FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

PP. Also, submitted a question to Reid and my SB rep regarding the mysterious "BRAC parent #3" added to Woodson. Also happened to speak and advocate for boundary changes at the same June '24 governance meeting for adopting updated 8130. She was added after the lottery, outside of the process for establishing the BRAC, by FCPS. I believe this is how FairFACTS Matters was able to gain representation on the BRAC...there was so much not on the up and up with the selection process that Reid had to accommodate.

[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.

As someone who has worked with other Advisory Committees in the past, I doubt BRAC will have as much pull as people think it will. Historically, the ACs are where they appoint activist parents and others to get them out of the way and let them think they are moving the ball forward. I have little expectation of their impact here.

[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.

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

It was not explicit. But I hope they are going to SLHS. Otherwise, this would create a new split feeder.

[Anonymous]

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).

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.

Um no. There are some neighborhoods that are zoned to Navy but go to Chantilly as they are much closer. One can even walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The BRAC plants are just to confirm what the SB already wants to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The BRAC plants are just to confirm what the SB already wants to do.

You give the SB too much credit. I don’t think they could draw a useful map either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I thought that political advocate is a Loudoun County resident, not a Fairfax County resident.

[Anonymous]

A valid point and example posted by FairFACTs Matters. I wonder if those downstream capacity impacts will be addressed for the 5/5 meeting:

“Second, for each proposed scenario, Thru only evaluated the impact that each change would have on current program capacity utilization at that school level. So, for example, when proposing a boundary change to address a split feeder at the elementary school level, Thru only evaluated the capacity impact on the affected elementary schools based on current capacity numbers. There was no evaluation of the impact that change would have on projected capacity utilization in the future at the middle and/or high schools that the affected students would feed into.

As an example, Thru proposed moving 118 students from Westgate ES (Marshall HS pyramid) to Franklin Sherman ES (McLean HS pyramid). Thru showed that such a change would increase capacity utilization at Franklin Sherman ES to 98% but failed to provide any information on what this would mean in the future for capacity utilization at McLean HS, which is currently significantly over capacity and projects to remain so into the future. By only showing capacity number impacts at the elementary school level based on current numbers, Thru obscured the fact that some of these proposed changes would exacerbate existing capacity constraints at schools. Looking at Thru’s slide, you would have no way of knowing that the proposed change will make the capacity situation worse at McLean HS in the future.”

[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).

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.

Um no. There are some neighborhoods that are zoned to Navy but go to Chantilly as they are much closer. One can even walk.

Perhaps those neighborhoods should be zoned to Greenbriar East and West instead. Half the area in question is a golf course anyway, so it's not that many houses. They'd be a lot better off not being the tiny minority of their ES that doesn't go to Oakton.

[Anonymous]

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 is physically located in the area that feeds to Longfellow/McLean. They said in the deck they didn’t look at such split feeders.

Franklin Sherman needs more kids but reassigning kids who literally live next door to Westgate to FS doesn’t make sense.

They need to take a look at the new split feeders they created at schools like Shrevewood, Kilmer, and Longfellow. Sending a very small number of Kilmer kids to McLean or Longfellow kids to Falls Church makes no sense.

They really need to evaluate what they’d be doing to Shrevewood under this plan. It looks like they’re shifting all the apartment complexes off 29 and west of Hollywood Rd to Shrevewood. The presentation says that would add 119 students to Shrevewood and would likely turn it into a Title 1 school. Shrevewood is already hemorrhaging students to Lemon Road’s AAP center. The meeting notes don’t seem to reflect any impact to Shrevewood.

Shrevewood has already floated to 39% free meals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A valid point and example posted by FairFACTs Matters. I wonder if those downstream capacity impacts will be addressed for the 5/5 meeting:

“Second, for each proposed scenario, Thru only evaluated the impact that each change would have on current program capacity utilization at that school level. So, for example, when proposing a boundary change to address a split feeder at the elementary school level, Thru only evaluated the capacity impact on the affected elementary schools based on current capacity numbers. There was no evaluation of the impact that change would have on projected capacity utilization in the future at the middle and/or high schools that the affected students would feed into.

As an example, Thru proposed moving 118 students from Westgate ES (Marshall HS pyramid) to Franklin Sherman ES (McLean HS pyramid). Thru showed that such a change would increase capacity utilization at Franklin Sherman ES to 98% but failed to provide any information on what this would mean in the future for capacity utilization at McLean HS, which is currently significantly over capacity and projects to remain so into the future. By only showing capacity number impacts at the elementary school level based on current numbers, Thru obscured the fact that some of these proposed changes would exacerbate existing capacity constraints at schools. Looking at Thru’s slide, you would have no way of knowing that the proposed change will make the capacity situation worse at McLean HS in the future.”

Westgate is a split feeder between Marshall and McLean, they moved the section already assigned to McLean to Franklin Sherman, so they wouldn’t impact McLean/Longfellow numbers at all. It just turned Westgate into a straight Marshall feeder.

[Anonymous]

PP - I take it back. The Franklin zone is so big and overlaps Chantilly so much they're probably just fine making new friends in middle school that will go on to Chantilly with them. No need to adjust that particular Navy boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A valid point and example posted by FairFACTs Matters. I wonder if those downstream capacity impacts will be addressed for the 5/5 meeting:

“Second, for each proposed scenario, Thru only evaluated the impact that each change would have on current program capacity utilization at that school level. So, for example, when proposing a boundary change to address a split feeder at the elementary school level, Thru only evaluated the capacity impact on the affected elementary schools based on current capacity numbers. There was no evaluation of the impact that change would have on projected capacity utilization in the future at the middle and/or high schools that the affected students would feed into.

