Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This place gets more wild every time I check back.

Good faith question - I know who/which schools are making the community argument. Where is the counterargument coming from? I assume people happy in their zoning are off not on DCUM so what particular boundary is the other side of this internet brawl so unhappy about?

You can be happy with your school assignment and unhappy that your elected officials would kowtow so much to the wealthiest, noisiest parents in the county. It makes a mockery of public education.

The school board listening to constituents saves public education. You keep pretending that dragging all the schools down to the lowest level will somehow save the system. In reality, the opposite is true, it’ll severely diminish the school system.

Are you saying that if you are rich, your kids should only go to school with other rich kids? Low income kids should study alongside other poor kids, despite some of these families with large income disparities living in relative proximity?

Are you saying the non Oakton, Langley and Mclean boundary zones should continually be grateful to them because they raise the tax base?

What I’m saying is that social engineering doesn’t work, in part because it drives away a critical block of support for public schools, namely the UMC.

I know it’s hard for you to understand, but I really do want to keep my kids in the school system and hope that the school board doesn’t force my hand.

It’s so incredibly penny wise pound foolish to assume that these parents are going to stick around through continued uncertainty where they lose their communities.

Oh, I pray your 'hand is forced' and my public school kids don't have to mix with yours. Lol.

Your frequent and desperate attempts to move other people’s kids belies your statement. You need UMC, but you’re too busy cutting off your nose to spite your face. Hopefully, the school board chooses the sane path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This place gets more wild every time I check back.

Good faith question - I know who/which schools are making the community argument. Where is the counterargument coming from? I assume people happy in their zoning are off not on DCUM so what particular boundary is the other side of this internet brawl so unhappy about?

You can be happy with your school assignment and unhappy that your elected officials would kowtow so much to the wealthiest, noisiest parents in the county. It makes a mockery of public education.

The school board listening to constituents saves public education. You keep pretending that dragging all the schools down to the lowest level will somehow save the system. In reality, the opposite is true, it’ll severely diminish the school system.

Are you saying that if you are rich, your kids should only go to school with other rich kids? Low income kids should study alongside other poor kids, despite some of these families with large income disparities living in relative proximity?

Are you saying the non Oakton, Langley and Mclean boundary zones should continually be grateful to them because they raise the tax base?

What I’m saying is that social engineering doesn’t work, in part because it drives away a critical block of support for public schools, namely the UMC.

I know it’s hard for you to understand, but I really do want to keep my kids in the school system and hope that the school board doesn’t force my hand.

It’s so incredibly penny wise pound foolish to assume that these parents are going to stick around through continued uncertainty where they lose their communities.

If a kid is admitted to a private the county collects the same property tax from you but FCPS has 1 less kid on it's budget. There has not been a magical expansion of private schools.

If scenario 5 removes the 190 from Timber Lane, Mclean is at 105% without the used /relocated modular. For the Langley pyramid Churchill RD has an old modular. 124% without it. Spring Hill has the only growth in Langley feeders in 20 years: plus 208. All others down 533 and that VDOE number excludes the diminished Forestville to Forest Edge AAP feed.

What does it mean for static boundaries? Residences did not disappear but k-12 population aged out. So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA.

Word salad lady strikes again.

Very convenient for you to disparage those facts with a rude comment. Even Thru now includes capacity utilization % without modulars. What's your explanation for the large membership decreases at Forestville, Great Falls Elementary, Churchill Road, and Colvin Run?

Thru included capacity utilization without modulars in response to a specific request from a couple of School Board members, but none of the actual proposals in Scenario 4 are based on utilization excluding modular seats. Hard to see why they'd do that in Scenario 5, much less for only one school.

I'm also not seeing these large membership decreases at Forestville (about the same this year as in 2016-17, 2020-21, and 2022-23), Churchill Road (about the same as last year and higher than 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23), or Colvin Run (highest enrollment this year since 2019-20) that you're claiming. Great Falls is down, but that's one Langley feeder out of five.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This place gets more wild every time I check back.

Good faith question - I know who/which schools are making the community argument. Where is the counterargument coming from? I assume people happy in their zoning are off not on DCUM so what particular boundary is the other side of this internet brawl so unhappy about?

