FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know 2 families planning on leaving the area entirely due to the federal job cuts. They’re taking the DRP and moving. 30s with early Elementary and preschool-aged kids who would have been in school in the next few years.

They need to put this whole exercise on pause until the dust settles. No 6th to middle either - FCPS won’t have the budget to start a robust UPK program at this rate.

On the flip side there are thousands of retirees on fixed incomes who will be forced out of the area or will voluntarily leave earlier to reduce their tax burden so some neighborhoods could turn over with younger families. It’s a very volatile situation and changing boundaries in the midst of the chaos makes no sense at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know 2 families planning on leaving the area entirely due to the federal job cuts. They’re taking the DRP and moving. 30s with early Elementary and preschool-aged kids who would have been in school in the next few years.

They need to put this whole exercise on pause until the dust settles. No 6th to middle either - FCPS won’t have the budget to start a robust UPK program at this rate.

On the flip side there are thousands of retirees on fixed incomes who will be forced out of the area or will voluntarily leave earlier to reduce their tax burden so some neighborhoods could turn over with younger families. It’s a very volatile situation and changing boundaries in the midst of the chaos makes no sense at all.

No one who owns a home here is forced out by higher taxes. Their homes have all appreciated much faster than the tax increases. They have the option to take a reverse mortgage and use the home equity to pay their taxes. They just don't want to. Or they already pulled it out with cash out refi's and spent money they don't have on cars, vacations, etc.
To be clear - I'm not advocating for a higher tax rate since the taxes already go up with the higher assessments. The county should be able to budget within the tax rate they already get. But no one who owns a home here is forced out by the property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know 2 families planning on leaving the area entirely due to the federal job cuts. They’re taking the DRP and moving. 30s with early Elementary and preschool-aged kids who would have been in school in the next few years.

They need to put this whole exercise on pause until the dust settles. No 6th to middle either - FCPS won’t have the budget to start a robust UPK program at this rate.

On the flip side there are thousands of retirees on fixed incomes who will be forced out of the area or will voluntarily leave earlier to reduce their tax burden so some neighborhoods could turn over with younger families. It’s a very volatile situation and changing boundaries in the midst of the chaos makes no sense at all.

No one who owns a home here is forced out by higher taxes. Their homes have all appreciated much faster than the tax increases. They have the option to take a reverse mortgage and use the home equity to pay their taxes. They just don't want to. Or they already pulled it out with cash out refi's and spent money they don't have on cars, vacations, etc.
To be clear - I'm not advocating for a higher tax rate since the taxes already go up with the higher assessments. The county should be able to budget within the tax rate they already get. But no one who owns a home here is forced out by the property taxes.

The solution to higher taxes is to take out a reverse mortgage at 10% interest. 🧐

The reverse mortgage, while theoretically beneficial, fits in a category with annuities, where they generally have opaque terms and are sold on commission. I view them as a last resort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know 2 families planning on leaving the area entirely due to the federal job cuts. They’re taking the DRP and moving. 30s with early Elementary and preschool-aged kids who would have been in school in the next few years.

They need to put this whole exercise on pause until the dust settles. No 6th to middle either - FCPS won’t have the budget to start a robust UPK program at this rate.

On the flip side there are thousands of retirees on fixed incomes who will be forced out of the area or will voluntarily leave earlier to reduce their tax burden so some neighborhoods could turn over with younger families. It’s a very volatile situation and changing boundaries in the midst of the chaos makes no sense at all.

I’ve seen a few homes go up for sale that were clearly owned by long time, older owners who were downsizing/leaving the area. But it’s still few. Usually they seem to sell to developers/flippers or an adult child inherits the house directly.

You might see some empty nest but still working age adults take the voluntary early retirement - but I feel like they’d be more likely to try to get another job in the area vs. move entirely? Whereas people with young kids, maybe 3rd grade and under, seem like they’re going to cut bait and move to their hometowns or less expensive areas and try to start over. Maybe that’s just my experience though. Everyone kept saying for years that the Boomers and Silent Gens would have to sell and move and flood the market and that has just never happened, even as the oldest boomers are almost 80 now.

[Anonymous]

Looks like McKay is finally realizing how the federal government changes might impact Fairfax. When will the school board realize the calamity and pause the boundary review rather than pushing through nuclear boundary changes in the middle of it all?

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2025/04/fairfax-co-warns-of-ripple-effect-from-fired-federal-workers/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know 2 families planning on leaving the area entirely due to the federal job cuts. They’re taking the DRP and moving. 30s with early Elementary and preschool-aged kids who would have been in school in the next few years.

They need to put this whole exercise on pause until the dust settles. No 6th to middle either - FCPS won’t have the budget to start a robust UPK program at this rate.

On the flip side there are thousands of retirees on fixed incomes who will be forced out of the area or will voluntarily leave earlier to reduce their tax burden so some neighborhoods could turn over with younger families. It’s a very volatile situation and changing boundaries in the midst of the chaos makes no sense at all.

I’ve seen a few homes go up for sale that were clearly owned by long time, older owners who were downsizing/leaving the area. But it’s still few. Usually they seem to sell to developers/flippers or an adult child inherits the house directly.

You might see some empty nest but still working age adults take the voluntary early retirement - but I feel like they’d be more likely to try to get another job in the area vs. move entirely? Whereas people with young kids, maybe 3rd grade and under, seem like they’re going to cut bait and move to their hometowns or less expensive areas and try to start over. Maybe that’s just my experience though. Everyone kept saying for years that the Boomers and Silent Gens would have to sell and move and flood the market and that has just never happened, even as the oldest boomers are almost 80 now.

The point is that we are in an extremely volatile environment where the usual assumptions may not hold. Trump was already hitting the region; now he may be plunging the entire country into a depression.

Not a smart time for FCPS to be adjusting school boundaries unless their view is that they just might as well add to the chaos.

[Anonymous]

No one who owns a home here is forced out by higher taxes. Their homes have all appreciated much faster than the tax increases. They have the option to take a reverse mortgage and use the home equity to pay their taxes. They just don't want to. Or they already pulled it out with cash out refi's and spent money they don't have on cars, vacations, etc.
To be clear - I'm not advocating for a higher tax rate since the taxes already go up with the higher assessments. The county should be able to budget within the tax rate they already get. But no one who owns a home here is forced out by the property taxes.

What a naive statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know 2 families planning on leaving the area entirely due to the federal job cuts. They’re taking the DRP and moving. 30s with early Elementary and preschool-aged kids who would have been in school in the next few years.

They need to put this whole exercise on pause until the dust settles. No 6th to middle either - FCPS won’t have the budget to start a robust UPK program at this rate.

On the flip side there are thousands of retirees on fixed incomes who will be forced out of the area or will voluntarily leave earlier to reduce their tax burden so some neighborhoods could turn over with younger families. It’s a very volatile situation and changing boundaries in the midst of the chaos makes no sense at all.

No one who owns a home here is forced out by higher taxes. Their homes have all appreciated much faster than the tax increases. They have the option to take a reverse mortgage and use the home equity to pay their taxes. They just don't want to. Or they already pulled it out with cash out refi's and spent money they don't have on cars, vacations, etc.
To be clear - I'm not advocating for a higher tax rate since the taxes already go up with the higher assessments. The county should be able to budget within the tax rate they already get. But no one who owns a home here is forced out by the property taxes.

You are utterly ridiculous and out of touch with reality. Many people are forced out of the area in retirement, or quasi forced out of the area. Ie maybe they could make the tax payments, but its a substantial portion of their yearly budget and literally makes no sense when there are much cheaper options than forking your money over to the local gov in Ffx.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know 2 families planning on leaving the area entirely due to the federal job cuts. They’re taking the DRP and moving. 30s with early Elementary and preschool-aged kids who would have been in school in the next few years.

They need to put this whole exercise on pause until the dust settles. No 6th to middle either - FCPS won’t have the budget to start a robust UPK program at this rate.

