FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get 9 minutes Forestville ES to Herndon High and 29 minutes Forestville ES to Langley HS.

What are other people getting.

We really could have used that western high school…

Tweedle Dee and tweedle dum out in force today. You want to set policy based on specific traffic incidents? Don’t waste our time.

So you are saying it is normally 10 minutes faster? Ok, so normally it’s:

I get 9 minutes Forestville ES to Herndon High and 19 minutes Forestville ES to Langley HS.

You would make an awesome lawyer. “Your honor, it is demonstrably false that my client was 4x over the legal limit while driving. That is a lie!!! The facts will show they were only 2x over the legal limit while driving.”

Your post is falling apart. Go check Google maps again. Herndon high traffic is creeping up, Langley down over five minutes. You can’t even play “gotcha” right.

DP. Most of the houses that feed into Forestville are MUCH closer to Herndon, especially those neighborhoods south of Route 7 on the western end. Forestville ES is on the south eastern edge of the boundary zone, so calculating distance from the school to Langley does not paint the whole picture.

Don’t be dumb, there are also houses east and west. You’re just a cherry picking doofus.

0% of Forestville kids are closer to Langley than Herndon. The vast majority are even farther from Langley than Forestville ES is. That poster is not cherry picking.

0% of kids in the McLean attendance island are closer to Langley than McLean. I’m not advocating either way for that attendance island to stay or move, but just calling you out for being inconsistent.

But we all know why you two are being inconsistent.

.
I am not familiar with the Mclean attendance island, but those students should go to the closest school. I am not being inconsistent. I think all kids should go to the closest schools. I do get that the geography and location of some schools may make this impossible sometimes, but when the closest high school is 7 mins (2.5 miles) vs the one they are currently zoned for (26 mins - 13 miles away), then I think it is reasonable to consider rezoning some of those homes. It may not happen, we don’t know yet, but the fact that so many here are organized against this move, just shows that they even see this scenario as a possibilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How’s the housing market doing right now? FCPS and the BoS feel confident that this boundary review won’t tip us further in the red?

One neighbor has listed her home this weekend because of the school rezoning. I think it’s a bit unhinged considering the final maps aren’t out and have mentioned waiting until 5/5 but they can’t take the ambiguity. From my previous Falls Church neighborhood, I know at least one family already listed and is already under contract because of where the Graham Road impact hit. Will be interesting to watch the market post the final releases.

BRAC meets today for split feeders and next Monday for capacity. Once those maps are out and they gather community feedback, I hope they wouldn’t adjust anything that doesn’t have community engagement even later.

Those changes in the Falls Church/Graham Road/Timber Lane/Pine Spring area are huge. Lots of unhappy people—especially about kids being shipped all the way to Longfellow for MS.

I don’t see how that stands. Either they keep “new” Timber Lane as a fairly even split feeder to Longfellow/McLean and Jackson/Falls Church with Route 29 as the dividing line, which makes more sense, or they send all of “new” Timber Lane to Longfellow/McLean. Turning Longfellow into a split feeder where only 7% or so of the kids go to Falls Church makes no sense. It’s the exact type of split feeder they are looking to unwind.

If they send all of “new” Timber Lane to Longfellow/McLean they drive up the FARMS rates with all the Kingsley Commons kids, which no doubt would please the School Board, but they’d also double the commutes for the poorer kids off Route 50 who’d benefit by living closer to their schools, which does not align with best practices. It would be a boost for the real estate prices for the single-family homes in that area, but on the other hand it might suck for some of the families who’ve been putting up with the Falls Church renovation for years to have their kids moved to dumpy McLean right around the time the very expensive FCHS renovation wraps up.

Another thing they haven’t really drilled down on is how much they’d be gutting the enrollment of Pine Spring between the changes associated with the Graham Road realignment and the reassignment of the Pine Spring island to Westlawn.

Falls Church HS renovation site includes added program capacity of 543. Scheduled completion date summer 2026. https://www.fcps.edu/falls-church-high-capital-project
Any students at that school now who after going through the major construction get moved to Mclean or Marshall, trailers and big modular? Capacity deficits for SY 2029-30 including the modulars: Mclean -58, Marshall -73.

