FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Sangster folks are not going to be thrilled about getting rezoned to Newington and SoCo. It makes sense, and the new schools are fine, but many of those families picked their neighborhood specifically to attend Sangster.

I think that entire neighborhood showed up at the boundary meeting at Lake Braddock because they knew they were on the chopping block.

Wasn't that Sangster island actually connected to rhe rest of Sangster, except for one house with a lot of land on Hooes across from the Saint Raymond church?

It wasn't isolated from Sangster by a neighborhood. It was an island because of one person's undeveloped property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So far so good, no drop in home value due to movement to an undesirable school. But also no real value for the students of FCPS.

Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while the band played on. Let’s hope the “pause” happens after Spring break.

That “pause” was obviously fake news. They have publicly posted they’ll be releasing split feeders after the 4/25 meeting and capacity moved after 5/5. And moving this all up for community engagement before spring break. They are doing anything but slowing down.

[Anonymous]

Some of these attendance islands have caused huge sways in capacity. Will be interesting how they are filled in if they use this as baseline.

Looking at their late March illustrations of split feeders and how deliberately they cleaned up attendance islands, feels like split feeders will receive the same with their newly published 25% caveat. Gulp!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of these attendance islands have caused huge sways in capacity. Will be interesting how they are filled in if they use this as baseline.

Looking at their late March illustrations of split feeders and how deliberately they cleaned up attendance islands, feels like split feeders will receive the same with their newly published 25% caveat. Gulp!

It's looking more and more likely that Hunt Valley will become a split feeder to WSHS and SCHS. Based on what's leftover after the attendance island moves, it would help solve capacity at both WSHS and SCHS.

[Anonymous]

Apparently Waples Mill and Navy changes are coming with the split feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where can we find the SPAs?

I’d like to see these too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where can we find the SPAs?

I’d like to see these too.

This came up before and the consensus seemed to be that, unless FCPS already identified the SPAs (School Planning Areas) in connection with a different boundary review (Kent Gardens, Coates, Parklawn), the SPAs haven't otherwise been published.

[Anonymous]

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

I saw in a news article that the revised boundaries - and new start times - would be implemented for the 2026-2027 school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of these attendance islands have caused huge sways in capacity. Will be interesting how they are filled in if they use this as baseline.

Looking at their late March illustrations of split feeders and how deliberately they cleaned up attendance islands, feels like split feeders will receive the same with their newly published 25% caveat. Gulp!

It's looking more and more likely that Hunt Valley will become a split feeder to WSHS and SCHS. Based on what's leftover after the attendance island moves, it would help solve capacity at both WSHS and SCHS.

Wonder if they’ll force HV to Lorton Station for the AAP center like they do with the rest of the SoCo pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New to the discussion, forgive my ignorance. Is "Scenario 1" meant to be Phase 1, i.e. more proposed changes are coming perhaps pertaining to other regions or schools? Or "Scenario 1" as in there is another option that will be proposed possibly with completely different makeups?

See below for text from a FCPS email sent yesterday:

Recap of Boundary Review Process to Date and Presentation of Proposed Boundary Updates Included in Scenario #1
The consultant explained the meeting's focus, which was addressing the attendance islands around the county.

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.

We are developing a boundary tool online so that we will have the tools to dig in at the street level. This will also be available to the public online, and we anticipate that the tool will be ready in early May.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New to the discussion, forgive my ignorance. Is "Scenario 1" meant to be Phase 1, i.e. more proposed changes are coming perhaps pertaining to other regions or schools? Or "Scenario 1" as in there is another option that will be proposed possibly with completely different makeups?

See below for text from a FCPS email sent yesterday:

Recap of Boundary Review Process to Date and Presentation of Proposed Boundary Updates Included in Scenario #1
The consultant explained the meeting's focus, which was addressing the attendance islands around the county.

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.

We are developing a boundary tool online so that we will have the tools to dig in at the street level. This will also be available to the public online, and we anticipate that the tool will be ready in early May.

That’s only a few weeks away … let the s*** hit the fan!

[Anonymous]

Where can we see current split feeder stats to see which schools hit the < 25% marker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Longfellow/mclean boundary looks clearer to me and solves capacity and keeps neighborhood together.

No. It is more of a mess. 50 plus net change to Longfellow means 100 more to Mclean HS. Assuming no split feeder for Longfellow. In many cases or slides all Thru did was circle/move a connector.

