FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poplar Heights and Donna Lee Gardens should be lobbying to move to Shrevewood in place of the apartments off Hollywood Rd. This would eliminate the risk of Shrevewood becoming an over capacity Title I school. They’d also be guaranteed their consolation pyramid (Kilmer/Marshall) and they’d physically share a border with the McLean HS boundary should the Shrevewood split feeder proposal stick.

Shrevewood parents crap all over their current poor kids (off Route 29 and outside the Beltway) so they probably aren't going to be very nice to the kids west of Hollywood Road, either. They want so bad to be Haycock South and instead the school is turning into Timber Lane West.

Shrevewood parents have given up on that community and school. Most families have taken their UMC kids to Lemon Road and it seems like most (all) would be happy to be redistricted to MHS. Pathetic little community of virtue signalers.

Actually you're wrong. Much of Falls Hill prefers to stay at Marshall.

So why has there been a mass exodus out of Shrevewood to Lemon Road? AAP is the front.

That has zero to do with Lemon Road and Shrevewood.

You're clearly not aware of the changes to the AAP model at Shrevewood. Many of us stayed with our children at Shrevewood, when there was a level 4 classroom. The cluster model is the reason people are leaving. It doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone else get Mateo Dunne’s email? I’m not sure what to make of it. He said there were “obvious errors” in the draft scenarios from Thru and that “detailed scenarios” will be presented in October 2025.

[Anonymous]

But it really sounds like they’re going off the Thru maps at this point, and that the BRAC maps that were presented in the PDF’s from the meetings are no longer the proposals? Then why have a BRAC in the first place … 😑

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else get Mateo Dunne’s email? I’m not sure what to make of it. He said there were “obvious errors” in the draft scenarios from Thru and that “detailed scenarios” will be presented in October 2025.

There are obvious errors in the currently published models. Select Scenario 2 and look at Annandale HS. There’s a random piece assigned to Edison HS that’s nowhere near the Edison boundaries. Also, for any scenario select middle school and look at Katherine Johnson MS boundaries, then switch to high school and look at Fairfax HS, there’s a single SPA delta between the two. There’s also the random SPA at Westgate still assigned to Longfellow/McLean even though they moved the rest of the attendance zone to Franklin Sherman. And for Scenario 2, some of WSHS is reassigned to South County, but they stay at Irving MS, making Irving a split feeder.

These are just the ones I’ve got. I’m sure there are many more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But it really sounds like they’re going off the Thru maps at this point, and that the BRAC maps that were presented in the PDF’s from the meetings are no longer the proposals? Then why have a BRAC in the first place … 😑

The “BRAC maps” were presented to the BRAC but they were developed by Thru as well. Thru took some preliminary BRAC feedback into account before releasing the latest “interactive” maps, but the BRAC members will tell you they never got access to all the data they’d requested and they’ve largely felt like they were operating in the dark.

The latest Thru maps continue to have some obvious flaws, but we’re also seeing some School Board members falling all over themselves to criticize the latest maps, suggest they are personally going to make changes, or distance themselves from the Thru proposals.

What that tells me is that now that some of this crap is starting to get real Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch are losing control of the process. We’re probably going to see more SB members going off on their own tangents between now and October.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it really sounds like they’re going off the Thru maps at this point, and that the BRAC maps that were presented in the PDF’s from the meetings are no longer the proposals? Then why have a BRAC in the first place … 😑

The “BRAC maps” were presented to the BRAC but they were developed by Thru as well. Thru took some preliminary BRAC feedback into account before releasing the latest “interactive” maps, but the BRAC members will tell you they never got access to all the data they’d requested and they’ve largely felt like they were operating in the dark.

The latest Thru maps continue to have some obvious flaws, but we’re also seeing some School Board members falling all over themselves to criticize the latest maps, suggest they are personally going to make changes, or distance themselves from the Thru proposals.

What that tells me is that now that some of this crap is starting to get real Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch are losing control of the process. We’re probably going to see more SB members going off on their own tangents between now and October.

The BRAC maps made the most sense for my area personally. The interactive Thru maps are a hot mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it really sounds like they’re going off the Thru maps at this point, and that the BRAC maps that were presented in the PDF’s from the meetings are no longer the proposals? Then why have a BRAC in the first place … 😑

The “BRAC maps” were presented to the BRAC but they were developed by Thru as well. Thru took some preliminary BRAC feedback into account before releasing the latest “interactive” maps, but the BRAC members will tell you they never got access to all the data they’d requested and they’ve largely felt like they were operating in the dark.

