Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Tune in by zoom for these meetings. Scenario 4 was driven by input and BRAC. Who screams the loudest gets what they want.

10/16 Reid:
1. SPA's will be available in response to a question from someone dev scenarios. Community participant -Static SPA's do not account for students in new residential - ie Tysons area new builds.
2. Expects no macro changes - could be other changes for scenario 5 based on community comments and BRAC.
3. no response I heard on the 1 comment I heard on Kingsley Commons- isolated feed now to Timberlane and might be only SPA assigned to Jackson/Falls Church. It's a sad mess for that community which didn't appear to participate.
4. Relooking at TOV now assigned to Marshall in scenario 4

Lots of Lemon Rd commenters- less than 25% and some years 10% are in boundary for Longfellow/Mclean. Some want split redrawn so more goes to Mclean- ie Route 7 is the line.

[Anonymous]

I sometimes wonder if the school board realizes how many resources and much community goodwill have been sapped by this process.

I have met many parents who used to be big public school supporters who just seethe at FCPS and the school board now. The fact is that the school board could have done a lot more during its tenure, but chose instead to pit communities against each other. Even with the new school, instead of being able to take a victory lap, they have to rush to cram it in to be part of the boundary study. And don’t even get me started on the impact and delay on Coates relief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone from FCPS described the current Carson split as follows:

Westfield 50.7%
South Lakes 28.0%
Oakton 20.8%
Chantilly 0.4%

I guess that includes AAP kids, otherwise it seems like there would have been an earlier proposal to eliminate the splits to Oakton and Chantilly.

That must exclude AAP or the percentages do not add up. Either that or they are excluding the AAP from Franklin.

There are over 280 attending from Franklin. I assume that is half 7 and half 8th grade. That be a split between Navy and Oak Hill and Lee's Corner AAP from Franklin. Oak Hill has a LOT of kids in AAP.

The Oak Hill kids would be AAP, but that seems a very low percentage to me. I THINK Lee's Corner AAP also goes to Carson? Of course, some would end up at TJ, too.

But, I think that would only be 4 kids to Chantilly--so it must not include AAP. I know there are a whole lot more than that.

So, those percentages must exclude AAP from Franklin.

One thing for sure: those claiming this would reduce Westfield by 1000 are wrong.

Why? Carson is 1600. Don't you think Westfield kids at Carson are at least 500? Or maybe you just don't understand math.

I understand enough math to know there are not 1600 kids at Carson .

They gave actual numbers. It’s 1740 kids

Who is they?

That is not what the data says online. They must have been using very, very old data. In fact, I'm not sure there have ever been that many there.

They are the people that were presenting. They also said there are 279 Franklin kids who go to Carson so maybe the school profile numbers don’t include Franklin transfers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tune in by zoom for these meetings. Scenario 4 was driven by input and BRAC. Who screams the loudest gets what they want.

10/16 Reid:
1. SPA's will be available in response to a question from someone dev scenarios. Community participant -Static SPA's do not account for students in new residential - ie Tysons area new builds.
2. Expects no macro changes - could be other changes for scenario 5 based on community comments and BRAC.
3. no response I heard on the 1 comment I heard on Kingsley Commons- isolated feed now to Timberlane and might be only SPA assigned to Jackson/Falls Church. It's a sad mess for that community which didn't appear to participate.
4. Relooking at TOV now assigned to Marshall in scenario 4

Lots of Lemon Rd commenters- less than 25% and some years 10% are in boundary for Longfellow/Mclean. Some want split redrawn so more goes to Mclean- ie Route 7 is the line.

It’s such a difficult situation. It’s great that the Jefferson Village/Greenway Downs neighborhoods get to attend the same school instead of being split between three, but Kingsley Commons is being sacrificed to achieve it.

Graham Road will lose Title I status and the distribution of the Hollywood Road apartments will put a larger strain on Shrevewood without them qualifying for Title I resources. They’ll be 50/50 FARMs.

Timber Lane will suffer worst. The McLean neighborhoods will get what they want (to stay at McLean) while the Kingsley Commons community will be an attendance island split feeder, crossing RT 29 to attend elementary school outside the Falls Church HS community.

