FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am most worried about my middle and high schooler who have long since done the split - and now have to be moved. Kids splitting at es level is far less disruptive than moving kids in middle/high.

Moving kids at any age would be disruptive. They should confront split feeders at the middle school levels where it would only affect 1 class vs the elementary school where it could affect up to 6. In any case, FCPS should consider grandfathering or at least be upfront/clear and state their grandfathering policy. It could help calm the ire and help us all work towards solutions to tackle the real problems.

The responsibility for this lies primarily with Rachna Sizemore Heizer, who chaired the Governance Committee when Policy 8130 was revised.

Rachna is a lawyer and she took the very lawyerly position of making sure Policy 8130 is crafted in a way that gives the SB total discretion when it comes to grandfathering. Some people think they’ve committed to grandfathering rising HS seniors. They haven’t even done that. They could, but the policy doesn’t require it.

What’s legal, however, isn’t always what’s smart, and failing to agree on grandfathering upfront means that boundary changes will determine whether grandfathering is even feasible. If they’d agreed upfront on grandfathering, it could have served as a constraint on the number of changes adopted, and we’d be focusing on the critical ones - not all the ones that make for a prettier map or cater to those who think split feeders are the devil’s work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are at Timber Lane ES which has been a recent topic of conversation, we are in the section that has always been zoned to go to Jackson/FCHS. I always thought the split feeder stunk because the kids they were friends with would not all continue on together. But anyhow, I never cared that the other kids went to McLean, it’s just the way it has been set up. But what I have found interesting, is some of the families on the McLean side who are unhappy with the split have been arguing on how it tears their community apart. This makes sense for families that have already started middle school and high school, but some of the loudest voices still just have elementary aged students. It’s like, all the sudden the “community” they had with the families across Lee Hwy that have been with their kids for years does not matter. And they make arguments about what sports teams they join (we still live in the same area, we all join the same teams) and their sudden deep concern for the education of their title 1 neighbors. Now, I want nothing more for them to be zoned back out of FCHS because I find the parents to be pretty insufferable and cannot believe the level of entitlement. I would much rather not have to have these people in my life after my kids finish elementary school.

I don’t think many people understand how many of these entitled send their kids to private to avoid the riff raff at Timberlane. They are the same group who are now claiming to care about those same students. Looking at you, St. James, families.

There is only a handful of kids who leave at middle school to go back to public. The vast majority of kids continue on for Catholic High School. I don’t think kids that go to Catholic school in any part of Fairfax are the people who as invested in what is going on with the boundary changes.

Their website seems to be down now, but there was a very clear message on the front page. Something along the lines of: “Protect our children’s education. Protect our property values.” There were claims that redistricting could impact their property values by 20%.

I don’t know where they got 20% but I recall property values declining when Madison neighborhoods got rezoned to South Lakes years ago.

I guess we’re supposed to pretend people shouldn’t care about their property values, but a house is the primary asset for a lot of people. Those of us who own mutual funds in our 401Ks weren’t exactly oblivious when Trump’s tariff policies caused the markets to decline sharply. It’s human nature for families to care about their financial position.

It’s a common trope that it’s not the School Board’s job to protect property values, and I agree with that, but I’m not sure that it’s the School Board’s job to fund additions to schools that don’t need them, while ignoring those that do, and then backfill the former with kids from other schools to justify their allocation of capital resources.

In any case, you can build up a head of steam to support moving these kids out of McLean, and the net result may be that more families go private, Falls Church picks up a higher percentage of the FARMS kids at Timber Lane north of Route 29 than it does of the kids from the higher-income families, and McLean emerges smaller but wealthier. If that’s the juice you think is worth the squeeze, plow ahead.

You're missing a lot of points. But, OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the outlook for western Great Falls? I haven’t kept up with the debate, but I recall there was concern that homes west of Springvale could be rezoned to Herndon HS. At this point, how likely is that?

If they do move all those kids to Herndon, they would go with a bunch of their friends.