Yes, that could happen. It's hard to believe they'll create a split feeder at Longfellow where only 7% of the kids would go to Falls Church, as sketched out in the 4/11 presentation. So if they close the split feeder and send all of the "new" Timber Lane-zoned area* to McLean, you could have kids who've been at Falls Church while it was a construction zone moved over to McLean. Given the magnitude of the changes being discussed, grandfathering seems increasingly unlikely. Of course, they could also revert to keeping Timber Lane a split feeder, with north of 29 at Longfellow/McLean and south of 29 at Jackson/Falls Church. That would still be a fairly balanced split feeder (closer to 50%-50% than the current situation, which is 60% McLean, 40% Falls Church).

* For those not familiar with the Timber Lane proposal, they are talking about keeping the Timber Lane area north of 29 largely as is, except for the area west of Hollywood Road, which would move to Shrevewood, but then sending the entire area south of 29 now at Timber Lane to Graham Road and reassigning a larger area between Routes 29 and 50 now at Pine Spring and Graham Road to Timber Lane.

It will be interesting to see what comes of the BRAC meeting tonight (4/25) and their proposed split feeders. Will they assess split feeders based on the attendee island recommendations? Or will they use current boundaries for proposals? The public will know by Monday unless someone from BRAC updates these threads after the meeting (which I would argue they should be doing but are not...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More money to Thru last night per the FCPS meeting.

The proposed amendment will add 1) development of a boundary explorer website in the amount of $20,000 and 2) the option to purchase an interactive, multi-language tool to support hybrid community engagement sessions, Pigeonhole, in the amount of $2,700.

And I guess this is why we need to #fundFCPS?

Yes, yes, I know 23K-ish won't actually move the needle, but why do we think these people are good stewards of our tax dollars again?

So. they put in a bid to draw boundaries, but did not already have the software to do it?

Drip, drip, drip. Just wait until they need to make maps and do more community engagement. Anyone who thinks that Thru will not be making $$millions is very naive.

In government contracting, anyone who thinks it is a "fixed price" has no experience. The School Board knows that, but $500K as the "price" is much more attractive at the beginning.

Is this going to be another sole source contact?

[Anonymous]

I’d like to know what households without school aged students think about all of this. They are also stakeholders. Is FCPS engaging them? I’d think they’d be more logical than people on this forum or the FCPS SB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get 9 minutes Forestville ES to Herndon High and 29 minutes Forestville ES to Langley HS.

What are other people getting.

We really could have used that western high school…

Tweedle Dee and tweedle dum out in force today. You want to set policy based on specific traffic incidents? Don’t waste our time.

So you are saying it is normally 10 minutes faster? Ok, so normally it’s:

I get 9 minutes Forestville ES to Herndon High and 19 minutes Forestville ES to Langley HS.

You would make an awesome lawyer. “Your honor, it is demonstrably false that my client was 4x over the legal limit while driving. That is a lie!!! The facts will show they were only 2x over the legal limit while driving.”

Your post is falling apart. Go check Google maps again. Herndon high traffic is creeping up, Langley down over five minutes. You can’t even play “gotcha” right.

DP. Most of the houses that feed into Forestville are MUCH closer to Herndon, especially those neighborhoods south of Route 7 on the western end. Forestville ES is on the south eastern edge of the boundary zone, so calculating distance from the school to Langley does not paint the whole picture.

Don’t be dumb, there are also houses east and west. You’re just a cherry picking doofus.

0% of Forestville kids are closer to Langley than Herndon. The vast majority are even farther from Langley than Forestville ES is. That poster is not cherry picking.

0% of kids in the McLean attendance island are closer to Langley than McLean. I’m not advocating either way for that attendance island to stay or move, but just calling you out for being inconsistent.

But we all know why you two are being inconsistent.

.
I am not familiar with the Mclean attendance island, but those students should go to the closest school. I am not being inconsistent. I think all kids should go to the closest schools. I do get that the geography and location of some schools may make this impossible sometimes, but when the closest high school is 7 mins (2.5 miles) vs the one they are currently zoned for (26 mins - 13 miles away), then I think it is reasonable to consider rezoning some of those homes. It may not happen, we don’t know yet, but the fact that so many here are organized against this move, just shows that they even see this scenario as a possibilty.

So, I’ve heard this argument before, and it sounds simply good to send kids to the closest school, but it just can’t work like that. The obvious example is Langley and its proximity to McLean. You’d have well under a thousand kids at Langley if you operated under the closest school logic.

So then it’s a question of where do you pull from? The Spring Hill McLean attendance island, though seemingly much closer to Langley has to battle through some traffic pinpoints to get to Langley, so the actual length of time it takes to get to the school is a few minutes shorter than the Forestville trip.

It’s clear we aren’t talking about any transportation cost savings here, in fact, if anything, they’ll increase significantly as they double bus for grandfathered seniors. I think that’s why we won’t see any real analysis of transportation costs until this is all done and then the transportation department will just rubber stamp the changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:0% of kids in the McLean attendance island are closer to Langley than McLean. I’m not advocating either way for that attendance island to stay or move, but just calling you out for being inconsistent.

But we all know why you two are being inconsistent.

Evermay is an example of a neighborhood closer as the school bus drives to Langley HS than to McLean HS. There are several other neighborhoods on 123 near there that trivially could be moved to Langley -- without overcrowding Langley and reducing McLean overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:0% of kids in the McLean attendance island are closer to Langley than McLean. I’m not advocating either way for that attendance island to stay or move, but just calling you out for being inconsistent.

But we all know why you two are being inconsistent.

Evermay is an example of a neighborhood closer as the school bus drives to Langley HS than to McLean HS. There are several other neighborhoods on 123 near there that trivially could be moved to Langley -- without overcrowding Langley and reducing McLean overcrowding.

All Fairfax kids are just cogs in the equity agenda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:0% of kids in the McLean attendance island are closer to Langley than McLean. I’m not advocating either way for that attendance island to stay or move, but just calling you out for being inconsistent.

But we all know why you two are being inconsistent.

Evermay is an example of a neighborhood closer as the school bus drives to Langley HS than to McLean HS. There are several other neighborhoods on 123 near there that trivially could be moved to Langley -- without overcrowding Langley and reducing McLean overcrowding.

DP. Because of FCPS's poor treatment of the McLean pyramid, with minimal investment compared to other areas, we've already had a high school boundary change with Langley in 2021, followed by boundary changes of many of the elementary schools in the McLean pyramid starting last fall. Now they are talking about yet further boundary changes.

You are right that there are a small number of neighborhoods zoned to McLean that are closer to Langley. They are zoned to two elementary schools whose boundaries just got changed (Franklin Sherman and Chesterbrook) and they should be left alone. If those neighborhoods were moved, they'd turn Franklin Sherman and/or Chesterbrook into very uneven split feeders, since the vast majority of the kids at both schools live much closer to McLean.

On the other hand, the current McLean attendance island in Tysons may be closer to McLean than Langley, but it's also closer to Cooper than Longfellow; it's a split feeder to Spring Hill, which is in the Langley pyramid (it's about a 65-35 split to Langley/McLean); and Spring Hill wasn't affected by the boundary changes that affected Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, and three other schools. If anything is getting moved out of McLean in this next go-around - and many of us would prefer NO changes since the MHS enrollment is finally coming down - it should be one of the two islands (Tysons or Timber Lane), each of which is also a split feeder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:0% of kids in the McLean attendance island are closer to Langley than McLean. I’m not advocating either way for that attendance island to stay or move, but just calling you out for being inconsistent.

But we all know why you two are being inconsistent.

Evermay is an example of a neighborhood closer as the school bus drives to Langley HS than to McLean HS. There are several other neighborhoods on 123 near there that trivially could be moved to Langley -- without overcrowding Langley and reducing McLean overcrowding.

DP. Because of FCPS's poor treatment of the McLean pyramid, with minimal investment compared to other areas, we've already had a high school boundary change with Langley in 2021, followed by boundary changes of many of the elementary schools in the McLean pyramid starting last fall. Now they are talking about yet further boundary changes.