Throwback to Obama celebrating the achievements of that community: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-graham-road-elementary-school-falls-church-virginia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tune in by zoom for these meetings. Scenario 4 was driven by input and BRAC. Who screams the loudest gets what they want.

10/16 Reid:
1. SPA's will be available in response to a question from someone dev scenarios. Community participant -Static SPA's do not account for students in new residential - ie Tysons area new builds.
2. Expects no macro changes - could be other changes for scenario 5 based on community comments and BRAC.
3. no response I heard on the 1 comment I heard on Kingsley Commons- isolated feed now to Timberlane and might be only SPA assigned to Jackson/Falls Church. It's a sad mess for that community which didn't appear to participate.
4. Relooking at TOV now assigned to Marshall in scenario 4

Lots of Lemon Rd commenters- less than 25% and some years 10% are in boundary for Longfellow/Mclean. Some want split redrawn so more goes to Mclean- ie Route 7 is the line.

Kingsley Commons might be the only SPA at Timber Lane assigned to Jackson/Falls Church, but it will account for most of "new" Timber Lane. It would be 61% of Timber Lane and 329 kids, and it would be a Timber Lane attendance island where the kids would have to cross Route 29. These kids probably would have been better off just staying at Graham Road even if GR was outside its attendance area, but they are out of luck now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Marshall/Falls Church community meeting was far more civil than the Langley meeting last night, even though there are far more changes impacting those pyramids and some people had strong views. It must have been a relief for Dr. Reid not to have to deal with the Langley again parents tonight.

The Langley parents are truly the worst. And yet somehow they continue to avoid any changes in this process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes wonder if the school board realizes how many resources and much community goodwill have been sapped by this process.

I have met many parents who used to be big public school supporters who just seethe at FCPS and the school board now. The fact is that the school board could have done a lot more during its tenure, but chose instead to pit communities against each other. Even with the new school, instead of being able to take a victory lap, they have to rush to cram it in to be part of the boundary study. And don’t even get me started on the impact and delay on Coates relief.

I'm PP at 20:37. Reid's comments danced on all MS providing local level iv. Discussions on that are for spring 2026. I see no reason it can't be done now. We listened and then decided to vote NO on the bond referendum. Fact is it's a county wide school division and now all can advocate and based on complaint count/volume, SPA's or neighborhoods get to choose their base school. This school division does not intend to use capacity nor move programs/SPA's out of sites that require modulars and trailers for the membership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone from FCPS described the current Carson split as follows:

Westfield 50.7%
South Lakes 28.0%
Oakton 20.8%
Chantilly 0.4%

I guess that includes AAP kids, otherwise it seems like there would have been an earlier proposal to eliminate the splits to Oakton and Chantilly.

That must exclude AAP or the percentages do not add up. Either that or they are excluding the AAP from Franklin.

There are over 280 attending from Franklin. I assume that is half 7 and half 8th grade. That be a split between Navy and Oak Hill and Lee's Corner AAP from Franklin. Oak Hill has a LOT of kids in AAP.

The Oak Hill kids would be AAP, but that seems a very low percentage to me. I THINK Lee's Corner AAP also goes to Carson? Of course, some would end up at TJ, too.

But, I think that would only be 4 kids to Chantilly--so it must not include AAP. I know there are a whole lot more than that.

So, those percentages must exclude AAP from Franklin.

One thing for sure: those claiming this would reduce Westfield by 1000 are wrong.

Why? Carson is 1600. Don't you think Westfield kids at Carson are at least 500? Or maybe you just don't understand math.

I understand enough math to know there are not 1600 kids at Carson .

They gave actual numbers. It’s 1740 kids

Who is they?

That is not what the data says online. They must have been using very, very old data. In fact, I'm not sure there have ever been that many there.

They are the people that were presenting. They also said there are 279 Franklin kids who go to Carson so maybe the school profile numbers don’t include Franklin transfers?