And leave a lot of their friends behind. We know you’re incapable of seeing this as a hit to mental health, but we all see it for what it is.

So what you're saying is that feeder schools are bad for our kids' mental health and each pyramid should be static with no split feeders. Your argument is that leaving friends behind is bad for their mental health. I agree. We don't want any kids to have to leave their friends behind. So, any movement in that direction will require boundary adjustment. It will be unfortunate for some kids in the present. But, assuming more split feeders are removed than created or maintained, it will be for the greater good. Clearly you see that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

There is a difference between a split feeder where kids feed to different schools at junctures where kids typically are arriving from multiple schools and receptive to making new friends (7th grade, 9th grade) and uprooting a bunch of kids already at their current schools to dump them into new schools because someone decided there shouldn't be a split feeder any longer.

Anyway, you're making your "point" in the context of a discussion as to whether western GF is going to be rezoned to Herndon. Right now there is zero indication that is happening this cycle, so you're kind of playing with yourself here.

It’s no use, she’s been at this for over two years now. She is the worst type of person - absolutely on the wrong side of the issue, but believing she is God’s gift to the county and thinks she’s the smartest person here.

No one wants boundary changes, and she’s fighting with all her might to maintain her cognitive dissonance on the issue. Who knows what she could’ve done by now if she had applied herself to a worthwhile pursuit instead of going after our kids.

I can guarantee you lots of kids in split feeders desperately want boundary changes so that they can maintain friendships with kids who are going to be shipped off to other schools. Same with kids living in attendance Islands who are unable to find a carpool home from basketball practice or whatever other extra curricular activity because their peers live so far away.

When you say "nobody wants" these changes, you're speaking of yourself and other parents who don't like the changes. You refuse to look at the benefits and how they help the community as a whole because you see them as a threat. The reality is that there are lots of benefits to boundary adjustment.

DP. I find this rather contrived. Kids can easily maintain friendships these days when attending different schools. And attendance islands aren’t necessarily far flung. For example, the kids in the Timber Lane attendance island at McLean live about half the distance from McLean that a lot of kids zoned for Langley (which has no islands) live from Langley.

Your tone seems almost desperate - like you’re on retainer to convince people these boundary changes will produce a lot of benefits when the message that FCPS gets over and over again is that most people neither want them nor see the need for them.

Apparently you're not listening if you don't understand the benefits. They've been repeated over and over again. Feel free to read back through this thread and you'll see. But, this time, actually read rather than putting your head in the sand and reflexively dismissing anything said that doesn't conform to your own selfish views.

Nothing about my tone is desperate. My kids are not in a split feeder school currently and nor will they be with any of the proposals. You repeating that nobody wants these changes till until face turns blue does not make that true. Clearly there are loud people like you who keep screaming against it because it does affect you in a negative way and/or may affect property values. I'm dismissive of your arguments because I'm more concerned with the possibility of benefiting the most kids.

I'm still waiting for you to provide anything even close to a reasonable argument why your kids are more special than any other kids in the district. You're very good at deflecting and being loud, but you have yet to provide even something close to a decent argument.

Hiw does rezoning benefit "most kids" as you repeatedly claim?

Please share concrete examples, besides the Jim Crow accusations someone (perhaps the same poster) filled 5 or 6 pages with.

I am very curious if most of the pro rezoning posts from the past 10-20 pages are from just 1-2 people posting repeatedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are at Timber Lane ES which has been a recent topic of conversation, we are in the section that has always been zoned to go to Jackson/FCHS. I always thought the split feeder stunk because the kids they were friends with would not all continue on together. But anyhow, I never cared that the other kids went to McLean, it’s just the way it has been set up. But what I have found interesting, is some of the families on the McLean side who are unhappy with the split have been arguing on how it tears their community apart. This makes sense for families that have already started middle school and high school, but some of the loudest voices still just have elementary aged students. It’s like, all the sudden the “community” they had with the families across Lee Hwy that have been with their kids for years does not matter. And they make arguments about what sports teams they join (we still live in the same area, we all join the same teams) and their sudden deep concern for the education of their title 1 neighbors. Now, I want nothing more for them to be zoned back out of FCHS because I find the parents to be pretty insufferable and cannot believe the level of entitlement. I would much rather not have to have these people in my life after my kids finish elementary school.

