FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who could know. We won’t have any further ability to comment on their plans since the comment period ended tonight. And the community apparently won’t be allowed to comment after the next round of maps are released.

I thought their policy requires them to have meetings in each affected pyramid after the next round of maps are released.

I hope this is the case. Our pyramid is heavily affected and there was not meeting in our pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5 in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .

Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me.

It is much easier socially and academically to move an elementary school kid to a new school than a teenager, especially in this county with so many transient families.

It is very fifficult and often harmful to move a teenager, especially a high school student. Ask the many military families who have done both many times iver.

This is actually a very reasonable grandfathering policy. The only improvement it needs is a sibling clause, so families don't have 2 high schoolers at different schools.

DP. Selfish take from someone who likely benefits from the high school policy and doesn’t care about other people’s elementary school kids.

I’m getting really sick of people thinking they know what’s best for other people’s kids.

Historically grades 2-5/6 have been grandfathered. Rarely has FCPS grandfathered all elementary students. I think rising 4-5/6 would be more appropriate since 3rd grade is a big transition year, regardless, with AAP kids moving around.

Check your history book. Grade 3 is a transition year but that AAP junk [I had kids in it] should not drive the boundary review. And at ES and MS level AAP should not be used as mobile fillers because FCPS doesn't change base school boundaries. Colvin Run opened 2003-04. 6th grade only had the grandfathering option and 31 6th graders hopped on the CRES bus. Note might have been the AAP ers previously at Forest Edge. You can see per grade counts on the VDOE website so check out the grades for each new school that has opened since 2003.

Spring Hill Mclean HS Tysons island has not been reviewed in 25 years. And the Churchill Rd modular might be reaching or near the endpoint of it's useful life.

Fine, replace “historically” with “recently.” The Justice elementary adjustments and Kent Garden adjustments grandfathered rising grades 2-5/6. Rising kindergartners and 1st graders went to their newly assigned schools.

The transition for rising 4-5/6 is simply my preference that anyone can disagree with. In fact, recently rising 2nd graders were grandfathered, so it hasn’t been based on a 3rd grade transition year.

The grandfathering has been done via case by case. Kent Gardens is unusual due to the French Immersion. That program went in because the school was undercapacity and now it's 70% base school. So boundary changes made the program even more NA for non base school students etc. It needs to be moved. Perfect example of inequity in program availability.

Hunters Woods is another one that removes capacity based on program transfers. It's in a key location for base school boundary changes yet has massive inflow for Waples Mill AAP plus magnet. No big local level iv at Waples Mill. Magnet went in with fed grant money and now might cost 800k out of the operating budget. That would pay for lots of field trips acoss title 1 schools.

NP. I am having difficulty following the point you are making. Are you suggesting that Hunters Woods should stop inflow as a magnet (due to lost federal funds) to free up capacity at the school to take on new students as part of a boundary change? Was Hunters Woods ever mentioned in any proposal?

Also, Waples has a growing local level IV program with declining overall membership. Are you suggesting Waples should stop sending students to Hunters Woods for AAP?

Catch the rest of us up with your thinking, please.

I'm unfamiliar with the issues here, but it would appear that all of these magnet and AAP programs really create confusion on boundary changes. Maybe, they should start with getting rid of those programs.

Bingo. The obvious issue with each and every boundary is the AAP and magnet shuffling around. AAP kids need to stay at their base schools. That, for one, would eliminate much unnecessary confusion and redundancy.
DP

Our SB member said that she’d like to change AAP as well, but that’s not happening simultaneously with the boundary changes. I tend to think that one affects the other. Example- a split feeder is being corrected to all go to one middle/HS. All AAP transfers go to the middle/high that the smaller split used to go to. This means that they are going to a center that’s not within their pyramid even a little bit. Why? This also means that the current split actually has way more kids going to the “smaller split” than are identified when just using base school student data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who could know. We won’t have any further ability to comment on their plans since the comment period ended tonight. And the community apparently won’t be allowed to comment after the next round of maps are released.

I thought their policy requires them to have meetings in each affected pyramid after the next round of maps are released.

I hope this is the case. Our pyramid is heavily affected and there was not meeting in our pyramid.

