FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the three boundary adjustments will be combined? I’m trying to figure out how boundary adjustments for attendance islands, split feeders and population with work in the end. For example, if by eliminating an attendance island and split feeder creates over capacity for a MS or HS, then what? A certain portion of those neighborhoods are sent to a different nearby school?

The main thing people are waiting to see is if there are separate analyses around (1) attendance islands, (2) split feeders, and (3) capacity issues, or whether it's iterative, with refinements based on the feedback received on the prior scenarios.

If they are separate analyses, then people won't really know the direction in which they are heading (i.e., what their real priorities are), but if the analysis is iterative it will seem like whatever final recommendation emerges is essentially a fait accompli.

And I think most people still question the need for this entire exercise - the proverbial "is the juice worth the squeeze" at a time of flat enrollments with likely declines on the horizon.

Apparently not iterative. No discussion of shrevewoood becoming a split feeder to Kilmer and Longfellow when it’s currently just Kilmer.

Which is weird, because they claim they claim on slide 21 that they fixed other split feeders in previous sessions, yet their proposed scenarios don’t align with what was previously presented.

Regardless, moving a large portion of Westgate’s walk zone to Franklin Sherman is a choice. Especially when they don’t seem to be considering the phased grandfathering from the Kent Gardens adjustments to their capacity projections. So they’re trying to improve transportation efficiencies by *checks notes * moving a town house community that is 400 ft from their currently assigned elementary school to a school 2 miles away.

The 4/11 presentation "fixed" one part of the split feeder by moving all of Wolftrap ES out of Kilmer into Thoreau. But then, they added the Westbriar island to Wolftrap, making Wolftrap a split

That's not quite correct. The 4/11 presentation would have moved the part of Wolftrap ES that is currently assigned to Kilmer/Madison to Thoreau. Other parts of Wolftrap would stay at Kilmer/Marshall, and the Westbriar island would be added to that area. And both currently and under the proposal involving the Westbriar island, Wolftrap would be an even enough split feeder that they wouldn't prioritize it.

Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the three boundary adjustments will be combined? I’m trying to figure out how boundary adjustments for attendance islands, split feeders and population with work in the end. For example, if by eliminating an attendance island and split feeder creates over capacity for a MS or HS, then what? A certain portion of those neighborhoods are sent to a different nearby school?

The main thing people are waiting to see is if there are separate analyses around (1) attendance islands, (2) split feeders, and (3) capacity issues, or whether it's iterative, with refinements based on the feedback received on the prior scenarios.

If they are separate analyses, then people won't really know the direction in which they are heading (i.e., what their real priorities are), but if the analysis is iterative it will seem like whatever final recommendation emerges is essentially a fait accompli.

And I think most people still question the need for this entire exercise - the proverbial "is the juice worth the squeeze" at a time of flat enrollments with likely declines on the horizon.

Apparently not iterative. No discussion of shrevewoood becoming a split feeder to Kilmer and Longfellow when it’s currently just Kilmer.

Which is weird, because they claim they claim on slide 21 that they fixed other split feeders in previous sessions, yet their proposed scenarios don’t align with what was previously presented.

Regardless, moving a large portion of Westgate’s walk zone to Franklin Sherman is a choice. Especially when they don’t seem to be considering the phased grandfathering from the Kent Gardens adjustments to their capacity projections. So they’re trying to improve transportation efficiencies by *checks notes * moving a town house community that is 400 ft from their currently assigned elementary school to a school 2 miles away.

The 4/11 presentation "fixed" one part of the split feeder by moving all of Wolftrap ES out of Kilmer into Thoreau. But then, they added the Westbriar island to Wolftrap, making Wolftrap a split

Wolftrap and Westbriar were and continue to be a split feeder to Madison/Marshall, with the proposal now they are also split feeders to Thoreau/Kilmer.

[Anonymous]

Why is stenwood not discussed in the slides? Pretty sure less than 25% go to Thoreau, and rest go to Kilmer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they heard the resounding feedback from the Community Boundary Review Meetings to minimize disruptions to MS' and HS'. The email from Reid says: "The consultant shared that we are primarily focused on resolving split feeders at the elementary school level, because we can make the most targeted adjustments with the least disruptions."

That may explain why we did not see Carson, Oakton, Langley impacts. This would nicely also nicely solve for the issues of grandfathering and transportation.

