FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

Thank you for staying engaged. It is frustrating to watch history repeat itself.

[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.

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

[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.

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.

Not sure that Kilmer MS has the capacity to pick up the whole island, either.

They split the existing island between Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall and Timber Lane/Jackson/Falls Church under the latest proposals because their plans relating to Graham Road would overcrowd Timber Lane unless part of Timber Lane moves to Shrevewood. And since Shrevewood is a Marshall feeder, they moved the area west of Hollywood Road to Kilmer and Marshall as well. But I don't know what the impact would be on Kilmer if all the island moved there. It's more overcrowded than Jackson now (118% vs. 95%).

They talk about trying to respect major highways as dividing lines, but their proposal to fix the attendance island at Pine Spring now has the kids in that island crossing Route 50 to attend Westlawn instead.

[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.

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You are conflating school enrollments with classroom sizes. You can have schools with low enrollments and many students in a classroom because they just cut the number of teachers. Conversely, FCPS has some Title I schools that have large enrollments and small individual class sizes.

[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.

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

I like my ilk. We're the folks who care about families and neighborhood stability, and not about making Gatehouse bureaucrats and School Board members look better.

[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.

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

DP. Boundaries have changed numerous times over the last four decades. You’re just parroting a Sniveling Sandy talking point. Pathetic.

[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:

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.

Not sure that Kilmer MS has the capacity to pick up the whole island, either.

They split the existing island between Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall and Timber Lane/Jackson/Falls Church under the latest proposals because their plans relating to Graham Road would overcrowd Timber Lane unless part of Timber Lane moves to Shrevewood. And since Shrevewood is a Marshall feeder, they moved the area west of Hollywood Road to Kilmer and Marshall as well. But I don't know what the impact would be on Kilmer if all the island moved there. It's more overcrowded than Jackson now (118% vs. 95%).

They talk about trying to respect major highways as dividing lines, but their proposal to fix the attendance island at Pine Spring now has the kids in that island crossing Route 50 to attend Westlawn instead.

According to the scenario explorer Kilmer is currently at 118% and in all scenarios that would go down to 89%

[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.

Yes I understand. But the fact is Mclean needs relief. Another fact is FCPS has never made an SPA adjustments in the Spring Hill Island. That was brought up by Spring Hill plus ex Spring Hill assigned to Colvin Run over 20 years ago. Completely static SPA even with sites rezoned commercial to residential. SPA 2903= 416 K thru 6 on Kent Gardens study.

SPAs can be reassigned and split or modified. Look at the number of SPAs on Westgate and Lemon Road. Very clear there can be shifts making Westgate rational for 100% Mclean and Lemon Road rational for 100% Marshall. Timber Lane would be duking it out on changes with Shrevewood for who goes 100% where- Marshall or Falls Church.

[Anonymous]

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

[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:

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.

Not sure that Kilmer MS has the capacity to pick up the whole island, either.

They split the existing island between Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall and Timber Lane/Jackson/Falls Church under the latest proposals because their plans relating to Graham Road would overcrowd Timber Lane unless part of Timber Lane moves to Shrevewood. And since Shrevewood is a Marshall feeder, they moved the area west of Hollywood Road to Kilmer and Marshall as well. But I don't know what the impact would be on Kilmer if all the island moved there. It's more overcrowded than Jackson now (118% vs. 95%).

They talk about trying to respect major highways as dividing lines, but their proposal to fix the attendance island at Pine Spring now has the kids in that island crossing Route 50 to attend Westlawn instead.

According to the scenario explorer Kilmer is currently at 118% and in all scenarios that would go down to 89%

Right, but some of the moves in those scenarios (all three scenarios are identical for Kilmer) are likely to get reversed, and then you’d be adding another big chunk of Timber Lane to Kilmer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

Cont. Coates was crowded in September and FCPS had to be aware that there is tons of new construction within its current boundary.
What is FCPS doing to address this now?

[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.

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.

Yes I understand. But the fact is Mclean needs relief. Another fact is FCPS has never made an SPA adjustments in the Spring Hill Island. That was brought up by Spring Hill plus ex Spring Hill assigned to Colvin Run over 20 years ago. Completely static SPA even with sites rezoned commercial to residential. SPA 2903= 416 K thru 6 on Kent Gardens study.

SPAs can be reassigned and split or modified. Look at the number of SPAs on Westgate and Lemon Road. Very clear there can be shifts making Westgate rational for 100% Mclean and Lemon Road rational for 100% Marshall. Timber Lane would be duking it out on changes with Shrevewood for who goes 100% where- Marshall or Falls Church.

I don’t think McLean really needs relief now. It has the modular and the enrollment is down this year. Next year is the first year the 2021 boundary change with Langley will be fully phased in and the enrollment is projected to decline further over the next five years.

FCPS is all over McLean because it has two attendance islands and four split feeders, so it’s the perfect sandbox for Thru to play in. But it’s not acutely overcrowded like Coates, nor is it like it was back in 2019 when it had 21 trailers. If they left the boundaries alone and just gave us some idea when it’s eventually going to get renovated most people would be perfectly content.

[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:

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.

Yes I understand. But the fact is Mclean needs relief. Another fact is FCPS has never made an SPA adjustments in the Spring Hill Island. That was brought up by Spring Hill plus ex Spring Hill assigned to Colvin Run over 20 years ago. Completely static SPA even with sites rezoned commercial to residential. SPA 2903= 416 K thru 6 on Kent Gardens study.

SPAs can be reassigned and split or modified. Look at the number of SPAs on Westgate and Lemon Road. Very clear there can be shifts making Westgate rational for 100% Mclean and Lemon Road rational for 100% Marshall. Timber Lane would be duking it out on changes with Shrevewood for who goes 100% where- Marshall or Falls Church.

I don’t think McLean really needs relief now. It has the modular and the enrollment is down this year. Next year is the first year the 2021 boundary change with Langley will be fully phased in and the enrollment is projected to decline further over the next five years.

FCPS is all over McLean because it has two attendance islands and four split feeders, so it’s the perfect sandbox for Thru to play in. But it’s not acutely overcrowded like Coates, nor is it like it was back in 2019 when it had 21 trailers. If they left the boundaries alone and just gave us some idea when it’s eventually going to get renovated most people would be perfectly content.

FCPS has been well aware of the situation at Mclean. If the Falls Church HS capaity existed when the Colvin Run to Langley process was enacted it is probable there also would have been movement to Falls Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not all constituents are against it. Just because YOU are and people of your ilk are doesn't means everyone is that selfish. The boundaries haven't changed in decades but the area has changed and grown significantly. Boundaries need to be changed unless you want some schools to have up to 40 students in a classroom within the next decade.

You do not realize how staffing works. Coates is in crisis now, but I am confident they do not have 40 students in a class.
When there is no solution outside of changing boundaries--as at Coates now, something needs to be done now. Not in two years.

Now, tell me what other schools are in crisis. I'll wait.

We had a teacher from Coates in our breakout session at the last boundary meeting and it was truly heart breaking to hear about the conditions. Obviously you see the % overcapacity and can tell its not great, but that doesn't give you the whole story. She mentioned that they have 9 1st grade classes and at least 6 classes in each grade. There are 20 trailers and they had to build a modular bathroom outside for all of those trailers to use and its not nearly big enough. They are converting closets into offices to max the use of space. The County should be absolutely prioritizing addressing Coates right now before they do anything else.

[Anonymous]

With all this DOGE stuff, I think they should wait a few years until the dust settles and see how many people have moved out of the area.