FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I’m learning here is that McLean and Langley parents feel that they are entitled to more than everyone else because their house prices are higher. Except the Timber lane families they are trying to get rid of.

What a mooch you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a timber lane/longfellow/mclean family and the tone about our kids on here is really sad. We want our kids to stay with their friends and at their schools just like most other people here.

Yes well we are a Shrevewood family who would rather our whole school be sent to Longfellow/Mclean rather than Cherry picking the wealthiest neighborhood on our boundaries for that.

The very few people I’ve heard who are actually for boundary changes for their kids (and they are very few and far between), are hoping to get a rise in their property value by being moved to a school they perceive as better. It’s shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a timber lane/longfellow/mclean family and the tone about our kids on here is really sad. We want our kids to stay with their friends and at their schools just like most other people here.

Yes well we are a Shrevewood family who would rather our whole school be sent to Longfellow/Mclean rather than Cherry picking the wealthiest neighborhood on our boundaries for that.

The very few people I’ve heard who are actually for boundary changes for their kids (and they are very few and far between), are hoping to get a rise in their property value by being moved to a school they perceive as better. It’s shameful.

There also are people who are rabidly against boundary changes because their property value might go down. It’s shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a timber lane/longfellow/mclean family and the tone about our kids on here is really sad. We want our kids to stay with their friends and at their schools just like most other people here.

Yes well we are a Shrevewood family who would rather our whole school be sent to Longfellow/Mclean rather than Cherry picking the wealthiest neighborhood on our boundaries for that.

The very few people I’ve heard who are actually for boundary changes for their kids (and they are very few and far between), are hoping to get a rise in their property value by being moved to a school they perceive as better. It’s shameful.

There also are people who are rabidly against boundary changes because their property value might go down. It’s shameful.

That’s not as shameful as favoring boundary changes merely because you desperately want to see other people’s property values decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a timber lane/longfellow/mclean family and the tone about our kids on here is really sad. We want our kids to stay with their friends and at their schools just like most other people here.

Yes well we are a Shrevewood family who would rather our whole school be sent to Longfellow/Mclean rather than Cherry picking the wealthiest neighborhood on our boundaries for that.

The very few people I’ve heard who are actually for boundary changes for their kids (and they are very few and far between), are hoping to get a rise in their property value by being moved to a school they perceive as better. It’s shameful.

There also are people who are rabidly against boundary changes because their property value might go down. It’s shameful.

It’s not even close - looking out for our kids and trying to protect them from massive boundary change disruption vs. trying to take from your neighbors? GTFO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a timber lane/longfellow/mclean family and the tone about our kids on here is really sad. We want our kids to stay with their friends and at their schools just like most other people here.

Yes well we are a Shrevewood family who would rather our whole school be sent to Longfellow/Mclean rather than Cherry picking the wealthiest neighborhood on our boundaries for that.

The very few people I’ve heard who are actually for boundary changes for their kids (and they are very few and far between), are hoping to get a rise in their property value by being moved to a school they perceive as better. It’s shameful.

There also are people who are rabidly against boundary changes because their property value might go down. It’s shameful.

That’s not as shameful as favoring boundary changes merely because you desperately want to see other people’s property values decline.

+1. Song people are really looking to soak their neighbors because they perceive them as having more than they do. Boundary changes are the left’s version of maga

[Anonymous]

Division Chief, Senior Manager, and Director spending grew from $20 million (actual 2021) to $43 million (proposed 2026). More than doubled.

That extra $23 million could instead be paid to students at $10,000 each to go to private high school. That would remove 2,300 students from enrollment. I estimate that could reduce enrollment by around 4% at FCPS high schools, assuming there are around 57,000 high school students, which is likely a better result than the boundary change plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a timber lane/longfellow/mclean family and the tone about our kids on here is really sad. We want our kids to stay with their friends and at their schools just like most other people here.

Yes well we are a Shrevewood family who would rather our whole school be sent to Longfellow/Mclean rather than Cherry picking the wealthiest neighborhood on our boundaries for that.