On the flip side there are thousands of retirees on fixed incomes who will be forced out of the area or will voluntarily leave earlier to reduce their tax burden so some neighborhoods could turn over with younger families. It’s a very volatile situation and changing boundaries in the midst of the chaos makes no sense at all.

I’ve seen a few homes go up for sale that were clearly owned by long time, older owners who were downsizing/leaving the area. But it’s still few. Usually they seem to sell to developers/flippers or an adult child inherits the house directly.

You might see some empty nest but still working age adults take the voluntary early retirement - but I feel like they’d be more likely to try to get another job in the area vs. move entirely? Whereas people with young kids, maybe 3rd grade and under, seem like they’re going to cut bait and move to their hometowns or less expensive areas and try to start over. Maybe that’s just my experience though. Everyone kept saying for years that the Boomers and Silent Gens would have to sell and move and flood the market and that has just never happened, even as the oldest boomers are almost 80 now.

My neighborhood consists of a pretty consistent pattern of two types of families. Older people with grown families who retire, may stick around a bit (or not), and then sell their house moving to less expensive areas. And of course young families buy these houses for the schools. It's a pretty consistent pattern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know 2 families planning on leaving the area entirely due to the federal job cuts. They’re taking the DRP and moving. 30s with early Elementary and preschool-aged kids who would have been in school in the next few years.

They need to put this whole exercise on pause until the dust settles. No 6th to middle either - FCPS won’t have the budget to start a robust UPK program at this rate.

On the flip side there are thousands of retirees on fixed incomes who will be forced out of the area or will voluntarily leave earlier to reduce their tax burden so some neighborhoods could turn over with younger families. It’s a very volatile situation and changing boundaries in the midst of the chaos makes no sense at all.

I’ve seen a few homes go up for sale that were clearly owned by long time, older owners who were downsizing/leaving the area. But it’s still few. Usually they seem to sell to developers/flippers or an adult child inherits the house directly.

You might see some empty nest but still working age adults take the voluntary early retirement - but I feel like they’d be more likely to try to get another job in the area vs. move entirely? Whereas people with young kids, maybe 3rd grade and under, seem like they’re going to cut bait and move to their hometowns or less expensive areas and try to start over. Maybe that’s just my experience though. Everyone kept saying for years that the Boomers and Silent Gens would have to sell and move and flood the market and that has just never happened, even as the oldest boomers are almost 80 now.

My neighborhood consists of a pretty consistent pattern of two types of families. Older people with grown families who retire, may stick around a bit (or not), and then sell their house moving to less expensive areas. And of course young families buy these houses for the schools. It's a pretty consistent pattern.

Just pointing out that that pattern exists because of general stability in school pyramids. The school board is planning to test whether families are willing to play craps with their kids’ education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish boundary review opponents would stop coopting every fcps issue with their single issue focus. It does a big disservice to fcps and all of us. The boundaries need to be reviewed and there are other valid issues happening in fcps.

I know this hard to understand, but if FCPS doesn’t first make decisions on things such as AAP Centers, How many, if any IB programs, will MS go to 6-8, then any boundary study result will be essentially meaningless.

But reason and logic are not going to stop a bunch of clowns from putting on a clown show.

I am going through this thread and “AAP centers” comes up from time to time as somehow related to boundary review. I don’t see the connection. What is the connection?

I understand the argument being made for changes to AP and IB and related out-placements for high school, but I don’t see how the same type of thinking applies to an AAP centers for middle schools. While a student might place out of their zoned HS (Herndon) that does not offer IB to attend a HS that offers IB (South Lakes), how would eliminating AAP centers at middle schools have a similar impact?

Regardless of whether a kid goes to an AAP center MS or their base-feeder MS, don’t they end up at the same high school in their pyramid? For example, if a kid attends Waples ES, but is identified as AAP eligible (level IV) wouldn’t they still go to Oakton HS regardless of whether they attended Franklin MS (their base-feeder MS) or Carson MS (the AAP center)?

