Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did no one last night mention the absurdity of turning the Westbriar ES island into a ES/MS/HS island when BRAC clearly provided instructions to THRU on how to solve the Westbriar/Wolftrap neighborhoods?

Curious what were those instructions?

To either send the island to Colvin Run/Cooper/Langley or keep it at Westbriar. It would put Langley at or over 105% so it wasn’t modeled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not the residency checks?
Makes sense to me..

Because Reid says there is only one person in the entire county who looks at residency.

Residdncy checks are so simple.

Just bring a utility bill and lease to the school when you pick up schedules. No check, no classes.

They can put up a table at open house manned by the school ofgice staff. Just add it to the 10 other lunes parents wait in that day.

Lol. This idea is as sloppy as the writing.

PP has a point. Do it at registration. It's not hard.
Good grief, if you have to turn in forms for your kid to play sports, you can certainly provide proof of residence.

NP. There is a level of training and liability here that some people are missing.

If an admin staff member employed by FCPS in the wealthiest, most educated county in the country lacks the skills to cross reference the name on the utility bill with the drivers license of the person standing in front of them holding both the utility bill and the ID, then perhaps they lack the skill set to work in an administrative position.

The only people against boundary checks are gatehouse leadership, and people cheating to go to a school they are not zoned for.

Maybe, they can follow the procedure used for voting: driver license and voter roll.
It's not hard. Those election officers are paid peanuts--they are really volunteers.

That would be a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone across the board is happy with scenario 4 except a small contingent of folks from NE Vienna, Wolf Trap Elementary, and Lemon Rd elementary.

Wrong - Wolftrap elementary families by far favor scenario 4

That was certainly my impression.

For parents with kids currently at Wolftrap attending the meeting than yes but for parents with kids attending or having attended Marshall with Wolftrap as their elementary school than no. The second group would much rather stay with the Wolfrap / Kilmer / Marshall boundary.

The intent of scenario 4 was to remove the split feeder at Wolftrap/Westbriar. My guess is that they’ll retain the original Marshall/Madison boundaries, and they’ll send Madison kids that were previously assigned to Kilmer to Thoreau to relieve Kilmer.

Did anyone talk about the fact the Thoreau three way split was not addressed at all? The Thoreau/Marshall kids should have priority into Madison over Kilmer/Marshall kids at Wolftrap.

Reid was fairly clear that she did not expect to change the proposal to send all of Wolftrap to Madison. It came up repeatedly last night and the Wolftrap families wanted reassurances that, if the Madison families at Westbriar proposed to move to Marshall stayed at Madison, they would still get to move to Madison. She provided those assurances and said she'd gotten together with the principals of both Madison and Marshall to go over the numbers.

Of course the School Board could decide to retain the current Marshall/Madison boundaries, but she'll have a lot of upset families if that's where they land. There was no discussion of what they plan to do with the attendance island left at Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall under Scenario 4, and they decide they aren't going to leave it as a stranded island out in western Vienna that could lead them to revisit Marshall, Madison, or other (potentially Langley or South Lakes) boundaries.

The three-way split at Thoreau was not discussed last night, as far as I'm aware. There was a portion of the meeting where Reid took Q&A from people who attended in person and Gordon took Q&A from people attending virtually.

Did no one last night mention the absurdity of turning the Westbriar ES island into a ES/MS/HS island when BRAC clearly provided instructions to THRU on how to solve the Westbriar/Wolftrap neighborhoods?

Someone brought it up at the Marshall meeting, and nobody seems bothered by it for some reason.

From an elementary school standpoint, it’s about 130 students, so that’s two decently full school buses and the travel time between Colvin Run, Westbriar, Wolftrap, and Sunrise Valley are somewhat negligible (surprisingly.) Most of the route is servicing a bunch of dead end roads that don’t interconnect.

What gets ridiculous is when it becomes a middle school island. Now it’s a bus of about 38 students— not a full bus, and there’s a gap of about 2 miles where no students are being picked up, whereas today, the route can include Wolftrap kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Did no one last night mention the absurdity of turning the Westbriar ES island into a ES/MS/HS island when BRAC clearly provided instructions to THRU on how to solve the Westbriar/Wolftrap neighborhoods?

