Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Did they explain why move the Hollywood Road residents to Shrevewood? Seems they should stay at Timber Lane, and Kingsley Road makes more sense to be at Pine Spring. If they need to then shift some of Pine Spring -> Shrevewood to balance capacity, could reassign the portion outside the beltway since it's not walking distance nor community-connected to either school (about same drive/bus time either way). Maybe there's a good reason for it the way it is but if so it's not evident from the map.

Has anyone said anything about Dunn Loring in any of these meetings? My kids were at Shrevewood pre-Covid when it was overcrowded and we asked for a boundary review. Karl F. took advantage of Covid to cancel the boundary review and plan for a school that nobody wanted or needed and now Shrevewood is under capacity and I haven't heard anything about Dunn Loring being cancelled.

Yes , Dr Reid said Dunn losing is no where close and 10 years from now it may come into play.

I hope the people complaining about the new high school see how long it takes to build just an elementary school. This project was launched in 2020 and it won't be ready until 2035?? Imagine how long a high school would take!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:*loring

No you were right the first time around. What a waste of money. They need to scrap this plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amendment to the policy to allow such substantial grandfathering was so stupid. Especially considering there will be another review in five years. The boundary changes will barely be done when more changes might happen. They definitely can’t provide transportation to all who choose to stay. Would be highly irresponsible to waste money that way.

Grandfathering makes sense.

The stupid part is countywide rezoning every 5 years.

No one wants that for our kids and communities.

This is actually pretty standard in a lot of places. I don't think they're going to do something massive like this every 5 years, but it allows them the flexibility to make needed changes. Like moving Herndon addresses to Herndon schools.

Grumble grumble, great falls, Langley, great falls, grumble grumble.

Never anything original, you just think volume will somehow convince us.

Says the lady who keeps typing grumble grumble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amendment to the policy to allow such substantial grandfathering was so stupid. Especially considering there will be another review in five years. The boundary changes will barely be done when more changes might happen. They definitely can’t provide transportation to all who choose to stay. Would be highly irresponsible to waste money that way.

Grandfathering makes sense.

The stupid part is countywide rezoning every 5 years.

No one wants that for our kids and communities.

This is actually pretty standard in a lot of places. I don't think they're going to do something massive like this every 5 years, but it allows them the flexibility to make needed changes. Like moving Herndon addresses to Herndon schools.

where do you live so we can make suggestions for your pyramid too

Sure, my kid's about to be rezoned to a high school that doesn't exist yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Did they explain why move the Hollywood Road residents to Shrevewood? Seems they should stay at Timber Lane, and Kingsley Road makes more sense to be at Pine Spring. If they need to then shift some of Pine Spring -> Shrevewood to balance capacity, could reassign the portion outside the beltway since it's not walking distance nor community-connected to either school (about same drive/bus time either way). Maybe there's a good reason for it the way it is but if so it's not evident from the map.

Has anyone said anything about Dunn Loring in any of these meetings? My kids were at Shrevewood pre-Covid when it was overcrowded and we asked for a boundary review. Karl F. took advantage of Covid to cancel the boundary review and plan for a school that nobody wanted or needed and now Shrevewood is under capacity and I haven't heard anything about Dunn Loring being cancelled.

Yes , Dr Reid said Dunn losing is no where close and 10 years from now it may come into play.

I hope the people complaining about the new high school see how long it takes to build just an elementary school. This project was launched in 2020 and it won't be ready until 2035?? Imagine how long a high school would take!!

It sounds like the FCHS renovation is years delayed as well. One of the parents noted it was supposed to be done by now, and facilities were wishy washy on giving an end date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amendment to the policy to allow such substantial grandfathering was so stupid. Especially considering there will be another review in five years. The boundary changes will barely be done when more changes might happen. They definitely can’t provide transportation to all who choose to stay. Would be highly irresponsible to waste money that way.

Grandfathering makes sense.

The stupid part is countywide rezoning every 5 years.

No one wants that for our kids and communities.

Tweaks have been made every time. A review of the data every 5 years is prudent. Doesn’t mean sweeping changes user necessary every 5 years. Not reviewing them every 5 years seems irresponsible.

No one wants rezoning every five years.

The rezoning is a 2 year process, followed by a year of fighting the rezoning and disrupting the kids. Then it starts up again as everyone gears up for the next rezoning fight in 1-2 years.

Best case scenario, the five year rezoning fight gives kids and families only 1 year of stability per 5 year cycle.

A set county wide 5 year cycle is one of the stupidest ideas this school board and superintendent ever created, and there are a lot of stupid ideas from this school board.

