FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you think would be accomplished with an "equity agenda?"

To me equity would mean that all the high schools offer the same classes, even if not enough student sign up to meet the “minimum” enrollment. Make all HS AP and offer the same core APs. Make all highs schools off the same three foreign languages. If you really want to keep IB, assign two high schools at opposite ends of the county to be the designated IB schools where they are like TJ and there are no neighborhood students that are required to attend them. If there is only enough for one IB HS, then so be it. Same bussing rules for the IB high school as there is for TJ. I would also have an Arts HS similar to TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster complaining that they aren’t doing enough when these changes are causing massive disruption across the county is delusional.

There is an all Dem school board that picked Reid and thru - all on her side. And she is still complaining about it because they didn’t F over a particular zip code. Truly petty stuff.

And we know this poster because she’s been going at it for years, obsessively trying to will her agenda to happen.

It is time for her to touch grass.

You need to stop making yourself, your zip code, and your school the center of everything, and assuming that everyone else cares about them as much as you do.

We really don't.

Super funny given the post immediately above yours.

You're like a tween screaming "stop looking at me" at their parents.

I think it’s important to push back on lies. I’m principled that way.

There is somebody saying that the school board’s consultant (Thru) didn’t consider all 8130 factors when it’s clear from the materials that they did.

Could you share how Thru considered the first and fourth factors in Policy 8130? Self-serving recitations that "all boundary adjustments are guided by Policy 8130" don't cut it.

I appreciate that no boundary adjustments may have been proposed for your school, but that's not the case for others who have every right to expect Reid and those purportedly working on her behalf to comply with SB policy before any boundary changes are proposed or adopted.

TIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster complaining that they aren’t doing enough when these changes are causing massive disruption across the county is delusional.

There is an all Dem school board that picked Reid and thru - all on her side. And she is still complaining about it because they didn’t F over a particular zip code. Truly petty stuff.

And we know this poster because she’s been going at it for years, obsessively trying to will her agenda to happen.

It is time for her to touch grass.

You need to stop making yourself, your zip code, and your school the center of everything, and assuming that everyone else cares about them as much as you do.

We really don't.

Super funny given the post immediately above yours.

You're like a tween screaming "stop looking at me" at their parents.

I think it’s important to push back on lies. I’m principled that way.

There is somebody saying that the school board’s consultant (Thru) didn’t consider all 8130 factors when it’s clear from the materials that they did.

Could you share how Thru considered the first and fourth factors in Policy 8130? Self-serving recitations that "all boundary adjustments are guided by Policy 8130" don't cut it.

I appreciate that no boundary adjustments may have been proposed for your school, but that's not the case for others who have every right to expect Reid and those purportedly working on her behalf to comply with SB policy before any boundary changes are proposed or adopted.

TIA.

Check out the slides. It’s quite clearly stated. You’ll have more success arguing against changes for your kids’ school than arguing that the changes should have been beyond what they’ve proposed. (Though I have a sneaking suspicion that your kids aren’t impacted by the moves).

[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.

I thought all FCPS schools got the same cafeteria meals?

There are different contracts for different schools? Is it by region or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster complaining that they aren’t doing enough when these changes are causing massive disruption across the county is delusional.

There is an all Dem school board that picked Reid and thru - all on her side. And she is still complaining about it because they didn’t F over a particular zip code. Truly petty stuff.

And we know this poster because she’s been going at it for years, obsessively trying to will her agenda to happen.

It is time for her to touch grass.

You need to stop making yourself, your zip code, and your school the center of everything, and assuming that everyone else cares about them as much as you do.

We really don't.

Super funny given the post immediately above yours.

You're like a tween screaming "stop looking at me" at their parents.

I think it’s important to push back on lies. I’m principled that way.

There is somebody saying that the school board’s consultant (Thru) didn’t consider all 8130 factors when it’s clear from the materials that they did.

Could you share how Thru considered the first and fourth factors in Policy 8130? Self-serving recitations that "all boundary adjustments are guided by Policy 8130" don't cut it.

I appreciate that no boundary adjustments may have been proposed for your school, but that's not the case for others who have every right to expect Reid and those purportedly working on her behalf to comply with SB policy before any boundary changes are proposed or adopted.

TIA.

Check out the slides. It’s quite clearly stated. You’ll have more success arguing against changes for your kids’ school than arguing that the changes should have been beyond what they’ve proposed. (Though I have a sneaking suspicion that your kids aren’t impacted by the moves).

So you have no evidence and merely keep referring to the blanket assertion that all the factors were considered. Got it.

A failure to have complied with the policy is grounds to argue against any of the changes proposed.

And, yes, the proposed changes affect our schools.

[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 realize this is a newbie question, forgive me; but why are class sizes dropping across the board? Is that just the broader declining birth rate or something else I’m not aware of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In the "attendance island" proposal, they moved them to Oak Hill/Franklin/Chantilly, I think. But now it looks like they will go to Oakton. I don't think yesterday's maps showed their elementary school, so not sure if they'll now just send them to Crossfield with everyone else on that side of the parkway.

[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.

Are you stupid? https://www.chha.org/about-us/
The elementary school is in the middle of the neighborhood.

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

[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.

I realize this is a newbie question, forgive me; but why are class sizes dropping across the board? Is that just the broader declining birth rate or something else I’m not aware of?

General drop off in birth rate nation-wide.

Economic factors driving people out of Fairfax County.

