FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I’m reading this correctly, no changes to Langley? Just the poorer and middle class schools?

Why would Langley need to change at this point? Their capacity is fine. Herndon’s is fine too. Yes, parts of Forestville ES are slightly closer to Herndon than to Langley, but they’re still not exactly *close*, and those far flung areas have to go to school somewhere.

The 20170 Forestville homes are closer to Herndon HS than most of the rest of Herndon HS's current students.

LOL. Knock it off.

I told you they will NEVER change the boundary to move Great Falls kids from Langley to Herndon.

It's a waste of time, but you won't give up.

I didn't say they should change the boundary. I just stated a fact to refute a lie that was posted. Inferring that as proof showing that those homes should be zoned to Herndon is all on you.

Oh sure.

I don't care a bit as long as I don't see those crazy Herndon/Langley posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are these actually the proposed changes or just some draft to further show how the tool works?

Apparently the upcoming community meetings will only solicit community feedback on the proposals in the 4/11, 4/25, and 5/5 Thru Consulting presentations. They aren't final, but they aren't just intended to show how the tool works either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are these actually the proposed changes or just some draft to further show how the tool works?

This is just showing over capacity. Last time it was split feeders and next it’s supposed to be another factor. I believe they are supposed to merge the 3 into a reasonable solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at some of these proposed changes it’s really not clear that the juice is worth the squeeze. Moving 100 kids so you take the capacity down 5 or 6 percent? I don’t think it’s worth that given what it will do to kids who will lose all their friends given they aren’t planning much if any grandfathering.

Especially the McLean/Longfellow/Timber Lane adjustments where they generate even more split feeders to connect an attendance island/split feeder.

Or the Irving/West Springfield changes. Moving 90 kids and creating a new ES split feeder so you can drop MS and HS enrollment slightly? That doesn’t make a ton of sense.

Nope. But maybe this can shut up the one person here who was INSISTENT that all of HV would move to Lewis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these actually the proposed changes or just some draft to further show how the tool works?

This is just showing over capacity. Last time it was split feeders and next it’s supposed to be another factor. I believe they are supposed to merge the 3 into a reasonable solution.

I’m pretty certain these are the merged maps. This is what they are soliciting feedback on

[Anonymous]

If kids are in 9th or 10th grade, they still get moved? That seems insane to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these actually the proposed changes or just some draft to further show how the tool works?

This is just showing over capacity. Last time it was split feeders and next it’s supposed to be another factor. I believe they are supposed to merge the 3 into a reasonable solution.

I don't think that's quite right.

Thru made three presentations. The first, on 4/11, dealt with attendance islands and schools outside their attendance aras. The second, on 4/25, dealt with split feeders. The third, on 5/5, dealt with capacity issues involving certain schools over 105% capacity.

Next will be a series of community meetings. My understanding from a BRAC member is that, at those meetings, feedback will just be soliciited on the 4/11, 4/25, and 5/5 presentations. To the extent that BRAC members provided feedback, the community should not expect that feedback to be reflected by the time of the community meetings.

Then, after that, new maps will be made available in October 2025. Those maps would presumably reflect all the feedback from both BRAC members and other community members, but it's unclear whether the maps will be a single proposal or set forth options. Given the number of schools involved, and the domino effect of changes, it seems like their incentive will be to generate one "solution" in October for another round of comments, with the final changes developed towards the end of the year and approved in early 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If kids are in 9th or 10th grade, they still get moved? That seems insane to me.

Hasn't been clarified yet. But with the scope of these changes it seems very unlikely they can grandfather. It doesn't seem like FCPS would have enough buses to run multiple routes through so many neighborhoods. The "guiding principles" say nothing about grandfathering besides a general reference to Policy 8130, and Policy 8130 provides the School Board with complete discretion to grandfather as few or as many students as it wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these actually the proposed changes or just some draft to further show how the tool works?

This is just showing over capacity. Last time it was split feeders and next it’s supposed to be another factor. I believe they are supposed to merge the 3 into a reasonable solution.

I’m pretty certain these are the merged maps. This is what they are soliciting feedback on

I think these are the merged maps.

The Sangster island moved to Newington and SoCo is shown on this map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If kids are in 9th or 10th grade, they still get moved? That seems insane to me.

And 11th grade.

Only seniors stay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If kids are in 9th or 10th grade, they still get moved? That seems insane to me.

Hasn't been clarified yet. But with the scope of these changes it seems very unlikely they can grandfather. It doesn't seem like FCPS would have enough buses to run multiple routes through so many neighborhoods. The "guiding principles" say nothing about grandfathering besides a general reference to Policy 8130, and Policy 8130 provides the School Board with complete discretion to grandfather as few or as many students as it wants.

WSHS could easily grandfather everyone.

When you factor out the teen drivers, it is only one bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the nuclear poster was a troll. I feel like they came on strong with the attendance islands and then kind of backed off.

What about that person last fall with the “leaked maps”

They were an insider. A high-up empire . Their last post on this board was about Monday, April 7. I keep track. I keep receipts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If kids are in 9th or 10th grade, they still get moved? That seems insane to me.

Hasn't been clarified yet. But with the scope of these changes it seems very unlikely they can grandfather. It doesn't seem like FCPS would have enough buses to run multiple routes through so many neighborhoods. The "guiding principles" say nothing about grandfathering besides a general reference to Policy 8130, and Policy 8130 provides the School Board with complete discretion to grandfather as few or as many students as it wants.

WSHS could easily grandfather everyone.

When you factor out the teen drivers, it is only one bus.

It's not a decision likely to be made on a school-specific basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the nuclear poster was a troll. I feel like they came on strong with the attendance islands and then kind of backed off.

What about that person last fall with the “leaked maps”

The leaked map person got the elementary school correct (Hunt Valley) but the high school wrong (originally thought to be IB Lewis, but ended up AP South County)

My feeling is that what she originally leaked was accurate, but the overwhelming parent pushback got the original plan canned and redirected to SoCo.

FCPS is doing a trenendous disservice to Lewis for insisting upon kerping that school IB instead of switching it to AP. They are also shortchanging those families by not renovating the school to make it comparable to every other FCPS high school in the surrounding area.

That “leak” was intentional and targeted. Was it a shakedown? A power play? Just an ego-flex? There are many possibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the well-funded Langley mafia has once again prevailed.

Chantilly or West Springfield parents could sue FCPS for failing to follow Policy 8130 because that policy says that Reid is supposed to prioritize, in no particular order, various factors that include "limit[ing] transportation times and ensur[ing] efficient transportation routes with attendance areas."

There's no evidence Thru is doing that, and Reid is relying on their work. Chantilly and West Springfield kids stand to get reassigned, and there is no indication Thru or Reid has looked at limiting transportation times. In many instances they are increasing them.

These parents aren't as litigious as Langley parents would be, but if they don't like the boundary changes they'd have valid grounds to say Reid hasn't been complying with School Board policy and the changes should be tossed out.