They are supposed to hold meetings in every pyramid affected. And Mateo Dunne has brought up the issue a couple of times questioning if the schedule can stay on track - he has pointed out that there are 21 high schools (I'm not counting TJ) and the schedule for the pyramid meetings is only about a month long. Which means a meeting every week night for an entire month. Ambitious to ask anyone to attend a contentious 90 minute meeting every night for an entire month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who could know. We won’t have any further ability to comment on their plans since the comment period ended tonight. And the community apparently won’t be allowed to comment after the next round of maps are released.

I thought their policy requires them to have meetings in each affected pyramid after the next round of maps are released.

I hope this is the case. Our pyramid is heavily affected and there was not meeting in our pyramid.

They are supposed to hold meetings in every pyramid affected. And Mateo Dunne has brought up the issue a couple of times questioning if the schedule can stay on track - he has pointed out that there are 21 high schools (I'm not counting TJ) and the schedule for the pyramid meetings is only about a month long. Which means a meeting every week night for an entire month. Ambitious to ask anyone to attend a contentious 90 minute meeting every night for an entire month.

This is one example of why it appears that the timeline is aggressive and ambitious. There are some SB members pushing back against this rush. I hope they are heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who could know. We won’t have any further ability to comment on their plans since the comment period ended tonight. And the community apparently won’t be allowed to comment after the next round of maps are released.

The Thru tool is closing, but you can still message the school board and submit questions here: https://www.k12insight.com/Lets-Talk/FormBuilder/#/Dialogue?k=PT6F69D3G4TLT@WY3D4G1LT@DY2K2G2LT

They’re doing a terrible job with community engagement, but it’s important that the community is aware of the few options they have to be heard.

The issue is less whether there are sufficient avenues to provide feedback and more whether they pay any attention to the feedback they receive.

Just like FCPS surveys. This has all been for show. SB will make decision and throw Reid and contractor under the bus.

Does anyone really expect a different outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who could know. We won’t have any further ability to comment on their plans since the comment period ended tonight. And the community apparently won’t be allowed to comment after the next round of maps are released.

The Thru tool is closing, but you can still message the school board and submit questions here: https://www.k12insight.com/Lets-Talk/FormBuilder/#/Dialogue?k=PT6F69D3G4TLT@WY3D4G1LT@DY2K2G2LT

They’re doing a terrible job with community engagement, but it’s important that the community is aware of the few options they have to be heard.

The issue is less whether there are sufficient avenues to provide feedback and more whether they pay any attention to the feedback they receive.

Just like FCPS surveys. This has all been for show. SB will make decision and throw Reid and contractor under the bus.

Does anyone really expect a different outcome.

Not saying that the next round of proposals may not be worse, but Reid and the consultant should be fired. The consultant was incompetent and Reid didn’t stop Thru from sharing proposals that were ludicrous on their face with BRAC and the public. She is way out of her depth in a district this large, and it shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who could know. We won’t have any further ability to comment on their plans since the comment period ended tonight. And the community apparently won’t be allowed to comment after the next round of maps are released.

The Thru tool is closing, but you can still message the school board and submit questions here: https://www.k12insight.com/Lets-Talk/FormBuilder/#/Dialogue?k=PT6F69D3G4TLT@WY3D4G1LT@DY2K2G2LT

They’re doing a terrible job with community engagement, but it’s important that the community is aware of the few options they have to be heard.

The issue is less whether there are sufficient avenues to provide feedback and more whether they pay any attention to the feedback they receive.

Just like FCPS surveys. This has all been for show. SB will make decision and throw Reid and contractor under the bus.

Does anyone really expect a different outcome.

I actually think Reid is the one running the show and the board blindly follows. There is a real lack of oversight and their recent evaluation of her shows they think she is “highly effective”! Not sure how they forgot her parade of mistakes just this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who could know. We won’t have any further ability to comment on their plans since the comment period ended tonight. And the community apparently won’t be allowed to comment after the next round of maps are released.

The Thru tool is closing, but you can still message the school board and submit questions here: https://www.k12insight.com/Lets-Talk/FormBuilder/#/Dialogue?k=PT6F69D3G4TLT@WY3D4G1LT@DY2K2G2LT

They’re doing a terrible job with community engagement, but it’s important that the community is aware of the few options they have to be heard.

The issue is less whether there are sufficient avenues to provide feedback and more whether they pay any attention to the feedback they receive.