A sensible change would have been to put in policy an automatic boundary review once a school hits 105% capacity, starting with a residency check, then sending all kids not living in the boundaries back to their neighborhood schools or whatever schools are open to pupil placement. Rezoning should be minimal, on the fringes only, and the last case scenario only after exhausting all other options including sending back all studdnts who do not live in bounds, excluding teachers' kids, and bringing the incoming transfer number to zero.

BTW, that is how the pupil placement is supposed to work. It is only supposed to be one year at a time, with no ability to stay if the school is overcapacity and closed to transfers. Start enforcing transfer policies.

This largely seems sensible to me, although I think they need a trigger for under-enrolled schools to determine if they can operate efficiently and, if not, whether the school should be closed or the boundaries adjusted. With enrollments likely to continue to decline, they need to pay as much attention to potential consolidation (and, yes, the boundary changes associated with that) as potential overcrowding.

Fun fact: a 1,500 student high school is three times the size of a lot of high schools across the country. We all focus on capacity and percentages and pretend that a 1,500 membership means that the school is a ghost town, but you’d really have to have enrollment cut by a lot more to see it actually impact programming. In fact, lower membership can be a really good thing for making teams/clubs and generally being a big fish in a small pond.

Regardless, no high school in the county is even close to a concerning threshold.

I would agree with that.

Even Lewis is hundreds of students larger than all the local private high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Did they explain why move the Hollywood Road residents to Shrevewood? Seems they should stay at Timber Lane, and Kingsley Road makes more sense to be at Pine Spring. If they need to then shift some of Pine Spring -> Shrevewood to balance capacity, could reassign the portion outside the beltway since it's not walking distance nor community-connected to either school (about same drive/bus time either way). Maybe there's a good reason for it the way it is but if so it's not evident from the map.

Has anyone said anything about Dunn Loring in any of these meetings? My kids were at Shrevewood pre-Covid when it was overcrowded and we asked for a boundary review. Karl F. took advantage of Covid to cancel the boundary review and plan for a school that nobody wanted or needed and now Shrevewood is under capacity and I haven't heard anything about Dunn Loring being cancelled.

Yes , Dr Reid said Dunn losing is no where close and 10 years from now it may come into play.

I hope the people complaining about the new high school see how long it takes to build just an elementary school. This project was launched in 2020 and it won't be ready until 2035?? Imagine how long a high school would take!!

That’s a non sequitur. There is no urgency around Dunn Loring because all the surrounding elementary schools are under capacity. It has very little to do with the time needed to build a school.

If and when it gets built they’ll have the same debates over what type of school it should be, because if it’s a typical neighborhood ES it’s going to gut the enrollments at Freedom Hill and Stenwood.

[Anonymous]

FCPS has destroyed all the goodwill they had in our neck of the woods. Really just destroyed our faith in the schools with the unnecessary boundary review.

It’s an unforced error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Did they explain why move the Hollywood Road residents to Shrevewood? Seems they should stay at Timber Lane, and Kingsley Road makes more sense to be at Pine Spring. If they need to then shift some of Pine Spring -> Shrevewood to balance capacity, could reassign the portion outside the beltway since it's not walking distance nor community-connected to either school (about same drive/bus time either way). Maybe there's a good reason for it the way it is but if so it's not evident from the map.

Has anyone said anything about Dunn Loring in any of these meetings? My kids were at Shrevewood pre-Covid when it was overcrowded and we asked for a boundary review. Karl F. took advantage of Covid to cancel the boundary review and plan for a school that nobody wanted or needed and now Shrevewood is under capacity and I haven't heard anything about Dunn Loring being cancelled.

Yes , Dr Reid said Dunn losing is no where close and 10 years from now it may come into play.

I hope the people complaining about the new high school see how long it takes to build just an elementary school. This project was launched in 2020 and it won't be ready until 2035?? Imagine how long a high school would take!!

It is a good thing then that the new high school is already built.

WSHS got a full renovation and remodel, down to the concrete cinder blocks and updating all wiring, plumbing and ductwork. New sports facilities, new parking lots, new auditorium including replacing the stage, all new furniture. A 3rd floor of science labs was added. Mold and other remediation was performed.

It took around 3.5 years and finished almost a year early and under budget, with a full enrollment of around 2500 students attending classes for the entire construction.

Renovating the new high school will be a breeze in comparison.

The new high school is in great condition and needs only minor renovations, all of which can be completed with students attending. There is no hazardous remediation required. It already has most of the necessary sports fields for a high school, and 2 beautiful, modern auditoriums. The new high school renovations should go quickly, maybe 1 year, based on the most recent major high school renovation of WSHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amendment to the policy to allow such substantial grandfathering was so stupid. Especially considering there will be another review in five years. The boundary changes will barely be done when more changes might happen. They definitely can’t provide transportation to all who choose to stay. Would be highly irresponsible to waste money that way.

Grandfathering makes sense.

The stupid part is countywide rezoning every 5 years.

No one wants that for our kids and communities.

Tweaks have been made every time. A review of the data every 5 years is prudent. Doesn’t mean sweeping changes user necessary every 5 years. Not reviewing them every 5 years seems irresponsible.

No one wants rezoning every five years.

The rezoning is a 2 year process, followed by a year of fighting the rezoning and disrupting the kids. Then it starts up again as everyone gears up for the next rezoning fight in 1-2 years.

Best case scenario, the five year rezoning fight gives kids and families only 1 year of stability per 5 year cycle.

A set county wide 5 year cycle is one of the stupidest ideas this school board and superintendent ever created, and there are a lot of stupid ideas from this school board.

A sensible change would have been to put in policy an automatic boundary review once a school hits 105% capacity, starting with a residency check, then sending all kids not living in the boundaries back to their neighborhood schools or whatever schools are open to pupil placement. Rezoning should be minimal, on the fringes only, and the last case scenario only after exhausting all other options including sending back all studdnts who do not live in bounds, excluding teachers' kids, and bringing the incoming transfer number to zero.

BTW, that is how the pupil placement is supposed to work. It is only supposed to be one year at a time, with no ability to stay if the school is overcapacity and closed to transfers. Start enforcing transfer policies.

This largely seems sensible to me, although I think they need a trigger for under-enrolled schools to determine if they can operate efficiently and, if not, whether the school should be closed or the boundaries adjusted. With enrollments likely to continue to decline, they need to pay as much attention to potential consolidation (and, yes, the boundary changes associated with that) as potential overcrowding.

Fun fact: a 1,500 student high school is three times the size of a lot of high schools across the country. We all focus on capacity and percentages and pretend that a 1,500 membership means that the school is a ghost town, but you’d really have to have enrollment cut by a lot more to see it actually impact programming. In fact, lower membership can be a really good thing for making teams/clubs and generally being a big fish in a small pond.

Regardless, no high school in the county is even close to a concerning threshold.

You need to check the enrollments of Jefferson and Fort Hunt when they closed. It was probably around 1200 kids each. And they toyed with the idea a few years later of closing Marshall when it was around 1100 but decided against it. FCPS is not going to operate a 500-student high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amendment to the policy to allow such substantial grandfathering was so stupid. Especially considering there will be another review in five years. The boundary changes will barely be done when more changes might happen. They definitely can’t provide transportation to all who choose to stay. Would be highly irresponsible to waste money that way.

Grandfathering makes sense.

The stupid part is countywide rezoning every 5 years.

No one wants that for our kids and communities.

Tweaks have been made every time. A review of the data every 5 years is prudent. Doesn’t mean sweeping changes user necessary every 5 years. Not reviewing them every 5 years seems irresponsible.

No one wants rezoning every five years.

The rezoning is a 2 year process, followed by a year of fighting the rezoning and disrupting the kids. Then it starts up again as everyone gears up for the next rezoning fight in 1-2 years.

Best case scenario, the five year rezoning fight gives kids and families only 1 year of stability per 5 year cycle.

A set county wide 5 year cycle is one of the stupidest ideas this school board and superintendent ever created, and there are a lot of stupid ideas from this school board.

A sensible change would have been to put in policy an automatic boundary review once a school hits 105% capacity, starting with a residency check, then sending all kids not living in the boundaries back to their neighborhood schools or whatever schools are open to pupil placement. Rezoning should be minimal, on the fringes only, and the last case scenario only after exhausting all other options including sending back all studdnts who do not live in bounds, excluding teachers' kids, and bringing the incoming transfer number to zero.

BTW, that is how the pupil placement is supposed to work. It is only supposed to be one year at a time, with no ability to stay if the school is overcapacity and closed to transfers. Start enforcing transfer policies.

This largely seems sensible to me, although I think they need a trigger for under-enrolled schools to determine if they can operate efficiently and, if not, whether the school should be closed or the boundaries adjusted. With enrollments likely to continue to decline, they need to pay as much attention to potential consolidation (and, yes, the boundary changes associated with that) as potential overcrowding.