I don’t think many people understand how many of these entitled send their kids to private to avoid the riff raff at Timberlane. They are the same group who are now claiming to care about those same students. Looking at you, St. James, families.

There is only a handful of kids who leave at middle school to go back to public. The vast majority of kids continue on for Catholic High School. I don’t think kids that go to Catholic school in any part of Fairfax are the people who as invested in what is going on with the boundary changes.

Their website seems to be down now, but there was a very clear message on the front page. Something along the lines of: “Protect our children’s education. Protect our property values.” There were claims that redistricting could impact their property values by 20%.

I don’t know where they got 20% but I recall property values declining when Madison neighborhoods got rezoned to South Lakes years ago.

I guess we’re supposed to pretend people shouldn’t care about their property values, but a house is the primary asset for a lot of people. Those of us who own mutual funds in our 401Ks weren’t exactly oblivious when Trump’s tariff policies caused the markets to decline sharply. It’s human nature for families to care about their financial position.

It’s a common trope that it’s not the School Board’s job to protect property values, and I agree with that, but I’m not sure that it’s the School Board’s job to fund additions to schools that don’t need them, while ignoring those that do, and then backfill the former with kids from other schools to justify their allocation of capital resources.

In any case, you can build up a head of steam to support moving these kids out of McLean, and the net result may be that more families go private, Falls Church picks up a higher percentage of the FARMS kids at Timber Lane north of Route 29 than it does of the kids from the higher-income families, and McLean emerges smaller but wealthier. If that’s the juice you think is worth the squeeze, plow ahead.

You're missing a lot of points. But, OK.

Feel free to elaborate on those missing points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am most worried about my middle and high schooler who have long since done the split - and now have to be moved. Kids splitting at es level is far less disruptive than moving kids in middle/high.

Agree 100%

Phase in any rezoning to have it occur only during transitions between elementary > MS, and MS > HS, so it is as natural and painless as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am very curious if most of the pro rezoning posts from the past 10-20 pages are from just 1-2 people posting repeatedly.

The pro-boundary update people watching the thread have very little incentive to post. If someone posts how they'd like to fix their split feeder they are hounded incessantly by claims of "you just want to hurt the mental health of my kids", or "you're just trying to increase your property value at the expense of others" (the Emerald Chase people come to mind most recently) - all the while the people posting against them are happy to do the same to keep the status quo. I notice hardly any Emerald Chase people post here anymore because of it.
You don't have the super majority you think you have. It's just an echo chamber in here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am very curious if most of the pro rezoning posts from the past 10-20 pages are from just 1-2 people posting repeatedly.

The pro-boundary update people watching the thread have very little incentive to post. If someone posts how they'd like to fix their split feeder they are hounded incessantly by claims of "you just want to hurt the mental health of my kids", or "you're just trying to increase your property value at the expense of others" (the Emerald Chase people come to mind most recently) - all the while the people posting against them are happy to do the same to keep the status quo. I notice hardly any Emerald Chase people post here anymore because of it.
You don't have the super majority you think you have. It's just an echo chamber in here.

The fact is the discussion here is more open and informative than any discussion with Reid and the School Board members, who are the epitome of an “echo chamber.” You simply don’t like it when your bland generalizations about the benefits of boundary changes are challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am very curious if most of the pro rezoning posts from the past 10-20 pages are from just 1-2 people posting repeatedly.

The pro-boundary update people watching the thread have very little incentive to post. If someone posts how they'd like to fix their split feeder they are hounded incessantly by claims of "you just want to hurt the mental health of my kids", or "you're just trying to increase your property value at the expense of others" (the Emerald Chase people come to mind most recently) - all the while the people posting against them are happy to do the same to keep the status quo. I notice hardly any Emerald Chase people post here anymore because of it.
You don't have the super majority you think you have. It's just an echo chamber in here.

