FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they still think Irving/WSHS needs relief from overcrowding? There is no new development in that area - no new neighborhoods of tightly packed 3 bedroom TH’s being built that will attract many new families. Just older homes eventually, and very gradually, turning over from the original owners and empty nesters. And it’s common knowledge that birth rates started to fall in 2008 with the recession. Most of the 2007 kids turned 18 and graduated this year, then you’d have a few of the late birthday ones graduating at the end of this coming school year and then the graduating classes should start to drop in size.

They can’t shuffle kids out of Irving/WS to South County MS/HS and also keep the Hagel Circle island at SC. There isn’t enough room. The original proposal was to move Hagel Circle out of Halley/SC to Lorton Station/Hayfield. The current scenarios have it at Gunston/SC AND (they estimate) 35% of HV also at SC, AND a smaller number of students currently at Lake Braddock to South County. This also would almost certainly create another Title 1 school at Gunston, and with all the uncertainty around federal funding for education, that doesn’t seem to be the smartest move (Halley was never Title 1 so it’s not as though it’s just moving a designation from one school to another).

Anyone else out here in the hinterlands care to weigh in?

Gunston will definitely turn title 1 if the Hagel Circle island is moved there. The Mason Neck NIMBYs are up in arms, as they should be.

Why should Hagel Circle travel so far out of their neighborhood over so many years, when they should have been going to their neighborhood school the entire time??

Move them out of Halley back to their neighborhood school, then leave them be.

Kids are not social experiment pawns, especiallt not poor kids.

Their neighborhood school is Lorton Station. Hagel Circle is carved out of Lorton Station boundaries. Sending them to Gunston is essentially moving the attendance island to another.

Right.

So send those kids to their neighborhood school and quit moving them.

Wouldn't this be thd 3rd move for Hagel Circle to a school that is not their neighbohood school?

Aren't they are the very poor, minority apartment complex that was moved out of their neighborhood to a out of neighborhood, wealthy, school board connected elementary specifically so the wealthy school could get some Title 1 perks (full day kindergarten? PreK?) Then moved to Halley (farther away?) as soon as that goal was accomplished to get them out of the wealthy school? Now they are getting moved again, probably a correct mive since Halley is so far away, but again, not to their neighborhood school?

It is so crappy of FCPS to use these poor, minority kids like chess pawns, instead of just sending them to their neighborhood school and leaving them alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC UPDATE: On June 23, 2025, FCPS held another BRAC meeting to discuss the community feedback provided via the second set of regional meetings, the Boundary Review Scenario Explorer, and through our individual discussions with community members. Unfortunately, the process remains deeply flawed and continues to draw serious concern from many BRAC members, who expressed strong frustration and disappointment during the meeting.



• BRAC members were presented with a summary of the feedback submitted to date. However, several inaccuracies were identified in Thru Consulting’s characterization of BRAC’s input. Multiple members requested corrections, underscoring broader concerns that BRAC feedback is being misrepresented and that flawed information may be shaping FCPS and Thru’s decision-making.

• Thru shared details about “errors” affecting three boundary scenarios in Region 4. These issues impact Kings Park ES, Kings Glen ES, Ravensworth ES, Eagle View ES, Fairfax Villa ES, Willow Spring ES, Katherine Johnson MS, Frost MS, Fairfax HS, Woodson HS, Irving MS, South County MS, Hunt Valley ES, West Springfield HS, and South County HS. Thru is soliciting alternative proposals to address the problems, signaling that substantial changes to the maps are still forthcoming.

• Many BRAC members voiced frustration that long-standing data requests remain unfulfilled, despite having been submitted months ago. Thru is now asking members to resubmit their requests using a newly created spreadsheet, further delaying the process. In addition, Thru continues to avoid providing justification for why specific boundary changes were proposed over other viable alternatives. Superintendent Reid has not taken steps to ensure BRAC members receive this information, instead deferring to Thru when these questions arise.

• Members were informed that they are now expected to redraw maps and submit proposed changes by July 7, despite not yet having access to critical data needed to inform these revisions. Thru stated that additional data will be released at the next BRAC meeting on August 5, but by that time, updated maps will already be drafted—raising serious concerns about the credibility of the process and the ability of BRAC members to meaningfully contribute. Thru also requested each region’s BRAC representatives to coordinate separately and identify the top 10 priorities for each region as part of the boundary review process. This request is highly concerning given that draft maps have already been released publicly.