Curious what were those instructions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not the residency checks?
Makes sense to me..

Because Reid says there is only one person in the entire county who looks at residency.

Residdncy checks are so simple.

Just bring a utility bill and lease to the school when you pick up schedules. No check, no classes.

They can put up a table at open house manned by the school ofgice staff. Just add it to the 10 other lunes parents wait in that day.

Lol. This idea is as sloppy as the writing.

PP has a point. Do it at registration. It's not hard.
Good grief, if you have to turn in forms for your kid to play sports, you can certainly provide proof of residence.

NP. There is a level of training and liability here that some people are missing.

If an admin staff member employed by FCPS in the wealthiest, most educated county in the country lacks the skills to cross reference the name on the utility bill with the drivers license of the person standing in front of them holding both the utility bill and the ID, then perhaps they lack the skill set to work in an administrative position.

The only people against boundary checks are gatehouse leadership, and people cheating to go to a school they are not zoned for.

Maybe, they can follow the procedure used for voting: driver license and voter roll.
It's not hard. Those election officers are paid peanuts--they are really volunteers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not the residency checks?
Makes sense to me..

Because Reid says there is only one person in the entire county who looks at residency.

Residdncy checks are so simple.

Just bring a utility bill and lease to the school when you pick up schedules. No check, no classes.

They can put up a table at open house manned by the school ofgice staff. Just add it to the 10 other lunes parents wait in that day.

Lol. This idea is as sloppy as the writing.

PP has a point. Do it at registration. It's not hard.
Good grief, if you have to turn in forms for your kid to play sports, you can certainly provide proof of residence.

NP. There is a level of training and liability here that some people are missing.

If an admin staff member employed by FCPS in the wealthiest, most educated county in the country lacks the skills to cross reference the name on the utility bill with the drivers license of the person standing in front of them holding both the utility bill and the ID, then perhaps they lack the skill set to work in an administrative position.

The only people against boundary checks are gatehouse leadership, and people cheating to go to a school they are not zoned for.

And what about verifying the authenticity of the utility bill or lease? People will inevitably produce fake documents in a situation like this.

This is not as simple or clear-cut process as you wish or think it to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not the residency checks?
Makes sense to me..

Because Reid says there is only one person in the entire county who looks at residency.

Residdncy checks are so simple.

Just bring a utility bill and lease to the school when you pick up schedules. No check, no classes.

They can put up a table at open house manned by the school ofgice staff. Just add it to the 10 other lunes parents wait in that day.

Lol. This idea is as sloppy as the writing.

PP has a point. Do it at registration. It's not hard.
Good grief, if you have to turn in forms for your kid to play sports, you can certainly provide proof of residence.

NP. There is a level of training and liability here that some people are missing.

If an admin staff member employed by FCPS in the wealthiest, most educated county in the country lacks the skills to cross reference the name on the utility bill with the drivers license of the person standing in front of them holding both the utility bill and the ID, then perhaps they lack the skill set to work in an administrative position.

The only people against boundary checks are gatehouse leadership, and people cheating to go to a school they are not zoned for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone across the board is happy with scenario 4 except a small contingent of folks from NE Vienna, Wolf Trap Elementary, and Lemon Rd elementary.

Wrong - Wolftrap elementary families by far favor scenario 4

That was certainly my impression.

For parents with kids currently at Wolftrap attending the meeting than yes but for parents with kids attending or having attended Marshall with Wolftrap as their elementary school than no. The second group would much rather stay with the Wolfrap / Kilmer / Marshall boundary.

The intent of scenario 4 was to remove the split feeder at Wolftrap/Westbriar. My guess is that they’ll retain the original Marshall/Madison boundaries, and they’ll send Madison kids that were previously assigned to Kilmer to Thoreau to relieve Kilmer.

Did anyone talk about the fact the Thoreau three way split was not addressed at all? The Thoreau/Marshall kids should have priority into Madison over Kilmer/Marshall kids at Wolftrap.

Reid was fairly clear that she did not expect to change the proposal to send all of Wolftrap to Madison. It came up repeatedly last night and the Wolftrap families wanted reassurances that, if the Madison families at Westbriar proposed to move to Marshall stayed at Madison, they would still get to move to Madison. She provided those assurances and said she'd gotten together with the principals of both Madison and Marshall to go over the numbers.