Agree with this 100%. The status quo people are loud and pushy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am very curious if most of the pro rezoning posts from the past 10-20 pages are from just 1-2 people posting repeatedly.

The pro-boundary update people watching the thread have very little incentive to post. If someone posts how they'd like to fix their split feeder they are hounded incessantly by claims of "you just want to hurt the mental health of my kids", or "you're just trying to increase your property value at the expense of others" (the Emerald Chase people come to mind most recently) - all the while the people posting against them are happy to do the same to keep the status quo. I notice hardly any Emerald Chase people post here anymore because of it.
You don't have the super majority you think you have. It's just an echo chamber in here.

Agree with this 100%. The status quo people are loud and pushy.

You must not have ever met Hampton, Hall, Rigby, etc. Talk about loud and pushy…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am very curious if most of the pro rezoning posts from the past 10-20 pages are from just 1-2 people posting repeatedly.

The pro-boundary update people watching the thread have very little incentive to post. If someone posts how they'd like to fix their split feeder they are hounded incessantly by claims of "you just want to hurt the mental health of my kids", or "you're just trying to increase your property value at the expense of others" (the Emerald Chase people come to mind most recently) - all the while the people posting against them are happy to do the same to keep the status quo. I notice hardly any Emerald Chase people post here anymore because of it.
You don't have the super majority you think you have. It's just an echo chamber in here.

If you are posting the majority of the posts in support of boundary changes here, then it is likely that you have as little support throughout FCPS as you do here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are at Timber Lane ES which has been a recent topic of conversation, we are in the section that has always been zoned to go to Jackson/FCHS. I always thought the split feeder stunk because the kids they were friends with would not all continue on together. But anyhow, I never cared that the other kids went to McLean, it’s just the way it has been set up. But what I have found interesting, is some of the families on the McLean side who are unhappy with the split have been arguing on how it tears their community apart. This makes sense for families that have already started middle school and high school, but some of the loudest voices still just have elementary aged students. It’s like, all the sudden the “community” they had with the families across Lee Hwy that have been with their kids for years does not matter. And they make arguments about what sports teams they join (we still live in the same area, we all join the same teams) and their sudden deep concern for the education of their title 1 neighbors. Now, I want nothing more for them to be zoned back out of FCHS because I find the parents to be pretty insufferable and cannot believe the level of entitlement. I would much rather not have to have these people in my life after my kids finish elementary school.

I noticed this too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am very curious if most of the pro rezoning posts from the past 10-20 pages are from just 1-2 people posting repeatedly.

The pro-boundary update people watching the thread have very little incentive to post. If someone posts how they'd like to fix their split feeder they are hounded incessantly by claims of "you just want to hurt the mental health of my kids", or "you're just trying to increase your property value at the expense of others" (the Emerald Chase people come to mind most recently) - all the while the people posting against them are happy to do the same to keep the status quo. I notice hardly any Emerald Chase people post here anymore because of it.
You don't have the super majority you think you have. It's just an echo chamber in here.

If you are posting the majority of the posts in support of boundary changes here, then it is likely that you have as little support throughout FCPS as you do here.

I would like to add my circumstances. I currently have kids in Stenwood Elementary, which currently splits in to both Thoreau Middle and Kilmer Middle. Thoreau Middle then splits into Madison and Marshall. I don't think there should be any splits, let alone two! It's hard for the kids to keep having to change their social networks and seeing kids come and go. It looks like the proposals don't really help me specifically. I really wish they would. And I also agree that they should get rid of all split feeders. It is really hard on these kids. I really wish they would address the weird feeder system in my community.

The future Dunn Loring school may help with the split at the elementary level, but that really hasn't been discussed yet.

[Anonymous]

It is amazing how stark the difference is between McLean and Falls Church.

