FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

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.

If you are an insider at FCPS, make sure you hold onto your post, lest you violate the clear letter of FOIA law, as this is a communication concerning your job.

Also, The fact that an insider at FCPS would use the term “white washed” is repugnant and unbecoming of any role within the school system. You also show zero sense of geography or the history of the schools. In sum, total trash post.

[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.

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.

If you are an insider at FCPS, make sure you hold onto your post, lest you violate the clear letter of FOIA law, as this is a communication concerning your job.

Also, The fact that an insider at FCPS would use the term “white washed” is repugnant and unbecoming of any role within the school system. You also show zero sense of geography or the history of the schools. In sum, total trash post.

DP. You explained what I was trying to figure out. The poster may be an "insider" but not a very smart one.

One thing is likely accurate, however. I would not trust that we have seen what is really the "plan."

I've been through boundary studies in the past. There are always surprises at the end. And, those "surprises" were usually what the School Board member wants. They usually try to support their fellow SB members if it is in the member's district. I will say that there are one or two that I've heard and I suspect none of the presented options are what some desire.
Look for "adjustments" from SB members as we approach the final vote. This will be on them--not Reid and not Thru.

[Anonymous]

DP. Everyone would like more data and more transparency as to what is driving Thru's decisions. That includes the McLean, Marshall, and Falls Church families who've seen one set of proposals in the BRAC decks and then another set of proposals in mid-May.

The first issue is how did Thru decide to operationalize the Policy 8130 considerations by focusing exclusively on:

* Attendance islands and schools outside their attendance area
* Split feeders with a < 25% split
* Schools over 105% capacity

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members?

The second issue is how did Thru come up with a different set of proposals in mid-May than had been previously shared in the three BRAC decks from April and early May.

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members? The BRAC members disclaim any responsibility for the proposals to date and, at least in public, so too do the School Board members.

Absent greater transparency and access to more data, people will just feel free to make up their own stories about how this came to pass. If you don't like what's in the latest proposals, you have all the more incentive to make up a false narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. Everyone would like more data and more transparency as to what is driving Thru's decisions. That includes the McLean, Marshall, and Falls Church families who've seen one set of proposals in the BRAC decks and then another set of proposals in mid-May.

The first issue is how did Thru decide to operationalize the Policy 8130 considerations by focusing exclusively on:

* Attendance islands and schools outside their attendance area
* Split feeders with a < 25% split
* Schools over 105% capacity

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members?

The second issue is how did Thru come up with a different set of proposals in mid-May than had been previously shared in the three BRAC decks from April and early May.

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members? The BRAC members disclaim any responsibility for the proposals to date and, at least in public, so too do the School Board members.

Absent greater transparency and access to more data, people will just feel free to make up their own stories about how this came to pass. If you don't like what's in the latest proposals, you have all the more incentive to make up a false narrative.

+1 to all of this

Thru is operating on a black box and what seems like no oversight based on the discussion from the SB members and the BRAC members tonight.

[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.

Sure you are, LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. Everyone would like more data and more transparency as to what is driving Thru's decisions. That includes the McLean, Marshall, and Falls Church families who've seen one set of proposals in the BRAC decks and then another set of proposals in mid-May.

The first issue is how did Thru decide to operationalize the Policy 8130 considerations by focusing exclusively on:

* Attendance islands and schools outside their attendance area
* Split feeders with a < 25% split
* Schools over 105% capacity

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members?

The second issue is how did Thru come up with a different set of proposals in mid-May than had been previously shared in the three BRAC decks from April and early May.

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members? The BRAC members disclaim any responsibility for the proposals to date and, at least in public, so too do the School Board members.

Absent greater transparency and access to more data, people will just feel free to make up their own stories about how this came to pass. If you don't like what's in the latest proposals, you have all the more incentive to make up a false narrative.

Based on all of the feedback provided by the community, the only actual change that should be occurring is to figure out what to do with Coates ES. Everything else isn't supported and isn't necessary. Really hope the school board gets that message and pushes it with Reid/Thru.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Everyone would like more data and more transparency as to what is driving Thru's decisions. That includes the McLean, Marshall, and Falls Church families who've seen one set of proposals in the BRAC decks and then another set of proposals in mid-May.

The first issue is how did Thru decide to operationalize the Policy 8130 considerations by focusing exclusively on:

* Attendance islands and schools outside their attendance area
* Split feeders with a < 25% split
* Schools over 105% capacity

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members?

The second issue is how did Thru come up with a different set of proposals in mid-May than had been previously shared in the three BRAC decks from April and early May.

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members? The BRAC members disclaim any responsibility for the proposals to date and, at least in public, so too do the School Board members.

Absent greater transparency and access to more data, people will just feel free to make up their own stories about how this came to pass. If you don't like what's in the latest proposals, you have all the more incentive to make up a false narrative.

Based on all of the feedback provided by the community, the only actual change that should be occurring is to figure out what to do with Coates ES. Everything else isn't supported and isn't necessary. Really hope the school board gets that message and pushes it with Reid/Thru.

I would expand on that by saying they should deal with Coates, Parklawn (19 trailers), and Glasgow (not overcrowded quantitatively, but parents have been asking for years to reduce the size of that 1700-student middle school).

Those would be meaningful changes that are responsive to what the local communities actually want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are Marshall families who are fine with going to McLean just as there are Marshall families who are fine with going to Madison. The communities overlap a lot. Just letting Karl know since he appears to be following this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. Everyone would like more data and more transparency as to what is driving Thru's decisions. That includes the McLean, Marshall, and Falls Church families who've seen one set of proposals in the BRAC decks and then another set of proposals in mid-May.

The first issue is how did Thru decide to operationalize the Policy 8130 considerations by focusing exclusively on:

* Attendance islands and schools outside their attendance area
* Split feeders with a < 25% split
* Schools over 105% capacity

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members?

The second issue is how did Thru come up with a different set of proposals in mid-May than had been previously shared in the three BRAC decks from April and early May.

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members? The BRAC members disclaim any responsibility for the proposals to date and, at least in public, so too do the School Board members.

Absent greater transparency and access to more data, people will just feel free to make up their own stories about how this came to pass. If you don't like what's in the latest proposals, you have all the more incentive to make up a false narrative.

Wondering the same about Thru’s changes vs. the ones originally put forth in the BRAC slide decks. Some of the Thru changes were very different than what was proposed in the slides. How did they come up with this? Is the BRAC still having in person meetings or is this now done and we get to squabble about what Thru did that was different than what was originally proposed?

[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.

There are many other inaccuracies in your post, it's hard to address them all but here are some:

* Langley's boundaries have been in place for decades and reflect a decision made in the 1990s to address overcrowding at Herndon by moving some areas to Langley. Langley remains under capacity today, so there's no need to pull anyone out.

* People in McLean zoned to Langley and McLean don't really care where kids in Great Falls go to school (other than, perhaps, to oppose unnecessary boundary changes on principle).

* The large catchment area for Langley enables more wealthy kids to attend Langley, not McLean.

* The latest Thru proposals would move single-family homes, townhouses, and low-income garden apartments out of McLean to Falls Church and Marshall, but also move other single-family homes, townhouses, and low-income garden apartments from Marshall to McLean. It may be clumsy and unnecessary, but it's not red-lining.

* The proposed changes, in the aggregate, would have an impact on capacity at Cooper/Langley (increase), Longfellow/McLean (decrease), Kilmer/Marshall (decrease), Thoreau/Madison (increase), and Jackson/Falls Church (increase). The statement that there would be no impact on capacity is blatantly false.

Given all these inaccuracies, I can't believe you're actually an FCPS insider, or at least not an FCPS insider with any resposibility relating to the boundary review. If you are an FCPS insider, you should be ashamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are Marshall families who are fine with going to McLean just as there are Marshall families who are fine with going to Madison. The communities overlap a lot. Just letting Karl know since he appears to be following this thread.

Fair enough. There may be some parents who welcome the move or are prepared to just go with the flow. The more vocal parents have been McLean families who do not want to move to Falls Church (Timber Lane) and the Marshall families who do not want to move to McLean (Falls Hill and the part of Lemon Road next door to Marshall).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Everyone would like more data and more transparency as to what is driving Thru's decisions. That includes the McLean, Marshall, and Falls Church families who've seen one set of proposals in the BRAC decks and then another set of proposals in mid-May.

The first issue is how did Thru decide to operationalize the Policy 8130 considerations by focusing exclusively on:

* Attendance islands and schools outside their attendance area
* Split feeders with a < 25% split
* Schools over 105% capacity

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members?

The second issue is how did Thru come up with a different set of proposals in mid-May than had been previously shared in the three BRAC decks from April and early May.

Did that come from Thru, Reid, FCPS staff, or School Board members? The BRAC members disclaim any responsibility for the proposals to date and, at least in public, so too do the School Board members.

Absent greater transparency and access to more data, people will just feel free to make up their own stories about how this came to pass. If you don't like what's in the latest proposals, you have all the more incentive to make up a false narrative.

Wondering the same about Thru’s changes vs. the ones originally put forth in the BRAC slide decks. Some of the Thru changes were very different than what was proposed in the slides. How did they come up with this? Is the BRAC still having in person meetings or is this now done and we get to squabble about what Thru did that was different than what was originally proposed?

There will be more in-person BRAC meetings starting later this month.

I believe there was a statement that a document summarizing feedback at the latest round of community meetings will be shared with the BRAC then and also posted around that time on one of the FCPS web pages.

[Anonymous]

I’ve never seen a post get ratioed as fast as that “insider” post just did.

[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.

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.

If you are an insider at FCPS, make sure you hold onto your post, lest you violate the clear letter of FOIA law, as this is a communication concerning your job.

Also, The fact that an insider at FCPS would use the term “white washed” is repugnant and unbecoming of any role within the school system. You also show zero sense of geography or the history of the schools. In sum, total trash post.

DP. You explained what I was trying to figure out. The poster may be an "insider" but not a very smart one.

One thing is likely accurate, however. I would not trust that we have seen what is really the "plan."

I've been through boundary studies in the past. There are always surprises at the end. And, those "surprises" were usually what the School Board member wants. They usually try to support their fellow SB members if it is in the member's district. I will say that there are one or two that I've heard and I suspect none of the presented options are what some desire.
Look for "adjustments" from SB members as we approach the final vote. This will be on them--not Reid and not Thru.

+1. I have also been through boundary studies in the past and this is exactly right. Look for the SB members whose personal properties are in the crosshairs and watch what happens.

[Anonymous]

Some of the recent memos posted to Board Docs this week identify Charles Fanshaw as the interim head of facilities services and capital programs. Guess it's official that Janice Szymanski is leaving as of the end of the school year.

Why is she leaving? Does it have anything to do with the boundary review, which has been anything but smooth? It's bizarre that FCPS is still aiming to roll out boundary changes in the fall of 2026 when it won't have a permanent person in charge of facilities, transportation services, etc.