Reply to Boundary Review Meetings

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Boundary Review Meetings"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Tune in by zoom for these meetings.  Scenario 4 was driven by input and BRAC.  Who screams the loudest gets what they want.

10/16 Reid:
1. SPA's will be available in response to a question from someone dev scenarios.  Community participant -Static SPA's do not account for students in new residential - ie Tysons area new builds.  
2.  Expects no macro changes - could be other changes for scenario 5 based on community comments and BRAC.
[b]3. no response I heard on the 1 comment I heard on Kingsley Commons- isolated feed now to Timberlane and might be only SPA assigned to Jackson/Falls Church.  It's a sad mess for that community which didn't appear to participate.[/b]
4. Relooking at TOV now assigned to Marshall in scenario 4

Lots of Lemon Rd commenters- less than 25% and some years 10% are in boundary for Longfellow/Mclean.  Some want split redrawn so more goes to Mclean- ie Route 7 is the line.
[/quote]
It’s such a difficult situation. It’s great that the Jefferson Village/Greenway Downs neighborhoods get to attend the same school instead of being split between three, but Kingsley Commons is being sacrificed to achieve it.

Graham Road will lose Title I status and the distribution of the Hollywood Road apartments will put a larger strain on Shrevewood without them qualifying for Title I resources. They’ll be 50/50 FARMs.

Timber Lane will suffer worst. The McLean neighborhoods will get what they want (to stay at McLean) while the Kingsley Commons community will be an attendance island split feeder, crossing RT 29 to attend elementary school outside the Falls Church HS community.

Throwback to Obama celebrating the achievements of that community: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-graham-road-elementary-school-falls-church-virginia[/quote]

Did they explain why move the Hollywood Road residents to Shrevewood?  Seems they should stay at Timber Lane, and Kingsley Road makes more sense to be at Pine Spring.  If they need to then shift some of Pine Spring -> Shrevewood to balance capacity, could reassign the portion outside the beltway since it's not walking distance nor community-connected to either school (about same drive/bus time either way). Maybe there's a good reason for it the way it is but if so it's not evident from the map.[/quote]
This is why the SPA numbers are critical. To put it into context, the Hollywood Road apartments has about 120 elementary students. That itsy bitsy blip of an SPA for Kingsley Commons is more than 325 elementary students. That’s 60% of Pine Springs capacity, 48% of Timber Lane, and 82% of Graham Road. There’s no trimming around the edges to make space.

One could argue, that when they knowingly built the school outside its attendance zone, they should have expanded it. Graham Road has a program capacity of 398 and a building capacity of 660. Timber Lane, also a Title
I school has a program capacity of 600 and a building capacity of 930. This allows them to have a blend of apartment complexes and single family neighborhoods.

The choices are bad. They can either leave Kingsley Commons at Graham Road and move Greenway Downs and Jefferson Village past their closest school and across 29 to Timber Lane. Or they can implement their current plan where a bunch of SFH get their very own neighborhood school right in their backyard and they bus the poor kids out of pyramid and across the busy street. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics