FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they point to anything they’ve proposed that would actually help ensure equitable access to programs or minimize travel time for students?

All they’ve really done is punch down and propose to make some random changes to replace one ugly map with another ugly map. I mean, look at the proposed new Chantilly boundaries - they look absurd.

They clearly don’t have the courage to do what they originally set out to do and should just call the whole thing off.

It’s clear that they’ve considered those factors. There is a difference between having considered those factors vs. having considered them with the lens that you want to apply them.

Sounds more like you are just pleased they ignored them. Where’s the proof they were considered other than blanket assertions?

It’s in their slides. They’ve considered those factors.

A blanket assertion in the slides that they considered those factors doesn’t cut it. Reid is failing to take steps to comply with the policy adopted by the SB.

It was considered by Thru, the superintendent, and BRAC. Again, just because you don’t like the outcome, doesn’t mean that they didn’t consider it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. Saratoga currently at 75% can take whatever excess from the neighboring newington. Easy peasy.

But Saratoga is already taking that RV split feeder, which surprisingly had over 100 students in it. I hadnt realized that area was so large. That puts Saratoga at 91% per their calculations. They could take a few more students, but not enough to put all or most of HV south of the Parkway at Newington Forest. Especially with NFES projected at 101% after they get ~40 from the Sangster island.

Halley has capacity after dumping their island to Lorton Station/Hayfield - but it’s quite a bit further away.

All of you HV to Newington people are not recognizing that Hunt Valley's enrollment is going to drop dramatically over the next couple of years, just like every other school in FCPS.

The subsequent classes after 6th grade are 20-30 students fewer than the 6th grade class.

The kindergarten class is 50 students fewer than the 6th grade class.

Rezoning Hunt Valley to SoCo is a long term disruption to a problem that needs a very short term fix.

FCPS should just add a modular class building to WSHS to bridge the gap instead of rezoning.

The capacity problem fixes itself in a couple years, without rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. Saratoga currently at 75% can take whatever excess from the neighboring newington. Easy peasy.

But Saratoga is already taking that RV split feeder, which surprisingly had over 100 students in it. I hadnt realized that area was so large. That puts Saratoga at 91% per their calculations. They could take a few more students, but not enough to put all or most of HV south of the Parkway at Newington Forest. Especially with NFES projected at 101% after they get ~40 from the Sangster island.

Halley has capacity after dumping their island to Lorton Station/Hayfield - but it’s quite a bit further away.

All of you HV to Newington people are not recognizing that Hunt Valley's enrollment is going to drop dramatically over the next couple of years, just like every other school in FCPS.

The subsequent classes after 6th grade are 20-30 students fewer than the 6th grade class.

The kindergarten class is 50 students fewer than the 6th grade class.

Rezoning Hunt Valley to SoCo is a long term disruption to a problem that needs a very short term fix.

FCPS should just add a modular class building to WSHS to bridge the gap instead of rezoning.

The capacity problem fixes itself in a couple years, without rezoning.

I think those lower numbers are pretty much across the board in Fairfax County--except for where there is new construction like Coates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. Saratoga currently at 75% can take whatever excess from the neighboring newington. Easy peasy.

But Saratoga is already taking that RV split feeder, which surprisingly had over 100 students in it. I hadnt realized that area was so large. That puts Saratoga at 91% per their calculations. They could take a few more students, but not enough to put all or most of HV south of the Parkway at Newington Forest. Especially with NFES projected at 101% after they get ~40 from the Sangster island.

Halley has capacity after dumping their island to Lorton Station/Hayfield - but it’s quite a bit further away.

All of you HV to Newington people are not recognizing that Hunt Valley's enrollment is going to drop dramatically over the next couple of years, just like every other school in FCPS.

The subsequent classes after 6th grade are 20-30 students fewer than the 6th grade class.

The kindergarten class is 50 students fewer than the 6th grade class.

Rezoning Hunt Valley to SoCo is a long term disruption to a problem that needs a very short term fix.