Fun fact: a 1,500 student high school is three times the size of a lot of high schools across the country. We all focus on capacity and percentages and pretend that a 1,500 membership means that the school is a ghost town, but you’d really have to have enrollment cut by a lot more to see it actually impact programming. In fact, lower membership can be a really good thing for making teams/clubs and generally being a big fish in a small pond.

Regardless, no high school in the county is even close to a concerning threshold.

You need to check the enrollments of Jefferson and Fort Hunt when they closed. It was probably around 1200 kids each. And they toyed with the idea a few years later of closing Marshall when it was around 1100 but decided against it. FCPS is not going to operate a 500-student high school.

Context matters though. What was the enrollment at neighboring schools when these schools were closed? High schools in other parts of the country can operate with a small student body just fine, but it makes sense for a huge school district to operate with a somewhat even distribution of school sizes. That way they can offer the similar programming. That’s why when you see two schools sitting next to each other with 3000 students at one and 1500 at the other, you wonder if the plan is to close or redistribute. Fairfax has been leaning toward 2500-3000 student enrollments.

[Anonymous]

So if they put the TOV back to Madison, what would get shifted back? The Old Courthouse/Clark's Crossing neighborhoods that were originally at Marshall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if they put the TOV back to Madison, what would get shifted back? The Old Courthouse/Clark's Crossing neighborhoods that were originally at Marshall?

I’m guessing Marshall boundaries won’t change at all except for the little Vienna ES cutout. All split feeders would be retained (except for Vienna ES) and they’d pick up an additional split feeder in Shrevewood. The only change I see going through is Kilmer sending all its Madison students to Thoreau, which at least will close that split feeder. I hope they do something about the Stenwood students who get sent to Thoreau and then Marshall, but no one seems to care about fixing the three way Thoreau split for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amendment to the policy to allow such substantial grandfathering was so stupid. Especially considering there will be another review in five years. The boundary changes will barely be done when more changes might happen. They definitely can’t provide transportation to all who choose to stay. Would be highly irresponsible to waste money that way.

Grandfathering makes sense.

The stupid part is countywide rezoning every 5 years.

No one wants that for our kids and communities.

Tweaks have been made every time. A review of the data every 5 years is prudent. Doesn’t mean sweeping changes user necessary every 5 years. Not reviewing them every 5 years seems irresponsible.

No one wants rezoning every five years.

The rezoning is a 2 year process, followed by a year of fighting the rezoning and disrupting the kids. Then it starts up again as everyone gears up for the next rezoning fight in 1-2 years.

Best case scenario, the five year rezoning fight gives kids and families only 1 year of stability per 5 year cycle.

A set county wide 5 year cycle is one of the stupidest ideas this school board and superintendent ever created, and there are a lot of stupid ideas from this school board.

A sensible change would have been to put in policy an automatic boundary review once a school hits 105% capacity, starting with a residency check, then sending all kids not living in the boundaries back to their neighborhood schools or whatever schools are open to pupil placement. Rezoning should be minimal, on the fringes only, and the last case scenario only after exhausting all other options including sending back all studdnts who do not live in bounds, excluding teachers' kids, and bringing the incoming transfer number to zero.

BTW, that is how the pupil placement is supposed to work. It is only supposed to be one year at a time, with no ability to stay if the school is overcapacity and closed to transfers. Start enforcing transfer policies.

This largely seems sensible to me, although I think they need a trigger for under-enrolled schools to determine if they can operate efficiently and, if not, whether the school should be closed or the boundaries adjusted. With enrollments likely to continue to decline, they need to pay as much attention to potential consolidation (and, yes, the boundary changes associated with that) as potential overcrowding.

Fun fact: a 1,500 student high school is three times the size of a lot of high schools across the country. We all focus on capacity and percentages and pretend that a 1,500 membership means that the school is a ghost town, but you’d really have to have enrollment cut by a lot more to see it actually impact programming. In fact, lower membership can be a really good thing for making teams/clubs and generally being a big fish in a small pond.

Regardless, no high school in the county is even close to a concerning threshold.

You need to check the enrollments of Jefferson and Fort Hunt when they closed. It was probably around 1200 kids each. And they toyed with the idea a few years later of closing Marshall when it was around 1100 but decided against it. FCPS is not going to operate a 500-student high school.

They wrote 1,500 enrollment, not 500 enrollment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if they put the TOV back to Madison, what would get shifted back? The Old Courthouse/Clark's Crossing neighborhoods that were originally at Marshall?

In what scenario is the TOV not at Madison?