Of course the School Board could decide to retain the current Marshall/Madison boundaries, but she'll have a lot of upset families if that's where they land. There was no discussion of what they plan to do with the attendance island left at Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall under Scenario 4, and they decide they aren't going to leave it as a stranded island out in western Vienna that could lead them to revisit Marshall, Madison, or other (potentially Langley or South Lakes) boundaries.

The three-way split at Thoreau was not discussed last night, as far as I'm aware. There was a portion of the meeting where Reid took Q&A from people who attended in person and Gordon took Q&A from people attending virtually.

Did no one last night mention the absurdity of turning the Westbriar ES island into a ES/MS/HS island when BRAC clearly provided instructions to THRU on how to solve the Westbriar/Wolftrap neighborhoods?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not the residency checks?
Makes sense to me..

I think they don’t believe that address fraud is a real problem. Remember, the SB, Gatehouse execs, and Reid have all bought the “all schools are great, FCPS is world class, etc. etc.” hook line and sinker. They are true believers. They don’t see why someone would lie about their address to attend a different school because all the schools are equally great and amazing.

I think it’s a lot more widespread than Gatehouse wants to believe. I knew someone who was letting their niece from Prince William County use their address to attend South County. They didn’t see anything wrong with it.

There are 110% people at West Potomac and Edison who really live in Maryland.

+1 I don't buy for a minute that Reid/Gatehouse aren't aware of how widespread this is. It's apart of the equity mindset to ignore it.

At every upcoming boundary meeting, or any other meeting where questions are taken by either the school board or Reid/Gatehouse someone at each meeting needs to be direct and ask the question: "Can you promise that before decisions on moving any child in or out of a school an address check will be accomplished the beginning of the Fall 2026 semester?" They need to be on the record for this since the board didn't run on this seeking election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not the residency checks?
Makes sense to me..

Because Reid says there is only one person in the entire county who looks at residency.

Residdncy checks are so simple.

Just bring a utility bill and lease to the school when you pick up schedules. No check, no classes.

They can put up a table at open house manned by the school ofgice staff. Just add it to the 10 other lunes parents wait in that day.

Lol. This idea is as sloppy as the writing.

PP has a point. Do it at registration. It's not hard.
Good grief, if you have to turn in forms for your kid to play sports, you can certainly provide proof of residence.

NP. There is a level of training and liability here that some people are missing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not the residency checks?
Makes sense to me..

I think they don’t believe that address fraud is a real problem. Remember, the SB, Gatehouse execs, and Reid have all bought the “all schools are great, FCPS is world class, etc. etc.” hook line and sinker. They are true believers. They don’t see why someone would lie about their address to attend a different school because all the schools are equally great and amazing.

I think it’s a lot more widespread than Gatehouse wants to believe. I knew someone who was letting their niece from Prince William County use their address to attend South County. They didn’t see anything wrong with it.

There are 110% people at West Potomac and Edison who really live in Maryland.

+1 I don't buy for a minute that Reid/Gatehouse aren't aware of how widespread this is. It's apart of the equity mindset to ignore it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not the residency checks?
Makes sense to me..

Because Reid says there is only one person in the entire county who looks at residency.

Residdncy checks are so simple.

Just bring a utility bill and lease to the school when you pick up schedules. No check, no classes.

They can put up a table at open house manned by the school ofgice staff. Just add it to the 10 other lunes parents wait in that day.

Lol. This idea is as sloppy as the writing.

PP has a point. Do it at registration. It's not hard.
Good grief, if you have to turn in forms for your kid to play sports, you can certainly provide proof of residence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not the residency checks?
Makes sense to me..

Because Reid says there is only one person in the entire county who looks at residency.

Residdncy checks are so simple.

Just bring a utility bill and lease to the school when you pick up schedules. No check, no classes.

They can put up a table at open house manned by the school ofgice staff. Just add it to the 10 other lunes parents wait in that day.

