Boundaries assessment update 2023

[Anonymous]

A politician who truly believes that a boundary adjustment is the right thing to do for the sake of equity, fiscal responsibility and any other good reason should have character enough to go through with it anyway.

There is nothing fiscally responsible about a boundary adjustment for the sake of equity.

Do you have any idea how many consultants would be paid for this? How many additional buses would be needed to crisscross the county? How many staffing issues would have to be resolved? New equipment, books, etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They won't move those Langley students to HHS- but not because of enrollment capacity. HHS is at 2300 students- with the recent renovation- capacity is 2500.
Move some from Langley to Herndon. Mclean to Langley. Could get 3 schools to similar enrollment and ease overcrowding at McLean and fill the under capacity at Langley- by #s- make sense.
Will never happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm making an offer on a house in the extreme north-western part of Langley HS district, near Seneca road. It's in the 7-1 grid of https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/medi...choolBoundaries.pdf. My son is in 1st grade currently, would prefer Cooper/Langley as schools.

Given where things are at, is there any intent by FCPS to move that part of Langley into Herndon HS, has that been proposed or discussed? I saw a comments to that in this thread, wondering if this was ever really entertained.

I mean, yes, sending the far northwestern part of the county back to Herndon HS boundaries is a thing that could happen. A PP alluded to it earlier in the thread, and then the Langley boundaries would absorb one of the ES in the McLean pyramid. But Herndon HS doesn’t have the capacity right now to absorb a whole additional ES into its boundaries. The MS seems to have more “room” because the capacity dashboard shows it with a number of modular/temporary classrooms, but those are unpopular and not meant to be long term solutions. And building the mythical western HS that could change boundaries at multiple schools is at least 10 years away from completion and probably longer than that. So if you have a current 1st/rising 2nd grader I wouldn’t worry too much about it at all.

Langley’s freshman class is significantly larger than the senior class— presumably due to the most recent boundary change and the grandfathering that comes with it.

When it all shakes out in a few years I wonder where McLean will be in terms of enrollment. Still over I am sure, but by how much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this yet another IB vs. AP debate (they are both fine), let's get back to original topic. Yes making some IB schools AP would help. SB won't do jack because they don't want to stir up the pot. Parents-many in this forum-will freak out with boundary changes if it doesn't go their way. So what is the solution?

Distribute affordable housing across the county instead on concentrating it. Unless that happens, boundary adjustment will always be bitter and career ending for politicians

A politician who truly believes that a boundary adjustment is the right thing to do for the sake of equity, fiscal responsibility and any other good reason should have character enough to go through with it anyway.

The school board is supposed to exist for proper education and responsible use of facilities/resources, not as a stepping stone that ambitious politicians use to get to higher office.

But, just because the politician believes that a "boundary adjustment' is the "right thing to do" doesn't mean that it IS the right thing to do.

You throw out that it should be done for the sake of "equity." How is this going to achieve "equity?" What do you think it will do?

1. The location of schools is not adaptable to redistribution. Too many poor schools are located close together and too many affluent schools are very close together.

2. So, you redistribute and get "equity" of demographics. What does this accomplish for the kids?

Maybe, just maybe, a politician will step forward who thinks we should educate our kids. To me, that would be "equity."

DP. I think the paradigm has always been that moving around kids in the name of equity is going to result in some type of cross-pollination. The wealthier kids will learn more empathy and appreciation for the challenges poorer kids face, and the poorer kids will be inspired to emulate the academic aspirations of the wealthier kids.

It sounds great - kind of like the plot of a 1980s movie with great songs and dancing. I’m just not so sure any of it would come to pass. We repeatedly hear about how there’s a considerable amount of self-segregation among different groups of kids at schools now, especially at some of the higher FARMS schools with cohorts of high-achieving kids. So why would that change if kids get bussed further to attend different schools - when they’ll actually spend more time commuting back and forth in a county with seriously crappy traffic and thereby have less time to get to know each other outside the classrooms? The reality seems like it could be very different from the paradigm.

