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]I posted the SPA 5015 to Shrevewood and other SPA changes not in any given scenario. The point of the exercise was all the schools are below 100%.

Marshall deserves a solid 100% ES feeder not in contention to be Madison.  FCHS capacity will be 2500 fresh renovation with NO modular and trailers required for the POS.

Scenario 4 utilization:
Marshall- 2018 modular 95%, 12 classrooms CIP. No modular 100%
Mclean -2021 relocated a used modular,  12 classrooms + 4 trailers CIP. 100%, no modular 115%.
Falls Church at 2500-87%.

[/quote]
Less controversial would be to SPA 5015 to Haycock. That keeps those kids in the McLean pyramid. Then rework TL, GR, and PS without involving Shrevewood. Existing TL/McLean kids continue to split to McLean. You are not moving that island out of McLean. It’s a dead end.  [/quote]

Given the locations of Timber Lane, Graham Road, and Pine Spring, and the likely number of kids in certain SPAs, I don't think they can do what they want to do for Graham Road (i.e., put it within its attendance area) without moving some Timber Lane kids to Shrevewood.  The main choice is really between what they proposed in Scenarios 3 and 4.  Scenario 3 has another 72 kids south of Route 29 moving to Timber Lane, whereas Scenario 4 handed these kids to Pine Spring and turned Kingsley Commons into an attendance island.

Pine Spring was losing its own attendance island further east (it went to Westlawn in Scenario 3 and to Graham Road, which made more sense, in Scenario 4), and they didn't like what Scenario 3 did to Pine Spring's demographics.  It seems quite possible that the Falls Church reps on the BRAC made a deal with the McLean reps that they would support Timber Lane north of 29 staying at McLean/Longfellow as long as the McLean reps agreed Pine Spring could have the single-family areas south of Route 29 and north of Kingsley Commons.  If that was the horse trading involved, it wasn't undertaken with the best interests of Kingsley Commons in mind.

Someone needs to ask if moving Graham Road within its attendance area is really that important.  They started out wanting to put Bailey's Upper ES and Whitman MS within their attendance areas, and then they backed off doing that.  If they leave Graham Road outside its attendance area, the people at "new" Graham Road will be unhappy, but they don't have to move anyone into Shrevewood, and everyone at Timber Lane north of Route 29 can continue on to Longfellow/McLean.

But if they do insist on putting Graham Road within its attendance area, with the consequences that entails, they really ought to move the 72 kids who were at Timber Lane in Scenario 3 and Pine Spring in Scenario 4 back to Timber Lane to avoid creating a new Kingsley Commons island.  [/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