FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Mateo Dunne email today. I see the guns are out for Thru. A predictable result …

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

I am writing to provide an update on the Comprehensive School Boundary Review.

First, I share your disappointment with the process thus far. The draft scenarios published in May 2025 were incoherent and inconsistent with stated policy objectives. The consultant should have studied the scenarios more closely and obtained the input of the Boundary Review Advisory Committee so any obvious errors, such as the proposed boundaries for Whitman MS, could be corrected before publication of the maps.

Second, I share your concern about the remaining timeframe for the Comprehensive School Boundary Review. FCPS expects to publish the next round of maps in October, submit final recommendations to the School Board in December, and request approval by the School Board in January. However, FCPS has not published a schedule with specific dates.

Policy 8130 requires extensive community engagement with respect to any proposed changes:

Public engagement shall occur in each affected school pyramid before changes are proposed and again after changes are proposed but before any changes are finalized and voted on by the board. Public engagement at minimum includes pyramid community meetings with in-person and virtual options, pyramid wide surveys, and outreach to engage communities, as well as outreach to communities with students placed within the pyramid for programming or other reasons.

Consistent with Policy 8130, I am advocating for robust community engagement so your voices are heard with respect to any proposed changes. I also want to ensure there is adequate time to incorporate your feedback into the draft maps and hold additional community meetings, if necessary.

Third, I believe the Comprehensive School Boundary Review has provided a unique opportunity for FCPS to re-evaluate its operations so it can enhance the efficiency of its service delivery. The scope of the boundary review has expanded over time to include interrelated issues such as school start times and transportation, which has added complexity to the analysis. As a result, I believe the universe of potential changes has narrowed so fewer schools will be impacted through this process. That was perhaps inevitable given that this is the first county-wide boundary review in 40 years.

I remain cautiously optimistic about the outcome of this process, but I am focused on advocating on your behalf. I encourage you to participate in the community meetings in October. I also encourage you to contact me with any comments, concerns, and questions.

To date, I have published 7 newsletters and made over 30 presentations to PTAs, PTOs, PTSAs, civic associations, and HOAs, along with the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations and the Mount Vernon Council of Citizens' Associations. I welcome the opportunity to engage with your community (or to present an update if I already presented to you before).

Fourth, the School Board recently established a grandfathering policy for the Comprehensive School Boundary Review. Under this policy, the following students will have the option to remain at their current school even if their boundaries change:

Rising 4th and 5th graders at K-5 elementary schools;
Rising 5th and 6th graders at K-6 elementary schools;
Rising 8th graders at Grade 7-8 middle schools;
Rising 7th and 8th graders at Grade 6-8 middle schools (Poe MS, Holmes MS, and Glasgow MS);
Rising 10th-12th graders at high schools; and
Rising 8th-12th graders at secondary schools (such as Hayfield SS).
I supported the grandfathering policy to provide families with an option by which they can minimize the potential disruption caused by boundary changes.

Fifth, in the future, I hope the process will begin with school-specific conversations with school administrators and local PTAs, PTOs, and PTSAs, along with local civic associations and HOAs. This local knowledge should inform the development of scenarios for particular schools, pyramids, and regions. We should build from the ground up, rather than engaging in a top-down, one-size-fits-all process.

May you and your families be blessed as we launch into the new school year.

[Anonymous]

Dunne just released another newsletter on the process. I’ve learned more about what’s happening from his emails than any other source:

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/VAEDUFCPS/bulletins/3f0a2ab

[Anonymous]

Thanks to the posters with the Dunne email information.

My bet is that some of this will be delayed. I think that Reid's "imagining the possibilities" is just that: Imagination

[Anonymous]

I don't understand Dunne's third point, and his fifth point seems to be a reversal of his earlier position. I don't mind that he's seeing the light, or changing his stance to align with his constituents, but when this process started he seemed to be one of the members most willing to cram boundary changes down the throats of others, especially in other parts of the county (it was less of an issue for people in his district since West Potomac HS got a huge expansion not too long ago, but maybe the Thru Consulting proposals intended to put Whitman MS within its attendance area ruffled a lot of feathers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to the posters with the Dunne email information.

My bet is that some of this will be delayed. I think that Reid's "imagining the possibilities" is just that: Imagination

I imagine that two things happened: 1, some of the SB and BRAC members really just wanted to clean up the islands and split feeders and save some transportation costs, but others wanted to go full bore on equity. The two groups never saw eye to eye, and so the suggested changes ended up looking sort of weird and in between as a result. And 2, they tried to fold too many other projects in to the boundary review (school start times, 6th to middle, and now KAA and what programming is going to go there) and it gummed up the works too much. A boundary review alone is a huge undertaking. Then someone goes “well since we’re changing boundaries can’t we change school start times too?” And everything goes off the rails.

I would like to know how much Thru is on contact with the BRAC right now, now that the map tool and draft scenarios have been released.

[Anonymous]

I imagine that two things happened: 1, some of the SB and BRAC members really just wanted to clean up the islands and split feeders and save some transportation costs, but others wanted to go full bore on equity. The two groups never saw eye to eye, and so the suggested changes ended up looking sort of weird and in between as a result. And 2, they tried to fold too many other projects in to the boundary review (school start times, 6th to middle, and now KAA and what programming is going to go there) and it gummed up the works too much. A boundary review alone is a huge undertaking. Then someone goes “well since we’re changing boundaries can’t we change school start times too?” And everything goes off the rails.

I would like to know how much Thru is on contact with the BRAC right now, now that the map tool and draft scenarios have been released.

I think you are correct.

If they were smart, they would use KAA as an excuse to delay--it would be a great excuse and a way to save face.

But, admitting mistakes has never been FCPS's strong point.

[Anonymous]

Curious: any school staff that has a feel for enrollment numbers? Down? Up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand Dunne's third point, and his fifth point seems to be a reversal of his earlier position. I don't mind that he's seeing the light, or changing his stance to align with his constituents, but when this process started he seemed to be one of the members most willing to cram boundary changes down the throats of others, especially in other parts of the county (it was less of an issue for people in his district since West Potomac HS got a huge expansion not too long ago, but maybe the Thru Consulting proposals intended to put Whitman MS within its attendance area ruffled a lot of feathers).

Yeah, his third point confused me too because he was being so vague. I’m in West Springfield and he isn’t my rep but I really appreciate how he goes to bat for his community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand Dunne's third point, and his fifth point seems to be a reversal of his earlier position. I don't mind that he's seeing the light, or changing his stance to align with his constituents, but when this process started he seemed to be one of the members most willing to cram boundary changes down the throats of others, especially in other parts of the county (it was less of an issue for people in his district since West Potomac HS got a huge expansion not too long ago, but maybe the Thru Consulting proposals intended to put Whitman MS within its attendance area ruffled a lot of feathers).

Yeah, his third point confused me too because he was being so vague. I’m in West Springfield and he isn’t my rep but I really appreciate how he goes to bat for his community.

Melanie Meren also questioned the process at the last meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mateo Dunne email today. I see the guns are out for Thru. A predictable result …

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

I am writing to provide an update on the Comprehensive School Boundary Review.

First, I share your disappointment with the process thus far. The draft scenarios published in May 2025 were incoherent and inconsistent with stated policy objectives. The consultant should have studied the scenarios more closely and obtained the input of the Boundary Review Advisory Committee so any obvious errors, such as the proposed boundaries for Whitman MS, could be corrected before publication of the maps.

Second, I share your concern about the remaining timeframe for the Comprehensive School Boundary Review. FCPS expects to publish the next round of maps in October, submit final recommendations to the School Board in December, and request approval by the School Board in January. However, FCPS has not published a schedule with specific dates.

Policy 8130 requires extensive community engagement with respect to any proposed changes:

Public engagement shall occur in each affected school pyramid before changes are proposed and again after changes are proposed but before any changes are finalized and voted on by the board. Public engagement at minimum includes pyramid community meetings with in-person and virtual options, pyramid wide surveys, and outreach to engage communities, as well as outreach to communities with students placed within the pyramid for programming or other reasons.

Consistent with Policy 8130, I am advocating for robust community engagement so your voices are heard with respect to any proposed changes. I also want to ensure there is adequate time to incorporate your feedback into the draft maps and hold additional community meetings, if necessary.

Third, I believe the Comprehensive School Boundary Review has provided a unique opportunity for FCPS to re-evaluate its operations so it can enhance the efficiency of its service delivery. The scope of the boundary review has expanded over time to include interrelated issues such as school start times and transportation, which has added complexity to the analysis. As a result, I believe the universe of potential changes has narrowed so fewer schools will be impacted through this process. That was perhaps inevitable given that this is the first county-wide boundary review in 40 years.

I remain cautiously optimistic about the outcome of this process, but I am focused on advocating on your behalf. I encourage you to participate in the community meetings in October. I also encourage you to contact me with any comments, concerns, and questions.

To date, I have published 7 newsletters and made over 30 presentations to PTAs, PTOs, PTSAs, civic associations, and HOAs, along with the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations and the Mount Vernon Council of Citizens' Associations. I welcome the opportunity to engage with your community (or to present an update if I already presented to you before).

Fourth, the School Board recently established a grandfathering policy for the Comprehensive School Boundary Review. Under this policy, the following students will have the option to remain at their current school even if their boundaries change:

Rising 4th and 5th graders at K-5 elementary schools;
Rising 5th and 6th graders at K-6 elementary schools;[b]
Rising 8th graders at Grade 7-8 middle schools;
Rising 7th and 8th graders at Grade 6-8 middle schools (Poe MS, Holmes MS, and Glasgow MS);
Rising 10th-12th graders at high schools; and
Rising 8th-12th graders at secondary schools (such as Hayfield SS).
I supported the grandfathering policy to provide families with an option by which they can minimize the potential disruption caused by boundary changes.

Fifth, in the future, I hope the process will begin with school-specific conversations with school administrators and local PTAs, PTOs, and PTSAs, along with local civic associations and HOAs. This local knowledge should inform the development of scenarios for particular schools, pyramids, and regions. We should build from the ground up, rather than engaging in a top-down, one-size-fits-all process.

May you and your families be blessed as we launch into the new school year.

I have a question about the bolded part of the grandfathering policy above. Is that correct that rising 5th graders at a K-6 school would be allowed to stay at their school? From what I understand, the language of the policy they voted on said ""Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, at the discretion of the School Board, rising sixth (or fifth) graders may be provided the option to remain in the school of attendance prior to the boundary change."

The (or fifth) seems like it could be interpreted in a couple of different ways. According to Dunne's email it means rising 5th graders would be able to stay put in a K-6 school. But my interpretation was that the (or fifth) was meant to refer to rising 5th graders being able to stay at schools that are K-5. In other words, only kids going into their final year at an elementary school would get to stay.

Is the approved policy in writing anywhere? Why can't these people communicate clearly on anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dunne just released another newsletter on the process. I’ve learned more about what’s happening from his emails than any other source:

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/VAEDUFCPS/bulletins/3f0a2ab

https://www.fcps.edu/september-3-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dunne just released another newsletter on the process. I’ve learned more about what’s happening from his emails than any other source:

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/VAEDUFCPS/bulletins/3f0a2ab

https://www.fcps.edu/september-3-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

Link doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

I think most of the school board will vote in whatever maps are presented to them ... and this is all fo-sho. Nothing will change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the school board will vote in whatever maps are presented to them ... and this is all fo-sho. Nothing will change.

What do you mean?

Nothing will change from the earlier maps or there won’t end up being changes?

Because it seems likely some will still be negatively affected by boundary changes, and it’s still going to be a big deal to them, even if your boundaries don’t change or they don’t make other changes you might think are warranted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the school board will vote in whatever maps are presented to them ... and this is all fo-sho. Nothing will change.

What do you mean?

Nothing will change from the earlier maps or there won’t end up being changes?

Because it seems likely some will still be negatively affected by boundary changes, and it’s still going to be a big deal to them, even if your boundaries don’t change or they don’t make other changes you might think are warranted.

Yes, I don't think maps are going to change beyond what has been presented, at least not by much. Maybe a couple of tweaks here and there but I don't think there will be substantive change. The consultants are probably documenting responses to all the comments received on the maps. I also think they included the start time change (knowing the impact it would have on aligning transportation requirements) at a point where most of the work is done and this is getting thrown in the mix because there's time for Thru to handle it. If they were judiciously going to rework the maps, then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have signed on for more work under their contract. My two cents ...