Which, again, takes one back to the lingering question: Is the goal really to improve the experiences of some kids, or just to reduce all the schools to a certain level of uniform mediocrity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this yet another IB vs. AP debate (they are both fine), let's get back to original topic. Yes making some IB schools AP would help. SB won't do jack because they don't want to stir up the pot. Parents-many in this forum-will freak out with boundary changes if it doesn't go their way. So what is the solution?

Distribute affordable housing across the county instead on concentrating it. Unless that happens, boundary adjustment will always be bitter and career ending for politicians

A politician who truly believes that a boundary adjustment is the right thing to do for the sake of equity, fiscal responsibility and any other good reason should have character enough to go through with it anyway.

The school board is supposed to exist for proper education and responsible use of facilities/resources, not as a stepping stone that ambitious politicians use to get to higher office.

But, just because the politician believes that a "boundary adjustment' is the "right thing to do" doesn't mean that it IS the right thing to do.

You throw out that it should be done for the sake of "equity." How is this going to achieve "equity?" What do you think it will do?

1. The location of schools is not adaptable to redistribution. Too many poor schools are located close together and too many affluent schools are very close together.

2. So, you redistribute and get "equity" of demographics. What does this accomplish for the kids?

Maybe, just maybe, a politician will step forward who thinks we should educate our kids. To me, that would be "equity."

I’m not arguing for boundary changes for the purposes of distribution children by color and household income in the percentages and patterns that the school board finds fashionable.

I am simply against politicians who won’t do what they say or belittle is right because they would have to give up their political careers. It’s disgusting.

I was against their last plan (2019) but still had to scoff when they abandoned their commitment to having “courageous conversations” and doing what they swore was soooooo right and important because an election was looming and they were scared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this yet another IB vs. AP debate (they are both fine), let's get back to original topic. Yes making some IB schools AP would help. SB won't do jack because they don't want to stir up the pot. Parents-many in this forum-will freak out with boundary changes if it doesn't go their way. So what is the solution?

Distribute affordable housing across the county instead on concentrating it. Unless that happens, boundary adjustment will always be bitter and career ending for politicians

A politician who truly believes that a boundary adjustment is the right thing to do for the sake of equity, fiscal responsibility and any other good reason should have character enough to go through with it anyway.

The school board is supposed to exist for proper education and responsible use of facilities/resources, not as a stepping stone that ambitious politicians use to get to higher office.

I don't think even our School Board is that crass. I think they have no common sense. I think some genuinely believe that it will even the playing field.

Do you know where the most "equity" is in schools? Sports.

But, just because the politician believes that a "boundary adjustment' is the "right thing to do" doesn't mean that it IS the right thing to do.

You throw out that it should be done for the sake of "equity." How is this going to achieve "equity?" What do you think it will do?

1. The location of schools is not adaptable to redistribution. Too many poor schools are located close together and too many affluent schools are very close together.

2. So, you redistribute and get "equity" of demographics. What does this accomplish for the kids?

Maybe, just maybe, a politician will step forward who thinks we should educate our kids. To me, that would be "equity."

DP. I think the paradigm has always been that moving around kids in the name of equity is going to result in some type of cross-pollination. The wealthier kids will learn more empathy and appreciation for the challenges poorer kids face, and the poorer kids will be inspired to emulate the academic aspirations of the wealthier kids.

It sounds great - kind of like the plot of a 1980s movie with great songs and dancing. I’m just not so sure any of it would come to pass. We repeatedly hear about how there’s a considerable amount of self-segregation among different groups of kids at schools now, especially at some of the higher FARMS schools with cohorts of high-achieving kids. So why would that change if kids get bussed further to attend different schools - when they’ll actually spend more time commuting back and forth in a county with seriously crappy traffic and thereby have less time to get to know each other outside the classrooms? The reality seems like it could be very different from the paradigm.

Which, again, takes one back to the lingering question: Is the goal really to improve the experiences of some kids, or just to reduce all the schools to a certain level of uniform mediocrity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't move those Langley students to HHS- but not because of enrollment capacity. HHS is at 2300 students- with the recent renovation- capacity is 2500.
Move some from Langley to Herndon. Mclean to Langley. Could get 3 schools to similar enrollment and ease overcrowding at McLean and fill the under capacity at Langley- by #s- make sense.
Will never happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm making an offer on a house in the extreme north-western part of Langley HS district, near Seneca road. It's in the 7-1 grid of https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/medi...choolBoundaries.pdf. My son is in 1st grade currently, would prefer Cooper/Langley as schools.

