FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the slides are up: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/5-5-2025SuperintendentBoundaryReviewAdvisoryCommitteePresentation.pdf

Interesting that instead of starting new, they used the prior fixes from the other two meetings.

And yes, this just goes further to confirm that they are going to tinker around the edges and not move many kids.

Well I guess all the parents on freaking out about their high schoolers can just calm the F down.

-Carson mom who is still in shock that they didn't touch our school (except that tiny chunk of Chantilly Highlands they are now sending to Oakton)

High schools where kids may be reassigned to other schools possibly without grandfathering under Thru Consulting proposals:

Centreville
Chantilly
Edison
Fairfax
Lake Braddock
Marshall
McLean
Mount Vernon
South County
Westfield
West Potomac
West Springfield
Woodson

School with by far the longest commutes where no kids would be reassigned under Thru Consulting proposals:

Langley

The courage of Dr. Reid and the School Board is truly impressive, lol.

There is no need to rezone students from Langley as Langley is not over capacity (even with absorbing McLean’s overcapacity). The families from Langley have made it clear that they don’t want to break up the school. Parents all bought houses zoned for Langley knowing how long the commute would be.

Reid and the School Board also know that their plans to lower the FARMS rate at Herndon by transferring Langley students (their original plan) won’t go over well with parents/lawyers in the community.

See below for the study the school board used for their “idea” for boundary changes to change the poverty levels of schools by adding more wealthy students:

FCPS Socio-economic Tipping Point of Elementary Schools

https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/9DG4KP71B0DB/$file/fcps_tipping-point.pdf


“FCPS could consider reducing the level of poverty at schools that have demonstrated persistent achievement challenges despite other efforts. More specifically, the following is a list of potential opportunities for considering reductions in school poverty:

New schools: Assigning students to new schools may be considered towards the goal of balancing or minimizing the level of overall school poverty as much as reasonably possible at the new school and nearby schools.

Special academic programs at school sites: Higher poverty schools may be considered as host sites for programs that traditionally attract higher socio-economic populations to draw voluntarily a broader economic population of students.

Under- or over-filled schools: When student membership at schools considerably exceeds or falls short of expected levels, explore the opportunity for moving students with the goal of maximizing the number of schools with poverty levels below 20 percent.

New neighborhood construction: Work with county agencies that influence socio-economic integration of neighborhoods to create natural distributions of socio-economic levels.”

Langley is immediately over capacity with the move of the Spring Hill area, just not over the 105% the consultants treated as the threshold for boundary recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The map is really hard to read. I live in Emerald Chase - are we now zoned for Oakton?

It looks like Emerald Chase (and that sliver of Bradley Farm adjacent to Emerald Chase) would be Fox Mill/Carson/South Lakes

It looks to me like all that area off of West Ox between the Parkway and Centreville Rd will be assigned to South Lakes. So, all of Bradley Farm and Middleton will be added to South Lakes. Looks like it unites Fox Mill and some additional Floris neighborhoods to South Lakes.

This is the THRU proposal. Not sure it is a done deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Thru came up with something because they HAD to, but were far more limited than FCPS originally intended. The result is some things that do not appear to make any sense and run counter to the existing guidance in 8130.8.

If you are affected by a weird proposal, I would treat the “odd proposals” as a softball tossed to you by Thru. Identify all the relevant factors in 8130.8 and how they are not met/guide counter to the proposal. Then provide that feedback in the upcoming sessions and to your SB reps.

The way I understand the process, Thru will take thud feedback, but it is up to Reid to make a proposal and the SB to accept or deny the proposal. 8130.8 provides for a number of areas for superintendent discretion. Focus on those:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

Focus on the factors on page 3.

So HV families should question the creation of a new split feeder when they were aiming to get rid of them?

Hunt Valley isn’t a split. Those kids will attend Newington Forest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Thru came up with something because they HAD to, but were far more limited than FCPS originally intended. The result is some things that do not appear to make any sense and run counter to the existing guidance in 8130.8.

If you are affected by a weird proposal, I would treat the “odd proposals” as a softball tossed to you by Thru. Identify all the relevant factors in 8130.8 and how they are not met/guide counter to the proposal. Then provide that feedback in the upcoming sessions and to your SB reps.

The way I understand the process, Thru will take thud feedback, but it is up to Reid to make a proposal and the SB to accept or deny the proposal. 8130.8 provides for a number of areas for superintendent discretion. Focus on those:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

Focus on the factors on page 3.

So HV families should question the creation of a new split feeder when they were aiming to get rid of them?

Hunt Valley isn’t a split. Those kids will attend Newington Forest.

