FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/06/03/community-concerns-crop-up-with-initial-fcps-boundary-rewrite-proposals/

That article implies that part of the Emerald Chase neighborhood currently feeds to Chantilly. I didn’t think that was the case. The biggest sticking point is that Chantilly is shedding existing students who live closer to Chantilly than Emerald Chase. They’re campaigning to displace 50-some additional students who don’t want to move, but that’s being glossed over in their cheerful bike to school campaign.

They are only asking to stay at an AP high school. There are parents who want to be moved to Chantilly, but it’s not the consensus position in the neighborhood—there are many parents who want to stay at Westfield. The efforts are primarily aimed at keeping the same elementary school.

Isn’t that exactly what Scenario 1 gives them? They remain Oak Hill/Carson/Westfield. The article only refers to Chantilly HS and doesn’t mention that they currently go to Westfield, an AP school. I understand the neighborhood is divided on their goals, but the campaign is extremely obvious and deliberate.

Also, quite doubtful that many kids from there bike to Oak Hill. It is a dark wooded trail.

It's purely about demographics.

My kids bike to school every day that it’s not too cold or raining. The trail is fine. Chantilly Highlands kids also use the trails to get to the Emerald Chase basketball court to play pickup games. This is not about demographics. From my understanding, the areas are pretty much the same demographics. I’ve heard Fox mill is a great school too. It’s just far away and makes little sense for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/06/03/community-concerns-crop-up-with-initial-fcps-boundary-rewrite-proposals/

That article implies that part of the Emerald Chase neighborhood currently feeds to Chantilly. I didn’t think that was the case. The biggest sticking point is that Chantilly is shedding existing students who live closer to Chantilly than Emerald Chase. They’re campaigning to displace 50-some additional students who don’t want to move, but that’s being glossed over in their cheerful bike to school campaign.

They are only asking to stay at an AP high school. There are parents who want to be moved to Chantilly, but it’s not the consensus position in the neighborhood—there are many parents who want to stay at Westfield. The efforts are primarily aimed at keeping the same elementary school.

Isn’t that exactly what Scenario 1 gives them? They remain Oak Hill/Carson/Westfield. The article only refers to Chantilly HS and doesn’t mention that they currently go to Westfield, an AP school. I understand the neighborhood is divided on their goals, but the campaign is extremely obvious and deliberate.

Also, quite doubtful that many kids from there bike to Oak Hill. It is a dark wooded trail.

And they have to “cross” the Fairfax County Parkway to get to Fox Mills when that’s via an overpass.

We’re 1 mile from Oak Hill, we bike there regularly and do it in 5 minutes without crossing a major road. Yes there is an overpass over the parkway, which would require crossing McLaren and then West Ox. There is no traffic light at the West Ox crossing where they would need to cross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thru is just as good a consulting firm as Michelle Reid is a superintendent. And Reid is just as good a superintendent as Karl Frisch, Sandy Anderson, Kyle McDaniel, and Robyn Lady are School Board members.

If you continue to elect low quality board members don’t be surprised when you get low quality employees and low quality consultants.

It all starts at the top. Don’t complain about Thru when the people who hired them are themselves incompetent and did minimal due diligence.

Have you seen the people who ran against the current school board? It's not like they were an improvement.

In some cases they would have been a decided improvement over the current School Board members. In other cases, they would not have been much better, but they still might have challenged decisions by a single-party board.

But keep electing people simply because they have been endorsed by the FCDC and you'll have zero grounds to complain when they redistrict you to schools you don't want your kids attending.

You do realize none of this grousing about the school board election doesn't solve the current problem, right? Could you find another place to complain please? The rest of us are discussing the boundary review.

You're complaining about the consultant that was hand-picked by the current Superintendent and vetted by the current School Board. Elections have consequences.

If we had a different and more reasonable School Board, this county-wide boundary study would not even be taking place.

You can nit pick about particular boundary proposals, and even keep suggesting that FCPS move other kids and keep yours where they are, but there are root causes for the current insanity, and the root cause is Karl Frisch wanting to redistrict while doing so in a way where bad decisions could be blamed on a third party consultant.

There is enough of a record here - the school board will be squarely on the hook for these changes. They can’t pass the buck.

Karl Frisch is too stupid to recognize that. No wonder he couldn’t win a primary for the House of Delegates, but bummer that we’re stuck with him on the School Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thru is just as good a consulting firm as Michelle Reid is a superintendent. And Reid is just as good a superintendent as Karl Frisch, Sandy Anderson, Kyle McDaniel, and Robyn Lady are School Board members.

If you continue to elect low quality board members don’t be surprised when you get low quality employees and low quality consultants.

It all starts at the top. Don’t complain about Thru when the people who hired them are themselves incompetent and did minimal due diligence.

Have you seen the people who ran against the current school board? It's not like they were an improvement.