Lol. This idea is as sloppy as the writing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attending tonight’s meeting, the Superintendent opened by addressing Hagel Circle and it looks like they’ll be making corrections to the maps to send the kids to their community school of Lorton Station vs Halley (current school) or Gunston (proposed school)

Keep in mind, Lorton Station already has over 700 students. An additional 146 students would lead to overcrowding. Lorton Station is not their community school. Gunston was built at the time Hagel Circle was. That was the original elementary school for Hagel.

Better solution is keeping Gunston or having them go to Halley which both schools could easily handle that amount of students. Keep in mind, there is a reason why Hagel Circle was zoned for Halley, it was a capacity issue.

Gunston is one of the oldest elementary schools in the county. It was built in the 1950s. It was one of the only schools in Lorton! That’s not relevant to today, especially when Lorton has undergone substantial development since the. Gunston doesn’t have the capacity because they’re on a septic system that already has issues. Lorton Station has capacity for 890 students, with approximately 700 current students there is plenty of room for Hagel Circle students to attend the elementary school within walking distance of their home. Lorton Station is also an AAP center - get rid of centers and there is even more space.

Okay, let’s say as you propose Lorton Station Elementary becomes Hagel Circles assigned school. That would mean Gunston Elementary would be well under its capacity. What neighborhood should be added?

Gunston wouldn’t be under capacity. If you looked at the proposal you would see that multiple neighborhoods are being forced out of Gunston under the options to move Hagel Circle from Halley. That was part of the parents concern at the meeting on the 22nd, why was their school targeted to have neighborhoods moved out when Halley Elementary is the school that will end up at 68% enrollment? Even with the neighborhoods being moved out, there is only room for the Hagel Circle kids if Gunston starts using the two dilapidated module units.

Then it came up that if Halley has all of this extra capacity, it can be used for a Korean Immersion program that someone on the school board wants to create.

Also, Hagel Circle can access the Pohick Village townhouse community via walking path which is directly across from Lorton Station elementary. Mateo Dunne even confirmed this during the meeting on the 22nd.

What you are saying about the capacity makes no sense.

Look at the PowerPoint slides provided before the meeting and still available. They did a study and found that there definitely is capacity to handle the Hagel circle community since they assigned Inlet Cove to Island Creek Elementary. They shuffled around some neighborhoods to accommodate so what you’re saying is not believable or able to be backed up with evidence.

Second, let’s say Lorton Station is walkable, why should that be a huge reason why Lorton Station should take it? Lorton station already serves two large apartment complexes which make up the majority of students there. Overcrowding will become an issue and need to be accommodated with six extra trailers. I spoke with Mr. Dunne and he confirmed this.

You know the real reason why most parents objected to it and it was displayed subtlety and blatantly that evening….. it’s because the reputation Hagel Circle has and it’s really unfair to that community to be pushed away.

Honestly, PP you sound like a Lorton Station parent trying to avoid Hagel Circle being rezoned to its community school. So I guess it’s the pot calling the kettle black. Multiple posts have laid out why Gunston isn’t a good option for Hagel Circle, and why the ability to walk to a school is important for the lower income students. If Lorton Station is overcrowded it’s because it’s an AAP center for South County and Hayfield schools. Maybe FCPS can create a center at Halley with all of the excess capacity to alleviate the pressure on Lorton Station so that students who actually live in the community can attend.

I don’t have any issue with Hagel Circle coming to Lorton Station. There already is over 50% of low income and high minority. It wouldn’t change much. It’s the overcrowding that is the issue.

An option would be to have Woods of Fairfax sent to Gunston elementary. That would be a better solution than adding 146 students.

But the real reason why Gunston parents objected was seen that night by all. I hope I can find a taped recording so everyone see the things said about Hagel Circle. It was extremely offensive and has no place at FCPS

There’s a bit more nuance here. Lorton Station is already a Title I school (or at least, it was listed as one in the most recent CIP.) Gunston is not. When capacity numbers are thrown around, Thru is using Program Capacity. Program Capacity chances under Title I status. Gunston would likely become a Title I school under the current proposal, which might have cascading effects.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to be paying attention to these aspects. Graham Road is a prime example. It will loose Title I status under Scenarios 3 and 4, and the poverty will be concentrated at Timber Lane. Shrevewood will also pick up FARM students, but not quite enough for Title I status. They’re shifting around disadvantaged students while losing the resources meant to help them.