Unless they end up at TJ?

Ohhhhh…..I see….

Is that why Carson MS has been targeted as “problematic split feeder”? Is it really problematic? Is that why there is some voice on these boards warning people (messaging to the BRAC/future survey respondents) that “Carson is unsafe” and boundaries that include Carson may be responsible for a recent incident at Oakton?

Was this part of a push to split off one of the feeder communities into Carson MS that have historically resulted in Carson MS having the highest concentration of TJ placements? Isn’t that one of the goals of the recent changes to TJ admissions: get TJ attendance from a “better balance” of middle schools? For example, take a look at this website that lays out the impacts of recent changes to TJ admissions on middle school feeders:

https://www.tjtestprep.com/data

I know, a test prep site. But look at the middle school attendance data as it relates to TJ. That is the point.

How many students from Katherine Johnson MS attend TJ? How many from Carson? Can a review, house by house, of the demographics and other “data” by Thru consulting be used to figure out the relative concentration, by feeder ES, of “near miss” TJ kids?

Where do all those Waples zoned kids that go to Carson MS and don’t get into TJ currently end up: Oakton HS.

Show me how I am wrong. Show me that more “equitable balancing” is not what FCPS is after. I understand the IB placement argument at the HS level. Explain to me how eliminating AAP centers in middle school solves high school level capacity imbalances that otherwise require a boundary change solution. Because I don’t see it.

All I see is the disproportionate impact it would have on a student currently zoned to attend the AAP center at Carson MS if you shift them to Katherine Johnson MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish boundary review opponents would stop coopting every fcps issue with their single issue focus. It does a big disservice to fcps and all of us. The boundaries need to be reviewed and there are other valid issues happening in fcps.

I know this hard to understand, but if FCPS doesn’t first make decisions on things such as AAP Centers, How many, if any IB programs, will MS go to 6-8, then any boundary study result will be essentially meaningless.

But reason and logic are not going to stop a bunch of clowns from putting on a clown show.

I am going through this thread and “AAP centers” comes up from time to time as somehow related to boundary review. I don’t see the connection. What is the connection?

I understand the argument being made for changes to AP and IB and related out-placements for high school, but I don’t see how the same type of thinking applies to an AAP centers for middle schools. While a student might place out of their zoned HS (Herndon) that does not offer IB to attend a HS that offers IB (South Lakes), how would eliminating AAP centers at middle schools have a similar impact?

Regardless of whether a kid goes to an AAP center MS or their base-feeder MS, don’t they end up at the same high school in their pyramid? For example, if a kid attends Waples ES, but is identified as AAP eligible (level IV) wouldn’t they still go to Oakton HS regardless of whether they attended Franklin MS (their base-feeder MS) or Carson MS (the AAP center)?

Unless they end up at TJ?

Ohhhhh…..I see….

Is that why Carson MS has been targeted as “problematic split feeder”? Is it really problematic? Is that why there is some voice on these boards warning people (messaging to the BRAC/future survey respondents) that “Carson is unsafe” and boundaries that include Carson may be responsible for a recent incident at Oakton?

Was this part of a push to split off one of the feeder communities into Carson MS that have historically resulted in Carson MS having the highest concentration of TJ placements? Isn’t that one of the goals of the recent changes to TJ admissions: get TJ attendance from a “better balance” of middle schools? For example, take a look at this website that lays out the impacts of recent changes to TJ admissions on middle school feeders:

https://www.tjtestprep.com/data

I know, a test prep site. But look at the middle school attendance data as it relates to TJ. That is the point.

How many students from Katherine Johnson MS attend TJ? How many from Carson? Can a review, house by house, of the demographics and other “data” by Thru consulting be used to figure out the relative concentration, by feeder ES, of “near miss” TJ kids?

Where do all those Waples zoned kids that go to Carson MS and don’t get into TJ currently end up: Oakton HS.

Show me how I am wrong. Show me that more “equitable balancing” is not what FCPS is after. I understand the IB placement argument at the HS level. Explain to me how eliminating AAP centers in middle school solves high school level capacity imbalances that otherwise require a boundary change solution. Because I don’t see it.

All I see is the disproportionate impact it would have on a student currently zoned to attend the AAP center at Carson MS if you shift them to Katherine Johnson MS.

I don’t have a dog in the fight of a lot of the schools you just mentioned, but elimination of AAP centers is discussed because in many instances it would solve capacity issues at the middle school level. We need to consider middle school capacities in the same way that we consider high school capacities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish boundary review opponents would stop coopting every fcps issue with their single issue focus. It does a big disservice to fcps and all of us. The boundaries need to be reviewed and there are other valid issues happening in fcps.

I know this hard to understand, but if FCPS doesn’t first make decisions on things such as AAP Centers, How many, if any IB programs, will MS go to 6-8, then any boundary study result will be essentially meaningless.

But reason and logic are not going to stop a bunch of clowns from putting on a clown show.

I am going through this thread and “AAP centers” comes up from time to time as somehow related to boundary review. I don’t see the connection. What is the connection?

I understand the argument being made for changes to AP and IB and related out-placements for high school, but I don’t see how the same type of thinking applies to an AAP centers for middle schools. While a student might place out of their zoned HS (Herndon) that does not offer IB to attend a HS that offers IB (South Lakes), how would eliminating AAP centers at middle schools have a similar impact?

Regardless of whether a kid goes to an AAP center MS or their base-feeder MS, don’t they end up at the same high school in their pyramid? For example, if a kid attends Waples ES, but is identified as AAP eligible (level IV) wouldn’t they still go to Oakton HS regardless of whether they attended Franklin MS (their base-feeder MS) or Carson MS (the AAP center)?

Unless they end up at TJ?

Ohhhhh…..I see….

Is that why Carson MS has been targeted as “problematic split feeder”? Is it really problematic? Is that why there is some voice on these boards warning people (messaging to the BRAC/future survey respondents) that “Carson is unsafe” and boundaries that include Carson may be responsible for a recent incident at Oakton?

Was this part of a push to split off one of the feeder communities into Carson MS that have historically resulted in Carson MS having the highest concentration of TJ placements? Isn’t that one of the goals of the recent changes to TJ admissions: get TJ attendance from a “better balance” of middle schools? For example, take a look at this website that lays out the impacts of recent changes to TJ admissions on middle school feeders:

https://www.tjtestprep.com/data

I know, a test prep site. But look at the middle school attendance data as it relates to TJ. That is the point.

How many students from Katherine Johnson MS attend TJ? How many from Carson? Can a review, house by house, of the demographics and other “data” by Thru consulting be used to figure out the relative concentration, by feeder ES, of “near miss” TJ kids?

Where do all those Waples zoned kids that go to Carson MS and don’t get into TJ currently end up: Oakton HS.

Show me how I am wrong. Show me that more “equitable balancing” is not what FCPS is after. I understand the IB placement argument at the HS level. Explain to me how eliminating AAP centers in middle school solves high school level capacity imbalances that otherwise require a boundary change solution. Because I don’t see it.

All I see is the disproportionate impact it would have on a student currently zoned to attend the AAP center at Carson MS if you shift them to Katherine Johnson MS.

I don’t have a dog in the fight of a lot of the schools you just mentioned, but elimination of AAP centers is discussed because in many instances it would solve capacity issues at the middle school level. We need to consider middle school capacities in the same way that we consider high school capacities.

That does not add up. Literally. Sending all the AAP kids from Navy and Waples alone home to Franklin would cause a capacity issue at Franklin, not solve a capacity issue at Carson (where there is none).

Also, is there really a focus on MS capacity with the push for MS 6-8? If your response is “that was NEVER for more than anything to show how Thru works” I have a bridge to sell you in NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like McKay is finally realizing how the federal government changes might impact Fairfax. When will the school board realize the calamity and pause the boundary review rather than pushing through nuclear boundary changes in the middle of it all?

