Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Years ago before FCPS revamped its web site I pulled some archived enrollment reports from 30 years ago for historical interest. As far as I'm aware, these reports are no longer online.

It looks like the enrollment dropped from around 137,000 in 1975 to a low of around 126,000 in 1985 and then started to steadily increase again until Covid. So the enrollment in 1985 was about 70% of the enrollment this fall.

By 1995, the enrollment was back to 142,000 (about 80% of the current enrollment). Enrollment among the high/secondary schools varied quite a bit:

Lake Braddock 2516
Robinson 2451
Chantilly 2447
Herndon 2305
Centreville 2299
Oakton 2156
West Springfield 2093
Annandale 1939
Hayfield 1865
South Lakes 1740
Fairfax 1661
Woodson 1655
Lee (now Lewis) 1653
TJHSST 1624
Madison 1518
West Potomac 1488
Langley 1463
Mount Vernon 1452
McLean 1379
Falls Church 1303
Stuart (now Justice) 1272
Edison 1161
Marshall 1087

So the range for high/secondary schools was 1087 to 2516, with Marshall having an enrollment only 43% of Lake Braddock. Keep in mind this was 1995, so after the last "county-wide" redistricting in the mid-1980s. There weren't boundary changes within a year or two to adjust the enrollments. In comparison, in 2025, the school with the lowest enrollment, Lewis, has an enrollment (1539) that is 53% of the enrollment of the school with the highest 9-12 enrollment, again Lake Braddock (2907).

Interesting stuff. The average school size used to be around 1750 and now it’s 2300 (median 1650 vs 2190.) When they considered closing Marshall, it was about 65% the size of a typical FCPS school. While today, Lewis is about 70%. So the situations aren’t quite comparable, but it’s getting there.

DP. What were the demographics of Marshall at the time? I can pretty much guarantee you that it was not 55% F/R lunch and 35% ESL (though it was one of the poorer high schools at that time).

The demographics make a big difference on what the school is capable of supporting, both academically and activities.

In 1995, Marshall was 16.7% Asian, 16.9% Hispanic, 8% Black, and 57.9% White. Lee (now Lewis) was 23.1% Asian, 9.5% Hispanic, 11.2% Black, and 55.6% White.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Years ago before FCPS revamped its web site I pulled some archived enrollment reports from 30 years ago for historical interest. As far as I'm aware, these reports are no longer online.

It looks like the enrollment dropped from around 137,000 in 1975 to a low of around 126,000 in 1985 and then started to steadily increase again until Covid. So the enrollment in 1985 was about 70% of the enrollment this fall.

By 1995, the enrollment was back to 142,000 (about 80% of the current enrollment). Enrollment among the high/secondary schools varied quite a bit:

Lake Braddock 2516
Robinson 2451
Chantilly 2447
Herndon 2305
Centreville 2299
Oakton 2156
West Springfield 2093
Annandale 1939
Hayfield 1865
South Lakes 1740
Fairfax 1661
Woodson 1655
Lee (now Lewis) 1653
TJHSST 1624
Madison 1518
West Potomac 1488
Langley 1463
Mount Vernon 1452
McLean 1379
Falls Church 1303
Stuart (now Justice) 1272
Edison 1161
Marshall 1087

So the range for high/secondary schools was 1087 to 2516, with Marshall having an enrollment only 43% of Lake Braddock. Keep in mind this was 1995, so after the last "county-wide" redistricting in the mid-1980s. There weren't boundary changes within a year or two to adjust the enrollments. In comparison, in 2025, the school with the lowest enrollment, Lewis, has an enrollment (1539) that is 53% of the enrollment of the school with the highest 9-12 enrollment, again Lake Braddock (2907).

Interesting stuff. The average school size used to be around 1750 and now it’s 2300 (median 1650 vs 2190.) When they considered closing Marshall, it was about 65% the size of a typical FCPS school. While today, Lewis is about 70%. So the situations aren’t quite comparable, but it’s getting there.

DP. What were the demographics of Marshall at the time? I can pretty much guarantee you that it was not 55% F/R lunch and 35% ESL (though it was one of the poorer high schools at that time).

