Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

Sandy Anderson just put out her email (which erroneously says the draft CIP is out) and she says this: “Thank you for your patience and for the thoughtful, constructive engagement you have brought to this process. This work represents [b] an important first step toward the incremental changes needed [b] to ensure our school boundaries remain responsive to shifting enrollment, community needs, and the long-term health of Fairfax County Public Schools.”

They’re incremental changes now, huh? Quite a change from where we started.

I hate her.

The “incremental” phrasing seems intentional, to denote either a smaller change or one of a series.

They need to stop with the comprehensive boundary change BS. It’s a complete failure.

I read this as that’s what she’s signaling. Along with their permanent BRAC that was mentioned in the slides. They’re going to be doing boundary changes non-stop from here on out from what this sounds like.

You mean more frequently than 5 years? Springfield, vote this person out please!

100% Sandy Anderson needs to go in 2027. Rest assured her email wasn't just saving face--it was a threat. I bet she is livid that none of her wanted changes were made (like moving Hunt Valley, Rolling Valley, etc.), and if she is still around after '27 you better believe she will start the same fights all over again.

[Anonymous]

Docs are up on Board Docs with recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t explain why they decided to not make a decision. Halley still has an attendance island. Are they too afraid to make a decision?

They got a lot of push back. I think for some areas they’re waiting and hoping the temperature drops? I don’t see that happening but whatever.

Note they backpedaled on changes to the Bren Mar Park split feeder by sending it to Key/Lewis from Holmes/Edison and giving it back it’s 59 sixth graders at Edison.

This is because Beech Tree and Belvedere would have split fed into Poe and Holmes from Glasgow, with Beech Tree having a High School split feeder.

But do note Poe is going to become an AAP center for itself and Holmes, which might result in Glasgow Easing out without needing to lose in boundary students.

When Glasgow was replaced in 2009 or so, wasn’t it built to hold 1500 students?

Only asking because I don’t know that school very well or how many AAP students it holds that would transfer over to Poe.

I also think that Annandale Terrace, Braddock, or Columbia should hold AAP to form greater continuity at that level so that Canterbury Woods’ 5th grade AAP students don’t suddenly have to transfer over to Poe (if they have the capacity to do so).

Glasgow has a large capacity. They are effectively acknowledging that having 1700-1800 kids at a middle school is too many, regardless of the school’s capacity.

The fix is to move kids from
Glasgow to both Poe and Holmes. It makes sense to also reassign the kids moving out of Glasgow to Poe to Falls Church and those moving to Holmes to Annandale.

It will get Glasgow down to a more manageable size, but it’s going to push up the poverty rates at both Glasgow and Justice. It also means that the recent expansion of Justice to 2500 seats was at least partially unnecessary.

Is that one of the 6th-8th middle schools?

The easiest fix is to make it 7th/8th like the rest of the county and keep the 6th graders at their local elementary schools.

It would be sensible, and it would save miney on bussing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone who has a better understanding of the recommendations document explain what the "Flagged Sites for Future Review" means in terms of what will happen for the 26-27 school year? I am a Bull Run Elementary school parent that was set to transition to Virginia Run next year. I am assuming this means that Scenario 4 stands and our neighborhood will still be moving but don't know where to go to get information. I've emailed our BRAC 3 separate times and cannot get a response, so I'm assuming that isn't going to work now either.

The only changes are in the actual superintendent’s presentation. That change has been deferred and your school won’t change for 26-27. The schools on the last chart won’t be changed.

Meaning it will not change from the previous Scenario 4 boundary or will not be making boundary changes at all? We have several neighborhoods that were slated to change within Scenario 4. Thanks again.

Scenario 4 is dead. The only changes are what’s explicitly stated in Reid’s presentation.

Interesting. My interpretation was that we essentially have Scenario 4.5 - Scenario 4 plus or minus the specific changes identified in Reid's presentation. And I was assuming that Reid's changes are based on (most of?) the promises she was making at the community meetings in the fall. However, if that's not the case, I simply cannot wrap my head around what a colossal waste of resources this process was.

I think that many of us are wondering the same thing.

Sandy Anderson just put out her email (which erroneously says the draft CIP is out) and she says this: “Thank you for your patience and for the thoughtful, constructive engagement you have brought to this process. This work represents [b] an important first step toward the incremental changes needed [b] to ensure our school boundaries remain responsive to shifting enrollment, community needs, and the long-term health of Fairfax County Public Schools.”

They’re incremental changes now, huh? Quite a change from where we started.

I hate her.

The “incremental” phrasing seems intentional, to denote either a smaller change or one of a series.

They need to stop with the comprehensive boundary change BS. It’s a complete failure.

I read this as that’s what she’s signaling. Along with their permanent BRAC that was mentioned in the slides. They’re going to be doing boundary changes non-stop from here on out from what this sounds like.

You mean more frequently than 5 years? Springfield, vote this person out please!

100% Sandy Anderson needs to go in 2027. Rest assured her email wasn't just saving face--it was a threat. I bet she is livid that none of her wanted changes were made (like moving Hunt Valley, Rolling Valley, etc.), and if she is still around after '27 you better believe she will start the same fights all over again.

There is one more round of maps. Lets see if any of the Springfield rep's original goals resurface in the final map.

I don't think it will, but the process is not over yet.

Perhaps the appetite for this change to the WSHS boundary has diminished after nearly 2 years of push back from the WSHS community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Docs are up on Board Docs with recommendations.

For what? The boundary review? That was earlier today. Or has something new been posted?

[Anonymous]

I saw the maps and am upset.

That’s not how you fix the boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Docs are up on Board Docs with recommendations.

For what? The boundary review? That was earlier today. Or has something new been posted?

Yes. The recommended changes that will be presented to SB on Thursday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw the maps and am upset.

That’s not how you fix the boundaries.

Agreed. The way you fix boundaries is make the change to Coates for 2025-2026 and call it a day, not waste countless resources on an unnecessary comprehensive boundary review and delay the fix to the one school that actually needs it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're all forgetting that Western Fairfax county was largely ignored here because there will be major changes announced in June. I don't think those changes will be just high school boundaries either.

True, but I don’t think they’ll introduce anything that wasn’t already proposed in scenario 4. And I can’t imagine what they would sneak in. The current proposal fixes Coates and gets Ashvale Dr out of Crossfield, so there were some adjustments. Reid also said they weren’t touching middle school boundaries for Western.

I'm curious about this one b/c the mysterious scenario E puts Lees Corner at Western High. Ashvale currently goes to Crossfield - Franklin - Chantilly. I wonder if making this move now is indication that Scenario E was a false flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're all forgetting that Western Fairfax county was largely ignored here because there will be major changes announced in June. I don't think those changes will be just high school boundaries either.

True, but I don’t think they’ll introduce anything that wasn’t already proposed in scenario 4. And I can’t imagine what they would sneak in. The current proposal fixes Coates and gets Ashvale Dr out of Crossfield, so there were some adjustments. Reid also said they weren’t touching middle school boundaries for Western.

I'm curious about this one b/c the mysterious scenario E puts Lees Corner at Western High. Ashvale currently goes to Crossfield - Franklin - Chantilly. I wonder if making this move now is indication that Scenario E was a false flag.

I don't know if it were a false flag, but if it was, it was an extremely dumb one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're all forgetting that Western Fairfax county was largely ignored here because there will be major changes announced in June. I don't think those changes will be just high school boundaries either.

True, but I don’t think they’ll introduce anything that wasn’t already proposed in scenario 4. And I can’t imagine what they would sneak in. The current proposal fixes Coates and gets Ashvale Dr out of Crossfield, so there were some adjustments. Reid also said they weren’t touching middle school boundaries for Western.

I'm curious about this one b/c the mysterious scenario E puts Lees Corner at Western High. Ashvale currently goes to Crossfield - Franklin - Chantilly. I wonder if making this move now is indication that Scenario E was a false flag.

Isn't that to keep the neighborhood together? I think its all Franklin Farm isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're all forgetting that Western Fairfax county was largely ignored here because there will be major changes announced in June. I don't think those changes will be just high school boundaries either.

True, but I don’t think they’ll introduce anything that wasn’t already proposed in scenario 4. And I can’t imagine what they would sneak in. The current proposal fixes Coates and gets Ashvale Dr out of Crossfield, so there were some adjustments. Reid also said they weren’t touching middle school boundaries for Western.

I'm curious about this one b/c the mysterious scenario E puts Lees Corner at Western High. Ashvale currently goes to Crossfield - Franklin - Chantilly. I wonder if making this move now is indication that Scenario E was a false flag.

Isn't that to keep the neighborhood together? I think its all Franklin Farm isn't it?

No. I think most of it is Franklin Glen, but not all. But, it makes no sense to have some at Crossfield on the same street. I don't think any is Franklin Farm. Some of it was built later.
Franklin Glen is divided by the Fairfax County Parkway--which was built after Franklin Glen. Same with Franklin Farm. Part of Franklin Farm on west side of Parkway goes to Oak Hill-the east side goes to Crossfield, except, of course, for the Navy Island.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wondering why they didn’t make a decision about Gunston, Halley, and Lorton Station? The Halley attendance island is still in place. The Hagel Circle students still won’t be attending a neighborhood school.

Yes exactly, The Highlands at Gunston (Hagel Circle) should be part of their neighborhood school, Gunston Elementary which it was prior to Halley Elementary. That was their neighborhood school and it should go back to that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t explain why they decided to not make a decision. Halley still has an attendance island. Are they too afraid to make a decision?

They got a lot of push back. I think for some areas they’re waiting and hoping the temperature drops? I don’t see that happening but whatever.

What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t explain why they decided to not make a decision. Halley still has an attendance island. Are they too afraid to make a decision?

They got a lot of push back. I think for some areas they’re waiting and hoping the temperature drops? I don’t see that happening but whatever.

I think they really wanted them at Gunston, but due to the efforts of the Mason Neck Citizens Group, and probably also the physical state of Gunston ES, that’s not going to be feasible without big renovations to the school. So now it’s a big hot potato of do they move kids out of Gunston to I guess Island Creek to make room at Gunston? (That’s a long bus ride). Do they add Hagel to Lorton Station and then try to make moves to get LSES as a SC feeder? Not really possible right now without overcrowding South County MS and HS though. Do they add it to Lorton Station/Hayfield and then wash their hands of the whole thing? Do they try to add it to Laurel Hill which makes a nice border on paper but still ends up with a long bus ride? (And another overcrowded school at Laurel Hill as well). Are they ok with potentially taking LSES, which is a big feeder school, out of Hayfield and leaving Hayfield under-enrolled, assuming they’ll need the capacity at Hayfield to relieve Edison? But if Edison needs relief, the first places to look should be under-enrolled Lewis and over-expanded West Potomac.

I really think to solve the South County overcrowding, they should send kids from Springfield to Lewis. Anyways that bus ride for them is about 10-15 minutes so they might as well go to Lewis and let Lorton Students stay in Lorton.

Lorton station elementary students are closest to South County while some Springfield students go to south county. Not right. They should be at Lewis and they’ve got plenty of capacity