FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

Families impacted would rather have their kids sitting on someone's lap at Mclean than move to FCHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

The Capital Improvement Programs have been stating for years that the Falls Church HS expansion will increase its program capacity from 1957 kids to 2500 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

It’s in the CIP. Page 104 (slide 110) has the capacity breakdown for Region 2.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Adopted-Capital-Improvement-Program-FY-2026%E2%80%9330.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

Families impacted would rather have their kids sitting on someone's lap at Mclean than move to FCHS.

Social justice warriors would rather bring everyone down to the worst level of learning than have even the slightest disparity in the school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

Families impacted would rather have their kids sitting on someone's lap at Mclean than move to FCHS.

Social justice warriors would rather bring everyone down to the worst level of learning than have even the slightest disparity in the school system.

What’s the social justice warrior aspect? Moving an attendance island that’s geographically closer to another school, and which nearly half the elementary students already attend. Or throwing around buzz words like Title I, equity, and diversity because you paid a premium on a McLean zoned home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

Families impacted would rather have their kids sitting on someone's lap at Mclean than move to FCHS.

Social justice warriors would rather bring everyone down to the worst level of learning than have even the slightest disparity in the school system.

What’s the social justice warrior aspect? Moving an attendance island that’s geographically closer to another school, and which nearly half the elementary students already attend. Or throwing around buzz words like Title I, equity, and diversity because you paid a premium on a McLean zoned home.

You are not responding to a McLean poster, just so you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

Families impacted would rather have their kids sitting on someone's lap at Mclean than move to FCHS.

Social justice warriors would rather bring everyone down to the worst level of learning than have even the slightest disparity in the school system.

I would argue that the disparities in student population is are more than just "slight" between the schools being discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

I don't think the dashboard take into account the projected membership of current schools either. For example, Chantilly and Centreville are both projected to lose membership--without the boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

I don't think the dashboard take into account the projected membership of current schools either. For example, Chantilly and Centreville are both projected to lose membership--without the boundary change.

You’re right, they’re only using current capacity and current enrollment numbers. They must have been directed to utilize the Falls Church HS expansion, because in their first presentation, I think the school was on their Top 10 for over capacity schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A bit of an aside but at today’s budget work session, one of the school board members said that community support for Dr. Reid is through the roof. They’re so out of touch.

You know that people who post on DCUM are teeny tiny snippet of the entire FCPS population, right? Like 0.05% probably.
Just because the parents here are upset about things doesn't mean the entire community is upset.

My family has nothing to complain about except a principal who refuses to communicate with the community and only wants to be BFF with the PTO (the one that only meets during the daytime and also doesn't communicate with the community) and none of that has anything to do with Dr. Reid.

[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.

Here's the map from the Kent Gardens study in 2023 that showed the SPAs of a number of schools, including Lemon Road and Westgate:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/KentGardens-AreaBoundaryMaps-April2023.pdf

I don't know why they'd continue to cross Route 7 and move Falls Hill when there is no longer any plan to bridge the Timber Lane island.

But if they don't move Falls Hill and want to deal with capacity issues, they can move other SPAs from Westgate to McLean such as SPA 3010 and SPA 3008 (walkable to McLean) and SPA 2910 (includes a bunch of apartments for balance). It turns Westgate into a fairly balanced split feeder.

Note further that there are two SPAs that they could reassign to Franklin Sherman (SPA 3012 and SPA 3017) if they are trying to increase Sherman's enrollment. This would avoid, as Thru has proposed, reassigning to Sherman two SPAs that are very close to Westgage (SPA 3009 and SPA 3011).

The main issue I see with this is that, as with Thru's proposals, it splits the Pimmit Hills neighborhood between Marshall and McLean. But some of Pimmit Hills/Olney Park is walkable to McLean and closer to McLean than to Marshall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

I don't think the dashboard take into account the projected membership of current schools either. For example, Chantilly and Centreville are both projected to lose membership--without the boundary change.

You’re right, they’re only using current capacity and current enrollment numbers. They must have been directed to utilize the Falls Church HS expansion, because in their first presentation, I think the school was on their Top 10 for over capacity schools.

The slide presentation for the current round of community meetings includes the following note:

"Falls Church High School is categorized under moderate capacity deficit but was not reviewed to alleviate overcrowding, since on-going construction will soon bring the school below the 105 % threshold."

https://www.fcps.edu/system/files/forms/2025-05/fcps_boundary_review_spring_2025_community_meetings_presentation_v2.pptx_.pdf (see p. 19)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is the information on capacity with the expansion located? I didn't realize the expansion would increase capacity.

Given that it would only be at 85% with current boundaries makes sense that someone needs to move there.

Families impacted would rather have their kids sitting on someone's lap at Mclean than move to FCHS.

Social justice warriors would rather bring everyone down to the worst level of learning than have even the slightest disparity in the school system.

I would argue that the disparities in student population is are more than just "slight" between the schools being discuss.

Of course you would argue that. You would argue that until everyone has the exact same SOL score. You’d burn the system down in a misguided attempt to make everything equal.

[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.

Here's the map from the Kent Gardens study in 2023 that showed the SPAs of a number of schools, including Lemon Road and Westgate:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/KentGardens-AreaBoundaryMaps-April2023.pdf

I don't know why they'd continue to cross Route 7 and move Falls Hill when there is no longer any plan to bridge the Timber Lane island.

But if they don't move Falls Hill and want to deal with capacity issues, they can move other SPAs from Westgate to McLean such as SPA 3010 and SPA 3008 (walkable to McLean) and SPA 2910 (includes a bunch of apartments for balance). It turns Westgate into a fairly balanced split feeder.

Note further that there are two SPAs that they could reassign to Franklin Sherman (SPA 3012 and SPA 3017) if they are trying to increase Sherman's enrollment. This would avoid, as Thru has proposed, reassigning to Sherman two SPAs that are very close to Westgage (SPA 3009 and SPA 3011).

The main issue I see with this is that, as with Thru's proposals, it splits the Pimmit Hills neighborhood between Marshall and McLean. But some of Pimmit Hills/Olney Park is walkable to McLean and closer to McLean than to Marshall.

The current proposal sends about 35% of Pimmit Hills to Longfellow/McLean. If you add the two SPAs in the walk zone, the neighborhood is split to around 55% McLean/45% Marshall.