FCPS Boundary Review Updates

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Based on the comments on pigeonhole (what an unfortunate name for a website), the general feel is that they aren’t listening to communities and aren’t following their established criteria.

Also the Emerald Chase neighborhood seemed to be out in force. They are getting moved elementary schools and high schools, so I can imagine they are pretty fired up.


Wonder if anyone from 20171 zip was on BRAC? (Neighborhoods between DTR and Highway 50).

Doesn't sound like there is any understanding of those neighborhoods.

Option #1 leaves Coates WAY overcrowded. No adjustment at all. Otherwise, it is the best option.


I don’t think it’s either option 1, option 2 or option 3 scenarios. I feel like they could pick and choose things from option 1, others from option 2 and others from option 3 to make a totally different option 4.
Anonymous
Can someone link to the interactive tool or map for us to check? Thanks.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Sangster orange hunt section being moved to Lake Braddock for MS and HS... isn't Lake Braddock massive already? Wouldn't it make more sense to move this section entirely to a different elementary school and feed into Irving/WSHS? Still eliminates the split feeder issue.


Yes, if that’s what they were trying to fix. To this neighborhood, the split feeder is not really a problem, although the county labels it as such. They would be the only neighborhoods off of Huntsman blvd going to LBSS. This side of the parkway/Huntsman is a strong WSHS community, despite some students starting their schooling with LBSS students at sangster. The split happens after 6th and many of the AAP students at the center are zoned Irving/WSHS already.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Can someone link to the interactive tool or map for us to check? Thanks.


https://www.fcpsboundaryreview.org/
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thankfully someone listened and they switched the neighborhoods south of Lee Hwy back from Longfellow to Jackson. That change made no sense whatsoever.


You mean on the tool that was released yesterday?

Yep. They previously had several neighborhoods south of 29 at Longfellow MS in all three iterations of the plan (attendance islands, split-feeders, and capacity), which created a super-lopsided split feeder, since all those kids were going back to Falls Church for HS.

That plan is in none of the 3 new scenarios released yesterday via the interactive tool. Not only did they move everyone south of 29 back to Jackson, they also took most Timber Lane neighborhoods north of 29 and moved them to both Jackson and Falls Church HS.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also the Emerald Chase neighborhood seemed to be out in force. They are getting moved elementary schools and high schools, so I can imagine they are pretty fired up.

They seem desperate to avoid South Lakes (an IB school, so I get it). The call was roughly 100 people and many of their duplicate posts about it had over 60 votes before I dropped off. Either they shared the link outside the meeting or someone there is tech savvy and made a little script to vote them up. Wouldn't be hard at all. If my neighborhood was affected negatively I'd have done the same.


They just made a good case. I was at the Oakton meeting and met an Emerald Chase parent. They talked to everyone, they made a strong case in the context of Policy 8130, and their story made it clear this could happen to any neighborhood on a line. My address is unaffected by all 3 scenarios. I upvoted every single Emerald Chase comment. It's just wrong what is happening to communities here.


Strongly disagree.

They are currently: Oak Hill - Carson - Westfield

This is what they want:

We are promoting one, unified solution for Emerald Chase: Oak Hill Elementary – Franklin Middle School – Chantilly High School. Any other solution will weaken the message based on FCPS' stated goals for this comprehensive boundary review.

https://www.emeraldchase.org/p/BOUNDARY-REVIEW-2025-26-3

It’s not like they don’t want the boundary change. They just want a “good” boundary change.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thankfully someone listened and they switched the neighborhoods south of Lee Hwy back from Longfellow to Jackson. That change made no sense whatsoever.


You mean on the tool that was released yesterday?

Yep. They previously had several neighborhoods south of 29 at Longfellow MS in all three iterations of the plan (attendance islands, split-feeders, and capacity), which created a super-lopsided split feeder, since all those kids were going back to Falls Church for HS.

That plan is in none of the 3 new scenarios released yesterday via the interactive tool. Not only did they move everyone south of 29 back to Jackson, they also took most Timber Lane neighborhoods north of 29 and moved them to both Jackson and Falls Church HS.


I don’t live in that area north of 29, but I would be furious if I did.

That’s a classic bait and switch. Totally not cool.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Sangster orange hunt section being moved to Lake Braddock for MS and HS... isn't Lake Braddock massive already? Wouldn't it make more sense to move this section entirely to a different elementary school and feed into Irving/WSHS? Still eliminates the split feeder issue.


Yes, if that’s what they were trying to fix. To this neighborhood, the split feeder is not really a problem, although the county labels it as such. They would be the only neighborhoods off of Huntsman blvd going to LBSS. This side of the parkway/Huntsman is a strong WSHS community, despite some students starting their schooling with LBSS students at sangster. The split happens after 6th and many of the AAP students at the center are zoned Irving/WSHS already.



The neighborhoods closet to Sangster (Walkers) that are all zoned for WSHS are actually much closer to WSHS than LBSS. There are several neighborhoods near the attendance island down the parkway that are closer to South County/Newington. Sending all of those kids to LBSS is silly.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:They are moving some of Shrevewood that currently goes to Kilmer to Longfellow (creating a change) and taking out neighborhood that timber lane to Longfellow. Unclear what problem they are solving by changing more kids schools and friends. And creating a small Shrevewood split feeder.


We’re in that area and Longfellow is closer to us than Kilmer so we’d be fine with that change.

Marshall is closer than McLean but Shreve just turns into Haycock on the other side of Route 7 and it’s fairly easy to get to McLean on Shreve/Haycock and then Westmoreland.

Do you have kids in Shrevewood? It's a tight knit community that has already been torn apart with a LLIV/AAP change. Not sure it can handle this change on top of that.


It would be sad if Shrevewood no longer served the very neighborhood that used to support it.


They haven’t proposed to move anyone out of Shrevewood.


The discussion got derailed a bit, but the conversation is about the Falls Hill neighborhood (or most of it) being assigned to Longfellow/McLean. So Shrevewood goes to a split feeder.

Shrevewood also gains some from Timber Lane, popping them back over 100% utilization. At least until Dunn Loring is ready.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thankfully someone listened and they switched the neighborhoods south of Lee Hwy back from Longfellow to Jackson. That change made no sense whatsoever.


You mean on the tool that was released yesterday?

Yep. They previously had several neighborhoods south of 29 at Longfellow MS in all three iterations of the plan (attendance islands, split-feeders, and capacity), which created a super-lopsided split feeder, since all those kids were going back to Falls Church for HS.

That plan is in none of the 3 new scenarios released yesterday via the interactive tool. Not only did they move everyone south of 29 back to Jackson, they also took most Timber Lane neighborhoods north of 29 and moved them to both Jackson and Falls Church HS.


I don’t live in that area north of 29, but I would be furious if I did.

That’s a classic bait and switch. Totally not cool.


It was even more of a bait and switch in 2021 when Elaine Tholen waited until the day of the final School Board vote on a Langley/McLean boundary change to override an FCPS staff recommendation and push through an entirely different boundary change.

It would be better if they'd built an addition to McLean, so all the kids who were zoned there both in 2021 and now could stay at the school, but there were no shortage of people objecting to that. Meanwhile, they are going to spend over $85 million on Dunn Loring.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thankfully someone listened and they switched the neighborhoods south of Lee Hwy back from Longfellow to Jackson. That change made no sense whatsoever.


You mean on the tool that was released yesterday?

Yep. They previously had several neighborhoods south of 29 at Longfellow MS in all three iterations of the plan (attendance islands, split-feeders, and capacity), which created a super-lopsided split feeder, since all those kids were going back to Falls Church for HS.

That plan is in none of the 3 new scenarios released yesterday via the interactive tool. Not only did they move everyone south of 29 back to Jackson, they also took most Timber Lane neighborhoods north of 29 and moved them to both Jackson and Falls Church HS.


I don’t live in that area north of 29, but I would be furious if I did.

That’s a classic bait and switch. Totally not cool.


It was even more of a bait and switch in 2021 when Elaine Tholen waited until the day of the final School Board vote on a Langley/McLean boundary change to override an FCPS staff recommendation and push through an entirely different boundary change.

It would be better if they'd built an addition to McLean, so all the kids who were zoned there both in 2021 and now could stay at the school, but there were no shortage of people objecting to that. Meanwhile, they are going to spend over $85 million on Dunn Loring.


An addition to McLean would be equivalent to 4 or 5 Dunn Lorings.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised (but not really) that they didn't do anything with Greenbriar East. Dr. Reid specifically mentioned that school in regards to why we're even doing this whole exercise at one of the very first board meetings on the topic last year.


What meeting did she mention it? What changes did she say she was going to make? What changes do you want to see?


I recall she made a comment about that school had gained something like 70 kids throughout the school year and she thought it was outrageous. It was at a meeting during the summer and I believe the very first one about boundary changes as I haven't listened to any others.

I used to live in an area zoned to there before I had kids but have since moved elsewhere so I don't really care. I thought her comment indicated they might move some kids from GBE to GBW.


The big jump in enrollment at Greenbriar East was over the course of the 2023-24 school year. The enrollment has been stable this school year and it's not above capacity, so not surprised they left it alone.


I remember the original “leaked maps” had the Fairfax HS zoned portion of GBE shifting to Oakton HS. Did Dixit ever mention this move to GBE families?

That original "leaked maps" poster has been proven to be a troll at this point. They were just making wild claims to stir the pot, and enough people here were so anxious about it all that they fell for it hook, line, and sinker.


The original leaked map poster was 100% accurate about Hunt Valley being targeted for rezoning

Her going public gave HV the opportunity to organize so the neighborhood was prepared when rhe current maps came out.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thankfully someone listened and they switched the neighborhoods south of Lee Hwy back from Longfellow to Jackson. That change made no sense whatsoever.


You mean on the tool that was released yesterday?

Yep. They previously had several neighborhoods south of 29 at Longfellow MS in all three iterations of the plan (attendance islands, split-feeders, and capacity), which created a super-lopsided split feeder, since all those kids were going back to Falls Church for HS.

That plan is in none of the 3 new scenarios released yesterday via the interactive tool. Not only did they move everyone south of 29 back to Jackson, they also took most Timber Lane neighborhoods north of 29 and moved them to both Jackson and Falls Church HS.


I don’t live in that area north of 29, but I would be furious if I did.

That’s a classic bait and switch. Totally not cool.


It was even more of a bait and switch in 2021 when Elaine Tholen waited until the day of the final School Board vote on a Langley/McLean boundary change to override an FCPS staff recommendation and push through an entirely different boundary change.

It would be better if they'd built an addition to McLean, so all the kids who were zoned there both in 2021 and now could stay at the school, but there were no shortage of people objecting to that. Meanwhile, they are going to spend over $85 million on Dunn Loring.


An addition to McLean would be equivalent to 4 or 5 Dunn Lorings.


An addition to McLean would be equivalent to about 1/2 of a Dunn Loring. Check the budgets for the Justice and Madison additions. Even with the cost of labor and materials increasing, it would be about 1/2 of Dunn Loring (and the Dunn Loring cost may increase before it's finished).

A full renovation of McLean with an expansion would be equivalent to several Dunn Lorings.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Sangster orange hunt section being moved to Lake Braddock for MS and HS... isn't Lake Braddock massive already? Wouldn't it make more sense to move this section entirely to a different elementary school and feed into Irving/WSHS? Still eliminates the split feeder issue.


Yes, if that’s what they were trying to fix. To this neighborhood, the split feeder is not really a problem, although the county labels it as such. They would be the only neighborhoods off of Huntsman blvd going to LBSS. This side of the parkway/Huntsman is a strong WSHS community, despite some students starting their schooling with LBSS students at sangster. The split happens after 6th and many of the AAP students at the center are zoned Irving/WSHS already.



The neighborhoods closet to Sangster (Walkers) that are all zoned for WSHS are actually much closer to WSHS than LBSS. There are several neighborhoods near the attendance island down the parkway that are closer to South County/Newington. Sending all of those kids to LBSS is silly.


I live in that neighborhood and would prefer my kids went to Irving/WSHS, frankly. However, being in a split feeder elementary school where your kids are in the maybe 15% (no idea?) that go to a different middle school also is not great.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also the Emerald Chase neighborhood seemed to be out in force. They are getting moved elementary schools and high schools, so I can imagine they are pretty fired up.

They seem desperate to avoid South Lakes (an IB school, so I get it). The call was roughly 100 people and many of their duplicate posts about it had over 60 votes before I dropped off. Either they shared the link outside the meeting or someone there is tech savvy and made a little script to vote them up. Wouldn't be hard at all. If my neighborhood was affected negatively I'd have done the same.


They just made a good case. I was at the Oakton meeting and met an Emerald Chase parent. They talked to everyone, they made a strong case in the context of Policy 8130, and their story made it clear this could happen to any neighborhood on a line. My address is unaffected by all 3 scenarios. I upvoted every single Emerald Chase comment. It's just wrong what is happening to communities here.


Strongly disagree.

They are currently: Oak Hill - Carson - Westfield

This is what they want:

We are promoting one, unified solution for Emerald Chase: Oak Hill Elementary – Franklin Middle School – Chantilly High School. Any other solution will weaken the message based on FCPS' stated goals for this comprehensive boundary review.

https://www.emeraldchase.org/p/BOUNDARY-REVIEW-2025-26-3

It’s not like they don’t want the boundary change. They just want a “good” boundary change.

I understand why you want Chantilly over South Lakes, but moving people into Chantilly is the opposite of what they are trying to do since it is one of the few schools that meets the strict overcrowding criteria. I don't see Thru or the board going your way on that one.
Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
Go to: