FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes no sense to be taking kids out of Longfellow/mclean who are already part of those communities to replace them with Kilmer/marshall kids who are already happy in their communities. This is just an exchange for no purpose. An example of how we should prioritize Coates and move on.

It's all about addressing the McLean attendance island. Thru was asked to prioritize eliminating these.

The Graham Road/Timber Lane/Pine Springs shuffle into Shrevewood is the first driving factor. They need Shrevewood’s capacity to balance the neighborhoods south of 29. But once they move more students into Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall, they have to move more students out of Kilmer. Timber Lane as an attendance island is another priority, but not the driving factor here.

DP. They are pushing kids now at Graham Road and Pine Spring into Timber Lane as part of a proposed solution to redraw Graham Road’s boundaries so the school sits within its boundaries. But they are proposing to do so in a manner that substantially reduces the enrollment at Graham Road and Pine Spring and increases the enrollment at Timber Lane. That, in turn, is leading them to propose moving part of current Timber Lane into Shrevewood/Kilmer/Marshall to avoid overcrowding Timber Lane. But if they kept more of the kids south of Route 29 at Graham Road and Pine Spring they wouldn’t be adding so many kids to Timber Lane and then pushing part of that school north of Route 29 into Shrevewood.

As for the island, it was a non-issue until they decided to make it an issue. It’s been at McLean for 40 years and is less than 1/4 of a mile from the main attendance area. Those families want to stay at McLean but if FCPS concludes that can only happen if they bridge the island they’ll create a new split feeder at Shrevewood and make some other Marshall families unhappy.

No one at McLean or Marshall was asking for these proposed changes. Another irony is that a lot of the kids in the Falls Church pyramid for whom the new Graham Road building was originally constructed would have a longer commute to Timber Lane than they currently do to Graham Road.

We live in the neighborhoods south of 29 and I don’t know anyone who was asking for changes here either.

All the more reason to scale this back and focus on the very few situations like Coates that really warrant adjustments.

[Anonymous]

Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

Decided later this year with planned implementation date of August 2026.

Sandy Anderson made sure that grandfathering of kids currently in affected schools is not guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

Decided later this year with planned implementation date of August 2026.

Sandy Anderson made sure that grandfathering of kids currently in affected schools is not guaranteed.

And what's the big picture view after 400+ pages on this? Overall seems like changes being proposed in this latest round are about 10% of what everyone was fearful of when this began. Like maybe there's 5-6 groups/neighborhoods that are probably upset (and perhaps rightfully so) but that vast majority of folks not being affected after all? Is that accurate perspective? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

Decided later this year with planned implementation date of August 2026.

Sandy Anderson made sure that grandfathering of kids currently in affected schools is not guaranteed.

And what's the big picture view after 400+ pages on this? Overall seems like changes being proposed in this latest round are about 10% of what everyone was fearful of when this began. Like maybe there's 5-6 groups/neighborhoods that are probably upset (and perhaps rightfully so) but that vast majority of folks not being affected after all? Is that accurate perspective? Thanks.

I’m not in an affected area, but I feel strongly that only Coates is necessary (maybe parklawn too). Families should not be moved from their chosen school pyramids absent a compelling reason.

It not only impacts those families but acts as a drag on the tax rolls across the county since families seek certainty in their school pyramids.

I wouldn’t breathe a sigh of relief if you escape this round, instead, I would fight it now, rather than in a future year when it is your kids’ education on the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

Decided later this year with planned implementation date of August 2026.

Sandy Anderson made sure that grandfathering of kids currently in affected schools is not guaranteed.

And what's the big picture view after 400+ pages on this? Overall seems like changes being proposed in this latest round are about 10% of what everyone was fearful of when this began. Like maybe there's 5-6 groups/neighborhoods that are probably upset (and perhaps rightfully so) but that vast majority of folks not being affected after all? Is that accurate perspective? Thanks.