The springield district opponent would have been an improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/06/03/community-concerns-crop-up-with-initial-fcps-boundary-rewrite-proposals/

That article implies that part of the Emerald Chase neighborhood currently feeds to Chantilly. I didn’t think that was the case. The biggest sticking point is that Chantilly is shedding existing students who live closer to Chantilly than Emerald Chase. They’re campaigning to displace 50-some additional students who don’t want to move, but that’s being glossed over in their cheerful bike to school campaign.

They are only asking to stay at an AP high school. There are parents who want to be moved to Chantilly, but it’s not the consensus position in the neighborhood—there are many parents who want to stay at Westfield. The efforts are primarily aimed at keeping the same elementary school.

Isn’t that exactly what Scenario 1 gives them? They remain Oak Hill/Carson/Westfield. The article only refers to Chantilly HS and doesn’t mention that they currently go to Westfield, an AP school. I understand the neighborhood is divided on their goals, but the campaign is extremely obvious and deliberate.

Also, quite doubtful that many kids from there bike to Oak Hill. It is a dark wooded trail.

So you have never been on a trail before then? Any decent trail has enough tree cover that it's not bright - that's sort of the point. You make it sound like some unlight alley way downtown. Clueless.

Exactly. And, would you send your kid to school on one of those trails?

Our trails don't connect to the school but the kids go back their all the time. Not the least bit concerned. If you are, I understand how modern life makes people paranoid. But don't advocate for other people's boundaries to be changed because of your personal phobias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/06/03/community-concerns-crop-up-with-initial-fcps-boundary-rewrite-proposals/

That article implies that part of the Emerald Chase neighborhood currently feeds to Chantilly. I didn’t think that was the case. The biggest sticking point is that Chantilly is shedding existing students who live closer to Chantilly than Emerald Chase. They’re campaigning to displace 50-some additional students who don’t want to move, but that’s being glossed over in their cheerful bike to school campaign.

They are only asking to stay at an AP high school. There are parents who want to be moved to Chantilly, but it’s not the consensus position in the neighborhood—there are many parents who want to stay at Westfield. The efforts are primarily aimed at keeping the same elementary school.

Isn’t that exactly what Scenario 1 gives them? They remain Oak Hill/Carson/Westfield. The article only refers to Chantilly HS and doesn’t mention that they currently go to Westfield, an AP school. I understand the neighborhood is divided on their goals, but the campaign is extremely obvious and deliberate.

Scenario one moves them to Fox Mill ES and then South Lakes, they MS remains the same.

This is a group of families that was moved from Floris to Oak Hill not long ago, so I understand not wanting to change ES again. They don't want IB, which I fully understand, but theya re not asking to stay at Westfield, they are trying to move to Chantilly.

Scenario One keeps Emerald Chase at Oak Hill. The only change in that one is Oak Hill picking up the Navy island.

There is probably an argument to be made that more of Floris north of West Ox could be sent to Fox Mills, since much of that neighborhood is chopped up to the point that next door neighbors attend different elementary schools. Then Emerald Chase could move back to Floris. It still puts a wrench in their plans to funnel students out of Westfield.

If AP is truly the issue (which I doubt) there’s always Herndon’s empty seats.

I have no idea what scenario moves Emerald Chase to Fox Mill but one of them does. It is the move to Fox Mill that triggers the move to South lakes, which is what triggered this. They don't want to move to South Lakes. There is a group in Emerald Chase that is slated to move to Fox Mill/Carson/South Lakes. And yes, it is the same group that was moved from Floris to Oak Hill. I get their wanting to stay at Oak Hill because they have been moved but their ask to move to Chantilly is bogus.

Those of us in Fox Mill Woods would LOVE not to be moved to Oakton and Rachel Carson in the scenarios 2 and 3. It's absurd that this is even on the table. Our secondary kids are in the middle of the IB MYP or IB program. Langston Hughes and South Lakes are ONE MILE away. And we live in Reston, not Oakton. Are they going to send busses down Hunter Mill and Vale just for the 10 kids in our neighborhood who attend MS/HS at any given time when we're on an existing bus route?

Emerald Chase people -- we want to team up with you. Our situation is as absurd as yours. We can walk to Crossfield and our neighborhood is split on staying there or not (all scenarios keep us there) versus moving to Hunters Woods. But what we know is that we all want to stay in Hughes and South Lakes.

And scenario 3 overenrolls Oakton and gives us a 5 mile bus ride. Absurd. I don't know who these morons at Thru Consulting are, but they're terrible at their jobs and the school board never should have taken this on.

Fix Coates and a few weird situations, but dont upend the whole county.

I find it funny the Fox Mill Woods people want the consultants to disregard the path through the woods that makes Crossfield "walkable" and go to Hunters Woods / Hughes / South Lakes to eliminate their split feeder, while the Emerald Chase people are trying to get Thru to acknowledge a path through the woods to let them stay at their elementary school making it a split feeder (because also going to overcrowded Chantilly is out of the question).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/06/03/community-concerns-crop-up-with-initial-fcps-boundary-rewrite-proposals/

That article implies that part of the Emerald Chase neighborhood currently feeds to Chantilly. I didn’t think that was the case. The biggest sticking point is that Chantilly is shedding existing students who live closer to Chantilly than Emerald Chase. They’re campaigning to displace 50-some additional students who don’t want to move, but that’s being glossed over in their cheerful bike to school campaign.

They are only asking to stay at an AP high school. There are parents who want to be moved to Chantilly, but it’s not the consensus position in the neighborhood—there are many parents who want to stay at Westfield. The efforts are primarily aimed at keeping the same elementary school.

Isn’t that exactly what Scenario 1 gives them? They remain Oak Hill/Carson/Westfield. The article only refers to Chantilly HS and doesn’t mention that they currently go to Westfield, an AP school. I understand the neighborhood is divided on their goals, but the campaign is extremely obvious and deliberate.

Scenario one moves them to Fox Mill ES and then South Lakes, they MS remains the same.

This is a group of families that was moved from Floris to Oak Hill not long ago, so I understand not wanting to change ES again. They don't want IB, which I fully understand, but theya re not asking to stay at Westfield, they are trying to move to Chantilly.

Scenario One keeps Emerald Chase at Oak Hill. The only change in that one is Oak Hill picking up the Navy island.

There is probably an argument to be made that more of Floris north of West Ox could be sent to Fox Mills, since much of that neighborhood is chopped up to the point that next door neighbors attend different elementary schools. Then Emerald Chase could move back to Floris. It still puts a wrench in their plans to funnel students out of Westfield.

If AP is truly the issue (which I doubt) there’s always Herndon’s empty seats.

I have no idea what scenario moves Emerald Chase to Fox Mill but one of them does. It is the move to Fox Mill that triggers the move to South lakes, which is what triggered this. They don't want to move to South Lakes. There is a group in Emerald Chase that is slated to move to Fox Mill/Carson/South Lakes. And yes, it is the same group that was moved from Floris to Oak Hill. I get their wanting to stay at Oak Hill because they have been moved but their ask to move to Chantilly is bogus.

Those of us in Fox Mill Woods would LOVE not to be moved to Oakton and Rachel Carson in the scenarios 2 and 3. It's absurd that this is even on the table. Our secondary kids are in the middle of the IB MYP or IB program. Langston Hughes and South Lakes are ONE MILE away. And we live in Reston, not Oakton. Are they going to send busses down Hunter Mill and Vale just for the 10 kids in our neighborhood who attend MS/HS at any given time when we're on an existing bus route?

Emerald Chase people -- we want to team up with you. Our situation is as absurd as yours. We can walk to Crossfield and our neighborhood is split on staying there or not (all scenarios keep us there) versus moving to Hunters Woods. But what we know is that we all want to stay in Hughes and South Lakes.

And scenario 3 overenrolls Oakton and gives us a 5 mile bus ride. Absurd. I don't know who these morons at Thru Consulting are, but they're terrible at their jobs and the school board never should have taken this on.

Fix Coates and a few weird situations, but dont upend the whole county.

I find it funny the Fox Mill Woods people want the consultants to disregard the path through the woods that makes Crossfield "walkable" and go to Hunters Woods / Hughes / South Lakes to eliminate their split feeder, while the Emerald Chase people are trying to get Thru to acknowledge a path through the woods to let them stay at their elementary school making it a split feeder (because also going to overcrowded Chantilly is out of the question).

I'm curious about if this really is the consensus for Fox Mill Woods? They want their neighborhood rezoned to Hunters Woods? We are a Franklin Farm Crossfield family (both Fox Mill and Oak Hill are closer to our house than Crossfield), and I totally get why they would want to be rezoned. It's sad that only a handful of kids from every grade go to a different middle school each year, that must be really hard for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thru is just as good a consulting firm as Michelle Reid is a superintendent. And Reid is just as good a superintendent as Karl Frisch, Sandy Anderson, Kyle McDaniel, and Robyn Lady are School Board members.

If you continue to elect low quality board members don’t be surprised when you get low quality employees and low quality consultants.

It all starts at the top. Don’t complain about Thru when the people who hired them are themselves incompetent and did minimal due diligence.

Have you seen the people who ran against the current school board? It's not like they were an improvement.

In some cases they would have been a decided improvement over the current School Board members. In other cases, they would not have been much better, but they still might have challenged decisions by a single-party board.

But keep electing people simply because they have been endorsed by the FCDC and you'll have zero grounds to complain when they redistrict you to schools you don't want your kids attending.

You do realize none of this grousing about the school board election doesn't solve the current problem, right? Could you find another place to complain please? The rest of us are discussing the boundary review.

You're complaining about the consultant that was hand-picked by the current Superintendent and vetted by the current School Board. Elections have consequences.

If we had a different and more reasonable School Board, this county-wide boundary study would not even be taking place.

You can nit pick about particular boundary proposals, and even keep suggesting that FCPS move other kids and keep yours where they are, but there are root causes for the current insanity, and the root cause is Karl Frisch wanting to redistrict while doing so in a way where bad decisions could be blamed on a third party consultant.

There is enough of a record here - the school board will be squarely on the hook for these changes. They can’t pass the buck.

Karl Frisch is too stupid to recognize that. No wonder he couldn’t win a primary for the House of Delegates, but bummer that we’re stuck with him on the School Board.

Karl Frisch is the worst!

[Anonymous]

This whole boundary process is the worst creating friction in neighborhoods, adding stress to kids who want to stay with their friends/teams….all for what? Solve the few issues and let’s move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole boundary process is the worst creating friction in neighborhoods, adding stress to kids who want to stay with their friends/teams….all for what? Solve the few issues and let’s move on.

Just to add to your post that the real sole issue at this point is Coates.

They are ignoring that issue this year.

[Anonymous]

This blog post is kind of pablum and Ms. Hall reiterates some of the misleading statements she’s made in the past regarding how the current school boundaries evolved.

Even so, it’s interesting that one of the biggest cheerleaders for FCPS and the School Board (who conveniently got herself appointed to the BRAC as a reward for years of sucking up) is highly critical of what Thru Consulting has developed so far.

https://www.4publiceducation.org/post/first-look-public-review-of-fairfax-county-boundary-scenarios

Bottom line is that no one wants to defend what Thru has come up with. Guess that’s what we should expect, as they are getting paid to take the blame for anything and everything people don’t like. Still this whole county-wide review is starting to feel like a sinking ship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This blog post is kind of pablum and Ms. Hall reiterates some of the misleading statements she’s made in the past regarding how the current school boundaries evolved.

Even so, it’s interesting that one of the biggest cheerleaders for FCPS and the School Board (who conveniently got herself appointed to the BRAC as a reward for years of sucking up) is highly critical of what Thru Consulting has developed so far.

https://www.4publiceducation.org/post/first-look-public-review-of-fairfax-county-boundary-scenarios

Bottom line is that no one wants to defend what Thru has come up with. Guess that’s what we should expect, as they are getting paid to take the blame for anything and everything people don’t like. Still this whole county-wide review is starting to feel like a sinking ship.

It feels like that on here. This also seems to be largely an echo chamber. The question is how everyone not directly affected by this process feels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This blog post is kind of pablum and Ms. Hall reiterates some of the misleading statements she’s made in the past regarding how the current school boundaries evolved.

Even so, it’s interesting that one of the biggest cheerleaders for FCPS and the School Board (who conveniently got herself appointed to the BRAC as a reward for years of sucking up) is highly critical of what Thru Consulting has developed so far.

https://www.4publiceducation.org/post/first-look-public-review-of-fairfax-county-boundary-scenarios

Bottom line is that no one wants to defend what Thru has come up with. Guess that’s what we should expect, as they are getting paid to take the blame for anything and everything people don’t like. Still this whole county-wide review is starting to feel like a sinking ship.

It feels like that on here. This also seems to be largely an echo chamber. The question is how everyone not directly affected by this process feels.

That shouldn’t be the question. You’re implying it’s all good if people who know nothing about it don’t object.

I’d say the question is how many more times can Thru release proposals that everyone who is paying attention quickly denounce as seriously flawed before the entire process collapses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thru is just as good a consulting firm as Michelle Reid is a superintendent. And Reid is just as good a superintendent as Karl Frisch, Sandy Anderson, Kyle McDaniel, and Robyn Lady are School Board members.

If you continue to elect low quality board members don’t be surprised when you get low quality employees and low quality consultants.

It all starts at the top. Don’t complain about Thru when the people who hired them are themselves incompetent and did minimal due diligence.

Have you seen the people who ran against the current school board? It's not like they were an improvement.

My dog would be an improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thru is just as good a consulting firm as Michelle Reid is a superintendent. And Reid is just as good a superintendent as Karl Frisch, Sandy Anderson, Kyle McDaniel, and Robyn Lady are School Board members.

If you continue to elect low quality board members don’t be surprised when you get low quality employees and low quality consultants.

It all starts at the top. Don’t complain about Thru when the people who hired them are themselves incompetent and did minimal due diligence.

Have you seen the people who ran against the current school board? It's not like they were an improvement.

My dog would be an improvement.

At least someone would be there to challenge them. Balance the nutcases in both sides.