FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way that the families with kids moving to South Lakes are going to accept that. At the very least, they are not going to want the IB program. Most are happy at Chantilly and will not want to move, even if SLHS was AP, but the IB is most likely a deal breaker.

From a SLHS perspective, adding 100 more kids who are likely to participate in IB would be great, it would increase the pool of kids and increase the chance that the HL classes are offered because there might be more interest. If this move does happen, I expect more principal placing into Oakton and Langley for AP and language purposes.

People don't want to move from AP to IB.

Chantilly kids would get moved to Westfield and Oakton (both AP), and some Westfield families would move to South Lakes. I don’t think anyone at Chantilly would be moved to South Lakes.

Pupil placing into Langley probably won’t be available much longer as it will be over 100% capacity with the reassignment of 200 McLean kids.

Oak Hill kids who currently attend Chantilly were moved to Fox Mill in one of the first two meetings. That shifted them to SLHS. I don't think that necessarily shows up in the third meeting slides because they would have been accounted for in an earlier presentation.

This is correct. People don't seem to understand how to interpret these maps. The changes from the first two are already incorporated into the third. They just aren't highlighting proposed new ES boundaries if the slide is focused on an MS or HS. But they are on there if you look at the overall boundary map.

Can you look at p. 14 of the 5/5 presentation and tell me how anyone at Chantilly is getting moved to South Lakes? I only see Chantilly kids moving to Westfield and Oakton, and no changes to South Lakes incorporated into that map!

One of the April meetings moved Oak Hill kids to Fox Mill. Those kids are already included in the SLHS count for the 5/5 slides which only take into consideration the new shifts.

You are mistaken. Those Oak Hill kids moving to Fox Mill per April slides are currently going to Carson/Westfield. These are Emeral Chase and some Bradley Farm HOA kids.

No kids from Chantilly/Oakton are moving to SLHS.

NONE.

Strangely enough, there are Oak Hill parents with kids at Chantilly who disagree with your strongly worded post. They are discussing the move from Chantilly to SLHS. They don't go to Westfield right now.

(shurgs)

Sorry if I came across as angry.

I live in the South Lakes boundary and am tired of the constant bashing of SLHS.

You're wrong though - they are kids from Chantilly Highlands right behind the Franklin Farm shopping Center and they currently go to Franklin/Chantilly.

If they are currently zoned for Franklin/Chantilly there is no indication they’ve been removed from Oak Hill. The boundary recommendation was to move Oak Hill students who were zoned for Carson/Westfield into Fox Mill. Unless they’re privy to more high resolution maps, they may be mistaken. Hopefully the mapping tool will paint a clearer picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way that the families with kids moving to South Lakes are going to accept that. At the very least, they are not going to want the IB program. Most are happy at Chantilly and will not want to move, even if SLHS was AP, but the IB is most likely a deal breaker.

From a SLHS perspective, adding 100 more kids who are likely to participate in IB would be great, it would increase the pool of kids and increase the chance that the HL classes are offered because there might be more interest. If this move does happen, I expect more principal placing into Oakton and Langley for AP and language purposes.

People don't want to move from AP to IB.

Chantilly kids would get moved to Westfield and Oakton (both AP), and some Westfield families would move to South Lakes. I don’t think anyone at Chantilly would be moved to South Lakes.

Pupil placing into Langley probably won’t be available much longer as it will be over 100% capacity with the reassignment of 200 McLean kids.

Oak Hill kids who currently attend Chantilly were moved to Fox Mill in one of the first two meetings. That shifted them to SLHS. I don't think that necessarily shows up in the third meeting slides because they would have been accounted for in an earlier presentation.

This is correct. People don't seem to understand how to interpret these maps. The changes from the first two are already incorporated into the third. They just aren't highlighting proposed new ES boundaries if the slide is focused on an MS or HS. But they are on there if you look at the overall boundary map.

Can you look at p. 14 of the 5/5 presentation and tell me how anyone at Chantilly is getting moved to South Lakes? I only see Chantilly kids moving to Westfield and Oakton, and no changes to South Lakes incorporated into that map!

One of the April meetings moved Oak Hill kids to Fox Mill. Those kids are already included in the SLHS count for the 5/5 slides which only take into consideration the new shifts.

You are mistaken. Those Oak Hill kids moving to Fox Mill per April slides are currently going to Carson/Westfield. These are Emeral Chase and some Bradley Farm HOA kids.

No kids from Chantilly/Oakton are moving to SLHS.

NONE.

Strangely enough, there are Oak Hill parents with kids at Chantilly who disagree with your strongly worded post. They are discussing the move from Chantilly to SLHS. They don't go to Westfield right now.

(shurgs)

Sorry if I came across as angry.

I live in the South Lakes boundary and am tired of the constant bashing of SLHS.