Who were the presenters? There are absolutely not that many kids at Carson. And, the transfers are always included in the membership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone from FCPS described the current Carson split as follows:

Westfield 50.7%
South Lakes 28.0%
Oakton 20.8%
Chantilly 0.4%

I guess that includes AAP kids, otherwise it seems like there would have been an earlier proposal to eliminate the splits to Oakton and Chantilly.

That must exclude AAP or the percentages do not add up. Either that or they are excluding the AAP from Franklin.

There are over 280 attending from Franklin. I assume that is half 7 and half 8th grade. That be a split between Navy and Oak Hill and Lee's Corner AAP from Franklin. Oak Hill has a LOT of kids in AAP.

The Oak Hill kids would be AAP, but that seems a very low percentage to me. I THINK Lee's Corner AAP also goes to Carson? Of course, some would end up at TJ, too.

But, I think that would only be 4 kids to Chantilly--so it must not include AAP. I know there are a whole lot more than that.

So, those percentages must exclude AAP from Franklin.

One thing for sure: those claiming this would reduce Westfield by 1000 are wrong.

Why? Carson is 1600. Don't you think Westfield kids at Carson are at least 500? Or maybe you just don't understand math.

I understand enough math to know there are not 1600 kids at Carson .

They gave actual numbers. It’s 1740 kids

Who is they?

That is not what the data says online. They must have been using very, very old data. In fact, I'm not sure there have ever been that many there.

They are the people that were presenting. They also said there are 279 Franklin kids who go to Carson so maybe the school profile numbers don’t include Franklin transfers?

Who were the presenters? There are absolutely not that many kids at Carson. And, the transfers are always included in the membership.

Wow. These people do not know what they are doing. They are ADDING the transfers that have already been included in the membership. When they should be subtracting them from the membership when considering which high schools.
That is the only way they could get 1600 which is ABSOLUTELY not accurate.

If this is being done by staff--what else is being done across the boundary study?

Please tell me that they did not present this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tune in by zoom for these meetings. Scenario 4 was driven by input and BRAC. Who screams the loudest gets what they want.

10/16 Reid:
1. SPA's will be available in response to a question from someone dev scenarios. Community participant -Static SPA's do not account for students in new residential - ie Tysons area new builds.
2. Expects no macro changes - could be other changes for scenario 5 based on community comments and BRAC.
3. no response I heard on the 1 comment I heard on Kingsley Commons- isolated feed now to Timberlane and might be only SPA assigned to Jackson/Falls Church. It's a sad mess for that community which didn't appear to participate.
4. Relooking at TOV now assigned to Marshall in scenario 4

Lots of Lemon Rd commenters- less than 25% and some years 10% are in boundary for Longfellow/Mclean. Some want split redrawn so more goes to Mclean- ie Route 7 is the line.

Kingsley Commons might be the only SPA at Timber Lane assigned to Jackson/Falls Church, but it will account for most of "new" Timber Lane. It would be 61% of Timber Lane and 329 kids, and it would be a Timber Lane attendance island where the kids would have to cross Route 29. These kids probably would have been better off just staying at Graham Road even if GR was outside its attendance area, but they are out of luck now.

If they do this change Kingsley Commons should get to either stay with Timber Lane and go to Longfellow/McLean or the area North of 29 that goes to Timber Lane/Longfellow/McLean should all be moved to Jackson/Falls Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone from FCPS described the current Carson split as follows:

Westfield 50.7%
South Lakes 28.0%
Oakton 20.8%
Chantilly 0.4%

I guess that includes AAP kids, otherwise it seems like there would have been an earlier proposal to eliminate the splits to Oakton and Chantilly.

That must exclude AAP or the percentages do not add up. Either that or they are excluding the AAP from Franklin.

There are over 280 attending from Franklin. I assume that is half 7 and half 8th grade. That be a split between Navy and Oak Hill and Lee's Corner AAP from Franklin. Oak Hill has a LOT of kids in AAP.

The Oak Hill kids would be AAP, but that seems a very low percentage to me. I THINK Lee's Corner AAP also goes to Carson? Of course, some would end up at TJ, too.

But, I think that would only be 4 kids to Chantilly--so it must not include AAP. I know there are a whole lot more than that.

So, those percentages must exclude AAP from Franklin.

One thing for sure: those claiming this would reduce Westfield by 1000 are wrong.

Why? Carson is 1600. Don't you think Westfield kids at Carson are at least 500? Or maybe you just don't understand math.

I understand enough math to know there are not 1600 kids at Carson .

They gave actual numbers. It’s 1740 kids

Who is they?

That is not what the data says online. They must have been using very, very old data. In fact, I'm not sure there have ever been that many there.

They are the people that were presenting. They also said there are 279 Franklin kids who go to Carson so maybe the school profile numbers don’t include Franklin transfers?

Who were the presenters? There are absolutely not that many kids at Carson. And, the transfers are always included in the membership.

Wow. These people do not know what they are doing. They are ADDING the transfers that have already been included in the membership. When they should be subtracting them from the membership when considering which high schools.
That is the only way they could get 1600 which is ABSOLUTELY not accurate.

If this is being done by staff--what else is being done across the boundary study?

Please tell me that they did not present this.

Who were the presenters? Staff or THRU or BRAC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Marshall/Falls Church community meeting was far more civil than the Langley meeting last night, even though there are far more changes impacting those pyramids and some people had strong views. It must have been a relief for Dr. Reid not to have to deal with the Langley again parents tonight.

Are you the speaker from last night who complained about developers getting a sweetheart deal who also went to the meeting on Tuesday?

Assuming you are, it’s pretty awful that you are going to meetings that don’t concern your pyramid. Stop pushing your radical agenda, very few in Fairfax are interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes wonder if the school board realizes how many resources and much community goodwill have been sapped by this process.

I have met many parents who used to be big public school supporters who just seethe at FCPS and the school board now. The fact is that the school board could have done a lot more during its tenure, but chose instead to pit communities against each other. Even with the new school, instead of being able to take a victory lap, they have to rush to cram it in to be part of the boundary study. And don’t even get me started on the impact and delay on Coates relief.

I'm PP at 20:37. Reid's comments danced on all MS providing local level iv. Discussions on that are for spring 2026. I see no reason it can't be done now. We listened and then decided to vote NO on the bond referendum. Fact is it's a county wide school division and now all can advocate and based on complaint count/volume, SPA's or neighborhoods get to choose their base school. This school division does not intend to use capacity nor move programs/SPA's out of sites that require modulars and trailers for the membership.

What I thought I heard Dr. Reid suggest tonight was that the shift to all middle schools having LLIV and being AAP centers could take years to implement and might be coordinated with the next round of boundary changes in 2030. It seemed like she was trying to assure someone at Thoreau that they wouldn't see their boundaries changed in 2026 and then again in another year or two if kids came back to Thoreau from Jackson and Kilmer.

The rest of your post rings true. They are ending up in a very different place than where they started. Now it's all about placating and pleasing the loudest voices in any room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Marshall/Falls Church community meeting was far more civil than the Langley meeting last night, even though there are far more changes impacting those pyramids and some people had strong views. It must have been a relief for Dr. Reid not to have to deal with the Langley again parents tonight.

Are you the speaker from last night who complained about developers getting a sweetheart deal who also went to the meeting on Tuesday?

Assuming you are, it’s pretty awful that you are going to meetings that don’t concern your pyramid. Stop pushing your radical agenda, very few in Fairfax are interested.

No, but I listened to both meetings and the difference in the level of civility was stark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Marshall/Falls Church community meeting was far more civil than the Langley meeting last night, even though there are far more changes impacting those pyramids and some people had strong views. It must have been a relief for Dr. Reid not to have to deal with the Langley again parents tonight.

Are you the speaker from last night who complained about developers getting a sweetheart deal who also went to the meeting on Tuesday?

Assuming you are, it’s pretty awful that you are going to meetings that don’t concern your pyramid. Stop pushing your radical agenda, very few in Fairfax are interested.

DP I think a lot of people in the county would be interested to know about these backhanded dealings.