FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the 2 biggest issues that need to be addressed prior to rezoning to improve the lowere performing schools are:

#1 Put AAP in every middle school with zeor students allowed to transfer out of their assigned school for middle school AAP.

#2 Phase out IB at every school but one, and replace it with a full slate of AP classes.

Both of these could be accomplished by Fall of 2026.

Idk, seems like the easiest/quickest action to take is to adjust the boundaries now and then take on some of the other suggestions for long-term stability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is one who didn't get parking and she wouldn't want to leave WS just because of parking! A friend at Lake Braddock also said they have way more demand for parking than availability.

But apparently WS has added trailers and were already 300 over capacity last year. Meanwhile Lewis is hundreds of students under capacity. Just saying.

…because 300 Lewis kids pupil place out to LBSS, Edison etc every year, leaving the school under capacity.

Sure. And people pick the WS pyramid over Lewis and the county refuses to do ANYTHING to address the problem.

The thing to address the problem would be to figure out how to stop the nearly 300 Lewis students from transferring to other high schools.

Did you read the comments for the Lewis region on Thru's maps?

I read every one of the comments from the 3 regions closest to our school.

A huge percentage of the comments from Lewis families, perhaps a third of the Lewis comments, were from Lewis families requesting to get rezoned to West Springfield. They were coming from far away neighborhoods like the huge houses near Greenspring. That neighborhood is minutes from Lewis and closer to Hayfield than WSHS, yet a bunch of them were begging FCPS to rezone their neighborhoods to WSHS.

There were far more comments requesting that Lewis homes get rezoned to WSHS than suggestions for improving Lewis.

This is a boundary review exercise, so I would expect the comments/suggestions to reflect what could be done as part of that process- which is happening now- and not some wishlist of suggestions that might take years to implement.

Truth is, PP already identified the main driver of pupil placements Lewis. The only “fix” is to add more students.

If you move 300 more families into the Lewis boundary area, won't they also pupil place out? SB will have to start pushing Lewis's boundary in all four directions to find enough kids to fill it if they don't close the IB loophole.

They had no qualms about pushing Langley's boundaries far west and south to fill the school (north is Maryland and east is Arlington). Come back when Lewis's catchment area is anywhere near as big as Langley or Robinson.

If you made Lewis’s attendance area as big as Robinson’s, you’d have a school with a population of 4000+. Population density is a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is one who didn't get parking and she wouldn't want to leave WS just because of parking! A friend at Lake Braddock also said they have way more demand for parking than availability.

But apparently WS has added trailers and were already 300 over capacity last year. Meanwhile Lewis is hundreds of students under capacity. Just saying.

…because 300 Lewis kids pupil place out to LBSS, Edison etc every year, leaving the school under capacity.

Sure. And people pick the WS pyramid over Lewis and the county refuses to do ANYTHING to address the problem.

The thing to address the problem would be to figure out how to stop the nearly 300 Lewis students from transferring to other high schools.

Did you read the comments for the Lewis region on Thru's maps?

I read every one of the comments from the 3 regions closest to our school.

A huge percentage of the comments from Lewis families, perhaps a third of the Lewis comments, were from Lewis families requesting to get rezoned to West Springfield. They were coming from far away neighborhoods like the huge houses near Greenspring. That neighborhood is minutes from Lewis and closer to Hayfield than WSHS, yet a bunch of them were begging FCPS to rezone their neighborhoods to WSHS.

There were far more comments requesting that Lewis homes get rezoned to WSHS than suggestions for improving Lewis.

This is a boundary review exercise, so I would expect the comments/suggestions to reflect what could be done as part of that process- which is happening now- and not some wishlist of suggestions that might take years to implement.

Truth is, PP already identified the main driver of pupil placements Lewis. The only “fix” is to add more students.

If you move 300 more families into the Lewis boundary area, won't they also pupil place out? SB will have to start pushing Lewis's boundary in all four directions to find enough kids to fill it if they don't close the IB loophole.

They had no qualms about pushing Langley's boundaries far west and south to fill the school (north is Maryland and east is Arlington). Come back when Lewis's catchment area is anywhere near as big as Langley or Robinson.

