FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is there one (multiple?) poster so obsessed with implying the population of Fairfax County is going to nosedive?

Change sure, but absolutely nosedive? Doubt it.

Why is there one (multiple) poster so taken with claiming that everyone with whom they might disagree is “obsessed”?

Many think the Fairfax population and FCPS enrollment could decline over the coming years given a host of factors, including DOGE-related job losses and a change in federal immigration policy.

For the School Board to put blinders on, ignore these risk factors, and go ahead and redistrict based on flawed and increasingly unreliable enrollment projections would be deliberately obtuse.

[Anonymous]

I agree they are pausing it soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree they are pausing it soon.

Didn’t they pause the Coates and Parklawn studies? Why would they stop if they weren’t going to do something more comprehensive?

I can see them making a few attendance islands and split feeder adjustments to call it a day. Not the whole “equity nuclear option” that this thread gets so aggressive over

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree they are pausing it soon.

Didn’t they pause the Coates and Parklawn studies? Why would they stop if they weren’t going to do something more comprehensive?

I can see them making a few attendance islands and split feeder adjustments to call it a day. Not the whole “equity nuclear option” that this thread gets so aggressive over

I did not realize this. Just looked--not sure what it means. From FCPS website:

Update March 28, 2025

"The previously scheduled meetings on Wednesday, April 2, (virtual) and Monday, April 7, (in-person) have been cancelled. The community will be notified of a future meeting focused on Coates Elementary School and the 2025-26 school year. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding.

The Fairfax County School Board approved the boundary study for Coates Elementary School in March. Additional details related to the study will be provided at a later date."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They better not pause. This review is way overdue and they already expended money and caused angst (especially among a small percentage of people who post on her constantly- “school board shill”; “boundary changes for thee but not for me” and “where do your kids go to school?!”. This work needs to be done and they should see it through.

Totally agree!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They better not pause. This review is way overdue and they already expended money and caused angst (especially among a small percentage of people who post on her constantly- “school board shill”; “boundary changes for thee but not for me” and “where do your kids go to school?!”. This work needs to be done and they should see it through.

Totally agree!

Troll time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They better not pause. This review is way overdue and they already expended money and caused angst (especially among a small percentage of people who post on her constantly- “school board shill”; “boundary changes for thee but not for me” and “where do your kids go to school?!”. This work needs to be done and they should see it through.

Totally agree!

Disagree. It won't make things better. It will just shift a lot of kids --and it won't necessarily be to closer schools.
Unless they get rid of IB, it will still allow rampant pupil placement.
And, in this time of uncertainty, it will cause more disruption. Not to mention all the families who end up with kids in two high schools at the same time.

Not to mention how much it will cost in a time of scant resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They better not pause. This review is way overdue and they already expended money and caused angst (especially among a small percentage of people who post on her constantly- “school board shill”; “boundary changes for thee but not for me” and “where do your kids go to school?!”. This work needs to be done and they should see it through.

Totally agree!

Disagree. It won't make things better. It will just shift a lot of kids --and it won't necessarily be to closer schools.
Unless they get rid of IB, it will still allow rampant pupil placement.
And, in this time of uncertainty, it will cause more disruption. Not to mention all the families who end up with kids in two high schools at the same time.

Not to mention how much it will cost in a time of scant resources.

Yep. Anyone pushing for boundary changes at this point is blind to public opinion and the state of the county.

Nobody wants their own kids moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They better not pause. This review is way overdue and they already expended money and caused angst (especially among a small percentage of people who post on her constantly- “school board shill”; “boundary changes for thee but not for me” and “where do your kids go to school?!”. This work needs to be done and they should see it through.

Totally agree!

Disagree. It won't make things better. It will just shift a lot of kids --and it won't necessarily be to closer schools.
Unless they get rid of IB, it will still allow rampant pupil placement.
And, in this time of uncertainty, it will cause more disruption. Not to mention all the families who end up with kids in two high schools at the same time.

Not to mention how much it will cost in a time of scant resources.

Yep. Anyone pushing for boundary changes at this point is blind to public opinion and the state of the county.

Nobody wants their own kids moved.

boundary changes are never popular, but remember more than half the county has no children in the schools and the majority of students will not have their boundary changed - so it doesn’t affect as many voters as some on this board think.

[Anonymous]

Could someone please explain who "Thru" is? I keep seeing this name mentioned but not sure who they are. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They better not pause. This review is way overdue and they already expended money and caused angst (especially among a small percentage of people who post on her constantly- “school board shill”; “boundary changes for thee but not for me” and “where do your kids go to school?!”. This work needs to be done and they should see it through.

Totally agree!

Disagree. It won't make things better. It will just shift a lot of kids --and it won't necessarily be to closer schools.
Unless they get rid of IB, it will still allow rampant pupil placement.
And, in this time of uncertainty, it will cause more disruption. Not to mention all the families who end up with kids in two high schools at the same time.

Not to mention how much it will cost in a time of scant resources.

Yep. Anyone pushing for boundary changes at this point is blind to public opinion and the state of the county.

Nobody wants their own kids moved.

boundary changes are never popular, but remember more than half the county has no children in the schools and the majority of students will not have their boundary changed - so it doesn’t affect as many voters as some on this board think.

Eh, weak argument. The intensity of the opposition is much greater than the lukewarm support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please explain who "Thru" is? I keep seeing this name mentioned but not sure who they are. Thanks!

https://www.thru.co/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree they are pausing it soon.

Didn’t they pause the Coates and Parklawn studies? Why would they stop if they weren’t going to do something more comprehensive?

I can see them making a few attendance islands and split feeder adjustments to call it a day. Not the whole “equity nuclear option” that this thread gets so aggressive over

I did not realize this. Just looked--not sure what it means. From FCPS website:

Update March 28, 2025

"The previously scheduled meetings on Wednesday, April 2, (virtual) and Monday, April 7, (in-person) have been cancelled. The community will be notified of a future meeting focused on Coates Elementary School and the 2025-26 school year. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding.

The Fairfax County School Board approved the boundary study for Coates Elementary School in March. Additional details related to the study will be provided at a later date."

It means…read the whole page (https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/maps/boundary-adjustments-information/coates-elementary-school-boundary-study) where you pulled the quote:

“Fairfax County Public Schools is also conducting a divisionwide review of school boundaries. The first set of community meetings for this larger effort has been completed, with additional meetings planned as part of Phase 2. The meetings for Coates Elementary School are separate from the divisionwide review.”

No need to read the tea leaves. It is explicitly stated. FCPS is pushing ahead.

[Anonymous]

So….this is interesting…

From Thru consulting’s website (https://www.thru.co/copy-of-strategicplanning-1):

“We work with the school district to conduct an impartial analysis of the existing school boundaries, feeder patterns, and program locations. Collaborating closely with community members, we develop various adjustment scenarios aimed at balancing facility utilization across the county. This analysis takes into account critical criteria, including access to programs, enrollment projections, capacity, proximity, and transportation times. A focus on access to educational opportunities is vital.”

Huh. “access to programs, enrollment projections, capacity, proximity, and transportation times”.

Chicken and the egg time: take a look at policy 8130.8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please explain who "Thru" is? I keep seeing this name mentioned but not sure who they are. Thanks!

https://www.thru.co/

Thank you.