Not necessarily. That’s not clear and if it’s a few hundred kids they aren’t moving them to newington forest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The map is really hard to read. I live in Emerald Chase - are we now zoned for Oakton?

It looks like Emerald Chase (and that sliver of Bradley Farm adjacent to Emerald Chase) would be Fox Mill/Carson/South Lakes

It looks to me like all that area off of West Ox between the Parkway and Centreville Rd will be assigned to South Lakes. So, all of Bradley Farm and Middleton will be added to South Lakes. Looks like it unites Fox Mill and some additional Floris neighborhoods to South Lakes.

This is the THRU proposal. Not sure it is a done deal.

Thanks, we'd be happy with the move to SL from Westfield. Think it's a great change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Thru came up with something because they HAD to, but were far more limited than FCPS originally intended. The result is some things that do not appear to make any sense and run counter to the existing guidance in 8130.8.

If you are affected by a weird proposal, I would treat the “odd proposals” as a softball tossed to you by Thru. Identify all the relevant factors in 8130.8 and how they are not met/guide counter to the proposal. Then provide that feedback in the upcoming sessions and to your SB reps.

The way I understand the process, Thru will take thud feedback, but it is up to Reid to make a proposal and the SB to accept or deny the proposal. 8130.8 provides for a number of areas for superintendent discretion. Focus on those:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

Focus on the factors on page 3.

So HV families should question the creation of a new split feeder when they were aiming to get rid of them?

Yes, exactly. Also, try to understand what “goal” Thru was attempting to meet with the move, and propose an alternative approach to meet that goal that does not run counter to 8130.8. That way you are presenting way to meet the goal that is consistent with policy but does not create problems for your community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the slides are up: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/5-5-2025SuperintendentBoundaryReviewAdvisoryCommitteePresentation.pdf

Interesting that instead of starting new, they used the prior fixes from the other two meetings.

And yes, this just goes further to confirm that they are going to tinker around the edges and not move many kids.

Well I guess all the parents on freaking out about their high schoolers can just calm the F down.

-Carson mom who is still in shock that they didn't touch our school (except that tiny chunk of Chantilly Highlands they are now sending to Oakton)

High schools where kids may be reassigned to other schools possibly without grandfathering under Thru Consulting proposals:

Centreville
Chantilly
Edison
Fairfax
Lake Braddock
Marshall
McLean
Mount Vernon
South County
Westfield
West Potomac
West Springfield
Woodson

School with by far the longest commutes where no kids would be reassigned under Thru Consulting proposals:

Langley

The courage of Dr. Reid and the School Board is truly impressive, lol.

There is no need to rezone students from Langley as Langley is not over capacity (even with absorbing McLean’s overcapacity). The families from Langley have made it clear that they don’t want to break up the school. Parents all bought houses zoned for Langley knowing how long the commute would be.

Reid and the School Board also know that their plans to lower the FARMS rate at Herndon by transferring Langley students (their original plan) won’t go over well with parents/lawyers in the community.

See below for the study the school board used for their “idea” for boundary changes to change the poverty levels of schools by adding more wealthy students:

FCPS Socio-economic Tipping Point of Elementary Schools

https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/9DG4KP71B0DB/$file/fcps_tipping-point.pdf


“FCPS could consider reducing the level of poverty at schools that have demonstrated persistent achievement challenges despite other efforts. More specifically, the following is a list of potential opportunities for considering reductions in school poverty:

New schools: Assigning students to new schools may be considered towards the goal of balancing or minimizing the level of overall school poverty as much as reasonably possible at the new school and nearby schools.

Special academic programs at school sites: Higher poverty schools may be considered as host sites for programs that traditionally attract higher socio-economic populations to draw voluntarily a broader economic population of students.

Under- or over-filled schools: When student membership at schools considerably exceeds or falls short of expected levels, explore the opportunity for moving students with the goal of maximizing the number of schools with poverty levels below 20 percent.

New neighborhood construction: Work with county agencies that influence socio-economic integration of neighborhoods to create natural distributions of socio-economic levels.”

Langley is immediately over capacity with the move of the Spring Hill area, just not over the 105% the consultants treated as the threshold for boundary recommendations.

Yeah, give it up. They will happily continue to send their kids to Langley, even if it reaches 110% capacity before suggesting any students be moved to Herndon. It’s ok. My kid will be able to be a three varsity sport athlete as a freshman at Herndon. It’s all good. We never really wanted any disgruntled former Langley families at Herndon anyway. We have our own vibe, y además, nuestra comida es mejor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The map is really hard to read. I live in Emerald Chase - are we now zoned for Oakton?

