FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

To be clear, they'll likely have a new person by the fall of 2026 but obviously there is a LOT of planning that will need to take place before then.

[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.

We are not in Langley, but I have to say I don’t think they really care about their boundary policy wrt attendance islands, split feeders or capacity.

The rezone is putting our small neighborhood in an attendance island that is masked by miles of bordering commercial real estate; plus…

They’re creating a new split feeder that is going to send a very small fraction of kids to a different HS that does not include their elementary or middle school in the pyramid; plus…

The FCPS new residential development student yield projection for the reasoned HS far exceeds the current local HS that is much closer.

What they’re doing to our neighborhood goes far against their objectives in their 8130.8 Policy.

[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.

We are not in Langley, but I have to say I don’t think they really care about their boundary policy wrt attendance islands, split feeders or capacity.

The rezone is putting our small neighborhood in an attendance island that is masked by miles of bordering commercial real estate; plus…

They’re creating a new split feeder that is going to send a very small fraction of kids to a different HS that does not include their elementary or middle school in the pyramid; plus…

The FCPS new residential development student yield projection for the reasoned HS far exceeds the current local HS that is much closer.

What they’re doing to our neighborhood goes far against their objectives in their 8130.8 Policy.

Their entire approach so far is focused on atendance islands, schools outside their current boundaries, split feeders, and 105% over-capacity.

It's just that they've paid limited attention to whether, in solving one "problem," they create another.

With respect to attendance islands, they only consider an area to be an attendance island if it is not contiguous to a school's primary attendance area on a map. If they create or encounter an attendance area that is contiguous to the main area on a map, but separated from a school's primary attendance area by commericial real estate, etc, they won't treat it as an island. You can say that's form over substance, and you'd be right, but most of what Thru has done is come up with make-weight, cosmetic solutions to "problems," many of which would likely resolve themselves in a few years without any boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are not in Langley, but I have to say I don’t think they really care about their boundary policy wrt attendance islands, split feeders or capacity.

The rezone is putting our small neighborhood in an attendance island that is masked by miles of bordering commercial real estate; plus…

They’re creating a new split feeder that is going to send a very small fraction of kids to a different HS that does not include their elementary or middle school in the pyramid; plus…

The FCPS new residential development student yield projection for the reasoned HS far exceeds the current local HS that is much closer.

What they’re doing to our neighborhood goes far against their objectives in their 8130.8 Policy.

Their entire approach so far is focused on atendance islands, schools outside their current boundaries, split feeders, and 105% over-capacity.

It's just that they've paid limited attention to whether, in solving one "problem," they create another.

With respect to attendance islands, they only consider an area to be an attendance island if it is not contiguous to a school's primary attendance area on a map. If they create or encounter an attendance area that is contiguous to the main area on a map, but separated from a school's primary attendance area by commericial real estate, etc, they won't treat it as an island. You can say that's form over substance, and you'd be right, but most of what Thru has done is come up with make-weight, cosmetic solutions to "problems," many of which would likely resolve themselves in a few years without any boundary changes.

This is where their process really failed. They had objectives that they knew wouldn’t impact everyone. Instead of going to the BRAC members who represented Chantilly HS to ask, “Hey, does this make sense?” They presented a dump of power point slides with minimal geographic markers for the committee to wade through and try to make sense of. Then when presenting the model to the public, instead of focusing on one pyramid at a time to gather relevant data for the whole county, they let it be a free for all where the same voices drowned out the feedback for every meeting. Of course an oddly selected SPA that only yields, like, 30 students isn’t going to easily land on their radar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are not in Langley, but I have to say I don’t think they really care about their boundary policy wrt attendance islands, split feeders or capacity.

The rezone is putting our small neighborhood in an attendance island that is masked by miles of bordering commercial real estate; plus…

They’re creating a new split feeder that is going to send a very small fraction of kids to a different HS that does not include their elementary or middle school in the pyramid; plus…

The FCPS new residential development student yield projection for the reasoned HS far exceeds the current local HS that is much closer.

What they’re doing to our neighborhood goes far against their objectives in their 8130.8 Policy.

Their entire approach so far is focused on atendance islands, schools outside their current boundaries, split feeders, and 105% over-capacity.

It's just that they've paid limited attention to whether, in solving one "problem," they create another.

With respect to attendance islands, they only consider an area to be an attendance island if it is not contiguous to a school's primary attendance area on a map. If they create or encounter an attendance area that is contiguous to the main area on a map, but separated from a school's primary attendance area by commericial real estate, etc, they won't treat it as an island. You can say that's form over substance, and you'd be right, but most of what Thru has done is come up with make-weight, cosmetic solutions to "problems," many of which would likely resolve themselves in a few years without any boundary changes.

