to have pretty much the exact same demographics as Silverbrook right now. It’s a neighborhood of $900k+ easily large exurban homes with one large 90%+ FARMS neighborhood that will be on its way out. You can’t complain about it at that point.

No, she doesn't live in bounds for Sangster.

The school board rep is Silverbrook/South County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this article on The Hill and immediately thought about the boundary review. The Democratic Party has hemorrhaged voters lately, in part for being out of touch on its policies. Exhibit 1 is the boundary review.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5395563-democrats-losing-support-white-voters/

Ignore the URL mention of white voters, because the article is not really about that.

Here’s a quote from the article - “We do better when we first meet voters where they are and then bring them along on other issues. … And nine times out of 10, what they really care about is whether or not they’re going to be able to afford health care, whether or not their kids are going to be able to go to a good school … housing, living paycheck to paycheck.”

Since all politics are local, the school board is doing immense damage to the Democratic brand with the unnecessary comprehensive boundary review.

I wonder how the election of Sandy Anderson, who was already trying to undermine the Thru Consulting recommendations, as the new School Board chair, will affect the boundary review. At some point will there be a confrontation between the School Board and Reid where they throw Reid under a bus?

Sandy Anderson has been one of the worst, if not the worst school board rep on boundaries.

She has actively worked against her Springfield District families on this issue, and has been miserable with communication, alternating between completely ignoring or dismissing constituents from multiple neighborhoods, to promoting neighborhoods from outside her schools over the schools she represents (pushing to displace and rezone Hunt Valley/Irving/WSHS families and replacing them with Lewis/Key neighborhoods)

It is unbelievable that anyone would think that Sandy Anderson is the face of resistance against rezoning. This rezoning is Sandy Anderson's pet project.

It’s her pet project for sure. Interesting that her neighborhood isn’t touched, but a neighborhood right behind hers is slotted to move without much reason.

It is CRAZY to mive those few streets from Silverbrook/South County to Sangster/Lake Braddock.

It easily triples their commute, and forces them on some very busy main roads, one of which has recent teen driving deaths.

Then, they are basically flipping that neighborhood with a similar sized Sangster/Lake Braddock neighborhood that is very happy with their current school, which is about the same distance or closer, who also do not want to change schools.

Why would they even do something like this, flipping two clusters of streets, neither of which want to get rezoned, even though all the new schools are great options.

That Sangster/Silverbrook/Soco/LB rezoning is simply rezoning just to say you rezoned something, particularly for the Silverbrook streets.

I can't help but think that one is a revenge rezoning against someone who ticked off the school board member. It is just such a weird chouce for rezoning to LB

Absolutely. The road safety alone should be enough. It’s an odd choice & Sangster already has portables and large class sizes. Moving another neighborhood in, without any logical reason is odd. Sandy has not been very helpful with listening to her constituents’ worries and concerns. I understand that some changes may make more sense than others, but she comes in on the defense and is very argumentative and protective of that RVES/Key/Lewis pocket.

Doesn’t some SB member live in bounds for Sangster? Sangster/LB is losing some kids to Newington Forest/South County due to the attendance island - not too many, and Sangster is so large that losing ~40 kids from K-6 isn’t going to make a huge dent. I feel like Thru saw Sangster losing kids and just said, what’s the most nearby neighborhood we can move in in order to fill those spots and it was the furthest neighborhood off Lee Chapel that still went to Silverbrook/SC. But those spots don’t need to be filled.

And I know right now none of Silverbrook wants to talk about it, but if Silverbrook is at or over capacity (which it usually is) they can easily move a few streets over to Halley, if needed, AND I hate to say it but when Hagel Circle moves out Halley is going to have pretty much the exact same demographics as Silverbrook right now. It’s a neighborhood of $900k+ easily large exurban homes with one large 90%+ FARMS neighborhood that will be on its way out. You can’t complain about it at that point.

No- unaware of a SB member living in sangster boundary. The board member in this district lives in Silverbrook.

Are they in the section that is being proposed to move to Sangster? I don’t know why they would want kids out of Silverbrook. I feel like that was a rogue move by Thru.

None of the school board members are getting rezoned.

Of all the rezoning proposed for that area, the Silverbrook neighborhood is tge most nonsensical.

Well, silverbrook and moving the Lewis/Key/Rolling Valley kids into WSHS and Irving, instead of moving them to Saratoga as Thru proposed.

The whole justification for rezoning WSHS and Irving is over capacity, yet Anderson then wants to replace the kids getting moved out with Lewis kids.

Neither of the two rezonings make an ounce of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to align all the middle schools with the high schools is a fool's errand. It can't be done.

They need to draw the KAA boundaries in a way that makes sense and doesn't disrupt the boundaries for all the other schools in the area, and call it a day.

You can get a lot closer and diminish the number of splits coming out of the MS, which would benefit the students at those MS. It so happens that the kids who are attending Carson would be a quick drive over to the new HS. The biggest issue would be the number of students pulled from Westfield.

I think it's clear they should redo the MS boundaries to align with the new HS boundaries. It would be really simple if they stopped the AAP transfers.

Once they are done with that, it should look something like:

Carson- KAA and either SL or Oakton
Franklin- Westfield and Oakton
Hughes- SL
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

Carson- KAA
Franklin- Chantilly and Oakton
Hughes- SL
HMS - HHS
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

done

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to align all the middle schools with the high schools is a fool's errand. It can't be done.

