FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It appears they are sending Navy Island to Oak Hill. That keeps them at Franklin. So, will they send them to Chantilly? That would even out the Chantilly/Oakton split.

Franklin only feeds to Chantilly and Oakton right? Won’t they have to move some kids out of Chantilly to make room for the Navy island kids?

Some of Franklin goes to Westfield.

I still maintain they should have made that area east of 28 and south of 50 brookfield-rocky run-chantilly instead of keeping brookfield as a split feeder and would have freed up Franklin to help with Carson kids. Plus, those kids going from Cub Run to Lee's Corner basically drive by Brookfield
to get to Lee's Corner.

So are those Cub run kids at Lees Corner going to Chantilly? I thought we’re trying to reduce enrollment at Chantilly. Same with Navy Island going to Franklin, are they moving to chantilly HS?

I think they are moving Navy Island kids to Chantilly HS. Chantilly HS is already at 110%.

So it’s possible that they may propose something to reduce Chantilly’s enrollment at the next meeting. Maybe they will move the entire Navy (other than Island) to Oakton HS. Or they will move Greenbriar east to Fairfax HS (doubt it).

Chantilly is projected to lose population. It has been crowded for decades. They deal with it well.

The 3/25 slides only looked at the CURRENT capacity. Chantilly HS is top 5 most overcrowded school and they are proposing moves that would increase the enrollment.

Something has to give.

They haven't proposed much that would increase it so far.

[Anonymous]

Would the Bradley Farms/Emerald Chase neighborhoods that are now being moved from Oak Hill ES to Fox Mill still go to Westfield or is this looking like Oakton? Hard to tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would the Bradley Farms/Emerald Chase neighborhoods that are now being moved from Oak Hill ES to Fox Mill still go to Westfield or is this looking like Oakton? Hard to tell.

I think it looks like South Lakes. But, who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would the Bradley Farms/Emerald Chase neighborhoods that are now being moved from Oak Hill ES to Fox Mill still go to Westfield or is this looking like Oakton? Hard to tell.

Switching to Oakton would make Fox Mill a split feeder. It seems like the shifted portion of Oak Hill would remain Westfield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How likely are these “proposals” to go through?

Many of them not very likely. I think the BRAC parents are silent right now because it's not the appropriate time to resist. But by the BRAC recommending two meetings ago 'provide attendance island families a survey to see what they think,' they well know that the feedback will be mostly "leave us alone we are happy."

Even with FCPS stacking the BRAC deck with its own plants, it's possible the parent reps will have a unified voice and only minor changes will occur in each region as recommended by parents. The goal of using capacity to funnel high-SES kids to lower performing schools may be defeated. Things will get spicy and we have to hope that BRAC parents will unify across regions to overpower the FCPS BRAC plants who will try to dictate changes to regions where they do not live or work or go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How likely are these “proposals” to go through?

Many of them not very likely. I think the BRAC parents are silent right now because it's not the appropriate time to resist. But by the BRAC recommending two meetings ago 'provide attendance island families a survey to see what they think,' they well know that the feedback will be mostly "leave us alone we are happy."

Even with FCPS stacking the BRAC deck with its own plants, it's possible the parent reps will have a unified voice and only minor changes will occur in each region as recommended by parents. The goal of using capacity to funnel high-SES kids to lower performing schools may be defeated. Things will get spicy and we have to hope that BRAC parents will unify across regions to overpower the FCPS BRAC plants who will try to dictate changes to regions where they do not live or work or go to school.

What are BRAC parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How likely are these “proposals” to go through?

Many of them not very likely. I think the BRAC parents are silent right now because it's not the appropriate time to resist. But by the BRAC recommending two meetings ago 'provide attendance island families a survey to see what they think,' they well know that the feedback will be mostly "leave us alone we are happy."

Even with FCPS stacking the BRAC deck with its own plants, it's possible the parent reps will have a unified voice and only minor changes will occur in each region as recommended by parents. The goal of using capacity to funnel high-SES kids to lower performing schools may be defeated. Things will get spicy and we have to hope that BRAC parents will unify across regions to overpower the FCPS BRAC plants who will try to dictate changes to regions where they do not live or work or go to school.

