FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Personally, I'd rather that they change more boundaries for defensible reasons than to change fewer boundaries for stupid reasons. You seem to be arguing that the goal at this point should simply be to minimize the number of boundary changes, but if it's your boundary that's getting changed it affects you just as much as if they were changing more boundaries and perhaps even more so if they are doing so for a stupid reason.

I wasn't really looking at any of this from the perspective of what would be in my personal advantage, just trying to assess how many boundaries might need to change if every middle school had AAP and we dropped the current center model at the middle school level. I've heard some School Board members say this would be their preference but clearly it wasn't something that guided the Thru Consulting proposals to date. But the benefits aren't that hard to grasp in terms of keeping more kids together and reducing transporation costs.

[Anonymous]

So when is HV moving to Lewis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Personally, I'd rather that they change more boundaries for defensible reasons than to change fewer boundaries for stupid reasons. You seem to be arguing that the goal at this point should simply be to minimize the number of boundary changes, but if it's your boundary that's getting changed it affects you just as much as if they were changing more boundaries and perhaps even more so if they are doing so for a stupid reason.

I wasn't really looking at any of this from the perspective of what would be in my personal advantage, just trying to assess how many boundaries might need to change if every middle school had AAP and we dropped the current center model at the middle school level. I've heard some School Board members say this would be their preference but clearly it wasn't something that guided the Thru Consulting proposals to date. But the benefits aren't that hard to grasp in terms of keeping more kids together and reducing transporation costs.

If this is their preference, they made the rules and they should revisit 8130.

Yes, I do think minimizing boundary changes and disruptions when so much of Fairfax county is changing (immigration, federal workforce down sizing etc) is better for the county as a whole right now. This is kind of a stupid reason as well. It is just changing something to change because the county said they were going to change. If you understand that people are upset when boundaries change, why are you advocating for MORE people to be upset when the boundaries change?

The AAP transportation budget is small 8- million so cost savings there isn’t super impactful especially when that is elementary and middle combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Personally, I'd rather that they change more boundaries for defensible reasons than to change fewer boundaries for stupid reasons. You seem to be arguing that the goal at this point should simply be to minimize the number of boundary changes, but if it's your boundary that's getting changed it affects you just as much as if they were changing more boundaries and perhaps even more so if they are doing so for a stupid reason.

I wasn't really looking at any of this from the perspective of what would be in my personal advantage, just trying to assess how many boundaries might need to change if every middle school had AAP and we dropped the current center model at the middle school level. I've heard some School Board members say this would be their preference but clearly it wasn't something that guided the Thru Consulting proposals to date. But the benefits aren't that hard to grasp in terms of keeping more kids together and reducing transporation costs.

If this is their preference, they made the rules and they should revisit 8130.

Yes, I do think minimizing boundary changes and disruptions when so much of Fairfax county is changing (immigration, federal workforce down sizing etc) is better for the county as a whole right now. This is kind of a stupid reason as well. It is just changing something to change because the county said they were going to change. If you understand that people are upset when boundaries change, why are you advocating for MORE people to be upset when the boundaries change?

The AAP transportation budget is small 8- million so cost savings there isn’t super impactful especially when that is elementary and middle combined.

I’m not advocating for this except to the extent that it strikes me that having AAP at every middle school and getting rid of AAP centers that pull from multiple schools would provide more benefits in the long run in terms of building and transportation efficiencies and keeping cohorts of kids together than some of the chicken-shit stuff that motivated the often indefensible Thru proposals.

If they put all this on hold indefinitely, apart from helping Coates and doing whatever they need to do with KAA, that would be fine with me. But if they are going down the path of more changes I’d rather those changes accomplish something more than just a marginally (at best) prettier map.

And I think the idea of suggesting they can’t do anything more or different now just because you personally may have emerged unscathed by the Thru proposals to date, when others have not been so fortunate, is a hard proposition to defend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Personally, I'd rather that they change more boundaries for defensible reasons than to change fewer boundaries for stupid reasons. You seem to be arguing that the goal at this point should simply be to minimize the number of boundary changes, but if it's your boundary that's getting changed it affects you just as much as if they were changing more boundaries and perhaps even more so if they are doing so for a stupid reason.

I wasn't really looking at any of this from the perspective of what would be in my personal advantage, just trying to assess how many boundaries might need to change if every middle school had AAP and we dropped the current center model at the middle school level. I've heard some School Board members say this would be their preference but clearly it wasn't something that guided the Thru Consulting proposals to date. But the benefits aren't that hard to grasp in terms of keeping more kids together and reducing transporation costs.

If this is their preference, they made the rules and they should revisit 8130.