You're wrong though - they are kids from Chantilly Highlands right behind the Franklin Farm shopping Center and they currently go to Franklin/Chantilly.

According to the proposed maps, that cutout is being sent to Franklin/Oakton. Not SLHS.

[Anonymous]

Could someone share a link to the proposed maps? I can't find them anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone share a link to the proposed maps? I can't find them anywhere.

Scroll back a few pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone share a link to the proposed maps? I can't find them anywhere.

https://www.fcps.edu/may-5-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone share a link to the proposed maps? I can't find them anywhere.

https://www.fcps.edu/may-5-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way that the families with kids moving to South Lakes are going to accept that. At the very least, they are not going to want the IB program. Most are happy at Chantilly and will not want to move, even if SLHS was AP, but the IB is most likely a deal breaker.

From a SLHS perspective, adding 100 more kids who are likely to participate in IB would be great, it would increase the pool of kids and increase the chance that the HL classes are offered because there might be more interest. If this move does happen, I expect more principal placing into Oakton and Langley for AP and language purposes.

People don't want to move from AP to IB.

Chantilly kids would get moved to Westfield and Oakton (both AP), and some Westfield families would move to South Lakes. I don’t think anyone at Chantilly would be moved to South Lakes.

Pupil placing into Langley probably won’t be available much longer as it will be over 100% capacity with the reassignment of 200 McLean kids.

Oak Hill kids who currently attend Chantilly were moved to Fox Mill in one of the first two meetings. That shifted them to SLHS. I don't think that necessarily shows up in the third meeting slides because they would have been accounted for in an earlier presentation.

This is correct. People don't seem to understand how to interpret these maps. The changes from the first two are already incorporated into the third. They just aren't highlighting proposed new ES boundaries if the slide is focused on an MS or HS. But they are on there if you look at the overall boundary map.

Can you look at p. 14 of the 5/5 presentation and tell me how anyone at Chantilly is getting moved to South Lakes? I only see Chantilly kids moving to Westfield and Oakton, and no changes to South Lakes incorporated into that map!

One of the April meetings moved Oak Hill kids to Fox Mill. Those kids are already included in the SLHS count for the 5/5 slides which only take into consideration the new shifts.

You are mistaken. Those Oak Hill kids moving to Fox Mill per April slides are currently going to Carson/Westfield. These are Emeral Chase and some Bradley Farm HOA kids.

No kids from Chantilly/Oakton are moving to SLHS.

NONE.

Strangely enough, there are Oak Hill parents with kids at Chantilly who disagree with your strongly worded post. They are discussing the move from Chantilly to SLHS. They don't go to Westfield right now.

(shurgs)

Sorry if I came across as angry.

I live in the South Lakes boundary and am tired of the constant bashing of SLHS.

You're wrong though - they are kids from Chantilly Highlands right behind the Franklin Farm shopping Center and they currently go to Franklin/Chantilly.

According to the proposed maps, that cutout is being sent to Franklin/Oakton. Not SLHS.

Agree that the maps are hard to read. However, if the PP who insists that kids are being sent from Chantilly to South Lakes would look at the maps from the earlier sessions, she/he would see that she is incorrect.

In the earlier session, Emerald Chase/Bradley Farm was pulled out of Oak Hill. That is the portion in the upper right corner of Oak Hill. They have been going to Westfield.

In the newest maps, there is a ridiculous cutout of Oak Hill students: Chantilly Highlands/StoneHeather CT? that is being sent to Oakton. Chantilly Highlands is a pretty much contained neighborhood and this makes no sense to take two streets and send to a different high school (approx 10% of the neighborhood).

[Anonymous]

In the newest maps, there is a ridiculous cutout of Oak Hill students: Chantilly Highlands/StoneHeather CT? that is being sent to Oakton. Chantilly Highlands is a pretty much contained neighborhood and this makes no sense to take two streets and send to a different high school (approx 10% of the neighborhood).

And, this breaks two rules: breaks up a neighborhood and dramatically increases commute time from less than 10 minutes to almost 30.

[Anonymous]

Between sending out maps that are impossible to read, to scheduling the feedback meetings at schools not affected by rezoning, and refusing to answer specific questions the BRAC committee members have repeatedly asked about specific issues with rezoning, it is clear that FCPS school board and Thru actually do not want feedback from the communities affected by rezoning.

The committee was just for show, which is a terrible disservice to the peope who devoted all their time to help make this process as painless as possible for their neighbors and students across FCPS.

The maps are designed to hide and confuse familes as to what is actually happening with rezoning and who will be affected.