Given where things are at, is there any intent by FCPS to move that part of Langley into Herndon HS, has that been proposed or discussed? I saw a comments to that in this thread, wondering if this was ever really entertained.

I mean, yes, sending the far northwestern part of the county back to Herndon HS boundaries is a thing that could happen. A PP alluded to it earlier in the thread, and then the Langley boundaries would absorb one of the ES in the McLean pyramid. But Herndon HS doesn’t have the capacity right now to absorb a whole additional ES into its boundaries. The MS seems to have more “room” because the capacity dashboard shows it with a number of modular/temporary classrooms, but those are unpopular and not meant to be long term solutions. And building the mythical western HS that could change boundaries at multiple schools is at least 10 years away from completion and probably longer than that. So if you have a current 1st/rising 2nd grader I wouldn’t worry too much about it at all.

Langley’s freshman class is significantly larger than the senior class— presumably due to the most recent boundary change and the grandfathering that comes with it.

When it all shakes out in a few years I wonder where McLean will be in terms of enrollment. Still over I am sure, but by how much?

If you look at the latest CIP, FCPS is projecting that McLean’s enrollment will be higher when the boundary change is fully phased in (fall 2025) than it is now.

Yes, they moved some kids from McLean to Langley. On the other hand the TJ admissions changes mean more Longfellow kids are going to McLean and fewer to TJ. And the Board of Supervisors has targeted Tysons, West Falls Church, and downtown McLean for development, so you also have more kids coming from these new apartments and condos (in addition to the kids coming from new houses when an old house gets torn down and replaced by a new house bought by a younger family with kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't move those Langley students to HHS- but not because of enrollment capacity. HHS is at 2300 students- with the recent renovation- capacity is 2500.
Move some from Langley to Herndon. Mclean to Langley. Could get 3 schools to similar enrollment and ease overcrowding at McLean and fill the under capacity at Langley- by #s- make sense.
Will never happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm making an offer on a house in the extreme north-western part of Langley HS district, near Seneca road. It's in the 7-1 grid of https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/medi...choolBoundaries.pdf. My son is in 1st grade currently, would prefer Cooper/Langley as schools.

Given where things are at, is there any intent by FCPS to move that part of Langley into Herndon HS, has that been proposed or discussed? I saw a comments to that in this thread, wondering if this was ever really entertained.

I mean, yes, sending the far northwestern part of the county back to Herndon HS boundaries is a thing that could happen. A PP alluded to it earlier in the thread, and then the Langley boundaries would absorb one of the ES in the McLean pyramid. But Herndon HS doesn’t have the capacity right now to absorb a whole additional ES into its boundaries. The MS seems to have more “room” because the capacity dashboard shows it with a number of modular/temporary classrooms, but those are unpopular and not meant to be long term solutions. And building the mythical western HS that could change boundaries at multiple schools is at least 10 years away from completion and probably longer than that. So if you have a current 1st/rising 2nd grader I wouldn’t worry too much about it at all.

Langley’s freshman class is significantly larger than the senior class— presumably due to the most recent boundary change and the grandfathering that comes with it.

When it all shakes out in a few years I wonder where McLean will be in terms of enrollment. Still over I am sure, but by how much?

Part of the reason Langley’s enrollment is growing has nothing to do with the 2021 boundary change with McLean and more to do with places like Great Falls getting more attractive again for working parents when many jobs went remote w/Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't move those Langley students to HHS- but not because of enrollment capacity. HHS is at 2300 students- with the recent renovation- capacity is 2500.
Move some from Langley to Herndon. Mclean to Langley. Could get 3 schools to similar enrollment and ease overcrowding at McLean and fill the under capacity at Langley- by #s- make sense.
Will never happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm making an offer on a house in the extreme north-western part of Langley HS district, near Seneca road. It's in the 7-1 grid of https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/medi...choolBoundaries.pdf. My son is in 1st grade currently, would prefer Cooper/Langley as schools.

Given where things are at, is there any intent by FCPS to move that part of Langley into Herndon HS, has that been proposed or discussed? I saw a comments to that in this thread, wondering if this was ever really entertained.

I mean, yes, sending the far northwestern part of the county back to Herndon HS boundaries is a thing that could happen. A PP alluded to it earlier in the thread, and then the Langley boundaries would absorb one of the ES in the McLean pyramid. But Herndon HS doesn’t have the capacity right now to absorb a whole additional ES into its boundaries. The MS seems to have more “room” because the capacity dashboard shows it with a number of modular/temporary classrooms, but those are unpopular and not meant to be long term solutions. And building the mythical western HS that could change boundaries at multiple schools is at least 10 years away from completion and probably longer than that. So if you have a current 1st/rising 2nd grader I wouldn’t worry too much about it at all.

Langley’s freshman class is significantly larger than the senior class— presumably due to the most recent boundary change and the grandfathering that comes with it.

When it all shakes out in a few years I wonder where McLean will be in terms of enrollment. Still over I am sure, but by how much?

Part of the reason Langley’s enrollment is growing has nothing to do with the 2021 boundary change with McLean and more to do with places like Great Falls getting more attractive again for working parents when many jobs went remote w/Covid.

Um... GF has *always* been attractive for working parent(s). Most people who live there work in Tysons, Reston, Chantilly, McLean, etc., or remotely. Not DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't move those Langley students to HHS- but not because of enrollment capacity. HHS is at 2300 students- with the recent renovation- capacity is 2500.
Move some from Langley to Herndon. Mclean to Langley. Could get 3 schools to similar enrollment and ease overcrowding at McLean and fill the under capacity at Langley- by #s- make sense.
Will never happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm making an offer on a house in the extreme north-western part of Langley HS district, near Seneca road. It's in the 7-1 grid of https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/medi...choolBoundaries.pdf. My son is in 1st grade currently, would prefer Cooper/Langley as schools.

Given where things are at, is there any intent by FCPS to move that part of Langley into Herndon HS, has that been proposed or discussed? I saw a comments to that in this thread, wondering if this was ever really entertained.

I mean, yes, sending the far northwestern part of the county back to Herndon HS boundaries is a thing that could happen. A PP alluded to it earlier in the thread, and then the Langley boundaries would absorb one of the ES in the McLean pyramid. But Herndon HS doesn’t have the capacity right now to absorb a whole additional ES into its boundaries. The MS seems to have more “room” because the capacity dashboard shows it with a number of modular/temporary classrooms, but those are unpopular and not meant to be long term solutions. And building the mythical western HS that could change boundaries at multiple schools is at least 10 years away from completion and probably longer than that. So if you have a current 1st/rising 2nd grader I wouldn’t worry too much about it at all.

Langley’s freshman class is significantly larger than the senior class— presumably due to the most recent boundary change and the grandfathering that comes with it.

When it all shakes out in a few years I wonder where McLean will be in terms of enrollment. Still over I am sure, but by how much?

Part of the reason Langley’s enrollment is growing has nothing to do with the 2021 boundary change with McLean and more to do with places like Great Falls getting more attractive again for working parents when many jobs went remote w/Covid.

Um... GF has *always* been attractive for working parent(s). Most people who live there work in Tysons, Reston, Chantilly, McLean, etc., or remotely. Not DC.

Not saying otherwise, but regardless of where people’s jobs were based Covid led some people to place less emphasis on being close to those work places and more emphasis on bigger homes w/more space. It’s not a very controversial observation.

[Anonymous]

I'd like a new High School near Carson ES. That's the logical place to put the kids that are currently zoned to Oakton but whose families are pissed that they have an hour long bus ride to HS.

[Anonymous]

(should hav read Carson MS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Posted 6 years ago (some of the info may now be dated, such as the comment on Latin or the numbers of pupil placements):

How Lee was changed by FCPS -

Step 1 - Early 2000's - Differentiate curriculums by putting in a program (IB) as a magnet and leaving AP at other schools.