You are right that there are a small number of neighborhoods zoned to McLean that are closer to Langley. They are zoned to two elementary schools whose boundaries just got changed (Franklin Sherman and Chesterbrook) and they should be left alone. If those neighborhoods were moved, they'd turn Franklin Sherman and/or Chesterbrook into very uneven split feeders, since the vast majority of the kids at both schools live much closer to McLean.

On the other hand, the current McLean attendance island in Tysons may be closer to McLean than Langley, but it's also closer to Cooper than Longfellow; it's a split feeder to Spring Hill, which is in the Langley pyramid (it's about a 65-35 split to Langley/McLean); and Spring Hill wasn't affected by the boundary changes that affected Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, and three other schools. If anything is getting moved out of McLean in this next go-around - and many of us would prefer NO changes since the MHS enrollment is finally coming down - it should be one of the two islands (Tysons or Timber Lane), each of which is also a split feeder.

Bringing the F’ing receipts. Turns out that these armchair equity warriors have zero clue what they are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get 9 minutes Forestville ES to Herndon High and 29 minutes Forestville ES to Langley HS.

What are other people getting.

We really could have used that western high school…

Tweedle Dee and tweedle dum out in force today. You want to set policy based on specific traffic incidents? Don’t waste our time.

So you are saying it is normally 10 minutes faster? Ok, so normally it’s:

I get 9 minutes Forestville ES to Herndon High and 19 minutes Forestville ES to Langley HS.

You would make an awesome lawyer. “Your honor, it is demonstrably false that my client was 4x over the legal limit while driving. That is a lie!!! The facts will show they were only 2x over the legal limit while driving.”

Your post is falling apart. Go check Google maps again. Herndon high traffic is creeping up, Langley down over five minutes. You can’t even play “gotcha” right.

DP. Most of the houses that feed into Forestville are MUCH closer to Herndon, especially those neighborhoods south of Route 7 on the western end. Forestville ES is on the south eastern edge of the boundary zone, so calculating distance from the school to Langley does not paint the whole picture.

Don’t be dumb, there are also houses east and west. You’re just a cherry picking doofus.

0% of Forestville kids are closer to Langley than Herndon. The vast majority are even farther from Langley than Forestville ES is. That poster is not cherry picking.

0% of kids in the McLean attendance island are closer to Langley than McLean. I’m not advocating either way for that attendance island to stay or move, but just calling you out for being inconsistent.

But we all know why you two are being inconsistent.

.
I am not familiar with the Mclean attendance island, but those students should go to the closest school. I am not being inconsistent. I think all kids should go to the closest schools. I do get that the geography and location of some schools may make this impossible sometimes, but when the closest high school is 7 mins (2.5 miles) vs the one they are currently zoned for (26 mins - 13 miles away), then I think it is reasonable to consider rezoning some of those homes. It may not happen, we don’t know yet, but the fact that so many here are organized against this move, just shows that they even see this scenario as a possibilty.

So, I’ve heard this argument before, and it sounds simply good to send kids to the closest school, but it just can’t work like that. The obvious example is Langley and its proximity to McLean. You’d have well under a thousand kids at Langley if you operated under the closest school logic.

So then it’s a question of where do you pull from? The Spring Hill McLean attendance island, though seemingly much closer to Langley has to battle through some traffic pinpoints to get to Langley, so the actual length of time it takes to get to the school is a few minutes shorter than the Forestville trip.

It’s clear we aren’t talking about any transportation cost savings here, in fact, if anything, they’ll increase significantly as they double bus for grandfathered seniors. I think that’s why we won’t see any real analysis of transportation costs until this is all done and then the transportation department will just rubber stamp the changes.

The "traffic pinpoints" relate to getting out of Tysons more than they do getting to either McLean or Langley. Once you get past the Spring Hill Road/267 interchange you're basically in a neighborhood (McLean Hamlet) currently zoned to Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to know what households without school aged students think about all of this. They are also stakeholders. Is FCPS engaging them? I’d think they’d be more logical than people on this forum or the FCPS SB.

