FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know where is the official link to the latest FCPS 8130 School Board Boundary Policy document (not the boarddocs.com link)?

I would have thought the link the the document would be posted somewhere on the fcps.edu website? I can only find it on boarddocs.com

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D6FSGU72AB04/$file/6-18-24%20-%20Policy%208130%20-%20FINAL%20Governance%20Committee%20-%20UPDATED%20Title.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know where is the official link to the latest FCPS 8130 School Board Boundary Policy document (not the boarddocs.com link)?

I would have thought the link the the document would be posted somewhere on the fcps.edu website? I can only find it on boarddocs.com

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D6FSGU72AB04/$file/6-18-24%20-%20Policy%208130%20-%20FINAL%20Governance%20Committee%20-%20UPDATED%20Title.pdf

This is on Board Docs as well, but it's the updated version of the policy reflecting the July 2024 revisions.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know where is the official link to the latest FCPS 8130 School Board Boundary Policy document (not the boarddocs.com link)?

I would have thought the link the the document would be posted somewhere on the fcps.edu website? I can only find it on boarddocs.com

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D6FSGU72AB04/$file/6-18-24%20-%20Policy%208130%20-%20FINAL%20Governance%20Committee%20-%20UPDATED%20Title.pdf

This is on Board Docs as well, but it's the updated version of the policy reflecting the July 2024 revisions.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

"When possible, adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition "
and phasing.
Interesting that THRU did not take projections into consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know where is the official link to the latest FCPS 8130 School Board Boundary Policy document (not the boarddocs.com link)?

I would have thought the link the the document would be posted somewhere on the fcps.edu website? I can only find it on boarddocs.com

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D6FSGU72AB04/$file/6-18-24%20-%20Policy%208130%20-%20FINAL%20Governance%20Committee%20-%20UPDATED%20Title.pdf

This is on Board Docs as well, but it's the updated version of the policy reflecting the July 2024 revisions.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

"When possible, adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition "
and phasing.
Interesting that THRU did not take projections into consideration.

Here's the complete policy language on phasing:

"When possible, adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. The School Board may approve a grade-by-grade phase-in of adjustments for students beginning with the incoming class at the middle or high school levels, when feasible. The School Board may adopt other phasing plans as appropriate to the individual boundary study. Parents of rising sixth (or fifth) graders,
eighth graders, and twelfth graders affected by a boundary change may, at the discretion of the School Board, be provided the option of having their students remain in the school they attended prior to the change."

They tried to give themselves tons of flexibility through using phrases such as "when possible," "may approve," "when feasible," "may adopt," "as appropriate," and "at the discretion of the School Board."

However, they perhaps inadvertently boxed themselves by using the verb "shall" in the first sentence. If they do not phase in adjustments, someone could challenge them to demonstrate that phasing was impossible, because otherwise the use of the verb "shall" means they have to phase in adjustments. Of course, in that scenario, they'd say they just don't have enough buses to run multiple routes through neighborhoods for 1 or more years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP said that Rolling Valley is down to 2 classes per grade in many grades, and I just want to point out that that isn’t true at all. There are 3-4 classes in each grade this year. Many of them with quite large classes.

Pretty sure at Rolling Valley both kindergarten and 4th grade has only 2 classes this year and maybe 1st as well? The program capacity number is large because the special ed and autism classrooms use a lot of building space for a few number of kids. Only to say that moving out the kids to Saratoga will have a pretty big impact, even though it's only about a dozen kids per grade. But maybe Thru thought that would free up space at RV for Orange Hunt or Cardinal Forest to move some kids to RV down the road.

No - there are 3 kindergarten, 3 first, and 3 fourth grade classes. That’s gen ed, not including special ed classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know where is the official link to the latest FCPS 8130 School Board Boundary Policy document (not the boarddocs.com link)?

I would have thought the link the the document would be posted somewhere on the fcps.edu website? I can only find it on boarddocs.com

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D6FSGU72AB04/$file/6-18-24%20-%20Policy%208130%20-%20FINAL%20Governance%20Committee%20-%20UPDATED%20Title.pdf

This is on Board Docs as well, but it's the updated version of the policy reflecting the July 2024 revisions.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

"When possible, adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition "
and phasing.
Interesting that THRU did not take projections into consideration.

