FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

Great analysis. This might have been less on an issue if they’d gone ahead years ago and shifted part of Shrevewood to Stenwood and part of Stenwood to Freedom Hill. Freedom Hill has capacity. Instead that never happened and you got the promise of Dunn Loring in the future.

[Anonymous]

Dos anyone know what happens after the next BRAC meeting? Like where do they go from there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dos anyone know what happens after the next BRAC meeting? Like where do they go from there?

Community engagement similar to what they did during the pre-BRAC meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dos anyone know what happens after the next BRAC meeting? Like where do they go from there?

Thru releases one or more full draft scenarios (the slides have been just isolated examples looking at one factor) in early summer. Then they do community engagement over the summer while everyone is gone and then try to cram the changes through.

[Anonymous]

Significant changes have to be coming to the boundaries in the coming years.

Take Centreville High School for example. Centreville's enrollment has been steadily declining over the past 5 years, by hundreds of students per year, yet FCPS is doing all they can to push through the Centreville Capital Improvement Project to renovate Centreville in hopes of expanding capacity to more than 3,000 students which is almost 1,000 more than 24-25 SY enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Significant changes have to be coming to the boundaries in the coming years.

Take Centreville High School for example. Centreville's enrollment has been steadily declining over the past 5 years, by hundreds of students per year, yet FCPS is doing all they can to push through the Centreville Capital Improvement Project to renovate Centreville in hopes of expanding capacity to more than 3,000 students which is almost 1,000 more than 24-25 SY enrollment.

Well, according to Thru, as long as a school is at 60% capacity or greater, it’s fine. We can just keep ignoring when FCPS wastes money on unnecessary expansions and occasionally move kids out of schools where the investments should have been made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Significant changes have to be coming to the boundaries in the coming years.

Take Centreville High School for example. Centreville's enrollment has been steadily declining over the past 5 years, by hundreds of students per year, yet FCPS is doing all they can to push through the Centreville Capital Improvement Project to renovate Centreville in hopes of expanding capacity to more than 3,000 students which is almost 1,000 more than 24-25 SY enrollment.

Well, according to Thru, as long as a school is at 60% capacity or greater, it’s fine. We can just keep ignoring when FCPS wastes money on unnecessary expansions and occasionally move kids out of schools where the investments should have been made.

This is why accurate projections matter. Without them, they’re flying blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dos anyone know what happens after the next BRAC meeting? Like where do they go from there?

Thru releases one or more full draft scenarios (the slides have been just isolated examples looking at one factor) in early summer. Then they do community engagement over the summer while everyone is gone and then try to cram the changes through.

They will have the capacity meeting next Monday, 5/5, and hopefully those slides are posted by Tuesday or Wednesday.

Per the 4/11 meeting, it's noted "Dr. Reid welcomed the group. She reminded the committee that we will be adjusting the timeline and moving community engagement to May/June to give our broader community the opportunity to learn about the initial draft scenarios before summer break."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Significant changes have to be coming to the boundaries in the coming years.

Take Centreville High School for example. Centreville's enrollment has been steadily declining over the past 5 years, by hundreds of students per year, yet FCPS is doing all they can to push through the Centreville Capital Improvement Project to renovate Centreville in hopes of expanding capacity to more than 3,000 students which is almost 1,000 more than 24-25 SY enrollment.

Well, according to Thru, as long as a school is at 60% capacity or greater, it’s fine. We can just keep ignoring when FCPS wastes money on unnecessary expansions and occasionally move kids out of schools where the investments should have been made.

This is why accurate projections matter. Without them, they’re flying blind.

Thru doesn’t seem to be using projections. Everything has been based on January 2025 enrollment numbers, I believe, which is good, because their 5 year projections tend to be wildly inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Now comes the neighborhood against neighborhood.

Hopefully, Thru will keep the status quo or make it so egregious that the SB will drop it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Significant changes have to be coming to the boundaries in the coming years.

Take Centreville High School for example. Centreville's enrollment has been steadily declining over the past 5 years, by hundreds of students per year, yet FCPS is doing all they can to push through the Centreville Capital Improvement Project to renovate Centreville in hopes of expanding capacity to more than 3,000 students which is almost 1,000 more than 24-25 SY enrollment.

Well, according to Thru, as long as a school is at 60% capacity or greater, it’s fine. We can just keep ignoring when FCPS wastes money on unnecessary expansions and occasionally move kids out of schools where the investments should have been made.

This is why accurate projections matter. Without them, they’re flying blind.

Flying blind or moving the boundary to route more kids to Centreville (taking from Robinson/Westfield/Chantilly, etc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Significant changes have to be coming to the boundaries in the coming years.

Take Centreville High School for example. Centreville's enrollment has been steadily declining over the past 5 years, by hundreds of students per year, yet FCPS is doing all they can to push through the Centreville Capital Improvement Project to renovate Centreville in hopes of expanding capacity to more than 3,000 students which is almost 1,000 more than 24-25 SY enrollment.

Well, according to Thru, as long as a school is at 60% capacity or greater, it’s fine. We can just keep ignoring when FCPS wastes money on unnecessary expansions and occasionally move kids out of schools where the investments should have been made.

This is why accurate projections matter. Without them, they’re flying blind.

Flying blind or moving the boundary to route more kids to Centreville (taking from Robinson/Westfield/Chantilly, etc)

Chantilly is also projected to lose membership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Significant changes have to be coming to the boundaries in the coming years.

Take Centreville High School for example. Centreville's enrollment has been steadily declining over the past 5 years, by hundreds of students per year, yet FCPS is doing all they can to push through the Centreville Capital Improvement Project to renovate Centreville in hopes of expanding capacity to more than 3,000 students which is almost 1,000 more than 24-25 SY enrollment.

Well, according to Thru, as long as a school is at 60% capacity or greater, it’s fine. We can just keep ignoring when FCPS wastes money on unnecessary expansions and occasionally move kids out of schools where the investments should have been made.

This is why accurate projections matter. Without them, they’re flying blind.

Flying blind or moving the boundary to route more kids to Centreville (taking from Robinson/Westfield/Chantilly, etc)

Chantilly is also projected to lose membership.

Yet they want to build another HS between Chantilly and Herndon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dos anyone know what happens after the next BRAC meeting? Like where do they go from there?

Thru releases one or more full draft scenarios (the slides have been just isolated examples looking at one factor) in early summer. Then they do community engagement over the summer while everyone is gone and then try to cram the changes through.

They will have the capacity meeting next Monday, 5/5, and hopefully those slides are posted by Tuesday or Wednesday.

Per the 4/11 meeting, it's noted "Dr. Reid welcomed the group. She reminded the committee that we will be adjusting the timeline and moving community engagement to May/June to give our broader community the opportunity to learn about the initial draft scenarios before summer break."

When they come back and present “initial draft scenarios,” are they going to present multiple options?

For example, on 4/11 Thru presented one option to eliminate one attendance island at McLean by rezoning to Langley and “bridge” the other one. I’d like to see a scenario where they bridge the first one and eliminate the second one, which would be simpler logistically (wouldn’t turn Shrevewood into a split feeder) and take advantage of the Falls Church HS expansion.

They talk a lot about “scenarios” but it’s a lot of scenarios due to the number of changes contemplated. They aren’t presenting multiple options to address each issue.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone else see the BRAC member posting on FairFACTS Matters on facebook? Evidently the BRAC needs inputs from county citizens about proposed developments so they can talk about the impact. It's obvious FCPS doesn't have accurate projection data from the county and this is now devolving into a grassroots data effort that relies on what community members report or don't report to an advisory committee.