What are BRAC parents?

Readthe first few pages of this thread, including the links to get inforned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the Bradley Farms/Emerald Chase neighborhoods that are now being moved from Oak Hill ES to Fox Mill still go to Westfield or is this looking like Oakton? Hard to tell.

Switching to Oakton would make Fox Mill a split feeder. It seems like the shifted portion of Oak Hill would remain Westfield.

Isn't Fox Mill a South Lakes neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It appears they are sending Navy Island to Oak Hill. That keeps them at Franklin. So, will they send them to Chantilly? That would even out the Chantilly/Oakton split.

Franklin only feeds to Chantilly and Oakton right? Won’t they have to move some kids out of Chantilly to make room for the Navy island kids?

Some of Franklin goes to Westfield.

I still maintain they should have made that area east of 28 and south of 50 brookfield-rocky run-chantilly instead of keeping brookfield as a split feeder and would have freed up Franklin to help with Carson kids. Plus, those kids going from Cub Run to Lee's Corner basically drive by Brookfield
to get to Lee's Corner.

So are those Cub run kids at Lees Corner going to Chantilly? I thought we’re trying to reduce enrollment at Chantilly. Same with Navy Island going to Franklin, are they moving to chantilly HS?

I think they are moving Navy Island kids to Chantilly HS. Chantilly HS is already at 110%.

So it’s possible that they may propose something to reduce Chantilly’s enrollment at the next meeting. Maybe they will move the entire Navy (other than Island) to Oakton HS. Or they will move Greenbriar east to Fairfax HS (doubt it).

From looking at a map with ES/HS overlaid I could see the argument for all of Navy to go to Franklin/Oakton, except that Navy island which should go to Crossfield and not Oak Hill. Then all of Crossfield should go to Carson/South Lakes. That makes space in Chantilly, reduces split feeders in Franlkin and Carson, and sends Crossfield to the high school zone where the school is located. I'm sure the vast majority of them would prefer to stay at Oakton HS though and not be moved just because their elementary school is across the border in the South Lakes boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would the Bradley Farms/Emerald Chase neighborhoods that are now being moved from Oak Hill ES to Fox Mill still go to Westfield or is this looking like Oakton? Hard to tell.

Fox Mill is Carson then South Lakes. I would assume that the Oak Hill kids would shift to South Lakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone out there tell so far how they expect Woodson HS to be affected? We're at 104% capacity but expect to exceed the 105% capacity threshold in 5 years (106%). Meanwhile, in 5 years, neighboring Falls Church HS and Annandale HS will be below capacity at 86% and 89% respectively. Am I to assume that some of Woodson's students will get rezoned to one of those two schools?

Annandale is a mirage because the 86% capacity includes a modular (though I don’t think Thru is considering this.) Woodson also got capacity relief when they addressed the Fairfax HS island which took it from 104% capacity down to 100%

Annandale has now been increased to 101% with the absorption of the Holmes Middle School split feeder. As mentioned above, Woodson is now at 100% and looking at the BRAC feedback, they've made suggestions about the new Western part removed rom Fairfax being closer to Centreville so that those will possibly move as well with final proposals which would decrease Woodson capacity a little bit more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there more split feeder changes going to come out? I thought Lemon Road was a split feeder where very few students go to Longfellow/McLean. I did not see them mentioned in this iteration. I saw they moved the small neighborhood out of Westgate to Franklin-Sherman.

Lemon Road wasn’t considered because the school is located in the smaller catchment area (McLean) and they can’t reassign the McLean zone to Marshall because it would cut off their bridge to Timber Lane.

So the whole thing is driven by a Timber Lane bridge? Meeting comments on Westbriar were excellent. Likely from a boundary process veteran. There is NO reason to build the Timber Lane bridge considering the overcapacity issue at Mclean. Lack of Mclean and Marshall BRAC representation is evident by the comments. Inexplicable capacity goals especially when a site is small design capacity like Franklin Sherman. 95% plus capacity at a small school is entirely different than at something twice the size.