You can be happy with your school assignment and unhappy that your elected officials would kowtow so much to the wealthiest, noisiest parents in the county. It makes a mockery of public education.

The school board listening to constituents saves public education. You keep pretending that dragging all the schools down to the lowest level will somehow save the system. In reality, the opposite is true, it’ll severely diminish the school system.

Are you saying that if you are rich, your kids should only go to school with other rich kids? Low income kids should study alongside other poor kids, despite some of these families with large income disparities living in relative proximity?

Are you saying the non Oakton, Langley and Mclean boundary zones should continually be grateful to them because they raise the tax base?

What I’m saying is that social engineering doesn’t work, in part because it drives away a critical block of support for public schools, namely the UMC.

I know it’s hard for you to understand, but I really do want to keep my kids in the school system and hope that the school board doesn’t force my hand.

It’s so incredibly penny wise pound foolish to assume that these parents are going to stick around through continued uncertainty where they lose their communities.

If a kid is admitted to a private the county collects the same property tax from you but FCPS has 1 less kid on it's budget. There has not been a magical expansion of private schools.

If scenario 5 removes the 190 from Timber Lane, Mclean is at 105% without the used /relocated modular. For the Langley pyramid Churchill RD has an old modular. 124% without it. Spring Hill has the only growth in Langley feeders in 20 years: plus 208. All others down 533 and that VDOE number excludes the diminished Forestville to Forest Edge AAP feed.

What does it mean for static boundaries? Residences did not disappear but k-12 population aged out. So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA.

Word salad lady strikes again.

Very convenient for you to disparage those facts with a rude comment. Even Thru now includes capacity utilization % without modulars. What's your explanation for the large membership decreases at Forestville, Great Falls Elementary, Churchill Road, and Colvin Run?

Thru included capacity utilization without modulars in response to a specific request from a couple of School Board members, but none of the actual proposals in Scenario 4 are based on utilization excluding modular seats. Hard to see why they'd do that in Scenario 5, much less for only one school.

I'm also not seeing these large membership decreases at Forestville (about the same this year as in 2016-17, 2020-21, and 2022-23), Churchill Road (about the same as last year and higher than 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23), or Colvin Run (highest enrollment this year since 2019-20) that you're claiming. Great Falls is down, but that's one Langley feeder out of five.

DP, by my count the Langley feeders are off 180 students from the projection for the year. That’s a large unanticipated decrease.

[Anonymous]

Well, GFCA has clearly stated that they will not support any more additional students at Langley--after Spring Hill addition. The letter makes it sound like that they have the authority to stop it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This place gets more wild every time I check back.

Good faith question - I know who/which schools are making the community argument. Where is the counterargument coming from? I assume people happy in their zoning are off not on DCUM so what particular boundary is the other side of this internet brawl so unhappy about?

You can be happy with your school assignment and unhappy that your elected officials would kowtow so much to the wealthiest, noisiest parents in the county. It makes a mockery of public education.

The school board listening to constituents saves public education. You keep pretending that dragging all the schools down to the lowest level will somehow save the system. In reality, the opposite is true, it’ll severely diminish the school system.

Are you saying that if you are rich, your kids should only go to school with other rich kids? Low income kids should study alongside other poor kids, despite some of these families with large income disparities living in relative proximity?

Are you saying the non Oakton, Langley and Mclean boundary zones should continually be grateful to them because they raise the tax base?

What I’m saying is that social engineering doesn’t work, in part because it drives away a critical block of support for public schools, namely the UMC.

I know it’s hard for you to understand, but I really do want to keep my kids in the school system and hope that the school board doesn’t force my hand.

It’s so incredibly penny wise pound foolish to assume that these parents are going to stick around through continued uncertainty where they lose their communities.

If a kid is admitted to a private the county collects the same property tax from you but FCPS has 1 less kid on it's budget. There has not been a magical expansion of private schools.

If scenario 5 removes the 190 from Timber Lane, Mclean is at 105% without the used /relocated modular. For the Langley pyramid Churchill RD has an old modular. 124% without it. Spring Hill has the only growth in Langley feeders in 20 years: plus 208. All others down 533 and that VDOE number excludes the diminished Forestville to Forest Edge AAP feed.