What are you saying, what’s your point?

You heard what the administrators said, even becoming a Title 1 school does not adversely affect the level of education. Title 1 status provides additional resources to help students achieve success.

Hagel circle were being taught at Halley Elementary and they were not a Title 1 school.

You make no sense

Program capacity changes when Title I is implemented. They’re proposing scenarios that could change Title I status without tracking how that impacts capacity utilization. I’m not saying one way or the other where students should be moved, but when they shuffle planning areas to utilize Gunston ES to 98%, that capacity could instantly disappear if they need to make program changes to accommodate an influx of Title I students. I don’t think these factors are being considered when they make their recommendations.

Halley, even with Hagel Circle does not qualify for Title I, so the same concerns do not apply.

+1. This was also brought up at the meeting last week. The PP who keeps posting about the bigoted and evil Gunston parents is clearly a Lorton Station parent continuing to try to keep Hagel Circle from attending their neighborhood school.

Also, Gunston is located on Mason Neck and the Mason Neck Citizens Association has a lot of sway at the local political level. I believe when South County opened, it was Dan Storke who stepped in and ensured Mason Neck was zoned for South County. In return, Hunt Valley was moved from Lee to West Springfield.

The land swap that even allowed South County to be built involved land owned by a Mason Neck resident.

I don’t mind Hagel Circle part of Lorton station. Lorton station wouldn’t change much as it is already a title 1 school. It is Gunston parents pushing Hagel circle students out.

If Hagel does become part of Lorton Station, then Gunston should take students from woods of Fairfax or one of the other neighborhoods. Why should Lorton Station take all those 146 students the whole inlet Cove neighborhood was re-zoned to Island Creek Elementary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything currently is based on September 2024 enrollments and program capacities.

So I guess your point is if they use stale data and program capacities quickly decline or expand due to a change in Title I status some schools could already be targets for future redistricting shortly after new boundaries are adopted in 2026.

I don’t think that’s the case with Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane given the current status and proposed boundary changes affecting those schools, but perhaps it’s more of a possibility with other schools like Gunston depending on where they land.

Yes, they might push brand new Title I schools well over capacity for 5 years only to immediately reshuffle the next cycle. The community deserves more consideration and stability.

The Graham Road/Shrevewood/Timber Lane situation is slightly different. Graham Road and Timber Lane are both Title I schools. The scenarios remove all disadvantaged students from Graham Road. It will lose Title I status, its program capacity could expand, and it’ll be under enrolled.

Meanwhile, Timber Lane will have a 70-90% FARM rate with majority of their students coming from an attendance island on the other side of Rt-29. Shrevewood will be about 50% FARMs, so not Title I, and the 119 students who previously received services will lose them.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here with respect to Graham Road and Timber Lane.

If you look at the new Graham Road boundaries, they leave some high-poverty areas at the school. One is off Kalmia Lee Court, and the second is the large complex of garden apartments off Annandale Road (includes the James Lee Apartments). In addition, there are FARMS kids living in single-family houses in that area. It could still end up Title I, just not as high FARMS as Graham Road is now. The main appeal is that Scenario 4 consolidates at Graham Road some Falls Church HS neighborhoods that had been divided among Timber Lane, Graham Road, and Pine Spring previously (even though a piece of Jefferson Village still feeds to Beech Tree ES/Glasgow MS/Justice HS).

I do think Timber Lane will end up around 70-75% FARMS, and it could lead to more of the McLean-zoned families north of Route 29 sending their kids to private schools or angling for AAP at Haycock before Longfellow. The main goal of these families was to stay zoned to Longfellow/McLean, and very little was said about the other changes that will drive up the FARMS rate at Timber Lane. Creating the new Kingsley Commons attendance island at Timber Lane doesn't align with Policy 8130, but it's unclear whether they'll come up with anything different at this point.

I agree Shrevewood will see an increase in its FARMS rate under Scenario 4, and not enough to push it into Title I status. At some point, although it could be years away, Dunn Loring may open, and if/when that happens the Shrevewood neighborhoods outside the Beltway logically would move to Stenwood given how many Stenwood families stand to move to Dunn Loring.