Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Lewis goes on the five-year review list - but in the meantime its enrollment will continue to plummet? They probably say they will look at transfers, but in the end they won't do anything about that.

Get rid of IB would be a start.

[Anonymous]

Dr. Reid can take a vacation now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Lewis goes on the five-year review list - but in the meantime its enrollment will continue to plummet? They probably say they will look at transfers, but in the end they won't do anything about that.

Get rid of IB would be a start.

If it was only so easy to convince FCPS of this. They won't budge! To the point that it looks like they leave IB in place to allow transfers out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Lewis goes on the five-year review list - but in the meantime its enrollment will continue to plummet? They probably say they will look at transfers, but in the end they won't do anything about that.

If you watch the entire meeting, somewhere in the earlier comments one of them, I think adr. Reid, said they are looking at miving some specialized technical programs into the undpecified severely under enrolled schools.

[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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

What are boundary streets for Tysons Green? It seems like with the name Tysons in it Marshall would clearly be the school assigned.

http://www.greatertysonsgreen.org/location.html

You're right that the area should stay at Marshall, but the homes have Vienna addresses and one result of this boundary review is that many with a Vienna address left at Kilmer and Marshall will now fight to get moved since they've largely redefined Kilmer and Marshall as Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood schools (with one attendance island left in Vienna out towards Reston).

It's a crappy result for Kilmer and Marshall, and Melanie Meren and Karl Frisch are primarily responsible. Neither of them even acknowledged that they turned a Westbriar attendance island into a Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island.

[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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

What are boundary streets for Tysons Green? It seems like with the name Tysons in it Marshall would clearly be the school assigned.

http://www.greatertysonsgreen.org/location.html

You're right that the area should stay at Marshall, but the homes have Vienna addresses and one result of this boundary review is that many with a Vienna address left at Kilmer and Marshall will now fight to get moved since they've largely redefined Kilmer and Marshall as Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood schools (with one attendance island left in Vienna out towards Reston).

It's a crappy result for Kilmer and Marshall, and Melanie Meren and Karl Frisch are primarily responsible. Neither of them even acknowledged that they turned a Westbriar attendance island into a Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island.

Stenwood, Freedom Hill, and Westbriar are Vienna. Lemon Road, Westgate, and Shrevewood are Falls Church. It’s still about 50/50.

[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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

What are boundary streets for Tysons Green? It seems like with the name Tysons in it Marshall would clearly be the school assigned.

http://www.greatertysonsgreen.org/location.html

You're right that the area should stay at Marshall, but the homes have Vienna addresses and one result of this boundary review is that many with a Vienna address left at Kilmer and Marshall will now fight to get moved since they've largely redefined Kilmer and Marshall as Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood schools (with one attendance island left in Vienna out towards Reston).

It's a crappy result for Kilmer and Marshall, and Melanie Meren and Karl Frisch are primarily responsible. Neither of them even acknowledged that they turned a Westbriar attendance island into a Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island.

That's insane! That's the area right around Westbriar. How can they have priority placement at Madison and be up for consideration for a move to Madison????

[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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

What are boundary streets for Tysons Green? It seems like with the name Tysons in it Marshall would clearly be the school assigned.

http://www.greatertysonsgreen.org/location.html

You're right that the area should stay at Marshall, but the homes have Vienna addresses and one result of this boundary review is that many with a Vienna address left at Kilmer and Marshall will now fight to get moved since they've largely redefined Kilmer and Marshall as Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood schools (with one attendance island left in Vienna out towards Reston).

It's a crappy result for Kilmer and Marshall, and Melanie Meren and Karl Frisch are primarily responsible. Neither of them even acknowledged that they turned a Westbriar attendance island into a Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island.

Stenwood, Freedom Hill, and Westbriar are Vienna. Lemon Road, Westgate, and Shrevewood are Falls Church. It’s still about 50/50.

There were already Dunn Loring families at Stenwood/Thoreau/Marshall pushing to get moved.

Freedom Hill may have Vienna addresses but it's largely Tysons/Vienna.

We'll see more Westbriar families (Tysons Green & the island) pushing to move to another school as well.

Marshall will become more Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood-centric.

[Anonymous]

Are we not going to address the fact Washington Mill has been given an Attendance Island.

[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:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

What are boundary streets for Tysons Green? It seems like with the name Tysons in it Marshall would clearly be the school assigned.

http://www.greatertysonsgreen.org/location.html

You're right that the area should stay at Marshall, but the homes have Vienna addresses and one result of this boundary review is that many with a Vienna address left at Kilmer and Marshall will now fight to get moved since they've largely redefined Kilmer and Marshall as Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood schools (with one attendance island left in Vienna out towards Reston).