What does it mean for static boundaries? Residences did not disappear but k-12 population aged out. So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA.

Word salad lady strikes again.

Very convenient for you to disparage those facts with a rude comment. Even Thru now includes capacity utilization % without modulars. What's your explanation for the large membership decreases at Forestville, Great Falls Elementary, Churchill Road, and Colvin Run?

Thru included capacity utilization without modulars in response to a specific request from a couple of School Board members, but none of the actual proposals in Scenario 4 are based on utilization excluding modular seats. Hard to see why they'd do that in Scenario 5, much less for only one school.

I'm also not seeing these large membership decreases at Forestville (about the same this year as in 2016-17, 2020-21, and 2022-23), Churchill Road (about the same as last year and higher than 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23), or Colvin Run (highest enrollment this year since 2019-20) that you're claiming. Great Falls is down, but that's one Langley feeder out of five.

DP, by my count the Langley feeders are off 180 students from the projection for the year. That’s a large unanticipated decrease.

OK. And Oakton has more kids than anticipated this fall.

They are making boundary decisions based on past (and perhaps current) enrollment, not projections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This place gets more wild every time I check back.

Good faith question - I know who/which schools are making the community argument. Where is the counterargument coming from? I assume people happy in their zoning are off not on DCUM so what particular boundary is the other side of this internet brawl so unhappy about?

You can be happy with your school assignment and unhappy that your elected officials would kowtow so much to the wealthiest, noisiest parents in the county. It makes a mockery of public education.

The school board listening to constituents saves public education. You keep pretending that dragging all the schools down to the lowest level will somehow save the system. In reality, the opposite is true, it’ll severely diminish the school system.

Are you saying that if you are rich, your kids should only go to school with other rich kids? Low income kids should study alongside other poor kids, despite some of these families with large income disparities living in relative proximity?

Are you saying the non Oakton, Langley and Mclean boundary zones should continually be grateful to them because they raise the tax base?

What I’m saying is that social engineering doesn’t work, in part because it drives away a critical block of support for public schools, namely the UMC.

I know it’s hard for you to understand, but I really do want to keep my kids in the school system and hope that the school board doesn’t force my hand.

It’s so incredibly penny wise pound foolish to assume that these parents are going to stick around through continued uncertainty where they lose their communities.

If a kid is admitted to a private the county collects the same property tax from you but FCPS has 1 less kid on it's budget. There has not been a magical expansion of private schools.

If scenario 5 removes the 190 from Timber Lane, Mclean is at 105% without the used /relocated modular. For the Langley pyramid Churchill RD has an old modular. 124% without it. Spring Hill has the only growth in Langley feeders in 20 years: plus 208. All others down 533 and that VDOE number excludes the diminished Forestville to Forest Edge AAP feed.

What does it mean for static boundaries? Residences did not disappear but k-12 population aged out. So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA.

Word salad lady strikes again.

Very convenient for you to disparage those facts with a rude comment. Even Thru now includes capacity utilization % without modulars. What's your explanation for the large membership decreases at Forestville, Great Falls Elementary, Churchill Road, and Colvin Run?

Thru included capacity utilization without modulars in response to a specific request from a couple of School Board members, but none of the actual proposals in Scenario 4 are based on utilization excluding modular seats. Hard to see why they'd do that in Scenario 5, much less for only one school.

I'm also not seeing these large membership decreases at Forestville (about the same this year as in 2016-17, 2020-21, and 2022-23), Churchill Road (about the same as last year and higher than 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23), or Colvin Run (highest enrollment this year since 2019-20) that you're claiming. Great Falls is down, but that's one Langley feeder out of five.

DP, by my count the Langley feeders are off 180 students from the projection for the year. That’s a large unanticipated decrease.

OK. And Oakton has more kids than anticipated this fall.

They are making boundary decisions based on past (and perhaps current) enrollment, not projections.

The current enrollment at Oakton is +100 from last year. And, it is not slightly above capacity.
Massive new construction planned in the area.

[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:This place gets more wild every time I check back.

Good faith question - I know who/which schools are making the community argument. Where is the counterargument coming from? I assume people happy in their zoning are off not on DCUM so what particular boundary is the other side of this internet brawl so unhappy about?

