FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If nobody in the community wants to be re-zoned then it makes no sense to do it. Shouldn't the decision be driven by the tax payers who this most impacts? Seems logical to me. In this situation the school board is going against the ENTIRE community. Thats literally dictatorship.

Nobody wants to be taxed, so we shouldn’t have taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty funny that homes literally 10 feet from Woodson HS are zoned for Fairfax because they are in Fairfax City

Wondering if those families have ever complained about it

Fairfax City is a separate City.

Are you new to the area?

It’s a separate city does not have its own school. It’s school are under Fairfax county public schools.

City code dictates that all city residents must attend the city’s schools.

But it’s not the city’s school. It’s a Fairfax County public school. If they want it all to themselves then fully take it over and stop living off FCPS.

If you are new to the area, it's not hard to do a little background reading: https://www.cityoffairfaxschools.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1662461&type=d&pREC_ID=1812346#:~:text=In%201962%2C%20a%20School%20Services,four%20city%2Downed%20school%20buildings.
If you think there are issues now, realize where we would be in the 2/3s of kids at FHS had to be absorbed into county schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason the white families live in the area zoned to Timber Lane off of 29 (Greenway or something like that) is because it is currently zoned to McLean. We know a lot of them and it is a very tight knit community. I guarantee they are organizing and protesting.

Funny because some of their arguments like kids having to cross two “dangerous”roads would not matter to them one bit if it was the reverse and they are moving from the “lesser” school to the “better” school. If things were reversed they would be letting their kids cross 66 at rush hour on foot. I sympathize with them, but it’s pretty easy to see straight through their talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS are hypocrites. Preaching DEI but making McLean an island of wealth. I wonder what rich parent at McLean paid them off to remove Timber Lane.

Speaking of islands, that so-called "attendance island" only looks like an island on a map because of a 2013 land exchange with Falls Church city. It's not, in reality, an island.

No, it was always a weird island because there were no residences on the land that was transferred. Only schools. Route 7 is a clear boundary and the Timber Lane area is far from
MHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS are hypocrites. Preaching DEI but making McLean an island of wealth. I wonder what rich parent at McLean paid them off to remove Timber Lane.

Speaking of islands, that so-called "attendance island" only looks like an island on a map because of a 2013 land exchange with Falls Church city. It's not, in reality, an island.

For reference, it used to be connected to McLean by a single point, what is today Lazy Mike’s. The McDonalds across the street is Shrevewood/Marshall. Lazy Mike’s would have been Timber Lane/McLean and then the Beyer lot beside it was City of Falls Church. The actual intersection and bus yard got moved to Shrevewood and the Timber Lane boundary got moved to Gordon Road, which is what officially made it an attendance island. The land exchanged was all commercial real estate though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If nobody in the community wants to be re-zoned then it makes no sense to do it. Shouldn't the decision be driven by the tax payers who this most impacts? Seems logical to me. In this situation the school board is going against the ENTIRE community. Thats literally dictatorship.

Nobody wants to be taxed, so we shouldn’t have taxes.

Dumb analogy. I want to pay taxes for public services. Many others do too, including you im sure.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. We all know we need to pay taxes. The problem arises when the government spends our tax dollars on a way that nobody supports except those in charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason the white families live in the area zoned to Timber Lane off of 29 (Greenway or something like that) is because it is currently zoned to McLean. We know a lot of them and it is a very tight knit community. I guarantee they are organizing and protesting.

Funny because some of their arguments like kids having to cross two “dangerous”roads would not matter to them one bit if it was the reverse and they are moving from the “lesser” school to the “better” school. If things were reversed they would be letting their kids cross 66 at rush hour on foot. I sympathize with them, but it’s pretty easy to see straight through their talking points.

I just looked at the talking points link and one of the “dangerous roads” is Lee Hwy? I mean who would classify this road as dangerous near their neighborhood. I understand not wanting to be rezoned, but in reality it does not make sense on why they are still in McLean’s boundaries (especially since another point is about their community). Marshall or FCHS are the closer high schools. Looking at the map, their neighborhood is a small area that is zoned for FCHS. Their arguments would be more valid if they pointed out if they had to change schools, Marshall keeps them more with their closer neighbors, not making up made up reasons on why they have to stay at McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS are hypocrites. Preaching DEI but making McLean an island of wealth. I wonder what rich parent at McLean paid them off to remove Timber Lane.

Speaking of islands, that so-called "attendance island" only looks like an island on a map because of a 2013 land exchange with Falls Church city. It's not, in reality, an island.

No, it was always a weird island because there were no residences on the land that was transferred. Only schools. Route 7 is a clear boundary and the Timber Lane area is far from
MHS.

How come no one is saying moving half of Falls Hill to McLean isn’t creating another attendance island? It looks like it’s connected to the other side of Route 7 but really that land is all 66, no one lives there.

[Anonymous]

Oh, I do see they have a section about Marshall in their link. That would be a better place for them to focus instead of made up reasons like sports teams (everyone in this area joins similar programs) and dangerous roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS are hypocrites. Preaching DEI but making McLean an island of wealth. I wonder what rich parent at McLean paid them off to remove Timber Lane.

Speaking of islands, that so-called "attendance island" only looks like an island on a map because of a 2013 land exchange with Falls Church city. It's not, in reality, an island.

No, it was always a weird island because there were no residences on the land that was transferred. Only schools. Route 7 is a clear boundary and the Timber Lane area is far from
MHS.