Here's the complete policy language on phasing:

"When possible, adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. The School Board may approve a grade-by-grade phase-in of adjustments for students beginning with the incoming class at the middle or high school levels, when feasible. The School Board may adopt other phasing plans as appropriate to the individual boundary study. Parents of rising sixth (or fifth) graders,
eighth graders, and twelfth graders affected by a boundary change may, at the discretion of the School Board, be provided the option of having their students remain in the school they attended prior to the change."

They tried to give themselves tons of flexibility through using phrases such as "when possible," "may approve," "when feasible," "may adopt," "as appropriate," and "at the discretion of the School Board."

However, they perhaps inadvertently boxed themselves by using the verb "shall" in the first sentence. If they do not phase in adjustments, someone could challenge them to demonstrate that phasing was impossible, because otherwise the use of the verb "shall" means they have to phase in adjustments. Of course, in that scenario, they'd say they just don't have enough buses to run multiple routes through neighborhoods for 1 or more years.

Well, that is 2 very significant "shalls"

One has already been ignored by FCPS, right out the gate.

Section IV:

"...Public engagement shall occur in each affected school pyramid before changes are proposed and again after changes are proposed but before any changes are finalized and voted on by the board. Public engagement at minimum includes pyramid community meetings with in-person and virtual options, pyramid wide surveys, and outreach to engage communities, as well as outreach to communities with students placed within the pyramid for programming or other reasons..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP said that Rolling Valley is down to 2 classes per grade in many grades, and I just want to point out that that isn’t true at all. There are 3-4 classes in each grade this year. Many of them with quite large classes.

Pretty sure at Rolling Valley both kindergarten and 4th grade has only 2 classes this year and maybe 1st as well? The program capacity number is large because the special ed and autism classrooms use a lot of building space for a few number of kids. Only to say that moving out the kids to Saratoga will have a pretty big impact, even though it's only about a dozen kids per grade. But maybe Thru thought that would free up space at RV for Orange Hunt or Cardinal Forest to move some kids to RV down the road.

Cardinal Forest could move over some kids.

All of the elementary schools in that area are going to drop enrollment over the next few years. Even large Orange Hunt and Hunt Valley are getting significantly smaller. Both of those schools drop a full 30 students between the current 6th and 5th grade classes, then maintaining that smaller size in 4th and below.

That is why Thru using September 2025 enrollment, plus estimated projections to justify rezoning makes no sense. If they use the real membership numbers on the school dashboards, the enrollment drops significantly in a couple years. It does not grow by hundreds of kids as the CIP estimates show.

how many kids move to sangster for AAP starting in 3rd from
Orange hunt and hunt valley?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP said that Rolling Valley is down to 2 classes per grade in many grades, and I just want to point out that that isn’t true at all. There are 3-4 classes in each grade this year. Many of them with quite large classes.

Pretty sure at Rolling Valley both kindergarten and 4th grade has only 2 classes this year and maybe 1st as well? The program capacity number is large because the special ed and autism classrooms use a lot of building space for a few number of kids. Only to say that moving out the kids to Saratoga will have a pretty big impact, even though it's only about a dozen kids per grade. But maybe Thru thought that would free up space at RV for Orange Hunt or Cardinal Forest to move some kids to RV down the road.

Cardinal Forest could move over some kids.

All of the elementary schools in that area are going to drop enrollment over the next few years. Even large Orange Hunt and Hunt Valley are getting significantly smaller. Both of those schools drop a full 30 students between the current 6th and 5th grade classes, then maintaining that smaller size in 4th and below.

That is why Thru using September 2025 enrollment, plus estimated projections to justify rezoning makes no sense. If they use the real membership numbers on the school dashboards, the enrollment drops significantly in a couple years. It does not grow by hundreds of kids as the CIP estimates show.

how many kids move to sangster for AAP starting in 3rd from
Orange hunt and hunt valley?

A pretty good number since Hunt Valley and OH have no LLIV. I’d guesstimate 15?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP said that Rolling Valley is down to 2 classes per grade in many grades, and I just want to point out that that isn’t true at all. There are 3-4 classes in each grade this year. Many of them with quite large classes.