Is FCPS providing a bus now for Westgate students who live on Sawyer Farm Way [Union Park, Mclean address, Providence district]? That is one street in the absurd move to FS that is walkable to the current elementary school. So walkable that people could walk over in the evening and use a playground...

So do we have incompetents now bussing walkers? Timber Lane island Thru/BRAC advocates loading Mclean? I see too much Providence District listed as magisterial for lots of slop. Over 20 years ago there was discussion on breaking up Tysons Spring Hill island plus what to do with Westbriar island.

Westbriar -
● Colvin Run is much closer to the attendance island, why was this school not
considered?
● 267 is a major road, not a neighborhood connection, could be a natural split
● Colvin Run has a lower utilization – 83% + feeds Cooper + Langley, have more
space
● Need to evaluate a move to Colvin Run
● Wolftrap is just as far away for families as Westbriar if not longer with traffic
● Could the boundary between 2 be revisited to send some Wolftrap kids closer to
Westbriar
● Other options for move. Many other candidates surrounding island. Why is
analysis only compares Wolftrap? Population density?

DP. The question came up as to why they weren't looking at Lemon Road as a "split feeder" to be fixed since the percentage of Longfellow/McLean kids at Lemon Road is under 25% (it's closer to 20%).

The answer is that FCPS staff/Thru is not looking to "fix" split feeders if the school is physically located in the < 25% area. That's the case with Lemon Road. It is on Idylwood Road in an area that feeds to Longfellow/McLean, rather than to Kilmer/Marshall. So they left it alone for now. That aligns with the preferences of the Longfellow/McLean-zoned families at Lemon Road I know. It may be closer to Marshall than to McLean, but they don't want to move, it's not far from McLean, and it's closer to Longfellow than to Kilmer.

So this particular issue isn't related to "fixing" the Timber Lane attendance island. That fix could add some kids to Longfellow/McLean, but would be more than offset by moving the other Longfellow/McLean "island" in Tysons to Cooper/Langley, as floated.

Their criteria for the school being physically located in a certain zone is limiting and creating bizarre scenarios. The McLean attendance islands are a clear example. Spring Hill is on the Langley side, so Spring Hill went to Langley. Timber Lane is physically located on the McLean side, so they hacked up Shrevewood to make it connect. Meanwhile, McLean’s zone for Westgate touches the elementary school property lines, but doesn’t include it, so it’s fair game to move. There is no other logic around those adjustments except for the physical location of a school within existing high school boundaries.

It is truly perplexing that all of Timber Lane doesn't go to Jackson/Falls Church. Especially bc of capacity and location.

[Anonymous]

The more I look at this, the more I think it is best left alone. Why move students when what we have is working for most. And, will a move really help those for whom it is not working?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more I look at this, the more I think it is best left alone. Why move students when what we have is working for most. And, will a move really help those for whom it is not working?

Highly agree that they sought to “solve problems” that weren’t there. There were some overcapacities issues but those could have been addressed 1:1 as they have been previously. The need to redone because it hasn’t been done in 40 years is not a reason to do so.

Unfortunately, they’ve gone too far now. No way will FCPS say “nevermind, we are canceling!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more I look at this, the more I think it is best left alone. Why move students when what we have is working for most. And, will a move really help those for whom it is not working?

It's because the current state is not working for the Fairfax One equity agenda. This has nothing to do with concerns voiced by FCPS parents, or real problems other than some FCPS high schools are at risk due to years of neglecting ESOL student populations. Funny how a former (childless) educator advocated for boundary changes at the June '24 board governance meeting regarding 8130 update, and now happens to have a seat on the BRAC representing FCPS Pride. Does he have some secret relevant insight or access to some relevant data that informs any of the 8130 priorities to help redraw boundaries? Or is he just a convenient FCPS plant who will blindly push change in the name of Fairfax One?