FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

The pigeonhole (?) board has 240+ votes for Emerald Chase and whatever they want, but most comments are “please don’t do this right now”

At this point, I imagine there is an element of sunk cost thinking that will mean they push this through even when they know it doesn't make sense right now.

I drove by the school ours would be zoned to based on the current scenarios for the first time ever tonight. It was a 15 minute drive. Which isn't too bad, except that their current school that they would no longer be zoned to is maybe 200 steps away walking...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP- to clarify- the McLean families are not unhappy with the split, they are upset with the reasoning to FCHS.

The pro boundary change/SJW folks are tripping all over themselves on this one.

“Hell, no, no addition for McLean! Redistrict those kids (again) and eliminate the attendance islands and split feeders!”

“You mean we’re sending most of the FARMS kids there to Falls Church and slashing the FARMS rate at McLean? Hell, no!”

“You mean if we want to keep those FARMS kids at McLean, we have to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood so we don’t have a terrible, awful, very bad attendance island? Hell, no!”

McLean: “How about you just leave our families alone for now and let us know when you’re finally going to renovate our school?”

Shrevewood isn't even zoned to McLean right now. This has nothing to do with McLean parents. It has to do with creating a split feeder for no reason just because they don't want to keep Timberlane an attendance island. I think the idea of ruining other schools to get rid of attendance islands is so stupid. Literally nobody has ever complained specifically about Timberlane being an attendance island. The parents there don't care, they're just happy they're zoned to McLean (and unhappy now). Shrevewood parents on the other hand seem to be just fine with their current pyramid and don't want their school (which has already been torn apart by the previous principal's idiotic removal of the AAP program) torn apart AGAIN.

Agree with you 100%. But the fact is that FCPS staff and Thru are treating the elimination of attendance islands as ground zero for boundary changes. If you look their scenarios, the elimination of attendance islands is treated as the first order of business in "Scenario 1," and everything in "Scenario 1" is repeated in "Scenario 2" and "Scenario 3."

The Timber Lane folks are arguing theirs is not truly an attendance island, and it's true that it's closer to the main McLean area than some other attendance islands are to the main areas at other schools, but it's still an attendance island. So if you really think an attendance island is bad, and must be bridged for a boundary to be acceptable, that means they're going to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood. Shrevewood doesn't want that, so presumably you prefer that, if FCPS is going to do something, they just reassign the island to Falls Church and Marshall (although some of you have expressed reservations about taking on the area west of Hollywood Road) and avoid the bridge.

And, then, if that preference is honored, and the island is reassigned, there are going to be other people complaining about FCPS reducing the FARMS rate at McLean. That's why I said it becomes a tail-chasing exercise when the reality is that most people in the McLean and Marshally pyramids would just like to be left alone.

Why can't they just rezone all of Shrevewood to McLean so they're not splitting the school in half?

If you want to rezone any part of Shrevewood to McLean you’d have to keep part of Lemon Road (which is closer to McLean) there to avoid creating a new attendance island. So then the question would come up as how much of Lemon Road you want assigned to McLean. At a minimum if you assigned all of Shrevewood to McLean - which I don’t think Shrevewood parents necessarily want although they might prefer it to creating a split feeder there - you’d probably also have to reassign any part of Westgate now at McLean to Marshall.

I don’t have enough information to run the numbers for capacity but in that case you’re probably talking about McLean having five 100% feeders (Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, Kent Gardens, Haycock, and Shrevewood) and keeping Lemon Road as a split feeder. And then the two islands still get moved to Langley and Falls Church as proposed and the Westgate areas at McLean moved to GCM. It would probably look kind of like a barbell.

I do see one advantage with this compared to Thru’s proposals, which is that it could keep all of Pimmit Hills at Marshall. On the other hand, some PH areas walkable to McLean would stay at Marshall, and some neighborhoods closer to Marshall would move to McLean.

I’m trying to answer your question, by the way, and not actually advocating for any changes. I still think most people would prefer no changes in these two pyramids.