DP. Could you be any more willfully ignorant than this about how boundaries are drawn? What an absurdly conspiratorial take.

It's not conspiratorial, just a recognition that FCPS hasn't had ceilings on how far out a school's boundaries can extend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is one who didn't get parking and she wouldn't want to leave WS just because of parking! A friend at Lake Braddock also said they have way more demand for parking than availability.

But apparently WS has added trailers and were already 300 over capacity last year. Meanwhile Lewis is hundreds of students under capacity. Just saying.

…because 300 Lewis kids pupil place out to LBSS, Edison etc every year, leaving the school under capacity.

Sure. And people pick the WS pyramid over Lewis and the county refuses to do ANYTHING to address the problem.

The thing to address the problem would be to figure out how to stop the nearly 300 Lewis students from transferring to other high schools.

Did you read the comments for the Lewis region on Thru's maps?

I read every one of the comments from the 3 regions closest to our school.

A huge percentage of the comments from Lewis families, perhaps a third of the Lewis comments, were from Lewis families requesting to get rezoned to West Springfield. They were coming from far away neighborhoods like the huge houses near Greenspring. That neighborhood is minutes from Lewis and closer to Hayfield than WSHS, yet a bunch of them were begging FCPS to rezone their neighborhoods to WSHS.

There were far more comments requesting that Lewis homes get rezoned to WSHS than suggestions for improving Lewis.

This is a boundary review exercise, so I would expect the comments/suggestions to reflect what could be done as part of that process- which is happening now- and not some wishlist of suggestions that might take years to implement.

Truth is, PP already identified the main driver of pupil placements Lewis. The only “fix” is to add more students.

If you move 300 more families into the Lewis boundary area, won't they also pupil place out? SB will have to start pushing Lewis's boundary in all four directions to find enough kids to fill it if they don't close the IB loophole.

They had no qualms about pushing Langley's boundaries far west and south to fill the school (north is Maryland and east is Arlington). Come back when Lewis's catchment area is anywhere near as big as Langley or Robinson.

If you made Lewis’s attendance area as big as Robinson’s, you’d have a school with a population of 4000+. Population density is a thing.

Of course.

The point, which you choose to ignore, is that they can expand Lewis's boundaries consistent with many prior FCPS actions.

[Anonymous]

No transfer until 10th grade when AP classes start.

No more AAP in middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No transfer until 10th grade when AP classes start.

No more AAP in middle.

They aren't getting rid of AAP in middle school. They could have AAP at every middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No transfer until 10th grade when AP classes start.

No more AAP in middle.

If you're stuck at an IB school, and you know you'll want to take AP courses, you should be allowed to transfer starting in 9th grade.

What you propose is punitive to a lot of kids.

Not every damn thing in the county has to be reverse-engineered to keep WS kids from ever getting moved to Lewis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No transfer until 10th grade when AP classes start.

No more AAP in middle.

If you're stuck at an IB school, and you know you'll want to take AP courses, you should be allowed to transfer starting in 9th grade.

What you propose is punitive to a lot of kids.

Not every damn thing in the county has to be reverse-engineered to keep WS kids from ever getting moved to Lewis.

So presumably you'd then support the newly transferred WS kids immediately transferring back out to continue their AP classes somewhere else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No transfer until 10th grade when AP classes start.

No more AAP in middle.

If you're stuck at an IB school, and you know you'll want to take AP courses, you should be allowed to transfer starting in 9th grade.

What you propose is punitive to a lot of kids.

Not every damn thing in the county has to be reverse-engineered to keep WS kids from ever getting moved to Lewis.

Preach!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No transfer until 10th grade when AP classes start.

No more AAP in middle.

If you're stuck at an IB school, and you know you'll want to take AP courses, you should be allowed to transfer starting in 9th grade.

What you propose is punitive to a lot of kids.

Not every damn thing in the county has to be reverse-engineered to keep WS kids from ever getting moved to Lewis.

So presumably you'd then support the newly transferred WS kids immediately transferring back out to continue their AP classes somewhere else?

I'd rather we have AP county-wide than do what you're proposing, which would force kids to attend an IB school for their freshman year even if they want to take AP courses.

