FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read there was a “closed door” meeting at Great Falls library today on Sat morning (8am) with about 10 parents. Who called this meeting and how was it advertised- if it was to parents. There are SO many posts on this thread and a lot seemingly from Great Falls parents so seems surprising if a parent meeting held for a face to face with Reid that only 10 parents showed up? Were only 10 parents invited? If thread to all parents and only 10 showed up, Reid’s takeaway should be that FcPS can do what wants as parents will only complain on anonymous board but not beyond that. Anyone know more what the meeting was and how parents invited?

Was the library meeting the boundary review committee meeting that only a handful of parents were selected for (and so no one else could join) and who selected is what’s being called in question? If so, then not a public meeting that anyone else could attend- so no Reid takeaway. Instead public takeaway is weird cloak and dagger.

Vague story in Fairfax times.
This whole process is questionable. They were afraid to do this the "normal way" so they hand selected a "committee" with a questionable lottery. Didn't the SB get in trouble a few years ago about plotting out of the public eye?

Here's the article: https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/parents-raise-new-concerns-about-boundary-advisory-committee-selection-process/article_1e4edeee-0029-11f0-a631-37e3a84d1946.html

[Anonymous]

So does this private meeting presage yet another instance where Langley ends up getting a sweetheart deal when it comes to school boundaries? Recall that Janie Strauss cut a deal with Stu Gibson to keep Langley completely out of the South Lakes study, and then Elaine Tholen ended up being a total shill for Great Falls later.

Reid certainly isn’t offering these types of one-off private sessions to others.

[Anonymous]

It does seem FCPS is being led by small school district mindset and not with focus on what it means to run district of 199 schools and 180,000+ students. I do think someone can make the leap from smaller district to larger, but doesn’t work if don’t reset mindset.

Most decisions and communications remind me that Reid’s prior district had only 6 middle schools and 4 high schools (with class sizes about 400-450)- so edicts to do this or that in “all” high schools meant only 4 schools to consider and fewer students and families.

From that prior district’s link= was 20 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, 4 comprehensive high schools, 4 choice schools with just over 20,000 kids (https://www.nsd.org/our-district/overview/quick-facts).

Before that, was superintendent for even smaller district of less than 10,000 kids for all grades ES-HS and only 3 HS (https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/washington/districts/south-kitsap-school-district-111312).

Even if had run biggest district in Washington- Seattle public schools- that still would only have been 55,000 kids.

Again, can absolutely advance and move up to bigger leadership roles, but to do successfully need to change mindsets and lead for the larger district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So does this private meeting presage yet another instance where Langley ends up getting a sweetheart deal when it comes to school boundaries? Recall that Janie Strauss cut a deal with Stu Gibson to keep Langley completely out of the South Lakes study, and then Elaine Tholen ended up being a total shill for Great Falls later.

Reid certainly isn’t offering these types of one-off private sessions to others.

DCUM 2014 memories- this thread, 13:12 post mentions https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/389168.page

[Anonymous]

Really more about Coates and Parklawn, but also some reference to the comprehensive study.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/03/18/fairfax-school-board-split-on-when-to-address-overcrowded-elementary-schools/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really more about Coates and Parklawn, but also some reference to the comprehensive study.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/03/18/fairfax-school-board-split-on-when-to-address-overcrowded-elementary-schools/

From that article- cram the kids and continue to stall out on boundaries, but good news!! Hayfield getting new turf field for close to a million. How’s that for a reward for last year’s mess!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really more about Coates and Parklawn, but also some reference to the comprehensive study.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/03/18/fairfax-school-board-split-on-when-to-address-overcrowded-elementary-schools/

Further signifies the absolute movement forward with the boundary changes. The board battled with making the Parklawn and Coates changes for 2025 school year vs waiting for comprehensive 2026 fall so that students aren’t disrupted twice. Nothing is slowing down.

Also, Hayfield getting a turf field investment. Oh vey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really more about Coates and Parklawn, but also some reference to the comprehensive study.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/03/18/fairfax-school-board-split-on-when-to-address-overcrowded-elementary-schools/

From that article- cram the kids and continue to stall out on boundaries, but good news!! Hayfield getting new turf field for close to a million. How’s that for a reward for last year’s mess!

Turf field replacements are on a regular schedule. It's neither a reward nor a punishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really more about Coates and Parklawn, but also some reference to the comprehensive study.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/03/18/fairfax-school-board-split-on-when-to-address-overcrowded-elementary-schools/

Further signifies the absolute movement forward with the boundary changes. The board battled with making the Parklawn and Coates changes for 2025 school year vs waiting for comprehensive 2026 fall so that students aren’t disrupted twice. Nothing is slowing down.

Also, Hayfield getting a turf field investment. Oh vey.

They would have been challenged to have their ducks in a row by this fall in any event. It's already March and they don't even have specific options to present yet.

What it really means is that they'll fold this into the county-wide changes if they can pull them off by the fall of 2026. If the county-wide review stalls, they should still be able to adjust the Coates and Parklawn boundaries by the fall of 2026.

[Anonymous]

What if any of these options should happen as part of the boundary review?

1. Middle schools goes from 7-8 to 6-8,
2. No more IB program,
3. Close down AAP centers,
4. Move good students to poor performing schools to shore up test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if any of these options should happen as part of the boundary review?

1. Middle schools goes from 7-8 to 6-8,
2. No more IB program,
3. Close down AAP centers,
4. Move good students to poor performing schools to shore up test scores.

#2 No more IB program
and,
#5. No comprehensive boundary review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if any of these options should happen as part of the boundary review?

1. Middle schools goes from 7-8 to 6-8,
2. No more IB program,
3. Close down AAP centers,
4. Move good students to poor performing schools to shore up test scores.

2 and 3, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if any of these options should happen as part of the boundary review?

1. Middle schools goes from 7-8 to 6-8,
2. No more IB program,
3. Close down AAP centers,
4. Move good students to poor performing schools to shore up test scores.

2 and 3, obviously.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if any of these options should happen as part of the boundary review?

1. Middle schools goes from 7-8 to 6-8,
2. No more IB program,
3. Close down AAP centers,
4. Move good students to poor performing schools to shore up test scores.

#2 and #3. Bring students back to their base, assigned schools. Build up these communities.

#1 is not financially or physically possibly by fall 2026. #4 students/families will move or find loopholes.

[Anonymous]

A plan for #1 but it will take longer to implement. There needs to be an articulated vision though, such as identifying certain ES sites that would later convert to MS, or whatever other means to create the needed MS capacity.

#2 I'd like to see IB remain as a choice program or academy, ideally at 2-3 locations like one in southern portion of county and another in western portion of county. Could be physically co-located with other specialty programs or academies such as vocational prep, music, arts, immersion, and so on alongside IB. Get enough of those programs under one roof and you've got enough students collectively to fill a HS and give students more options than they have today.

#3 only at the MS level, where you have enough of a critical mass of AAP students at any MS to serve their needs locally. This isn't true at the ES level.

#4 no, and this isn't really part of the current plan or exercise either. Some small number of students may end up moving from schools with higher average test scores to lower average test scores, but that's incidental to optimizing capacities and travel times, not some social engineering intent. If anything the opposite is true, they don't want to jeopardize any school with Title I services from being downgraded and receiving less support (and larger class sizes) than the status quo as a result of an influx of higher-income kids.