37% English Learner at FCHS vs 7% at McLean
64% Free&Reduced at FCHS vs 12% at McLean

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am very curious if most of the pro rezoning posts from the past 10-20 pages are from just 1-2 people posting repeatedly.

The pro-boundary update people watching the thread have very little incentive to post. If someone posts how they'd like to fix their split feeder they are hounded incessantly by claims of "you just want to hurt the mental health of my kids", or "you're just trying to increase your property value at the expense of others" (the Emerald Chase people come to mind most recently) - all the while the people posting against them are happy to do the same to keep the status quo. I notice hardly any Emerald Chase people post here anymore because of it.
You don't have the super majority you think you have. It's just an echo chamber in here.

If you are posting the majority of the posts in support of boundary changes here, then it is likely that you have as little support throughout FCPS as you do here.

I would like to add my circumstances. I currently have kids in Stenwood Elementary, which currently splits in to both Thoreau Middle and Kilmer Middle. Thoreau Middle then splits into Madison and Marshall. I don't think there should be any splits, let alone two! It's hard for the kids to keep having to change their social networks and seeing kids come and go. It looks like the proposals don't really help me specifically. I really wish they would. And I also agree that they should get rid of all split feeders. It is really hard on these kids. I really wish they would address the weird feeder system in my community.

The future Dunn Loring school may help with the split at the elementary level, but that really hasn't been discussed yet.

You don't want splits, but:

1. Others do, and would object if the portion of Stenwood assigned to Thoreau were moved to Kilmer;

2. The Thru proposals do not include any proposal to eliminate the split feeder at Stenwood, because as split feeders go it's a fairly even split (more than 25% of the kids go to Thoreau, and Stenwood is located in that area);

3. Thoreau is not just a split feeder to Madison and Marshall, but also Oakton, so it's a three-way split feeder. That happened because parents in Vienna/Oakton who were zoned to a two-way split feeder (Jackson) lobbied to be sent to a three-way split feeder, so they apparently felt that a three-way split feeder was preferable to a two-way split feeder (and the School Board at the time agreed);

4. The Thru proposals do not include any proposal to eliminate the split feeder at Thoreau, apparently because Thoreau is located in the Marshall-zoned area that accounts for less than 25% of Thoreau's enrollment;

5. Regardless of what happens now, Stenwood is going to be one of the two schools most heavily affected when Dunn Loring opens in a few years and everything zoned for Shrevewood outside the Beltway gets moved to Stenwood and a large chunck of Stenwood to the north moves to Dunn Loring. Since that Shrevewood area feeds to Kilmer, and the area at Stenwood that will stay there is zoned to Thoreau, it's probably going to be a split feeder when Dunn Loring opens, even if they did something about the current Stenwood split feeder; and

6. If you did close the Stenwood split feeder and sent all the kids there to Kilmer, you'd have kids who live right behind Thoreau (which is in the Cunningham Park attendance area but very close to a Stenwood-zoned area) and can easily walk there going to Kilmer instead.

So, yeah, in theory, eliminating split feeders sounds great but there are lots of practical challenges and the School Board's own consultants, for various reasons, aren't proposing to eliminate the ones that affect you. Instead, it's other split feeders they are proposing to eliminate, and there are plenty of people in those split feeders who would prefer to retain the current boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing how stark the difference is between McLean and Falls Church.

37% English Learner at FCHS vs 7% at McLean
64% Free&Reduced at FCHS vs 12% at McLean

I've run some rough numbers and expect that, if Thru's current proposals impacting McLean and Marshall were adopted, Langley would go from about 4% FARMS to about 6% FARMS, McLean would go from about 12% FARMS to 8% FARMS, Marshall would go from about 27% FARMS to about 31% FARMS, and Falls Church would go from about 64% FARMS to about 63% FARMS.

If you're thinking the proposed boundary changes are a tool for FCPS to narrow differences in FARMS rates, guess again. They can make some changes that would keep McLean and Marshall closer to their current FARMS rates, which would likely involve either maintaining some current ES split feeders or keeping McLean above capacity.