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2025/04/fairfax-co-warns-of-ripple-effect-from-fired-federal-workers/

Would someone please send this WTOP link directly to the FCPS school board?

- at a minimum, sending it will stop them from later making the false claim: “we had no idea any Federal workers jobs?!? “

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish boundary review opponents would stop coopting every fcps issue with their single issue focus. It does a big disservice to fcps and all of us. The boundaries need to be reviewed and there are other valid issues happening in fcps.

I know this hard to understand, but if FCPS doesn’t first make decisions on things such as AAP Centers, How many, if any IB programs, will MS go to 6-8, then any boundary study result will be essentially meaningless.

But reason and logic are not going to stop a bunch of clowns from putting on a clown show.

I am going through this thread and “AAP centers” comes up from time to time as somehow related to boundary review. I don’t see the connection. What is the connection?

I understand the argument being made for changes to AP and IB and related out-placements for high school, but I don’t see how the same type of thinking applies to an AAP centers for middle schools. While a student might place out of their zoned HS (Herndon) that does not offer IB to attend a HS that offers IB (South Lakes), how would eliminating AAP centers at middle schools have a similar impact?

Regardless of whether a kid goes to an AAP center MS or their base-feeder MS, don’t they end up at the same high school in their pyramid? For example, if a kid attends Waples ES, but is identified as AAP eligible (level IV) wouldn’t they still go to Oakton HS regardless of whether they attended Franklin MS (their base-feeder MS) or Carson MS (the AAP center)?

Unless they end up at TJ?

Ohhhhh…..I see….

Is that why Carson MS has been targeted as “problematic split feeder”? Is it really problematic? Is that why there is some voice on these boards warning people (messaging to the BRAC/future survey respondents) that “Carson is unsafe” and boundaries that include Carson may be responsible for a recent incident at Oakton?

Was this part of a push to split off one of the feeder communities into Carson MS that have historically resulted in Carson MS having the highest concentration of TJ placements? Isn’t that one of the goals of the recent changes to TJ admissions: get TJ attendance from a “better balance” of middle schools? For example, take a look at this website that lays out the impacts of recent changes to TJ admissions on middle school feeders:

https://www.tjtestprep.com/data

I know, a test prep site. But look at the middle school attendance data as it relates to TJ. That is the point.

How many students from Katherine Johnson MS attend TJ? How many from Carson? Can a review, house by house, of the demographics and other “data” by Thru consulting be used to figure out the relative concentration, by feeder ES, of “near miss” TJ kids?

Where do all those Waples zoned kids that go to Carson MS and don’t get into TJ currently end up: Oakton HS.

Show me how I am wrong. Show me that more “equitable balancing” is not what FCPS is after. I understand the IB placement argument at the HS level. Explain to me how eliminating AAP centers in middle school solves high school level capacity imbalances that otherwise require a boundary change solution. Because I don’t see it.

All I see is the disproportionate impact it would have on a student currently zoned to attend the AAP center at Carson MS if you shift them to Katherine Johnson MS.

I don’t have a dog in the fight of a lot of the schools you just mentioned, but elimination of AAP centers is discussed because in many instances it would solve capacity issues at the middle school level. We need to consider middle school capacities in the same way that we consider high school capacities.

A lot of “we consider” in your response.

Are you on the BRAC? If you were told that the numbers for MS 6-8 were run solely for the purposes of demonstrating how the software works, you have been mislead. I have receipts.

If you are on the BRAC, I can see that you take your role seriously and I appreciate your efforts to keep the public informed with posts on this board. Just consider this: if you have been mislead about the reason FCPS obtained the MS 6-8 data that you were presented, can you entirely trust everything you are told in BRAC meetings? Keep an open mind and a critical eye on what you are presented with. Otherwise, there is a risk that your diligent efforts and good intentions will be used to support a predetermined outcome.

If you are FCPS or one of their representatives, pushing a narrative on this site is highly problematic for other reasons…