FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

No. It won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Giving a school like Key and AAP center wouldn't cause any boundary issues. Maybe at some others, but that would be a fairly easy fix. Some people just don't want to attend their base middle school.

Ding ding ding.

[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:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

[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:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

All of these changes you describe are far less disruptive and impact far fewer families than the changes already proposed by Thru.

As a bonus, the changes could be implemented with each rising 7th grade class as they move from elementary to middle school, leaving current high school students untouched from their current school path, with the only affect being a new feeder pattern which would begin in 7th grade when they are already transitioning to new schools. Current 7th grade - 11th grade could stay on their current path. Current K-5th graders could stay at their neighborhood elementary, switching pyramids in 7th grade, unless they get a capacity rezoning like Coates needs.

This would be the least disruptive and most seamless way to institute a district wide rezoning.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

All of these changes you describe are far less disruptive and impact far fewer families than the changes already proposed by Thru.

As a bonus, the changes could be implemented with each rising 7th grade class as they move from elementary to middle school, leaving current high school students untouched from their current school path, with the only affect being a new feeder pattern which would begin in 7th grade when they are already transitioning to new schools. Current 7th grade - 11th grade could stay on their current path. Current K-5th graders could stay at their neighborhood elementary, switching pyramids in 7th grade, unless they get a capacity rezoning like Coates needs.

This would be the least disruptive and most seamless way to institute a district wide rezoning.

Again. Show me some numbers to back up your claim.
You seem to think moving hundreds of kids out of an AAP center school will be fine and if the school has empyt classrooms, that is fine.

You also seem to think all AAP kids can be moved back to their base schools with out any overcrowding.

Show me the numbers that a majority of middle schools will not have to redo boundaries.

[Anonymous]

I”ll add that if you are fine with every middle and high school redistricting, then you are just trying to make more disruption during a time where everyone is looking for stability.

Back up your claim, cause I’m not buying it at all.

[Anonymous]

You do realize that making AAP kids attend their base school for AAP would improve the reputation of the base school, right?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

All of these changes you describe are far less disruptive and impact far fewer families than the changes already proposed by Thru.

As a bonus, the changes could be implemented with each rising 7th grade class as they move from elementary to middle school, leaving current high school students untouched from their current school path, with the only affect being a new feeder pattern which would begin in 7th grade when they are already transitioning to new schools. Current 7th grade - 11th grade could stay on their current path. Current K-5th graders could stay at their neighborhood elementary, switching pyramids in 7th grade, unless they get a capacity rezoning like Coates needs.

This would be the least disruptive and most seamless way to institute a district wide rezoning.

Again. Show me some numbers to back up your claim.
You seem to think moving hundreds of kids out of an AAP center school will be fine and if the school has empyt classrooms, that is fine.

You also seem to think all AAP kids can be moved back to their base schools with out any overcrowding.

Show me the numbers that a majority of middle schools will not have to redo boundaries.

DP, but happy to play so here's an assessment at the MS level.

Carson: At 98% capacity last year with 286 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Carson's current boundaries by adding Hughes and/or Franklin kids, which could also align with KAA decisions.

Cooper: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Carson AAP.

Frost: At 94% capacity last year with 100 transfers in, presumbly mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Poe and Holmes, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Glasgow: At 102% capacity last year with 144 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Poe and Holmes, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Hughes: At 99% capacity last year with 125 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Herndon, which would be slightly overcrowded (103%) with no boundary changes.

Jackson: At 95% capacity last year with 99 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Thoreau. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Jackson's current boundaries by adding Thoreau kids.

Johnson: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Johnson AAP.

Kilmer: At 118% capacity last year with 50 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Thoreau. Aligning AAP with base boundaries would reduce overcrowding at Kilmer and be part of related adjustments to Thoreau/Jackson boundaries (see above).

Lake Braddock: At 91% capacity last year with 252 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Irving and Robinson. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Lake Braddock's boundaries by adding Irving and/or Robinson kids.

Longfellow: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Longfellow AAP.

