Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

It seems so pointless, shuffling kids around when it makes no discernible difference whether 35 percent or 40 percent of a school feeds into another high school.

It makes a bigger difference at the elementary level. Some schools are small. 20% of their grade splitting may mean only a dozen of them are moving on to join a 7th grade class of 500 students.

Does that literally happen anywhere? That seems like an extreme example.

Yes. Vienna ES and Lemon Road off the top of my head. Westgate probably sends less than 20 kids per grade to Longfellow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

It seems so pointless, shuffling kids around when it makes no discernible difference whether 35 percent or 40 percent of a school feeds into another high school.

It makes a bigger difference at the elementary level. Some schools are small. 20% of their grade splitting may mean only a dozen of them are moving on to join a 7th grade class of 500 students.

Does that literally happen anywhere? That seems like an extreme example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

It seems so pointless, shuffling kids around when it makes no discernible difference whether 35 percent or 40 percent of a school feeds into another high school.

It makes a bigger difference at the elementary level. Some schools are small. 20% of their grade splitting may mean only a dozen of them are moving on to join a 7th grade class of 500 students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

It seems so pointless, shuffling kids around when it makes no discernible difference whether 35 percent or 40 percent of a school feeds into another high school.

It makes a bigger difference at the elementary level. Some schools are small. 20% of their grade splitting may mean only a dozen of them are moving on to join a 7th grade class of 500 students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

It seems so pointless, shuffling kids around when it makes no discernible difference whether 35 percent or 40 percent of a school feeds into another high school.

Anonymous wrote:Trying to align all the middle schools with the high schools is a fool's errand. It can't be done.

They need to draw the KAA boundaries in a way that makes sense and doesn't disrupt the boundaries for all the other schools in the area, and call it a day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

It seems so pointless, shuffling kids around when it makes no discernible difference whether 35 percent or 40 percent of a school feeds into another high school.

hutchison ES is 1.3 miles from Herndon MS. Some spa s are between that ES and MS. Frankly at 95% capacity Hutchison has 12 trailers. Surplus? Storage? If used for instruction the program capacity is overstated. Herndon needs to stem the transfer tide and AAP at the middle school will help along with a 2nd site for Global STEM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stone would not have enough kids for an AAP program. The "center" only sends 20-30 kids per grade to Rocky Run. Someone posted about it earlier.

Are you proposing completely doing away with AAP? That's a different suggestion.

Not at all. Saying "Every middle school should have an AAP program" is the opposite of suggesting that AAP should be eliminated entirely.

Rocky Run only has 670 students that would go to Chantilly for HS as per the 2024-25 FCPS dashboards. Franklin is a big feed to Chantilly. The reality is Rocky Run with AAP only for the base school should be a single feed to Chantilly HS. Wherever FCPS can do a concise logical pyramid it should be done.

A rare occasion when MS capacity matches a HS capacity net TJ. That's why I posted that the split feeder for Carson should be Herndon pyramid.

I know kids who can walk to Franklin MS and are a 5 minute drive to Chantilly HS. Are you suggesting that those kids should be sent to a different MS, Rocky Run, so that they can go to the HS that is close by?

The borders in the Western part of the county are a mess because of the population density and how close the various ES, MS, and HS are located. Franklin MS attends Chantilly HS and Oakton HS. Rocky Run feeds Chantilly.

Looking at the Western HS that I think people are discussing. Pulling data from Wikipedia, so potentially outdated:

Centerville: Liberty
Chantilly: Carson, Franklin
Herndon: Herndon MS
Oakton: Carson, Jackson, Franklin, Kilmer
South Lakes: Hughes, Carson
Westfield: Carson

Carson needs to be streamlined to the new school, which would relieve Chantilly, and Westfield. It would pull some students from Oakton and a small number from SL, mainly the Floris kids and Fox Mill kids.

Now Chantilly is pulling only from Franklin, Oakton is down to two MS, and South Lakes is pulling from Hughes. Westfield is smaller and has space to pull in from other schools that are nearby and need relief.

Your chart is wrong.

Westfield: Stone/Carson/Franklin + Rocky Run (AAP)
Chantilly: Franklin/Rocky Run + Carson (AAP)
Oakton: Carson/Franklin/Thoreau + Jackson (AAP)
South Lakes: Hughes/Carson
Centreville: Liberty + Rocky Run (AAP)
Herndon: Herndon + Hughes (AAP)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the goal is to eliminate all split feeders. The goal is to eliminate the sliver splits. The ones where only a few students split off - like 10%. Those could be eliminated or expanded such that a higher percentage of a MS or ES class goes to the same school.