The demographics make a big difference on what the school is capable of supporting, both academically and activities.

In 1995, Marshall was 16.7% Asian, 16.9% Hispanic, 8% Black, and 57.9% White. Lee (now Lewis) was 23.1% Asian, 9.5% Hispanic, 11.2% Black, and 55.6% White.

And Lewis is now much poorer and has a much higher ESL population. Tough for Lewis to be like most of the other FCPS schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Years ago before FCPS revamped its web site I pulled some archived enrollment reports from 30 years ago for historical interest. As far as I'm aware, these reports are no longer online.

It looks like the enrollment dropped from around 137,000 in 1975 to a low of around 126,000 in 1985 and then started to steadily increase again until Covid. So the enrollment in 1985 was about 70% of the enrollment this fall.

By 1995, the enrollment was back to 142,000 (about 80% of the current enrollment). Enrollment among the high/secondary schools varied quite a bit:

Lake Braddock 2516
Robinson 2451
Chantilly 2447
Herndon 2305
Centreville 2299
Oakton 2156
West Springfield 2093
Annandale 1939
Hayfield 1865
South Lakes 1740
Fairfax 1661
Woodson 1655
Lee (now Lewis) 1653
TJHSST 1624
Madison 1518
West Potomac 1488
Langley 1463
Mount Vernon 1452
McLean 1379
Falls Church 1303
Stuart (now Justice) 1272
Edison 1161
Marshall 1087

So the range for high/secondary schools was 1087 to 2516, with Marshall having an enrollment only 43% of Lake Braddock. Keep in mind this was 1995, so after the last "county-wide" redistricting in the mid-1980s. There weren't boundary changes within a year or two to adjust the enrollments. In comparison, in 2025, the school with the lowest enrollment, Lewis, has an enrollment (1539) that is 53% of the enrollment of the school with the highest 9-12 enrollment, again Lake Braddock (2907).

Interesting stuff. The average school size used to be around 1750 and now it’s 2300 (median 1650 vs 2190.) When they considered closing Marshall, it was about 65% the size of a typical FCPS school. While today, Lewis is about 70%. So the situations aren’t quite comparable, but it’s getting there.

DP. What were the demographics of Marshall at the time? I can pretty much guarantee you that it was not 55% F/R lunch and 35% ESL (though it was one of the poorer high schools at that time).

The demographics make a big difference on what the school is capable of supporting, both academically and activities.

In 1995, Marshall was 16.7% Asian, 16.9% Hispanic, 8% Black, and 57.9% White. Lee (now Lewis) was 23.1% Asian, 9.5% Hispanic, 11.2% Black, and 55.6% White.

And Lewis is now much poorer and has a much higher ESL population. Tough for Lewis to be like most of the other FCPS schools.

The demographics at all FCPS high schools have changed. The changes at Lewis (and Herndon) over the last 30 years probably stand out more than at other schools, but in part that's because the demographic changes at Annandale, Falls Church, Mount Vernon, and Stuart (now Justice) started earlier.

[Anonymous]

]

That Rolling Valley/Lewis neighborhood is going to end up with as many or more kids than Daventry brought to WSHS.

No it won’t. The more you say it doesn’t make it any more likely to happen.


Are you kidding me?! It will 100% guaranteed bring more students to WSHS Than the current 20 they project. We have two families in our neighbors who moved from that neighborhood to ours to insure WSHS. Now families like theirs will not need to move. More families with HSers will stay put. Daventry a publish school enrollment for HS has skyrocketed in the past 15 years for the same reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure.

Put a set trigger for underenrolled schools too.

I think the underenrolled threshold should only be for high school though.

No one complains about a middle or elementary school being small.

It is only an issue at the high school level, because too small affects programs and course offerings, while smaller middle and elementary schools are a huge benefit to kids, socially and academically.

A county-wide annual review has effectively been in the CIP process for decades. Schools outside capacity bounds have been flagged there and addressed with community or administrative redistrictings depending on scale. Put the standard criteria in that process and be done with it.

