FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is making Langley over capacity the first step to moving Forestville back to HHS?

Look at slide 5 of the presentation. It looks like 105% is the threshold to be “prioritized in future scenarios focused specifically on capacity.”

I see Langley at 102% in slide 30. Are there split feeders in the horizon that would push this number higher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Flint Hill move makes the map look tidier, but it doesn’t actually solve anything.

They are clueless: the colors on the map make it look like they got rid of an island, but if you pay attention to where the roads actually go, they made an even worse island. At least before, it was a crossing of routes which didn't interfere with each other that much, so the "island" that used to be wasn't really a practical problem. Under the new proposal, it will be a very noticeable disconnect.
They paid a huge amount of money to a contractor who thinks in overly simplistic terms.

[Anonymous]

From the email:

“on May 5, we’ll focus on school population and overcrowding.”

What is “school population”? Is this just a look at capacity? Is it demographics?

[Anonymous]

What school year are they hoping to start boundary changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Flint Hill move makes the map look tidier, but it doesn’t actually solve anything.

They are clueless: the colors on the map make it look like they got rid of an island, but if you pay attention to where the roads actually go, they made an even worse island. At least before, it was a crossing of routes which didn't interfere with each other that much, so the "island" that used to be wasn't really a practical problem. Under the new proposal, it will be a very noticeable disconnect.
They paid a huge amount of money to a contractor who thinks in overly simplistic terms.

They were paid to come up with a map that eliminated islands. Whether it’s less convenient otherwise, creates new split feeders, or widens enrollment disparities between nearby schools wasn’t relevant for this purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Flint Hill move makes the map look tidier, but it doesn’t actually solve anything.

They are clueless: the colors on the map make it look like they got rid of an island, but if you pay attention to where the roads actually go, they made an even worse island. At least before, it was a crossing of routes which didn't interfere with each other that much, so the "island" that used to be wasn't really a practical problem. Under the new proposal, it will be a very noticeable disconnect.
They paid a huge amount of money to a contractor who thinks in overly simplistic terms.

They were paid to come up with a map that eliminated islands. Whether it’s less convenient otherwise, creates new split feeders, or widens enrollment disparities between nearby schools wasn’t relevant for this purpose.

Except that they utterly failed to eliminate islands except to someone who thinks in the most simplistic of terms. That's the point.

[Anonymous]

I’m pretty floored that they are extending Timberlane that far south. Especially in that area around 50, rush hour traffic can set you back half an hour or more - I guess in the end there really isn’t any concern about commute times.

I guess that’s what happens when you hire New Jersey consultants through a no bid process.

Imagine being a couple miles from a middle school right off 50, but instead you have to get bussed on 495 and 66 to go to the rich kids’ school. Social engineering at its finest. Bravo Thru, bravo!

[Anonymous]

Noting that we are getting a lot of info coming soon. They are just warming up with attendance islands.

“ Dr. Reid welcomed the group. She reminded the committee that we will be adjusting the timeline and moving community engagement to May/June to give our broader community the opportunity to learn about the initial draft scenarios before summer break.”

“ He then shared that when we come back on April 25, we’ll be addressing split feeder patterns. Then on May 5, we’ll focus on school population and overcrowding.”

Who in the heck said this was going to be paused…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is making Langley over capacity the first step to moving Forestville back to HHS?

Probably

Why? Forestville is a not split feeder. The board focuses on the islands and split feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is making Langley over capacity the first step to moving Forestville back to HHS?

Probably

Why? Forestville is a not split feeder. The board focuses on the islands and split feeders.

And the school population and overcrowding (May 5).

[Anonymous]

Let’s revisit Franklin/Carson/Rocky Run.

If we move (1) Franklin kids who are already zoned to Chantilly to Rocky Run, (2) Carson kids zoned to SLHS (fox mill and some Floris kids) to Hughes, and (3) Crossfield kids from Carson to Franklin, will this solve the split feeder problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What school year are they hoping to start boundary changes?

Fall 2026

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like in the course of proposing to "fix" the attendance islands at Longfellow/McLean, and the current situation where Graham Road ES is located its current boundaries, they would potentially, among other things:

* Move the "Tysons island" from Longfellow/McLean to Cooper/Langley (which would eliminate the current split feeder at Spring Hill);

* Move part of Shrevewood (Falls Hill) from Kilmer/Marshall to Longfellow/McLean, and turn Shrevewood into a new split feeder;

* Move part of Shrevewood to Timber Lane and part of Timber Lane to Graham Road; and

* Move part of Jackson to Longfellow, while keeping those kids at Falls Church, thereby turning Longfellow into a new split feeder.

It's a lot of changes for comparatively little benefit and some new split feeders. They end up with a lot of boundaries that look highly gerrymandered but without attendance islands.

They also show, as part of the domino effect of "fixing" the Graham Road situation, moving the Madison kids at Kilmer over to Thoreau. That's probably fine with Madison parents but doubt they would have anticipated it as a outgrowth of dealing with Graham Road ES.

Oh hell no. This doesn't event take the whole Dunn Loring school that nobody asked for into account which would also impact Shrevewood boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thankful there’s nothing about Waples moved to Fairfax HS.

Also a Waples parent! I think that would be in the next one (split feeders) but I’m trying to figure out how much of Franklin feeds to Oakton.

I think it is mostly just kids from Navy and Waples Mill. Maybe all of Navy? Parts of Navy might go to Chantilly. But it appears they plan to move the Franklin Farm portion of Navy to Oak Hill.

Which his so stupid. This is creating an attendance island too, those houses are separated by the other part of Franklin Farm by Fairfax County Parkway. Everyone surrounding that part of Franklin Farm still goes to Crossfield. Why wouldn't they move those streets to Crossfield?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s revisit Franklin/Carson/Rocky Run.

If we move (1) Franklin kids who are already zoned to Chantilly to Rocky Run, (2) Carson kids zoned to SLHS (fox mill and some Floris kids) to Hughes, and (3) Crossfield kids from Carson to Franklin, will this solve the split feeder problem?

Carson is not overcrowded, why would you move all these kids out of Carson without moving new kids in? Also Crossfield is zoned to Oakton, it doesn't make sense to move those kids to Franklin unless you are moving all those kids to Chantilly too, which is ridiculous given how overcrowded Chantilly HS is. The post several weeks ago about moving anyone from Carson that is zoned to Chantilly to Franklin makes the most sense. But don't move kids zoned to Oakton to yet another MS.