Anonymous wrote:That's surprising because Franklin and Stone are very, very small buildings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they had done this properly and stuck to objective standards, this could have been settled months ago. And, with a lot less angst.

In the past, SB members were always non-committal to neighborhoods, while at least pretending to listen. I never recall an earlier superintendent making promises or even getting involved. Staff was involved, but we never saw the superintendents.

It was mostly SB members doing the wheeling and dealing, but they were careful not to make promises.

Reid promised Walney Oaks. Somehow, they were taken totally out of the equation. And, those final scenarios did not include most of Crossfield.

I don't see them changing it now, but the School Board could if they wanted to do so. I don't think they will.

I still wonder if Kyle McDaniel and Melanie Meren will join together at the last minute to strike some sort of deal with everyone else to swap Crossfield and Fox Mill. They both seem pretty adamant about putting Crossfield at Skyview and keeping Fox Mill out.

Why would they do this when it would piss off so many people?

Does a better job of balancing the enrollments at Oakton and South Lakes.

Gets rid of some of the longest commutes to a high school in FCPS.

Does not start to recreate the conditions that led a prior School Board to move kids into South Lakes in 2008.

Relieves overcrowding at Oakton at a time when substantial residential growth is expected closer to OHS.

Keeps families already mostly at an AP school at an AP school.

The path of least resistance is to move Fox Mill but objectively moving Crossfield to Skyview makes more sense. But we have a School Board and superintendent who regularly cater to the loudest voices with the most money.

That ship has sailed. Meren might try, but she is way too late to the party.

Looking at this objectively, that would have been the correct call.

I was involved in boundary studies in the past--that is why I follow this thread. So many mistakes made here:

In the past, politics were involved, but it was usually one neighborhood's argument against another. It was not just which neighborhood had more power. (Except, of course, South Lakes boundary study with Strauss refused to pony up any of her constituents while totally supporting Stu and Kathy's game.)

This has dragged out way too long. The Comprehensive Boundary study was underway when this started. When Skyview was purchased, common sense would have said that the Comp. Boundary should be delayed until Skyview was set. Skyview easily could have been set right away.

RIO stepped in VERY early in this process. Seems to me that they had a "heads up!"

As I recall, and someone on here may know, I think I read about Reid listening to Walney Oaks very early in this process. I don't know when or where the meeting occurred. But, someone needs to give a logical answer to how this happened. Why that one pocket? Doesn't make sense.

Honestly, Westfield could have come out of this very well balanced. Someone really dropped the ball here looking out for thier schools. The initials of that someone are S.D.

It has been said repeatedly that RIO has a member that works at Gatehouse and political connections. They had the maps before everyone else, including the Lees Corner map that ended up never being released.

If you are talking about “Option E”. Reid showed that map to people at the Chantilly HS meeting including the Walney Oaks group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as South Lakes, I suspect that many of the "opt-ins" to Skyview were from Fox Mill. It will be interesting to see which base schools those kids are coming from. Has that been published? I bet there are some from other area schools that are not going to be "in boundary."

Does anyone know what the breakdown is?

Fox Mill and Floris kids at SLHS opted in. My kid reported kids from Hughes MS at the HS preview day for Skyview, so it wasn't just Fox Mill and Floris. I would guess that some where are 25 kids from FMES opted in this year. Keep in mond that FMES enrollment numbers are inflated by the JI program, so the kids going to SLHS from FMES is actually smaller then the enrollment at the school. It was probably roughly 50% of the 8th grade class from FMES opted in to Skyview. The Floris numbers at SLHS are pretty small as well. I am guessing the Hughes kids who opted in would be from Dogwood, maybe the kids who had been in the JI program at FMES.

I suspect that SLHS is also realizing that it is going to see an increase in the number of kids looking to pupil place to Skyview because it will be the closer AP school for lots of families. SLHS loses about 125 kids a year to Herndon for AP, that number might go up with an AP program at Skyview due to the difference in student bodies. Parents might be more comfortable pupil placing to a lower FARMs AP school then the higher FARMS AP school that had been the choice for most. And the SLHS community knows it. Some discussed it on Meren's FB posts.

According to the capacity dashboard only 13 kids transferred from South Lakes to Herndon this year (158 transferred from Herndon to South Lakes). When Skyview becomes an option for AP, the number of transfers out of South Lakes may increase substantially.

No, Skyview won't have the capacity to take AP opt ins, South Lakes transfers will still go to Herndon.

Plan is for Skyview to have an eventual capacity of 2000. The latest plan redistricts under 1800 students to Skyview. So why won’t it have the capacity for pupil placement for AP or the pathways program?

Anonymous wrote:It looks like they got a lot of negative feedback in the Westfield/Brookfield split area for the last scenarios, they are just choosing to ignore it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:June presentation is up.

One of key takeaways from previous scenarios:

"Families don't want split feeders."

Hasn't that always been the case?

Total split feeder pattens decreased from 11 (current) to 7 (final). The revised sceanrios had 9, so this is a clear improvement.

But they literally created more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:June presentation is up.

One of key takeaways from previous scenarios:

"Families don't want split feeders."

Hasn't that always been the case?

Total split feeder pattens decreased from 11 (current) to 7 (final). The revised sceanrios had 9, so this is a clear improvement.

But they literally created more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:June presentation is up.

One of key takeaways from previous scenarios:

"Families don't want split feeders."

Hasn't that always been the case?

Total split feeder pattens decreased from 11 (current) to 7 (final). The revised sceanrios had 9, so this is a clear improvement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:June presentation is up.

One of key takeaways from previous scenarios:

"Families don't want split feeders."

Hasn't that always been the case?