It looks like Emerald Chase (and that sliver of Bradley Farm adjacent to Emerald Chase) would be Fox Mill/Carson/South Lakes

It looks to me like all that area off of West Ox between the Parkway and Centreville Rd will be assigned to South Lakes. So, all of Bradley Farm and Middleton will be added to South Lakes. Looks like it unites Fox Mill and some additional Floris neighborhoods to South Lakes.

This is the THRU proposal. Not sure it is a done deal.

Thanks, we'd be happy with the move to SL from Westfield. Think it's a great change.

As was posted a few days ago, some families are welcoming the boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Thru came up with something because they HAD to, but were far more limited than FCPS originally intended. The result is some things that do not appear to make any sense and run counter to the existing guidance in 8130.8.

If you are affected by a weird proposal, I would treat the “odd proposals” as a softball tossed to you by Thru. Identify all the relevant factors in 8130.8 and how they are not met/guide counter to the proposal. Then provide that feedback in the upcoming sessions and to your SB reps.

The way I understand the process, Thru will take thud feedback, but it is up to Reid to make a proposal and the SB to accept or deny the proposal. 8130.8 provides for a number of areas for superintendent discretion. Focus on those:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

Focus on the factors on page 3.

So HV families should question the creation of a new split feeder when they were aiming to get rid of them?

Yes, exactly. Also, try to understand what “goal” Thru was attempting to meet with the move, and propose an alternative approach to meet that goal that does not run counter to 8130.8. That way you are presenting way to meet the goal that is consistent with policy but does not create problems for your community.

The goal was to get West Springfield down to 105% capacity based on 2024-25 enrollment. If they don’t move that area you have to move some other WS area instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Thru came up with something because they HAD to, but were far more limited than FCPS originally intended. The result is some things that do not appear to make any sense and run counter to the existing guidance in 8130.8.

If you are affected by a weird proposal, I would treat the “odd proposals” as a softball tossed to you by Thru. Identify all the relevant factors in 8130.8 and how they are not met/guide counter to the proposal. Then provide that feedback in the upcoming sessions and to your SB reps.

The way I understand the process, Thru will take thud feedback, but it is up to Reid to make a proposal and the SB to accept or deny the proposal. 8130.8 provides for a number of areas for superintendent discretion. Focus on those:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

Focus on the factors on page 3.

So HV families should question the creation of a new split feeder when they were aiming to get rid of them?

Yes, exactly. Also, try to understand what “goal” Thru was attempting to meet with the move, and propose an alternative approach to meet that goal that does not run counter to 8130.8. That way you are presenting way to meet the goal that is consistent with policy but does not create problems for your community.

I guess it was overcrowding at Irving but I’m not sure how they can fix it otherwise. Someone has to move. Except that I believe the numbers aren’t always right and there can a big shift every year with people moving and out of the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Thru came up with something because they HAD to, but were far more limited than FCPS originally intended. The result is some things that do not appear to make any sense and run counter to the existing guidance in 8130.8.

If you are affected by a weird proposal, I would treat the “odd proposals” as a softball tossed to you by Thru. Identify all the relevant factors in 8130.8 and how they are not met/guide counter to the proposal. Then provide that feedback in the upcoming sessions and to your SB reps.

The way I understand the process, Thru will take thud feedback, but it is up to Reid to make a proposal and the SB to accept or deny the proposal. 8130.8 provides for a number of areas for superintendent discretion. Focus on those:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

Focus on the factors on page 3.

So HV families should question the creation of a new split feeder when they were aiming to get rid of them?

Yes, exactly. Also, try to understand what “goal” Thru was attempting to meet with the move, and propose an alternative approach to meet that goal that does not run counter to 8130.8. That way you are presenting way to meet the goal that is consistent with policy but does not create problems for your community.

The goal was to get West Springfield down to 105% capacity based on 2024-25 enrollment. If they don’t move that area you have to move some other WS area instead.

They fixed that with the proposed attendance island changes. Now they are just looking at Irving changes. I guess attendance island didn’t fix both schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the slides are up: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/5-5-2025SuperintendentBoundaryReviewAdvisoryCommitteePresentation.pdf

Interesting that instead of starting new, they used the prior fixes from the other two meetings.

And yes, this just goes further to confirm that they are going to tinker around the edges and not move many kids.

Well I guess all the parents on freaking out about their high schoolers can just calm the F down.