This is where their process really failed. They had objectives that they knew wouldn’t impact everyone. Instead of going to the BRAC members who represented Chantilly HS to ask, “Hey, does this make sense?” They presented a dump of power point slides with minimal geographic markers for the committee to wade through and try to make sense of. Then when presenting the model to the public, instead of focusing on one pyramid at a time to gather relevant data for the whole county, they let it be a free for all where the same voices drowned out the feedback for every meeting. Of course an oddly selected SPA that only yields, like, 30 students isn’t going to easily land on their radar.

Agree with all this. It's been a poorly run process, and it feels like it's ultimately going to feel both time-consuming and rushed, because they gather feedback so inefficiently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are not in Langley, but I have to say I don’t think they really care about their boundary policy wrt attendance islands, split feeders or capacity.

The rezone is putting our small neighborhood in an attendance island that is masked by miles of bordering commercial real estate; plus…

They’re creating a new split feeder that is going to send a very small fraction of kids to a different HS that does not include their elementary or middle school in the pyramid; plus…

The FCPS new residential development student yield projection for the reasoned HS far exceeds the current local HS that is much closer.

What they’re doing to our neighborhood goes far against their objectives in their 8130.8 Policy.

Their entire approach so far is focused on atendance islands, schools outside their current boundaries, split feeders, and 105% over-capacity.

It's just that they've paid limited attention to whether, in solving one "problem," they create another.

With respect to attendance islands, they only consider an area to be an attendance island if it is not contiguous to a school's primary attendance area on a map. If they create or encounter an attendance area that is contiguous to the main area on a map, but separated from a school's primary attendance area by commericial real estate, etc, they won't treat it as an island. You can say that's form over substance, and you'd be right, but most of what Thru has done is come up with make-weight, cosmetic solutions to "problems," many of which would likely resolve themselves in a few years without any boundary changes.

This is where their process really failed. They had objectives that they knew wouldn’t impact everyone. Instead of going to the BRAC members who represented Chantilly HS to ask, “Hey, does this make sense?” They presented a dump of power point slides with minimal geographic markers for the committee to wade through and try to make sense of. Then when presenting the model to the public, instead of focusing on one pyramid at a time to gather relevant data for the whole county, they let it be a free for all where the same voices drowned out the feedback for every meeting. Of course an oddly selected SPA that only yields, like, 30 students isn’t going to easily land on their radar.

Agree with all this. It's been a poorly run process, and it feels like it's ultimately going to feel both time-consuming and rushed, because they gather feedback so inefficiently.

FCPS always gathers feedback, but it doesn’t matter if it is sufficient or complete, because in the end they do what they want.

Just ask yourself how many surveys have indicated what parents want only to the SB and Gatehouse do something different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are not in Langley, but I have to say I don’t think they really care about their boundary policy wrt attendance islands, split feeders or capacity.

The rezone is putting our small neighborhood in an attendance island that is masked by miles of bordering commercial real estate; plus…

They’re creating a new split feeder that is going to send a very small fraction of kids to a different HS that does not include their elementary or middle school in the pyramid; plus…

The FCPS new residential development student yield projection for the reasoned HS far exceeds the current local HS that is much closer.

What they’re doing to our neighborhood goes far against their objectives in their 8130.8 Policy.

Their entire approach so far is focused on atendance islands, schools outside their current boundaries, split feeders, and 105% over-capacity.

It's just that they've paid limited attention to whether, in solving one "problem," they create another.

With respect to attendance islands, they only consider an area to be an attendance island if it is not contiguous to a school's primary attendance area on a map. If they create or encounter an attendance area that is contiguous to the main area on a map, but separated from a school's primary attendance area by commericial real estate, etc, they won't treat it as an island. You can say that's form over substance, and you'd be right, but most of what Thru has done is come up with make-weight, cosmetic solutions to "problems," many of which would likely resolve themselves in a few years without any boundary changes.

The fundamental problem is that Thru is simply treating this as a data exercise. I've seen these types before. I went to a presentation once about how AI could draw boundary maps. So, it was all about minimizing cost functions or whatever jargon they were using. But the samples they gave didn't make any sense because they ignored geographic boundaries (highways, rivers, etc.). Thru isn't this bad, but I think it is the same type of mindset.

The SB/Reid is telling them that they want to avoid overcrowding and eliminate attendance islands. So, Thru is following that to the letter, whether it makes sense or not.

[Anonymous]

Just got an email from Mateo Dunne with a survey about establishing a Korean immersion program at Halley - a school that is slated to lose a large number of students in the boundary review process (will be in the high 60% capacity if/when the Hagel Circle island is moved out). So that seems like how they’re proposing to fill out that particular school when the boundary changes go through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are not in Langley, but I have to say I don’t think they really care about their boundary policy wrt attendance islands, split feeders or capacity.

The rezone is putting our small neighborhood in an attendance island that is masked by miles of bordering commercial real estate; plus…

They’re creating a new split feeder that is going to send a very small fraction of kids to a different HS that does not include their elementary or middle school in the pyramid; plus…

The FCPS new residential development student yield projection for the reasoned HS far exceeds the current local HS that is much closer.

What they’re doing to our neighborhood goes far against their objectives in their 8130.8 Policy.

Their entire approach so far is focused on atendance islands, schools outside their current boundaries, split feeders, and 105% over-capacity.

It's just that they've paid limited attention to whether, in solving one "problem," they create another.

With respect to attendance islands, they only consider an area to be an attendance island if it is not contiguous to a school's primary attendance area on a map. If they create or encounter an attendance area that is contiguous to the main area on a map, but separated from a school's primary attendance area by commericial real estate, etc, they won't treat it as an island. You can say that's form over substance, and you'd be right, but most of what Thru has done is come up with make-weight, cosmetic solutions to "problems," many of which would likely resolve themselves in a few years without any boundary changes.

The fundamental problem is that Thru is simply treating this as a data exercise. I've seen these types before. I went to a presentation once about how AI could draw boundary maps. So, it was all about minimizing cost functions or whatever jargon they were using. But the samples they gave didn't make any sense because they ignored geographic boundaries (highways, rivers, etc.). Thru isn't this bad, but I think it is the same type of mindset.

The SB/Reid is telling them that they want to avoid overcrowding and eliminate attendance islands. So, Thru is following that to the letter, whether it makes sense or not.

Actually, I think Thru is that bad. They seem to be looking at the process purely through balancing numbers. That’s why you see things like homes that share a property line with their currently assigned school being bussed 2 miles away.

Then there are the nonsensical slices that aren’t connected by roads, but have SPAs that touch, if only by a single point. Examples are Lincolnia Park, which connects to the rest of the Bren Mar Park boundary via the 395 express lanes, Tysons Green which essentially connects the Kilmer/Marshall zones by only 267 for a stretch, and Chantilly Highlands, which connects to Oakton via the Fairfax County Parkway, even though there’s no direct outlet without cutting through Chantilly assigned neighborhoods.

[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.

I live south of 29 and while I wasn't asking for changes I would love for TL to no longer being a split feeder. It was rough for my kids to lose all their friends when they went to middle school. Our neighborhood is also split between 3 elementary schools- if we have to be split up for the sake of creating "economic diversity" then I have no issue with others doing the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I live south of 29 and while I wasn't asking for changes I would love for TL to no longer being a split feeder. It was rough for my kids to lose all their friends when they went to middle school. Our neighborhood is also split between 3 elementary schools- if we have to be split up for the sake of creating "economic diversity" then I have no issue with others doing the same.

If you're in the area now zoned to Timber Lane south of Route 29 none of that area would continue to go to Timber Lane under the Thru proposals, so not sure it should matter to you if most of Timber Lane north of 29 remains at Longfellow/McLean, as most of those parents prefer. Everything south of Route 29 now at Timber Lane would go to Graham Road, along some areas currently at Graham Road, and it would all feed to Jackson/Falls Church.

It would seem to make sense, however, if they reassigned the Pine Spring island in Jefferson Village that they're trying to eliminate to Graham Road rather than to Westlawn. Graham Road would have capacity, it would keep those kids from having to cross Route 50, and it wouldn't have any impact on the MS/HS (they'd go to Jackson and Falls Church either way).

[Anonymous]

We live in Great Falls west of Springvale. Can someone update me on whether or not the newest scenarios include changes for Langley high school that would impact my kids? I know I should be paying more attention to this, but I haven’t.

[Anonymous]

Not sure if others are looking at the thread on the acquisition of the King Abdullah Academy property, but FCPS now has at least an agreement in principle with the Saudis to acquire the property for $150 million, with all "furnishings, furniture, and equipment" included, subject to a due diligence review. It's on the agenda as an action item for tonight's School Board meeting.

This would be the long-discussed "western high school," acquired for a cost well below what FCPS would otherwise pay to acquire land and construct a new HS. The building is on the small side for an FCPS high school, but has more instructional space than both Lewis HS and McLean HS. No idea what types of modifications besides the removal of obviously religious symbols would be required to align with FCPS requirements, or how long this might take.

The location is off McLearen Road in Herndon near Carson MS. If a new school opens at that location, it probably means boundary changes for Westfield, Oakton, Chantilly, and/or South Lakes. So the question comes up as to why they should be adjusting any boundaries in these pyramids if a Western HS is going to mean changes in a few years.

Anyone have further insights?

[Anonymous]

Link re King Abdullah:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=DHKU4A7A3503

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in Great Falls west of Springvale. Can someone update me on whether or not the newest scenarios include changes for Langley high school that would impact my kids? I know I should be paying more attention to this, but I haven’t.

As of now the only changes to Langley are moving an attendance island from McLean into it. No moves out. But they will present another round of maps in the fall. More changes could happen then