Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the FPAC recommendations is that they are based on enrollment projections that they have not scrutinized and that historically have not been accurate beyond a one-year period (and sometimes not even then). The School Board should not change center assignments or school boundaries without subjecting those projections to far greater scrutiny. Otherwise the Staff simply games the projections to support whatever outcome it desires.

The 2008 redistricting to South Lakes is a prime example. South Lakes is now the most overcrowded high school in the county (and getting an addition that had not been planned) all because the School Board refused to listen to parents who pointed out that the school's enrollment would rebound without a boundary change. In other instances, the Staff projections have greatly overestimated the number of students who would be attending schools.

I agree, but like transportation, those projections drive everything. My working theory is that they are absolutely terrible in high FARMs, high mobility schools. Are they as bad in the higher SES areas?

Some of the FPAC recommendations involve Langley and McLean.

If you went back five years, you'd see that FCPS significantly under-estimated what the 2013 enrollment would be at McLean and Marshall, and significantly over-estimated the 2013 enrollment at Langley. Now FCPS has swung completely to the opposite extreme, with projections that suggest that Langley will hemorrage students, even though the enrollment there is up this year over last year, and McLean will have over 2500 students in a few years, which is highly unlikely.

On that basis, FPAC proposes to move single-family neighborhoods in the McLean district to Langley, on the pretext of eliminating an attendance island, even though (1) the students who would be affected live closer to McLean than Langley, and (2) Langley would keep gobbing up stable, single-family neighborhoods zoned for other schools, just as it did previously with Herndon.

I don't think they really have a clue, and simply are looking for ways to fill Langley up with students to justify the expansion of the school's capacity as part of the renovation. Notably, the senior position in the department within FCPS responsible for projections and planning has now been vacant for some time.

While technically true, that the current McLean Island is closer to McLean than Langley. It is isn't like the island is close to either school. Plus, part of the McLean Island is not single family residence, but mid rise and low rise condos in Tyson's. If anything, it would add a little SES diversity to Langley.

If you want the closest HS, Marshal might be the closest to some of the current McLean island.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the FPAC recommendations is that they are based on enrollment projections that they have not scrutinized and that historically have not been accurate beyond a one-year period (and sometimes not even then). The School Board should not change center assignments or school boundaries without subjecting those projections to far greater scrutiny. Otherwise the Staff simply games the projections to support whatever outcome it desires.

The 2008 redistricting to South Lakes is a prime example. South Lakes is now the most overcrowded high school in the county (and getting an addition that had not been planned) all because the School Board refused to listen to parents who pointed out that the school's enrollment would rebound without a boundary change. In other instances, the Staff projections have greatly overestimated the number of students who would be attending schools.

I agree, but like transportation, those projections drive everything. My working theory is that they are absolutely terrible in high FARMs, high mobility schools. Are they as bad in the higher SES areas?

Some of the FPAC recommendations involve Langley and McLean.

If you went back five years, you'd see that FCPS significantly under-estimated what the 2013 enrollment would be at McLean and Marshall, and significantly over-estimated the 2013 enrollment at Langley. Now FCPS has swung completely to the opposite extreme, with projections that suggest that Langley will hemorrage students, even though the enrollment there is up this year over last year, and McLean will have over 2500 students in a few years, which is highly unlikely.

On that basis, FPAC proposes to move single-family neighborhoods in the McLean district to Langley, on the pretext of eliminating an attendance island, even though (1) the students who would be affected live closer to McLean than Langley, and (2) Langley would keep gobbing up stable, single-family neighborhoods zoned for other schools, just as it did previously with Herndon.

I don't think they really have a clue, and simply are looking for ways to fill Langley up with students to justify the expansion of the school's capacity as part of the renovation. Notably, the senior position in the department within FCPS responsible for projections and planning has now been vacant for some time.

While technically true, that the current McLean Island is closer to McLean than Langley. It is isn't like the island is close to either school. Plus, part of the McLean Island is not single family residence, but mid rise and low rise condos in Tyson's. If anything, it would add a little SES diversity to Langley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the FPAC recommendations is that they are based on enrollment projections that they have not scrutinized and that historically have not been accurate beyond a one-year period (and sometimes not even then). The School Board should not change center assignments or school boundaries without subjecting those projections to far greater scrutiny. Otherwise the Staff simply games the projections to support whatever outcome it desires.

The 2008 redistricting to South Lakes is a prime example. South Lakes is now the most overcrowded high school in the county (and getting an addition that had not been planned) all because the School Board refused to listen to parents who pointed out that the school's enrollment would rebound without a boundary change. In other instances, the Staff projections have greatly overestimated the number of students who would be attending schools.

I agree, but like transportation, those projections drive everything. My working theory is that they are absolutely terrible in high FARMs, high mobility schools. Are they as bad in the higher SES areas?

Some of the FPAC recommendations involve Langley and McLean.