Of course, the real reason they wanted the county-wide redistricting was One Fairfax. Once they realized they'd never get away with OneF, they stripped the criteria down to a facilities-only 5 year process at a scale they can't handle and will never accomplish anything that they don't already do on an annual basis.

Pretty much this. They love the talk, but they hate the walk, so they start out with a One Fairfax agenda and end up asking if there's anything else they can do to make the parents at Langley and Madison happy. I'm not saying those parents don't deserve to be heard, but it's amusing how they start out with a "transformative" agenda and end up making tweaks that increase the disparities among schools.

Let me play the world’s smallest violin for the people who sought to screw over other people’s kids with unnecessary boundary changes.

In case you can't read, the point is they shouldn't have bothered at all. They will be making boundary changes, and some of them will still "screw over [some] people's kids," even if they aren't yours.

Yep, we're in the screwed over category. Feels like freaking game of thrones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure.

Put a set trigger for underenrolled schools too.

I think the underenrolled threshold should only be for high school though.

No one complains about a middle or elementary school being small.

It is only an issue at the high school level, because too small affects programs and course offerings, while smaller middle and elementary schools are a huge benefit to kids, socially and academically.

A county-wide annual review has effectively been in the CIP process for decades. Schools outside capacity bounds have been flagged there and addressed with community or administrative redistrictings depending on scale. Put the standard criteria in that process and be done with it.

Of course, the real reason they wanted the county-wide redistricting was One Fairfax. Once they realized they'd never get away with OneF, they stripped the criteria down to a facilities-only 5 year process at a scale they can't handle and will never accomplish anything that they don't already do on an annual basis.

Pretty much this. They love the talk, but they hate the walk, so they start out with a One Fairfax agenda and end up asking if there's anything else they can do to make the parents at Langley and Madison happy. I'm not saying those parents don't deserve to be heard, but it's amusing how they start out with a "transformative" agenda and end up making tweaks that increase the disparities among schools.

Let me play the world’s smallest violin for the people who sought to screw over other people’s kids with unnecessary boundary changes.

In case you can't read, the point is they shouldn't have bothered at all. They will be making boundary changes, and some of them will still "screw over [some] people's kids," even if they aren't yours.

Yep, we're in the screwed over category. Feels like freaking game of thrones.

I’m really sorry. I hate the school board for making these unnecessary boundary changes. They don’t care about FCPS kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 was shocked by this. The CIP has it completed before 2030.

Shrevewood has capacity because their once thriving Local Level IV jumped ship to the center, while others went private during COVID and never came back.

Shrevewood has had the really weird mix of the SFH neighborhood getting much more affluent and the school itself growing in FARMS (and will take a leap in FARMS with the Hollywood addition).

Shrevewood is now solidly FARMS since most of the affluent families worked to get their kiddos in AAP and moved to Lemon Road.

Tell me you don't have a child at Shrevewood without telling me you don't have a child at Shrevewood. The above statement is absolutely not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 was shocked by this. The CIP has it completed before 2030.

Shrevewood has capacity because their once thriving Local Level IV jumped ship to the center, while others went private during COVID and never came back.

Shrevewood has had the really weird mix of the SFH neighborhood getting much more affluent and the school itself growing in FARMS (and will take a leap in FARMS with the Hollywood addition).

Shrevewood is now solidly FARMS since most of the affluent families worked to get their kiddos in AAP and moved to Lemon Road.

Tell me you don't have a child at Shrevewood without telling me you don't have a child at Shrevewood. The above statement is absolutely not true.

It’s not true, as addressed earlier.

[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.

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

Not all of Jefferson Village! They still leave the small strip east of Tripps Run in the Justice Pyramid. That makes zero sense! Why won't they let those kids go to school with their community?!?!

[Anonymous]

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

Not all of Jefferson Village! They still leave the small strip east of Tripps Run in the Justice Pyramid. That makes zero sense! Why won't they let those kids go to school with their community?!?!

All they'd probably have to do is let their BRAC members in Region 2 and Ricardy Anderson know they want to move into Graham Road/Jackson/Falls Church.