The Westgate students currently zoned to McLean are walkers. It makes zero sense to move them so that Shrevewood can take their place. Regardless, once you factor in the AAP kids who transfer out of Shrevewood, and add the 120 students they’re shifting from Timber Lane, removing the 75 Westgate kids at McLean won’t be enough to balance the 440 students yield coming from all of Shrevewood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

The pigeonhole (?) board has 240+ votes for Emerald Chase and whatever they want, but most comments are “please don’t do this right now”

Emerald Chase is flooding the Lewis meeting?

That is even more ridiculous than them flooding the Robinson meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP- to clarify- the McLean families are not unhappy with the split, they are upset with the reasoning to FCHS.

The pro boundary change/SJW folks are tripping all over themselves on this one.

“Hell, no, no addition for McLean! Redistrict those kids (again) and eliminate the attendance islands and split feeders!”

“You mean we’re sending most of the FARMS kids there to Falls Church and slashing the FARMS rate at McLean? Hell, no!”

“You mean if we want to keep those FARMS kids at McLean, we have to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood so we don’t have a terrible, awful, very bad attendance island? Hell, no!”

McLean: “How about you just leave our families alone for now and let us know when you’re finally going to renovate our school?”

Shrevewood isn't even zoned to McLean right now. This has nothing to do with McLean parents. It has to do with creating a split feeder for no reason just because they don't want to keep Timberlane an attendance island. I think the idea of ruining other schools to get rid of attendance islands is so stupid. Literally nobody has ever complained specifically about Timberlane being an attendance island. The parents there don't care, they're just happy they're zoned to McLean (and unhappy now). Shrevewood parents on the other hand seem to be just fine with their current pyramid and don't want their school (which has already been torn apart by the previous principal's idiotic removal of the AAP program) torn apart AGAIN.

Agree with you 100%. But the fact is that FCPS staff and Thru are treating the elimination of attendance islands as ground zero for boundary changes. If you look their scenarios, the elimination of attendance islands is treated as the first order of business in "Scenario 1," and everything in "Scenario 1" is repeated in "Scenario 2" and "Scenario 3."

The Timber Lane folks are arguing theirs is not truly an attendance island, and it's true that it's closer to the main McLean area than some other attendance islands are to the main areas at other schools, but it's still an attendance island. So if you really think an attendance island is bad, and must be bridged for a boundary to be acceptable, that means they're going to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood. Shrevewood doesn't want that, so presumably you prefer that, if FCPS is going to do something, they just reassign the island to Falls Church and Marshall (although some of you have expressed reservations about taking on the area west of Hollywood Road) and avoid the bridge.

And, then, if that preference is honored, and the island is reassigned, there are going to be other people complaining about FCPS reducing the FARMS rate at McLean. That's why I said it becomes a tail-chasing exercise when the reality is that most people in the McLean and Marshally pyramids would just like to be left alone.

Why can't they just rezone all of Shrevewood to McLean so they're not splitting the school in half?

If you want to rezone any part of Shrevewood to McLean you’d have to keep part of Lemon Road (which is closer to McLean) there to avoid creating a new attendance island. So then the question would come up as how much of Lemon Road you want assigned to McLean. At a minimum if you assigned all of Shrevewood to McLean - which I don’t think Shrevewood parents necessarily want although they might prefer it to creating a split feeder there - you’d probably also have to reassign any part of Westgate now at McLean to Marshall.

I don’t have enough information to run the numbers for capacity but in that case you’re probably talking about McLean having five 100% feeders (Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, Kent Gardens, Haycock, and Shrevewood) and keeping Lemon Road as a split feeder. And then the two islands still get moved to Langley and Falls Church as proposed and the Westgate areas at McLean moved to GCM. It would probably look kind of like a barbell.

I do see one advantage with this compared to Thru’s proposals, which is that it could keep all of Pimmit Hills at Marshall. On the other hand, some PH areas walkable to McLean would stay at Marshall, and some neighborhoods closer to Marshall would move to McLean.

I’m trying to answer your question, by the way, and not actually advocating for any changes. I still think most people would prefer no changes in these two pyramids.