Pretty sure at Rolling Valley both kindergarten and 4th grade has only 2 classes this year and maybe 1st as well? The program capacity number is large because the special ed and autism classrooms use a lot of building space for a few number of kids. Only to say that moving out the kids to Saratoga will have a pretty big impact, even though it's only about a dozen kids per grade. But maybe Thru thought that would free up space at RV for Orange Hunt or Cardinal Forest to move some kids to RV down the road.

Cardinal Forest could move over some kids.

All of the elementary schools in that area are going to drop enrollment over the next few years. Even large Orange Hunt and Hunt Valley are getting significantly smaller. Both of those schools drop a full 30 students between the current 6th and 5th grade classes, then maintaining that smaller size in 4th and below.

That is why Thru using September 2025 enrollment, plus estimated projections to justify rezoning makes no sense. If they use the real membership numbers on the school dashboards, the enrollment drops significantly in a couple years. It does not grow by hundreds of kids as the CIP estimates show.

how many kids move to sangster for AAP starting in 3rd from
Orange hunt and hunt valley?

A pretty good number since Hunt Valley and OH have no LLIV. I’d guesstimate 15?

Are those schools getting local? I know a few schools are starting to add it, a grade at a time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP said that Rolling Valley is down to 2 classes per grade in many grades, and I just want to point out that that isn’t true at all. There are 3-4 classes in each grade this year. Many of them with quite large classes.

Pretty sure at Rolling Valley both kindergarten and 4th grade has only 2 classes this year and maybe 1st as well? The program capacity number is large because the special ed and autism classrooms use a lot of building space for a few number of kids. Only to say that moving out the kids to Saratoga will have a pretty big impact, even though it's only about a dozen kids per grade. But maybe Thru thought that would free up space at RV for Orange Hunt or Cardinal Forest to move some kids to RV down the road.

Cardinal Forest could move over some kids.

All of the elementary schools in that area are going to drop enrollment over the next few years. Even large Orange Hunt and Hunt Valley are getting significantly smaller. Both of those schools drop a full 30 students between the current 6th and 5th grade classes, then maintaining that smaller size in 4th and below.

That is why Thru using September 2025 enrollment, plus estimated projections to justify rezoning makes no sense. If they use the real membership numbers on the school dashboards, the enrollment drops significantly in a couple years. It does not grow by hundreds of kids as the CIP estimates show.

how many kids move to sangster for AAP starting in 3rd from
Orange hunt and hunt valley?

A pretty good number since Hunt Valley and OH have no LLIV. I’d guesstimate 15?

Are those schools getting local? I know a few schools are starting to add it, a grade at a time.

As far as I know, not yet. I don’t have a kid there but I have friends who do (more at HV than OH) and they’ve said nothing about LLIV coming to either school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The status quo isn't really working for Lewis, boundaries or academics. Yet nothing is being done. People on here talk about community, but Lewis really has no strong community. I would wager the neighborhoods that feed it have some of the highest private, homeschool, or pupil placement rates. Not a lot of Lewis graduate signs up right now.

And, some hope to improve it with a boundary adjustment.

The boundary adjustment is NOT the answer.

The School Board should look to improve Lewis. It is possible. They should not look to other students to improve it, but look to see what can be done to improve opportunities and instruction.
Is that not what a school is for?

I don't know the Lewis community. I live in another part of the county. But, I do remember when the Graham Road community wanted the school to stay put--because they had a community there. Instead the School Board "knew better" and moved them to a brand new school that requires walking along busy streets to get there.
And, now, I've read somewhere on this forum that the School Board wants to change that around and switch them to a different school. And, put another neighborhood in the new school.

How is that for creating community?

You're talking about the Graham Road/Timber Lane situation.

The "old" Graham Road ES mostly used to serve kids in the large, low-income Kingsley Commons community right next to the school.

The school was up for a renovation and, rather than renovate on a small plot, FCPS built a new school further away on Graham Road just south of Route 29. However, that site lay within the boundaries of Timber Lane ES, and they didn't want to change the boundaries. So for 13 years Kingsley Commons kids traveled to the "new" Graham Road school inside the Timber Lane attendance area.

Along comes Reid and Thru, and they decide that's a problem and the boundaries should be drawn so Graham Road lies within its attendance area. Sounds logical, but the solution involves moving the Kingsley Commons kids to Timber Lane, which is even further away than "new" Graham Road, and then changing Timber Lane's boundaries so that some of the Timber Lane kids north of Route 29 go to Shrevewood and the Timber Lane kids south of Route 29 flip to Graham Road, while Timber Lane south of Routh 29 is redrawn to pick up kids currently at Pine Spring and Graham Road.

