FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

They need to look at the neighborhoods and just start from scratch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I was looking at the Mason Diestrict recommendations as well and saw all these proposed ES adjustments. Thru is proposing some big changes at some of those schools. For example, I was looking at Sleepy Hollow ES and thought at first that they were going to make it the most affluent feeder to Justice HS by reassigning a bunch of garden apartments near Seven Corners to Bailey's ES and Glen Forest ES and moving more of Lake Barcroft to Sleepy Hollow. But the small area north of Courtland Park that would move from Bailey's to Sleepy Hollow is part of Culmore, and would account for roughly 70% of Sleepy Hollow's adjusted enrollment under all three of Thru's proposals. When you have access to the SPA data, you can see how some large areas of single-family houses have relatively few students, whereas some garden apartment complexes can have hundreds of kids, and how some "tweaks" can result in major changes to a school's enrollment and demographics.

That little square moving to sleepy hollow is one of the silliest things I've seen. The apartments to the right, left, behind, and in front of all will go to Bailey's (the school across the street), but that one block of apartments will go 2 miles away?

I don't love anything about the proposals in the area. Bailey's Upper is such an anomaly that trying to pigeonhole it into the "fixes" is creating some weird(er) choices.

Are they trying to see if they can close Bailey’s Upper? I’m trying to make sense of the changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I was looking at the Mason Diestrict recommendations as well and saw all these proposed ES adjustments. Thru is proposing some big changes at some of those schools. For example, I was looking at Sleepy Hollow ES and thought at first that they were going to make it the most affluent feeder to Justice HS by reassigning a bunch of garden apartments near Seven Corners to Bailey's ES and Glen Forest ES and moving more of Lake Barcroft to Sleepy Hollow. But the small area north of Courtland Park that would move from Bailey's to Sleepy Hollow is part of Culmore, and would account for roughly 70% of Sleepy Hollow's adjusted enrollment under all three of Thru's proposals. When you have access to the SPA data, you can see how some large areas of single-family houses have relatively few students, whereas some garden apartment complexes can have hundreds of kids, and how some "tweaks" can result in major changes to a school's enrollment and demographics.

That little square moving to sleepy hollow is one of the silliest things I've seen. The apartments to the right, left, behind, and in front of all will go to Bailey's (the school across the street), but that one block of apartments will go 2 miles away?

I don't love anything about the proposals in the area. Bailey's Upper is such an anomaly that trying to pigeonhole it into the "fixes" is creating some weird(er) choices.

Are they trying to see if they can close Bailey’s Upper? I’m trying to make sense of the changes.

No, they are trying to make sure Bailey’s Upper lies within its attendance area and still has the same attendance area as Bailey’s. The “solution” does shrink the enrollment at Bailey’s Upper, though.

No one appears to have asked whether, if they are revising boundaries, they should just be separate K-5 schools now. They create upper schools when a school is overcrowded and they don't want to change boundaries.

Bailey’s is in Culmore and should serve as much of it as possible for as many grades as possible.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone tried emailing [e-mail]? My message was bounced back stating the address didn’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm shocked by the amount of time and energy y'all have to know this much about school boundaries and their history.

These little details make a big difference. For example, the last time we had boundary changes for our local high school, a group of parents banded together to ensure a nicer townhome community got moved to School A from School B while almost all apartments went to School B. As you can imagine, school B is low income and undesirable. The residents of that same neighborhood have spent much of this thread hand wringing about the possibility of being redistricted back to School B as they were before. Nevermind the fact that the previous changes disproportionately burdened School B. Its kind of fascinating to watch again.

They’re not going to rework the boundaries between Freedom Hill/Lemon Road/Shrevewood until Dunn Loring ES opens, since it’s going to pull from much of that area. Hopefully when that happens, Freedom Hill won’t cross I-495 through Tysons anymore.

PP was referring to a high school boundary change, not an ES boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm shocked by the amount of time and energy y'all have to know this much about school boundaries and their history.

These little details make a big difference. For example, the last time we had boundary changes for our local high school, a group of parents banded together to ensure a nicer townhome community got moved to School A from School B while almost all apartments went to School B. As you can imagine, school B is low income and undesirable. The residents of that same neighborhood have spent much of this thread hand wringing about the possibility of being redistricted back to School B as they were before. Nevermind the fact that the previous changes disproportionately burdened School B. Its kind of fascinating to watch again.

They’re not going to rework the boundaries between Freedom Hill/Lemon Road/Shrevewood until Dunn Loring ES opens, since it’s going to pull from much of that area. Hopefully when that happens, Freedom Hill won’t cross I-495 through Tysons anymore.