Putting the AAP quirk at Churchill Road aside (where Churchill Road is the AAP center option for one McLean feeder, Kent Gardens), Langley does not have any split feeders now at the ES or MS level besides Spring Hill ES, which they already proposed to address on 4/11 in connection with the elimination of one of the two Longfellow/McLean attendance islands by reassigning all the Longfellow/McLean kids at Spring Hill to Cooper/Langley. It was a focus because of the attendance island; otherwise, it is an even enough split feeder (about 35% to McLean, 65% to Langley) that they wouldn't have otherwise taken it up on 4/25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is stenwood not discussed in the slides? Pretty sure less than 25% go to Thoreau, and rest go to Kilmer.

It looks like more than 25% could go to Thoreau (Dunn Loring Woods has a lot of kids), but even if it were below 25% they would not have looked at it under one of their guiding principles on p. 6 of the 4/25 presentation:

"A split-feeder school was not corrected if the school building itself sits in the smaller (< 25 %) area."

If you live next door to Stenwood, you go to Stenwood/Thoreau/Marshall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I correct in assuming they only adjusted split feeder issues from ES-->MS or MS-->, and not ES-->? I ask because our children go to an ES and are part of 10% of the population that goes to one HS, and the other 90% goes to another HS (however the entire ES goes to the same MS). I'd think they'd fix that as part of the feeder issue, but maybe I misinterpreted it.

If they think they fixed ES split feeders they missed Floris ES

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is stenwood not discussed in the slides? Pretty sure less than 25% go to Thoreau, and rest go to Kilmer.

It looks like more than 25% could go to Thoreau (Dunn Loring Woods has a lot of kids), but even if it were below 25% they would not have looked at it under one of their guiding principles on p. 6 of the 4/25 presentation:

"A split-feeder school was not corrected if the school building itself sits in the smaller (< 25 %) area."

If you live next door to Stenwood, you go to Stenwood/Thoreau/Marshall.

It makes their Westgate proposal even more bizarre since the Stenwood kids are split to Thoreau for 2 years and then sent back to Marshall with their original elementary cohort. If they’re going to move the Union Station town houses out of Westgate, they can send all of Stenwood to Kilmer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I correct in assuming they only adjusted split feeder issues from ES-->MS or MS-->, and not ES-->? I ask because our children go to an ES and are part of 10% of the population that goes to one HS, and the other 90% goes to another HS (however the entire ES goes to the same MS). I'd think they'd fix that as part of the feeder issue, but maybe I misinterpreted it.

If they think they fixed ES split feeders they missed Floris ES

So all of Floris goes to Carson, and then splits to South Lakes and Westfield, right? PP raised the excellent point that it looks like they may have just looked at ES splits to a MS and MS splits to a HS, without looking at ES splits to a HS, but they've suggested they would ignore a split in any event if, say, more than 25% of Floris goes to South Lakes (I understand the majority goes to Westfield).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many pages. Any idea of whether all these changes will happen at once or if certain schools will be first up and others later? I just need to know when to expect WSHS changes at the earliest. I wish we had specific school threads. Not sure if Jeff would delete those.

BRAC still has to agree on proposals to move forward to Reid for a Fall 2026 start date. For WSHS, I expect we'll see the attendance island cleanup that moves some of the Keene Mill island split between White Oak/LBSS & Cardinal Forest/WSHS, and the Sangster Island moved to Newington Forest ES/South County. RVES split feeder population moved to Saratoga. HVES likely will become a split feeder to address WSHS capacity. Since they are keeping integrity for Student Planning Areas you should see everything along Gambrill moving south relocated to South County MS/HS, and the random neighborhood areas along the parkway zoned for Irving/WSHS.

It seems hard to believe they would create a brand new split feeder ES that sends roughly half the school to a new HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thoreau is a three-way split feeder to Madison, Marshall, and Oakton and fewer than 25% go to each of Marshall and Oakton. But they apparently didn't touch it because Thoreau sits within an area zoned to Marshall. I can see the logic of not doing anything with respect to the Marshall-zoned area but it's odd they didn't look at the Oakton area given other changes they are proposing to ES/MS split feeders.

Are you sure about the bold? Where are you getting your numbers?

Thoreau takes all of Mosaic ES, Oakton ES, and Marshall Road ES. All of Mosaic ES feeds to Oakton HS, as does part of Marshall Road. There are about 625 7th graders at Thoreau, and 140 6th graders at Mosaic. Add in what Thoreau gets from Marshall Road and Oakton ES (currently a split between Madison and Oakton) you are probably over 25% of Thoreau headed to Oakton HS.

