Western High School Boundary Map options (A/B/C/D)

[Anonymous]

The proposals in scenario 1 and 3 were absurd. Moving Chantilly HS kids who are a stone’s throw away from Chantilly HS to Westfield and increasing commute times? So ridiculous. It also sent Chantilly kids over to Oakton who are live much closer to Chantilly. Again, totally ridiculous. Their decisions aren’t rooted in reality and are going to upset a lot of people. Our only hope is grandfathering at the high school. We need to find out about sibling placement and what happens if they are pupil placed with an older sibling and the sibling graduates. Can the sibling stay at the grandfathered HS or are they thrown back to a new base school after 1 year or whenever the older sibling graduates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time they will let South Lakes fall to 83% (~1867) or 81% utilization (~1822) from scenarios 2 and 3, and with the chunk they are losing being some of the higher performers from Fox Mill. The rest of South Lakes should be pitching a fit if they care about having advanced courses available to the remaining kids.
Also seems really strange they opt for scenario 2 and do nothing about Oakton being over capacity during a boundary review specifically to address overcrowding.

Absolutely agree with this. No way Meren is going to let this happen to South Lakes. They added a few neighborhoods from Floris to Fox Mill, my bet is they keep Fox Mill at SLHS.

Did Meren attend the meeting?

I presume she had already reviewed scenarios before they were presented to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time they will let South Lakes fall to 83% (~1867) or 81% utilization (~1822) from scenarios 2 and 3, and with the chunk they are losing being some of the higher performers from Fox Mill. The rest of South Lakes should be pitching a fit if they care about having advanced courses available to the remaining kids.
Also seems really strange they opt for scenario 2 and do nothing about Oakton being over capacity during a boundary review specifically to address overcrowding.

Absolutely agree with this. No way Meren is going to let this happen to South Lakes. They added a few neighborhoods from Floris to Fox Mill, my bet is they keep Fox Mill at SLHS.

Did Meren attend the meeting?

I presume she had already reviewed scenarios before they were presented to the public.

I think I heard the reps from Hunter Mill & Sully were both there + at least one other at-large school board member.

I hope the school board received the scenarios before receiving FCPS’s email blast so they could at least prepare for what would follow from parents, the community, etc.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be confusion as to when this is all taking place. On the FAQ it says fall 2026 but other people are saying it won't be til 2027. Which is it??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time they will let South Lakes fall to 83% (~1867) or 81% utilization (~1822) from scenarios 2 and 3, and with the chunk they are losing being some of the higher performers from Fox Mill. The rest of South Lakes should be pitching a fit if they care about having advanced courses available to the remaining kids.
Also seems really strange they opt for scenario 2 and do nothing about Oakton being over capacity during a boundary review specifically to address overcrowding.

Absolutely agree with this. No way Meren is going to let this happen to South Lakes. They added a few neighborhoods from Floris to Fox Mill, my bet is they keep Fox Mill at SLHS.

Did Meren attend the meeting?

I presume she had already reviewed scenarios before they were presented to the public.

The thing is there are a good number of families in Fox Mill that want to move. At least half of the rising 9th graders from FMES opted in to Skyview. More would have if there had been sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be confusion as to when this is all taking place. On the FAQ it says fall 2026 but other people are saying it won't be til 2027. Which is it??

I’m not sure - they created so much confusion with adding in elementary school moves. I know high school wise it’s not until 27-28.

We are an affected elementary school fam (all 3 options put us at a new elementary) and honestly I’d rather have my kid move now rather than spend another year building friendships with kids they won’t go to school with anymore. We are indifferent about the move but I think the sooner we can transition the easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be confusion as to when this is all taking place. On the FAQ it says fall 2026 but other people are saying it won't be til 2027. Which is it??

Slide 17 says boundaries go in effect got 2027-28.

https://www.fcps.edu/system/files/forms/2026-04/260427_WXY_Fairfax_Skyview_Meeting%201%20FINAL.pdf

[Anonymous]

Scenario 3 moves a neighborhood closer to Chantilly (currently going to Chantilly) to Oakton while sending a neighborhood currently going to Oakton to Chantilly. Neither neighborhood wants that. It also sends a large part of one neighborhood to an elementary school further away. Another neighborhood to a completely different middle school than everyone else at their elementary school. It moves students who live across the street from their high schools to schools that are 5 miles away with heavy traffic. There are multiple absurd problems with this scenario.

This is a complete failure on the part of FCPS. To hire consultants who didn’t even do basic research is a complete waste of everyone’s time, resources and sanity. Do better, FCPS. You’ve had over a year to figure it out and somehow it seems you’re 50 steps behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time they will let South Lakes fall to 83% (~1867) or 81% utilization (~1822) from scenarios 2 and 3, and with the chunk they are losing being some of the higher performers from Fox Mill. The rest of South Lakes should be pitching a fit if they care about having advanced courses available to the remaining kids.
Also seems really strange they opt for scenario 2 and do nothing about Oakton being over capacity during a boundary review specifically to address overcrowding.