Rocky Run: At 73% capacity with last year with 248 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Liberty and Stone. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Rocky Run boundaries by adding Liberty, Stone and/or Franklin kids.

Sandburg: At 98% capacity last year with 107 transfers in, presumbly mostly for AAP or military. Majority of transfers are from Whitman, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Twain: At 100% capacity last year with 180 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Hayfield and Key, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

All of these changes you describe are far less disruptive and impact far fewer families than the changes already proposed by Thru.

As a bonus, the changes could be implemented with each rising 7th grade class as they move from elementary to middle school, leaving current high school students untouched from their current school path, with the only affect being a new feeder pattern which would begin in 7th grade when they are already transitioning to new schools. Current 7th grade - 11th grade could stay on their current path. Current K-5th graders could stay at their neighborhood elementary, switching pyramids in 7th grade, unless they get a capacity rezoning like Coates needs.

This would be the least disruptive and most seamless way to institute a district wide rezoning.

Again. Show me some numbers to back up your claim.
You seem to think moving hundreds of kids out of an AAP center school will be fine and if the school has empyt classrooms, that is fine.

You also seem to think all AAP kids can be moved back to their base schools with out any overcrowding.

Show me the numbers that a majority of middle schools will not have to redo boundaries.

DP, but happy to play so here's an assessment at the MS level.

Carson: At 98% capacity last year with 286 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Carson's current boundaries by adding Hughes and/or Franklin kids, which could also align with KAA decisions.

Cooper: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Carson AAP.

Frost: At 94% capacity last year with 100 transfers in, presumbly mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Poe and Holmes, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Glasgow: At 102% capacity last year with 144 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Poe and Holmes, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Hughes: At 99% capacity last year with 125 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Herndon, which would be slightly overcrowded (103%) with no boundary changes.

Jackson: At 95% capacity last year with 99 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Thoreau. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Jackson's current boundaries by adding Thoreau kids.

Johnson: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Johnson AAP.

Kilmer: At 118% capacity last year with 50 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Thoreau. Aligning AAP with base boundaries would reduce overcrowding at Kilmer and be part of related adjustments to Thoreau/Jackson boundaries (see above).

Lake Braddock: At 91% capacity last year with 252 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Irving and Robinson. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Lake Braddock's boundaries by adding Irving and/or Robinson kids.

Longfellow: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Longfellow AAP.

Rocky Run: At 73% capacity with last year with 248 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Liberty and Stone. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Rocky Run boundaries by adding Liberty, Stone and/or Franklin kids.

Sandburg: At 98% capacity last year with 107 transfers in, presumbly mostly for AAP or military. Majority of transfers are from Whitman, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Twain: At 100% capacity last year with 180 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Hayfield and Key, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Sorry, left out South County:

South County: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend South County AAP.

[Anonymous]

And why do you think those changes are less than the current Thru ones?

You are redoing boundaries at: Rocky run, Lake Braddock, Irving, Robinson, Jackson, Thoreau, Kilmer, Carson and their feeders and those high schools. That is a LOT of kids and not “Nibbling around the edges” and it doesn’t address any of the overcrowding issues at current elementary or high schools.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

All of these changes you describe are far less disruptive and impact far fewer families than the changes already proposed by Thru.

As a bonus, the changes could be implemented with each rising 7th grade class as they move from elementary to middle school, leaving current high school students untouched from their current school path, with the only affect being a new feeder pattern which would begin in 7th grade when they are already transitioning to new schools. Current 7th grade - 11th grade could stay on their current path. Current K-5th graders could stay at their neighborhood elementary, switching pyramids in 7th grade, unless they get a capacity rezoning like Coates needs.

This would be the least disruptive and most seamless way to institute a district wide rezoning.

Again. Show me some numbers to back up your claim.
You seem to think moving hundreds of kids out of an AAP center school will be fine and if the school has empyt classrooms, that is fine.

You also seem to think all AAP kids can be moved back to their base schools with out any overcrowding.

Show me the numbers that a majority of middle schools will not have to redo boundaries.

DP, but happy to play so here's an assessment at the MS level.

