Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

I think it just means, maybe, that the Hunt Valley kids don't get moved to Lewis. They may still get moved to South County, though. If they were moved to Lewis, they'd be on that slide.

I think that's a misinterpretation of the exercise. There was no proposal pending to move any Hunt Valley kids to Lewis, so I don't think they would have considered the impact of something they hadn't yet proposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

I think it just means, maybe, that the Hunt Valley kids don't get moved to Lewis. They may still get moved to South County, though. If they were moved to Lewis, they'd be on that slide.

I think that's a misinterpretation of the exercise. There was no proposal pending to move any Hunt Valley kids to Lewis, so I don't think they would have considered the impact of something they hadn't yet proposed.

Absolutely. The reading of tea leaves here is imperfect at best. But at the boundary meetings they've had in Sept., they've referenced Scenario 4 as something new and not just a rehashing of the last 2 scenarios. So we really don't know what they could be doing here, other than they're moving 4,800 kids or whatever. They could have all new changes in this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

They are looking at the "delta" - the change in commuting length and distance - not the absolute distance or length. And then they are apparently using their judgment as to which combinations of decreased or increased distance and time are the most significant.

They could have just screwed up and omitted WSHS when it should have been included, but were the WS areas that they were proposing to move to Lake Braddock or South County more than 3 miles closer to WS than to LBSS or SC?

How does it reflect their judgment of what is most significant when slide 12 lists each delta in ranked order? Seems like it’s straight up numbers not judgments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

They are looking at the "delta" - the change in commuting length and distance - not the absolute distance or length. And then they are apparently using their judgment as to which combinations of decreased or increased distance and time are the most significant.

They could have just screwed up and omitted WSHS when it should have been included, but were the WS areas that they were proposing to move to Lake Braddock or South County more than 3 miles closer to WS than to LBSS or SC?

Yes.

The Gambrill neighborhoods along Ridge Road, Ships Curve and Ridge Oaks Court are all around 5 miles to South County, and longer, 6 miles, to Lewis.

Is this chart only showing the change in mileage between the old school vs the new school?

Then there are a lot more neighborhoods getting rezoned to farther schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

They are looking at the "delta" - the change in commuting length and distance - not the absolute distance or length. And then they are apparently using their judgment as to which combinations of decreased or increased distance and time are the most significant.

They could have just screwed up and omitted WSHS when it should have been included, but were the WS areas that they were proposing to move to Lake Braddock or South County more than 3 miles closer to WS than to LBSS or SC?

How does it reflect their judgment of what is most significant when slide 12 lists each delta in ranked order? Seems like it’s straight up numbers not judgments.

It appears to be ranked order in terms of distance, but the "delta" in terms of travel times varies and is not in ranked order. So it's possible, since they say that it's "Largest Decreases by Distance & Time" and "Largest Increases by Distance & Time" that they are leaving out some changes with larger deltas in terms of distance if they are offset by the deltas in terms of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

They are looking at the "delta" - the change in commuting length and distance - not the absolute distance or length. And then they are apparently using their judgment as to which combinations of decreased or increased distance and time are the most significant.

They could have just screwed up and omitted WSHS when it should have been included, but were the WS areas that they were proposing to move to Lake Braddock or South County more than 3 miles closer to WS than to LBSS or SC?

Yes.

The Gambrill neighborhoods along Ridge Road, Ships Curve and Ridge Oaks Court are all around 5 miles to South County, and longer, 6 miles, to Lewis.

Is this chart only showing the change in mileage between the old school vs the new school?

Then there are a lot more neighborhoods getting rezoned to farther schools.

Yes. That is what "delta" means in this context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

They are looking at the "delta" - the change in commuting length and distance - not the absolute distance or length. And then they are apparently using their judgment as to which combinations of decreased or increased distance and time are the most significant.

They could have just screwed up and omitted WSHS when it should have been included, but were the WS areas that they were proposing to move to Lake Braddock or South County more than 3 miles closer to WS than to LBSS or SC?

Yes.

The Gambrill neighborhoods along Ridge Road, Ships Curve and Ridge Oaks Court are all around 5 miles to South County, and longer, 6 miles, to Lewis.

Is this chart only showing the change in mileage between the old school vs the new school?

Then there are a lot more neighborhoods getting rezoned to farther schools.

Yes. That is what "delta" means in this context.

Wait, is it distance from one school to the other school or the change in travel distance, meaning the change in distance from home to old school versus distance from home to new school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

They are looking at the "delta" - the change in commuting length and distance - not the absolute distance or length. And then they are apparently using their judgment as to which combinations of decreased or increased distance and time are the most significant.

They could have just screwed up and omitted WSHS when it should have been included, but were the WS areas that they were proposing to move to Lake Braddock or South County more than 3 miles closer to WS than to LBSS or SC?

Yes.

The Gambrill neighborhoods along Ridge Road, Ships Curve and Ridge Oaks Court are all around 5 miles to South County, and longer, 6 miles, to Lewis.

Is this chart only showing the change in mileage between the old school vs the new school?

Then there are a lot more neighborhoods getting rezoned to farther schools.

Yes. That is what "delta" means in this context.

1 miles isn’t a huge difference. Parents be panicking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

They are looking at the "delta" - the change in commuting length and distance - not the absolute distance or length. And then they are apparently using their judgment as to which combinations of decreased or increased distance and time are the most significant.

They could have just screwed up and omitted WSHS when it should have been included, but were the WS areas that they were proposing to move to Lake Braddock or South County more than 3 miles closer to WS than to LBSS or SC?

Yes.

The Gambrill neighborhoods along Ridge Road, Ships Curve and Ridge Oaks Court are all around 5 miles to South County, and longer, 6 miles, to Lewis.

Is this chart only showing the change in mileage between the old school vs the new school?

Then there are a lot more neighborhoods getting rezoned to farther schools.

Yes. That is what "delta" means in this context.

Wait, is it distance from one school to the other school or the change in travel distance, meaning the change in distance from home to old school versus distance from home to new school?

Door #2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

I think it just means, maybe, that the Hunt Valley kids don't get moved to Lewis. They may still get moved to South County, though. If they were moved to Lewis, they'd be on that slide.

I think that's a misinterpretation of the exercise. There was no proposal pending to move any Hunt Valley kids to Lewis, so I don't think they would have considered the impact of something they hadn't yet proposed.

FCPS, Dr. Reid, Thru and Sandy Anderson all said publicly that the maps shown to Hunt Valley were incorrect.

Hunt Valley does not know what is in store for them.

Hunt Valley was not given the opportunity to comment on the scenarios 1, 2, or 3 because the maps shown to Hunt Valley were not the correct maps.

FCPS is required by Policy 8130 to hold a meeting in each affected pyramid before any map proposals were made public.

Not only did FCPS not schedule a single meeting for the WSHS pyramid when the maps 1-3 were released, FCPS showed Hunt Valley the "wrong" maps.

Hunt Valley had their opportunity for public comment taken away from them by FCPS, by the district showing them incorrect maps, and never showing them the corrected maps for comments.

FCPS did not include the WSHS pyramid in this round of meetings, only adding a meeting at the last minute to the very last day after people complained, long after the September meeting schedule was released.

I am sorry, but FCPS has completely violated its own policy 8130 in multiple ways for the WSHS pyramid and Hunt Valley in particular.

Not a single Hunt Valley home should be rezoned in this 5 year cycle of rezoning. Their rights have been completely violated by FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

They are looking at the "delta" - the change in commuting length and distance - not the absolute distance or length. And then they are apparently using their judgment as to which combinations of decreased or increased distance and time are the most significant.

They could have just screwed up and omitted WSHS when it should have been included, but were the WS areas that they were proposing to move to Lake Braddock or South County more than 3 miles closer to WS than to LBSS or SC?

Yes.

The Gambrill neighborhoods along Ridge Road, Ships Curve and Ridge Oaks Court are all around 5 miles to South County, and longer, 6 miles, to Lewis.

Is this chart only showing the change in mileage between the old school vs the new school?

Then there are a lot more neighborhoods getting rezoned to farther schools.

Yes. That is what "delta" means in this context.

1 miles isn’t a huge difference. Parents be panicking.

It's not panic so much as trying to understand what these people are doing. And it's pretty God-awful hypocritical for them to be focusing this much on transportation where the boundary change that would result in the biggest change in transportation distance and time isn't even on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

They are looking at the "delta" - the change in commuting length and distance - not the absolute distance or length. And then they are apparently using their judgment as to which combinations of decreased or increased distance and time are the most significant.

They could have just screwed up and omitted WSHS when it should have been included, but were the WS areas that they were proposing to move to Lake Braddock or South County more than 3 miles closer to WS than to LBSS or SC?

Yes.

The Gambrill neighborhoods along Ridge Road, Ships Curve and Ridge Oaks Court are all around 5 miles to South County, and longer, 6 miles, to Lewis.

Is this chart only showing the change in mileage between the old school vs the new school?

Then there are a lot more neighborhoods getting rezoned to farther schools.

Yes. That is what "delta" means in this context.

Wait, is it distance from one school to the other school or the change in travel distance, meaning the change in distance from home to old school versus distance from home to new school?

It can take me 45 minutes to go 8 miles to Reagan Airport depending on the day, time of day, weather...

1 mile can make a HUGE difference in driving time in this area, especially if you are going in the "wrong" direction or past a major traffic center like the mixing bowl, Tysons or and interchange involving 66 or 395.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

I think it just means, maybe, that the Hunt Valley kids don't get moved to Lewis. They may still get moved to South County, though. If they were moved to Lewis, they'd be on that slide.

I think that's a misinterpretation of the exercise. There was no proposal pending to move any Hunt Valley kids to Lewis, so I don't think they would have considered the impact of something they hadn't yet proposed.

FCPS, Dr. Reid, Thru and Sandy Anderson all said publicly that the maps shown to Hunt Valley were incorrect.

Hunt Valley does not know what is in store for them.

Hunt Valley was not given the opportunity to comment on the scenarios 1, 2, or 3 because the maps shown to Hunt Valley were not the correct maps.

FCPS is required by Policy 8130 to hold a meeting in each affected pyramid before any map proposals were made public.

Not only did FCPS not schedule a single meeting for the WSHS pyramid when the maps 1-3 were released, FCPS showed Hunt Valley the "wrong" maps.

Hunt Valley had their opportunity for public comment taken away from them by FCPS, by the district showing them incorrect maps, and never showing them the corrected maps for comments.

FCPS did not include the WSHS pyramid in this round of meetings, only adding a meeting at the last minute to the very last day after people complained, long after the September meeting schedule was released.

I am sorry, but FCPS has completely violated its own policy 8130 in multiple ways for the WSHS pyramid and Hunt Valley in particular.

Not a single Hunt Valley home should be rezoned in this 5 year cycle of rezoning. Their rights have been completely violated by FCPS.

Hunt Valley mom is here, I see, and she ain't playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

I think it just means, maybe, that the Hunt Valley kids don't get moved to Lewis. They may still get moved to South County, though. If they were moved to Lewis, they'd be on that slide.

I think that's a misinterpretation of the exercise. There was no proposal pending to move any Hunt Valley kids to Lewis, so I don't think they would have considered the impact of something they hadn't yet proposed.

FCPS, Dr. Reid, Thru and Sandy Anderson all said publicly that the maps shown to Hunt Valley were incorrect.

Hunt Valley does not know what is in store for them.

Hunt Valley was not given the opportunity to comment on the scenarios 1, 2, or 3 because the maps shown to Hunt Valley were not the correct maps.

FCPS is required by Policy 8130 to hold a meeting in each affected pyramid before any map proposals were made public.

Not only did FCPS not schedule a single meeting for the WSHS pyramid when the maps 1-3 were released, FCPS showed Hunt Valley the "wrong" maps.

Hunt Valley had their opportunity for public comment taken away from them by FCPS, by the district showing them incorrect maps, and never showing them the corrected maps for comments.

FCPS did not include the WSHS pyramid in this round of meetings, only adding a meeting at the last minute to the very last day after people complained, long after the September meeting schedule was released.

I am sorry, but FCPS has completely violated its own policy 8130 in multiple ways for the WSHS pyramid and Hunt Valley in particular.

Not a single Hunt Valley home should be rezoned in this 5 year cycle of rezoning. Their rights have been completely violated by FCPS.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said here, but I don't think that means you should misread what this 9/24 presentation purports to do simply because a likely misinterpretation would align with what you hope for HV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)? So much for transportation efficiency.

If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them!

I’m not sure I read it that way. Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact? Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.

Slide 12

So the schools listed on those slides are schools that students are being moved from?

Yes.

Are they?

Because WSHS had neighborhoods marked to move more than 3 miles away, and WSHS is not included on slide 12.

I think it just means, maybe, that the Hunt Valley kids don't get moved to Lewis. They may still get moved to South County, though. If they were moved to Lewis, they'd be on that slide.

I think that's a misinterpretation of the exercise. There was no proposal pending to move any Hunt Valley kids to Lewis, so I don't think they would have considered the impact of something they hadn't yet proposed.

FCPS, Dr. Reid, Thru and Sandy Anderson all said publicly that the maps shown to Hunt Valley were incorrect.

Hunt Valley does not know what is in store for them.

Hunt Valley was not given the opportunity to comment on the scenarios 1, 2, or 3 because the maps shown to Hunt Valley were not the correct maps.

FCPS is required by Policy 8130 to hold a meeting in each affected pyramid before any map proposals were made public.

Not only did FCPS not schedule a single meeting for the WSHS pyramid when the maps 1-3 were released, FCPS showed Hunt Valley the "wrong" maps.

Hunt Valley had their opportunity for public comment taken away from them by FCPS, by the district showing them incorrect maps, and never showing them the corrected maps for comments.

FCPS did not include the WSHS pyramid in this round of meetings, only adding a meeting at the last minute to the very last day after people complained, long after the September meeting schedule was released.

I am sorry, but FCPS has completely violated its own policy 8130 in multiple ways for the WSHS pyramid and Hunt Valley in particular.

Not a single Hunt Valley home should be rezoned in this 5 year cycle of rezoning. Their rights have been completely violated by FCPS.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said here, but I don't think that means you should misread what this 9/24 presentation purports to do simply because a likely misinterpretation would align with what you hope for HV.

All I am saying is that Hunt Valley was not given the opportunity to comment on the maps because they were never shown the correct maps affecting their neighborhoods.

When FCPS realized the Hunt Valley maps were wrong, they should have shown them the correct maps to allow them the same opportunity to comment on the changes as every other family in FCPS was allowed to do.

Instead, all the Hunt Valley families could do was make general comments of some variation of "keep Hunt Valley at WSHS"

I am one who would have made suggestions to move some HV neighborhoods to SoCo, but only if I was commenting on the actual maps. Since FCPS didn't give families the corrected maps, there was no way I was going to make any suggestion besides "keep the school at WSHS."