The latest Thru maps continue to have some obvious flaws, but we’re also seeing some School Board members falling all over themselves to criticize the latest maps, suggest they are personally going to make changes, or distance themselves from the Thru proposals.

What that tells me is that now that some of this crap is starting to get real Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch are losing control of the process. We’re probably going to see more SB members going off on their own tangents between now and October.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but BRAC was created to advise the superintendent, so while some of their feedback seems to be incorporated, I think the more sweeping changes (more moves to Madison and Falls Church HS) were scenarios that Reid already had in mind and had incorporated into the scenarios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poplar Heights and Donna Lee Gardens should be lobbying to move to Shrevewood in place of the apartments off Hollywood Rd. This would eliminate the risk of Shrevewood becoming an over capacity Title I school. They’d also be guaranteed their consolation pyramid (Kilmer/Marshall) and they’d physically share a border with the McLean HS boundary should the Shrevewood split feeder proposal stick.

Shrevewood parents crap all over their current poor kids (off Route 29 and outside the Beltway) so they probably aren't going to be very nice to the kids west of Hollywood Road, either. They want so bad to be Haycock South and instead the school is turning into Timber Lane West.

Shrevewood parents have given up on that community and school. Most families have taken their UMC kids to Lemon Road and it seems like most (all) would be happy to be redistricted to MHS. Pathetic little community of virtue signalers.

Actually you're wrong. Much of Falls Hill prefers to stay at Marshall.

So why has there been a mass exodus out of Shrevewood to Lemon Road? AAP is the front.

That has zero to do with Lemon Road and Shrevewood.

You're clearly not aware of the changes to the AAP model at Shrevewood. Many of us stayed with our children at Shrevewood, when there was a level 4 classroom. The cluster model is the reason people are leaving. It doesn't work.

It doesn't work because y'all don't want your kids mixing with the geneds. It's not as academic as most think it is because the difference between AAP and GendEd are negligble (other than Mathematics). This is a class thing and the Falls Hills parents are leading the charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it really sounds like they’re going off the Thru maps at this point, and that the BRAC maps that were presented in the PDF’s from the meetings are no longer the proposals? Then why have a BRAC in the first place … 😑

The “BRAC maps” were presented to the BRAC but they were developed by Thru as well. Thru took some preliminary BRAC feedback into account before releasing the latest “interactive” maps, but the BRAC members will tell you they never got access to all the data they’d requested and they’ve largely felt like they were operating in the dark.

The latest Thru maps continue to have some obvious flaws, but we’re also seeing some School Board members falling all over themselves to criticize the latest maps, suggest they are personally going to make changes, or distance themselves from the Thru proposals.

What that tells me is that now that some of this crap is starting to get real Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch are losing control of the process. We’re probably going to see more SB members going off on their own tangents between now and October.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but BRAC was created to advise the superintendent, so while some of their feedback seems to be incorporated, I think the more sweeping changes (more moves to Madison and Falls Church HS) were scenarios that Reid already had in mind and had incorporated into the scenarios.

Maybe. The larger point is that people refer to the three initial slide decks as the “BRAC maps,” but they aren’t the work product of the BRAC.

I assume Reid and FCPS staff have a direct line of communication with Thru to get them to make changes they favor. FCPS has gotten a lot of grief for expanding schools that didn’t really need additions, even if they needed to be renovated, so the recent changes to start moving kids into under-enrolled Madison and Falls Church seems like a CYA move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it really sounds like they’re going off the Thru maps at this point, and that the BRAC maps that were presented in the PDF’s from the meetings are no longer the proposals? Then why have a BRAC in the first place … 😑

The “BRAC maps” were presented to the BRAC but they were developed by Thru as well. Thru took some preliminary BRAC feedback into account before releasing the latest “interactive” maps, but the BRAC members will tell you they never got access to all the data they’d requested and they’ve largely felt like they were operating in the dark.

The latest Thru maps continue to have some obvious flaws, but we’re also seeing some School Board members falling all over themselves to criticize the latest maps, suggest they are personally going to make changes, or distance themselves from the Thru proposals.

What that tells me is that now that some of this crap is starting to get real Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch are losing control of the process. We’re probably going to see more SB members going off on their own tangents between now and October.

The BRAC maps made the most sense for my area personally. The interactive Thru maps are a hot mess.

