FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys actually looked at the slides? It says quite clearly that nothing on there represents any changes that have been formally agreed upon, it's for discussion only?

They just added the "draft" to the slides after gettining flooded with complaints.

Prior to that, it was clear these are the proposed changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys actually looked at the slides? It says quite clearly that nothing on there represents any changes that have been formally agreed upon, it's for discussion only?

They can slap whatever legend or disclaimer on the slides they want, but the whole point is to try and anchor in these proposals and force people to go to great lengths to get them revised. That's unfortunate when so many of them obviously reflect minimal thought and effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys actually looked at the slides? It says quite clearly that nothing on there represents any changes that have been formally agreed upon, it's for discussion only?

They can slap whatever legend or disclaimer on the slides they want, but the whole point is to try and anchor in these proposals and force people to go to great lengths to get them revised. That's unfortunate when so many of them obviously reflect minimal thought and effort.

Par for the course with the group we have running the show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys actually looked at the slides? It says quite clearly that nothing on there represents any changes that have been formally agreed upon, it's for discussion only?

They are all draft, proposed scenarios. They have received BRAC feedback on them (though only posted that feedback for one meeting). They will now go through community meetings and most likely make adjustments this summer.

They’ll submit a final proposal to the school board to approve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys actually looked at the slides? It says quite clearly that nothing on there represents any changes that have been formally agreed upon, it's for discussion only?

They are all draft, proposed scenarios. They have received BRAC feedback on them (though only posted that feedback for one meeting). They will now go through community meetings and most likely make adjustments this summer.

They’ll submit a final proposal to the school board to approve.

Per the website:

May '25 - July '25: Community Meetings (Part 1)
July '25 - Oct. '25: Data Analysis and Scenario Updates
Sep. '25 - Nov. '25: Community Meetings (Part 2)
Nov. '25 - Dec. '25: Final Scenario Development

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys actually looked at the slides? It says quite clearly that nothing on there represents any changes that have been formally agreed upon, it's for discussion only?

They are all draft, proposed scenarios. They have received BRAC feedback on them (though only posted that feedback for one meeting). They will now go through community meetings and most likely make adjustments this summer.

They’ll submit a final proposal to the school board to approve.

What value does the BRAC provide if the materials shared in the upcoming community meetings are the same materials provided to the BRAC in April and earlier this month?

[Anonymous]

Waiting for the interactive tool

[Anonymous]

Are these the only scenarios? Or will there be other possible changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are these the only scenarios? Or will there be other possible changes?

They’re being presented as the only scenarios right now, but they will continue to make changes until the final scenario is recommended in the fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are these the only scenarios? Or will there be other possible changes?

Any additional changes are going to be very politically painful for the school board, since thru is their hand-picked no-bid consultant, and they’d basically be admitting they threw money away on their work. Not to mention that additional changes would be even more unnecessary than the ones currently proposed.

That said, I wouldn’t put it past this school board to make poor decisions, so it isn’t final until the last vote is taken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these the only scenarios? Or will there be other possible changes?

Any additional changes are going to be very politically painful for the school board, since thru is their hand-picked no-bid consultant, and they’d basically be admitting they threw money away on their work. Not to mention that additional changes would be even more unnecessary than the ones currently proposed.

That said, I wouldn’t put it past this school board to make poor decisions, so it isn’t final until the last vote is taken.

It will only help the School Board if some of the less sensible proposals by Thru are not adopted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these the only scenarios? Or will there be other possible changes?

Any additional changes are going to be very politically painful for the school board, since thru is their hand-picked no-bid consultant, and they’d basically be admitting they threw money away on their work. Not to mention that additional changes would be even more unnecessary than the ones currently proposed.

That said, I wouldn’t put it past this school board to make poor decisions, so it isn’t final until the last vote is taken.

It will only help the School Board if some of the less sensible proposals by Thru are not adopted.

Oh yeah, to be clear, most of the proposals are nonsensical and go too far. I’m just saying if they go a completely different direction and propose moving people who are not moved in the tentative maps there will be a real political price to pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these the only scenarios? Or will there be other possible changes?

Any additional changes are going to be very politically painful for the school board, since thru is their hand-picked no-bid consultant, and they’d basically be admitting they threw money away on their work. Not to mention that additional changes would be even more unnecessary than the ones currently proposed.

That said, I wouldn’t put it past this school board to make poor decisions, so it isn’t final until the last vote is taken.

It will only help the School Board if some of the less sensible proposals by Thru are not adopted.

Oh yeah, to be clear, most of the proposals are nonsensical and go too far. I’m just saying if they go a completely different direction and propose moving people who are not moved in the tentative maps there will be a real political price to pay.

There will absolutely be more tinkering, but now it’s clear where they plan to move boundaries between. Chantilly may send a different SPA to Oakton based on feedback. They might mess around with the Lemon Road/Shrevewood boundaries to get their bridge to Timber Lane. They might come up with a different strategy for getting WSHS to South County that doesn’t involve a split feeder.