Also, would last week’s island “fix” (the Flint Hill ES swap to Oakton ES) make all of Oakton ES feed into Oakton HS, rather than split between Oakton and Madison?

Maybe I am wrong, but it looks like Thoreau was left alone for Oakton feeders because of the 25% threshold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoreau is a three-way split feeder to Madison, Marshall, and Oakton and fewer than 25% go to each of Marshall and Oakton. But they apparently didn't touch it because Thoreau sits within an area zoned to Marshall. I can see the logic of not doing anything with respect to the Marshall-zoned area but it's odd they didn't look at the Oakton area given other changes they are proposing to ES/MS split feeders.

Are you sure about the bold? Where are you getting your numbers?

Thoreau takes all of Mosaic ES, Oakton ES, and Marshall Road ES. All of Mosaic ES feeds to Oakton HS, as does part of Marshall Road. There are about 625 7th graders at Thoreau, and 140 6th graders at Mosaic. Add in what Thoreau gets from Marshall Road and Oakton ES (currently a split between Madison and Oakton) you are probably over 25% of Thoreau headed to Oakton HS.

Also, would last week’s island “fix” (the Flint Hill ES swap to Oakton ES) make all of Oakton ES feed into Oakton HS, rather than split between Oakton and Madison?

Maybe I am wrong, but it looks like Thoreau was left alone for Oakton feeders because of the 25% threshold.

Fair enough, as we'd need the numbers for a definitive assessment. Swapping Oakton and Flint Hill kids wouldn't change the overall percentage of Thoreau kids going to Oakton as opposed to Madison and Marshall, and one of their 4/11 proposals was to add 149 more Madison-zoned students to Thoreau from Kilmer, which would reduce the Thoreau percentages headed to Oakton and Marshall, but they very well may have ignored their own proposal in deciding whether to address Thoreau on 4/25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did they not even touch Franklin? I feel like they went all nutso on attendance islands and backed off on effort (thankfully) on split feeders.

They did. Carson is the one which needed the changes most and was not touched.

As a future Carson parent this really annoys me. I would like my child to be at a middle school with kids they are going to high school with. All they needed to do was swap some Franklin & Carson kids and you get a big chunk of kids all going to Oakton together instead of half Chantilly, half Oakton at Franklin and several different high schools from Carson. It's such an obvious change.

[Anonymous]

This is stupid. They didn't talk about split feeders they are creating - like Shrevewood!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid. They didn't talk about split feeders they are creating - like Shrevewood!

Shrevewood got treated like a pawn to "fix" issues elsewhere. The 4/11 proposal contemplated two changes affecting Shrevewood:

* Some areas near Route 7 would be reassigned from Kilmer/Marshall to Longfellow/McLean while remaining at Shrevewood; and

* Some areas near Route 29 would be reassigned from Timber Lane/Longfellow/McLean to Shrevewood/Kilmer, while remaining at McLean.

At the same time, they propose reassigning all the Kilmer kids zoned for Madison to Thoreau.

The net result is that Shrevewood would become a split feeder to both Longfellow and Kilmer and to Marshall and McLean, and Kilmer would become a different but still lopsided split feeder (to Marshall and McLean, rather than to Marshall and Madison).

If they really have to change the boundaries to deal with the Longfellow/McLean attendance island and the Graham Road situation (where the school currently is located outside its attendance area), and it's not clear either is really a problem warranting redistricting, a more clear-cut solution would be:

* Reassign any areas near Route 7 that are getting moved to Longfellow/McLean to Lemon Road ES, which is already a split feeder to Kilmer/Marshall and Longfellow/McLean; and

* Reassign the area being moved from Timber Lane not just to Shrevewood/Kilmer, but also to Marshall (they cannot retain that area at Timber Lane given other changes they are proposing to Timber Lane's boundaries without significantly overcrowding Timber Lane).

Otherwise these changes just create as many new issues as they purport to fix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid. They didn't talk about split feeders they are creating - like Shrevewood!

“Bridging” the Timber Lane island is creating more problems than it’s fixing. It would make more sense to send Timber Lane to Marshall or Falls Church High School and expand the McLean zoned portion of Westgate so that it was a 50/50 feeder.