For our area, the maps provided to the BRAC were a hot mess and the interactive Thru maps are a warm mess. They cleaned up the worst stuff but left multiple things still to be addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it really sounds like they’re going off the Thru maps at this point, and that the BRAC maps that were presented in the PDF’s from the meetings are no longer the proposals? Then why have a BRAC in the first place … 😑

The “BRAC maps” were presented to the BRAC but they were developed by Thru as well. Thru took some preliminary BRAC feedback into account before releasing the latest “interactive” maps, but the BRAC members will tell you they never got access to all the data they’d requested and they’ve largely felt like they were operating in the dark.

The latest Thru maps continue to have some obvious flaws, but we’re also seeing some School Board members falling all over themselves to criticize the latest maps, suggest they are personally going to make changes, or distance themselves from the Thru proposals.

What that tells me is that now that some of this crap is starting to get real Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch are losing control of the process. We’re probably going to see more SB members going off on their own tangents between now and October.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but BRAC was created to advise the superintendent, so while some of their feedback seems to be incorporated, I think the more sweeping changes (more moves to Madison and Falls Church HS) were scenarios that Reid already had in mind and had incorporated into the scenarios.

Maybe. The larger point is that people refer to the three initial slide decks as the “BRAC maps,” but they aren’t the work product of the BRAC.

I assume Reid and FCPS staff have a direct line of communication with Thru to get them to make changes they favor. FCPS has gotten a lot of grief for expanding schools that didn’t really need additions, even if they needed to be renovated, so the recent changes to start moving kids into under-enrolled Madison and Falls Church seems like a CYA move.

Why is there a narrative being pushed that Falls Church HS didn’t need an expansion. It’s been chronically over capacity for the last decade and was in Thru’s Top 10 capacity deficits to address. The criticism for FCHS expansion seems to be that they’ve added enough seats to make the Timber Lane move feasible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it really sounds like they’re going off the Thru maps at this point, and that the BRAC maps that were presented in the PDF’s from the meetings are no longer the proposals? Then why have a BRAC in the first place … 😑

The “BRAC maps” were presented to the BRAC but they were developed by Thru as well. Thru took some preliminary BRAC feedback into account before releasing the latest “interactive” maps, but the BRAC members will tell you they never got access to all the data they’d requested and they’ve largely felt like they were operating in the dark.

The latest Thru maps continue to have some obvious flaws, but we’re also seeing some School Board members falling all over themselves to criticize the latest maps, suggest they are personally going to make changes, or distance themselves from the Thru proposals.

What that tells me is that now that some of this crap is starting to get real Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch are losing control of the process. We’re probably going to see more SB members going off on their own tangents between now and October.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but BRAC was created to advise the superintendent, so while some of their feedback seems to be incorporated, I think the more sweeping changes (more moves to Madison and Falls Church HS) were scenarios that Reid already had in mind and had incorporated into the scenarios.

Maybe. The larger point is that people refer to the three initial slide decks as the “BRAC maps,” but they aren’t the work product of the BRAC.

I assume Reid and FCPS staff have a direct line of communication with Thru to get them to make changes they favor. FCPS has gotten a lot of grief for expanding schools that didn’t really need additions, even if they needed to be renovated, so the recent changes to start moving kids into under-enrolled Madison and Falls Church seems like a CYA move.

Why is there a narrative being pushed that Falls Church HS didn’t need an expansion. It’s been chronically over capacity for the last decade and was in Thru’s Top 10 capacity deficits to address. The criticism for FCHS expansion seems to be that they’ve added enough seats to make the Timber Lane move feasible.

It’s never had an enrollment anywhere near 2500, at least not in a very long time. The FCHS enrollment has been closer to 2000-2100 for the past decade.

And, yes, it looks like they are proposing to move Timber Lane neighborhoods that have been at McLean for 40 years to backfill FCHS and justify the expansion. So much for meeting the needs of kids at their existing schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else get Mateo Dunne’s email? I’m not sure what to make of it. He said there were “obvious errors” in the draft scenarios from Thru and that “detailed scenarios” will be presented in October 2025.

So are we not going to get any updated maps or "scenarios" until October? Thru is getting a lot of feedback and it worries me that we will see nothing else until the actual draft maps are released.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know why they’ve only posted the meeting notes from the 4/11 BRAC Meeting? I’ve been waiting to see the notes from the 4/25 and 5/5 meetings to see what the BRAC’s feedback was on the proposals impacting my neighborhood. I emailed the county two weeks ago and it’s been crickets.

[Anonymous]

How do we see BRAC maps?