Yes, I do think minimizing boundary changes and disruptions when so much of Fairfax county is changing (immigration, federal workforce down sizing etc) is better for the county as a whole right now. This is kind of a stupid reason as well. It is just changing something to change because the county said they were going to change. If you understand that people are upset when boundaries change, why are you advocating for MORE people to be upset when the boundaries change?

The AAP transportation budget is small 8- million so cost savings there isn’t super impactful especially when that is elementary and middle combined.

I’m not advocating for this except to the extent that it strikes me that having AAP at every middle school and getting rid of AAP centers that pull from multiple schools would provide more benefits in the long run in terms of building and transportation efficiencies and keeping cohorts of kids together than some of the chicken-shit stuff that motivated the often indefensible Thru proposals.

If they put all this on hold indefinitely, apart from helping Coates and doing whatever they need to do with KAA, that would be fine with me. But if they are going down the path of more changes I’d rather those changes accomplish something more than just a marginally (at best) prettier map.

And I think the idea of suggesting they can’t do anything more or different now just because you personally may have emerged unscathed by the Thru proposals to date, when others have not been so fortunate, is a hard proposition to defend.

It is funny, that you keep trying to make this personal for me, but not for you. In fact, you continue to bring up that “you personally may have emerged unscathed” when YOU are arguing FOR more people to be affected just to allow you to “understand” a change.

My children are “unscathed” by the Thru proposal and will remain so because of the grandfathering policy recently enacted. Despite your attempts to say I am acting in personal interest I have none at this point beyond watching the county make stupid errors that complicate rather than alleviate the situation.

We will have to just disagree that adding more families to become “scathed” by the AAP center removal is a good thing. If they revisit this in 5 years and decide to pull middle school AAP centers that is fine. I can agree to hope that the climate (for federal jobs, funding and a more stable population) in FCPS is more conducive to doing that. Right now, I do not see that making more people deal with uncertainty is helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Personally, I'd rather that they change more boundaries for defensible reasons than to change fewer boundaries for stupid reasons. You seem to be arguing that the goal at this point should simply be to minimize the number of boundary changes, but if it's your boundary that's getting changed it affects you just as much as if they were changing more boundaries and perhaps even more so if they are doing so for a stupid reason.

I wasn't really looking at any of this from the perspective of what would be in my personal advantage, just trying to assess how many boundaries might need to change if every middle school had AAP and we dropped the current center model at the middle school level. I've heard some School Board members say this would be their preference but clearly it wasn't something that guided the Thru Consulting proposals to date. But the benefits aren't that hard to grasp in terms of keeping more kids together and reducing transporation costs.

If this is their preference, they made the rules and they should revisit 8130.

Yes, I do think minimizing boundary changes and disruptions when so much of Fairfax county is changing (immigration, federal workforce down sizing etc) is better for the county as a whole right now. This is kind of a stupid reason as well. It is just changing something to change because the county said they were going to change. If you understand that people are upset when boundaries change, why are you advocating for MORE people to be upset when the boundaries change?

The AAP transportation budget is small 8- million so cost savings there isn’t super impactful especially when that is elementary and middle combined.

I’m not advocating for this except to the extent that it strikes me that having AAP at every middle school and getting rid of AAP centers that pull from multiple schools would provide more benefits in the long run in terms of building and transportation efficiencies and keeping cohorts of kids together than some of the chicken-shit stuff that motivated the often indefensible Thru proposals.

If they put all this on hold indefinitely, apart from helping Coates and doing whatever they need to do with KAA, that would be fine with me. But if they are going down the path of more changes I’d rather those changes accomplish something more than just a marginally (at best) prettier map.

And I think the idea of suggesting they can’t do anything more or different now just because you personally may have emerged unscathed by the Thru proposals to date, when others have not been so fortunate, is a hard proposition to defend.

It is funny, that you keep trying to make this personal for me, but not for you. In fact, you continue to bring up that “you personally may have emerged unscathed” when YOU are arguing FOR more people to be affected just to allow you to “understand” a change.

My children are “unscathed” by the Thru proposal and will remain so because of the grandfathering policy recently enacted. Despite your attempts to say I am acting in personal interest I have none at this point beyond watching the county make stupid errors that complicate rather than alleviate the situation.

We will have to just disagree that adding more families to become “scathed” by the AAP center removal is a good thing. If they revisit this in 5 years and decide to pull middle school AAP centers that is fine. I can agree to hope that the climate (for federal jobs, funding and a more stable population) in FCPS is more conducive to doing that. Right now, I do not see that making more people deal with uncertainty is helpful.

You keep conflating posters, and you’ve also mischaracterized what I’ve said, so it’s hard to take you seriously at this point, although I suspect we’re more in agreement than you churlishly refuse to recognize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when is HV moving to Lewis?