It's a crappy result for Kilmer and Marshall, and Melanie Meren and Karl Frisch are primarily responsible. Neither of them even acknowledged that they turned a Westbriar attendance island into a Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island.

That's insane! That's the area right around Westbriar. How can they have priority placement at Madison and be up for consideration for a move to Madison????

It's not just the people in that area still zoned for Marshall who want to move to Madison. It's also the people nearby zoned for Kilmer and Madison who want to move to Thoreau. They couldn't move them to Thoreau because of space considerations at Thoreau but Kilmer is now going to be a much more lopsided Marshall/Madison split feeder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are we not going to address the fact Washington Mill has been given an Attendance Island.

The explanation was that it removed the only off-base students at Fort Belvoir Primary ES and Fort Belvoir Upper ES from those schools.

Who wanted the change? It doesn't affect many students so it seems like something that wasn't worth the effort unless someone concluded it really made sense.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

What are boundary streets for Tysons Green? It seems like with the name Tysons in it Marshall would clearly be the school assigned.

http://www.greatertysonsgreen.org/location.html

You're right that the area should stay at Marshall, but the homes have Vienna addresses and one result of this boundary review is that many with a Vienna address left at Kilmer and Marshall will now fight to get moved since they've largely redefined Kilmer and Marshall as Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood schools (with one attendance island left in Vienna out towards Reston).

It's a crappy result for Kilmer and Marshall, and Melanie Meren and Karl Frisch are primarily responsible. Neither of them even acknowledged that they turned a Westbriar attendance island into a Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island.

Stenwood, Freedom Hill, and Westbriar are Vienna. Lemon Road, Westgate, and Shrevewood are Falls Church. It’s still about 50/50.

There were already Dunn Loring families at Stenwood/Thoreau/Marshall pushing to get moved.

Freedom Hill may have Vienna addresses but it's largely Tysons/Vienna.

We'll see more Westbriar families (Tysons Green & the island) pushing to move to another school as well.

Marshall will become more Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood-centric.

Stenwood/Thoreau wanted to close an insanely imbalanced split feeder. There are only a handful of kids who go Thoreau/Marshall. If Tysons Green wants to stay together, they should have taken the offer to feed entirely to Marshall.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods.

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison. And Madison still has space to spare.

What are boundary streets for Tysons Green? It seems like with the name Tysons in it Marshall would clearly be the school assigned.

http://www.greatertysonsgreen.org/location.html

You're right that the area should stay at Marshall, but the homes have Vienna addresses and one result of this boundary review is that many with a Vienna address left at Kilmer and Marshall will now fight to get moved since they've largely redefined Kilmer and Marshall as Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood schools (with one attendance island left in Vienna out towards Reston).

It's a crappy result for Kilmer and Marshall, and Melanie Meren and Karl Frisch are primarily responsible. Neither of them even acknowledged that they turned a Westbriar attendance island into a Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island.

That's insane! That's the area right around Westbriar. How can they have priority placement at Madison and be up for consideration for a move to Madison????

It's not just the people in that area still zoned for Marshall who want to move to Madison. It's also the people nearby zoned for Kilmer and Madison who want to move to Thoreau. They couldn't move them to Thoreau because of space considerations at Thoreau but Kilmer is now going to be a much more lopsided Marshall/Madison split feeder.

Moving those zoned Kilmer/Madison such as that neighborhood and the previous Woltrap/Kilmer Madison were obvious moves to Thoreau/Madison - not the Wolftrap/Kilmer/Marshall section. Melanie just ones to be popular with certain types of people and not do what is best for students and FCPS overall.

[Anonymous]

Big changes for Tysons:

Pre-1/22: Marshall 55%, McLean 45%

Post-1/22: Marshall 55%, Langley 30%, McLean 15%

Given Langley's reputation I wonder if this will mean an influx of strivers into more affordable Tysons condos and rental apartments. Tracking the enrollment trends at Spring Hill ES may be one indicator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we not going to address the fact Washington Mill has been given an Attendance Island.

The explanation was that it removed the only off-base students at Fort Belvoir Primary ES and Fort Belvoir Upper ES from those schools.

Who wanted the change? It doesn't affect many students so it seems like something that wasn't worth the effort unless someone concluded it really made sense.

They’re always trying to reduce the amount of civilians/non-milltary on base. It doesn’t change their MS/HS assignments and would make it easier for parents to volunteer and go to the school for events without having to go through the gate and security check.