FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

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)

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

Yes, a tiny part is... Ladybank and Stone Heather

[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)

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

Yes, a tiny part is... Ladybank and Stone Heather

That’s not near the Chantilly Highlands I’m thinking of which is off Route 50.

[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 40% of Hunt Valley affected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This map does not have the little Navy island that they shift to Oak Hill/Chantilly. I guess that's another part of Oak Hill that will go to Oakton?

It always went to Oakton. Not sure where it will be going to middle school. Franklin Farm currently on that side of the parkway goes to Carson, but Oak Hill goes to Franklin along with Navy, Waples Mill, and Lee's Corner.
The map shows them going to Oakton. Still doesn't make sense that they didn't send them to Crossfield unless this was a play to make it easier to send a portion of Oak Hill to Oakton.

For those who don't know, there will be houses with adjoining yards going to different schools from Chantilly Highlands. It violates #3 about keeping neighborhoods together and increases the commute four fold to high school. If Thru was not working with real maps, they may not have realized that there are limited outlets. It makes no sense at all--for 34 students, according to the chart.

That section-- the section off Nestlewood-- of Franklin Farm currently goes to Franklin, not Carson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I looking at the wrong slides? the maps...don't have streets? You can't zoom in and see what they are doing?

I'm on the BRAC and we were given the exact same slides on 8 1/2" x 11" paper that were posted on the Boundary Review website. In my region, we (the committee members) were very confused as to which streets were included in the proposed moves. We were given a huge map with detailed streets BUT it was a separate map from the slides. Trying to put the two together was impossible. We were pulling up current boundary maps on our phones to try and figure out which streets were included in the moves.

[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?

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.

Attendance island fixes didn’t move anyone from Irving/WS. They moved one that feeds into LB and another that feeds into Lewis already.,Irving and WS should essentially be looked at as one group, as all of Irving go to WS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's annoying that they didn't provide clearer maps with streets. I also think they need to explain the elementary school plan for the Hunt Valley kids that got moved to South County. Is Hunt Valley now a split feeder? Or are those kids also moving to Newington Forest (putting it way over capacity)? That's a pretty crucial part of the equation to leave out. How do you give community feedback without knowing that?

Also, is that a Sangster attendance island that is now going to SC? I can't understand that part of the map. Would that mean Sangster now has kids going to LBSS, SCSS, and WSHS?

Yes with the AAP center, Sangster would have students going to 3 different middle/high schools.

The Sangster island going to SoCo will no longer be a Sangster zoned neighborhood.

They will be zoned to Newington Forest.

Right- much of Sangster feeds into LB, despite Sangster’s immediate neighborhood being zoned for Irving/wshs. That island is a tiny portion of the population. Sangster AAP center pulls from schools that feed into LB & Irving currently. Splitting HVES to Irving/SoCo would add a third middle/high for the AAP center students.

[Anonymous]

After the relief that Hunt Valley didn't get zoned to Lewis has dissipated, I'd like to hear from Hunt Valley parents about creating a split feeder out of their school. Are you worried about how that will change the vibe at your school? Do people moved to SC feel ok about moving from WSHS? (assuming generous grandfathering)

Do Irving/WSHS families think it's a reasonable way to relieve a little bit of student volume at Irving/WSHS?

Long term - is this a solution most can get on board with?

I'm, again, really disappointed with Sandy Anderson's answers at the WS PTSA meeting. She really does not seem to understand that people care deeply about this and you can't just say "no decisions have been made", "we know nothing", etc. for years while people stress about this. Take some ownership of your position.

[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)

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

Yes, a tiny part is... Ladybank and Stone Heather

That’s not near the Chantilly Highlands I’m thinking of which is off Route 50.

There is only one Chantilly Highlands, and it is not off Rte 50.

[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)

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

Yes, a tiny part is... Ladybank and Stone Heather

That’s not near the Chantilly Highlands I’m thinking of which is off Route 50.

Are you looking at a topographic map of the Chantilly area? This ain’t Scotland, lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After the relief that Hunt Valley didn't get zoned to Lewis has dissipated, I'd like to hear from Hunt Valley parents about creating a split feeder out of their school. Are you worried about how that will change the vibe at your school? Do people moved to SC feel ok about moving from WSHS? (assuming generous grandfathering)

Do Irving/WSHS families think it's a reasonable way to relieve a little bit of student volume at Irving/WSHS?

Long term - is this a solution most can get on board with?

I'm, again, really disappointed with Sandy Anderson's answers at the WS PTSA meeting. She really does not seem to understand that people care deeply about this and you can't just say "no decisions have been made", "we know nothing", etc. for years while people stress about this. Take some ownership of your position.

No we are still against it. It’s very wrong to create a new split feeder when one of the goals was eliminate or reduce current split feeders. This is a ridiculous move to alleviate a small amount of crowding.

Everyone knows that most of the kids living south of the parkway have most of their friends on the other side so they will stop going to school almost everyone they are friends with. I think my kids have 1 friend on this side.

The current 8/9th graders lose the most since they need to switch after 1 and 2 years of high school. Assuming current 6th graders can stay at Irving for 8th grade.

If you have 6,8 and 10th graders now your kids will be split among 3 schools and 2 pyramids when this goes into affect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I looking at the wrong slides? the maps...don't have streets? You can't zoom in and see what they are doing?

I'm on the BRAC and we were given the exact same slides on 8 1/2" x 11" paper that were posted on the Boundary Review website. In my region, we (the committee members) were very confused as to which streets were included in the proposed moves. We were given a huge map with detailed streets BUT it was a separate map from the slides. Trying to put the two together was impossible. We were pulling up current boundary maps on our phones to try and figure out which streets were included in the moves.

Are many changes possible over the summer or do you expect the final proposal to be similar with small changes?

Will the final proposal show one map or options for FCPS or SB?

[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)

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

Yes, a tiny part is... Ladybank and Stone Heather

That’s not near the Chantilly Highlands I’m thinking of which is off Route 50.

There is only one Chantilly Highlands, and it is not off Rte 50.

Oops. I was thinking of the wrong area. My bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I looking at the wrong slides? the maps...don't have streets? You can't zoom in and see what they are doing?

I'm on the BRAC and we were given the exact same slides on 8 1/2" x 11" paper that were posted on the Boundary Review website. In my region, we (the committee members) were very confused as to which streets were included in the proposed moves. We were given a huge map with detailed streets BUT it was a separate map from the slides. Trying to put the two together was impossible. We were pulling up current boundary maps on our phones to try and figure out which streets were included in the moves.

Who on the BRAC lives in Medford Leas. Really weird that pocket south of the parkway is still going to WSHS.

[Anonymous]

Why are we assuming Hunt Valley will be a split feeder? They could reshuffle the other ES’s feeding into SCMS. Duds like Saratoga could take more kids. Newington is packed but they could reshuffle the south side of that zone.