Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no way they’re keeping the maps under wraps for two weeks if the changes are that drastic. Were Crestwood or Rose Hill mentioned once in the BRAC priority notes? The edits from BRAC were very specific and mostly tinkering/revert it to the way it was.

That’s where I’m confused too. All the BRAC notes basically came down to, don’t do this. If entire elementary schools are being moved at this point, that’s a huge difference. But I guess when the meetings are closed and we only get some notes after the fact, the rumors really get out of hand. FCPS should be ashamed of themselves.

That’s not really true. Region 5 proposed to move the Westbriar island to Colvin Run rather than Wolftrap, and then to move them out of Kilmer/Marshall to Cooper/Langley. They wanted Thru to run those numbers, which could have ripple effects on other boundaries.

No doubt there were other examples where BRAC was proposing more than “don’t do this.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(

Anonymous wrote:Lots of discussion tonight at the boundary meeting from Rose Hill ES parents who apparently heard there's going to be a change to move the whole school to Hayfield. There's a lot of concern being raised about what happens to the Spanish immerson kids. No answers tonight from staff.

So the “tinkering around the edges” the superintendent said was going to happen has become a massive flip where multiple elementary schools think they are going to have to switch pyramids?

So far, this site has said Crestwood and Rose Hill. Is this really going on?

I’m the PP who listened to the meeting tonight. Parents brought up the issue of Rose Hill. They said it was mentioned during a recent PTA meeting. They had concerns about Spanish immersion and also where the AAP kids and the kids in the autism program would be going.

I don’t understand the concern about immersion. What were the concerns? If a student is in an immersion program, then even if the boundaries of the school change, the student can continue attending that school because they are in the immersion program. The biggest issue would be immersion students who would no longer get transportation if it’s no longer their base school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(

Anonymous wrote:Lots of discussion tonight at the boundary meeting from Rose Hill ES parents who apparently heard there's going to be a change to move the whole school to Hayfield. There's a lot of concern being raised about what happens to the Spanish immerson kids. No answers tonight from staff.

So the “tinkering around the edges” the superintendent said was going to happen has become a massive flip where multiple elementary schools think they are going to have to switch pyramids?

So far, this site has said Crestwood and Rose Hill. Is this really going on?

I’m the PP who listened to the meeting tonight. Parents brought up the issue of Rose Hill. They said it was mentioned during a recent PTA meeting. They had concerns about Spanish immersion and also where the AAP kids and the kids in the autism program would be going.

I don’t understand the concern about immersion. What were the concerns? If a student is in an immersion program, then even if the boundaries of the school change, the student can continue attending that school because they are in the immersion program. The biggest issue would be immersion students who would no longer get transportation if it’s no longer their base school.

The immersion program is through middle school, but Hayfield already has the Spanish immersion set up, so there isn’t an issue. They’d continue the program there instead of at Twain.

[Anonymous]

Got it. I feel like a larger issue would be the huge question mark of how many immersion students for whom the immersion elementary school is their base would decide to remain in that program/school if a huge chunk of the school boundary were to be re-zoned for a different school.

[Anonymous]

They didn't post the slides from the Sept. 24 BRAC meeting. It's usually posted the next day. Do we think they just won't post anything else on this until Oct 10, when they release the maps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They didn't post the slides from the Sept. 24 BRAC meeting. It's usually posted the next day. Do we think they just won't post anything else on this until Oct 10, when they release the maps?

That is what it sounds like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They didn't post the slides from the Sept. 24 BRAC meeting. It's usually posted the next day. Do we think they just won't post anything else on this until Oct 10, when they release the maps?

There’s a “you are not authorized to access this page” landing for September 24 instead of a 404 Error, which means they will post some notes for the meeting.

[Anonymous]

IIRC, last time it took them 2 days to post the notes after the meeting.

[Anonymous]

BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

Looks like they are increasing times for more kids than reducing? Please make it make sense...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

It demonstrates why they should have funded an addition to McLean years ago. They can keep kicking kids out, but the kids then have longer commutes to other schools.

Unfortunately FCPS can’t plan for shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

Are the notes in the agenda or slides link?

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised they left in the Chantilly to Oakton move. At least, I assume that's the 41 kids moving 6.88 miles away. Makes no sense with KAA coming on board.