FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do we see BRAC maps?

I think those are the earlier maps presented to the committee. You can go to the last three meetings and view the slides.

If this is not correct, hopefully, someone will step in.

This may be transparent, but it is certainly not intuitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you look at their process map, it refers to "Phase 2 Data Analysis and Scenarios Update" from July to October 2025, followed by "Phase 2 Community Meetings" in October and November 2025.

I think Dunne and others refer to October to give themselves the maximum amount of time that's consistent with their process map before releasing updated scenarios. It's possible they could be released earlier.

And, to your point, given how different the initial "BRAC maps" (the three slide decks from the April 11, April 25, and May 5th BRAC meetings) were from the "Initial Boundary Scenarios" released in mid-May for some pyramids, a lot of us wouldn't be suprised to see major changes yet again later this year. A cynic would say they are sitting on what they really intend to propose so that there's ultimately less time to comment on the "real" proposals, and a lot of what's happening now is jerking people around so they can claim later there was a robust process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you look at their process map, it refers to "Phase 2 Data Analysis and Scenarios Update" from July to October 2025, followed by "Phase 2 Community Meetings" in October and November 2025.

I think Dunne and others refer to October to give themselves the maximum amount of time that's consistent with their process map before releasing updated scenarios. It's possible they could be released earlier.

And, to your point, given how different the initial "BRAC maps" (the three slide decks from the April 11, April 25, and May 5th BRAC meetings) were from the "Initial Boundary Scenarios" released in mid-May for some pyramids, a lot of us wouldn't be suprised to see major changes yet again later this year. A cynic would say they are sitting on what they really intend to propose so that there's ultimately less time to comment on the "real" proposals, and a lot of what's happening now is jerking people around so they can claim later there was a robust process.

What I find troubling is that there are two sessions of community engagement events, but no follow up for the final draft that’s handed off to the school board. Isn’t there supposed to be some community engagement on the ACTUAL changes that are being voted on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you look at their process map, it refers to "Phase 2 Data Analysis and Scenarios Update" from July to October 2025, followed by "Phase 2 Community Meetings" in October and November 2025.

I think Dunne and others refer to October to give themselves the maximum amount of time that's consistent with their process map before releasing updated scenarios. It's possible they could be released earlier.

And, to your point, given how different the initial "BRAC maps" (the three slide decks from the April 11, April 25, and May 5th BRAC meetings) were from the "Initial Boundary Scenarios" released in mid-May for some pyramids, a lot of us wouldn't be suprised to see major changes yet again later this year. A cynic would say they are sitting on what they really intend to propose so that there's ultimately less time to comment on the "real" proposals, and a lot of what's happening now is jerking people around so they can claim later there was a robust process.

What I find troubling is that there are two sessions of community engagement events, but no follow up for the final draft that’s handed off to the school board. Isn’t there supposed to be some community engagement on the ACTUAL changes that are being voted on?

I think you're referring to this language from Policy 8130:

"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."

I do not see anything in their process map where they specifically commit to having these required meetings with "each affected school pyramid."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you look at their process map, it refers to "Phase 2 Data Analysis and Scenarios Update" from July to October 2025, followed by "Phase 2 Community Meetings" in October and November 2025.

I think Dunne and others refer to October to give themselves the maximum amount of time that's consistent with their process map before releasing updated scenarios. It's possible they could be released earlier.

And, to your point, given how different the initial "BRAC maps" (the three slide decks from the April 11, April 25, and May 5th BRAC meetings) were from the "Initial Boundary Scenarios" released in mid-May for some pyramids, a lot of us wouldn't be suprised to see major changes yet again later this year. A cynic would say they are sitting on what they really intend to propose so that there's ultimately less time to comment on the "real" proposals, and a lot of what's happening now is jerking people around so they can claim later there was a robust process.

What I find troubling is that there are two sessions of community engagement events, but no follow up for the final draft that’s handed off to the school board. Isn’t there supposed to be some community engagement on the ACTUAL changes that are being voted on?

Yes.

Policy 8130 explicitly states:

"... IV. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The School Board shall “obtain public comment through a public hearing not less than seven days after reasonable notice to the public in a newspaper of general circulation in the school division prior to providing (i) for the consolidation of schools…(iii)…for redistricting of school boundaries or adopting any pupil assignment plan affecting the assignment of 15 percent or more of the pupils in average daily membership in the affected school.” [Code of Virginia: Section 22.179 (8)]

Community engagement shall occur prior to the implementation of any division boundary adjustments as outlined in Regulation 8130.XX, as required by state law. The division reserves the right to base final decisions on the needs of all students in the division.

For emergency temporary boundary adjustments pursuant to Section VII (A) below, no public hearing shall be required.

For the comprehensive review of divisionwide boundaries pursuant to Section VI below, community engagement shall occur both before the review begins and at completion of the review .

Results of cyclical review shall be presented to the Board and to the community. Community engagement before the review begins and upon conclusion of the review shall include at minimum in person and virtual meetings in each region and via electronic communications with the community.

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.

For expedited boundary adjustments pursuant to Section VII (B) below, public engagement shall take place in the impacted pyramids before changes are proposed and after again changes are proposed but before any changes are finalized and prior to any board vote on proposed expedited boundary adjustment .

Engagement at minimum includes publicly noticed community meetings in each impacted pyramid with in-person and virtual options, pyramid wide surveys, and outreach to engage communities. .."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you look at their process map, it refers to "Phase 2 Data Analysis and Scenarios Update" from July to October 2025, followed by "Phase 2 Community Meetings" in October and November 2025.

I think Dunne and others refer to October to give themselves the maximum amount of time that's consistent with their process map before releasing updated scenarios. It's possible they could be released earlier.

And, to your point, given how different the initial "BRAC maps" (the three slide decks from the April 11, April 25, and May 5th BRAC meetings) were from the "Initial Boundary Scenarios" released in mid-May for some pyramids, a lot of us wouldn't be suprised to see major changes yet again later this year. A cynic would say they are sitting on what they really intend to propose so that there's ultimately less time to comment on the "real" proposals, and a lot of what's happening now is jerking people around so they can claim later there was a robust process.

I didn't realize that anything beyond the three sets of maps from Thru have been released. Do we know which pyramids have had "Initial Boundary Scenarios" released?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you look at their process map, it refers to "Phase 2 Data Analysis and Scenarios Update" from July to October 2025, followed by "Phase 2 Community Meetings" in October and November 2025.

I think Dunne and others refer to October to give themselves the maximum amount of time that's consistent with their process map before releasing updated scenarios. It's possible they could be released earlier.

And, to your point, given how different the initial "BRAC maps" (the three slide decks from the April 11, April 25, and May 5th BRAC meetings) were from the "Initial Boundary Scenarios" released in mid-May for some pyramids, a lot of us wouldn't be suprised to see major changes yet again later this year. A cynic would say they are sitting on what they really intend to propose so that there's ultimately less time to comment on the "real" proposals, and a lot of what's happening now is jerking people around so they can claim later there was a robust process.

I didn't realize that anything beyond the three sets of maps from Thru have been released. Do we know which pyramids have had "Initial Boundary Scenarios" released?

Most pyramids have multiple changes.

[Anonymous]

What do they plan for Coates next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What do they plan for Coates next year?

Nothing. Coates was delayed a year to stroke Sandy Anderson’s ego by doing the comprehensive review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What do they plan for Coates next year?

Nothing. Coates was delayed a year to stroke Sandy Anderson’s ego by doing the comprehensive review.

So much for a School Board that cares about their students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you look at their process map, it refers to "Phase 2 Data Analysis and Scenarios Update" from July to October 2025, followed by "Phase 2 Community Meetings" in October and November 2025.

I think Dunne and others refer to October to give themselves the maximum amount of time that's consistent with their process map before releasing updated scenarios. It's possible they could be released earlier.

And, to your point, given how different the initial "BRAC maps" (the three slide decks from the April 11, April 25, and May 5th BRAC meetings) were from the "Initial Boundary Scenarios" released in mid-May for some pyramids, a lot of us wouldn't be suprised to see major changes yet again later this year. A cynic would say they are sitting on what they really intend to propose so that there's ultimately less time to comment on the "real" proposals, and a lot of what's happening now is jerking people around so they can claim later there was a robust process.

I didn't realize that anything beyond the three sets of maps from Thru have been released. Do we know which pyramids have had "Initial Boundary Scenarios" released?

The “Initial Boundary Scenarios” refers to the three sets of maps from Thru. Before they were released, Thru presented the building of these scenarios to BRAC, stepping through impacted schools to show student movement. There was no comprehensive view of these maps only snapshots. The snapshots from these presentations are very different from what’s now in the interactive tool.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Parent of a gen ed student at Shrevewood and the model doesn't work. Shrevewood is a poorly run school. The teachers are great but the administration has been terrible for the last 7+ years.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

Moving to McLean would increase values no one wants a tier 2 school over tier 1 McLean. Maybe just to finish the school for the kids already in the Marshall pyramid.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

You are gonna miss Karl