FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what they ought to do:

1. Fall on their sword and admit they overreached by considering boundary changes without adequately considering first what types of programs FCPS wants to offer at the ES, MS, and HS level.

2. Declare unequivocally that KAA will re-open initially as a traditional neighborhood school with an academy program to be considered in 2-3 years.

3. Limit upcoming boundary changes to Coates, those necessitated by KAA’s re-opening, and any other proposed changes for which there is clear evidence of extremely strong community support.

4. Address immediately whether the scope of the Centreville expansion should be scaled back, and Dunn Loring ES should be postponed indefinitely, with any freed-up funds reallocated to other schools.

5. Commit to releasing an updated renovation queue no later than January 2028 that reflects a fresh look at which schools have the greatest facilities needs.

The Coates boundary change impacts over a dozen other schools. So how exactly do you propose both changing Coates boundaries and also declaring that only Coates boundaries change?

You don’t need county wide changes to address Coates. A dozen other schools with community input is better than this mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what they ought to do:

1. Fall on their sword and admit they overreached by considering boundary changes without adequately considering first what types of programs FCPS wants to offer at the ES, MS, and HS level.

2. Declare unequivocally that KAA will re-open initially as a traditional neighborhood school with an academy program to be considered in 2-3 years.

3. Limit upcoming boundary changes to Coates, those necessitated by KAA’s re-opening, and any other proposed changes for which there is clear evidence of extremely strong community support.

4. Address immediately whether the scope of the Centreville expansion should be scaled back, and Dunn Loring ES should be postponed indefinitely, with any freed-up funds reallocated to other schools.

5. Commit to releasing an updated renovation queue no later than January 2028 that reflects a fresh look at which schools have the greatest facilities needs.

The Coates boundary change impacts over a dozen other schools. So how exactly do you propose both changing Coates boundaries and also declaring that only Coates boundaries change?

I think you’re confusing Coates with KAA. Coates is an overcrowded elementary school, and the overcrowding there can be addressed by reassigning kids to a small number of other elementary schools in the Herndon area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

Yes, but the two above situations that you mention actually make sense regardless of those being low income families, it doesn't make sense to send children past schools to attend another school further away.

Unless you're sending the low income kids further away to a lower FARMs school in hopes of spreading them out a bit more or avoiding creation of more Title 1 schools.

I'm not familiar with that area. I am experienced in teaching Title I kids. It is imperative that they be as close as possible to their school. It is a struggle to get family support--and when the school is difficult to access easily, it is almost impossible. Busing to more affluent schools is not a good idea!

Isn’t there solid research that indicates lower-income kids do better academically when they are not attending economically segregated schools?

They can’t do well in school if they aren’t attending school. The physically closer a lower-income neighborhood is to their schools, the better. Transportation is a huge problem when your family might not have a car, or might have only 1 car that 4 adults in the household need to use to get to their various jobs. If a little kid misses the school bus and school is 5 miles away and grandma took the car to get to her home health aid jobs - they’re just not going to school that day. But if they can walk, it’s not an issue. Ditto for parental involvement. If there’s a school open house or PTA event after school, maybe mom or dad can come if they can walk or bike. But maybe they can’t if they would have to take a bus that comes infrequently and would still drop them at a bus stop a mile from the school anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

Yes, but the two above situations that you mention actually make sense regardless of those being low income families, it doesn't make sense to send children past schools to attend another school further away.

Unless you're sending the low income kids further away to a lower FARMs school in hopes of spreading them out a bit more or avoiding creation of more Title 1 schools.

I'm not familiar with that area. I am experienced in teaching Title I kids. It is imperative that they be as close as possible to their school. It is a struggle to get family support--and when the school is difficult to access easily, it is almost impossible. Busing to more affluent schools is not a good idea!

Isn’t there solid research that indicates lower-income kids do better academically when they are not attending economically segregated schools?

Is that the same study that showed a marked decrease in academic performance for the higher income kids when they are not attending economically segregated schools? It is.

The system should never be in the business of picking winners and losers. Social engineering never works.

Current zoning and school boundaries are both the products of social engineering.

[Anonymous]

Bottom Line Up Front

FCPS is conducting a major boundary review that would move 8,660 students under their current "Scenario 3" proposal. This affects roughly 5% of all district students and represents one of the largest boundary adjustments in recent years.
Timeline: We're in Phase 2 of a two-year process. Next major milestone is September 24, 2025 committee meeting, followed by community meetings in October.

Schools Most Impacted

Based on the official scorecard, here are the schools facing significant changes:
Major Enrollment Reductions:

Bailey's Upper ES: -26% enrollment (Justice pyramid)
Halley ES: -23% enrollment (South County pyramid)
Pine Spring ES: -22% enrollment (Falls Church pyramid)
Graham Road ES: -21% enrollment (Falls Church pyramid)
Fort Hunt ES: -19% enrollment (West Potomac pyramid)

Overcrowding Relief:

Pine Spring ES: 111% → 89% utilization
McLean HS: 109% → 100% utilization
Keene Mill ES: 107% → 92% utilization

Schools Gaining Students:

London Towne ES: +8% enrollment
Fairfax HS: +4% enrollment (now at 102% capacity - new concern)
Lake Braddock HS & MS: +4% each

Program Access Issues

The biggest disruption isn't boundary changes - it's program access:

2,252 students lose FLES (Foreign Language Elementary) access
787 Special Education students affected
512 Full-Time AAP Center students impacted

FLES impact is massive because it's offered at only 40% of elementary schools, and boundary changes mean many kids will no longer attend FLES schools.

Proximity Analysis

Distance impacts are mixed:

84% of moved students: Less than 1-mile change
4,424 students get closer to their school
4,236 students get farther from their school
95 students face 3+ mile increases (flagged for review)

Red Flags and Concerns

Questionable Efficiency: Schools like Fort Hunt ES dropping to 64% utilization raises serious questions about resource allocation and planning logic.
Program Disruption Priority: The district is prioritizing boundary "fixes" over maintaining program access, which may not align with family priorities.
Advisory Committee Resistance: The committee is reportedly pushing back on major changes, preferring minimal disruption over comprehensive boundary optimization.
Missing Information: The presentation materials to date lack crucial details about which specific neighborhoods and streets are affected.

What's Still Unknown

Specific neighborhood impacts - which streets/communities are moving where
Receiving school capacity - can schools absorb incoming students?
Transportation details - actual driving distances vs. radius analysis
Grandfathering policies - will current students finish at their schools?

Process Moving Forward

Sept 24: Committee reviews final changes
Oct 13-30: Community meetings
Nov 12: Review community feedback
Nov 24: Final committee recommendations
Implementation: Likely fall 2026

Hot Take
This boundary review affects thousands of families with mixed outcomes. While some overcrowded schools get relief, the changes create new inefficiencies and significant program access disruptions. The scale suggests this is more about comprehensive redistricting than targeted problem-solving.

Key Question for Affected Families: Is your school on the target list? If so, start engaging in the community meeting process now, because these changes have major implications for your family's school experience and daily logistics.

The full scorecard and neighborhood-specific details should be available in the forthcoming separate analysis document but not provided to date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

Yes, but the two above situations that you mention actually make sense regardless of those being low income families, it doesn't make sense to send children past schools to attend another school further away.

Unless you're sending the low income kids further away to a lower FARMs school in hopes of spreading them out a bit more or avoiding creation of more Title 1 schools.

I'm not familiar with that area. I am experienced in teaching Title I kids. It is imperative that they be as close as possible to their school. It is a struggle to get family support--and when the school is difficult to access easily, it is almost impossible. Busing to more affluent schools is not a good idea!

Isn’t there solid research that indicates lower-income kids do better academically when they are not attending economically segregated schools?

They can’t do well in school if they aren’t attending school. The physically closer a lower-income neighborhood is to their schools, the better. Transportation is a huge problem when your family might not have a car, or might have only 1 car that 4 adults in the household need to use to get to their various jobs. If a little kid misses the school bus and school is 5 miles away and grandma took the car to get to her home health aid jobs - they’re just not going to school that day. But if they can walk, it’s not an issue. Ditto for parental involvement. If there’s a school open house or PTA event after school, maybe mom or dad can come if they can walk or bike. But maybe they can’t if they would have to take a bus that comes infrequently and would still drop them at a bus stop a mile from the school anyway.

And, if it is an elementary school--good luck with parent conferences. I speak from experience. Families were not that far away, but it was a different community and not an easy walk.
No evening events like a performance of some kind.

A handful of parents from the project that were bused in to the school where I taught, showed up for conferences. Their kids generally did better than the others.

There was some publicity a few years ago about Graham Road. That is the picture of what FCPS did wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what they ought to do:

1. Fall on their sword and admit they overreached by considering boundary changes without adequately considering first what types of programs FCPS wants to offer at the ES, MS, and HS level.

2. Declare unequivocally that KAA will re-open initially as a traditional neighborhood school with an academy program to be considered in 2-3 years.

3. Limit upcoming boundary changes to Coates, those necessitated by KAA’s re-opening, and any other proposed changes for which there is clear evidence of extremely strong community support.

4. Address immediately whether the scope of the Centreville expansion should be scaled back, and Dunn Loring ES should be postponed indefinitely, with any freed-up funds reallocated to other schools.

5. Commit to releasing an updated renovation queue no later than January 2028 that reflects a fresh look at which schools have the greatest facilities needs.

The Coates boundary change impacts over a dozen other schools. So how exactly do you propose both changing Coates boundaries and also declaring that only Coates boundaries change?

I think you’re confusing Coates with KAA. Coates is an overcrowded elementary school, and the overcrowding there can be addressed by reassigning kids to a small number of other elementary schools in the Herndon area.

Neither PP. The Coates study did encompass well more than a dozen schools. I live near there. Some of the schools included made no sense. Yes, there could be a domino effect, but someone should be able to look at the numbers and come up with the schools.
AAP schools were also included. Another reason to get rid of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

West Springfield doesn't have any meetings scheduled yet.

That early spot on September 16 is for West Potomac NOT West Springfield

FCPS appears to be avoiding meeting with the West Springfield pyramid. In spite of WSHS having some fairly significant changes proposed, FCPS has not held a single meeting with the community, not even the school board rep holding small community meetings.

The only pyramids with scheduled meetings are Justice, West Potomac and Oakton.

Do any of those pyramids have anything more than minor tweeks?

There was a proposal earlier this year to move part of Hollin Meadows/Sandburg/West Potomac to Riverside/Whitman/Mount Vernon to “fix” the current situation where Whitman MS lies outside its attendance area. The parents have complained and Mateo Dunne has told them he supports them.

A big focus of Thru’s proposals was to eliminate attendance islands and situations where schools lie outside their attendance areas, but they’ve gotten a lot of pushback. Ricardy Anderson has objected to the Thru proposal to redistrict Bailey’s Upper ES (which currently lies within the Sleepy Hollow ES boundary) and the Timber Lane families have objected to getting moved from McLean to Falls Church to eliminate an attendance island.

If they toss out the proposal to change the Whitman boundaries, their rationale for these other changes also goes out the window. They’ve been told repeatedly that most parents view eliminating attendance islands and split feeders as a low priority.

I'm in the MV pyramid. We have been advocating for years for a new building to house Whitman inside the MV/Whitman attendance area. We don't want to see this change either because it is not going to fix the issue that 95% of our students will still have to travel outside of our area to go to middle school. And if they move Whitman's boundaries to put it in bounds, we'll never get a building where most of our students live. MV is already the "dumping ground" of FCPS and this "fix" just proves that we are still the dumping ground.

WP has two attendance islands that are impacted. I don't think there is any pushback because both are low income neighborhoods where families typically do not advocate for their children. One is an apartment complex that currently feeds into Groveton ES, Sandburg and WP. The children drive past Hybla Valley to get to Groveton. The proposal is to move those students to Hybla Valley, keep them at Sandburg and WP. The other is an attendance island surrounded by Mount Vernon neighborhoods that goes to Ft. Hunt, Sandburg and WP. It's an apartment complex and the students are almost walking distance to Mount Vernon Woods Elementary but they are bused almost 5 miles away, past 3 to 4 other elementary schools to Ft. Hunt. The proposal is to send them to MVW, Whitman and Mount Vernon.

Yes, but the two above situations that you mention actually make sense regardless of those being low income families, it doesn't make sense to send children past schools to attend another school further away.

Unless you're sending the low income kids further away to a lower FARMs school in hopes of spreading them out a bit more or avoiding creation of more Title 1 schools.

I'm not familiar with that area. I am experienced in teaching Title I kids. It is imperative that they be as close as possible to their school. It is a struggle to get family support--and when the school is difficult to access easily, it is almost impossible. Busing to more affluent schools is not a good idea!

Isn’t there solid research that indicates lower-income kids do better academically when they are not attending economically segregated schools?

Is that the same study that showed a marked decrease in academic performance for the higher income kids when they are not attending economically segregated schools? It is.

The system should never be in the business of picking winners and losers. Social engineering never works.

Current zoning and school boundaries are both the products of social engineering.

You’ll never be happy until every school is equally bad.