• These evolving changes are particularly troubling given that newly impacted communities will have significantly less time to provide feedback before maps are finalized in November.

• A FairFACTS Matters BRAC representative asked how the recent acquisition of Western High School will be factored into the current boundary review. Superintendent Reid stated that it will not be included. She expects the acquisition to be finalized by mid-August, with a possible opening in Fall 2026. She would not share any information on whether the facility will serve as a traditional public school, magnet program, or another model.

• Next steps: BRAC members have been asked to work within their regional groups to submit map feedback by July 7. The full BRAC will reconvene on August 5 and September 3.



FFM is committed to advocating for transparency and accuracy throughout this process and to addressing community concerns about the process’s integrity. If you have any information that you want raised at the BRAC meetings, please reach out to us. The slides from yesterday’s meeting can be found here: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/6-23-2025AdvisoryCommitteeMeetingPresentation.pdf

It appears the consultants, who aren’t even public school boundary rezoning experts, are dropping the ball here. FCPS would likely have been better doing this in-house with the BRAC.

Other districts have implemented the online boundary tool in-house, if that’s the main reason for hiring the consultant. They just need to hire planners with the right level of expertise and experience with public engagement.

You are wrong.

The main reason FCPS hired the consultant was to provide political coverage to the school board members running for future political office, so they had someone to blame for the unpopular rezoning, and could avoid accountability.

Have you spoken with any of the school board members or Reid about rezoning? I have. They claim they don't know anything about the process, make statements like "Thru's maps are not what the maps were supposed to be" and blame Thru for not understanding the neighborhoods or priorities

Thru is simply a half million dollar personal use of taxpayer money to provide political cover for the school board.

I actually kinda feel sorry for Thru. They are in way over their heads.

If you were following the process, you would know that Thru was the only company still interested in the contract after seeing what FCPS school board and Dr. Reid wanted. The other, more experienced companies saw though FCPS and withdrew. Thru was too inexperienced to realize the mess they were getting into, and took the bait.

I am sure they regret getting involved. When all is said and done, they will likely lose money on this contract. If they don't lose money, they will still lose because any time you search Thru, the internet will be full of posts and reviews about how incompetent, unprepared, and awful the company is, thanks to them being part of the kicking of the FCPS parents hornets nest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC UPDATE: On June 23, 2025, FCPS held another BRAC meeting to discuss the community feedback provided via the second set of regional meetings, the Boundary Review Scenario Explorer, and through our individual discussions with community members. Unfortunately, the process remains deeply flawed and continues to draw serious concern from many BRAC members, who expressed strong frustration and disappointment during the meeting.



• BRAC members were presented with a summary of the feedback submitted to date. However, several inaccuracies were identified in Thru Consulting’s characterization of BRAC’s input. Multiple members requested corrections, underscoring broader concerns that BRAC feedback is being misrepresented and that flawed information may be shaping FCPS and Thru’s decision-making.

• Thru shared details about “errors” affecting three boundary scenarios in Region 4. These issues impact Kings Park ES, Kings Glen ES, Ravensworth ES, Eagle View ES, Fairfax Villa ES, Willow Spring ES, Katherine Johnson MS, Frost MS, Fairfax HS, Woodson HS, Irving MS, South County MS, Hunt Valley ES, West Springfield HS, and South County HS. Thru is soliciting alternative proposals to address the problems, signaling that substantial changes to the maps are still forthcoming.

• Many BRAC members voiced frustration that long-standing data requests remain unfulfilled, despite having been submitted months ago. Thru is now asking members to resubmit their requests using a newly created spreadsheet, further delaying the process. In addition, Thru continues to avoid providing justification for why specific boundary changes were proposed over other viable alternatives. Superintendent Reid has not taken steps to ensure BRAC members receive this information, instead deferring to Thru when these questions arise.

• Members were informed that they are now expected to redraw maps and submit proposed changes by July 7, despite not yet having access to critical data needed to inform these revisions. Thru stated that additional data will be released at the next BRAC meeting on August 5, but by that time, updated maps will already be drafted—raising serious concerns about the credibility of the process and the ability of BRAC members to meaningfully contribute. Thru also requested each region’s BRAC representatives to coordinate separately and identify the top 10 priorities for each region as part of the boundary review process. This request is highly concerning given that draft maps have already been released publicly.

• These evolving changes are particularly troubling given that newly impacted communities will have significantly less time to provide feedback before maps are finalized in November.