If we are going to continue to have AP and IB schools, and WS kids are moved to an IB school, they should be allowed to transfer to an AP school with capacity if they plan to take AP courses. So it might be Lake Braddock or South County rather than West Springfield, but they could attend those schools for all four years of HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No transfer until 10th grade when AP classes start.

No more AAP in middle.

If you're stuck at an IB school, and you know you'll want to take AP courses, you should be allowed to transfer starting in 9th grade.

What you propose is punitive to a lot of kids.

Not every damn thing in the county has to be reverse-engineered to keep WS kids from ever getting moved to Lewis.

So presumably you'd then support the newly transferred WS kids immediately transferring back out to continue their AP classes somewhere else?

I'd rather we have AP county-wide than do what you're proposing, which would force kids to attend an IB school for their freshman year even if they want to take AP courses.

If we are going to continue to have AP and IB schools, and WS kids are moved to an IB school, they should be allowed to transfer to an AP school with capacity if they plan to take AP courses. So it might be Lake Braddock or South County rather than West Springfield, but they could attend those schools for all four years of HS.

PP here. I'm not the person proposing that- should've been clear about that in my post.

I deliberately chose an AP school for my kids and did not buy in Robinson or LB pyramids because I didn't want my kids going to an IB and/or secondary school.

[Anonymous]

With all this talk of Lewis and WS again, does someone know something new thats being proposed or is this all just new speculation and ongoing debate of some people wanting to move WS kids to Lewis for equity reasons. Otherwise Tru's maps dont mention any of this. And this is just getting people spun up all over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No transfer until 10th grade when AP classes start.

No more AAP in middle.

If you're stuck at an IB school, and you know you'll want to take AP courses, you should be allowed to transfer starting in 9th grade.

What you propose is punitive to a lot of kids.

Not every damn thing in the county has to be reverse-engineered to keep WS kids from ever getting moved to Lewis.

Why are you so against the idea of Lewis dropping IB and converting to a full slate of AP classes?

IB is a complete waste of taxpayers dollars.

The single digits of IB diploma awarded at most of the IB schools and the hundreds of transfers out of IB schools is a reason for FCPS to scrap IB and switch everyone to AP.

It is a 2 year phase out. Why don't they do it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With all this talk of Lewis and WS again, does someone know something new thats being proposed or is this all just new speculation and ongoing debate of some people wanting to move WS kids to Lewis for equity reasons. Otherwise Tru's maps dont mention any of this. And this is just getting people spun up all over again.

Both Reid and others have said repeatedly in public that the next round of maps that are expected in October will be substantially different from the Thru Consulting maps in May/June. Reid also called the earlier maps "drafty drafts" to stress their preliminary nature.

Depending on your perspective, those comments can either inspire concern or hope. Some think they've known all along what they want to do with boundaries and have been hiding the ball so far. Others think they've been given another bite at the apple to advocate for changes not previously proposed. There's also a feeling that some local School Board allies are trying to "socialize" changes at schools like West Springfield and Langley that weren't previously proposed by now suggesting they'd be appropriate.

As far as I'm aware, no new maps have actually been published, nor have they leaked. Any "leaked" maps should be taken with a giant grain of salt, because there were posters on this forum who previously claimed to know about leaked maps that bore no resemblance to the May/June maps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No transfer until 10th grade when AP classes start.

No more AAP in middle.

If you're stuck at an IB school, and you know you'll want to take AP courses, you should be allowed to transfer starting in 9th grade.

What you propose is punitive to a lot of kids.

Not every damn thing in the county has to be reverse-engineered to keep WS kids from ever getting moved to Lewis.

Why are you so against the idea of Lewis dropping IB and converting to a full slate of AP classes?

IB is a complete waste of taxpayers dollars.

The single digits of IB diploma awarded at most of the IB schools and the hundreds of transfers out of IB schools is a reason for FCPS to scrap IB and switch everyone to AP.

It is a 2 year phase out. Why don't they do it now?

Because IB was left at those schools to give MC/UMC kids an easy way to pupil place out. If you shut that down, those kids will have to stay at those schools.