As an example, Thru proposed moving 118 students from Westgate ES (Marshall HS pyramid) to Franklin Sherman ES (McLean HS pyramid). Thru showed that such a change would increase capacity utilization at Franklin Sherman ES to 98% but failed to provide any information on what this would mean in the future for capacity utilization at McLean HS, which is currently significantly over capacity and projects to remain so into the future. By only showing capacity number impacts at the elementary school level based on current numbers, Thru obscured the fact that some of these proposed changes would exacerbate existing capacity constraints at schools. Looking at Thru’s slide, you would have no way of knowing that the proposed change will make the capacity situation worse at McLean HS in the future.”

Westgate is a split feeder between Marshall and McLean, they moved the section already assigned to McLean to Franklin Sherman, so they wouldn’t impact McLean/Longfellow numbers at all. It just turned Westgate into a straight Marshall feeder.

You are closer to being correct than the FairFACTS Matters poster, but what you left out was that Thru proposed on 4/11 to move another part of Westgate in Tysons from Marshall to McLean and then ignored that on 4/25 when it identified the area to move from Westgate to Franklin Sherman, purportedly to eliminate the split feeder. So if both the 4/11 and 4/25 proposals were adopted without further modification Westgate would still be a split feeder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A valid point and example posted by FairFACTs Matters. I wonder if those downstream capacity impacts will be addressed for the 5/5 meeting:

“Second, for each proposed scenario, Thru only evaluated the impact that each change would have on current program capacity utilization at that school level. So, for example, when proposing a boundary change to address a split feeder at the elementary school level, Thru only evaluated the capacity impact on the affected elementary schools based on current capacity numbers. There was no evaluation of the impact that change would have on projected capacity utilization in the future at the middle and/or high schools that the affected students would feed into.

As an example, Thru proposed moving 118 students from Westgate ES (Marshall HS pyramid) to Franklin Sherman ES (McLean HS pyramid). Thru showed that such a change would increase capacity utilization at Franklin Sherman ES to 98% but failed to provide any information on what this would mean in the future for capacity utilization at McLean HS, which is currently significantly over capacity and projects to remain so into the future. By only showing capacity number impacts at the elementary school level based on current numbers, Thru obscured the fact that some of these proposed changes would exacerbate existing capacity constraints at schools. Looking at Thru’s slide, you would have no way of knowing that the proposed change will make the capacity situation worse at McLean HS in the future.”

Westgate is a split feeder between Marshall and McLean, they moved the section already assigned to McLean to Franklin Sherman, so they wouldn’t impact McLean/Longfellow numbers at all. It just turned Westgate into a straight Marshall feeder.

You are closer to being correct than the FairFACTS Matters poster, but what you left out was that Thru proposed on 4/11 to move another part of Westgate in Tysons from Marshall to McLean and then ignored that on 4/25 when it identified the area to move from Westgate to Franklin Sherman, purportedly to eliminate the split feeder. So if both the 4/11 and 4/25 proposals were adopted without further modification Westgate would still be a split feeder.

See slide 30. It accounts for the Shrevewood sliver and the Westgate slice, which is mostly the Capital One Headquarters and only yields a handful of students.: https://www.fcps.edu/system/files/forms/2025-04/4-11-2025_superintendent_boundary_review_advisory_committee_presentation.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A valid point and example posted by FairFACTs Matters. I wonder if those downstream capacity impacts will be addressed for the 5/5 meeting:

“Second, for each proposed scenario, Thru only evaluated the impact that each change would have on current program capacity utilization at that school level. So, for example, when proposing a boundary change to address a split feeder at the elementary school level, Thru only evaluated the capacity impact on the affected elementary schools based on current capacity numbers. There was no evaluation of the impact that change would have on projected capacity utilization in the future at the middle and/or high schools that the affected students would feed into.

As an example, Thru proposed moving 118 students from Westgate ES (Marshall HS pyramid) to Franklin Sherman ES (McLean HS pyramid). Thru showed that such a change would increase capacity utilization at Franklin Sherman ES to 98% but failed to provide any information on what this would mean in the future for capacity utilization at McLean HS, which is currently significantly over capacity and projects to remain so into the future. By only showing capacity number impacts at the elementary school level based on current numbers, Thru obscured the fact that some of these proposed changes would exacerbate existing capacity constraints at schools. Looking at Thru’s slide, you would have no way of knowing that the proposed change will make the capacity situation worse at McLean HS in the future.”

Westgate is a split feeder between Marshall and McLean, they moved the section already assigned to McLean to Franklin Sherman, so they wouldn’t impact McLean/Longfellow numbers at all. It just turned Westgate into a straight Marshall feeder.

You are closer to being correct than the FairFACTS Matters poster, but what you left out was that Thru proposed on 4/11 to move another part of Westgate in Tysons from Marshall to McLean and then ignored that on 4/25 when it identified the area to move from Westgate to Franklin Sherman, purportedly to eliminate the split feeder. So if both the 4/11 and 4/25 proposals were adopted without further modification Westgate would still be a split feeder.

See slide 30. It accounts for the Shrevewood sliver and the Westgate slice, which is mostly the Capital One Headquarters and only yields a handful of students.: https://www.fcps.edu/system/files/forms/2025-04/4-11-2025_superintendent_boundary_review_advisory_committee_presentation.pdf

But yeah, I wonder if that was an artifact left when they were seeing if they could “bridge” the Spring Hill island and then forgot to remove it.