FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I wonder if this process may end up getting pushed out another year, with fall 2027 being the effective date of any changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I wonder if this process may end up getting pushed out another year, with fall 2027 being the effective date of any changes?

Or, it could be:

1. they realize this is a mess
2. this is deflection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I wonder if this process may end up getting pushed out another year, with fall 2027 being the effective date of any changes?

Or, it could be:

1. they realize this is a mess
2. this is deflection

This started out as an effort by School Board politicians to avoid accountability and it will end as an effort by School Board politicians to avoid accountability.

The fact is that this county-wide boundary review is a fiasco. They haven't tackled any of the "big" issues, and they've retained an outside consultant that's shown it's unable to tackle "small" issues sensibly.

Add to that the fact that they couldn't resist buying the KAA in the middle of the review, and as yet appear to have no clue as to how many FCPS students could attend that school or what the implications could be for school boundaries.

All they really want now is bring this thing to a close with a whimper, but they will propose to screw just enough people over that this will be impossible.

Maybe next time they'll have clearer goals or be willing to have the courage of their convictions, but for now all they've shown is that they are both cowardly and deeply incompetent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I wonder if this process may end up getting pushed out another year, with fall 2027 being the effective date of any changes?

Or, it could be:

1. they realize this is a mess
2. this is deflection

This started out as an effort by School Board politicians to avoid accountability and it will end as an effort by School Board politicians to avoid accountability.

The fact is that this county-wide boundary review is a fiasco. They haven't tackled any of the "big" issues, and they've retained an outside consultant that's shown it's unable to tackle "small" issues sensibly.

Add to that the fact that they couldn't resist buying the KAA in the middle of the review, and as yet appear to have no clue as to how many FCPS students could attend that school or what the implications could be for school boundaries.

All they really want now is bring this thing to a close with a whimper, but they will propose to screw just enough people over that this will be impossible.

Maybe next time they'll have clearer goals or be willing to have the courage of their convictions, but for now all they've shown is that they are both cowardly and deeply incompetent.

Yeah, it's not hard to see how they're starting to back-peddle on all of their "we haven't had a comprehensive review in 40 years and must make major changes across the county" language. Now some of the school board members are saying it won't be major, it might take longer to be implemented and not to expect big changes. It's almost like they're finally hearing all of the complaints from constituents in their areas and are freaked out.

[Anonymous]

Collectively need to keep up the pressure because maybe not big changes everywhere but for those of us with listed changes that don’t make sense we don’t want them!

[Anonymous]

Add to that the fact that they couldn't resist buying the KAA in the middle of the review, and as yet appear to have no clue as to how many FCPS students could attend that school or what the implications could be for school boundaries.

They will be able to get enough for a high school. My guess is over 2000. Three gyms, more than one cafeteria, and two extra buildings. And, I'm pretty sure they figured that out before they bid on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Add to that the fact that they couldn't resist buying the KAA in the middle of the review, and as yet appear to have no clue as to how many FCPS students could attend that school or what the implications could be for school boundaries.

They will be able to get enough for a high school. My guess is over 2000. Three gyms, more than one cafeteria, and two extra buildings. And, I'm pretty sure they figured that out before they bid on it.

The can also add trailers to bridge the gap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Add to that the fact that they couldn't resist buying the KAA in the middle of the review, and as yet appear to have no clue as to how many FCPS students could attend that school or what the implications could be for school boundaries.

They will be able to get enough for a high school. My guess is over 2000. Three gyms, more than one cafeteria, and two extra buildings. And, I'm pretty sure they figured that out before they bid on it.

The can also add trailers to bridge the gap

I think I read those two extra buildings are each 15000 sf. They won't need trailers.

[Anonymous]

So wait, the BRAC is supposed to give feedback on maps despite not having received any data that they requested?

That’s F’ed up.

[Anonymous]

The evidence doesn’t support pre-k in an elementary setting. The classrooms, structure, etc. don’t work for the pre-school age. If we want universal pre-k, it shouldn’t be in an elementary setting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me--like I am a Kindergartener--what that email from Reid means?

It almost sounds like the choices are: putting sixth grade in middle school or keeping current boundaries. Somehow, I don't trust that is the choice. What am I missing? Is this about the boundary review of something entirely different?

Go through the links posted to get first person information and district video links, to get the best overview of the process with the least amount of side convos.


On the subject of 6th to middle school, this is Dr. Reid's pet project, along with universal preK.

It was not originially part of rezoning, but she is trying to work 6th to MS in last minute based on her email this week, and her statements at recent meetings, including the Region 4 community planing meeting this past Wednesday, February 19, where Reid explicitly said that she wants to include moving 6th to middle school as part of rezoning.

She is moving the goalposts at the very end in an already fraught and emotionally charged rezoning process.

Are there even enough open seats county wide to add universal prek at every school? This would be like adding an entire extra grade, no? If there's not enough existing capacity then I don't see how this would work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The evidence doesn’t support pre-k in an elementary setting. The classrooms, structure, etc. don’t work for the pre-school age. If we want universal pre-k, it shouldn’t be in an elementary setting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me--like I am a Kindergartener--what that email from Reid means?

It almost sounds like the choices are: putting sixth grade in middle school or keeping current boundaries. Somehow, I don't trust that is the choice. What am I missing? Is this about the boundary review of something entirely different?

Go through the links posted to get first person information and district video links, to get the best overview of the process with the least amount of side convos.


On the subject of 6th to middle school, this is Dr. Reid's pet project, along with universal preK.

It was not originially part of rezoning, but she is trying to work 6th to MS in last minute based on her email this week, and her statements at recent meetings, including the Region 4 community planing meeting this past Wednesday, February 19, where Reid explicitly said that she wants to include moving 6th to middle school as part of rezoning.

She is moving the goalposts at the very end in an already fraught and emotionally charged rezoning process.

Are there even enough open seats county wide to add universal prek at every school? This would be like adding an entire extra grade, no? If there's not enough existing capacity then I don't see how this would work.

FCPS elementary schools already have limited preschool classrooms for qualifying SN students.

What evidence (studies?) are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

Did the Saudis get anything promised to them by Fairfax in return for the cut rate sale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the Saudis get anything promised to them by Fairfax in return for the cut rate sale?

They got the land for the school how many years ago when FCPS needed the land for a school, maybe they were returning a kindness. Maybe they liked the idea of the school continuing, even in a different form, instead of it being torn down and becoming a data farm or a housing complex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the Saudis get anything promised to them by Fairfax in return for the cut rate sale?

They got the land for the school how many years ago when FCPS needed the land for a school, maybe they were returning a kindness. Maybe they liked the idea of the school continuing, even in a different form, instead of it being torn down and becoming a data farm or a housing complex.

Or maybe they felt bad for kashoggi? Let’s be serious.

[Anonymous]

Interesting framing in this story, which posted this afternoon: https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/06/26/fairfax-cou...oming-redistricting/

On thinking about this, I am wondering if the Board of Supervisors is putting pressure on them. My neighborhood which has had some interesting developments in BRAC (that are not popular) usually has houses go very fast. I do realize that DOGE could also be having an effect, but, until Options 2 and 3 came out, they were still moving within a day or two. Not now.
Our neighborhood is considered desireable school wise=---though no where near Langley desireable. Just nice middle level.