You can be happy with your school assignment and unhappy that your elected officials would kowtow so much to the wealthiest, noisiest parents in the county. It makes a mockery of public education.

The school board listening to constituents saves public education. You keep pretending that dragging all the schools down to the lowest level will somehow save the system. In reality, the opposite is true, it’ll severely diminish the school system.

Are you saying that if you are rich, your kids should only go to school with other rich kids? Low income kids should study alongside other poor kids, despite some of these families with large income disparities living in relative proximity?

Are you saying the non Oakton, Langley and Mclean boundary zones should continually be grateful to them because they raise the tax base?

What I’m saying is that social engineering doesn’t work, in part because it drives away a critical block of support for public schools, namely the UMC.

I know it’s hard for you to understand, but I really do want to keep my kids in the school system and hope that the school board doesn’t force my hand.

It’s so incredibly penny wise pound foolish to assume that these parents are going to stick around through continued uncertainty where they lose their communities.

If a kid is admitted to a private the county collects the same property tax from you but FCPS has 1 less kid on it's budget. There has not been a magical expansion of private schools.

If scenario 5 removes the 190 from Timber Lane, Mclean is at 105% without the used /relocated modular. For the Langley pyramid Churchill RD has an old modular. 124% without it. Spring Hill has the only growth in Langley feeders in 20 years: plus 208. All others down 533 and that VDOE number excludes the diminished Forestville to Forest Edge AAP feed.

What does it mean for static boundaries? Residences did not disappear but k-12 population aged out. So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA.

Word salad lady strikes again.

Very convenient for you to disparage those facts with a rude comment. Even Thru now includes capacity utilization % without modulars. What's your explanation for the large membership decreases at Forestville, Great Falls Elementary, Churchill Road, and Colvin Run?

Thru included capacity utilization without modulars in response to a specific request from a couple of School Board members, but none of the actual proposals in Scenario 4 are based on utilization excluding modular seats. Hard to see why they'd do that in Scenario 5, much less for only one school.

I'm also not seeing these large membership decreases at Forestville (about the same this year as in 2016-17, 2020-21, and 2022-23), Churchill Road (about the same as last year and higher than 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23), or Colvin Run (highest enrollment this year since 2019-20) that you're claiming. Great Falls is down, but that's one Langley feeder out of five.

DP, by my count the Langley feeders are off 180 students from the projection for the year. That’s a large unanticipated decrease.

OK. And Oakton has more kids than anticipated this fall.

They are making boundary decisions based on past (and perhaps current) enrollment, not projections.

The current enrollment at Oakton is +100 from last year. And, it is not slightly above capacity.
Massive new construction planned in the area.

And, the freshman class is large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, GFCA has clearly stated that they will not support any more additional students at Langley--after Spring Hill addition. The letter makes it sound like that they have the authority to stop it.

The letter just stakes out a future GFCA position, but of course that position could always change in the future.

It was smart for the GFCA not to express opposition to a Spring Hill boundary change that's inevitable. Had it done so, it would be on the losing side and lose credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This place gets more wild every time I check back.

Good faith question - I know who/which schools are making the community argument. Where is the counterargument coming from? I assume people happy in their zoning are off not on DCUM so what particular boundary is the other side of this internet brawl so unhappy about?

You can be happy with your school assignment and unhappy that your elected officials would kowtow so much to the wealthiest, noisiest parents in the county. It makes a mockery of public education.

The school board listening to constituents saves public education. You keep pretending that dragging all the schools down to the lowest level will somehow save the system. In reality, the opposite is true, it’ll severely diminish the school system.

Are you saying that if you are rich, your kids should only go to school with other rich kids? Low income kids should study alongside other poor kids, despite some of these families with large income disparities living in relative proximity?

Are you saying the non Oakton, Langley and Mclean boundary zones should continually be grateful to them because they raise the tax base?

What I’m saying is that social engineering doesn’t work, in part because it drives away a critical block of support for public schools, namely the UMC.

I know it’s hard for you to understand, but I really do want to keep my kids in the school system and hope that the school board doesn’t force my hand.

It’s so incredibly penny wise pound foolish to assume that these parents are going to stick around through continued uncertainty where they lose their communities.