How come no one is saying moving half of Falls Hill to McLean isn’t creating another attendance island? It looks like it’s connected to the other side of Route 7 but really that land is all 66, no one lives there.

It looks a little less like an island and that’s all that matters. For the consultants it’s all about what it looks graphically on the map with the polys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS are hypocrites. Preaching DEI but making McLean an island of wealth. I wonder what rich parent at McLean paid them off to remove Timber Lane.

Speaking of islands, that so-called "attendance island" only looks like an island on a map because of a 2013 land exchange with Falls Church city. It's not, in reality, an island.

No, it was always a weird island because there were no residences on the land that was transferred. Only schools. Route 7 is a clear boundary and the Timber Lane area is far from
MHS.

How come no one is saying moving half of Falls Hill to McLean isn’t creating another attendance island? It looks like it’s connected to the other side of Route 7 but really that land is all 66, no one lives there.

It looks a little less like an island and that’s all that matters. For the consultants it’s all about what it looks graphically on the map with the polys.

I would be shocked if that change survives the final draft. It turns Shrevewood into an unbalanced split feeder, and the neighborhood is cut off from McLean by the I-66 interchange. The only place that makes sense to pull more students is from Westgate and Lemon Road on the McLean side of Rt-7. Parts of Pimmit Hills would be walkers if reassigned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS are hypocrites. Preaching DEI but making McLean an island of wealth. I wonder what rich parent at McLean paid them off to remove Timber Lane.

Speaking of islands, that so-called "attendance island" only looks like an island on a map because of a 2013 land exchange with Falls Church city. It's not, in reality, an island.

No, it was always a weird island because there were no residences on the land that was transferred. Only schools. Route 7 is a clear boundary and the Timber Lane area is far from
MHS.

How come no one is saying moving half of Falls Hill to McLean isn’t creating another attendance island? It looks like it’s connected to the other side of Route 7 but really that land is all 66, no one lives there.

It looks a little less like an island and that’s all that matters. For the consultants it’s all about what it looks graphically on the map with the polys.

I would be shocked if that change survives the final draft. It turns Shrevewood into an unbalanced split feeder, and the neighborhood is cut off from McLean by the I-66 interchange. The only place that makes sense to pull more students is from Westgate and Lemon Road on the McLean side of Rt-7. Parts of Pimmit Hills would be walkers if reassigned.

I agree.

The biggest issues I see is that FCHS will go from 109% utilization to 119% which seems insane even with the renovations.
Then you have Marshall with 97% utilization going down to 85%.
McLean does go down from 109% to 100%.

If there is any argument to be made in terms of socioeconomic status it is that the last thing LJMS and FCHS need are more FARMS kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS are hypocrites. Preaching DEI but making McLean an island of wealth. I wonder what rich parent at McLean paid them off to remove Timber Lane.

Speaking of islands, that so-called "attendance island" only looks like an island on a map because of a 2013 land exchange with Falls Church city. It's not, in reality, an island.

No, it was always a weird island because there were no residences on the land that was transferred. Only schools. Route 7 is a clear boundary and the Timber Lane area is far from
MHS.

How come no one is saying moving half of Falls Hill to McLean isn’t creating another attendance island? It looks like it’s connected to the other side of Route 7 but really that land is all 66, no one lives there.

It looks a little less like an island and that’s all that matters. For the consultants it’s all about what it looks graphically on the map with the polys.

I would be shocked if that change survives the final draft. It turns Shrevewood into an unbalanced split feeder, and the neighborhood is cut off from McLean by the I-66 interchange. The only place that makes sense to pull more students is from Westgate and Lemon Road on the McLean side of Rt-7. Parts of Pimmit Hills would be walkers if reassigned.

I agree.

The biggest issues I see is that FCHS will go from 109% utilization to 119% which seems insane even with the renovations.
Then you have Marshall with 97% utilization going down to 85%.
McLean does go down from 109% to 100%.

If there is any argument to be made in terms of socioeconomic status it is that the last thing LJMS and FCHS need are more FARMS kids.

The interactive dashboard doesn’t account for the Falls Church HS expansion. The CIP has that completed for the 27-28 school year, so the move is premature. It’ll be at 85% with its current boundaries and 93% if they add the proposed portion of Timber Lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS are hypocrites. Preaching DEI but making McLean an island of wealth. I wonder what rich parent at McLean paid them off to remove Timber Lane.

Speaking of islands, that so-called "attendance island" only looks like an island on a map because of a 2013 land exchange with Falls Church city. It's not, in reality, an island.

Nobody at McLean HS asked them to adopt an approach that prioritizes the elimination of attendance islands and the reduction in the number of split feeders. Some of us have asked for an addition (not a full renovation) for the better part of a decade and been lied to or rebuffed by our elected officials.

I'm sorry if people in neighborhoods like Poplar Heights and Falls Hill are upset now, but this really isn't the doing of McLean parents. We're not paying anyone to remove the Tysons and Timber Lane islands, or to add Falls Hill, Lemon Road, and the Spring Gate Apartments to MHS's boundaries to partially offset those changes. Most of us would be happy to do nothing right now, and see if enrollments decline at MHS with the expected drop-off in student cohorts and the economic uncertainties facing the region. It's possible the enrollment at MHS would increase because of new developments in Tysons, West Falls Church, and downtown McLean (almost all multi-family housing), but the enrollment was down this year and might continue to decline on its own.