The Westgate students currently zoned to McLean are walkers. It makes zero sense to move them so that Shrevewood can take their place. Regardless, once you factor in the AAP kids who transfer out of Shrevewood, and add the 120 students they’re shifting from Timber Lane, removing the 75 Westgate kids at McLean won’t be enough to balance the 440 students yield coming from all of Shrevewood.

Not everyone at McLean zoned for Westgate walks there, and you’re omitting the 200 kids who’d move to Langley and the bulk of the Timber Lane kids who’d move to Falls Church (and not to Shrevewood).

As I said, I don’t have enough information to run all the numbers but neither, apparently, do you.

[Anonymous]

^ Also, I think you’re confusing some McLean kids at Westgate who can walk to Westgate, where they should stay. They generally aren’t walking to McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP- to clarify- the McLean families are not unhappy with the split, they are upset with the reasoning to FCHS.

The pro boundary change/SJW folks are tripping all over themselves on this one.

“Hell, no, no addition for McLean! Redistrict those kids (again) and eliminate the attendance islands and split feeders!”

“You mean we’re sending most of the FARMS kids there to Falls Church and slashing the FARMS rate at McLean? Hell, no!”

“You mean if we want to keep those FARMS kids at McLean, we have to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood so we don’t have a terrible, awful, very bad attendance island? Hell, no!”

McLean: “How about you just leave our families alone for now and let us know when you’re finally going to renovate our school?”

Shrevewood isn't even zoned to McLean right now. This has nothing to do with McLean parents. It has to do with creating a split feeder for no reason just because they don't want to keep Timberlane an attendance island. I think the idea of ruining other schools to get rid of attendance islands is so stupid. Literally nobody has ever complained specifically about Timberlane being an attendance island. The parents there don't care, they're just happy they're zoned to McLean (and unhappy now). Shrevewood parents on the other hand seem to be just fine with their current pyramid and don't want their school (which has already been torn apart by the previous principal's idiotic removal of the AAP program) torn apart AGAIN.

Agree with you 100%. But the fact is that FCPS staff and Thru are treating the elimination of attendance islands as ground zero for boundary changes. If you look their scenarios, the elimination of attendance islands is treated as the first order of business in "Scenario 1," and everything in "Scenario 1" is repeated in "Scenario 2" and "Scenario 3."

The Timber Lane folks are arguing theirs is not truly an attendance island, and it's true that it's closer to the main McLean area than some other attendance islands are to the main areas at other schools, but it's still an attendance island. So if you really think an attendance island is bad, and must be bridged for a boundary to be acceptable, that means they're going to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood. Shrevewood doesn't want that, so presumably you prefer that, if FCPS is going to do something, they just reassign the island to Falls Church and Marshall (although some of you have expressed reservations about taking on the area west of Hollywood Road) and avoid the bridge.

And, then, if that preference is honored, and the island is reassigned, there are going to be other people complaining about FCPS reducing the FARMS rate at McLean. That's why I said it becomes a tail-chasing exercise when the reality is that most people in the McLean and Marshally pyramids would just like to be left alone.

Why can't they just rezone all of Shrevewood to McLean so they're not splitting the school in half?

If you want to rezone any part of Shrevewood to McLean you’d have to keep part of Lemon Road (which is closer to McLean) there to avoid creating a new attendance island. So then the question would come up as how much of Lemon Road you want assigned to McLean. At a minimum if you assigned all of Shrevewood to McLean - which I don’t think Shrevewood parents necessarily want although they might prefer it to creating a split feeder there - you’d probably also have to reassign any part of Westgate now at McLean to Marshall.

I don’t have enough information to run the numbers for capacity but in that case you’re probably talking about McLean having five 100% feeders (Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, Kent Gardens, Haycock, and Shrevewood) and keeping Lemon Road as a split feeder. And then the two islands still get moved to Langley and Falls Church as proposed and the Westgate areas at McLean moved to GCM. It would probably look kind of like a barbell.

I do see one advantage with this compared to Thru’s proposals, which is that it could keep all of Pimmit Hills at Marshall. On the other hand, some PH areas walkable to McLean would stay at Marshall, and some neighborhoods closer to Marshall would move to McLean.