Absolutely agree with this. No way Meren is going to let this happen to South Lakes. They added a few neighborhoods from Floris to Fox Mill, my bet is they keep Fox Mill at SLHS.

Did Meren attend the meeting?

I presume she had already reviewed scenarios before they were presented to the public.

The thing is there are a good number of families in Fox Mill that want to move. At least half of the rising 9th graders from FMES opted in to Skyview. More would have if there had been sports.

Yes. We live in FMES and want to move mostly because the split feeder from Carson to South Lakes has been absolutely horrible for my kids. South Lakes holding onto FMES benefits South Lakes only. What are they going to do to help that and keep the kids at SL. Move them to Hughes? That wasn’t in any of the scenarios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time they will let South Lakes fall to 83% (~1867) or 81% utilization (~1822) from scenarios 2 and 3, and with the chunk they are losing being some of the higher performers from Fox Mill. The rest of South Lakes should be pitching a fit if they care about having advanced courses available to the remaining kids.
Also seems really strange they opt for scenario 2 and do nothing about Oakton being over capacity during a boundary review specifically to address overcrowding.

Absolutely agree with this. No way Meren is going to let this happen to South Lakes. They added a few neighborhoods from Floris to Fox Mill, my bet is they keep Fox Mill at SLHS.

The only thing they did correctly was send FMES to Skyview in all 3 scenarios. FMES to Carson to Skyview makes sense. We live in Oak Hill and Skyview is our new Oak Hill HS.

Franklin Farm is also in Oak Hill. We deserve to go to the Oak Hill HS, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be confusion as to when this is all taking place. On the FAQ it says fall 2026 but other people are saying it won't be til 2027. Which is it??

Slide 17 says boundaries go in effect got 2027-28.

https://www.fcps.edu/system/files/forms/2026-04/260427_WXY_Fairfax_Skyview_Meeting%201%20FINAL.pdf

Definitely need clarity on this with the ES and MS changes. So my rising 7th grader will have to go to Carson for a year and then Franklin for a year? Or they'll have the option to stay at Carson but my other child who's a year behind will have to go to Franklin, so they'll be in different schools? Or they'll let her attend Carson without any of her friends because her sibling is there.. What a cluster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time they will let South Lakes fall to 83% (~1867) or 81% utilization (~1822) from scenarios 2 and 3, and with the chunk they are losing being some of the higher performers from Fox Mill. The rest of South Lakes should be pitching a fit if they care about having advanced courses available to the remaining kids.
Also seems really strange they opt for scenario 2 and do nothing about Oakton being over capacity during a boundary review specifically to address overcrowding.

Not fair to have FMES to stay with SL with the Carson to SL feeder situation.

If SL gets rid of IB and offers AP, that would solve a lot of problems.

[Anonymous]

If Gatehouse or anyone from the consultant is reading this, if you send Crossfield to Skyview, you MUST also send them to Carson. Look at the maps!! You can't have Crossfiedl be the only school at Franklin that goes to Skyview. It's already so unfair that we're the only ones actually zoned to Carson that go to Oakton. Don't do that to us again. It needs to be Crossfield-Carson-Skyview OR Crossfield-Franklin-Oakton. PLEASE ALIGN MIDDLE SCHOOLS TO HIGH SCHOOLS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time they will let South Lakes fall to 83% (~1867) or 81% utilization (~1822) from scenarios 2 and 3, and with the chunk they are losing being some of the higher performers from Fox Mill. The rest of South Lakes should be pitching a fit if they care about having advanced courses available to the remaining kids.
Also seems really strange they opt for scenario 2 and do nothing about Oakton being over capacity during a boundary review specifically to address overcrowding.

Absolutely agree with this. No way Meren is going to let this happen to South Lakes. They added a few neighborhoods from Floris to Fox Mill, my bet is they keep Fox Mill at SLHS.

Did Meren attend the meeting?

I presume she had already reviewed scenarios before they were presented to the public.

The thing is there are a good number of families in Fox Mill that want to move. At least half of the rising 9th graders from FMES opted in to Skyview. More would have if there had been sports.

Yes. We live in FMES and want to move mostly because the split feeder from Carson to South Lakes has been absolutely horrible for my kids. South Lakes holding onto FMES benefits South Lakes only. What are they going to do to help that and keep the kids at SL. Move them to Hughes? That wasn’t in any of the scenarios.

They need to align middle schools to high schools. That means Crossfield-Carson-Skyview or FMES-Carson-Skyview OR Crossfield-Franklin-Oakton or FMES-Hughes-South Lakes. It's the only way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Gatehouse or anyone from the consultant is reading this, if you send Crossfield to Skyview, you MUST also send them to Carson. Look at the maps!! You can't have Crossfiedl be the only school at Franklin that goes to Skyview. It's already so unfair that we're the only ones actually zoned to Carson that go to Oakton. Don't do that to us again. It needs to be Crossfield-Carson-Skyview OR Crossfield-Franklin-Oakton. PLEASE ALIGN MIDDLE SCHOOLS TO HIGH SCHOOLS.

Crossfield should go to RC and Skyview.