Add to this the fact that Timber Lane north of Route 29 currently goes to McLean and Timber Lane south of Route 29 goes to Falls Church. Thru has proposed to move the area north of Route 29 to Falls Church, apparently to justify their expansion of Falls Church, and those Timber Lane families aren't happy about that. And then the Timber Lane families south of Route 29 feel like they're being disrespected, but they're all being moved to Graham Road anyway, so whatever "community" exists currently at Timber Lane is apparently going to be upended in any event.

It's kind of a mess.

You forgot to mention that the neighborhood (Jefferson Village/Greenway downs) between 50/29 and Annandale and Graham Rd. Currently go to 4 different elementary schools and 2 different MS and HS.
For the sake of economic diversity in schools, kids in this neighborhood go to Timber Lane, Pine Spring, Graham and then there is a small pocket in the corner that go to Beech Tree followed by Justice HS. Talk about a terrible plan that splits up a community. New plan does send them all to Graham.

As far as I was aware all of Greenway Downs went to Falls Church. I knew Jefferson Village splits to Falls Church and Justice. There was a proposal in 2011 to move the rest of Jefferson Village to Beech Tree/Glasgow/Stuart (now Justice) and Patty Reed, who represented Providence at the time, got the School Board to exclude that proposal and retain the Pine Spring attendance island at Jackson/Falls Church. I assume the area wanted to stay at Pine Spring/Jackson/Falls Church. Now they are proposing to move that island from Pine Spring to Westlawn.

Thru’s changes pretty much decimate the Falls Church ES communities between 29 and 50. Pine Spring, Graham Road, and Timber Lane will all look drastically different. Pine Spring loses most of its single family homes and becomes significantly higher FARMS. With the addition of Kingsley Commons, I’m guessing Timber Lane does as well. And sending the Pine Spring island across route 50 to Westlawn makes no sense from a community standpoint either. It’s very sad.

This is the issue. The greenway downs/Jefferson Village neighborhoods have been split between 4 elementary school to balance out the student populations. Somehow the school board and I would guess those not in the neighborhood who benefit from this are fine with it (looks at you PH neighborhood who go to TL) But could you imagine dividing other neighborhoods this way? There are streets where kids across the street from one another go to different elementary schools.

We lived in this neighborhood and moved for this reason. It was a great and close community but wild that our child would not go to school with children in our backyard. Sending this community to one school is one of the only things that has sorta, kinda, maybe made sense with this rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The status quo isn't really working for Lewis, boundaries or academics. Yet nothing is being done. People on here talk about community, but Lewis really has no strong community. I would wager the neighborhoods that feed it have some of the highest private, homeschool, or pupil placement rates. Not a lot of Lewis graduate signs up right now.

And, some hope to improve it with a boundary adjustment.

The boundary adjustment is NOT the answer.

The School Board should look to improve Lewis. It is possible. They should not look to other students to improve it, but look to see what can be done to improve opportunities and instruction.
Is that not what a school is for?

I don't know the Lewis community. I live in another part of the county. But, I do remember when the Graham Road community wanted the school to stay put--because they had a community there. Instead the School Board "knew better" and moved them to a brand new school that requires walking along busy streets to get there.
And, now, I've read somewhere on this forum that the School Board wants to change that around and switch them to a different school. And, put another neighborhood in the new school.

How is that for creating community?

You're talking about the Graham Road/Timber Lane situation.

The "old" Graham Road ES mostly used to serve kids in the large, low-income Kingsley Commons community right next to the school.

The school was up for a renovation and, rather than renovate on a small plot, FCPS built a new school further away on Graham Road just south of Route 29. However, that site lay within the boundaries of Timber Lane ES, and they didn't want to change the boundaries. So for 13 years Kingsley Commons kids traveled to the "new" Graham Road school inside the Timber Lane attendance area.