It’s important to include them, since they are the majority of the tax payers for the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:0% of kids in the McLean attendance island are closer to Langley than McLean. I’m not advocating either way for that attendance island to stay or move, but just calling you out for being inconsistent.

But we all know why you two are being inconsistent.

Evermay is an example of a neighborhood closer as the school bus drives to Langley HS than to McLean HS. There are several other neighborhoods on 123 near there that trivially could be moved to Langley -- without overcrowding Langley and reducing McLean overcrowding.

All Fairfax kids are just cogs in the equity agenda

They’re just cogs. Equity isn’t needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to know what households without school aged students think about all of this. They are also stakeholders. Is FCPS engaging them? I’d think they’d be more logical than people on this forum or the FCPS SB.

My neighbors without kids couldn’t care less about what is happening at FCPS. They talk wistfully about how great FCPS was 20 years ago when they had school-aged kids. They sure as hell didn’t care when FCPS was shut down for a year in 20-21

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to know what households without school aged students think about all of this. They are also stakeholders. Is FCPS engaging them? I’d think they’d be more logical than people on this forum or the FCPS SB.

It’s important to include them, since they are the majority of the tax payers for the county.

I think you're assuming that these households will just glom onto the argument "change boundaries if it will save a dime because I don't like tax increases."

Some are canny enough to know that changing boundaries might only save a penny, rather than a dime, or end up damaging the county's tax base and making it even more reliant on residential tax revenue from those still able to foot the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get 9 minutes Forestville ES to Herndon High and 29 minutes Forestville ES to Langley HS.

What are other people getting.

We really could have used that western high school…

Tweedle Dee and tweedle dum out in force today. You want to set policy based on specific traffic incidents? Don’t waste our time.

So you are saying it is normally 10 minutes faster? Ok, so normally it’s:

I get 9 minutes Forestville ES to Herndon High and 19 minutes Forestville ES to Langley HS.

You would make an awesome lawyer. “Your honor, it is demonstrably false that my client was 4x over the legal limit while driving. That is a lie!!! The facts will show they were only 2x over the legal limit while driving.”

Your post is falling apart. Go check Google maps again. Herndon high traffic is creeping up, Langley down over five minutes. You can’t even play “gotcha” right.

DP. Most of the houses that feed into Forestville are MUCH closer to Herndon, especially those neighborhoods south of Route 7 on the western end. Forestville ES is on the south eastern edge of the boundary zone, so calculating distance from the school to Langley does not paint the whole picture.

Don’t be dumb, there are also houses east and west. You’re just a cherry picking doofus.

0% of Forestville kids are closer to Langley than Herndon. The vast majority are even farther from Langley than Forestville ES is. That poster is not cherry picking.

0% of kids in the McLean attendance island are closer to Langley than McLean. I’m not advocating either way for that attendance island to stay or move, but just calling you out for being inconsistent.

But we all know why you two are being inconsistent.

.
I am not familiar with the Mclean attendance island, but those students should go to the closest school. I am not being inconsistent. I think all kids should go to the closest schools. I do get that the geography and location of some schools may make this impossible sometimes, but when the closest high school is 7 mins (2.5 miles) vs the one they are currently zoned for (26 mins - 13 miles away), then I think it is reasonable to consider rezoning some of those homes. It may not happen, we don’t know yet, but the fact that so many here are organized against this move, just shows that they even see this scenario as a possibilty.

So, I’ve heard this argument before, and it sounds simply good to send kids to the closest school, but it just can’t work like that. The obvious example is Langley and its proximity to McLean. You’d have well under a thousand kids at Langley if you operated under the closest school logic.

So then it’s a question of where do you pull from? The Spring Hill McLean attendance island, though seemingly much closer to Langley has to battle through some traffic pinpoints to get to Langley, so the actual length of time it takes to get to the school is a few minutes shorter than the Forestville trip.

It’s clear we aren’t talking about any transportation cost savings here, in fact, if anything, they’ll increase significantly as they double bus for grandfathered seniors. I think that’s why we won’t see any real analysis of transportation costs until this is all done and then the transportation department will just rubber stamp the changes.

By this logic, there should never be any boundary changes, like ever.