FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry meant to say not moving them all to GBE or GBW - they wouldn’t have the capacity. And then keep in mind both Greenbriars feed into Rocky Run. Isn’t Rocky Rubbakready over crowded? Unlike Franklin.

[Anonymous]

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

I was home shopping back in 2008, I remember. I cut that whole are out of my home search zone because I figured it would become a problem again long before I had kids ready for high school. Didn't think it would take this long, and it looks like what remains is probably safe - but still think I made the right decision based on what was happening back then.
We won't know until the next meeting, but it really seems like all the effort parents have put in has had an effect. They seem to have scaled back a lot from the large scale changes we all feared. Hope I still feel the same way after the next slide deck.

[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.

As a Shrevewood parent, we would welcome the Title I designation. Right now we have all the downsides of a very high low income population without any of the benefits that a Title I designation would being to the school.

[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.

dp. The 4/11 proposed section is tiny. Technically, yes, a feeder if they don't also move elementary schools, but doesn't really move the numbers much in regards to capacity.

[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.

I'm not sure why people are insisting on rezoning schools away from Oakton. There are no capacity issues at Oakton.

[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.

Why? There are no capacity issues at Oakton. There ARE capacity issues at Chantilly. This doesn't solve that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why? There are no capacity issues at Oakton. There ARE capacity issues at Chantilly. This doesn't solve that.

It appears there is someone on this board trying to “make room” at Oakton so the can get moved in. That seems unlikely to be a “scenario” proposed by Thru given that Thru stated that their focus will be on addressing capacity outside the capacity range of “60% to 105%”. It is explicitly stated as “Guiding Principle” number 6, “Respect Capacity Thresholds,” on slide 4:

“Boundary changes are designed to keep schools within a capacity range of 60% to 105%.
○ Note: Some schools may still exceed 105% after split feeder fixes. These schools were already over capacity, and the proposed changes improve but do not fully resolve their overcrowding. They will be prioritized in future boundary scenarios focused specifically on capacity.”

Oakton does not fit this description. It is not overcrowded.

[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

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.

These proposal to move students along Magarity Road, who currently live next door to Westgate ES, to Franklin Sherman ES is ludicrous. That change would move dozens of elementary students who currently walk 100-200 feet to school each day…. to a school 2.2 miles away requires daily bussing. Moreover, Franklin Sherman is the farthest of the four schools nearest this neighborhood — a Kent Gardens and Haycock are closer. If FCPS wants to increase the student count at Franklin Sherman ES, than they should move students from Churchill Road or Kent Gardens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

These proposal to move students along Magarity Road, who currently live next door to Westgate ES, to Franklin Sherman ES is ludicrous. That change would move dozens of elementary students who currently walk 100-200 feet to school each day…. to a school 2.2 miles away requires daily bussing. Moreover, Franklin Sherman is the farthest of the four schools nearest this neighborhood — a Kent Gardens and Haycock are closer. If FCPS wants to increase the student count at Franklin Sherman ES, than they should move students from Churchill Road or Kent Gardens.

The SB members are buffoons, wandering backwards naked Thru a cactus-filled desert and dragging us along for the ride.

They have created a solution in search of a problem that creates far more issues than they are addressing.

[Anonymous]

100% - fix the few places that have capacity issues and leave the rest. Most “islands” and split feeders are not experiencing any problems as is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:100% - fix the few places that have capacity issues and leave the rest. Most “islands” and split feeders are not experiencing any problems as is.

The irony about the comprehensive review is that they’ve postponed changes to the two schools that apparently need relief now - Coates and Parklawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100% - fix the few places that have capacity issues and leave the rest. Most “islands” and split feeders are not experiencing any problems as is.

The irony about the comprehensive review is that they’ve postponed changes to the two schools that apparently need relief now - Coates and Parklawn.

Maybe I misunderstood, but aren’t current parts of Coats boundary (south of Toll Rd) projected to move to Herndon ES?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:100% - fix the few places that have capacity issues and leave the rest. Most “islands” and split feeders are not experiencing any problems as is.

Fixing attendance islands and split feeders at our high school will possibly be just enough mivement to prevent rezoning.

I am all for fixing attendance islands and split feeders so the bulk of the families in zone do not need to face unwanted, gerrymandered rezoning.

[Anonymous]

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 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.

As a Shrevewood parent, we would welcome the Title I designation. Right now we have all the downsides of a very high low income population without any of the benefits that a Title I designation would being to the school.

That’s a fair point, but with Title I status comes additional program needs and caps on classroom size. Shrevewood’s program size would likely be reduced from its current 683 seats, which would put it far over its 102% capacity that’s being proposed.

The capacity issues they’re trying to fix at Pine Springs and Graham Road would be shifted to Shrevewood because they’re looking at raw numbers out of context. Graham Road has a design capacity of 660 and a program capacity of 398 for a reason. Timber Lane is built for 930 seats and has a program capacity of 676. Pine Springs is 775 with a capacity of 550. If Shrevewood were to become a Title I school, its program capacity would likely contract to about 70% of its design capacity which would put it at 546. Moving 119 students there and shifting it to a Title I school would put it around 127% capacity.

[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 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.

As a Shrevewood parent, we would welcome the Title I designation. Right now we have all the downsides of a very high low income population without any of the benefits that a Title I designation would being to the school.

That’s a fair point, but with Title I status comes additional program needs and caps on classroom size. Shrevewood’s program size would likely be reduced from its current 683 seats, which would put it far over its 102% capacity that’s being proposed.

The capacity issues they’re trying to fix at Pine Springs and Graham Road would be shifted to Shrevewood because they’re looking at raw numbers out of context. Graham Road has a design capacity of 660 and a program capacity of 398 for a reason. Timber Lane is built for 930 seats and has a program capacity of 676. Pine Springs is 775 with a capacity of 550. If Shrevewood were to become a Title I school, its program capacity would likely contract to about 70% of its design capacity which would put it at 546. Moving 119 students there and shifting it to a Title I school would put it around 127% capacity.

Silver lining to the school board: the existence of Dunn Loring ES would finally be justified.