Just like FCPS surveys. This has all been for show. SB will make decision and throw Reid and contractor under the bus.

Does anyone really expect a different outcome.

I actually think Reid is the one running the show and the board blindly follows. There is a real lack of oversight and their recent evaluation of her shows they think she is “highly effective”! Not sure how they forgot her parade of mistakes just this year.

I jjust took a look at the budget. The bloat at the top is unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Can we get back on topic? If you want to bash the Board or whomever, start your own thread.

[Anonymous]

This boundary review has been a debacle and it’s natural that people are going to discuss whether the responsibility lies primarily with the School Board or Reid.

I’d put the primary responsibility on Board members like Frisch for calling for a county-wide review with no appreciation of the complexities involved, and the secondary responsibility on Reid for hiring an incompetent consulting firm and then allowing that consultant’s often ludicrous proposals to be made public.

You may be OK with this process, in which case I’d suggest you either aren’t paying attention or aren’t affected, but it has been an utter shitshow, and it ought to end the political careers of people like Frisch, Moon, and Sizemore-Heizer, and result in Reid’s departure.

[Anonymous]

^ The decision to purchase a new high school (KAA) in the middle of the process and then play dumb about the implications of that acquisition for the ongoing boundary review only further underscores the deep incompetence of those currently running FCPS or charged with its oversight.

[Anonymous]

How anyone can think Reid is "highly effective" is mind boggling. She didn't even understand why her 6th-graders-move-to-MS was logistically impossible. She was a moron with the whole Hayfield debacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ The decision to purchase a new high school (KAA) in the middle of the process and then play dumb about the implications of that acquisition for the ongoing boundary review only further underscores the deep incompetence of those currently running FCPS or charged with its oversight.

Strongly disagree. It is the only competent thing they have done lately. Some of the worst boundaries suggested by THRU are in this area. And the boundaries in this area are like a spider web--they have been adjusted in this manner because there was no where else to go.
This is the area that needs the space.

If the School Board were smart, they would take advantage of the KAA decision and drop this current boundary study. It gives them a great excuse to do so. They will necessarily need to make adjustments in boundaries due to KAA, but there are logical options that do not involved splitting neighborhoods down the middle and sending kids thirty minutes away. It should enable school communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ The decision to purchase a new high school (KAA) in the middle of the process and then play dumb about the implications of that acquisition for the ongoing boundary review only further underscores the deep incompetence of those currently running FCPS or charged with its oversight.

Strongly disagree. It is the only competent thing they have done lately. Some of the worst boundaries suggested by THRU are in this area. And the boundaries in this area are like a spider web--they have been adjusted in this manner because there was no where else to go.
This is the area that needs the space.

If the School Board were smart, they would take advantage of the KAA decision and drop this current boundary study. It gives them a great excuse to do so. They will necessarily need to make adjustments in boundaries due to KAA, but there are logical options that do not involved splitting neighborhoods down the middle and sending kids thirty minutes away. It should enable school communities.

Right? This is the only smart thing FCPS has done in ages. It just makes so much sense, now middle schools can all go to the same high school and not be split up. All of Carson can go to the KAA building, all of Stone can go to Westfield, all of Hughes can go to South Lakes, all of Franklin can go to Chantilly. It just makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ The decision to purchase a new high school (KAA) in the middle of the process and then play dumb about the implications of that acquisition for the ongoing boundary review only further underscores the deep incompetence of those currently running FCPS or charged with its oversight.

Strongly disagree. It is the only competent thing they have done lately. Some of the worst boundaries suggested by THRU are in this area. And the boundaries in this area are like a spider web--they have been adjusted in this manner because there was no where else to go.
This is the area that needs the space.

If the School Board were smart, they would take advantage of the KAA decision and drop this current boundary study. It gives them a great excuse to do so. They will necessarily need to make adjustments in boundaries due to KAA, but there are logical options that do not involved splitting neighborhoods down the middle and sending kids thirty minutes away. It should enable school communities.

Good job at missing the point entirely.

The issue isn’t whether they should have bought this property and more whether they should be acknowledging that it has major implications for the ongoing boundary review. They haven’t done that; to the contrary, Reid said it wouldn’t have an impact and the SB members deliberately avoid discussing whether new boundaries for KAA ought to take priority over their other, often ridiculous proposals.

They are trying to have it both ways and failing miserably.