The very few people I’ve heard who are actually for boundary changes for their kids (and they are very few and far between), are hoping to get a rise in their property value by being moved to a school they perceive as better. It’s shameful.

There also are people who are rabidly against boundary changes because their property value might go down. It’s shameful.

That’s not as shameful as favoring boundary changes merely because you desperately want to see other people’s property values decline.

That’s on the people who chose to buy their homes along the school boundaries. They gambled, and now might loose.
We had the chance of buying a bigger house close to a creek, in a flood zone. We did not want to take that chance. So we ended up buying a smaller one. We made that choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a timber lane/longfellow/mclean family and the tone about our kids on here is really sad. We want our kids to stay with their friends and at their schools just like most other people here.

Yes well we are a Shrevewood family who would rather our whole school be sent to Longfellow/Mclean rather than Cherry picking the wealthiest neighborhood on our boundaries for that.

The very few people I’ve heard who are actually for boundary changes for their kids (and they are very few and far between), are hoping to get a rise in their property value by being moved to a school they perceive as better. It’s shameful.

We bought our house for Marshall. I don’t WANT my kids to move to McLean. But I do think it’s ridiculous that they chose the richest neighborhood in our s hook boundaries (the one that is literally across the street from the school) to be the one that they are moving. I don’t see anyone from that neighborhood up in arms here and I know for a fact (because they are my friends) that a ton of them read this forum and contribute prolifically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Division Chief, Senior Manager, and Director spending grew from $20 million (actual 2021) to $43 million (proposed 2026). More than doubled.

That extra $23 million could instead be paid to students at $10,000 each to go to private high school. That would remove 2,300 students from enrollment. I estimate that could reduce enrollment by around 4% at FCPS high schools, assuming there are around 57,000 high school students, which is likely a better result than the boundary change plan.

Let's also consider:

$87 million increase for health insurance -

In 2022, health insurance cost $248 million. In 2025, without Blue Choice or Aetna, total health insurance budget jumped to $335 million. Thats an $87 million or 35% increase in 3 years. A 15% increase would have been $50 million less. Would teachers have preferred Blue Choice + Aetna over Cigna? Would it have been cheaper? Is Cigna too expensive? Could $50 million per year be saved and spent on land for a new school?

For 2026 proposed, it's up almost 10% again to $361 million, although it looks like a minimal # of people get Blue Choice again.

Textbooks - why is $146 million being spent on textbooks for 2025 + 2026 when in recent years, that was a small line item?

Like -

$ 3m in 2022
$22m in 2023
$ 6m in 2024 . . . then. .

$106 MILLION 2025 !!!
$45 MILLION 2026 !!!! proposed

Why the extra $130 million in 2 years (over average)?? The books cant be that spectacular.

Again, couldnt some of these funds be paid to students to attend private schools? Particularly to kids with IEPs, as special ed spending has gone way way up and surely many parents would bail if paid for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS does not get that there won’t be any students left in FFX county public schools next year, other than citizens:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-04-18/immigrants-self-deport-rather-than-risk-being-marched-out-like-criminals

Halt the presses, now!

By the time boundary changes are implemented, the democrats might control the White House. That could easily change the immigration situation.

How does your math work?

Rezoning is fall of 2026.

The next presidential election os 2028.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Division Chief, Senior Manager, and Director spending grew from $20 million (actual 2021) to $43 million (proposed 2026). More than doubled.

That extra $23 million could instead be paid to students at $10,000 each to go to private high school. That would remove 2,300 students from enrollment. I estimate that could reduce enrollment by around 4% at FCPS high schools, assuming there are around 57,000 high school students, which is likely a better result than the boundary change plan.

Let's also consider:

$87 million increase for health insurance -

In 2022, health insurance cost $248 million. In 2025, without Blue Choice or Aetna, total health insurance budget jumped to $335 million. Thats an $87 million or 35% increase in 3 years. A 15% increase would have been $50 million less. Would teachers have preferred Blue Choice + Aetna over Cigna? Would it have been cheaper? Is Cigna too expensive? Could $50 million per year be saved and spent on land for a new school?

