Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

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.

It demonstrates why they should have funded an addition to McLean years ago. They can keep kicking kids out, but the kids then have longer commutes to other schools.

Unfortunately FCPS can’t plan for shit.

Their commutes still aren't as long as most of the kids on the far west end of the county. Some kids are making long drives to Westfield, Oakton, and Langley.

That's ironic, since there's a large contingent saying KAA needs to be a neighborhood school to reduce the commutes of kids to Westfield and Oakton. The Langley families with longer commutes take that on voluntarily and kids aren't being moved out of Langley every 4-5 years.

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why Langley people are fine with that longer commute…

KAA is interesting because I think you have people zoned for Westfield and maybe South Lakes who would rather be moved to KAA, people zoned for Chantilly who are probably neutral, and people zoned for Oakton who are split between not wanting to move due to a perceived decline in quality and wanting to move so their kids can go to a smaller and closer HS.

But, THRU wants to move Chantilly kids to Oakton and split a neighborhood.
I think most Chantilly people would be happy to stay there if they had that stability to stay there. That appears iffy.
I think Oakton is likely tired of the commute--but I'm not sure all feel that way.
I'm thinking those at Westfield don't like the commute to Westfield and it is separated from the rest of the school population.
I think it unlikely that any Fox Mill/South Lakes students would be sent to KAA. They are midway between KAA and South Lakes. I do think most would prefer AP to IB, though.

[Anonymous]

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.

It demonstrates why they should have funded an addition to McLean years ago. They can keep kicking kids out, but the kids then have longer commutes to other schools.

Unfortunately FCPS can’t plan for shit.

Their commutes still aren't as long as most of the kids on the far west end of the county. Some kids are making long drives to Westfield, Oakton, and Langley.

That's ironic, since there's a large contingent saying KAA needs to be a neighborhood school to reduce the commutes of kids to Westfield and Oakton. The Langley families with longer commutes take that on voluntarily and kids aren't being moved out of Langley every 4-5 years.

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why Langley people are fine with that longer commute…

KAA is interesting because I think you have people zoned for Westfield and maybe South Lakes who would rather be moved to KAA, people zoned for Chantilly who are probably neutral, and people zoned for Oakton who are split between not wanting to move due to a perceived decline in quality and wanting to move so their kids can go to a smaller and closer HS.

But, THRU wants to move Chantilly kids to Oakton and split a neighborhood.
I think most Chantilly people would be happy to stay there if they had that stability to stay there. That appears iffy.
I think Oakton is likely tired of the commute--but I'm not sure all feel that way.
I'm thinking those at Westfield don't like the commute to Westfield and it is separated from the rest of the school population.
I think it unlikely that any Fox Mill/South Lakes students would be sent to KAA. They are midway between KAA and South Lakes. I do think most would prefer AP to IB, though.

We are zoned for Fox Mill and my house is 1.1 miles door-to-door to KAA. We are just under 5 miles to South Lakes. KAA would certainly be more convenient if my kids ever needed to walk, but I agree that we will not be rezoned from South Lakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've gone back and forth reading both the 9/24 slide deck and Reid's summary of the meeting.

I think this is what I come away with:

1. The next-round "Scenario 4" maps were presented to the BRAC for feedback. These maps are not being shared with the general public yet.

2. In connection with the proposed "Scenario 4" changes, the slide deck hones in on specific changes still associated with Scenario 4 that would result in the biggest increases and reductions in travel distance and time. It is possible that Thru did not highlight some changes with larger impacts on distance if that was offset by a lesser or favorable impact on time. If people know for sure that a prior change would have resulted in a significantly greater travel distance compared to their current commute, and it wasn't included in the 9/24 presentation, they can be cautiously optimistic - but not sure - that it's been dropped and won't be part of Scenario 4.

3. The BRAC was asked to provide further feedback on Scenario 4, and that feedback didn't have to be limited to feedback on the transportation analysis.

4. The focus on the transportation analysis at this stage of the process is weird, but may have been deemed necessary to shore up FCPS's argument that it's complying with Policy 8130.

5. The revised Scenario 4 maps will be released on October 10th, and will continue to generate a lot of feedback.

Nice recap. Adding that their timeline mentions next maps will be released to the public Monday, October 6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've gone back and forth reading both the 9/24 slide deck and Reid's summary of the meeting.

I think this is what I come away with:

1. The next-round "Scenario 4" maps were presented to the BRAC for feedback. These maps are not being shared with the general public yet.

2. In connection with the proposed "Scenario 4" changes, the slide deck hones in on specific changes still associated with Scenario 4 that would result in the biggest increases and reductions in travel distance and time. It is possible that Thru did not highlight some changes with larger impacts on distance if that was offset by a lesser or favorable impact on time. If people know for sure that a prior change would have resulted in a significantly greater travel distance compared to their current commute, and it wasn't included in the 9/24 presentation, they can be cautiously optimistic - but not sure - that it's been dropped and won't be part of Scenario 4.

3. The BRAC was asked to provide further feedback on Scenario 4, and that feedback didn't have to be limited to feedback on the transportation analysis.

4. The focus on the transportation analysis at this stage of the process is weird, but may have been deemed necessary to shore up FCPS's argument that it's complying with Policy 8130.

5. The revised Scenario 4 maps will be released on October 10th, and will continue to generate a lot of feedback.

Nice recap. Adding that their timeline mentions next maps will be released to the public Monday, October 6

October 10 listed on slide 4

[Anonymous]

Thru’s analysis is on par with what you’d expect from a seventh grader who waited until 9pm the night before to complete the assignment.