Big drop in FCPS enrollment since Covid with uneven recovery in enrollments since then (although HVES is one of the schools whose enrollment is back to pre-Covid levels and WSHS enrollment hit an all-time high this year).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster complaining that they aren’t doing enough when these changes are causing massive disruption across the county is delusional.

There is an all Dem school board that picked Reid and thru - all on her side. And she is still complaining about it because they didn’t F over a particular zip code. Truly petty stuff.

And we know this poster because she’s been going at it for years, obsessively trying to will her agenda to happen.

It is time for her to touch grass.

You need to stop making yourself, your zip code, and your school the center of everything, and assuming that everyone else cares about them as much as you do.

We really don't.

Super funny given the post immediately above yours.

You're like a tween screaming "stop looking at me" at their parents.

I think it’s important to push back on lies. I’m principled that way.

There is somebody saying that the school board’s consultant (Thru) didn’t consider all 8130 factors when it’s clear from the materials that they did.

Could you share how Thru considered the first and fourth factors in Policy 8130? Self-serving recitations that "all boundary adjustments are guided by Policy 8130" don't cut it.

I appreciate that no boundary adjustments may have been proposed for your school, but that's not the case for others who have every right to expect Reid and those purportedly working on her behalf to comply with SB policy before any boundary changes are proposed or adopted.

TIA.

Check out the slides. It’s quite clearly stated. You’ll have more success arguing against changes for your kids’ school than arguing that the changes should have been beyond what they’ve proposed. (Though I have a sneaking suspicion that your kids aren’t impacted by the moves).

So you have no evidence and merely keep referring to the blanket assertion that all the factors were considered. Got it.

A failure to have complied with the policy is grounds to argue against any of the changes proposed.

And, yes, the proposed changes affect our schools.

Are your kids being moved? That’s different than whether your school will be affected.

In addition, a couple things: 1) Please do challenge these unnecessary boundary moves. They’ve always been a solution in search of a problem.

2) You keep repeating that I have no evidence, and then immediately make a wild claim for which you have zero evidence/support other than your own rage that the changes weren’t larger. If you want to accuse thru of lying in the PowerPoint, be my guest, but you of course have to admit that you have ZERO evidence that they didn’t adhere to the policy.

[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.

I realize this is a newbie question, forgive me; but why are class sizes dropping across the board? Is that just the broader declining birth rate or something else I’m not aware of?

Births fell off a cliff after the 2008 financial recession and never recovered. There are noticeably fewer 2011s than 2008s such that middle schools had to destaff last year.

[Anonymous]

birth declines across the country after the real estate bubble crash in 08-09

loudoun schools and neighborhoods are seen as newer, cleaner, more family friendly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster complaining that they aren’t doing enough when these changes are causing massive disruption across the county is delusional.

There is an all Dem school board that picked Reid and thru - all on her side. And she is still complaining about it because they didn’t F over a particular zip code. Truly petty stuff.

And we know this poster because she’s been going at it for years, obsessively trying to will her agenda to happen.

It is time for her to touch grass.

You need to stop making yourself, your zip code, and your school the center of everything, and assuming that everyone else cares about them as much as you do.

We really don't.

Super funny given the post immediately above yours.

You're like a tween screaming "stop looking at me" at their parents.

I think it’s important to push back on lies. I’m principled that way.

There is somebody saying that the school board’s consultant (Thru) didn’t consider all 8130 factors when it’s clear from the materials that they did.

Could you share how Thru considered the first and fourth factors in Policy 8130? Self-serving recitations that "all boundary adjustments are guided by Policy 8130" don't cut it.

I appreciate that no boundary adjustments may have been proposed for your school, but that's not the case for others who have every right to expect Reid and those purportedly working on her behalf to comply with SB policy before any boundary changes are proposed or adopted.

TIA.

Check out the slides. It’s quite clearly stated. You’ll have more success arguing against changes for your kids’ school than arguing that the changes should have been beyond what they’ve proposed. (Though I have a sneaking suspicion that your kids aren’t impacted by the moves).

So you have no evidence and merely keep referring to the blanket assertion that all the factors were considered. Got it.

A failure to have complied with the policy is grounds to argue against any of the changes proposed.

And, yes, the proposed changes affect our schools.

Are your kids being moved? That’s different than whether your school will be affected.

In addition, a couple things: 1) Please do challenge these unnecessary boundary moves. They’ve always been a solution in search of a problem.

2) You keep repeating that I have no evidence, and then immediately make a wild claim for which you have zero evidence/support other than your own rage that the changes weren’t larger. If you want to accuse thru of lying in the PowerPoint, be my guest, but you of course have to admit that you have ZERO evidence that they didn’t adhere to the policy.

Your evidence that they considered all the Policy 8130 factors is their blanket assertion they did so.

My evidence that they didn't is what they actually purport to address in their three presentations, which clearly only prioritizes two of the four factors.

My evidence is better than yours, but since you acknowledge all the boundary moves are unnecessary we are apparently in agreement when it comes to the bigger picture. The only benefit to "larger" changes is that the opposition would be greater.

[Anonymous]

Fairfax County: 22.6% under age 18
Prince William County: 26.2% under age 18
Loudoun County: 26.1% under age 18

Fairfax has an aging population and a lower proportion of school-aged children compared to PW and Loudoun. Our population is still growing, but the growth is focused on DINKS and SINKS and the type of housing that appeals to them.

[Anonymous]

How do we find out when/where the community meetings will be held?