FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Carson is a three way split feeder. Tell me how to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

HA you are so right - I could have sworn I saw one somewhere. But I keep coming up with a PDF from 2017, which is useless.

[Anonymous]

Simple question:

- do you believe the Covid-19 pandemic had a negative / detrimental impact on public education in FCPS?


What’s happing now, during Spring 2025, is having a LARGER impact than Covid:

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/04/09/fairfax-economic-forecasts-show-impact-of-federal-job-losses-could-be-worse-covid/


Pause the boundary review, now.

[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.

WHy wouldn't they just move the Timberlane - longfellow - mclean island to Timberlane - Jackson - Falls Church? I don't understand how they haven't proposed this, it looks so obvious.

[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!

FCPS has phased this so that the BRAC is slowly painting itself into a corner. By the time the proposed changes (capacity) meeting happens, dissenters will be told that deviating from Thru's proposed changes will catastrophically break what was decided from the attendance islands meeting. To use a basketball analogy, FCPS made it through the layup meeting, because it's hard to argue for attendance islands. Split feeders is the free throw meeting. Capacity is the 3 point meeting and will elicit strong emotions from BRAC members. Reid will open the meeting with "these capacity boundary proposals take into account your feedback from the past 2 meetings. To make changes now is impossible because we would need to restart the whole process."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Carson is a three way split feeder. Tell me how to fix it.

Is that really a “problem” that needs solving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

FCPS has phased this so that the BRAC is slowly painting itself into a corner. By the time the proposed changes (capacity) meeting happens, dissenters will be told that deviating from Thru's proposed changes will catastrophically break what was decided from the attendance islands meeting. To use a basketball analogy, FCPS made it through the layup meeting, because it's hard to argue for attendance islands. Split feeders is the free throw meeting. Capacity is the 3 point meeting and will elicit strong emotions from BRAC members. Reid will open the meeting with "these capacity boundary proposals take into account your feedback from the past 2 meetings. To make changes now is impossible because we would need to restart the whole process."

But they barely addressed attendance islands!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WHy wouldn't they just move the Timberlane - longfellow - mclean island to Timberlane - Jackson - Falls Church? I don't understand how they haven't proposed this, it looks so obvious.

Probably because that neighborhood provides McLean’s only socioeconomic diversity.

[Anonymous]

So confused—why would they create new split feeders of <25% if the goal is supposedly to eliminate split feeders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So confused—why would they create new split feeders of <25% if the goal is supposedly to eliminate split feeders?

They could not achieve their equity objectives while also eliminating split feeders, so they had to redefine the split feeder goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So confused—why would they create new split feeders of <25% if the goal is supposedly to eliminate split feeders?

They could not achieve their equity objectives while also eliminating split feeders, so they had to redefine the split feeder goal.

what do you mean by “equity objectives”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

FCPS has phased this so that the BRAC is slowly painting itself into a corner. By the time the proposed changes (capacity) meeting happens, dissenters will be told that deviating from Thru's proposed changes will catastrophically break what was decided from the attendance islands meeting. To use a basketball analogy, FCPS made it through the layup meeting, because it's hard to argue for attendance islands. Split feeders is the free throw meeting. Capacity is the 3 point meeting and will elicit strong emotions from BRAC members. Reid will open the meeting with "these capacity boundary proposals take into account your feedback from the past 2 meetings. To make changes now is impossible because we would need to restart the whole process."

But they barely addressed attendance islands!

I agree with the PP they are building compliance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WHy wouldn't they just move the Timberlane - longfellow - mclean island to Timberlane - Jackson - Falls Church? I don't understand how they haven't proposed this, it looks so obvious.

Probably because that neighborhood provides McLean’s only socioeconomic diversity.

But much of that neighborhood is wealthy! They all send their kids to private to avoid Timberlane and then send them public for long fellow and McLean. Wouldn't it be more helpful to move wealthy kids to Falls Church to balance that school better?

[Anonymous]

Do they want to eliminate the split feeders where 75%+ go to one MS/HS and 25% go somewhere else? Or are those ok and they want to eliminate the roughly 50-50 split schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WHy wouldn't they just move the Timberlane - longfellow - mclean island to Timberlane - Jackson - Falls Church? I don't understand how they haven't proposed this, it looks so obvious.

Probably because that neighborhood provides McLean’s only socioeconomic diversity.

But much of that neighborhood is wealthy! They all send their kids to private to avoid Timberlane and then send them public for long fellow and McLean. Wouldn't it be more helpful to move wealthy kids to Falls Church to balance that school better?

It’s a Title One school—not as wealthy as it might seem. Lots of kids in the apartment complexes on Lee Hwy.