Anonymous wrote:For the Kilmer / Thoreau issue they need to modify so that Wolftrap splits at the middle school level - those assigned to Madison go to Thoreau and those assigned to Marshall go to Kilmer. They would then move the <5 percent group you reference at Kilmer to Thoreau and those students would feed into Madison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process should have been paused once Western was purchased to set the boundaries there and then focused on the over crowded schools in the other areas of the County.

Split feeders suck, we are at one. DS and his friends have kids at their MS that they like but they don’t bother inviting them to hang out because they know they won’t see them in a few years. Maybe ending split feeders where less then 20% of the school moves together makes sense or limiting schools to feeding only 2 HSs makes sense but I get the feeling that most parents were not thrilled with that either because they like their MS.

I have no idea what to do with attendance islands. It seems like families are fine with them and if the schools they attend are not over crowded then should they be moved?

This is why it would be nice if everyone currently zoned to Carson (NOT AAP) would get zoned to Western. I get that people think Oak Hill should go to Western because of proximity, but they are all very happy with Franklin-Chantilly. Let them stay there and let all of the ES' zoned to Carson go to Western, including BOTH Fox Mill and Crossfield. That would make the absolute most sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True, but I don’t think they’ll introduce anything that wasn’t already proposed in scenario 4. And I can’t imagine what they would sneak in. The current proposal fixes Coates and gets Ashvale Dr out of Crossfield, so there were some adjustments. Reid also said they weren’t touching middle school boundaries for Western.

I'm curious about this one b/c the mysterious scenario E puts Lees Corner at Western High. Ashvale currently goes to Crossfield - Franklin - Chantilly. I wonder if making this move now is indication that Scenario E was a false flag.

I don't know if it were a false flag, but if it was, it was an extremely dumb one.

It's just interesting that the only person who knew about that map was the individual who posted it in RIO. She clearly got it from someone in Gatehouse. I think there's at least a couple RIO moms who work for FCPS, so maybe through one of them?

Anonymous wrote:The process should have been paused once Western was purchased to set the boundaries there and then focused on the over crowded schools in the other areas of the County.

Split feeders suck, we are at one. DS and his friends have kids at their MS that they like but they don’t bother inviting them to hang out because they know they won’t see them in a few years. Maybe ending split feeders where less then 20% of the school moves together makes sense or limiting schools to feeding only 2 HSs makes sense but I get the feeling that most parents were not thrilled with that either because they like their MS.

I have no idea what to do with attendance islands. It seems like families are fine with them and if the schools they attend are not over crowded then should they be moved?

Anonymous wrote:The process should have been paused once Western was purchased to set the boundaries there and then focused on the over crowded schools in the other areas of the County.

Split feeders suck, we are at one. DS and his friends have kids at their MS that they like but they don’t bother inviting them to hang out because they know they won’t see them in a few years. Maybe ending split feeders where less then 20% of the school moves together makes sense or limiting schools to feeding only 2 HSs makes sense but I get the feeling that most parents were not thrilled with that either because they like their MS.

I have no idea what to do with attendance islands. It seems like families are fine with them and if the schools they attend are not over crowded then should they be moved?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True, but I don’t think they’ll introduce anything that wasn’t already proposed in scenario 4. And I can’t imagine what they would sneak in. The current proposal fixes Coates and gets Ashvale Dr out of Crossfield, so there were some adjustments. Reid also said they weren’t touching middle school boundaries for Western.

I'm curious about this one b/c the mysterious scenario E puts Lees Corner at Western High. Ashvale currently goes to Crossfield - Franklin - Chantilly. I wonder if making this move now is indication that Scenario E was a false flag.

Isn't that to keep the neighborhood together? I think it's all Franklin Farm isn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone understand what they did with Rolling Valley? I looks like they moved the small split feeder group that is currently zone to RV/Key/Lewis to Saratoga/Key/Lewis BUT it looks like they did not include the townhomes north of the fairfax county parkway in that. That would mean that small group of townhomes students would be the only kids at Rolling Valley going to Key/Lewis. That seems odd to me - to make a split feeder even smaller. But they didn't report any changes for Irving/WSHS, so if they were moving those kids to RV/Irving/WS, I think that would be indicated.

That’s a good point. Closing the Rolling Valley split feeder is not mentioned in the bullet points either. I’m just baffled at these examples where they were 1 or 2 SPAs away from resolving an imbalanced feeder pattern only to make it even more imbalanced. They did the same thing with Kilmer MS, which previously fed 12-15% to Madison and now will feed <5%.

For the Kilmer / Thoreau issue they need to modify so that Wolftrap splits at the middle school level - those assigned to Madison go to Thoreau and those assigned to Marshall go to Kilmer. They would then move the <5 percent group you reference at Kilmer to Thoreau and those students would feed into Madison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True, but I don’t think they’ll introduce anything that wasn’t already proposed in scenario 4. And I can’t imagine what they would sneak in. The current proposal fixes Coates and gets Ashvale Dr out of Crossfield, so there were some adjustments. Reid also said they weren’t touching middle school boundaries for Western.

I'm curious about this one b/c the mysterious scenario E puts Lees Corner at Western High. Ashvale currently goes to Crossfield - Franklin - Chantilly. I wonder if making this move now is indication that Scenario E was a false flag.

I don't know if it were a false flag, but if it was, it was an extremely dumb one.

Anonymous wrote:Docs are up on Board Docs with recommendations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone understand what they did with Rolling Valley? I looks like they moved the small split feeder group that is currently zone to RV/Key/Lewis to Saratoga/Key/Lewis BUT it looks like they did not include the townhomes north of the fairfax county parkway in that. That would mean that small group of townhomes students would be the only kids at Rolling Valley going to Key/Lewis. That seems odd to me - to make a split feeder even smaller. But they didn't report any changes for Irving/WSHS, so if they were moving those kids to RV/Irving/WS, I think that would be indicated.

That’s a good point. Closing the Rolling Valley split feeder is not mentioned in the bullet points either. I’m just baffled at these examples where they were 1 or 2 SPAs away from resolving an imbalanced feeder pattern only to make it even more imbalanced. They did the same thing with Kilmer MS, which previously fed 12-15% to Madison and now will feed <5%.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone understand what they did with Rolling Valley? I looks like they moved the small split feeder group that is currently zone to RV/Key/Lewis to Saratoga/Key/Lewis BUT it looks like they did not include the townhomes north of the fairfax county parkway in that. That would mean that small group of townhomes students would be the only kids at Rolling Valley going to Key/Lewis. That seems odd to me - to make a split feeder even smaller. But they didn't report any changes for Irving/WSHS, so if they were moving those kids to RV/Irving/WS, I think that would be indicated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hate her.

The “incremental” phrasing seems intentional, to denote either a smaller change or one of a series.

They need to stop with the comprehensive boundary change BS. It’s a complete failure.

I read this as that’s what she’s signaling. Along with their permanent BRAC that was mentioned in the slides. They’re going to be doing boundary changes non-stop from here on out from what this sounds like.

You mean more frequently than 5 years? Springfield, vote this person out please!

100% Sandy Anderson needs to go in 2027. Rest assured her email wasn't just saving face--it was a threat. I bet she is livid that none of her wanted changes were made (like moving Hunt Valley, Rolling Valley, etc.), and if she is still around after '27 you better believe she will start the same fights all over again.