Anonymous wrote:Scenario 3 was better for that area of wolftrap. No more attendance island

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fixing wolftrap’s split feeder has Thoreau now projected to be overcrowded and the sad attendance island.

With Scenario 4, Thoreau is projected at 104% capacity which, by their definitions, is not "overcrowded"

Their definition is so great especially the change to have the AAP zoned kids back to Thoreau from Kilmer and Jackson.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fixing wolftrap’s split feeder has Thoreau now projected to be overcrowded and the sad attendance island.

With Scenario 4, Thoreau is projected at 104% capacity which, by their definitions, is not "overcrowded"

Anonymous wrote:If you have enough resources to submit volunteers to fingerprinting and criminal background checks, residency check shouldn’t be an issue

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fixing wolftrap’s split feeder has Thoreau now projected to be overcrowded and the sad attendance island.

With Scenario 4, Thoreau is projected at 104% capacity which, by their definitions, is not "overcrowded"

Anonymous wrote:Fixing wolftrap’s split feeder has Thoreau now projected to be overcrowded and the sad attendance island.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They did exactly that. They left it at westbriar as requested. The problem is they got rid of wolftrap’s split feeder which had a bridge to the high school. It’s confusing, is Wolftrap a school that had a <25% split ? They worked really hard to remove that split. Also why didn’t they fix that split feeder by sending those wolftrap students that attend Kilmer and Marshall to westbriar. Just do an elementary school swap.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

Count me as one who was skeptical that there are so many violations. However, after reading the responses to those who think it is too hard, I'm changing my mind. It must be a problem and they should--and could--certainly check.



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.

Not to verify the address of kids enrolling or re-enrolling at a school. Other school districts do this. It isn’t an extraordinary task.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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:

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.