[Anonymous]

Not quoting the massive post but my take away is that many of the over crowded schools are not addressed and there is nothing about KAA in the proposals. So Coates, Chantilly, and Centerville remain overcrowded.

What a joke

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not quoting the massive post but my take away is that many of the over crowded schools are not addressed and there is nothing about KAA in the proposals. So Coates, Chantilly, and Centerville remain overcrowded.

What a joke

The slide was really weird because it was filtered by attendance islands and schools located outside of their attendance zones, so you don’t see the impacts on split feeders and schools over capacity.

[Anonymous]

My other take away is the concern over FLES. FLES is a waste of time and money. The students don’t learn anything in the class.Tank the program and save money. Add more language immersion programs if you really want to introduce more kids to a language early on. There are wait lists for Spanish, French, and German so there is demand. But FLES is not nearly enough to introduce kids to a language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bottom Line Up Front

FCPS is conducting a major boundary review that would move 8,660 students under their current "Scenario 3" proposal. This affects roughly 5% of all district students and represents one of the largest boundary adjustments in recent years.
Timeline: We're in Phase 2 of a two-year process. Next major milestone is September 24, 2025 committee meeting, followed by community meetings in October.

Schools Most Impacted

Based on the official scorecard, here are the schools facing significant changes:
Major Enrollment Reductions:

Bailey's Upper ES: -26% enrollment (Justice pyramid)
Halley ES: -23% enrollment (South County pyramid)
Pine Spring ES: -22% enrollment (Falls Church pyramid)
Graham Road ES: -21% enrollment (Falls Church pyramid)
Fort Hunt ES: -19% enrollment (West Potomac pyramid)

Overcrowding Relief:

Pine Spring ES: 111% → 89% utilization
McLean HS: 109% → 100% utilization
Keene Mill ES: 107% → 92% utilization

Schools Gaining Students:

London Towne ES: +8% enrollment
Fairfax HS: +4% enrollment (now at 102% capacity - new concern)
Lake Braddock HS & MS: +4% each

Program Access Issues

The biggest disruption isn't boundary changes - it's program access:

2,252 students lose FLES (Foreign Language Elementary) access
787 Special Education students affected
512 Full-Time AAP Center students impacted

FLES impact is massive because it's offered at only 40% of elementary schools, and boundary changes mean many kids will no longer attend FLES schools.

Proximity Analysis

Distance impacts are mixed:

84% of moved students: Less than 1-mile change
4,424 students get closer to their school
4,236 students get farther from their school
95 students face 3+ mile increases (flagged for review)

Red Flags and Concerns

Questionable Efficiency: Schools like Fort Hunt ES dropping to 64% utilization raises serious questions about resource allocation and planning logic.
Program Disruption Priority: The district is prioritizing boundary "fixes" over maintaining program access, which may not align with family priorities.
Advisory Committee Resistance: The committee is reportedly pushing back on major changes, preferring minimal disruption over comprehensive boundary optimization.
Missing Information: The presentation materials to date lack crucial details about which specific neighborhoods and streets are affected.

What's Still Unknown

Specific neighborhood impacts - which streets/communities are moving where
Receiving school capacity - can schools absorb incoming students?
Transportation details - actual driving distances vs. radius analysis
Grandfathering policies - will current students finish at their schools?

Process Moving Forward

Sept 24: Committee reviews final changes
Oct 13-30: Community meetings
Nov 12: Review community feedback
Nov 24: Final committee recommendations
Implementation: Likely fall 2026

Hot Take
This boundary review affects thousands of families with mixed outcomes. While some overcrowded schools get relief, the changes create new inefficiencies and significant program access disruptions. The scale suggests this is more about comprehensive redistricting than targeted problem-solving.

Key Question for Affected Families: Is your school on the target list? If so, start engaging in the community meeting process now, because these changes have major implications for your family's school experience and daily logistics.

The full scorecard and neighborhood-specific details should be available in the forthcoming separate analysis document but not provided to date.

This summary is based on an excerpt of the scorecard that appears at p. 21 of the slide deck for the September 3, 2025 BRAC meeting.

But that excerpt was only dealing with changes made to eliminate attendance islands or change the boundaries of schools located outside their attendance areas.

There may be other schools that are facing "signficant changes," but they aren't referenced above because the proposed boundary changes aren't based on eliminating an attendance island/school outside its zone, but instead driven by eliminating a split feeder or addressing overcrowding.