Carson: At 98% capacity last year with 286 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Carson's current boundaries by adding Hughes and/or Franklin kids, which could also align with KAA decisions.

Cooper: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Carson AAP.

Frost: At 94% capacity last year with 100 transfers in, presumbly mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Poe and Holmes, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Glasgow: At 102% capacity last year with 144 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Poe and Holmes, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Hughes: At 99% capacity last year with 125 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Herndon, which would be slightly overcrowded (103%) with no boundary changes.

Jackson: At 95% capacity last year with 99 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Thoreau. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Jackson's current boundaries by adding Thoreau kids.

Johnson: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Johnson AAP.

Kilmer: At 118% capacity last year with 50 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Thoreau. Aligning AAP with base boundaries would reduce overcrowding at Kilmer and be part of related adjustments to Thoreau/Jackson boundaries (see above).

Lake Braddock: At 91% capacity last year with 252 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Irving and Robinson. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Lake Braddock's boundaries by adding Irving and/or Robinson kids.

Longfellow: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Longfellow AAP.

Rocky Run: At 73% capacity with last year with 248 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Liberty and Stone. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Rocky Run boundaries by adding Liberty, Stone and/or Franklin kids.

Sandburg: At 98% capacity last year with 107 transfers in, presumbly mostly for AAP or military. Majority of transfers are from Whitman, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Twain: At 100% capacity last year with 180 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Hayfield and Key, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Sorry, left out South County:

South County: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend South County AAP.

You left out Key too. Which could also absorb students with no issues.

The numbers don't lie.

Rezoning could be done simply by cleaning up middle school boundaries plus putting AAP at every middle school, with no AAP transfers allowed between pyramids.

This would fix many if not most of the high school issues, without major rezoning, if FCPS coupled this plan with eliminating IB at all schools except maybe one magnet IB program, and switched all high schools to AP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And why do you think those changes are less than the current Thru ones?

You are redoing boundaries at: Rocky run, Lake Braddock, Irving, Robinson, Jackson, Thoreau, Kilmer, Carson and their feeders and those high schools. That is a LOT of kids and not “Nibbling around the edges” and it doesn’t address any of the overcrowding issues at current elementary or high schools.

I am not familiar with all the schools.
However, Franklin sends lots of kids to Carson--more than enough to create an AAP center at Franklin.

It is likely that Carson will be redone in the near future along with the KAA boundaries. I might guess that a switch of some kind might result.

If Herndon had an AAP center, then Hughes could take the Fox Mill kids from Carson (assuming they are not sent to KAA.)
Possibly, Oak Hill would go to Carson--along with the AAP kids.
Franklin would still have Navy and Waples Mill and that would likely be enough--along with Lee's Corner- to have an AAP center.
If they don't send Crossfield to KAA, then they could go to Franklin, but I think that is definitely up in the air.

As for Rocky Run, the kids south of 50 at Franklin could easily go there--and it makes more sense geographically. With Greenbriar, there would likely be enough for an AAP center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And why do you think those changes are less than the current Thru ones?

You are redoing boundaries at: Rocky run, Lake Braddock, Irving, Robinson, Jackson, Thoreau, Kilmer, Carson and their feeders and those high schools. That is a LOT of kids and not “Nibbling around the edges” and it doesn’t address any of the overcrowding issues at current elementary or high schools.

My post was prefaced with "DP," with the hope you wouldn't conflate posters. No such luck.

I understand you oppose changes to eliminate AAP centers at the middle school level and just have AAP at every middle school. I was pointing out that, in fact, they could probably go to that model without it affecting the boundaries at over the half the current middle schools designated as AAP centers.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be upset if they don't address transfers for MS AAP. Our base school is Rocky Run and also my kid is in AAP. Looking at the transfer data, it looks like a significant portion of those in AAP at Rocky Run transfer there from out of pyramid, then go off to Westfield or Centreville HS. Sounds brutal as far as friendships go for everyone, especially once they reach HS.

Every middle school should have AAP and Carson and Rocky Run should stop serving so many kids who live outside their base boundaries.