I don’t agree with that assessment. No one knew exactly what the scale of the proposals would be.

They haven’t to date proposed the two changes that got the most ink - move Langley kids to Herndon and West Springfield kids to Lewis. But they are proposing to move some West Springfield kids to South County and Lake Braddock, as we as a bunch of other changes that don’t make a ton of sense.

They also keep stressing that the proposals to date could change. Reid called the latest proposals “drafty drafts” at one community meeting.

No one should take false comfort that their neighborhoods haven’t been teed up yet for redistricting. And even if your neighborhoods are never candidates for redistricting in this round , minimizing the effect of the proposed changes on others just because you’ve been left unscathed isn’t a great look. After all, they plan to do this every five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

Decided later this year with planned implementation date of August 2026.

Sandy Anderson made sure that grandfathering of kids currently in affected schools is not guaranteed.

And what's the big picture view after 400+ pages on this? Overall seems like changes being proposed in this latest round are about 10% of what everyone was fearful of when this began. Like maybe there's 5-6 groups/neighborhoods that are probably upset (and perhaps rightfully so) but that vast majority of folks not being affected after all? Is that accurate perspective? Thanks.

I’m not in an affected area, but I feel strongly that only Coates is necessary (maybe parklawn too). Families should not be moved from their chosen school pyramids absent a compelling reason.

It not only impacts those families but acts as a drag on the tax rolls across the county since families seek certainty in their school pyramids.

I wouldn’t breathe a sigh of relief if you escape this round, instead, I would fight it now, rather than in a future year when it is your kids’ education on the line.

+1

[Anonymous]

To echo above, our schools were untouched in all three scenarios in April to only have changes proposed in the tool in May…I would stay alert and engaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

Decided later this year with planned implementation date of August 2026.

Sandy Anderson made sure that grandfathering of kids currently in affected schools is not guaranteed.

And what's the big picture view after 400+ pages on this? Overall seems like changes being proposed in this latest round are about 10% of what everyone was fearful of when this began. Like maybe there's 5-6 groups/neighborhoods that are probably upset (and perhaps rightfully so) but that vast majority of folks not being affected after all? Is that accurate perspective? Thanks.

I’m not in an affected area, but I feel strongly that only Coates is necessary (maybe parklawn too). Families should not be moved from their chosen school pyramids absent a compelling reason.

It not only impacts those families but acts as a drag on the tax rolls across the county since families seek certainty in their school pyramids.

I wouldn’t breathe a sigh of relief if you escape this round, instead, I would fight it now, rather than in a future year when it is your kids’ education on the line.

Agreed. I think the changes are much smaller than what they had in mind, in part because of the change in administration and in part because of the coordinated public outcry largely against drastic boundary changes. It is not the time to let up, even if your school is not affected in these preliminary proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

Decided later this year with planned implementation date of August 2026.

Sandy Anderson made sure that grandfathering of kids currently in affected schools is not guaranteed.

And what's the big picture view after 400+ pages on this? Overall seems like changes being proposed in this latest round are about 10% of what everyone was fearful of when this began. Like maybe there's 5-6 groups/neighborhoods that are probably upset (and perhaps rightfully so) but that vast majority of folks not being affected after all? Is that accurate perspective? Thanks.

I’m not in an affected area, but I feel strongly that only Coates is necessary (maybe parklawn too). Families should not be moved from their chosen school pyramids absent a compelling reason.

It not only impacts those families but acts as a drag on the tax rolls across the county since families seek certainty in their school pyramids.

I wouldn’t breathe a sigh of relief if you escape this round, instead, I would fight it now, rather than in a future year when it is your kids’ education on the line.

Agreed. I think the changes are much smaller than what they had in mind, in part because of the change in administration and in part because of the coordinated public outcry largely against drastic boundary changes. It is not the time to let up, even if your school is not affected in these preliminary proposals.

I might have been on board with "drastic boundary changes" if they reflected a clear and compelling vision of what FCPS wants to accomplish.

What they are doing now feels more like some pagan ritual, where random communities are sacrified to appease the boundary gods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

Decided later this year with planned implementation date of August 2026.

Sandy Anderson made sure that grandfathering of kids currently in affected schools is not guaranteed.

And what's the big picture view after 400+ pages on this? Overall seems like changes being proposed in this latest round are about 10% of what everyone was fearful of when this began. Like maybe there's 5-6 groups/neighborhoods that are probably upset (and perhaps rightfully so) but that vast majority of folks not being affected after all? Is that accurate perspective? Thanks.

I’m not in an affected area, but I feel strongly that only Coates is necessary (maybe parklawn too). Families should not be moved from their chosen school pyramids absent a compelling reason.

It not only impacts those families but acts as a drag on the tax rolls across the county since families seek certainty in their school pyramids.

I wouldn’t breathe a sigh of relief if you escape this round, instead, I would fight it now, rather than in a future year when it is your kids’ education on the line.

Agreed. I think the changes are much smaller than what they had in mind, in part because of the change in administration and in part because of the coordinated public outcry largely against drastic boundary changes. It is not the time to let up, even if your school is not affected in these preliminary proposals.

Yes agreed, not minimizing impact on those affected (or suggesting everyone else breathe sigh of relief). But was interested in how "wide ranging" current proposals are (understanding they could still change). Are currently proposals affecting like 5% of entire FCPS community - or 10% or 50% or 90% etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

Decided later this year with planned implementation date of August 2026.

Sandy Anderson made sure that grandfathering of kids currently in affected schools is not guaranteed.

And what's the big picture view after 400+ pages on this? Overall seems like changes being proposed in this latest round are about 10% of what everyone was fearful of when this began. Like maybe there's 5-6 groups/neighborhoods that are probably upset (and perhaps rightfully so) but that vast majority of folks not being affected after all? Is that accurate perspective? Thanks.

I’m not in an affected area, but I feel strongly that only Coates is necessary (maybe parklawn too). Families should not be moved from their chosen school pyramids absent a compelling reason.

It not only impacts those families but acts as a drag on the tax rolls across the county since families seek certainty in their school pyramids.

I wouldn’t breathe a sigh of relief if you escape this round, instead, I would fight it now, rather than in a future year when it is your kids’ education on the line.

Agreed. I think the changes are much smaller than what they had in mind, in part because of the change in administration and in part because of the coordinated public outcry largely against drastic boundary changes. It is not the time to let up, even if your school is not affected in these preliminary proposals.

Yes agreed, not minimizing impact on those affected (or suggesting everyone else breathe sigh of relief). But was interested in how "wide ranging" current proposals are (understanding they could still change). Are currently proposals affecting like 5% of entire FCPS community - or 10% or 50% or 90% etc?

Problem is--with two of the adjustments suggested to my neighborhood--it creates more problems than it solves. Actually, my neighborhood is currently fine with things the way we have them now. And, the suggestions don't do what they intended to do. One of them sends kids much farther away to a more prestigious school, but it splits the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the party, but when will these boundary changes be decided, and when are they supposed to go into effect? Thanks.

Insider at FCPS. What is occurring here is a result of advocacy efforts by wealthy McLean and Great Falls residents to ensure their school districts are "white washed." FCPS intentionally picked a no name consultant to make this look like it is an objective process based on data tied to 8130, but it is anything but. Red-lining proposals have been pushed by influential wealthy families in McLean that were accepted by the Superintendent in exchange for "considerations." You can see this evidenced in the fact that the Langley boundary spans an incredibly large geographic territory completely inconsistent with 8130 transportation tenets but is maintained to ensure wealthy white kids can still go to McLean. Another recent example is red-lining the Timber Lane Title I kids out of McLean, but picking up more wealthy white kids in Idylwood previously zoned to Marshall. These changes have no impact on capacity, but they do remove non-white kids from McLean as the influential families are seeking.

Be very skeptical of Thru consulting and their lack of transparency. Be skeptical of the fact that the school board apparently has no oversight. Be skeptical of the facts that the BRAC never saw the maps prior to their publishing and they differed from those considered in the first round of meetings.

I suggest you push elected leaders beyond Fairfax county to push for transparency and more accountability. Otherwise these few influential families will have their way and the county will suffer the results.

[Anonymous]

Ricardy Anderson and Karl Frisch had a meeting with mostly Timber Lane families tonight in Falls Church.

I thought they handled it fairly well. Mostly just seeking feedback and expressing some of their own concerns with what they know about the Thru Consulting work. They didn't make any statements like others have ascribed to Sandy Anderson claiming that Thru should have made other, specific recommendations instead of the ones they made, etc. They mostly just provided an overview of the process and listened. Someone from Reid's office was there taking notes. One of the BRAC members from the Falls Church pyramid was also there.

The tone among the McLean and Falls Church parents was generally respectful. One Falls Church parent questioned whether the McLean parents at the meeting were really speaking on behalf of the Title I kids at Timber Lane when they said it would be inappropriate to move Title I kids out of the McLean pyramid. Soon thereafter a Hispanic man who said he was from the area north of 29 spoke up and said that he and his neighbors indeed wanted to stay at McLean. At the very end of the meeting a NVCC professor who has kids at McLean made a statement that Falls Church wasn't a good school (which she said was based on her experience with NVCC students she teaches who come from Falls Church). It ended the meeting on a sour note as it offended the Falls Church parents and Anderson told her she had no interest in hearing her insult Falls Church.

In response to one question, Frisch and Anderson said that, even if Policy 8130 calls for the Superintendent to make recommendations to eliminate attendance islands, the School Board could ultimately decide that some attendance islands should remain in place or, as Ricardy said, " the juice [of eliminating the island] isn't worth the squeeze." This wasn't any specific commitment relating to Timber Lane, but it was interesting they were willing to say that. Anderson also said that she continues to think all middle and high school kids should be grandfathered. Frisch didn't make a similar statement; instead, he simply said that the board had previously concluded that it wanted to have flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Insider at FCPS. What is occurring here is a result of advocacy efforts by wealthy McLean and Great Falls residents to ensure their school districts are "white washed." FCPS intentionally picked a no name consultant to make this look like it is an objective process based on data tied to 8130, but it is anything but. Red-lining proposals have been pushed by influential wealthy families in McLean that were accepted by the Superintendent in exchange for "considerations." You can see this evidenced in the fact that the Langley boundary spans an incredibly large geographic territory completely inconsistent with 8130 transportation tenets but is maintained to ensure wealthy white kids can still go to McLean. Another recent example is red-lining the Timber Lane Title I kids out of McLean, but picking up more wealthy white kids in Idylwood previously zoned to Marshall. These changes have no impact on capacity, but they do remove non-white kids from McLean as the influential families are seeking.

Be very skeptical of Thru consulting and their lack of transparency. Be skeptical of the fact that the school board apparently has no oversight. Be skeptical of the facts that the BRAC never saw the maps prior to their publishing and they differed from those considered in the first round of meetings.

I suggest you push elected leaders beyond Fairfax county to push for transparency and more accountability. Otherwise these few influential families will have their way and the county will suffer the results.

This has about as much credibility as the now-discredited "secret maps." Karl Frisch specifically said tonight at the Timber Lane meeting that there's someone on DCUM intentionally spreading misinformation to try and suggest the final decisions have already been made when they haven't.

I suspect you're just making stuff up to try and get Thru/FCPS to undo the proposals that would move McLean kids to Falls Church and Marshall kids to McLean. Those families want to stay at McLean and Marshall, respectively. From what I witnessed tonight, there will be some sympathy for not making these changes without indulging in conspiracy theories.