What's frustrating is that Thru was hired and not given clear guidelines and priorities. If FCPS had told them "no split feeders, that's the first priority" or "no over capacity schools, that's the first priority" then the maps would make sense and we could guess what was going to happen next.

They were given priorities. Top priority is removing attendance islands, which is the objective of Scenario 1. Next priority is reducing split feeders, specifically in instances where the split is less than 20 (or is it 30)%, so Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 plus split feeder mitigation. Third priority is capacity exceeding 105%, and Scenario 3 is Scenario 2 plus capacity shuffling.

Now, do they do this with any nuance or understanding of walk zones, community cohesion, or access across major roads and highways? No. But they technically do have priorities and have presented them as such.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stone would not have enough kids for an AAP program. The "center" only sends 20-30 kids per grade to Rocky Run. Someone posted about it earlier.

Are you proposing completely doing away with AAP? That's a different suggestion.

Not at all. Saying "Every middle school should have an AAP program" is the opposite of suggesting that AAP should be eliminated entirely.

Rocky Run only has 670 students that would go to Chantilly for HS as per the 2024-25 FCPS dashboards. Franklin is a big feed to Chantilly. The reality is Rocky Run with AAP only for the base school should be a single feed to Chantilly HS. Wherever FCPS can do a concise logical pyramid it should be done.

A rare occasion when MS capacity matches a HS capacity net TJ. That's why I posted that the split feeder for Carson should be Herndon pyramid.

I know kids who can walk to Franklin MS and are a 5 minute drive to Chantilly HS. Are you suggesting that those kids should be sent to a different MS, Rocky Run, so that they can go to the HS that is close by?

The borders in the Western part of the county are a mess because of the population density and how close the various ES, MS, and HS are located. Franklin MS attends Chantilly HS and Oakton HS. Rocky Run feeds Chantilly.

Looking at the Western HS that I think people are discussing. Pulling data from Wikipedia, so potentially outdated:

Centerville: Liberty
Chantilly: Carson, Franklin
Herndon: Herndon MS
Oakton: Carson, Jackson, Franklin, Kilmer
South Lakes: Hughes, Carson
Westfield: Carson

Carson needs to be streamlined to the new school, which would relieve Chantilly, and Westfield. It would pull some students from Oakton and a small number from SL, mainly the Floris kids and Fox Mill kids.

Now Chantilly is pulling only from Franklin, Oakton is down to two MS, and South Lakes is pulling from Hughes. Westfield is smaller and has space to pull in from other schools that are nearby and need relief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stone would not have enough kids for an AAP program. The "center" only sends 20-30 kids per grade to Rocky Run. Someone posted about it earlier.

Are you proposing completely doing away with AAP? That's a different suggestion.

Not at all. Saying "Every middle school should have an AAP program" is the opposite of suggesting that AAP should be eliminated entirely.

Rocky Run only has 670 students that would go to Chantilly for HS as per the 2024-25 FCPS dashboards. Franklin is a big feed to Chantilly. The reality is Rocky Run with AAP only for the base school should be a single feed to Chantilly HS. Wherever FCPS can do a concise logical pyramid it should be done.

A rare occasion when MS capacity matches a HS capacity net TJ. That's why I posted that the split feeder for Carson should be Herndon pyramid.

I know kids who can walk to Franklin MS and are a 5 minute drive to Chantilly HS. Are you suggesting that those kids should be sent to a different MS, Rocky Run, so that they can go to the HS that is close by?

The borders in the Western part of the county are a mess because of the population density and how close the various ES, MS, and HS are located. Franklin MS attends Chantilly HS and Oakton HS. Rocky Run feeds Chantilly.

Looking at the Western HS that I think people are discussing. Pulling data from Wikipedia, so potentially outdated:

Centerville: Liberty
Chantilly: Carson, Franklin
Herndon: Herndon MS
Oakton: Carson, Jackson, Franklin, Kilmer
South Lakes: Hughes, Carson
Westfield: Carson

Carson needs to be streamlined to the new school, which would relieve Chantilly, and Westfield. It would pull some students from Oakton and a small number from SL, mainly the Floris kids and Fox Mill kids.

Now Chantilly is pulling only from Franklin, Oakton is down to two MS, and South Lakes is pulling from Hughes. Westfield is smaller and has space to pull in from other schools that are nearby and need relief.