Along comes Reid and Thru, and they decide that's a problem and the boundaries should be drawn so Graham Road lies within its attendance area. Sounds logical, but the solution involves moving the Kingsley Commons kids to Timber Lane, which is even further away than "new" Graham Road, and then changing Timber Lane's boundaries so that some of the Timber Lane kids north of Route 29 go to Shrevewood and the Timber Lane kids south of Route 29 flip to Graham Road, while Timber Lane south of Routh 29 is redrawn to pick up kids currently at Pine Spring and Graham Road.

Add to this the fact that Timber Lane north of Route 29 currently goes to McLean and Timber Lane south of Route 29 goes to Falls Church. Thru has proposed to move the area north of Route 29 to Falls Church, apparently to justify their expansion of Falls Church, and those Timber Lane families aren't happy about that. And then the Timber Lane families south of Route 29 feel like they're being disrespected, but they're all being moved to Graham Road anyway, so whatever "community" exists currently at Timber Lane is apparently going to be upended in any event.

It's kind of a mess.

You forgot to mention that the neighborhood (Jefferson Village/Greenway downs) between 50/29 and Annandale and Graham Rd. Currently go to 4 different elementary schools and 2 different MS and HS.
For the sake of economic diversity in schools, kids in this neighborhood go to Timber Lane, Pine Spring, Graham and then there is a small pocket in the corner that go to Beech Tree followed by Justice HS. Talk about a terrible plan that splits up a community. New plan does send them all to Graham.

As far as I was aware all of Greenway Downs went to Falls Church. I knew Jefferson Village splits to Falls Church and Justice. There was a proposal in 2011 to move the rest of Jefferson Village to Beech Tree/Glasgow/Stuart (now Justice) and Patty Reed, who represented Providence at the time, got the School Board to exclude that proposal and retain the Pine Spring attendance island at Jackson/Falls Church. I assume the area wanted to stay at Pine Spring/Jackson/Falls Church. Now they are proposing to move that island from Pine Spring to Westlawn.

Thru’s changes pretty much decimate the Falls Church ES communities between 29 and 50. Pine Spring, Graham Road, and Timber Lane will all look drastically different. Pine Spring loses most of its single family homes and becomes significantly higher FARMS. With the addition of Kingsley Commons, I’m guessing Timber Lane does as well. And sending the Pine Spring island across route 50 to Westlawn makes no sense from a community standpoint either. It’s very sad.

This is the issue. The greenway downs/Jefferson Village neighborhoods have been split between 4 elementary school to balance out the student populations. Somehow the school board and I would guess those not in the neighborhood who benefit from this are fine with it (looks at you PH neighborhood who go to TL) But could you imagine dividing other neighborhoods this way? There are streets where kids across the street from one another go to different elementary schools.

We lived in this neighborhood and moved for this reason. It was a great and close community but wild that our child would not go to school with children in our backyard. Sending this community to one school is one of the only things that has sorta, kinda, maybe made sense with this rezoning.

Interesting. I listened to part of Meet the Press on c-span today. It was a special on mental health. The former surgeon general said that loneliness is a big problem with kids and drugs. And, that it is important to connect with other parents so you know what is going on. I think that is one thing that gets lost when neighborhoods are divided. It also makes me wonder about sending kids out of the neighborhood to AAP centers or other programming.
You need that connection--especially as they get older. If you don't know the other parents, you are out of the loop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The status quo isn't really working for Lewis, boundaries or academics. Yet nothing is being done. People on here talk about community, but Lewis really has no strong community. I would wager the neighborhoods that feed it have some of the highest private, homeschool, or pupil placement rates. Not a lot of Lewis graduate signs up right now.

And, some hope to improve it with a boundary adjustment.

The boundary adjustment is NOT the answer.

The School Board should look to improve Lewis. It is possible. They should not look to other students to improve it, but look to see what can be done to improve opportunities and instruction.
Is that not what a school is for?

I don't know the Lewis community. I live in another part of the county. But, I do remember when the Graham Road community wanted the school to stay put--because they had a community there. Instead the School Board "knew better" and moved them to a brand new school that requires walking along busy streets to get there.
And, now, I've read somewhere on this forum that the School Board wants to change that around and switch them to a different school. And, put another neighborhood in the new school.

How is that for creating community?

You're talking about the Graham Road/Timber Lane situation.

The "old" Graham Road ES mostly used to serve kids in the large, low-income Kingsley Commons community right next to the school.

The school was up for a renovation and, rather than renovate on a small plot, FCPS built a new school further away on Graham Road just south of Route 29. However, that site lay within the boundaries of Timber Lane ES, and they didn't want to change the boundaries. So for 13 years Kingsley Commons kids traveled to the "new" Graham Road school inside the Timber Lane attendance area.

Along comes Reid and Thru, and they decide that's a problem and the boundaries should be drawn so Graham Road lies within its attendance area. Sounds logical, but the solution involves moving the Kingsley Commons kids to Timber Lane, which is even further away than "new" Graham Road, and then changing Timber Lane's boundaries so that some of the Timber Lane kids north of Route 29 go to Shrevewood and the Timber Lane kids south of Route 29 flip to Graham Road, while Timber Lane south of Routh 29 is redrawn to pick up kids currently at Pine Spring and Graham Road.

Add to this the fact that Timber Lane north of Route 29 currently goes to McLean and Timber Lane south of Route 29 goes to Falls Church. Thru has proposed to move the area north of Route 29 to Falls Church, apparently to justify their expansion of Falls Church, and those Timber Lane families aren't happy about that. And then the Timber Lane families south of Route 29 feel like they're being disrespected, but they're all being moved to Graham Road anyway, so whatever "community" exists currently at Timber Lane is apparently going to be upended in any event.

It's kind of a mess.

You forgot to mention that the neighborhood (Jefferson Village/Greenway downs) between 50/29 and Annandale and Graham Rd. Currently go to 4 different elementary schools and 2 different MS and HS.
For the sake of economic diversity in schools, kids in this neighborhood go to Timber Lane, Pine Spring, Graham and then there is a small pocket in the corner that go to Beech Tree followed by Justice HS. Talk about a terrible plan that splits up a community. New plan does send them all to Graham.

As far as I was aware all of Greenway Downs went to Falls Church. I knew Jefferson Village splits to Falls Church and Justice. There was a proposal in 2011 to move the rest of Jefferson Village to Beech Tree/Glasgow/Stuart (now Justice) and Patty Reed, who represented Providence at the time, got the School Board to exclude that proposal and retain the Pine Spring attendance island at Jackson/Falls Church. I assume the area wanted to stay at Pine Spring/Jackson/Falls Church. Now they are proposing to move that island from Pine Spring to Westlawn.

Thru’s changes pretty much decimate the Falls Church ES communities between 29 and 50. Pine Spring, Graham Road, and Timber Lane will all look drastically different. Pine Spring loses most of its single family homes and becomes significantly higher FARMS. With the addition of Kingsley Commons, I’m guessing Timber Lane does as well. And sending the Pine Spring island across route 50 to Westlawn makes no sense from a community standpoint either. It’s very sad.

This is the issue. The greenway downs/Jefferson Village neighborhoods have been split between 4 elementary school to balance out the student populations. Somehow the school board and I would guess those not in the neighborhood who benefit from this are fine with it (looks at you PH neighborhood who go to TL) But could you imagine dividing other neighborhoods this way? There are streets where kids across the street from one another go to different elementary schools.

We lived in this neighborhood and moved for this reason. It was a great and close community but wild that our child would not go to school with children in our backyard. Sending this community to one school is one of the only things that has sorta, kinda, maybe made sense with this rezoning.

Jefferson Village will still be split in half and separated from Greenway Downs. So basically, the neighborhood gets Graham Road, Westlawn, and Beech Tree instead of Graham Road, Timber Lane, Pine Spring, and Beech Tree.

[Anonymous]

Why isn’t that Pine Spring attendance island moving to Graham Road rather than Westlawn? Graham Road would have capacity and no one would have to cross Route 50.

Graham Road is basically going to be a brand new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The status quo isn't really working for Lewis, boundaries or academics. Yet nothing is being done. People on here talk about community, but Lewis really has no strong community. I would wager the neighborhoods that feed it have some of the highest private, homeschool, or pupil placement rates. Not a lot of Lewis graduate signs up right now.

And, some hope to improve it with a boundary adjustment.

The boundary adjustment is NOT the answer.

The School Board should look to improve Lewis. It is possible. They should not look to other students to improve it, but look to see what can be done to improve opportunities and instruction.
Is that not what a school is for?

I don't know the Lewis community. I live in another part of the county. But, I do remember when the Graham Road community wanted the school to stay put--because they had a community there. Instead the School Board "knew better" and moved them to a brand new school that requires walking along busy streets to get there.
And, now, I've read somewhere on this forum that the School Board wants to change that around and switch them to a different school. And, put another neighborhood in the new school.

How is that for creating community?

You're talking about the Graham Road/Timber Lane situation.

The "old" Graham Road ES mostly used to serve kids in the large, low-income Kingsley Commons community right next to the school.

The school was up for a renovation and, rather than renovate on a small plot, FCPS built a new school further away on Graham Road just south of Route 29. However, that site lay within the boundaries of Timber Lane ES, and they didn't want to change the boundaries. So for 13 years Kingsley Commons kids traveled to the "new" Graham Road school inside the Timber Lane attendance area.

Along comes Reid and Thru, and they decide that's a problem and the boundaries should be drawn so Graham Road lies within its attendance area. Sounds logical, but the solution involves moving the Kingsley Commons kids to Timber Lane, which is even further away than "new" Graham Road, and then changing Timber Lane's boundaries so that some of the Timber Lane kids north of Route 29 go to Shrevewood and the Timber Lane kids south of Route 29 flip to Graham Road, while Timber Lane south of Routh 29 is redrawn to pick up kids currently at Pine Spring and Graham Road.

Add to this the fact that Timber Lane north of Route 29 currently goes to McLean and Timber Lane south of Route 29 goes to Falls Church. Thru has proposed to move the area north of Route 29 to Falls Church, apparently to justify their expansion of Falls Church, and those Timber Lane families aren't happy about that. And then the Timber Lane families south of Route 29 feel like they're being disrespected, but they're all being moved to Graham Road anyway, so whatever "community" exists currently at Timber Lane is apparently going to be upended in any event.

It's kind of a mess.

You forgot to mention that the neighborhood (Jefferson Village/Greenway downs) between 50/29 and Annandale and Graham Rd. Currently go to 4 different elementary schools and 2 different MS and HS.
For the sake of economic diversity in schools, kids in this neighborhood go to Timber Lane, Pine Spring, Graham and then there is a small pocket in the corner that go to Beech Tree followed by Justice HS. Talk about a terrible plan that splits up a community. New plan does send them all to Graham.

As far as I was aware all of Greenway Downs went to Falls Church. I knew Jefferson Village splits to Falls Church and Justice. There was a proposal in 2011 to move the rest of Jefferson Village to Beech Tree/Glasgow/Stuart (now Justice) and Patty Reed, who represented Providence at the time, got the School Board to exclude that proposal and retain the Pine Spring attendance island at Jackson/Falls Church. I assume the area wanted to stay at Pine Spring/Jackson/Falls Church. Now they are proposing to move that island from Pine Spring to Westlawn.

Thru’s changes pretty much decimate the Falls Church ES communities between 29 and 50. Pine Spring, Graham Road, and Timber Lane will all look drastically different. Pine Spring loses most of its single family homes and becomes significantly higher FARMS. With the addition of Kingsley Commons, I’m guessing Timber Lane does as well. And sending the Pine Spring island across route 50 to Westlawn makes no sense from a community standpoint either. It’s very sad.

This is the issue. The greenway downs/Jefferson Village neighborhoods have been split between 4 elementary school to balance out the student populations. Somehow the school board and I would guess those not in the neighborhood who benefit from this are fine with it (looks at you PH neighborhood who go to TL) But could you imagine dividing other neighborhoods this way? There are streets where kids across the street from one another go to different elementary schools.

Poplar Heights doesn’t “benefit” if Timber Lane gets Kingsley Commons, even if part of the TL area north of 29 shifts to Shrevewood, and it really doesn’t “benefit” if it gets moved to Jackson and Falls Church.

Pretty sure PP meant benefit from the old boundaries, not the new ones.

Their school is already 60% FARMS.

Worth repeating - a lot of them figure out ways not to go to Timber Lane. Whether that be AAP or private.

What are you talking about? Listen to yourself...if families need to find ways not to go to Timber Lane, push the school board to improve it. In the meantime, don't move students from better-performing to worse performing schools, especially overdrowded ones! They think our community won't have enough active families/home owners: let's prove them wrong. NO moving students from LMS to LJMS and from MHS to FCHS. Fix your schools without using our kids as collateral.