The presentation indicates that Thru was still working with its "Scenario 3," which contemplated boundary changes to address all these issues, so the excerpt in the deck isn't providing a full picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My other take away is the concern over FLES. FLES is a waste of time and money. The students don’t learn anything in the class.Tank the program and save money. Add more language immersion programs if you really want to introduce more kids to a language early on. There are wait lists for Spanish, French, and German so there is demand. But FLES is not nearly enough to introduce kids to a language.

Agreed. My kid was in one of those in her old FCPS ES and she didn't learn much of anything. It was a specials class she did once a week. You can't learn a foreign language in a 40-minute lesson every seven days. We moved to a different ES without the foreign language option and didn't miss it at all. That many special ed kids having to move or facing disruptions is a much more serious issue, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what they ought to do:

1. Fall on their sword and admit they overreached by considering boundary changes without adequately considering first what types of programs FCPS wants to offer at the ES, MS, and HS level.

2. Declare unequivocally that KAA will re-open initially as a traditional neighborhood school with an academy program to be considered in 2-3 years.

3. Limit upcoming boundary changes to Coates, those necessitated by KAA’s re-opening, and any other proposed changes for which there is clear evidence of extremely strong community support.

4. Address immediately whether the scope of the Centreville expansion should be scaled back, and Dunn Loring ES should be postponed indefinitely, with any freed-up funds reallocated to other schools.

5. Commit to releasing an updated renovation queue no later than January 2028 that reflects a fresh look at which schools have the greatest facilities needs.

The Coates boundary change impacts over a dozen other schools. So how exactly do you propose both changing Coates boundaries and also declaring that only Coates boundaries change?

I think you’re confusing Coates with KAA. Coates is an overcrowded elementary school, and the overcrowding there can be addressed by reassigning kids to a small number of other elementary schools in the Herndon area.

Neither PP. The Coates study did encompass well more than a dozen schools. I live near there. Some of the schools included made no sense. Yes, there could be a domino effect, but someone should be able to look at the numbers and come up with the schools.
AAP schools were also included. Another reason to get rid of them.

It's not unusual for them to cast a wide net when initially scoping a boundary study, but you can look at the projections and see that the immediate surrounding schools (McNair/McNair Upper, Herndon, and Hutchinson) are all expected to have substantial capacity in the coming years. There's no need to change the boundaries of more than a few schools to provide Coates with some meaningful relief. And it should be a priority, not messing with boundaries at other schools that aren't experiencing anything comparable to Coates when it comes to overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what they ought to do:

1. Fall on their sword and admit they overreached by considering boundary changes without adequately considering first what types of programs FCPS wants to offer at the ES, MS, and HS level.

2. Declare unequivocally that KAA will re-open initially as a traditional neighborhood school with an academy program to be considered in 2-3 years.

3. Limit upcoming boundary changes to Coates, those necessitated by KAA’s re-opening, and any other proposed changes for which there is clear evidence of extremely strong community support.

4. Address immediately whether the scope of the Centreville expansion should be scaled back, and Dunn Loring ES should be postponed indefinitely, with any freed-up funds reallocated to other schools.

5. Commit to releasing an updated renovation queue no later than January 2028 that reflects a fresh look at which schools have the greatest facilities needs.

The Coates boundary change impacts over a dozen other schools. So how exactly do you propose both changing Coates boundaries and also declaring that only Coates boundaries change?

I think you’re confusing Coates with KAA. Coates is an overcrowded elementary school, and the overcrowding there can be addressed by reassigning kids to a small number of other elementary schools in the Herndon area.

Neither PP. The Coates study did encompass well more than a dozen schools. I live near there. Some of the schools included made no sense. Yes, there could be a domino effect, but someone should be able to look at the numbers and come up with the schools.
AAP schools were also included. Another reason to get rid of them.

It's not unusual for them to cast a wide net when initially scoping a boundary study, but you can look at the projections and see that the immediate surrounding schools (McNair/McNair Upper, Herndon, and Hutchinson) are all expected to have substantial capacity in the coming years. There's no need to change the boundaries of more than a few schools to provide Coates with some meaningful relief. And it should be a priority, not messing with boundaries at other schools that aren't experiencing anything comparable to Coates when it comes to overcrowding.

The kids on the other side of the DTR already are assigned to Herndon Middle and High. So, I don't know how many kids that is, but I would think at least 100 to 150. They should go to a school on that side of the DTR.
McNair and Floris should be able to pick up the rest. I think there could be logical splits.