If a kid is admitted to a private the county collects the same property tax from you but FCPS has 1 less kid on it's budget. There has not been a magical expansion of private schools.

If scenario 5 removes the 190 from Timber Lane, Mclean is at 105% without the used /relocated modular. For the Langley pyramid Churchill RD has an old modular. 124% without it. Spring Hill has the only growth in Langley feeders in 20 years: plus 208. All others down 533 and that VDOE number excludes the diminished Forestville to Forest Edge AAP feed.

What does it mean for static boundaries? Residences did not disappear but k-12 population aged out. So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA.

Word salad lady strikes again.

Very convenient for you to disparage those facts with a rude comment. Even Thru now includes capacity utilization % without modulars. What's your explanation for the large membership decreases at Forestville, Great Falls Elementary, Churchill Road, and Colvin Run?

Thru included capacity utilization without modulars in response to a specific request from a couple of School Board members, but none of the actual proposals in Scenario 4 are based on utilization excluding modular seats. Hard to see why they'd do that in Scenario 5, much less for only one school.

I'm also not seeing these large membership decreases at Forestville (about the same this year as in 2016-17, 2020-21, and 2022-23), Churchill Road (about the same as last year and higher than 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23), or Colvin Run (highest enrollment this year since 2019-20) that you're claiming. Great Falls is down, but that's one Langley feeder out of five.

The source I used was VDOE, Virginia Dept of Education. School years 2004-05 less 2024-25. Scroll to and click on Enrollment and Demographics at https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports

Then Fall Membership Data and build your own table. Forestville full time count K thru 6 excludes any students who transferred to Forest Edge for AAP:
SY2004-05 members 779
SY2024-25 members 571
The decrease was 208.

2003-04 was Colvin Run year 1 of operation and it opened with a small grade 6. It also got Great Falls AAP so any AAP transfer data is included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This place gets more wild every time I check back.

Good faith question - I know who/which schools are making the community argument. Where is the counterargument coming from? I assume people happy in their zoning are off not on DCUM so what particular boundary is the other side of this internet brawl so unhappy about?

You can be happy with your school assignment and unhappy that your elected officials would kowtow so much to the wealthiest, noisiest parents in the county. It makes a mockery of public education.

The school board listening to constituents saves public education. You keep pretending that dragging all the schools down to the lowest level will somehow save the system. In reality, the opposite is true, it’ll severely diminish the school system.

Are you saying that if you are rich, your kids should only go to school with other rich kids? Low income kids should study alongside other poor kids, despite some of these families with large income disparities living in relative proximity?

Are you saying the non Oakton, Langley and Mclean boundary zones should continually be grateful to them because they raise the tax base?

What I’m saying is that social engineering doesn’t work, in part because it drives away a critical block of support for public schools, namely the UMC.

I know it’s hard for you to understand, but I really do want to keep my kids in the school system and hope that the school board doesn’t force my hand.

It’s so incredibly penny wise pound foolish to assume that these parents are going to stick around through continued uncertainty where they lose their communities.

If a kid is admitted to a private the county collects the same property tax from you but FCPS has 1 less kid on it's budget. There has not been a magical expansion of private schools.

If scenario 5 removes the 190 from Timber Lane, Mclean is at 105% without the used /relocated modular. For the Langley pyramid Churchill RD has an old modular. 124% without it. Spring Hill has the only growth in Langley feeders in 20 years: plus 208. All others down 533 and that VDOE number excludes the diminished Forestville to Forest Edge AAP feed.

What does it mean for static boundaries? Residences did not disappear but k-12 population aged out. So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA.

Word salad lady strikes again.

Very convenient for you to disparage those facts with a rude comment. Even Thru now includes capacity utilization % without modulars. What's your explanation for the large membership decreases at Forestville, Great Falls Elementary, Churchill Road, and Colvin Run?

Thru included capacity utilization without modulars in response to a specific request from a couple of School Board members, but none of the actual proposals in Scenario 4 are based on utilization excluding modular seats. Hard to see why they'd do that in Scenario 5, much less for only one school.

