FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If only our School Board would spend some time working to improve instruction to improve student performance rather than shifting wealthier students to cover it up.

[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.

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.

I trust your math. Still seems like a better idea than moving Falls Hill on the other side of Route 7 to McLean.

[Anonymous]

How about we just leave well enough alone and stop wasting tax payer dollars on changes that nobody asked for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about we just leave well enough alone and stop wasting tax payer dollars on changes that nobody asked for.

Do you see any sign of their backing off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about we just leave well enough alone and stop wasting tax payer dollars on changes that nobody asked for.

Not everyone is against change. I hate that our school is a split feeder.

They had also better not spend money to make room in over crowded schools when other nearby schools are below capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about we just leave well enough alone and stop wasting tax payer dollars on changes that nobody asked for.

Not everyone is against change. I hate that our school is a split feeder.

They had also better not spend money to make room in over crowded schools when other nearby schools are below capacity.

I hate that our school has insufficient capacity when they spent money expanding other schools that didn't need additions.

They had better not redistrict kids just to cover up their own egregious mistakes.

[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.

The majority of boundary changes ever made by school systems are not popular. People do not like change.

[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.

The majority of boundary changes ever made by school systems are not popular. People do not like change.

There's a special brand of smugness among those who want a local school board to go against the will of their constituents.

[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.

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

Fact is those Timber Lane communities have had about 5 years to be aware of potential impacts from any available capacity, especially new, at select other high schools. Now their site mentions Marshall as a preference to Falls Church. What do they want? Thru changes between Shrevewood + Timber Lane? Some high schools are near each other so one is local and the other is local+regional. Mclean:Langley and Madison:Oakton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The majority of boundary changes ever made by school systems are not popular. People do not like change.

There's a special brand of smugness among those who want a local school board to go against the will of their constituents.

The school board was elected, they are the representation of the will of their constituents. The majority of their constituents do not have children in the school system. The majority of the ones that do have children will not have their children moved to a different school.

[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.

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

Fact is those Timber Lane communities have had about 5 years to be aware of potential impacts from any available capacity, especially new, at select other high schools. Now their site mentions Marshall as a preference to Falls Church. What do they want? Thru changes between Shrevewood + Timber Lane? Some high schools are near each other so one is local and the other is local+regional. Mclean:Langley and Madison:Oakton.

It may not be crisply articulated but their position is clear: they would prefer to stay at McLean, but if they are going to be rezoned they would rather be rezoned to Marshall than Falls Church. The area is contiguous to Marshall, so there would be no concern about an attendance island if they moved there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The majority of boundary changes ever made by school systems are not popular. People do not like change.

There's a special brand of smugness among those who want a local school board to go against the will of their constituents.

The school board was elected, they are the representation of the will of their constituents. The majority of their constituents do not have children in the school system. The majority of the ones that do have children will not have their children moved to a different school.

You are making the false assumption that only people with kids currently in the system who would be redistricted take issue with the behavior of this board. People want a responsive local government so that an area remains a desirable place to live. Moving kids around like widgets to cover up years of atrocious planning by FCPS does not make this county a more attractive place to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The majority of boundary changes ever made by school systems are not popular. People do not like change.

There's a special brand of smugness among those who want a local school board to go against the will of their constituents.

The school board was elected, they are the representation of the will of their constituents. The majority of their constituents do not have children in the school system. The majority of the ones that do have children will not have their children moved to a different school.

You are making the false assumption that only people with kids currently in the system who would be redistricted take issue with the behavior of this board. People want a responsive local government so that an area remains a desirable place to live. Moving kids around like widgets to cover up years of atrocious planning by FCPS does not make this county a more attractive place to live.

I am one of those who no longer have kids, but care. Why? We went through boundary change studies and I remember the way they pitted neighborhood against neighborhood and, while we were not moved, we saw how awful the process it.

[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.

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

Fact is those Timber Lane communities have had about 5 years to be aware of potential impacts from any available capacity, especially new, at select other high schools. Now their site mentions Marshall as a preference to Falls Church. What do they want? Thru changes between Shrevewood + Timber Lane? Some high schools are near each other so one is local and the other is local+regional. Mclean:Langley and Madison:Oakton.

It may not be crisply articulated but their position is clear: they would prefer to stay at McLean, but if they are going to be rezoned they would rather be rezoned to Marshall than Falls Church. The area is contiguous to Marshall, so there would be no concern about an attendance island if they moved there.

The Marshall argument is strengthened because part of their existing community is being shifted there, and they’re divided by RT-29 from the rest of the Timber Lane zone. The kids currently zoned to McLean would be removed from their current community and then split between Marshall and Falls Church HS. Luther Jackson MS doesn’t have capacity to pick up that whole island.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The majority of boundary changes ever made by school systems are not popular. People do not like change.

There's a special brand of smugness among those who want a local school board to go against the will of their constituents.

The school board was elected, they are the representation of the will of their constituents. The majority of their constituents do not have children in the school system. The majority of the ones that do have children will not have their children moved to a different school.

You are making the false assumption that only people with kids currently in the system who would be redistricted take issue with the behavior of this board. People want a responsive local government so that an area remains a desirable place to live. Moving kids around like widgets to cover up years of atrocious planning by FCPS does not make this county a more attractive place to live.

I am one of those who no longer have kids, but care. Why? We went through boundary change studies and I remember the way they pitted neighborhood against neighborhood and, while we were not moved, we saw how awful the process it.

Bingo!