Fall of 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when is HV moving to Lewis?

Want even a scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when is HV moving to Lewis?

Wasn’t even a scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Personally, I'd rather that they change more boundaries for defensible reasons than to change fewer boundaries for stupid reasons. You seem to be arguing that the goal at this point should simply be to minimize the number of boundary changes, but if it's your boundary that's getting changed it affects you just as much as if they were changing more boundaries and perhaps even more so if they are doing so for a stupid reason.

I wasn't really looking at any of this from the perspective of what would be in my personal advantage, just trying to assess how many boundaries might need to change if every middle school had AAP and we dropped the current center model at the middle school level. I've heard some School Board members say this would be their preference but clearly it wasn't something that guided the Thru Consulting proposals to date. But the benefits aren't that hard to grasp in terms of keeping more kids together and reducing transporation costs.

If this is their preference, they made the rules and they should revisit 8130.

Yes, I do think minimizing boundary changes and disruptions when so much of Fairfax county is changing (immigration, federal workforce down sizing etc) is better for the county as a whole right now. This is kind of a stupid reason as well. It is just changing something to change because the county said they were going to change. If you understand that people are upset when boundaries change, why are you advocating for MORE people to be upset when the boundaries change?

The AAP transportation budget is small 8- million so cost savings there isn’t super impactful especially when that is elementary and middle combined.

I’m not advocating for this except to the extent that it strikes me that having AAP at every middle school and getting rid of AAP centers that pull from multiple schools would provide more benefits in the long run in terms of building and transportation efficiencies and keeping cohorts of kids together than some of the chicken-shit stuff that motivated the often indefensible Thru proposals.

If they put all this on hold indefinitely, apart from helping Coates and doing whatever they need to do with KAA, that would be fine with me. But if they are going down the path of more changes I’d rather those changes accomplish something more than just a marginally (at best) prettier map.

And I think the idea of suggesting they can’t do anything more or different now just because you personally may have emerged unscathed by the Thru proposals to date, when others have not been so fortunate, is a hard proposition to defend.

It is funny, that you keep trying to make this personal for me, but not for you. In fact, you continue to bring up that “you personally may have emerged unscathed” when YOU are arguing FOR more people to be affected just to allow you to “understand” a change.

My children are “unscathed” by the Thru proposal and will remain so because of the grandfathering policy recently enacted. Despite your attempts to say I am acting in personal interest I have none at this point beyond watching the county make stupid errors that complicate rather than alleviate the situation.

We will have to just disagree that adding more families to become “scathed” by the AAP center removal is a good thing. If they revisit this in 5 years and decide to pull middle school AAP centers that is fine. I can agree to hope that the climate (for federal jobs, funding and a more stable population) in FCPS is more conducive to doing that. Right now, I do not see that making more people deal with uncertainty is helpful.

Families wouldn't be "scathed" by fixing the AAP split feeder middle school problem. They would be helped by not losing 3/4 of their friends on the transition from middle to high school every year. One of the main goals of the boundary review was to reduce split feeders. This is the same problem, just it only applies to AAP kids so it hasn't gotten the same level of attention.

[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?

So because you believe we have passed the point of no return, this issue should be off the table? Dude, its 2025. There's no reason to bus kids to AAP centers when they can have the same programming at their base school. In an era where there are budget concerns, this should be one of the top priorities to save money.

+100
This back-and-forth circular discussion is just proving how confusing, unnecessary, and redundant AAP centers are. And I'm not sure why the focus here is only on middle school AAP centers. The centers should be eliminated across the board, including in elementary school. Just have AAP in every school - flexible groupings per grade level would be even better. Centers confuse all the boundaries and just muddy the waters for everyone. All kids should be attending their neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/Public

More details and documents posted for Tuesday's Western High School working session. Based on a quick scan it looks like they're pushing for some kind of hybrid Aviation/Aerospace Magnet and Community School. Timeline goal to open in 2026 with 9th and 10th graders, adding a grade each of the following years.

[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?

DP. The process has been put on hold. So there is no better time than the present to include removal of AAP centers in the boundary discussion. Then it can all be rolled out at one time. Boundaries would be SO MUCH simpler without centers to deal with.

[Anonymous]

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

+1
And it would eliminate all the wasteful bus runs to AAP centers with only a handful of kids on the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/Public

More details and documents posted for Tuesday's Western High School working session. Based on a quick scan it looks like they're pushing for some kind of hybrid Aviation/Aerospace Magnet and Community School. Timeline goal to open in 2026 with 9th and 10th graders, adding a grade each of the following years.

They will get huge pushback if they try and turn what is supposed to be a needed neighborhood high school into a specialty school.