FCPS should just add a modular class building to WSHS to bridge the gap instead of rezoning.

The capacity problem fixes itself in a couple years, without rezoning.

It’s great that they are going to boost Lewis numbers and reduce WSHS by moving HV to NF to Saratoga. RV split feeder is less important in the proposed scenarios. Probably scrap that and fix the lopsided WSHS and Lewis enrollments with HV instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. Saratoga currently at 75% can take whatever excess from the neighboring newington. Easy peasy.

But Saratoga is already taking that RV split feeder, which surprisingly had over 100 students in it. I hadnt realized that area was so large. That puts Saratoga at 91% per their calculations. They could take a few more students, but not enough to put all or most of HV south of the Parkway at Newington Forest. Especially with NFES projected at 101% after they get ~40 from the Sangster island.

Halley has capacity after dumping their island to Lorton Station/Hayfield - but it’s quite a bit further away.

All of you HV to Newington people are not recognizing that Hunt Valley's enrollment is going to drop dramatically over the next couple of years, just like every other school in FCPS.

The subsequent classes after 6th grade are 20-30 students fewer than the 6th grade class.

The kindergarten class is 50 students fewer than the 6th grade class.

Rezoning Hunt Valley to SoCo is a long term disruption to a problem that needs a very short term fix.

FCPS should just add a modular class building to WSHS to bridge the gap instead of rezoning.

The capacity problem fixes itself in a couple years, without rezoning.

It’s great that they are going to boost Lewis numbers and reduce WSHS by moving HV to NF to Saratoga. RV split feeder is less important in the proposed scenarios. Probably scrap that and fix the lopsided WSHS and Lewis enrollments with HV instead.

Saratoga mom, you’ve been missed. Not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they point to anything they’ve proposed that would actually help ensure equitable access to programs or minimize travel time for students?

All they’ve really done is punch down and propose to make some random changes to replace one ugly map with another ugly map. I mean, look at the proposed new Chantilly boundaries - they look absurd.

They clearly don’t have the courage to do what they originally set out to do and should just call the whole thing off.

It’s clear that they’ve considered those factors. There is a difference between having considered those factors vs. having considered them with the lens that you want to apply them.

Sounds more like you are just pleased they ignored them. Where’s the proof they were considered other than blanket assertions?

It’s in their slides. They’ve considered those factors.

A blanket assertion in the slides that they considered those factors doesn’t cut it. Reid is failing to take steps to comply with the policy adopted by the SB.

It was considered by Thru, the superintendent, and BRAC. Again, just because you don’t like the outcome, doesn’t mean that they didn’t consider it.

Again, blanket assertions absent actual evidence that such factors were considered doesn’t comply with Policy 8130. Reid is not complying with SB policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they point to anything they’ve proposed that would actually help ensure equitable access to programs or minimize travel time for students?

All they’ve really done is punch down and propose to make some random changes to replace one ugly map with another ugly map. I mean, look at the proposed new Chantilly boundaries - they look absurd.

They clearly don’t have the courage to do what they originally set out to do and should just call the whole thing off.

It’s clear that they’ve considered those factors. There is a difference between having considered those factors vs. having considered them with the lens that you want to apply them.

Sounds more like you are just pleased they ignored them. Where’s the proof they were considered other than blanket assertions?

It’s in their slides. They’ve considered those factors.

A blanket assertion in the slides that they considered those factors doesn’t cut it. Reid is failing to take steps to comply with the policy adopted by the SB.

It was considered by Thru, the superintendent, and BRAC. Again, just because you don’t like the outcome, doesn’t mean that they didn’t consider it.

Again, blanket assertions absent actual evidence that such factors were considered doesn’t comply with Policy 8130. Reid is not complying with SB policy.

It’s in the slides. They considered all of the 8130 factors. Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean they didn’t consider those factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they point to anything they’ve proposed that would actually help ensure equitable access to programs or minimize travel time for students?

All they’ve really done is punch down and propose to make some random changes to replace one ugly map with another ugly map. I mean, look at the proposed new Chantilly boundaries - they look absurd.

They clearly don’t have the courage to do what they originally set out to do and should just call the whole thing off.

It’s clear that they’ve considered those factors. There is a difference between having considered those factors vs. having considered them with the lens that you want to apply them.

NP.


Only one lens matters here:

Equity.

Everything else discussed will be ignored; the meetings and discussions are merely to provide a fig-leaf covering what the SB and Reid ordered Thru to come up with originally: equity, diversity, and inclusion.

[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.”

Again: the only guiding factor in this whole process is: equity. The “discussions” are simply cover.

[Anonymous]

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.

You cannot do this without extreme busing of kids much further away than the schools they currently attend. This would mean taking kids from high FARMS schools and busing them to low FARMS schools and vice versa.

Here is a little secret: a few years ago ALL FCPS schools were mostly below 20%. Now, many of them are over 20%.

What are you going to do about that?

How about working to teach the kids who fall in the high FARMS category rather than playing checkers. (Because this is checkers, not chess.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. Saratoga currently at 75% can take whatever excess from the neighboring newington. Easy peasy.

But Saratoga is already taking that RV split feeder, which surprisingly had over 100 students in it. I hadnt realized that area was so large. That puts Saratoga at 91% per their calculations. They could take a few more students, but not enough to put all or most of HV south of the Parkway at Newington Forest. Especially with NFES projected at 101% after they get ~40 from the Sangster island.

Halley has capacity after dumping their island to Lorton Station/Hayfield - but it’s quite a bit further away.

All of you HV to Newington people are not recognizing that Hunt Valley's enrollment is going to drop dramatically over the next couple of years, just like every other school in FCPS.

The subsequent classes after 6th grade are 20-30 students fewer than the 6th grade class.

The kindergarten class is 50 students fewer than the 6th grade class.

Rezoning Hunt Valley to SoCo is a long term disruption to a problem that needs a very short term fix.

FCPS should just add a modular class building to WSHS to bridge the gap instead of rezoning.

The capacity problem fixes itself in a couple years, without rezoning.

Yeah let’s spend more money on facilities and Modulars on a school that just had a renovation/expansion… lol

[Anonymous]

Not that they’ll tell us, because their posture is going to be that they are letting the consultant do its work right now, but I wonder how SB members feel about the crap that’s emerging from Thru’s recommendations. Screwing families at schools like Chantilly, Marshall, and West Springfield while turning a blind eye to Langley kids who live within a few miles of Herndon seems like a good recipe to piss people off.

There are probably some of the recommendations that w

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You cannot do this without extreme busing of kids much further away than the schools they currently attend. This would mean taking kids from high FARMS schools and busing them to low FARMS schools and vice versa.

Here is a little secret: a few years ago ALL FCPS schools were mostly below 20%. Now, many of them are over 20%.

What are you going to do about that?

How about working to teach the kids who fall in the high FARMS category rather than playing checkers. (Because this is checkers, not chess.)

So much of learning relies on the home environment being supportive and many kids from FARMs families just don't have what they need at home to thrive at school. No amount of teaching is going to fix their home life.

[Anonymous]

There are probably some recommendations that people are happy with but mostly these seem to be classic examples of changes where the juice is not worth the squeeze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You cannot do this without extreme busing of kids much further away than the schools they currently attend. This would mean taking kids from high FARMS schools and busing them to low FARMS schools and vice versa.

Here is a little secret: a few years ago ALL FCPS schools were mostly below 20%. Now, many of them are over 20%.

What are you going to do about that?

How about working to teach the kids who fall in the high FARMS category rather than playing checkers. (Because this is checkers, not chess.)

So much of learning relies on the home environment being supportive and many kids from FARMs families just don't have what they need at home to thrive at school. No amount of teaching is going to fix their home life.

Teaching can help. I've taught high poverty kids (though, they were young).
Busing does not help. In fact, it would make it worse. You would have higher truancy.