A bidding process would’ve been vastly better than the rushed no-RFP process that awarded thru the contract. I guess in this instance FCPS got what it deserved.

[Anonymous]

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.

It demonstrates why they should have funded an addition to McLean years ago. They can keep kicking kids out, but the kids then have longer commutes to other schools.

Unfortunately FCPS can’t plan for shit.

Their commutes still aren't as long as most of the kids on the far west end of the county. Some kids are making long drives to Westfield, Oakton, and Langley.

That's ironic, since there's a large contingent saying KAA needs to be a neighborhood school to reduce the commutes of kids to Westfield and Oakton. The Langley families with longer commutes take that on voluntarily and kids aren't being moved out of Langley every 4-5 years.

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why Langley people are fine with that longer commute…

KAA is interesting because I think you have people zoned for Westfield and maybe South Lakes who would rather be moved to KAA, people zoned for Chantilly who are probably neutral, and people zoned for Oakton who are split between not wanting to move due to a perceived decline in quality and wanting to move so their kids can go to a smaller and closer HS.

But, THRU wants to move Chantilly kids to Oakton and split a neighborhood.
I think most Chantilly people would be happy to stay there if they had that stability to stay there. That appears iffy.
I think Oakton is likely tired of the commute--but I'm not sure all feel that way.
I'm thinking those at Westfield don't like the commute to Westfield and it is separated from the rest of the school population.
I think it unlikely that any Fox Mill/South Lakes students would be sent to KAA. They are midway between KAA and South Lakes. I do think most would prefer AP to IB, though.

So which Chantilly kids do they want to move to oakton? Oakton is a great school but I prefer Chantilly since it’s so much closer to us. KAA is super close also. Oakton would be a long commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised they left in the Chantilly to Oakton move. At least, I assume that's the 41 kids moving 6.88 miles away. Makes no sense with KAA coming on board.

You are right. And, the "delta" of 12.82 minutes means that what is currently less than a ten minute drive is -at best- a thirty minute drive twice a day. And, that is likely in a car, not on a school bus.

KAA needs to be a traditional school. A magnet would be ridiculous. And, KAA would likely be a five minute drive.

I can't follow your math. Wouldn't the delta suggest that a current 10-minute drive would become a 22 or 23-minute drive, not a "30-minute drive at best"?

They aren't factoring KAA into any of this at all. That part of the county could have to deal with boundary changes resulting from (1) the county-wide review, (2) the opening of KAA, and (3) the downsizing of the AAP center at Carson in short order. By the time all that gets worked out they could be talking about the next county-wide review.

If I were in charge, I would have prioritized Coates and figured out what the plans were with respect to KAA neighorhood boundaries and AAP centers before considering any other boundary changes. If that meant delaying other changes for a few years during a period of declining FCPS enrollments, so much the better.

Reid is clearly in over her head. I think a number of thoughtful posters on here could have managed this entire thing better-for free!

I'd add that there are a few BRAC members who also could manage this better, but they are repeatedly rebuffed when requesting information.

It's the biggest debacle I've ever seen come out of FCPS in terms of the sheer incompetence of both planning and execution. Apart from Ryan McElveen, who seemed to grasp early on this was beyond the competence of those currently running FCPS to pull off, and perhaps Ricardy Anderson and Melanie Meren, who appear to have come around to understanding what a gigantic mess this is, every current School Board member and Reid should lose their jobs. Certainly neither Ilryong Moon nor Rachna Sizemore-Heizer should get elected to the Board of Supervisors when they are complicit in this shit-show.

Agree 100% with the part in bold.

[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 don’t think Reid or FCPS cares about any violation. It’s interesting to me that our meeting got put last.

[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 don’t think Reid or FCPS cares about any violation. It’s interesting to me that our meeting got put last.

I think that was so Rachna Sizemore could be in the Democratic primary for Braddock supervisor before any of this hits the fan. They weren’t sure when the date for that would be, so to be safe, that meeting was made last.

[Anonymous]

What is the best guess for scenario 4 in light of the latest meeting?

[Anonymous]

That’s what I am wondering about - hoping they listened to the feedback and things have been corrected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the best guess for scenario 4 in light of the latest meeting?

Looking at the regional priorities, it seems that Tru’s analysis comments back put a lot in concrete. I’m sure the meeting last week was just confirming the adjustments and finite details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the best guess for scenario 4 in light of the latest meeting?

Looking at the regional priorities, it seems that Tru’s analysis comments back put a lot in concrete. I’m sure the meeting last week was just confirming the adjustments and finite details.

If you look at the regional priorities it was clear that in a lot of cases Thru didn’t understand the comments, and it remains unclear how Thru is addressing them. And then the School Board can override all of it anyway.

This has been a complete debacle from day one, so no one should be comfortable about any of it right now.

[Anonymous]

Sandy Anderson and Rachna Sizemore Heizer called out tonight at the boundary meeting for LBSS and WSHS for not even bothering to attend. A Sangster parent called them out for not bothering to show up. I'm only on the Zoom but there was 60 people online. No idea how many in the room.

Maybe Rachna doesn't care anymore because she's running for BOS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sandy Anderson and Rachna Sizemore Heizer called out tonight at the boundary meeting for LBSS and WSHS for not even bothering to attend. A Sangster parent called them out for not bothering to show up. I'm only on the Zoom but there was 60 people online. No idea how many in the room.

Maybe Rachna doesn't care anymore because she's running for BOS.

Heard she was just endorsed by McKay to be the new Braddock supervisor.