Step 2 - Twice, in 2005 and 2015, take kids from the wealthiest elementary schools feeding Lee and move them to West Springfield.
- In 2005 the School Board could have moved Crestwood (a much poorer school) to West Springfield and left Hunt Valley students at Lee. Lee still would have been poorer than West Springfield, but the balance would have been better). Essentially, FCPS doubled down on poverty at Lee.

Step 3 - Drop languages from the curriculum at Lee (including Latin and Japanese; only Lee, Mt. Vernon, and Stuart do not offer Latin).

Step 4 - Have a liberal pupil placement policy in place that allows parents to easily avoid a school because of the different curriculums at the schools (as established by FCPS). Generally only non-F/R lunch families can take advantage of the pupil placement policy because of transportation and logistics issues associated with being poor. Putting in IB at Lee, as opposed to drawing families in, actually provided legal justification to leave. Lee loses over 150 students to pupil placement and I am sure very few of them qualify for F/R lunch. It also loses the vast majority of its pyramid AAP students.

It all spiraled downward from there to the point where military families (and other non-F/R lunch families) started avoiding Lee. Hence it gets poorer and poorer.

So which came first, people avoiding Lee, or FCPS changing Lee so that people started avoiding it? I'll admit Lee was never as wealthy as West Springfield, but now the gap is ridiculous.

I am not advocating boundary changes. That would not fly and would not work. At this point I just want them to replace IB with AP and stop the rise in the F/R lunch numbers. For example, don't build any affordable housing on the Springfield Town Center property (if and when they ever build any). The only other option would be to make Lee a complete magnet school like Jefferson (perhaps for the arts or IB). Not sure where they would put the kids who now attend Lee. By the way, from a taxpayer perspective, IB is twice as expensive as AP and only one school with IB achieved a 20% IB Diploma rate last year (Robinson). That means that even the best performing IB school saw 80% of its graduates not get the IB Diploma. FCPS should drop IB altogether. Just because we tried it does not mean we have to keep it.

******************************************************************************

Since that post, the gap between West Springfield and Lewis has only gotten worse. In 2005 there was only a 150 student enrollment difference between them. Now it is close to 1000. And Lee was roughly 27% F/R lunch in 2005, now it is 63%. After the 2005 boundary change FCPS said Lee would only rise to roughly 30%, but it quickly flew past 40%. West Springfield is in the mid-teens. And honestly, the elephant in the room continues to be uncontrolled immigration. Unless that starts to impact the West Springfields, Madisons, or Langleys of this county, nothing will change.

Step 2: really stupid suggestion as HV is a tenn minute commute to WSHS using all back roads, and Crestview is double the commute.

There is one Saratoga poster that always brings up a 20 year old boundary change.

HV to LB or South County might have made sense. But HV at Lee never made sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't move those Langley students to HHS- but not because of enrollment capacity. HHS is at 2300 students- with the recent renovation- capacity is 2500.
Move some from Langley to Herndon. Mclean to Langley. Could get 3 schools to similar enrollment and ease overcrowding at McLean and fill the under capacity at Langley- by #s- make sense.
Will never happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm making an offer on a house in the extreme north-western part of Langley HS district, near Seneca road. It's in the 7-1 grid of https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/medi...choolBoundaries.pdf. My son is in 1st grade currently, would prefer Cooper/Langley as schools.

Given where things are at, is there any intent by FCPS to move that part of Langley into Herndon HS, has that been proposed or discussed? I saw a comments to that in this thread, wondering if this was ever really entertained.

I mean, yes, sending the far northwestern part of the county back to Herndon HS boundaries is a thing that could happen. A PP alluded to it earlier in the thread, and then the Langley boundaries would absorb one of the ES in the McLean pyramid. But Herndon HS doesn’t have the capacity right now to absorb a whole additional ES into its boundaries. The MS seems to have more “room” because the capacity dashboard shows it with a number of modular/temporary classrooms, but those are unpopular and not meant to be long term solutions. And building the mythical western HS that could change boundaries at multiple schools is at least 10 years away from completion and probably longer than that. So if you have a current 1st/rising 2nd grader I wouldn’t worry too much about it at all.