But if you pull the AAP placements out of Rocky Run, you're left with a very small school unless they also expand the base boundaries.

I”m confused what the AAP middle school thing solves. Let’s say the board says: Great idea! Let’s try again! No AAP centers in middle schools.

Won’t that just draw out the process and make it even MORE impactful for MORE kids and pyramids?

This idea doesn’t seem viable.

It is absolutely viable, and certainly more disruptive in some areas than what they've proposed so far.

But it's inconsistent to pretend that attendance islands and split feeders are so terrible because they don't create enough of a sense of community or send kids to multiple schools, and then maintain MS AAP centers where the kids can go on to 3 or more high schools.

So you are arguing the board should dismantle and disrupt even MORE kids lives to win a point?

“Be careful what you wish for”

It would actually be less disruptive. All ES kids would stay together instead of sending a small percentage to the AAP Center. I know their mommies want them to end up at TJ, but I always feel bad for Navy kids who get pulled away from their ES friends and then make new friends in MS, but don't go to high school with ANY of them.

No, I’m saying it would be more disruptive to the current boundary process, the current students attending middle schools and upper elementary. It would move around a lot more families than were presented in the last boundary maps because it would create capacity issues at some middle schools which would make them have to redraw even more boundaries.

I’m not anti the principle and opted for AAP at our local middle school, BUT at this point, would mean more changes for more people.

Sure feel bad for the Navy kids, but also know the parents chose that. I don’t know where they go to middle school, but the AAP center school would have a population hole if you took the center away and that would need to be filled by redrawing boundaries. It is the domino effect.

It would be the least disruptive way to rezone.

Elementary and high school students would not be touched, with a few exceptionsat a couple of elementary schools. The changes would all occur over 2 years at the middle school level, as each new 7th grade class enters.

It would be about as seamless as a rezoning could be.

The rezoning should only happen at the middle school level, with every current student grandfathered at their existing school, switching only when they ove between school levels.

Add a residency check in 7th and 9th, and you have the best possible outcome for county wide rezoning.

Prove it.

How many kids and families affected under the current plan moving attendance islands?

How many kids would be affected under this “least disruptive plan” that reroutes all AAP center middle school kids back to base schools and then accounts for redistricting from there.

You don’t know the numbers unless you are a school board member or Thru AND they have already run this scenario.

Harkening back to a PP- I am guessing your kid may be affected under the current plan and you don’t want that, so you take zero issue disrupting even more families to get what your family wants.

I’m happy to be proven wrong with numbers.

Well, it appears that middle school AAP centers encourage pupil placement in high schools. I find it difficult to believe that there are not enough AAP kids to justify classes at every middle school. Quit separating them out.
DD's high school friends who went to AAP (she did not) were very disappointed to not get into TJ--almost depressed. And, she surpassed them at many levels in high school--to include National Merit scores, department awards, AP Scholar, NCTE award, etc.

Ok, but the consequence of not allowing these transfers (both at middle and high school level) will lead to MORE boundary changes.
TBH I am not a fan of AAP centers in middle, BUT I can also see that getting rid of them at this point will just lead to MORE boundary changes which this far into the process will lead to MORE uncertainty for MORE families.

Are you all not able to separate those things out?

I’m sorry, why do you think it would lead to more boundary changes to get rid of AAP centers?

It would really just impact Franklin which sends 300 AAP kids between Rocky Run and Carson. They’d have to sort out new boundaries between Rocky Run and Franklin, which isn’t hugely disruptive because they’re already Chantilly feeders.

Carson is a larger MS, so they wouldn’t be taking full advantage of its capacity, but if it’s primarily feeding KAA that may not be a bad thing.

Thoreau and Kilmer would have to undo some of its boundary recommendations. They had plans of sending a lot of Kilmer to Thoreau, but Thoreau’s excess capacity would shrink if their AAP kids returned from Kilmer and Jackson.

Regardless, I think it’s too late in the process to pivot. Doesn’t AAP need specific staffing?

All of these changes you describe are far less disruptive and impact far fewer families than the changes already proposed by Thru.