• A FairFACTS Matters BRAC representative asked how the recent acquisition of Western High School will be factored into the current boundary review. Superintendent Reid stated that it will not be included. She expects the acquisition to be finalized by mid-August, with a possible opening in Fall 2026. She would not share any information on whether the facility will serve as a traditional public school, magnet program, or another model.

• Next steps: BRAC members have been asked to work within their regional groups to submit map feedback by July 7. The full BRAC will reconvene on August 5 and September 3.



FFM is committed to advocating for transparency and accuracy throughout this process and to addressing community concerns about the process’s integrity. If you have any information that you want raised at the BRAC meetings, please reach out to us. The slides from yesterday’s meeting can be found here: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/6-23-2025AdvisoryCommitteeMeetingPresentation.pdf

It appears the consultants, who aren’t even public school boundary rezoning experts, are dropping the ball here. FCPS would likely have been better doing this in-house with the BRAC.

Other districts have implemented the online boundary tool in-house, if that’s the main reason for hiring the consultant. They just need to hire planners with the right level of expertise and experience with public engagement.

You are wrong.

The main reason FCPS hired the consultant was to provide political coverage to the school board members running for future political office, so they had someone to blame for the unpopular rezoning, and could avoid accountability.

Have you spoken with any of the school board members or Reid about rezoning? I have. They claim they don't know anything about the process, make statements like "Thru's maps are not what the maps were supposed to be" and blame Thru for not understanding the neighborhoods or priorities

Thru is simply a half million dollar personal use of taxpayer money to provide political cover for the school board.

I actually kinda feel sorry for Thru. They are in way over their heads.

If you were following the process, you would know that Thru was the only company still interested in the contract after seeing what FCPS school board and Dr. Reid wanted. The other, more experienced companies saw though FCPS and withdrew. Thru was too inexperienced to realize the mess they were getting into, and took the bait.

I am sure they regret getting involved. When all is said and done, they will likely lose money on this contract. If they don't lose money, they will still lose because any time you search Thru, the internet will be full of posts and reviews about how incompetent, unprepared, and awful the company is, thanks to them being part of the kicking of the FCPS parents hornets nest.

Question: In my experience, few government contracts are without change orders that require more dollars. Does anyone know if FCPS has increased payments to THRU?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC UPDATE: On June 23, 2025, FCPS held another BRAC meeting to discuss the community feedback provided via the second set of regional meetings, the Boundary Review Scenario Explorer, and through our individual discussions with community members. Unfortunately, the process remains deeply flawed and continues to draw serious concern from many BRAC members, who expressed strong frustration and disappointment during the meeting.



• BRAC members were presented with a summary of the feedback submitted to date. However, several inaccuracies were identified in Thru Consulting’s characterization of BRAC’s input. Multiple members requested corrections, underscoring broader concerns that BRAC feedback is being misrepresented and that flawed information may be shaping FCPS and Thru’s decision-making.

• Thru shared details about “errors” affecting three boundary scenarios in Region 4. These issues impact Kings Park ES, Kings Glen ES, Ravensworth ES, Eagle View ES, Fairfax Villa ES, Willow Spring ES, Katherine Johnson MS, Frost MS, Fairfax HS, Woodson HS, Irving MS, South County MS, Hunt Valley ES, West Springfield HS, and South County HS. Thru is soliciting alternative proposals to address the problems, signaling that substantial changes to the maps are still forthcoming.

• Many BRAC members voiced frustration that long-standing data requests remain unfulfilled, despite having been submitted months ago. Thru is now asking members to resubmit their requests using a newly created spreadsheet, further delaying the process. In addition, Thru continues to avoid providing justification for why specific boundary changes were proposed over other viable alternatives. Superintendent Reid has not taken steps to ensure BRAC members receive this information, instead deferring to Thru when these questions arise.

• Members were informed that they are now expected to redraw maps and submit proposed changes by July 7, despite not yet having access to critical data needed to inform these revisions. Thru stated that additional data will be released at the next BRAC meeting on August 5, but by that time, updated maps will already be drafted—raising serious concerns about the credibility of the process and the ability of BRAC members to meaningfully contribute. Thru also requested each region’s BRAC representatives to coordinate separately and identify the top 10 priorities for each region as part of the boundary review process. This request is highly concerning given that draft maps have already been released publicly.

• These evolving changes are particularly troubling given that newly impacted communities will have significantly less time to provide feedback before maps are finalized in November.