If you went back five years, you'd see that FCPS significantly under-estimated what the 2013 enrollment would be at McLean and Marshall, and significantly over-estimated the 2013 enrollment at Langley. Now FCPS has swung completely to the opposite extreme, with projections that suggest that Langley will hemorrage students, even though the enrollment there is up this year over last year, and McLean will have over 2500 students in a few years, which is highly unlikely.

On that basis, FPAC proposes to move single-family neighborhoods in the McLean district to Langley, on the pretext of eliminating an attendance island, even though (1) the students who would be affected live closer to McLean than Langley, and (2) Langley would keep gobbing up stable, single-family neighborhoods zoned for other schools, just as it did previously with Herndon.

I don't think they really have a clue, and simply are looking for ways to fill Langley up with students to justify the expansion of the school's capacity as part of the renovation. Notably, the senior position in the department within FCPS responsible for projections and planning has now been vacant for some time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the FPAC recommendations is that they are based on enrollment projections that they have not scrutinized and that historically have not been accurate beyond a one-year period (and sometimes not even then). The School Board should not change center assignments or school boundaries without subjecting those projections to far greater scrutiny. Otherwise the Staff simply games the projections to support whatever outcome it desires.

The 2008 redistricting to South Lakes is a prime example. South Lakes is now the most overcrowded high school in the county (and getting an addition that had not been planned) all because the School Board refused to listen to parents who pointed out that the school's enrollment would rebound without a boundary change. In other instances, the Staff projections have greatly overestimated the number of students who would be attending schools.

I agree, but like transportation, those projections drive everything. My working theory is that they are absolutely terrible in high FARMs, high mobility schools. Are they as bad in the higher SES areas?

Some of the FPAC recommendations involve Langley and McLean.

If you went back five years, you'd see that FCPS significantly under-estimated what the 2013 enrollment would be at McLean and Marshall, and significantly over-estimated the 2013 enrollment at Langley. Now FCPS has swung completely to the opposite extreme, with projections that suggest that Langley will hemorrage students, even though the enrollment there is up this year over last year, and McLean will have over 2500 students in a few years, which is highly unlikely.

On that basis, FPAC proposes to move single-family neighborhoods in the McLean district to Langley, on the pretext of eliminating an attendance island, even though (1) the students who would be affected live closer to McLean than Langley, and (2) Langley would keep gobbing up stable, single-family neighborhoods zoned for other schools, just as it did previously with Herndon.

I don't think they really have a clue, and simply are looking for ways to fill Langley up with students to justify the expansion of the school's capacity as part of the renovation. Notably, the senior position in the department within FCPS responsible for projections and planning has now been vacant for some time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

It the same thing and does cost less. It's a sensible solution that's been a long time coming.

In some schools where there is critical mass, it is similar. In other schools where is not critical mass, it is not.

It used to be that this was true. Nowadays the AAP program has been expanded so much that the only difference between kids in that 85-95th %ile range who are in the program and those who aren't is that the former prepped better, appealed more and got expensive outside testing done. If you want to expand the program that much, fine, but you could just pull in those same kids from inside the school itself without resorting to expensive bussing and without overcrowding the center schools.

Size of base school plays a role--our school is very small and often has only 2 classes per grade: LLIV would turn into a "smart class" and a "dumb class" in each grade, not a good thing, IMO.

Well this is exactly how center schools play out. My DC goes to one of the larger centers and while there are far more AAP classes (in fact, they outnumber the Gen Ed classes), there is the underlying - and false - assumption that the AAP classes are "smart" and Gen Ed "dumb". In fact, center schools only magnify this insanity and further the false division of students. It would be far less egregious if there was only one AAP class per grade, and the rest were all Gen Ed. Kind of like real life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

It the same thing and does cost less. It's a sensible solution that's been a long time coming.

In some schools where there is critical mass, it is similar. In other schools where is not critical mass, it is not.

It used to be that this was true. Nowadays the AAP program has been expanded so much that the only difference between kids in that 85-95th %ile range who are in the program and those who aren't is that the former prepped better, appealed more and got expensive outside testing done. If you want to expand the program that much, fine, but you could just pull in those same kids from inside the school itself without resorting to expensive bussing and without overcrowding the center schools.

Size of base school plays a role--our school is very small and often has only 2 classes per grade: LLIV would turn into a "smart class" and a "dumb class" in each grade, not a good thing, IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the beginning of the end of centers. There are several board members who don't like them. I could see them saying LLIV is the same and costs less.

It the same thing and does cost less. It's a sensible solution that's been a long time coming.

In some schools where there is critical mass, it is similar. In other schools where is not critical mass, it is not.

It used to be that this was true. Nowadays the AAP program has been expanded so much that the only difference between kids in that 85-95th %ile range who are in the program and those who aren't is that the former prepped better, appealed more and got expensive outside testing done. If you want to expand the program that much, fine, but you could just pull in those same kids from inside the school itself without resorting to expensive bussing and without overcrowding the center schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the FPAC recommendations involve Langley and McLean.

