FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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?

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?

My kids go to school at Newington Forest and no way they have room for 300+ students. That’s crazy talk. HV is going to have to become a split feeder, with most of the south of the parkway neighborhoods attending SC and the north of the parkway neighborhoods attending WS. Honestly as another PP said upthread … not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze on this one. What happens when their projections on Irving and WS’s enrollment is very off in a few years due to continued government and military cuts? At the “5 year review” say oops our bad and move those kids back to now under capacity WSHS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can we get them to not do this every 5 years? This is a brutal process and a ginormous waste of funds.

I still don’t understand why they touched Coates when that’s going through a more thorough process.

Between now and five years from now, there are school board elections. Organize now. Recruit candidates now. Someone who can get elected and will run on reversing this misguided approach.

It's funny that after seeing the relatively minor changes, you're all freaking out. This is really the best case scenario.

[Anonymous]

So when do we get to see the final recommendations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?

My kids go to school at Newington Forest and no way they have room for 300+ students. That’s crazy talk. HV is going to have to become a split feeder, with most of the south of the parkway neighborhoods attending SC and the north of the parkway neighborhoods attending WS. Honestly as another PP said upthread … not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze on this one. What happens when their projections on Irving and WS’s enrollment is very off in a few years due to continued government and military cuts? At the “5 year review” say oops our bad and move those kids back to now under capacity WSHS?

If you look at the HV enrollment numbers, it has a significant decline between 5th/6th grade and a precipitous decline in K-1st grade. This is after a bumch of kids leave for Sangster AAP in 2nd.

6th grade: 131 students
5th grade: 100 students (30 student drop, roughly 23% decline in size)
4th grade: 92 students
3rd grade: 114 students
2nd grade: 118 students
1st grade 99 students
Kindergarten: 81 students



https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:107::105::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:378,0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?

My kids go to school at Newington Forest and no way they have room for 300+ students. That’s crazy talk. HV is going to have to become a split feeder, with most of the south of the parkway neighborhoods attending SC and the north of the parkway neighborhoods attending WS. Honestly as another PP said upthread … not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze on this one. What happens when their projections on Irving and WS’s enrollment is very off in a few years due to continued government and military cuts? At the “5 year review” say oops our bad and move those kids back to now under capacity WSHS?

If you look at the HV enrollment numbers, it has a significant decline between 5th/6th grade and a precipitous decline in K-1st grade. This is after a bumch of kids leave for Sangster AAP in 2nd.

6th grade: 131 students
5th grade: 100 students (30 student drop, roughly 23% decline in size)
4th grade: 92 students
3rd grade: 114 students
2nd grade: 118 students
1st grade 99 students
Kindergarten: 81 students



https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:107::105::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:378,0

Hunt Valley has a 40% drop in enrollment between kindergarten and 6th grade class size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can we get them to not do this every 5 years? This is a brutal process and a ginormous waste of funds.

I still don’t understand why they touched Coates when that’s going through a more thorough process.

Between now and five years from now, there are school board elections. Organize now. Recruit candidates now. Someone who can get elected and will run on reversing this misguided approach.

It's funny that after seeing the relatively minor changes, you're all freaking out. This is really the best case scenario.

The best case scenario is putting 8130.8 back the way it was prior to the 5-year cycle student shuffle it is now. Just because they missed their target this time does not mean FCPS is done here. Not even close. They are just laying low, regrouping, and adjusting. (I recognize that it does not feel that way for some families, but this version is VERY scaled back).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can we get them to not do this every 5 years? This is a brutal process and a ginormous waste of funds.

I still don’t understand why they touched Coates when that’s going through a more thorough process.

Between now and five years from now, there are school board elections. Organize now. Recruit candidates now. Someone who can get elected and will run on reversing this misguided approach.

It's funny that after seeing the relatively minor changes, you're all freaking out. This is really the best case scenario.

It’s not the best case scenario if your kids are being moved against your wishes, or if you wanted them to follow a process aligned with Policy 8130. Many of these proposals create as many problems as they solve, and it will be five months before people have any idea whether and how the proposals are being modified.

[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.

If they were being moved, there would be a slide showing the number of students moved and the impact on capacity. They’re turning HV into a split feeder because they feel if the split is > 25% it doesn’t count as a split feeder.

[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.

Then it's a win-win.

[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.

They have better food at Herndon. Their athletics programs are so poor that freshman can make the varsity team. Take that, all you stuck up Langley families!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They have better food at Herndon. Their athletics programs are so poor that freshman can make the varsity team. Take that, all you stuck up Langley families!

DP. I’m glad we both like our respective pyramids. I wish you and your family the best in the years to come.

[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 I said, SLHS is now comparable to Westfield if not better. We are not going to see stiff opposition this time.

[Anonymous]

Current Oak Hill/Carson/Westfield parent here in the Emerald Chase community. We’re one of the “lucky” groups staring down not one but two school changes in the last set three set of proposals. We’re being proposed now to be Fox Mill/Carson/South Lakes. As far as I am aware this would be the third elementary school (Floris>Oak Hill>Fox Mil) and third high school (Oakton>Westfield>South Lakes) for our neighborhood, which is a pitfall of being a smallish HOA surrounded by several very large ones (Chantilly Highlands, Franklin Farm, Bradley Farms, etc). We have the issue of being small enough that we’re easy to move but big enough that we have the number of students that can help the Thru Consultants make their numbers work.

What it seems to us is that Consultants didn’t look at anything but street maps and failed to see that we are closely connected to Chantilly Highlands via trials which allow our kids to regularly bike and walk to Oak Hill, as well as to friends houses. The change to Fox Mill puts us an extra mile away and on the other side of the Fairfax County Parkway, which means that our kids will no longer to be able to do that. I think the root of all this issues is having to solve for Chantilly’s overcapacity, which is what set the change of events that is forcing us to move away from out community elementary school which is one of the core tenants of why we are suppose to be going through all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does look like the kids that they suggested move from Oak Hill to Fox Mill in the last set of maps from Westfield to Oakton.

That’s my neighborhood. They are moving us to South Lakes. The little section you see going to Oakton from Chantilly is a a few streets in Chantilly Highlands, who I know are not going to be happy.

I don’t see Chantilly Highlands affected at all. It’s the Lees Corner district that is affected.

[Anonymous]

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)

You’re blind. Chantilly Highlands isn’t going to Oakton acccording to the map.