Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

Sandy Anderson just put out her email (which erroneously says the draft CIP is out) and she says this: “Thank you for your patience and for the thoughtful, constructive engagement you have brought to this process. This work represents [b] an important first step toward the incremental changes needed [b] to ensure our school boundaries remain responsive to shifting enrollment, community needs, and the long-term health of Fairfax County Public Schools.”

They’re incremental changes now, huh? Quite a change from where we started.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the maps.

They are moving people to Chantilly from Fairfax HS? Really?

Coates is addressed.

I am surprised by the number of schools below capacity across the County.

They must assume that Western will get a good number of Chantilly kids. If not, Chantilly is likely to hit 3100.

Oak Hill is slated to move but I thought that was it out of Chantilly. I could be wrong and there could be more.

I think all the scenarios have part of Brooksfield and the rest of Cub Run going to Westfield.

Those are scenarios for the new high school. I don't think they included them in this, I'll look again, but i don't remember seeing it.

Anonymous wrote:What does SPA stand for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But they left Madison students at Kilmer. The first step should have been to get all Madison students out of Kilmer. It doesn’t make sense to send all of Westbriar to Kilmer and then send 2 SPAs worth of kids to Madison. I get ToV wanted to stay at Madison, but rip the bandaid off and fix the split at MS. They would have gotten Kilmer to 105% if they had only removed Madison students and left Wolftrap/Marshall and Westbriar/Marshall students at Kilmer.

I guess you are right about that, but then you get into the split feeders. Having only 2 SPAs as split feeders, when those two ToV SPAs advocated very aggressively to remain at Madison, is still a lot better than the number of SPAs that were split up previously in this area. I think the lack of clarity on what took precedence - overcapacity vs split feeders vs making loud voices happy - made it very difficult for either scenario we are discussing, or even to leave it all as it was prior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Coates realignment is interesting. 190 students move to Herndon ES, which would diminish the number of kids head to Western by 190 and increase Herndon HS by 190 kids.

No. Coates was already a split feeder between Herndon and Westfield. These students were already assigned to Herndon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the maps.

They are moving people to Chantilly from Fairfax HS? Really?

Coates is addressed.

I am surprised by the number of schools below capacity across the County.

They must assume that Western will get a good number of Chantilly kids. If not, Chantilly is likely to hit 3100.

Oak Hill is slated to move but I thought that was it out of Chantilly. I could be wrong and there could be more.

I think all the scenarios have part of Brooksfield and the rest of Cub Run going to Westfield.

Those are scenarios for the new high school. I don't think they included them in this, I'll look again, but i don't remember seeing it.

Anonymous wrote:I think you're all forgetting that Western Fairfax county was largely ignored here because there will be major changes announced in June. I don't think those changes will be just high school boundaries either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the maps.

They are moving people to Chantilly from Fairfax HS? Really?

Coates is addressed.

I am surprised by the number of schools below capacity across the County.

They must assume that Western will get a good number of Chantilly kids. If not, Chantilly is likely to hit 3100.

Oak Hill is slated to move but I thought that was it out of Chantilly. I could be wrong and there could be more.

I think all the scenarios have part of Brooksfield and the rest of Cub Run going to Westfield.

Anonymous wrote:The Coates realignment is interesting. 190 students move to Herndon ES, which would diminish the number of kids head to Western by 190 and increase Herndon HS by 190 kids.