If you went back five years, you'd see that FCPS significantly under-estimated what the 2013 enrollment would be at McLean and Marshall, and significantly over-estimated the 2013 enrollment at Langley. Now FCPS has swung completely to the opposite extreme, with projections that suggest that Langley will hemorrage students, even though the enrollment there is up this year over last year, and McLean will have over 2500 students in a few years, which is highly unlikely.

On that basis, FPAC proposes to move single-family neighborhoods in the McLean district to Langley, on the pretext of eliminating an attendance island, even though (1) the students who would be affected live closer to McLean than Langley, and (2) Langley would keep gobbing up stable, single-family neighborhoods zoned for other schools, just as it did previously with Herndon.

I don't think they really have a clue, and simply are looking for ways to fill Langley up with students to justify the expansion of the school's capacity as part of the renovation. Notably, the senior position in the department within FCPS responsible for projections and planning has now been vacant for some time.

Thanks for the info - tracking this in our neck of the woods is hard enough without trying to pin down what they've screwed up for other areas. It's particularly disconcerting given the massive boundary recommendations facilities has proposed, based solely off of projections that have a track record of being wildly inaccurate.

I'm surprised it took to page three of this thread for the conversation to turn to Langley and McLean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the FPAC recommendations involve Langley and McLean.

If you went back five years, you'd see that FCPS significantly under-estimated what the 2013 enrollment would be at McLean and Marshall, and significantly over-estimated the 2013 enrollment at Langley. Now FCPS has swung completely to the opposite extreme, with projections that suggest that Langley will hemorrage students, even though the enrollment there is up this year over last year, and McLean will have over 2500 students in a few years, which is highly unlikely.

On that basis, FPAC proposes to move single-family neighborhoods in the McLean district to Langley, on the pretext of eliminating an attendance island, even though (1) the students who would be affected live closer to McLean than Langley, and (2) Langley would keep gobbing up stable, single-family neighborhoods zoned for other schools, just as it did previously with Herndon.

I don't think they really have a clue, and simply are looking for ways to fill Langley up with students to justify the expansion of the school's capacity as part of the renovation. Notably, the senior position in the department within FCPS responsible for projections and planning has now been vacant for some time.

Thanks for the info - tracking this in our neck of the woods is hard enough without trying to pin down what they've screwed up for other areas. It's particularly disconcerting given the massive boundary recommendations facilities has proposed, based solely off of projections that have a track record of being wildly inaccurate.

I'm surprised it took to page three of this thread for the conversation to turn to Langley and McLean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the FPAC recommendations involve Langley and McLean.

If you went back five years, you'd see that FCPS significantly under-estimated what the 2013 enrollment would be at McLean and Marshall, and significantly over-estimated the 2013 enrollment at Langley. Now FCPS has swung completely to the opposite extreme, with projections that suggest that Langley will hemorrage students, even though the enrollment there is up this year over last year, and McLean will have over 2500 students in a few years, which is highly unlikely.

On that basis, FPAC proposes to move single-family neighborhoods in the McLean district to Langley, on the pretext of eliminating an attendance island, even though (1) the students who would be affected live closer to McLean than Langley, and (2) Langley would keep gobbing up stable, single-family neighborhoods zoned for other schools, just as it did previously with Herndon.

I don't think they really have a clue, and simply are looking for ways to fill Langley up with students to justify the expansion of the school's capacity as part of the renovation. Notably, the senior position in the department within FCPS responsible for projections and planning has now been vacant for some time.

Thanks for the info - tracking this in our neck of the woods is hard enough without trying to pin down what they've screwed up for other areas. It's particularly disconcerting given the massive boundary recommendations facilities has proposed, based solely off of projections that have a track record of being wildly inaccurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't they just have advanced classes in each elementary school

+1000. They should put Level 4 AAP in all schools, as all schools in the fcps have enough students who can make the needed cohort

Anonymous wrote:Why don't they just have advanced classes in each elementary school

Anonymous wrote:Some of the FPAC recommendations involve Langley and McLean.

If you went back five years, you'd see that FCPS significantly under-estimated what the 2013 enrollment would be at McLean and Marshall, and significantly over-estimated the 2013 enrollment at Langley. Now FCPS has swung completely to the opposite extreme, with projections that suggest that Langley will hemorrage students, even though the enrollment there is up this year over last year, and McLean will have over 2500 students in a few years, which is highly unlikely.

On that basis, FPAC proposes to move single-family neighborhoods in the McLean district to Langley, on the pretext of eliminating an attendance island, even though (1) the students who would be affected live closer to McLean than Langley, and (2) Langley would keep gobbing up stable, single-family neighborhoods zoned for other schools, just as it did previously with Herndon.

I don't think they really have a clue, and simply are looking for ways to fill Langley up with students to justify the expansion of the school's capacity as part of the renovation. Notably, the senior position in the department within FCPS responsible for projections and planning has now been vacant for some time.