I'm also not seeing these large membership decreases at Forestville (about the same this year as in 2016-17, 2020-21, and 2022-23), Churchill Road (about the same as last year and higher than 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23), or Colvin Run (highest enrollment this year since 2019-20) that you're claiming. Great Falls is down, but that's one Langley feeder out of five.

The source I used was VDOE, Virginia Dept of Education. School years 2004-05 less 2024-25. Scroll to and click on Enrollment and Demographics at https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports

Then Fall Membership Data and build your own table. Forestville full time count K thru 6 excludes any students who transferred to Forest Edge for AAP:
SY2004-05 members 779
SY2024-25 members 571
The decrease was 208.

2003-04 was Colvin Run year 1 of operation and it opened with a small grade 6. It also got Great Falls AAP so any AAP transfer data is included.

None of this demonstrates what you previously claimed: "So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA." Too many other factors (declining birth rates, people deciding to age in place, people deciding to send their kids to privates) potentially at play.

Also, Langley can immediately claw back 100+ seats by cutting off the pupil placement pipeline for AP/foreign languages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New PDF out from last night’s BRAC meeting next map will be Reid’s, looks like.

Where did they post it?

The fcps website only shows Map 4.

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

Thank you

So this PDF is only listing changes to Map 4?

For example, there are no changes listed for Irving or WSHS.

Does this mean that Map 4 will now move up to the superintendent's desk for approval?

Rolling Valley will still be pulled from Lewis to WSHS, kicking out and replacing existing WSHS neighborhoods?

Dr. Reid said at the WSHS/LBSS meeting that the Rolling Valley move from Lewis to WSHS was going to be relooked at and possibly removed.

This is a false characterization and not what was said.

It is what she said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This place gets more wild every time I check back.

Good faith question - I know who/which schools are making the community argument. Where is the counterargument coming from? I assume people happy in their zoning are off not on DCUM so what particular boundary is the other side of this internet brawl so unhappy about?

You can be happy with your school assignment and unhappy that your elected officials would kowtow so much to the wealthiest, noisiest parents in the county. It makes a mockery of public education.

The school board listening to constituents saves public education. You keep pretending that dragging all the schools down to the lowest level will somehow save the system. In reality, the opposite is true, it’ll severely diminish the school system.

Are you saying that if you are rich, your kids should only go to school with other rich kids? Low income kids should study alongside other poor kids, despite some of these families with large income disparities living in relative proximity?

Are you saying the non Oakton, Langley and Mclean boundary zones should continually be grateful to them because they raise the tax base?

What I’m saying is that social engineering doesn’t work, in part because it drives away a critical block of support for public schools, namely the UMC.

I know it’s hard for you to understand, but I really do want to keep my kids in the school system and hope that the school board doesn’t force my hand.

It’s so incredibly penny wise pound foolish to assume that these parents are going to stick around through continued uncertainty where they lose their communities.

If a kid is admitted to a private the county collects the same property tax from you but FCPS has 1 less kid on it's budget. There has not been a magical expansion of private schools.

If scenario 5 removes the 190 from Timber Lane, Mclean is at 105% without the used /relocated modular. For the Langley pyramid Churchill RD has an old modular. 124% without it. Spring Hill has the only growth in Langley feeders in 20 years: plus 208. All others down 533 and that VDOE number excludes the diminished Forestville to Forest Edge AAP feed.

What does it mean for static boundaries? Residences did not disappear but k-12 population aged out. So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA.

Word salad lady strikes again.

Very convenient for you to disparage those facts with a rude comment. Even Thru now includes capacity utilization % without modulars. What's your explanation for the large membership decreases at Forestville, Great Falls Elementary, Churchill Road, and Colvin Run?

Thru included capacity utilization without modulars in response to a specific request from a couple of School Board members, but none of the actual proposals in Scenario 4 are based on utilization excluding modular seats. Hard to see why they'd do that in Scenario 5, much less for only one school.

I'm also not seeing these large membership decreases at Forestville (about the same this year as in 2016-17, 2020-21, and 2022-23), Churchill Road (about the same as last year and higher than 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23), or Colvin Run (highest enrollment this year since 2019-20) that you're claiming. Great Falls is down, but that's one Langley feeder out of five.