-Carson mom who is still in shock that they didn't touch our school (except that tiny chunk of Chantilly Highlands they are now sending to Oakton)

High schools where kids may be reassigned to other schools possibly without grandfathering under Thru Consulting proposals:

Centreville
Chantilly
Edison
Fairfax
Lake Braddock
Marshall
McLean
Mount Vernon
South County
Westfield
West Potomac
West Springfield
Woodson

School with by far the longest commutes where no kids would be reassigned under Thru Consulting proposals:

Langley

The courage of Dr. Reid and the School Board is truly impressive, lol.

There is no need to rezone students from Langley as Langley is not over capacity (even with absorbing McLean’s overcapacity). The families from Langley have made it clear that they don’t want to break up the school. Parents all bought houses zoned for Langley knowing how long the commute would be.

Reid and the School Board also know that their plans to lower the FARMS rate at Herndon by transferring Langley students (their original plan) won’t go over well with parents/lawyers in the community.

See below for the study the school board used for their “idea” for boundary changes to change the poverty levels of schools by adding more wealthy students:

FCPS Socio-economic Tipping Point of Elementary Schools

https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/9DG4KP71B0DB/$file/fcps_tipping-point.pdf


“FCPS could consider reducing the level of poverty at schools that have demonstrated persistent achievement challenges despite other efforts. More specifically, the following is a list of potential opportunities for considering reductions in school poverty:

New schools: Assigning students to new schools may be considered towards the goal of balancing or minimizing the level of overall school poverty as much as reasonably possible at the new school and nearby schools.

Special academic programs at school sites: Higher poverty schools may be considered as host sites for programs that traditionally attract higher socio-economic populations to draw voluntarily a broader economic population of students.

Under- or over-filled schools: When student membership at schools considerably exceeds or falls short of expected levels, explore the opportunity for moving students with the goal of maximizing the number of schools with poverty levels below 20 percent.

New neighborhood construction: Work with county agencies that influence socio-economic integration of neighborhoods to create natural distributions of socio-economic levels.”

Langley is immediately over capacity with the move of the Spring Hill area, just not over the 105% the consultants treated as the threshold for boundary recommendations.

Yeah, give it up. They will happily continue to send their kids to Langley, even if it reaches 110% capacity before suggesting any students be moved to Herndon. It’s ok. My kid will be able to be a three varsity sport athlete as a freshman at Herndon. It’s all good. We never really wanted any disgruntled former Langley families at Herndon anyway. We have our own vibe, y además, nuestra comida es mejor.

+1. Just correcting PP who said Langley would still be under-enrolled after that island gets reassigned. Not based on this year’s enrollment anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Thru came up with something because they HAD to, but were far more limited than FCPS originally intended. The result is some things that do not appear to make any sense and run counter to the existing guidance in 8130.8.

If you are affected by a weird proposal, I would treat the “odd proposals” as a softball tossed to you by Thru. Identify all the relevant factors in 8130.8 and how they are not met/guide counter to the proposal. Then provide that feedback in the upcoming sessions and to your SB reps.

The way I understand the process, Thru will take thud feedback, but it is up to Reid to make a proposal and the SB to accept or deny the proposal. 8130.8 provides for a number of areas for superintendent discretion. Focus on those:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

Focus on the factors on page 3.

So HV families should question the creation of a new split feeder when they were aiming to get rid of them?

Hunt Valley isn’t a split. Those kids will attend Newington Forest.

No they won't.

It is almost 2 classes of students per grade.

The FCPS estimate is 45 students per grade getting rezoned.

Does Newington have the capacity to absorb 315+ new students, in addition to the 40 or so Sangster students?

Do they have cafeteria space to run additional lunches for over 350 new students?

Do they have 2 extra classrooms per grade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Thru came up with something because they HAD to, but were far more limited than FCPS originally intended. The result is some things that do not appear to make any sense and run counter to the existing guidance in 8130.8.

If you are affected by a weird proposal, I would treat the “odd proposals” as a softball tossed to you by Thru. Identify all the relevant factors in 8130.8 and how they are not met/guide counter to the proposal. Then provide that feedback in the upcoming sessions and to your SB reps.

The way I understand the process, Thru will take thud feedback, but it is up to Reid to make a proposal and the SB to accept or deny the proposal. 8130.8 provides for a number of areas for superintendent discretion. Focus on those:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

Focus on the factors on page 3.

So HV families should question the creation of a new split feeder when they were aiming to get rid of them?

Hunt Valley isn’t a split. Those kids will attend Newington Forest.

It is over 40% of Hunt Valley

FCPS is not moving 40% of Hunt Valley to Newington Forest.

[Anonymous]

Splitting the Chantilly Highlands neighborhood was likely an oversight - that will get cleaned up before approved.