For 2026 proposed, it's up almost 10% again to $361 million, although it looks like a minimal # of people get Blue Choice again.

Textbooks - why is $146 million being spent on textbooks for 2025 + 2026 when in recent years, that was a small line item?

Like -

$ 3m in 2022
$22m in 2023
$ 6m in 2024 . . . then. .

$106 MILLION 2025 !!!
$45 MILLION 2026 !!!! proposed

Why the extra $130 million in 2 years (over average)?? The books cant be that spectacular.

Again, couldnt some of these funds be paid to students to attend private schools? Particularly to kids with IEPs, as special ed spending has gone way way up and surely many parents would bail if paid for it.

Which private schools cost less that FCPS spends and would accept students with IEPs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS does not get that there won’t be any students left in FFX county public schools next year, other than citizens:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-04-18/immigrants-self-deport-rather-than-risk-being-marched-out-like-criminals

Halt the presses, now!

By the time boundary changes are implemented, the democrats might control the White House. That could easily change the immigration situation.

How does your math work?

Rezoning is fall of 2026.

The next presidential election os 2028.

Maybe she meant “Congress” instead of “White House”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a timber lane/longfellow/mclean family and the tone about our kids on here is really sad. We want our kids to stay with their friends and at their schools just like most other people here.

Yes well we are a Shrevewood family who would rather our whole school be sent to Longfellow/Mclean rather than Cherry picking the wealthiest neighborhood on our boundaries for that.

The very few people I’ve heard who are actually for boundary changes for their kids (and they are very few and far between), are hoping to get a rise in their property value by being moved to a school they perceive as better. It’s shameful.

There also are people who are rabidly against boundary changes because their property value might go down. It’s shameful.

That’s not as shameful as favoring boundary changes merely because you desperately want to see other people’s property values decline.

That’s on the people who chose to buy their homes along the school boundaries. They gambled, and now might loose.
We had the chance of buying a bigger house close to a creek, in a flood zone. We did not want to take that chance. So we ended up buying a smaller one. We made that choice.

Cool story, 🤡.

The fact is that you’re talking about natural risk vs. something that is very much in control of human beings. Two very different things.

Buying on a boundary border is a risk that people should avoid because of the school board? Congratulations, you just decimated the county’s tax rolls because a ton of houses fall in that category. You are off the extreme minority viewpoint here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a timber lane/longfellow/mclean family and the tone about our kids on here is really sad. We want our kids to stay with their friends and at their schools just like most other people here.

Yes well we are a Shrevewood family who would rather our whole school be sent to Longfellow/Mclean rather than Cherry picking the wealthiest neighborhood on our boundaries for that.

The very few people I’ve heard who are actually for boundary changes for their kids (and they are very few and far between), are hoping to get a rise in their property value by being moved to a school they perceive as better. It’s shameful.

There also are people who are rabidly against boundary changes because their property value might go down. It’s shameful.

That’s not as shameful as favoring boundary changes merely because you desperately want to see other people’s property values decline.

That’s on the people who chose to buy their homes along the school boundaries. They gambled, and now might loose.
We had the chance of buying a bigger house close to a creek, in a flood zone. We did not want to take that chance. So we ended up buying a smaller one. We made that choice.

Cool story, 🤡.

The fact is that you’re talking about natural risk vs. something that is very much in control of human beings. Two very different things.

Buying on a boundary border is a risk that people should avoid because of the school board? Congratulations, you just decimated the county’s tax rolls because a ton of houses fall in that category. You are off the extreme minority viewpoint here.

Maybe I am in the minority viewpoint, or it is just that people like me are not too concerned about all this because our houses are not close to a boundary. It could also be that a lot of people in Faifax County are more worried now in putting food on their tables and paying for rent. They don’t have extra time in the day to come on here to complain, or organize to fight the school board. And yes, people like us may not be contributing as much tax-wise, but our kids should not get the short end of the stick just because we don’t live in two million dollar homes. It is PUBLIC school after all.