They need to draw the KAA boundaries in a way that makes sense and doesn't disrupt the boundaries for all the other schools in the area, and call it a day.

You can get a lot closer and diminish the number of splits coming out of the MS, which would benefit the students at those MS. It so happens that the kids who are attending Carson would be a quick drive over to the new HS. The biggest issue would be the number of students pulled from Westfield.

I think it's clear they should redo the MS boundaries to align with the new HS boundaries. It would be really simple if they stopped the AAP transfers.

Once they are done with that, it should look something like:

Carson- KAA and either SL or Oakton
Franklin- Westfield and Oakton
Hughes- SL
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

Carson- KAA
Franklin- Chantilly and Oakton
Hughes- SL
HMS - HHS
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

done

No. You left out South Lakes. Carson will be KAA/South Lakes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to align all the middle schools with the high schools is a fool's errand. It can't be done.

They need to draw the KAA boundaries in a way that makes sense and doesn't disrupt the boundaries for all the other schools in the area, and call it a day.

You can get a lot closer and diminish the number of splits coming out of the MS, which would benefit the students at those MS. It so happens that the kids who are attending Carson would be a quick drive over to the new HS. The biggest issue would be the number of students pulled from Westfield.

I think it's clear they should redo the MS boundaries to align with the new HS boundaries. It would be really simple if they stopped the AAP transfers.

Once they are done with that, it should look something like:

Carson- KAA and either SL or Oakton
Franklin- Westfield and Oakton
Hughes- SL
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

Carson- KAA
Franklin- Chantilly and Oakton
Hughes- SL
HMS - HHS
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

done

It’s already been pointed out the Stone and Westfield capacities don’t align. Why do you morons keep pretending to have easy solutions when you don’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to align all the middle schools with the high schools is a fool's errand. It can't be done.

They need to draw the KAA boundaries in a way that makes sense and doesn't disrupt the boundaries for all the other schools in the area, and call it a day.

You can get a lot closer and diminish the number of splits coming out of the MS, which would benefit the students at those MS. It so happens that the kids who are attending Carson would be a quick drive over to the new HS. The biggest issue would be the number of students pulled from Westfield.

I think it's clear they should redo the MS boundaries to align with the new HS boundaries. It would be really simple if they stopped the AAP transfers.

Once they are done with that, it should look something like:

Carson- KAA and either SL or Oakton
Franklin- Westfield and Oakton
Hughes- SL
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

Carson- KAA
Franklin- Chantilly and Oakton
Hughes- SL
HMS - HHS
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

done

It’s already been pointed out the Stone and Westfield capacities don’t align. Why do you morons keep pretending to have easy solutions when you don’t?

They're doing the same thing with others, too. Settle the high schools and let the middle schools sort out after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to align all the middle schools with the high schools is a fool's errand. It can't be done.

They need to draw the KAA boundaries in a way that makes sense and doesn't disrupt the boundaries for all the other schools in the area, and call it a day.

You can get a lot closer and diminish the number of splits coming out of the MS, which would benefit the students at those MS. It so happens that the kids who are attending Carson would be a quick drive over to the new HS. The biggest issue would be the number of students pulled from Westfield.

I think it's clear they should redo the MS boundaries to align with the new HS boundaries. It would be really simple if they stopped the AAP transfers.

Once they are done with that, it should look something like:

Carson- KAA and either SL or Oakton
Franklin- Westfield and Oakton
Hughes- SL
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

Carson- KAA
Franklin- Chantilly and Oakton
Hughes- SL
HMS - HHS
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

done

It’s already been pointed out the Stone and Westfield capacities don’t align. Why do you morons keep pretending to have easy solutions when you don’t?

Because most posters don’t care if Westfield has a student population of 1600-1800, which Stone could easily sustain, but would leave Westfield with hundreds upon hundreds of empty seats. Maybe they can put that aviation academy people can’t stop talking about there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to align all the middle schools with the high schools is a fool's errand. It can't be done.

They need to draw the KAA boundaries in a way that makes sense and doesn't disrupt the boundaries for all the other schools in the area, and call it a day.

You can get a lot closer and diminish the number of splits coming out of the MS, which would benefit the students at those MS. It so happens that the kids who are attending Carson would be a quick drive over to the new HS. The biggest issue would be the number of students pulled from Westfield.

I think it's clear they should redo the MS boundaries to align with the new HS boundaries. It would be really simple if they stopped the AAP transfers.

Once they are done with that, it should look something like:

Carson- KAA and either SL or Oakton
Franklin- Westfield and Oakton
Hughes- SL
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

Carson- KAA
Franklin- Chantilly and Oakton
Hughes- SL
HMS - HHS
Rocky Run- Chantilly
Stone- Westfield
Liberty- Centreville

done

It’s already been pointed out the Stone and Westfield capacities don’t align. Why do you morons keep pretending to have easy solutions when you don’t?

Because most posters don’t care if Westfield has a student population of 1600-1800, which Stone could easily sustain, but would leave Westfield with hundreds upon hundreds of empty seats. Maybe they can put that aviation academy people can’t stop talking about there.

Make Rocky Run: Chantilly/Westfield
Pick up those kids who live on east side of 28 and south of 50. Lots of new construction near Wegman's. Some go to Brookfield?