• A FairFACTS Matters BRAC representative asked how the recent acquisition of Western High School will be factored into the current boundary review. Superintendent Reid stated that it will not be included. She expects the acquisition to be finalized by mid-August, with a possible opening in Fall 2026. She would not share any information on whether the facility will serve as a traditional public school, magnet program, or another model.

• Next steps: BRAC members have been asked to work within their regional groups to submit map feedback by July 7. The full BRAC will reconvene on August 5 and September 3.



FFM is committed to advocating for transparency and accuracy throughout this process and to addressing community concerns about the process’s integrity. If you have any information that you want raised at the BRAC meetings, please reach out to us. The slides from yesterday’s meeting can be found here: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/6-23-2025AdvisoryCommitteeMeetingPresentation.pdf

It appears the consultants, who aren’t even public school boundary rezoning experts, are dropping the ball here. FCPS would likely have been better doing this in-house with the BRAC.

Other districts have implemented the online boundary tool in-house, if that’s the main reason for hiring the consultant. They just need to hire planners with the right level of expertise and experience with public engagement.

You are wrong.

The main reason FCPS hired the consultant was to provide political coverage to the school board members running for future political office, so they had someone to blame for the unpopular rezoning, and could avoid accountability.

Have you spoken with any of the school board members or Reid about rezoning? I have. They claim they don't know anything about the process, make statements like "Thru's maps are not what the maps were supposed to be" and blame Thru for not understanding the neighborhoods or priorities

Thru is simply a half million dollar personal use of taxpayer money to provide political cover for the school board.

I actually kinda feel sorry for Thru. They are in way over their heads.

If you were following the process, you would know that Thru was the only company still interested in the contract after seeing what FCPS school board and Dr. Reid wanted. The other, more experienced companies saw though FCPS and withdrew. Thru was too inexperienced to realize the mess they were getting into, and took the bait.

I am sure they regret getting involved. When all is said and done, they will likely lose money on this contract. If they don't lose money, they will still lose because any time you search Thru, the internet will be full of posts and reviews about how incompetent, unprepared, and awful the company is, thanks to them being part of the kicking of the FCPS parents hornets nest.

Question: In my experience, few government contracts are without change orders that require more dollars. Does anyone know if FCPS has increased payments to THRU?

It was a no bid contract, so it is doubtful that FCPS is following any established procedures on this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC UPDATE: On June 23, 2025, FCPS held another BRAC meeting to discuss the community feedback provided via the second set of regional meetings, the Boundary Review Scenario Explorer, and through our individual discussions with community members. Unfortunately, the process remains deeply flawed and continues to draw serious concern from many BRAC members, who expressed strong frustration and disappointment during the meeting.



• BRAC members were presented with a summary of the feedback submitted to date. However, several inaccuracies were identified in Thru Consulting’s characterization of BRAC’s input. Multiple members requested corrections, underscoring broader concerns that BRAC feedback is being misrepresented and that flawed information may be shaping FCPS and Thru’s decision-making.

• Thru shared details about “errors” affecting three boundary scenarios in Region 4. These issues impact Kings Park ES, Kings Glen ES, Ravensworth ES, Eagle View ES, Fairfax Villa ES, Willow Spring ES, Katherine Johnson MS, Frost MS, Fairfax HS, Woodson HS, Irving MS, South County MS, Hunt Valley ES, West Springfield HS, and South County HS. Thru is soliciting alternative proposals to address the problems, signaling that substantial changes to the maps are still forthcoming.

• Many BRAC members voiced frustration that long-standing data requests remain unfulfilled, despite having been submitted months ago. Thru is now asking members to resubmit their requests using a newly created spreadsheet, further delaying the process. In addition, Thru continues to avoid providing justification for why specific boundary changes were proposed over other viable alternatives. Superintendent Reid has not taken steps to ensure BRAC members receive this information, instead deferring to Thru when these questions arise.

• Members were informed that they are now expected to redraw maps and submit proposed changes by July 7, despite not yet having access to critical data needed to inform these revisions. Thru stated that additional data will be released at the next BRAC meeting on August 5, but by that time, updated maps will already be drafted—raising serious concerns about the credibility of the process and the ability of BRAC members to meaningfully contribute. Thru also requested each region’s BRAC representatives to coordinate separately and identify the top 10 priorities for each region as part of the boundary review process. This request is highly concerning given that draft maps have already been released publicly.

• These evolving changes are particularly troubling given that newly impacted communities will have significantly less time to provide feedback before maps are finalized in November.