Nothing more should go into Longfellow/Mclean. Should the Spring Hill Mclean Island even attend Spring Hill? https://boundary.fcps.edu/boundary/
All of it or pieces of it? Checkerboard high rise - Accenture - 8421 Broad St-across from Spring Hill metro is assigned to Spring Hill/Longfellow/Mclean
2051 International Drive=Saks Galleria Mall -Westbriar/Kilmer/Marshall

Note the apt listed has AAP at Churchill Rd which is near Cooper and has a modular. Spring Hill is projected over capacity pre shuffle.

And remember the addition as part of the renovation for Falls Church HS?

How can the BRAC even have relevant discussions when the grouped by FCPS artificial regions? Marshall Pyramid is in Region 5 with Chantilly and Westfield. Also it is possible that more from islands applied for BRAC leaving who/what to provide input on existing non island boundaries for Mclean?

As I read the proposed Longfellow/McLean changes from "Scenario 1," there would be one set of changes affecting McLean and two affecting Longfellow:

McLean:

* Move Spring Hill attendance island from McLean to Langley;

* Move area bordered by 123, Toll Road, and 495 from Marshall to McLean; and

* Move a SPA that includes the Falls Hill neighborhood and some nearby areas off Route 7 from Marshall to McLean (no indication they would not stay at Shrevewood).

Net projected impact: - 142 students

Longfellow

* All of the changes for McLean (-76 impact on Longfellow), plus the following changes relating to the Graham Road/Pine Spring situations estimated to have a +50 impact on Longfellow:

* Move a small area west of Hollywood Road from Timber Lane to Shrevewood, and from Longfellow to Kilmer; and

* Move several CPAs now assigned to Pine Spring and Graham Road to Timber Lane, and from Jackson to Longfellow

Net projected impact: = -26 students

As noted earlier, the intent appears to have been to recognize that McLean is overcrowed while Longfellow is not, and to make Timber Lane a 100% feeder to at least Longfellow. However, it would appear to create a weird situation where a very small part of Longfellow would go to Falls Church, a very small part of Kilmer would go to McLean, and kids living near the "old" Graham Road site would now have a significantly longer commute to Timber Lane than the current Graham Road site. And it would also turn Shrevewood, which currently feeds entirely to Kilmer/Marshall, into a split feeder with Longfellow/McLean. Perhaps they take all this up in the 4/25 presentation. For now, they are putting a lot of McLean/Longfellow in play, especially since Westgate and Lemon Road are also split feeders and they haven't addressed them at all yet.

As for your point about whether the Tysons island "should even attend Spring Hill," it's unclear where you want these kids to go. They should have prioritized a new ES in Tysons (they have a call on a site off Jones Bridge Road) over the Dunn Loring site, in which case these kids could/should go to that school, but Frisch obviously is hell-bent to move forward with Dunn Loring, which is further away. What the School Board has done by giving Dunn Loring a green light is in direct opposition to the goals of the Tysons Partnership, which is to add a school to Tysons rather than continue to send kids to schools elsewhere.

It's Westbriar! That school's attendance area has been "infill" from wherever and pre Clvin Run Westbriar Island North had to beg to get in the scope. Spring Hill is projected at 104% on the CIP for the furthest out projection. That and Churchill Rd bumped up by a modular are unacceptable.

Start with what boders other jurisdictions- load elementray schools at 93-95% cap with no modulars. Borders Loudoun County, Maryland, Arlington-top down load for these pyramids: Herndon, Langley, Mclean. MS is 2 years so focus on the ES and HS loads. No bog down on what fits in Longfellow that got built big because it was a mega AAP/GT center pre dispersals initially to Kilmer.

cip p80/306
westbriar island-touches route 7. Region 5 piece between Colvin Run, Sunrise Valley,Wolftrap. Move it out of Westbriar into 1 or more of those 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where can we see current split feeder stats to see which schools hit the < 25% marker?

You seem to be operating on the assumption that they are truly transparent, as opposed to pretending to be transparent.

That information is clearly readily available to FCPS, but they don't make it generally available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New to the discussion, forgive my ignorance. Is "Scenario 1" meant to be Phase 1, i.e. more proposed changes are coming perhaps pertaining to other regions or schools? Or "Scenario 1" as in there is another option that will be proposed possibly with completely different makeups?

See below for text from a FCPS email sent yesterday:

Recap of Boundary Review Process to Date and Presentation of Proposed Boundary Updates Included in Scenario #1
The consultant explained the meeting's focus, which was addressing the attendance islands around the county.

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.

We are developing a boundary tool online so that we will have the tools to dig in at the street level. This will also be available to the public online, and we anticipate that the tool will be ready in early May.

That’s only a few weeks away … let the s*** hit the fan!

Shockingly yes. I’m new here and this seems to be moving quickly. I am anxious for early May and the results. I want to see if there are changes to South Lakes pyramid and feeder ES and MS.