I’m trying to answer your question, by the way, and not actually advocating for any changes. I still think most people would prefer no changes in these two pyramids.

The Westgate students currently zoned to McLean are walkers. It makes zero sense to move them so that Shrevewood can take their place. Regardless, once you factor in the AAP kids who transfer out of Shrevewood, and add the 120 students they’re shifting from Timber Lane, removing the 75 Westgate kids at McLean won’t be enough to balance the 440 students yield coming from all of Shrevewood.

Not everyone at McLean zoned for Westgate walks there, and you’re omitting the 200 kids who’d move to Langley and the bulk of the Timber Lane kids who’d move to Falls Church (and not to Shrevewood).

As I said, I don’t have enough information to run all the numbers but neither, apparently, do you.

Your scenario puts McLean at 108% if you can keep the Hollywood Rd apartments at Timber Lane you can get down to 105%

And yes, there are McLean walkers from at least Union Park and Gardens of McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP- to clarify- the McLean families are not unhappy with the split, they are upset with the reasoning to FCHS.

The pro boundary change/SJW folks are tripping all over themselves on this one.

“Hell, no, no addition for McLean! Redistrict those kids (again) and eliminate the attendance islands and split feeders!”

“You mean we’re sending most of the FARMS kids there to Falls Church and slashing the FARMS rate at McLean? Hell, no!”

“You mean if we want to keep those FARMS kids at McLean, we have to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood so we don’t have a terrible, awful, very bad attendance island? Hell, no!”

McLean: “How about you just leave our families alone for now and let us know when you’re finally going to renovate our school?”

Shrevewood isn't even zoned to McLean right now. This has nothing to do with McLean parents. It has to do with creating a split feeder for no reason just because they don't want to keep Timberlane an attendance island. I think the idea of ruining other schools to get rid of attendance islands is so stupid. Literally nobody has ever complained specifically about Timberlane being an attendance island. The parents there don't care, they're just happy they're zoned to McLean (and unhappy now). Shrevewood parents on the other hand seem to be just fine with their current pyramid and don't want their school (which has already been torn apart by the previous principal's idiotic removal of the AAP program) torn apart AGAIN.

Agree with you 100%. But the fact is that FCPS staff and Thru are treating the elimination of attendance islands as ground zero for boundary changes. If you look their scenarios, the elimination of attendance islands is treated as the first order of business in "Scenario 1," and everything in "Scenario 1" is repeated in "Scenario 2" and "Scenario 3."

The Timber Lane folks are arguing theirs is not truly an attendance island, and it's true that it's closer to the main McLean area than some other attendance islands are to the main areas at other schools, but it's still an attendance island. So if you really think an attendance island is bad, and must be bridged for a boundary to be acceptable, that means they're going to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood. Shrevewood doesn't want that, so presumably you prefer that, if FCPS is going to do something, they just reassign the island to Falls Church and Marshall (although some of you have expressed reservations about taking on the area west of Hollywood Road) and avoid the bridge.

And, then, if that preference is honored, and the island is reassigned, there are going to be other people complaining about FCPS reducing the FARMS rate at McLean. That's why I said it becomes a tail-chasing exercise when the reality is that most people in the McLean and Marshally pyramids would just like to be left alone.

Why can't they just rezone all of Shrevewood to McLean so they're not splitting the school in half?

If you want to rezone any part of Shrevewood to McLean you’d have to keep part of Lemon Road (which is closer to McLean) there to avoid creating a new attendance island. So then the question would come up as how much of Lemon Road you want assigned to McLean. At a minimum if you assigned all of Shrevewood to McLean - which I don’t think Shrevewood parents necessarily want although they might prefer it to creating a split feeder there - you’d probably also have to reassign any part of Westgate now at McLean to Marshall.

I don’t have enough information to run the numbers for capacity but in that case you’re probably talking about McLean having five 100% feeders (Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, Kent Gardens, Haycock, and Shrevewood) and keeping Lemon Road as a split feeder. And then the two islands still get moved to Langley and Falls Church as proposed and the Westgate areas at McLean moved to GCM. It would probably look kind of like a barbell.