• A FairFACTS Matters BRAC representative asked how the recent acquisition of Western High School will be factored into the current boundary review. Superintendent Reid stated that it will not be included. She expects the acquisition to be finalized by mid-August, with a possible opening in Fall 2026. She would not share any information on whether the facility will serve as a traditional public school, magnet program, or another model.

• Next steps: BRAC members have been asked to work within their regional groups to submit map feedback by July 7. The full BRAC will reconvene on August 5 and September 3.



FFM is committed to advocating for transparency and accuracy throughout this process and to addressing community concerns about the process’s integrity. If you have any information that you want raised at the BRAC meetings, please reach out to us. The slides from yesterday’s meeting can be found here: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/6-23-2025AdvisoryCommitteeMeetingPresentation.pdf

It appears the consultants, who aren’t even public school boundary rezoning experts, are dropping the ball here. FCPS would likely have been better doing this in-house with the BRAC.

Other districts have implemented the online boundary tool in-house, if that’s the main reason for hiring the consultant. They just need to hire planners with the right level of expertise and experience with public engagement.

You are wrong.

The main reason FCPS hired the consultant was to provide political coverage to the school board members running for future political office, so they had someone to blame for the unpopular rezoning, and could avoid accountability.

Have you spoken with any of the school board members or Reid about rezoning? I have. They claim they don't know anything about the process, make statements like "Thru's maps are not what the maps were supposed to be" and blame Thru for not understanding the neighborhoods or priorities

Thru is simply a half million dollar personal use of taxpayer money to provide political cover for the school board.

I actually kinda feel sorry for Thru. They are in way over their heads.

If you were following the process, you would know that Thru was the only company still interested in the contract after seeing what FCPS school board and Dr. Reid wanted. The other, more experienced companies saw though FCPS and withdrew. Thru was too inexperienced to realize the mess they were getting into, and took the bait.

I am sure they regret getting involved. When all is said and done, they will likely lose money on this contract. If they don't lose money, they will still lose because any time you search Thru, the internet will be full of posts and reviews about how incompetent, unprepared, and awful the company is, thanks to them being part of the kicking of the FCPS parents hornets nest.

Question: In my experience, few government contracts are without change orders that require more dollars. Does anyone know if FCPS has increased payments to THRU?

It was a no bid contract, so it is doubtful that FCPS is following any established procedures on this one.

So, would be interesting to see the checkbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fairfacts Matters has posted a great recap of the meeting.

please post here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfacts Matters has posted a great recap of the meeting.

please post here!

scroll back. It's been posted more than once, i think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC UPDATE: On June 23, 2025, FCPS held another BRAC meeting to discuss the community feedback provided via the second set of regional meetings, the Boundary Review Scenario Explorer, and through our individual discussions with community members. Unfortunately, the process remains deeply flawed and continues to draw serious concern from many BRAC members, who expressed strong frustration and disappointment during the meeting.

We were disappointed to see that the shared community comments are not fully published. Our community gave feedback in abundance and it was not included in the latest information published. This is concerning because either the feedback tool has errors in reporting comments, or the committee is hand picking what it wants to share, thus making it seem like our neighborhood doesn’t have concerns.



• BRAC members were presented with a summary of the feedback submitted to date. However, several inaccuracies were identified in Thru Consulting’s characterization of BRAC’s input. Multiple members requested corrections, underscoring broader concerns that BRAC feedback is being misrepresented and that flawed information may be shaping FCPS and Thru’s decision-making.

• Thru shared details about “errors” affecting three boundary scenarios in Region 4. These issues impact Kings Park ES, Kings Glen ES, Ravensworth ES, Eagle View ES, Fairfax Villa ES, Willow Spring ES, Katherine Johnson MS, Frost MS, Fairfax HS, Woodson HS, Irving MS, South County MS, Hunt Valley ES, West Springfield HS, and South County HS. Thru is soliciting alternative proposals to address the problems, signaling that substantial changes to the maps are still forthcoming.

• Many BRAC members voiced frustration that long-standing data requests remain unfulfilled, despite having been submitted months ago. Thru is now asking members to resubmit their requests using a newly created spreadsheet, further delaying the process. In addition, Thru continues to avoid providing justification for why specific boundary changes were proposed over other viable alternatives. Superintendent Reid has not taken steps to ensure BRAC members receive this information, instead deferring to Thru when these questions arise.