PP was referring to a high school boundary change, not an ES boundary change.

Correct. The tactic is common and used all over. This response can be applied to multiple school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how this planned development at Beyer’s could affect enrollment at FCHS, Marshall, McLean, and/or Meridian, and thus the boundaries. The large multifamily development will cross the FCC and Fairfax County lines, so one would presume if you live anywhere in the development, you would have a choice of school systems.

https://www.arlnow.com/2025/05/20/redevelopment-proposal-in-falls-churchs-west-end-passes-first-hurdle/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They need to look at the neighborhoods and just start from scratch

They really don't. Most of the boundaries make sense. And redoing everything from scratch will just cause a lot of issues for many, many more families. They need to fix the schools that are truly overcrowded. And make other adjustments when necessary. This idea that they haven't changed a boundary in 40 years is false. They've changed plenty of boundaries for the years for various reasons.

[Anonymous]

No county-wide study that leaves Langley untouched and does nothing for Lewis is truly “comprehensive.” Michelle Reid is an idiot who completely oversold what this study was about. They should cancel it and only deal with the few elementary schools that are truly overcrowded. Anything else is unnecessarily messing with boundaries and families to justify the money getting paid to the consultant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No county-wide study that leaves Langley untouched and does nothing for Lewis is truly “comprehensive.” Michelle Reid is an idiot who completely oversold what this study was about. They should cancel it and only deal with the few elementary schools that are truly overcrowded. Anything else is unnecessarily messing with boundaries and families to justify the money getting paid to the consultant.

Social justice warrior is back from her hiatus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No county-wide study that leaves Langley untouched and does nothing for Lewis is truly “comprehensive.” Michelle Reid is an idiot who completely oversold what this study was about. They should cancel it and only deal with the few elementary schools that are truly overcrowded. Anything else is unnecessarily messing with boundaries and families to justify the money getting paid to the consultant.

So you believe that the islands shouldn't be dealt with to reduce students' commutes and allow them to live in closer proximity to their peers? That those schools which feed into multiple other schools should continue as such, rather than allowing kids continuity with their peers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No county-wide study that leaves Langley untouched and does nothing for Lewis is truly “comprehensive.” Michelle Reid is an idiot who completely oversold what this study was about. They should cancel it and only deal with the few elementary schools that are truly overcrowded. Anything else is unnecessarily messing with boundaries and families to justify the money getting paid to the consultant.

Social justice warrior is back from her hiatus.

Privilege hoarder is fine with unnecessary changes as long as Langley gets a pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No county-wide study that leaves Langley untouched and does nothing for Lewis is truly “comprehensive.” Michelle Reid is an idiot who completely oversold what this study was about. They should cancel it and only deal with the few elementary schools that are truly overcrowded. Anything else is unnecessarily messing with boundaries and families to justify the money getting paid to the consultant.

So you believe that the islands shouldn't be dealt with to reduce students' commutes and allow them to live in closer proximity to their peers? That those schools which feed into multiple other schools should continue as such, rather than allowing kids continuity with their peers?

Dealing with islands can create longer not shorter commutes or unnecessary boundary changes to bridge them.

They aren’t even trying to deal with the complicated split feeders like Carson and Thoreau.

Not drinking your Kool Aid just so smiley face Reid can claim she adds value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No county-wide study that leaves Langley untouched and does nothing for Lewis is truly “comprehensive.” Michelle Reid is an idiot who completely oversold what this study was about. They should cancel it and only deal with the few elementary schools that are truly overcrowded. Anything else is unnecessarily messing with boundaries and families to justify the money getting paid to the consultant.

Social justice warrior is back from her hiatus.

Privilege hoarder is fine with unnecessary changes as long as Langley gets a pass.

Nope, I don’t think any of these changes are necessary. I’m sorry that doesn’t fit your narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No county-wide study that leaves Langley untouched and does nothing for Lewis is truly “comprehensive.” Michelle Reid is an idiot who completely oversold what this study was about. They should cancel it and only deal with the few elementary schools that are truly overcrowded. Anything else is unnecessarily messing with boundaries and families to justify the money getting paid to the consultant.

Lewis has over 1600 students according to the school membership on the dashboard.

Around 250 +/-Lewis kids transfer to other schools each year.

FCPS could bring Lewis up to at least 1800 students very easily and cheaply, by getting rid of IB,switching to AP, and adding AAP to Key middle school so the AAP kids don't try to switch to other high schools.

It would be a quick, immediate solution that improved Lewis academucs, brought Lewis to almost full capacity, and avoids the disruption of rezoning.