The source I used was VDOE, Virginia Dept of Education. School years 2004-05 less 2024-25. Scroll to and click on Enrollment and Demographics at https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports

Then Fall Membership Data and build your own table. Forestville full time count K thru 6 excludes any students who transferred to Forest Edge for AAP:
SY2004-05 members 779
SY2024-25 members 571
The decrease was 208.

2003-04 was Colvin Run year 1 of operation and it opened with a small grade 6. It also got Great Falls AAP so any AAP transfer data is included.

None of this demonstrates what you previously claimed: "So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA." Too many other factors (declining birth rates, people deciding to age in place, people deciding to send their kids to privates) potentially at play.

Also, Langley can immediately claw back 100+ seats by cutting off the pupil placement pipeline for AP/foreign languages.

Can you read spreadsheets? The decrease in 4 feeder memberships over 20 years was 533. At play is people aging in place. There are always instances when a single or DINK never any children buy a house. No new comprehensive privates like Potomac, Flint Hill, Bullis, SSSA popped up.

Mclean to Langley was <10 transfers and the largest transfers into Langley were these 69 out of 104:
IB South Lakes 29
AP Herndon 10
IB Marshall 18
AP Westfield 12

So for program/language offering equity where else to offer Russian? For some transferring it is likely a way into the school. Pick 1 or 2 sites where people can take Russian besides Langley and TJ. Transfer reg or preferable as an academy course. Under academies Chantilly has Korean and Marshall has Arabic and Chinese, Falls Church Vietnamese.

[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:Now I'd like GFCA to put out a letter about their Western High scenario. I am guessing they are the ones who put in the comment into the boundary tool about moving McNair and Coates into Herndon HS. Which is never going to happen.

Cute conspiracy theory. They don’t have a position on the school. Most people in great falls don’t care about the school because it doesn’t affect us directly. There are a few people who question the costs for the school, just like the school board members have done recently.

BS. You don't speak for all of Great Falls nor does Fairfax Matters or the very limited number of persons who are on the GFCA. It's great that FCPS did this and spending 50m+ more to make it a solid AP comprehensive HS is a worthwhile use of our tax dollars for a county wide school division. Main complainer on Western is Meren. That one also voted NO on all MS having AAP. Lady likes the concept of a Loudoun style magnet BUT recognizes that this is a different situation since she stated there are 1700 students learning in trailers and 2 modulars in all involved schools. TJ as an option was created because FCPS had low enrollment at the site.

Those 2 modulars, Chantilly and Centreville, were installed in 2005. Churchill Rd has one that was installed in 2006 with a 280 student capacity. So as Tysons grows and empty nesters residences get replaced by k-12 there eventually could be an ES capacity deficit. 4 feeders had 533 less members in SY2024-25 than in SY2004-05. Spring Hill grew by 206.

Of course, I never claimed to speak for all of Great falls. fairfacts is a county-wide organization, so they certainly don’t speak for Great falls.

But note you’re trying to put words in my mouth, I’m just refuting the claim that Great falls was somehow against your community getting a new school, because no one has ever pointed to an actual statement from any GF organization to that effect. I just see people questioning the cost, just like, as you point out, meren has, and I’ll add Dunne has.

We all know that Fair Facts was started by and run by people in Great Falls. But Aren't there also TWO Great Falls Associations because they got in a fight? I would love someone to explain all the Great Falls drama sometime! How can one tiny part of the county have so much drama?? My part of town doesn't have a citizens association, no drama other than the Oakton moms!

Because of the history of the change. The real goal is to change Great Fall’s zoning. They don’t think we should own large lots, etc. what they don’t tell you is how much of GF is on well, septic, and propane. Part of it is also caving to the Tysons developers. They also don’t think we are diverse enough, but what they really mean is they don’t like our kind of diversity. They would like nothing more than to take GF land because they don’t like capitalism. It’s really that simple

This is a troll post. It’s true most of us want stability, but this post is intended to foment ill-will toward GF.

I wrote that post. I live in GF and I stand by what I say. There is already ill-will towards GF - nothing I say will change that.

Then you're posting nonsense. A fair number of the Great Falls residents aren't very sophisticated. They praise capitalism when it enriches them, but favor government intervention when it protects them. Zoning laws such as those that restrict growth in Great Falls are anti-capitalist because they inhibit private development that might otherwise take place.

