FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

The bold is a pretty bold statement.

I do not believe anyone has been “defeated.”

It appears that FCPS is moving forward on a different scale than it previously appeared to desire even a few months ago moment. I respect an organization’s willingness and ability to adjust course when presented with changed circumstances and new information.

[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.

Great points. How are they going to cobble this all together and release the final capacity maps by NEXT Monday?!

[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

Your response doesn't negate my point. The Westgate area that FCPS/Thru proposed to move from Marshall to McLean on 4/11 includes the Spring Gate apartments and also potential future development near Capital One. And then, on 4/25, when FCPS proposed to eliminate the split feeder at Westgate, they only addressed the existing Westgate area assigned to McLean and ignored the area they proposed to move to McLean on 4/11. So if they were to adopt both the 4/11 and 4/25 proposals as drafted, Westgate would still be a split feeder - it would just be a different split based on a different area assigned to McLean rather than Marshall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is an interesting possibility, but for now we're kind of left dealing with what they've made public, warts and all. Obviously they still have plenty of discretion to modify any of these proposals, either on their own or in response to comments from BRAC members and other members of the public.

[Anonymous]

Wondering how much the Oakton pyramid will be impacted from the upcoming May 5th about boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Cleaning up split feeders is only the first step to remove confusion and wackiness, reducing the variables so to speak. With most elementary school catchments becoming whole, the more significant changes at the MS and HS are easier to visualize as contiguous puzzle pieces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wondering how much the Oakton pyramid will be impacted from the upcoming May 5th about boundaries.

What part in particular?

[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.

The bold is a pretty bold statement.

I do not believe anyone has been “defeated.”

It appears that FCPS is moving forward on a different scale than it previously appeared to desire even a few months ago moment. I respect an organization’s willingness and ability to adjust course when presented with changed circumstances and new information.

DP. No idea what your last paragraph means other than you’re perhaps thinking it’s only going to be other people affected by these largely unnecessary make-work proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Unless those kids are in AAP and opt for Carson. But I guess that would be their own fault for choosing an MS based on AAP instead of where they will end up for HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cleaning up split feeders is only the first step to remove confusion and wackiness, reducing the variables so to speak. With most elementary school catchments becoming whole, the more significant changes at the MS and HS are easier to visualize as contiguous puzzle pieces.

Their 4/11 proposals would create new split feeders and the 4/25 proposals would leave plenty of split feeders in place. The benefits in visualization would be incremental and they will need to spend more time cleaning up the mess they’re creating in the process.

[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.

Crossfield people currently zoned for Oakton will have a fit if they all get rezoned for South Lakes.

Is it possible the Navy island ends up being Oak Hill —> Franklin —> Oakton? Seems weird considering no one else would have that pathway. But if Chantilly is full then what’s the argument to move them out of Oakton? It doesn’t seem like “that’s a weird pathway” takes precedence over their stated criteria regarding capacity. Do they only care about split feeders directly from one school level to another e.g. ES to MS and MS to HS?

[Anonymous]

Agree about Crossfield moving to South Lakes. If you're sending kids from Bradley Farms which is further west why wouldn't you send the kids living in FF? Seems very logical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 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.

I don't think you understand how this works. Advisory doesn't mean that the parents get to decide squat. FCPS will take their "advice", thank them for their time, and then do what they have been planning to do for 6 years - change the boundaries based on socio-economics like the county supervisors want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree about Crossfield moving to South Lakes. If you're sending kids from Bradley Farms which is further west why wouldn't you send the kids living in FF? Seems very logical.

That is a big move, capacity-wise. Thru indicated they will be focused on moves to address schools that currently have capacity below 60% and above 105%. Oakton is currently at 98% (https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25CapacityDashboard/ReadMe).

Are you moving students out of Oakton to “make room” for another move? What other move?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not a tiny minority. It’s actually 40% of Navy that goes to Chantilly. And it’s quite a few different neighborhoods. Off the top of my head:

Highland Crest
Kensington
Fair Woods
And some Toll Brothers neighborhood right off the FC Parkway.

That’s a hell of a lot of houses. They aren’t moving all of them to Oakton.