• Members were informed that they are now expected to redraw maps and submit proposed changes by July 7, despite not yet having access to critical data needed to inform these revisions. Thru stated that additional data will be released at the next BRAC meeting on August 5, but by that time, updated maps will already be drafted—raising serious concerns about the credibility of the process and the ability of BRAC members to meaningfully contribute. Thru also requested each region’s BRAC representatives to coordinate separately and identify the top 10 priorities for each region as part of the boundary review process. This request is highly concerning given that draft maps have already been released publicly.

• These evolving changes are particularly troubling given that newly impacted communities will have significantly less time to provide feedback before maps are finalized in November.

• A FairFACTS Matters BRAC representative asked how the recent acquisition of Western High School will be factored into the current boundary review. Superintendent Reid stated that it will not be included. She expects the acquisition to be finalized by mid-August, with a possible opening in Fall 2026. She would not share any information on whether the facility will serve as a traditional public school, magnet program, or another model.

• Next steps: BRAC members have been asked to work within their regional groups to submit map feedback by July 7. The full BRAC will reconvene on August 5 and September 3.



FFM is committed to advocating for transparency and accuracy throughout this process and to addressing community concerns about the process’s integrity. If you have any information that you want raised at the BRAC meetings, please reach out to us. The slides from yesterday’s meeting can be found here: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/6-23-2025AdvisoryCommitteeMeetingPresentation.pdf

It appears the consultants, who aren’t even public school boundary rezoning experts, are dropping the ball here. FCPS would likely have been better doing this in-house with the BRAC.

Other districts have implemented the online boundary tool in-house, if that’s the main reason for hiring the consultant. They just need to hire planners with the right level of expertise and experience with public engagement.

[Anonymous]

BRAC members are very important in this process but not all are consistently active or getting feedback from their communities - this is problem Reid should prioritize if the ask is for these folks to help redraw the maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BRAC members are very important in this process but not all are consistently active or getting feedback from their communities - this is problem Reid should prioritize if the ask is for these folks to help redraw the maps

How do you c9ntzct your pyramid reps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BRAC members are very important in this process but not all are consistently active or getting feedback from their communities - this is problem Reid should prioritize if the ask is for these folks to help redraw the maps

What was the point of suggesting people all over the county input their suggestions on the boundary tool if it's going to be some random BRAC members "redrawing the maps."

I guess it was just to waste people's time and/or make them feel like they could provide input that will then be ignored.

My pyramid reps are either not representative of the pyramid or totally AWOL so we are basically screwed by FCPS yet again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC members are very important in this process but not all are consistently active or getting feedback from their communities - this is problem Reid should prioritize if the ask is for these folks to help redraw the maps

What was the point of suggesting people all over the county input their suggestions on the boundary tool if it's going to be some random BRAC members "redrawing the maps."

I guess it was just to waste people's time and/or make them feel like they could provide input that will then be ignored.

My pyramid reps are either not representative of the pyramid or totally AWOL so we are basically screwed by FCPS yet again.

Same here. Unless you personally know them, it's even difficult to know which neighborhoods they are from. If they don't yet have kids in high school, it makes it very difficult to figure it out.
How are we supposed to contact them directly? Is there an fcps email for them?

[Anonymous]

Interesting framing in this story, which posted this afternoon: https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/06/26/fairfax-county-public-schools-try-to-mitigate-expectations-for-upcoming-redistricting/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting framing in this story, which posted this afternoon: https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/06/26/fairfax-county-public-schools-try-to-mitigate-expectations-for-upcoming-redistricting/

Interesting. Maybe they are going to make decisions first on KAA and then start adjusting. But, they need to fix first things first, and that is Coates and Parklawn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BRAC members are very important in this process but not all are consistently active or getting feedback from their communities - this is problem Reid should prioritize if the ask is for these folks to help redraw the maps

What was the point of suggesting people all over the county input their suggestions on the boundary tool if it's going to be some random BRAC members "redrawing the maps."

I guess it was just to waste people's time and/or make them feel like they could provide input that will then be ignored.

My pyramid reps are either not representative of the pyramid or totally AWOL so we are basically screwed by FCPS yet again.

Same here. Unless you personally know them, it's even difficult to know which neighborhoods they are from. If they don't yet have kids in high school, it makes it very difficult to figure it out.
How are we supposed to contact them directly? Is there an fcps email for them?

I'm on the BRAC. We asked to have emails specifically for our role and we were told to create a gmail account. Most pyramids have at least one member who has created an account and you can access them here.
https://www.fcps.edu/members-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee