FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Just open enroll Westfield. They’ll get tons of athletes to place themselves there to fill seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just open enroll Westfield. They’ll get tons of athletes to place themselves there to fill seats.

So the kids who are zoned there don't have any sports opportunities? Seems unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
<<<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.>>>


Sandy Anderson biggest political backer is in that neighborhood. It definitely raises some eyebrows. Why move an attendance island less than a mile away out of Sangster just to put a neighboring area into Sangster 👀 they want them out of silver brook so that they eventually go to LB and not South county.

It’s interesting because I think Sangster/LB has a better reputation and the homes command higher prices than those zoned for Silverbrook/SC. But the neighborhood off Lee Chapel behind South Run Park that suddenly came up as the target to move doesn’t want to move. It’s an annoying drive from there to LB. Plus there are always accidents and congestion on the Parkway over there and they are going to start a serious construction project on Lee Chapel so the fewer cars and buses you have on the road there, the better. Some even though that neighborhood would probably stand to get a slight price bump in their home values … they don’t want to move and were blindsided by it.

[Anonymous]

In previous rounds of boundary changes, if something didn't make logical sense, for sure there was something happening behind the scenes with the SB members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In previous rounds of boundary changes, if something didn't make logical sense, for sure there was something happening behind the scenes with the SB members.

I really don’t think that’s the case here. I think it’s just the incompetence of an outside firm with no familiarity of this region playing with puzzle pieces and going with the first piece that fits.

To me, the only seemingly directed adjustment is Timber Lane to Falls Church, because it went against Thru’s established criteria, was thrown in at the zero hour, and relies on capacity numbers from the yet to be completed expansion. But I can see that recommendation coming from the superintendent’s office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In previous rounds of boundary changes, if something didn't make logical sense, for sure there was something happening behind the scenes with the SB members.

I really don’t think that’s the case here. I think it’s just the incompetence of an outside firm with no familiarity of this region playing with puzzle pieces and going with the first piece that fits.

To me, the only seemingly directed adjustment is Timber Lane to Falls Church, because it went against Thru’s established criteria, was thrown in at the zero hour, and relies on capacity numbers from the yet to be completed expansion. But I can see that recommendation coming from the superintendent’s office.

I kind of agree--especially since I think we've heard that the next maps will be very different. It looks to me like THRU has done this with no understanding of neighborhoods. Kind of like trying puzzle pieces and sometimes picking the wrong one and attempting to force fit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In previous rounds of boundary changes, if something didn't make logical sense, for sure there was something happening behind the scenes with the SB members.

I really don’t think that’s the case here. I think it’s just the incompetence of an outside firm with no familiarity of this region playing with puzzle pieces and going with the first piece that fits.

To me, the only seemingly directed adjustment is Timber Lane to Falls Church, because it went against Thru’s established criteria, was thrown in at the zero hour, and relies on capacity numbers from the yet to be completed expansion. But I can see that recommendation coming from the superintendent’s office.

I kind of agree--especially since I think we've heard that the next maps will be very different. It looks to me like THRU has done this with no understanding of neighborhoods. Kind of like trying puzzle pieces and sometimes picking the wrong one and attempting to force fit it.

Cont. And, don't underestimate the power of your School Board members--especially your district rep. They generally control the decisions. They form coalitions.

During the 2008 South Lakes study, Janie Strauss pretty much kept Dranesville out of any consideration even though she had areas very close to South Lakes. Kathy Smith joined with Stu Gibson and ponied up Sully students to go to Oakton from Chantilly. This enabled Gibson to take Fox Mill for South Lakes from Oakton. Otherwise, the Providence member (the guy with the double name) would have objected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
<<<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.>>>


Sandy Anderson biggest political backer is in that neighborhood. It definitely raises some eyebrows. Why move an attendance island less than a mile away out of Sangster just to put a neighboring area into Sangster 👀 they want them out of silver brook so that they eventually go to LB and not South county.

This is true & it’s a very random neighborhood to move to Sangster, especially when Sangster has large class sizes. Moving Afton Glen doesn’t alleviate class sizes really… and adding this neighborhood makes even less sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In previous rounds of boundary changes, if something didn't make logical sense, for sure there was something happening behind the scenes with the SB members.

I really don’t think that’s the case here. I think it’s just the incompetence of an outside firm with no familiarity of this region playing with puzzle pieces and going with the first piece that fits.

To me, the only seemingly directed adjustment is Timber Lane to Falls Church, because it went against Thru’s established criteria, was thrown in at the zero hour, and relies on capacity numbers from the yet to be completed expansion. But I can see that recommendation coming from the superintendent’s office.

I kind of agree--especially since I think we've heard that the next maps will be very different. It looks to me like THRU has done this with no understanding of neighborhoods. Kind of like trying puzzle pieces and sometimes picking the wrong one and attempting to force fit it.

Cont. And, don't underestimate the power of your School Board members--especially your district rep. They generally control the decisions. They form coalitions.

During the 2008 South Lakes study, Janie Strauss pretty much kept Dranesville out of any consideration even though she had areas very close to South Lakes. Kathy Smith joined with Stu Gibson and ponied up Sully students to go to Oakton from Chantilly. This enabled Gibson to take Fox Mill for South Lakes from Oakton. Otherwise, the Providence member (the guy with the double name) would have objected.

I agree. The school board will influence the changes, no doubt, but those changes have yet to be seen in the current draft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In previous rounds of boundary changes, if something didn't make logical sense, for sure there was something happening behind the scenes with the SB members.

I really don’t think that’s the case here. I think it’s just the incompetence of an outside firm with no familiarity of this region playing with puzzle pieces and going with the first piece that fits.

To me, the only seemingly directed adjustment is Timber Lane to Falls Church, because it went against Thru’s established criteria, was thrown in at the zero hour, and relies on capacity numbers from the yet to be completed expansion. But I can see that recommendation coming from the superintendent’s office.

I kind of agree--especially since I think we've heard that the next maps will be very different. It looks to me like THRU has done this with no understanding of neighborhoods. Kind of like trying puzzle pieces and sometimes picking the wrong one and attempting to force fit it.

Cont. And, don't underestimate the power of your School Board members--especially your district rep. They generally control the decisions. They form coalitions.

During the 2008 South Lakes study, Janie Strauss pretty much kept Dranesville out of any consideration even though she had areas very close to South Lakes. Kathy Smith joined with Stu Gibson and ponied up Sully students to go to Oakton from Chantilly. This enabled Gibson to take Fox Mill for South Lakes from Oakton. Otherwise, the Providence member (the guy with the double name) would have objected.

You’re talking about Phil Niedzielski-Eichner (he’s on the Planning Commission now), and the deal he cut with the others was to get part of Navy moved to Oakton from Chantilly in exchange for losing Fox Mill. He was afraid Oakton sports would suffer unless Oakton also picked up some kids. In retrospect, however, if some Chantilly kids hadn’t moved to Oakton back in 2008, Chantilly’s enrollment would have surpassed 3000 at some point.

[Anonymous]

Saw my first “This is West Springfield - Keep our community together” sign near the Gambrill Rd. Park and ride this morning. So it begins …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In previous rounds of boundary changes, if something didn't make logical sense, for sure there was something happening behind the scenes with the SB members.

I really don’t think that’s the case here. I think it’s just the incompetence of an outside firm with no familiarity of this region playing with puzzle pieces and going with the first piece that fits.

To me, the only seemingly directed adjustment is Timber Lane to Falls Church, because it went against Thru’s established criteria, was thrown in at the zero hour, and relies on capacity numbers from the yet to be completed expansion. But I can see that recommendation coming from the superintendent’s office.

I kind of agree--especially since I think we've heard that the next maps will be very different. It looks to me like THRU has done this with no understanding of neighborhoods. Kind of like trying puzzle pieces and sometimes picking the wrong one and attempting to force fit it.

Cont. And, don't underestimate the power of your School Board members--especially your district rep. They generally control the decisions. They form coalitions.

During the 2008 South Lakes study, Janie Strauss pretty much kept Dranesville out of any consideration even though she had areas very close to South Lakes. Kathy Smith joined with Stu Gibson and ponied up Sully students to go to Oakton from Chantilly. This enabled Gibson to take Fox Mill for South Lakes from Oakton. Otherwise, the Providence member (the guy with the double name) would have objected.

They had gone along with KS using the Meadows kids and then tossing then out of PT. Deals cut.