Langley’s freshman class is significantly larger than the senior class— presumably due to the most recent boundary change and the grandfathering that comes with it.

When it all shakes out in a few years I wonder where McLean will be in terms of enrollment. Still over I am sure, but by how much?

Part of the reason Langley’s enrollment is growing has nothing to do with the 2021 boundary change with McLean and more to do with places like Great Falls getting more attractive again for working parents when many jobs went remote w/Covid.

Um... GF has *always* been attractive for working parent(s). Most people who live there work in Tysons, Reston, Chantilly, McLean, etc., or remotely. Not DC.

Not saying otherwise, but regardless of where people’s jobs were based Covid led some people to place less emphasis on being close to those work places and more emphasis on bigger homes w/more space. It’s not a very controversial observation.

Precisely - It's why I closed on a house here, recognizing the need to drive children mostly across all of GF to get to Cooper/Langley.

But if they lop off the West end of GF and join it with Herndon HS - I'm getting out.

[Anonymous]

The Hunt Valley/Orange Hunt/WSHS thing would be easy. 1) cut off HV south of the parkway and send those kids to Newington Forest. That gets them out of the WSHS pyramid entirely since Newington Forest goes to South County. Which is probably about the same distance as WSHS for those kids.

2) change overcrowded OH boundaries to send some kids to now under capacity HV. The schools are physically quite close to one another so you have plenty of options. Also in that area, a not insignificant number of families would elect to stay at OH for the German immersion program so you could likely pick up a larger section of OH’s current boundaries than you might think.

3) if possible, fix the Rolling Valley split feeder and send all the kids to Irving/WSHS if there is still capacity at WSHS.

Now OH and HV aren’t bursting at the seams and we’ve even done a little to fix overenrollment at WSHS. And no one is getting bussed down the parkway to the other side of 95 to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of making this yet another IB vs. AP debate (they are both fine), let's get back to original topic. Yes making some IB schools AP would help. SB won't do jack because they don't want to stir up the pot. Parents-many in this forum-will freak out with boundary changes if it doesn't go their way. So what is the solution?

Distribute affordable housing across the county instead on concentrating it. Unless that happens, boundary adjustment will always be bitter and career ending for politicians

A politician who truly believes that a boundary adjustment is the right thing to do for the sake of equity, fiscal responsibility and any other good reason should have character enough to go through with it anyway.

The school board is supposed to exist for proper education and responsible use of facilities/resources, not as a stepping stone that ambitious politicians use to get to higher office.

But, just because the politician believes that a "boundary adjustment' is the "right thing to do" doesn't mean that it IS the right thing to do.

You throw out that it should be done for the sake of "equity." How is this going to achieve "equity?" What do you think it will do?

1. The location of schools is not adaptable to redistribution. Too many poor schools are located close together and too many affluent schools are very close together.

2. So, you redistribute and get "equity" of demographics. What does this accomplish for the kids?

Maybe, just maybe, a politician will step forward who thinks we should educate our kids. To me, that would be "equity."

I’m not arguing for boundary changes for the purposes of distribution children by color and household income in the percentages and patterns that the school board finds fashionable.

I am simply against politicians who won’t do what they say or belittle is right because they would have to give up their political careers. It’s disgusting.

I was against their last plan (2019) but still had to scoff when they abandoned their commitment to having “courageous conversations” and doing what they swore was soooooo right and important because an election was looming and they were scared.

What is right? FCPS has commissioned its own study showing that 20 and 40% farms rates are tipping points for schools. The schools above 40% in FCPS are surrounded by schools near 40%. Pulling an affluent neighborhood or two from Edison (35% farms) to Lewis (50% farms) is going to result in two schools past the tipping point. Justice is at 59% bordered by Annandale at 58% and Falls Church at 48%. Mount Vernon is at 57% bordered by West Potomac at 40% and Hayfield at 28%. Try shifting boundaries in a way that gets all of those schools below FCPS's own bright line. Voters with kids zoned for Edison or Falls Church or West Potomac or Hayfield get to worry about their kids getting rezoned or their schools getting worse and they are very aware that schools like Langley (2% farms), Oakton (12%), Woodson (12%)... will never be impacted.