As a bonus, the changes could be implemented with each rising 7th grade class as they move from elementary to middle school, leaving current high school students untouched from their current school path, with the only affect being a new feeder pattern which would begin in 7th grade when they are already transitioning to new schools. Current 7th grade - 11th grade could stay on their current path. Current K-5th graders could stay at their neighborhood elementary, switching pyramids in 7th grade, unless they get a capacity rezoning like Coates needs.

This would be the least disruptive and most seamless way to institute a district wide rezoning.

Again. Show me some numbers to back up your claim.
You seem to think moving hundreds of kids out of an AAP center school will be fine and if the school has empyt classrooms, that is fine.

You also seem to think all AAP kids can be moved back to their base schools with out any overcrowding.

Show me the numbers that a majority of middle schools will not have to redo boundaries.

DP, but happy to play so here's an assessment at the MS level.

Carson: At 98% capacity last year with 286 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Carson's current boundaries by adding Hughes and/or Franklin kids, which could also align with KAA decisions.

Cooper: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Carson AAP.

Frost: At 94% capacity last year with 100 transfers in, presumbly mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Poe and Holmes, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Glasgow: At 102% capacity last year with 144 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Poe and Holmes, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Hughes: At 99% capacity last year with 125 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Herndon, which would be slightly overcrowded (103%) with no boundary changes.

Jackson: At 95% capacity last year with 99 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Thoreau. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Jackson's current boundaries by adding Thoreau kids.

Johnson: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Johnson AAP.

Kilmer: At 118% capacity last year with 50 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Thoreau. Aligning AAP with base boundaries would reduce overcrowding at Kilmer and be part of related adjustments to Thoreau/Jackson boundaries (see above).

Lake Braddock: At 91% capacity last year with 252 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Irving and Robinson. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Lake Braddock's boundaries by adding Irving and/or Robinson kids.

Longfellow: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend Longfellow AAP.

Rocky Run: At 73% capacity with last year with 248 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Liberty and Stone. Aligning AAP with base boundaries could mean expansion of Rocky Run boundaries by adding Liberty, Stone and/or Franklin kids.

Sandburg: At 98% capacity last year with 107 transfers in, presumbly mostly for AAP or military. Majority of transfers are from Whitman, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Twain: At 100% capacity last year with 180 transfers in, presumably mostly for AAP. Majority of transfers are from Hayfield and Key, which can absorb additional kids with no boundary changes.

Sorry, left out South County:

South County: No action required, as no out-of-boundary kids attend South County AAP.

You left out Key too. Which could also absorb students with no issues.

The numbers don't lie.

Rezoning could be done simply by cleaning up middle school boundaries plus putting AAP at every middle school, with no AAP transfers allowed between pyramids.

This would fix many if not most of the high school issues, without major rezoning, if FCPS coupled this plan with eliminating IB at all schools except maybe one magnet IB program, and switched all high schools to AP.

Key is not currently an AAP center. I noted they could restrict AAP at Twain to in-boundary kids and move kids back to Key without any obvious need to change boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And why do you think those changes are less than the current Thru ones?

You are redoing boundaries at: Rocky run, Lake Braddock, Irving, Robinson, Jackson, Thoreau, Kilmer, Carson and their feeders and those high schools. That is a LOT of kids and not “Nibbling around the edges” and it doesn’t address any of the overcrowding issues at current elementary or high schools.

My post was prefaced with "DP," with the hope you wouldn't conflate posters. No such luck.

I understand you oppose changes to eliminate AAP centers at the middle school level and just have AAP at every middle school. I was pointing out that, in fact, they could probably go to that model without it affecting the boundaries at over the half the current middle schools designated as AAP centers.

No, I thought I was very clear that I do not care about AAP centers. My own AAP kid went to a local middle for AAP because I didn’t want the disruption of going from a home aap center to a different middle and then returning to high school.

I AM arguing that doing this will affect more boundaries AND more kids than the Thru model. I also do not see the point in putting this into play NOW, when new maps are coming out in 2 weeks. It seems like it will just prolong this process, which may be to your advantage. Who knows.