I think some of their unnecessary tinkering that doesn’t help capacity numbers (sending parts of Jackson MS to Longfellow, or getting 8 students out of Fort Belvoir in exchange for a long bus route detour) may simply be dropped, but their big ticket items of removing attendance islands and getting below 110% capacity will result in more meddling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these the only scenarios? Or will there be other possible changes?

Any additional changes are going to be very politically painful for the school board, since thru is their hand-picked no-bid consultant, and they’d basically be admitting they threw money away on their work. Not to mention that additional changes would be even more unnecessary than the ones currently proposed.

That said, I wouldn’t put it past this school board to make poor decisions, so it isn’t final until the last vote is taken.

It will only help the School Board if some of the less sensible proposals by Thru are not adopted.

Oh yeah, to be clear, most of the proposals are nonsensical and go too far. I’m just saying if they go a completely different direction and propose moving people who are not moved in the tentative maps there will be a real political price to pay.

There will absolutely be more tinkering, but now it’s clear where they plan to move boundaries between. Chantilly may send a different SPA to Oakton based on feedback. They might mess around with the Lemon Road/Shrevewood boundaries to get their bridge to Timber Lane. They might come up with a different strategy for getting WSHS to South County that doesn’t involve a split feeder.

I think some of their unnecessary tinkering that doesn’t help capacity numbers (sending parts of Jackson MS to Longfellow, or getting 8 students out of Fort Belvoir in exchange for a long bus route detour) may simply be dropped, but their big ticket items of removing attendance islands and getting below 110% capacity will result in more meddling.

The idea of sending part of Jackson to Longfellow was a byproduct of trying to clean up the Graham Road situation, where the Graham Road building lies in the Timber Lane attendance area. They flipped some Graham Road and Timber Lane areas, moved part of Pine Spring to Timber Lane for extra measure, and then moved part of Timber Lane to Shrevewood (and then to Kilmer). Then they proposed to have 100% of Timber Lane feed to Longfellow, but not McLean (since it would push McLean back up over 105%), and that entailed moving kids from Jackson to Longfellow.

It wasn't well thought out at all. It would turn Shrevewood into a Title I school, but they didn't take that into account in addressing the impact on program capacity. It would turn Kilmer into a lopsided feeder to Marshall and McLean (roughly 90% Marshall, 10% McLean) and Longfellow into an even more uneven split feeder (about 92-93% to McLean and 7-8% to Falls Church). Plus, the kids moving from Jackson would be traveling twice the distance to Longfellow, and Jackson isn't overcrowded. Had they just left "new" Timber Lane as a split feeder to Longfellow/McLean and Jackson/Falls Church, it would still be a fairly even split feeder, which Thru otherwise has left in place when looking at split feeders.

The bottom line is that they created more problems than they solved, and didn't bother to correct them in the later maps. Judging from earlier boundary changes, FCPS staff would have come up with better proposals. Thru was apparently rushing through the steps to "fix" a problem in the Falls Church pyramid (in this case, the Graham Road issue) and didn't deal with the fact that its solutions created bigger problems in the Marshall and McLean pyramids.

They need to keep the Jackson kids at Jackson, keep the Timber Lane kids north of 29 there rather than move them to Shrevewood, and move some of the kids south of 29 they are proposing to move to Timber Lane to Graham Road and/or Pine Spring. If that means they have to split existing SPAs or create new ones, so be it. Thru is treating the SPAs as sacrosanct, but in many cases the SPA boundaries are quite arbitrary as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these the only scenarios? Or will there be other possible changes?

Any additional changes are going to be very politically painful for the school board, since thru is their hand-picked no-bid consultant, and they’d basically be admitting they threw money away on their work. Not to mention that additional changes would be even more unnecessary than the ones currently proposed.

That said, I wouldn’t put it past this school board to make poor decisions, so it isn’t final until the last vote is taken.

It will only help the School Board if some of the less sensible proposals by Thru are not adopted.

Oh yeah, to be clear, most of the proposals are nonsensical and go too far. I’m just saying if they go a completely different direction and propose moving people who are not moved in the tentative maps there will be a real political price to pay.

Error on the Thru slides for 5/5/25 capacity? :
Westfield HS +93 from Chantilly [slide 15]
Westfield HS +115 from Centreville [slide 13]
to South Lakes from Westfield -121 [slide 13]
net Westfield actual changes were +87.

Westfield had membership 2710 [97% capacity], net Thru -6 would not bump it to 100% as stated by Thru.

This fall is a bond referendum. That includes the Centreville construction money. Planning was on a prior bond. The CIP2026-30 shows the new Centreville capacity available for SY2029-30. Projected at 69%. So there are only 3 school years [SY] where Reid/Thru changes would apply. Lots of movement and meetings and then rinse repeat starting in fall 2028?

City of Fairfax has it's own bond referendums and Reid/Thru are overloading at least 1 of it's sites:
Fairfax HS: CIP SY24-25=99%. Thru + 87 is 102%.