They are very much in the mode right now of accommodating requests to move. Just look at how they accommodated the Vienna/Kilmer/Marshall families who wanted to move to Thoreau/Madison. They'd wanted that for years and now it looks like they'll get what they want.

The only hiccup might be that it might put "new" Graham Road over-capacity and leave Beech Tree too under-enrolled, but they really ought to (1) move parts of "new" Graham Road and/or Pine Spring to Timber Lane so that Kingsley Commons isn't an isolated Timber Lane attendance island; and (2) move part of Sleepy Hollow to Beech Tree so it's borders aren't so ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:]

That Rolling Valley/Lewis neighborhood is going to end up with as many or more kids than Daventry brought to WSHS.

No it won’t. The more you say it doesn’t make it any more likely to happen.


Are you kidding me?! It will 100% guaranteed bring more students to WSHS Than the current 20 they project. We have two families in our neighbors who moved from that neighborhood to ours to insure WSHS. Now families like theirs will not need to move. More families with HSers will stay put. Daventry a publish school enrollment for HS has skyrocketed in the past 15 years for the same reason.

Daventry has about four times as many houses as that section of townhomes, maybe more. It’s also on a five year review cycle now, unfortunately.

If you don’t want that section going to WSHS - go with the angle of “you shouldn’t take kids from Lewis” angle instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

That Rolling Valley/Lewis neighborhood is going to end up with as many or more kids than Daventry brought to WSHS.

No it won’t. The more you say it doesn’t make it any more likely to happen.

Are you kidding me?! It will 100% guaranteed bring more students to WSHS Than the current 20 they project. We have two families in our neighbors who moved from that neighborhood to ours to insure WSHS. Now families like theirs will not need to move. More families with HSers will stay put. Daventry a publish school enrollment for HS has skyrocketed in the past 15 years for the same reason.

Daventry has about four times as many houses as that section of townhomes, maybe more. It’s also on a five year review cycle now, unfortunately.

If you don’t want that section going to WSHS - go with the angle of “you shouldn’t take kids from Lewis” angle instead.

[Anonymous]

Not going to triple post, but you get the drift. The quote function is jacked on pp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

That Rolling Valley/Lewis neighborhood is going to end up with as many or more kids than Daventry brought to WSHS.

No it won’t. The more you say it doesn’t make it any more likely to happen.

Are you kidding me?! It will 100% guaranteed bring more students to WSHS Than the current 20 they project. We have two families in our neighbors who moved from that neighborhood to ours to insure WSHS. Now families like theirs will not need to move. More families with HSers will stay put. Daventry a publish school enrollment for HS has skyrocketed in the past 15 years for the same reason.

Daventry has about four times as many houses as that section of townhomes, maybe more. It’s also on a five year review cycle now, unfortunately.

If you don’t want that section going to WSHS - go with the angle of “you shouldn’t take kids from Lewis” angle instead.

I’m familiar with the townhome community in question. The obsession over it is unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

That Rolling Valley/Lewis neighborhood is going to end up with as many or more kids than Daventry brought to WSHS.

No it won’t. The more you say it doesn’t make it any more likely to happen.

Are you kidding me?! It will 100% guaranteed bring more students to WSHS Than the current 20 they project. We have two families in our neighbors who moved from that neighborhood to ours to insure WSHS. Now families like theirs will not need to move. More families with HSers will stay put. Daventry a publish school enrollment for HS has skyrocketed in the past 15 years for the same reason.

Daventry has about four times as many houses as that section of townhomes, maybe more. It’s also on a five year review cycle now, unfortunately.

If you don’t want that section going to WSHS - go with the angle of “you shouldn’t take kids from Lewis” angle instead.

I’m familiar with the townhome community in question. The obsession over it is unhinged.

I think the “obsession” is that communities were moved out to make space for this community, all while saying WSHS is over crowded and Lewis is far below capacity. When your school board member essentially tells you, “sorry, at least you’re still going to a great school. What about these RVES families who are at Lewis?” Something feels off.