FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

The smart thing is to fix Coates NOW for this coming school year, adjust the boundaries for next year for the opening of KAA, and leave the rest of the county alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The smart thing is to fix Coates NOW for this coming school year, adjust the boundaries for next year for the opening of KAA, and leave the rest of the county alone.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The smart thing is to fix Coates NOW for this coming school year, adjust the boundaries for next year for the opening of KAA, and leave the rest of the county alone.

+1

+2. They've bitten off more than they can chew, and it shows.

[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

I posted about reduced base school capacity at Hunters Woods and Kent Gardens. Skip the Bailey's since they have few transfers in for the magnet yet receive the extra staffing : <20 total for both sites. Those 2 get 263 for FLI.

Hunters Woods functions as a true magnet with 35% [251]of membership transferring in for the magnet plus 9% of the membership is the AAP feed from Waples Mill [69]. Now what has apparently never been reviewed is AAP center feed locations. Dogwood, location comtiguous to Hunters Woods, oddly feeds to Sunrise Valley AAP [Dogwood, Flint Hill, Terraset, Oakton].

Dogwood sent 43 to Sunrise Valley and 39 to Hunters Woods. Detailed proper comprehensive review could have at a minimum shifted Dogwood AAP feed to it's neighbor Hunters Woods and flipped Waples Mill to Sunrise Valley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I posted about reduced base school capacity at Hunters Woods and Kent Gardens. Skip the Bailey's since they have few transfers in for the magnet yet receive the extra staffing : <20 total for both sites. Those 2 get 263 for FLI.

Hunters Woods functions as a true magnet with 35% [251]of membership transferring in for the magnet plus 9% of the membership is the AAP feed from Waples Mill [69]. Now what has apparently never been reviewed is AAP center feed locations. Dogwood, location comtiguous to Hunters Woods, oddly feeds to Sunrise Valley AAP [Dogwood, Flint Hill, Terraset, Oakton].

Dogwood sent 43 to Sunrise Valley and 39 to Hunters Woods. Detailed proper comprehensive review could have at a minimum shifted Dogwood AAP feed to it's neighbor Hunters Woods and flipped Waples Mill to Sunrise Valley.

What really needs to be reviewed are the AAP Centers that only have one school feed in - I know of Navy. Is Hunters Woods like this, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I posted about reduced base school capacity at Hunters Woods and Kent Gardens. Skip the Bailey's since they have few transfers in for the magnet yet receive the extra staffing : <20 total for both sites. Those 2 get 263 for FLI.

Hunters Woods functions as a true magnet with 35% [251]of membership transferring in for the magnet plus 9% of the membership is the AAP feed from Waples Mill [69]. Now what has apparently never been reviewed is AAP center feed locations. Dogwood, location comtiguous to Hunters Woods, oddly feeds to Sunrise Valley AAP [Dogwood, Flint Hill, Terraset, Oakton].

Dogwood sent 43 to Sunrise Valley and 39 to Hunters Woods. Detailed proper comprehensive review could have at a minimum shifted Dogwood AAP feed to it's neighbor Hunters Woods and flipped Waples Mill to Sunrise Valley.

Look at the map. The Waples -> Hunters Woods kids already ride the bus 45 minutes for AAP. Sunrise Valley would be even farther. Waples kids should be going in pyramid for AAP to Navy. I don't know why they are bussed past Crossfield to go to Hunters Woods and Crossfield kids get to stay local at Navy for AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I

Agree.

It will not quite work that way, but it should be an improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I posted about reduced base school capacity at Hunters Woods and Kent Gardens. Skip the Bailey's since they have few transfers in for the magnet yet receive the extra staffing : <20 total for both sites. Those 2 get 263 for FLI.

Hunters Woods functions as a true magnet with 35% [251]of membership transferring in for the magnet plus 9% of the membership is the AAP feed from Waples Mill [69]. Now what has apparently never been reviewed is AAP center feed locations. Dogwood, location comtiguous to Hunters Woods, oddly feeds to Sunrise Valley AAP [Dogwood, Flint Hill, Terraset, Oakton].

Dogwood sent 43 to Sunrise Valley and 39 to Hunters Woods. Detailed proper comprehensive review could have at a minimum shifted Dogwood AAP feed to it's neighbor Hunters Woods and flipped Waples Mill to Sunrise Valley.

What really needs to be reviewed are the AAP Centers that only have one school feed in - I know of Navy. Is Hunters Woods like this, too?

Waples Mill is the single AAP feed to Hunters Woods=69 AAP+29 other [magnet count unknown]=98. Crossfield 49 students is the single feed to Navy AAP. Great Falls ES is a single feed to Colvin Run- 28 AAP+13 other=41. Forestville AAP <10 feeds to Forest Edge [total AAP transfer in =30] with multiple feeders.

As I posted before Hunters Woods membership SY24-25 is heavy on transfers where FCPS provides transportation: 48%=Waples Mill 9% AAP, Magnet 38%. Makes no sense to bus Dogwood AAP 43 [?]to Sunrise Valley when it transports maximum 39 [?]to Hunters Woods "next door ." Question marks are because FCPS doesn't break down transfer reason per incoming unless it's a single feed AAP center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I posted about reduced base school capacity at Hunters Woods and Kent Gardens. Skip the Bailey's since they have few transfers in for the magnet yet receive the extra staffing : <20 total for both sites. Those 2 get 263 for FLI.

Hunters Woods functions as a true magnet with 35% [251]of membership transferring in for the magnet plus 9% of the membership is the AAP feed from Waples Mill [69]. Now what has apparently never been reviewed is AAP center feed locations. Dogwood, location comtiguous to Hunters Woods, oddly feeds to Sunrise Valley AAP [Dogwood, Flint Hill, Terraset, Oakton].

Dogwood sent 43 to Sunrise Valley and 39 to Hunters Woods. Detailed proper comprehensive review could have at a minimum shifted Dogwood AAP feed to it's neighbor Hunters Woods and flipped Waples Mill to Sunrise Valley.

Look at the map. The Waples -> Hunters Woods kids already ride the bus 45 minutes for AAP. Sunrise Valley would be even farther. Waples kids should be going in pyramid for AAP to Navy. I don't know why they are bussed past Crossfield to go to Hunters Woods and Crossfield kids get to stay local at Navy for AAP.

Yes it makes NO sense and Thru with advice from the Supt Reid office has just made more of a mess.

[Anonymous]

Suggestion: Keep all 3rd grade AAP at the base school and see how that works out for the next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I

Agree.

It will not quite work that way, but it should be an improvement.

Why not?
There's no point in not lining up the middle schools properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I

Agree.

It will not quite work that way, but it should be an improvement.

Why not?
There's no point in not lining up the middle schools properly.

Because it's not possible. Where will Navy and Waples Mill go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I

Agree.

It will not quite work that way, but it should be an improvement.

Of course it won't work that way, because not everyone who currently goes to Carson is likely to end up at KAA, and Stone is not big enough to be the sole feeder to Westfield. But the people who want the KAA purchase to go through don't want to acknowledge any possible complications or messiness associated with new boundaries for a school at the KAA site, because they see that as potentially souring someone on the deal. It's a bit childish, especially when just about everyone is in favor of the purchase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I

Agree.

It will not quite work that way, but it should be an improvement.

Of course it won't work that way, because not everyone who currently goes to Carson is likely to end up at KAA, and Stone is not big enough to be the sole feeder to Westfield. But the people who want the KAA purchase to go through don't want to acknowledge any possible complications or messiness associated with new boundaries for a school at the KAA site, because they see that as potentially souring someone on the deal. It's a bit childish, especially when just about everyone is in favor of the purchase.

No. There is one person who is obsessed with middle schools being sole feeders to high schools. The people in the KAA area have been accustomed to split feeder middle schools for decades.

I agree that we would likely all want no split feeders, but that is a pipe dream.

I also suspect the person who wants all of current Carson to go to KAA is likely to be disappointed--and that is what worries her.
I think I understand because I suspect that she is currently in a district with a split feeder elementary school, as well.