The meetings are scheduled at locations to make it difficult for the affected families to give meaningful feedback. If they cared about getting feedback, FCPS would have scheduled the meetings near the schools being rezoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Between sending out maps that are impossible to read, to scheduling the feedback meetings at schools not affected by rezoning, and refusing to answer specific questions the BRAC committee members have repeatedly asked about specific issues with rezoning, it is clear that FCPS school board and Thru actually do not want feedback from the communities affected by rezoning.

The committee was just for show, which is a terrible disservice to the peope who devoted all their time to help make this process as painless as possible for their neighbors and students across FCPS.

The maps are designed to hide and confuse familes as to what is actually happening with rezoning and who will be affected.

The meetings are scheduled at locations to make it difficult for the affected families to give meaningful feedback. If they cared about getting feedback, FCPS would have scheduled the meetings near the schools being rezoned.

None of this should be a surprise. This has been the plan all along. They are not interested in feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In the newest maps, there is a ridiculous cutout of Oak Hill students: Chantilly Highlands/StoneHeather CT? that is being sent to Oakton. Chantilly Highlands is a pretty much contained neighborhood and this makes no sense to take two streets and send to a different high school (approx 10% of the neighborhood).

And, this breaks two rules: breaks up a neighborhood and dramatically increases commute time from less than 10 minutes to almost 30.

The bussing logistics don’t make sense either. They’d have to send two busses through that neighborhood and the Oakton one would have to cut through Chantilly zoned neighborhoods to pick up two streets worth of kids before doubling back.

They should have transportation run models before they present these recommendations. Some of these recommendations should be non-starters, and are a waste of public panic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Between sending out maps that are impossible to read, to scheduling the feedback meetings at schools not affected by rezoning, and refusing to answer specific questions the BRAC committee members have repeatedly asked about specific issues with rezoning, it is clear that FCPS school board and Thru actually do not want feedback from the communities affected by rezoning.

The committee was just for show, which is a terrible disservice to the peope who devoted all their time to help make this process as painless as possible for their neighbors and students across FCPS.

The maps are designed to hide and confuse familes as to what is actually happening with rezoning and who will be affected.

The meetings are scheduled at locations to make it difficult for the affected families to give meaningful feedback. If they cared about getting feedback, FCPS would have scheduled the meetings near the schools being rezoned.

They just added giant DRAFT watermarks to the presentations that cover Net Changes for a lot of their recommendations. So now the slides are even more useless.

[Anonymous]

If they go through all this with dollars and grief, and THEN redo all the plans with their own, WOW!

Best result: no change except for the terribly overcrowded elementary schools.

and, eliminate IB. Reduce AAP numbers, too, and go back to GT model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between sending out maps that are impossible to read, to scheduling the feedback meetings at schools not affected by rezoning, and refusing to answer specific questions the BRAC committee members have repeatedly asked about specific issues with rezoning, it is clear that FCPS school board and Thru actually do not want feedback from the communities affected by rezoning.

The committee was just for show, which is a terrible disservice to the peope who devoted all their time to help make this process as painless as possible for their neighbors and students across FCPS.

The maps are designed to hide and confuse familes as to what is actually happening with rezoning and who will be affected.

The meetings are scheduled at locations to make it difficult for the affected families to give meaningful feedback. If they cared about getting feedback, FCPS would have scheduled the meetings near the schools being rezoned.

They just added giant DRAFT watermarks to the presentations that cover Net Changes for a lot of their recommendations. So now the slides are even more useless.

Looks like this was hastily done and now in some cases the watermarks cover up the net changes in enrollment at some schools so you can no longer tell the impact on enrollment. What a joke.

Don’t expect “FairFACTS Matters” to complain about it, though. They now have no complaints. Turns out it was only “Langley Matters,” as we all expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between sending out maps that are impossible to read, to scheduling the feedback meetings at schools not affected by rezoning, and refusing to answer specific questions the BRAC committee members have repeatedly asked about specific issues with rezoning, it is clear that FCPS school board and Thru actually do not want feedback from the communities affected by rezoning.

The committee was just for show, which is a terrible disservice to the peope who devoted all their time to help make this process as painless as possible for their neighbors and students across FCPS.

The maps are designed to hide and confuse familes as to what is actually happening with rezoning and who will be affected.

The meetings are scheduled at locations to make it difficult for the affected families to give meaningful feedback. If they cared about getting feedback, FCPS would have scheduled the meetings near the schools being rezoned.

They just added giant DRAFT watermarks to the presentations that cover Net Changes for a lot of their recommendations. So now the slides are even more useless.

Looks like this was hastily done and now in some cases the watermarks cover up the net changes in enrollment at some schools so you can no longer tell the impact on enrollment. What a joke.

Don’t expect “FairFACTS Matters” to complain about it, though. They now have no complaints. Turns out it was only “Langley Matters,” as we all expected.

Your last paragraph is inconsistent with what has been posted publicly by the group. What is the basis for your claim?