[Anonymous]

After speaking to several school board members. It seems like Sandy came in wanting boundary changes to be her lasting legacy and there has never been any discussion on why.

almost no one wants to be moved, yet instead of listening to reasons from the people it actually effects, she has blinders on and continues to push forward. The job is too big for the firm they hired and are in over their heads. (Confirmed by people on the committee) The pushback from nearly all communities asking to step back and not rush into these changes has fallen on deaf ears. SA has flat out said she doesn’t care if she doesn’t get re elected. She’s bulldozing the entire boundary review even while other board members have said to slow down and re evaluate trends, especially with the RIFs and people moving from this area. The random shuffling of neighborhoods does nothing for the bigger issue and as the home owners age fluctuates, it just leads everything to need to be changed again in 10 years.

It’s extremely frustrating and my personal conversations with her have left me feeling that she absolutely does not care what anyone thinks. She’s flippant and honestly, obnoxious in her responses. Telling me about people who live on the “wrong side of the parkway” and I should be happy I’m not getting switched to XYZ. As the top ranked member of the school board, she absolutely should not make comments about how any school is less than another. She should be an advocate and a supporter of making all FCPS schools strong and singing their praises, not just telling us we are lucky we don’t have to go there.

I want to get to the bottom of why she is so adamant about this being her legacy, which one of her financial supporters is it benefiting

[Anonymous]

They are in a very difficult position now.

The Thru recommendations could not have been sloppier. They basically undertook to "fix problems" that in many instances aren't really problems by moving around SPAs like puzzle pieces, with little knowledge of the communities involved, while creating new issues in the process that were just as bad as the problems they were purporting to fix.

Now School Board members are purporting to give people "comfort" by promising that the maps that will be released in the fall will be substantially different from the maps released to date, but that both suggests we've largely been wasting our time over the past 1 1/2 years and leaves people guessing as to whether the process going forward will end up being rushed, with less opportunity to provide input on the proposals that really matter.

A cynic would say this was the intention from the beginning and that the School Board has been sitting on the boundary changes that it really wants to make. A realist would say they are just deeply incompetent and floundering to try and salvage something they can call an improvement to current boundaries. And, indeed, there may eventually be a few changes that are both needed and beneficial, but they'll be largely swallowed up in the slop.

Most of all, this demonstrates how this School Board has become an echo chamber devoid of meaningful debate and discussion, and how Michelle Reid is not equipped to lead a school system the size of FCPS. Even if your neighborhood isn't affected by these boundary proposals, we all suffer when FCPS families are treated poorly by those charged with our kids' education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After speaking to several school board members. It seems like Sandy came in wanting boundary changes to be her lasting legacy and there has never been any discussion on why.

almost no one wants to be moved, yet instead of listening to reasons from the people it actually effects, she has blinders on and continues to push forward. The job is too big for the firm they hired and are in over their heads. (Confirmed by people on the committee) The pushback from nearly all communities asking to step back and not rush into these changes has fallen on deaf ears. SA has flat out said she doesn’t care if she doesn’t get re elected. She’s bulldozing the entire boundary review even while other board members have said to slow down and re evaluate trends, especially with the RIFs and people moving from this area. The random shuffling of neighborhoods does nothing for the bigger issue and as the home owners age fluctuates, it just leads everything to need to be changed again in 10 years.

It’s extremely frustrating and my personal conversations with her have left me feeling that she absolutely does not care what anyone thinks. She’s flippant and honestly, obnoxious in her responses. Telling me about people who live on the “wrong side of the parkway” and I should be happy I’m not getting switched to XYZ. As the top ranked member of the school board, she absolutely should not make comments about how any school is less than another. She should be an advocate and a supporter of making all FCPS schools strong and singing their praises, not just telling us we are lucky we don’t have to go there.

I want to get to the bottom of why she is so adamant about this being her legacy, which one of her financial supporters is it benefiting

+ 1 as I’ve also been in meetings with similar commentary from SA. I would love to see data on 10 year projections, especially for a HS like WSHS that does not have much opportunity for new builds within its boundary. I read a study that declared a small baby boom pre 2010, that is now the class of 2025 and 2026. It stated that numbers dwindled after that. Whether this study is accurate or not, it would be transparent of the board to see the projections for neighborhoods years out. No one wants to be re-adjusted again in 10 years. This is especially important with the RIFs that continue to affect our communities.