I do see one advantage with this compared to Thru’s proposals, which is that it could keep all of Pimmit Hills at Marshall. On the other hand, some PH areas walkable to McLean would stay at Marshall, and some neighborhoods closer to Marshall would move to McLean.

I’m trying to answer your question, by the way, and not actually advocating for any changes. I still think most people would prefer no changes in these two pyramids.

The Westgate students currently zoned to McLean are walkers. It makes zero sense to move them so that Shrevewood can take their place. Regardless, once you factor in the AAP kids who transfer out of Shrevewood, and add the 120 students they’re shifting from Timber Lane, removing the 75 Westgate kids at McLean won’t be enough to balance the 440 students yield coming from all of Shrevewood.

Not everyone at McLean zoned for Westgate walks there, and you’re omitting the 200 kids who’d move to Langley and the bulk of the Timber Lane kids who’d move to Falls Church (and not to Shrevewood).

As I said, I don’t have enough information to run all the numbers but neither, apparently, do you.

Your scenario puts McLean at 108% if you can keep the Hollywood Rd apartments at Timber Lane you can get down to 105%

And yes, there are McLean walkers from at least Union Park and Gardens of McLean.

I doubt you have access to the numbers to know the exact percentage under this scenario.

Right now McLean has 8 feeders - 4 100% feeders and 4 split feeders (one of which is a 60% feeder and another of which is almost 40%). The scenario being discussed takes it down to 5 100% feeders and 1 split feeder (which currently is a 20% feeder). I need you to show your math if you think you know how exactly what percentage McLean would be at under this scenario, because it almost sounds like you’re treating ES enrollments as HS enrollments when of course they are larger (more grades).

Anyway, I was responding to a question from another poster. The back and forth just continues to illustrate how there are challenges with just about any scenario Thru or others come up with, which perhaps suggests the current boundaries aren’t so bad after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP- to clarify- the McLean families are not unhappy with the split, they are upset with the reasoning to FCHS.

The pro boundary change/SJW folks are tripping all over themselves on this one.

“Hell, no, no addition for McLean! Redistrict those kids (again) and eliminate the attendance islands and split feeders!”

“You mean we’re sending most of the FARMS kids there to Falls Church and slashing the FARMS rate at McLean? Hell, no!”

“You mean if we want to keep those FARMS kids at McLean, we have to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood so we don’t have a terrible, awful, very bad attendance island? Hell, no!”

McLean: “How about you just leave our families alone for now and let us know when you’re finally going to renovate our school?”

Shrevewood isn't even zoned to McLean right now. This has nothing to do with McLean parents. It has to do with creating a split feeder for no reason just because they don't want to keep Timberlane an attendance island. I think the idea of ruining other schools to get rid of attendance islands is so stupid. Literally nobody has ever complained specifically about Timberlane being an attendance island. The parents there don't care, they're just happy they're zoned to McLean (and unhappy now). Shrevewood parents on the other hand seem to be just fine with their current pyramid and don't want their school (which has already been torn apart by the previous principal's idiotic removal of the AAP program) torn apart AGAIN.

Agree with you 100%. But the fact is that FCPS staff and Thru are treating the elimination of attendance islands as ground zero for boundary changes. If you look their scenarios, the elimination of attendance islands is treated as the first order of business in "Scenario 1," and everything in "Scenario 1" is repeated in "Scenario 2" and "Scenario 3."

The Timber Lane folks are arguing theirs is not truly an attendance island, and it's true that it's closer to the main McLean area than some other attendance islands are to the main areas at other schools, but it's still an attendance island. So if you really think an attendance island is bad, and must be bridged for a boundary to be acceptable, that means they're going to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood. Shrevewood doesn't want that, so presumably you prefer that, if FCPS is going to do something, they just reassign the island to Falls Church and Marshall (although some of you have expressed reservations about taking on the area west of Hollywood Road) and avoid the bridge.

And, then, if that preference is honored, and the island is reassigned, there are going to be other people complaining about FCPS reducing the FARMS rate at McLean. That's why I said it becomes a tail-chasing exercise when the reality is that most people in the McLean and Marshally pyramids would just like to be left alone.