Not true. When zoning laws are changed to favor socioeconomic and socialistic practices, that is not capitalism

You confuse privilege with capitalism. The mindset of many Great Falls residents has more to do with entitlement than capitalism.

What's entitled is moving kids from one high school to another because you need them to boost the quality of the school you ruined with your own policies.

No one is being moved out of Great Falls now because the numbers don’t justify it. In five years things may be different and a move may be necessary based on capacity grounds.

If that happens, don’t expect anyone to buy your bogus argument that it’s based on an “anti-community” or “anti-capitalist” agenda. ALL it would mean is that you’re part of the same county as everyone else.

They tried real hard to get it done and failed. The numbers will never justify it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, certainly proximity affects community. Kind of don't understand why people on south side of 7 and have a Herndon address are zoned for Langley.

I can agree with that. Problem is the dividing line was Walker road, the center of Great Falls

[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:Now I'd like GFCA to put out a letter about their Western High scenario. I am guessing they are the ones who put in the comment into the boundary tool about moving McNair and Coates into Herndon HS. Which is never going to happen.

Cute conspiracy theory. They don’t have a position on the school. Most people in great falls don’t care about the school because it doesn’t affect us directly. There are a few people who question the costs for the school, just like the school board members have done recently.

BS. You don't speak for all of Great Falls nor does Fairfax Matters or the very limited number of persons who are on the GFCA. It's great that FCPS did this and spending 50m+ more to make it a solid AP comprehensive HS is a worthwhile use of our tax dollars for a county wide school division. Main complainer on Western is Meren. That one also voted NO on all MS having AAP. Lady likes the concept of a Loudoun style magnet BUT recognizes that this is a different situation since she stated there are 1700 students learning in trailers and 2 modulars in all involved schools. TJ as an option was created because FCPS had low enrollment at the site.

Those 2 modulars, Chantilly and Centreville, were installed in 2005. Churchill Rd has one that was installed in 2006 with a 280 student capacity. So as Tysons grows and empty nesters residences get replaced by k-12 there eventually could be an ES capacity deficit. 4 feeders had 533 less members in SY2024-25 than in SY2004-05. Spring Hill grew by 206.

Of course, I never claimed to speak for all of Great falls. fairfacts is a county-wide organization, so they certainly don’t speak for Great falls.

But note you’re trying to put words in my mouth, I’m just refuting the claim that Great falls was somehow against your community getting a new school, because no one has ever pointed to an actual statement from any GF organization to that effect. I just see people questioning the cost, just like, as you point out, meren has, and I’ll add Dunne has.

We all know that Fair Facts was started by and run by people in Great Falls. But Aren't there also TWO Great Falls Associations because they got in a fight? I would love someone to explain all the Great Falls drama sometime! How can one tiny part of the county have so much drama?? My part of town doesn't have a citizens association, no drama other than the Oakton moms!

Because of the history of the change. The real goal is to change Great Fall’s zoning. They don’t think we should own large lots, etc. what they don’t tell you is how much of GF is on well, septic, and propane. Part of it is also caving to the Tysons developers. They also don’t think we are diverse enough, but what they really mean is they don’t like our kind of diversity. They would like nothing more than to take GF land because they don’t like capitalism. It’s really that simple

This is a troll post. It’s true most of us want stability, but this post is intended to foment ill-will toward GF.

I wrote that post. I live in GF and I stand by what I say. There is already ill-will towards GF - nothing I say will change that.

Then you're posting nonsense. A fair number of the Great Falls residents aren't very sophisticated. They praise capitalism when it enriches them, but favor government intervention when it protects them. Zoning laws such as those that restrict growth in Great Falls are anti-capitalist because they inhibit private development that might otherwise take place.

Not true. When zoning laws are changed to favor socioeconomic and socialistic practices, that is not capitalism

You confuse privilege with capitalism. The mindset of many Great Falls residents has more to do with entitlement than capitalism.

DP. You confuse entitlement with community. Most of us love our community.

Herndon address homes south of Rt. 7 are not in any way part of the Great Falls community, other than the fact that the developers got the school boundary gerrymandered 40 years ago so they could make more money selling houses. They should be going to their real community school, in Herndon.