Why can't they just rezone all of Shrevewood to McLean so they're not splitting the school in half?

If you want to rezone any part of Shrevewood to McLean you’d have to keep part of Lemon Road (which is closer to McLean) there to avoid creating a new attendance island. So then the question would come up as how much of Lemon Road you want assigned to McLean. At a minimum if you assigned all of Shrevewood to McLean - which I don’t think Shrevewood parents necessarily want although they might prefer it to creating a split feeder there - you’d probably also have to reassign any part of Westgate now at McLean to Marshall.

I don’t have enough information to run the numbers for capacity but in that case you’re probably talking about McLean having five 100% feeders (Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, Kent Gardens, Haycock, and Shrevewood) and keeping Lemon Road as a split feeder. And then the two islands still get moved to Langley and Falls Church as proposed and the Westgate areas at McLean moved to GCM. It would probably look kind of like a barbell.

I do see one advantage with this compared to Thru’s proposals, which is that it could keep all of Pimmit Hills at Marshall. On the other hand, some PH areas walkable to McLean would stay at Marshall, and some neighborhoods closer to Marshall would move to McLean.

I’m trying to answer your question, by the way, and not actually advocating for any changes. I still think most people would prefer no changes in these two pyramids.

The Westgate students currently zoned to McLean are walkers. It makes zero sense to move them so that Shrevewood can take their place. Regardless, once you factor in the AAP kids who transfer out of Shrevewood, and add the 120 students they’re shifting from Timber Lane, removing the 75 Westgate kids at McLean won’t be enough to balance the 440 students yield coming from all of Shrevewood.

DP. All of the nonsense about AAP transfers is exactly why AAP centers need to go. If AAP is offered at the base school - which it is in almost every elementary at this point - then there is no need for a center. It's redundant, inequitable, and confuses all the boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

Not at my table. I can’t tell you how crappy I think it is that they would set the Lewis meeting on the Friday night before Memorial Day weekend. What a slap in the face of the Lewis and WSHS communities. They couldn’t care less about this part of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

Not at my table. I can’t tell you how crappy I think it is that they would set the Lewis meeting on the Friday night before Memorial Day weekend. What a slap in the face of the Lewis and WSHS communities. They couldn’t care less about this part of the county.

So unfortunate for that part of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

Not at my table. I can’t tell you how crappy I think it is that they would set the Lewis meeting on the Friday night before Memorial Day weekend. What a slap in the face of the Lewis and WSHS communities. They couldn’t care less about this part of the county.

So unfortunate for that part of the county.

They didn’t schedule any meeting, on a Friday night or otherwise, at any school near Tysons even though they are proposing changes to the boundaries of each of Langley, McLean, Marshall, Madison, and Falls Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

The pigeonhole (?) board has 240+ votes for Emerald Chase and whatever they want, but most comments are “please don’t do this right now”

Emerald Chase is flooding the Lewis meeting?

That is even more ridiculous than them flooding the Robinson meeting

There was one Emerald Chase post that got upvoted tonight surrounded by a bunch about Timberlane, Falls Hill, Hunt Valley, McLean, etc. some of you need to find a new boogeyman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP- to clarify- the McLean families are not unhappy with the split, they are upset with the reasoning to FCHS.

The pro boundary change/SJW folks are tripping all over themselves on this one.

“Hell, no, no addition for McLean! Redistrict those kids (again) and eliminate the attendance islands and split feeders!”

“You mean we’re sending most of the FARMS kids there to Falls Church and slashing the FARMS rate at McLean? Hell, no!”

“You mean if we want to keep those FARMS kids at McLean, we have to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood so we don’t have a terrible, awful, very bad attendance island? Hell, no!”

McLean: “How about you just leave our families alone for now and let us know when you’re finally going to renovate our school?”

Shrevewood isn't even zoned to McLean right now. This has nothing to do with McLean parents. It has to do with creating a split feeder for no reason just because they don't want to keep Timberlane an attendance island. I think the idea of ruining other schools to get rid of attendance islands is so stupid. Literally nobody has ever complained specifically about Timberlane being an attendance island. The parents there don't care, they're just happy they're zoned to McLean (and unhappy now). Shrevewood parents on the other hand seem to be just fine with their current pyramid and don't want their school (which has already been torn apart by the previous principal's idiotic removal of the AAP program) torn apart AGAIN.

Agree with you 100%. But the fact is that FCPS staff and Thru are treating the elimination of attendance islands as ground zero for boundary changes. If you look their scenarios, the elimination of attendance islands is treated as the first order of business in "Scenario 1," and everything in "Scenario 1" is repeated in "Scenario 2" and "Scenario 3."

The Timber Lane folks are arguing theirs is not truly an attendance island, and it's true that it's closer to the main McLean area than some other attendance islands are to the main areas at other schools, but it's still an attendance island. So if you really think an attendance island is bad, and must be bridged for a boundary to be acceptable, that means they're going to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood. Shrevewood doesn't want that, so presumably you prefer that, if FCPS is going to do something, they just reassign the island to Falls Church and Marshall (although some of you have expressed reservations about taking on the area west of Hollywood Road) and avoid the bridge.

And, then, if that preference is honored, and the island is reassigned, there are going to be other people complaining about FCPS reducing the FARMS rate at McLean. That's why I said it becomes a tail-chasing exercise when the reality is that most people in the McLean and Marshally pyramids would just like to be left alone.

Why can't they just rezone all of Shrevewood to McLean so they're not splitting the school in half?

If you want to rezone any part of Shrevewood to McLean you’d have to keep part of Lemon Road (which is closer to McLean) there to avoid creating a new attendance island. So then the question would come up as how much of Lemon Road you want assigned to McLean. At a minimum if you assigned all of Shrevewood to McLean - which I don’t think Shrevewood parents necessarily want although they might prefer it to creating a split feeder there - you’d probably also have to reassign any part of Westgate now at McLean to Marshall.

I don’t have enough information to run the numbers for capacity but in that case you’re probably talking about McLean having five 100% feeders (Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, Kent Gardens, Haycock, and Shrevewood) and keeping Lemon Road as a split feeder. And then the two islands still get moved to Langley and Falls Church as proposed and the Westgate areas at McLean moved to GCM. It would probably look kind of like a barbell.

I do see one advantage with this compared to Thru’s proposals, which is that it could keep all of Pimmit Hills at Marshall. On the other hand, some PH areas walkable to McLean would stay at Marshall, and some neighborhoods closer to Marshall would move to McLean.

I’m trying to answer your question, by the way, and not actually advocating for any changes. I still think most people would prefer no changes in these two pyramids.

The Westgate students currently zoned to McLean are walkers. It makes zero sense to move them so that Shrevewood can take their place. Regardless, once you factor in the AAP kids who transfer out of Shrevewood, and add the 120 students they’re shifting from Timber Lane, removing the 75 Westgate kids at McLean won’t be enough to balance the 440 students yield coming from all of Shrevewood.

DP. All of the nonsense about AAP transfers is exactly why AAP centers need to go. If AAP is offered at the base school - which it is in almost every elementary at this point - then there is no need for a center. It's redundant, inequitable, and confuses all the boundaries.

Well AAP is phased into the schools. So the schools that recently got it only has it for some levels. So there are schools that are just getting it for the 2025/2026 school year that will only offer it to 3 rd graders. We would have to wait until the last school to get it has phased it into the 6th grade level before it can be canceled.

[Anonymous]

The meetings are also virtual and you can log on from anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

The pigeonhole (?) board has 240+ votes for Emerald Chase and whatever they want, but most comments are “please don’t do this right now”

Emerald Chase is flooding the Lewis meeting?

That is even more ridiculous than them flooding the Robinson meeting

There was one Emerald Chase post that got upvoted tonight surrounded by a bunch about Timberlane, Falls Hill, Hunt Valley, McLean, etc. some of you need to find a new boogeyman

It was upvoted exponentially more than any other comment. It is pretty clear what emerald chase is doing. The others had more comments but only a few upvotes. But emerald chase sounds like a raise the trees and put up tract housing kind of place, so the Astro turfing of meetings fits the community.