FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which middle school had 7th grade english class reading Taming of the Shrew?

My kids AAP 8th grade class read one book
all year-The Outsiders.

Carson, my kid read it with his class after the SOL. It was fun quizzing him on the slang and the history of the Globe Theatre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://patch.com/virginia/across-va/public-school-enrollment-continues-fall-including-virginia

Pretty soon, FCPS is going to have to decide whether it wants UMC families in the school system.

The school board can have its every five-year boundary change instability or they can retain these families. The trade-off is clear.

There are not enough private schools in this area and most people cannot afford the $50,000 price tags, or more, of the majority of schools in this area. The article does not breakdown how many of those kids that are leaving are SPED kids whose parents are dissatisfied with the services offered in the public schools. It also points to kids leaving mainly in MS, where parents are placing kids in private school to avoid the hell that is MS by placing them in smaller MS. Many of those families return their kids to public HS.

They are not going to adjust all the boundaries every 5 years but they will shift to use available space as schools become more crowded and other schools decrease in numbers. Loudoun does this right now and there are not that many complaints. They need to open new schools because of growth, maybe that explains the lack of complaint, but I have friends whose kids have changed schools in ES and HS.

I think you missed that we’re talking about upper middle class families. Most can afford it.

And maybe you missed that policy 8130 requires them to do a comprehensive review every five years. Fwiw, it’s the uncertainty that’ll drive the flight, even if the changes are not as disruptive as this go round.

The school board is doing real damage to the public schools unnecessarily.

My family is UMC and I would not say that we could afford $50,000. Well, we could, but we would have to not save for college and not take vacations and not make some upgrades on our house. It would be tight. And we wouldn't want to commute that comes with attending most of those schools or the ridiculous small size of some of those schools.

I didn't miss the 5 year comprehensive review but review does not mean redraw all the boundaries. It might mean that there are schools that are over crowded and need to have their boundaries addresses, and that is fine. They should be doing that.

Without knowing your specific situation, it doesn’t really sound like you are upper middle class. Maybe middle class?

Either way, it’s not like every single UMC family will leave, but I’ve been around long enough to know that a ton will, and the uncertainty is going to be a big contributing factor.

We’re really at an inflection point with public schools, and the only way they can be saved is to stop alienating engaged families.

By every indicator we are UMC. We believe in saving and put out retirement and college fund ahead of other expenditures. The only Private schools that we would consider are the really expensive ones because of the programs they offer, and they are not so much better then FCPS that they are worth the money that they cost.

The reality is, even if the people on this board don't believe it, FCPS is a strong school district that produces excellent results. There are better schools in places but not that many. The only people I know who moved to FCPS and thought the schools were not better than their old schools came from the UMC burbs of NY and MA, where you have the smaller districts funded by local taxes. The number of people I know who moved into the school and find that their kid needs tutoring to get on grade level is quite high.

Just looked up the internet definition of UMC, and it’s lower than what I consider UMC. That might be the disconnect. I guess maybe I’m thinking top 5-10% of household income.

To counter your anecdote, at this point I know half a dozen families in my area that have moved at the mere prospect of boundary changes. There is this negative feedback loop where the more high performing kids move, the worse it is for those who remain. We’re going through the analysis now of whether it makes sense to cut our losses for our kid, which is really too bad because just a couple of years ago I was an ardent defender of public schools.

Just curious, but how so? Students who are exceptional in some way (be it academic high-achievers / underperformers, or have various physical, mental, emotional, or other special needs) usually need and receive disproportional resources relative to the significant majority of students who aren't on the tail of some curve. Trimming tail-of-a-curve kids from the pool is a generally a net positive for those who remain, at least in terms of resource availability to be targeted towards those 'typical' kids.

It's not just the exceptional kids moving anymore. A lot of the kids on either end of the academic spectrum and at the higher end of the SES spectrum already left during Covid. Now schools are losing UMC kids who are bright but not necessarily the highest achievers. Local private schools saw this coming and many jumped on it. I'm also a teacher and the other teacher PP who said parents feel like there's been enough disruption in their children's schooling is spot on.

So then in the long run there's less overcrowding, less need for boundary changes, and more funds put towards improving existing facilities rather than constructing new ones. Still failing to see how some percentage of kids leaving the system is making it worse for those who remain. I agree there's been enough disruption but failing to see how that's relevant to the point/question about how some small percentage of students leaving the system is making it worse for those who remain.

Overall, FCPS enrollment since September 2020 has been pretty flat, fluctuating a bit with a low of 178.6k in September 2021 and a high of 182.9k in April 2024... latest was 181.2k in June of 2025 (up 0.8k from the start of the school year). So if some students are leaving the system, it's not in large enough numbers to really register. Of course, is tough to disambiguate aggregate numbers, but I'd suspect we could just as large or larger impacts from a potential reduction in ELL students as a result of the current environment. Maybe look at a specific higher-SES school like Langley... have they been experiencing a drop-off in enrollment? (the answer is no, at least as of June of this year, they had almost completely flat enrollment for the school year, maybe you think next fall we'll see a reduction as kids leave the system? Will be interesting to validate when the Sep/Oct/Nov enrollment numbers come out)

Langley's enrollment is up because an earlier boundary change with McLean was still getting phased in last year, plus Langley was accepting more pupil placements from other schools. It says nothing about whether higher SES families are exiting FCPS as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Deleted again 🙈. I have no personal vendetta against SA. But school boundaries ARE political and It’s important to me - stating just the facts- that people reading this conversation understand the following

1) Sandy Anderson has been pushing the entire boundary review process without transparency to why and has not been able to explain certain changes when directly asked

2) has met with several groups around the county and each has felt dismissed when voicing their concerns

3) has publicly said she doesn’t care about getting re-elected (ie truly listening to constituents ) and just plans to push the boundary process through

All I really want to know is why is this entire thing so important to her that it’s getting a rush job. With a consulting firm who is in over their heads. And why can’t it be slowed down, especially after the recent property acquisition which will alter everything in the west at the very least.

[Anonymous]

Because the voice of the loud few doesn’t outweigh what is best for the whole district. Your elected official not doing what you want is not the same as not listening to you.

[Anonymous]

Sandy has used that exact same phrase, So tell me WHY it’s best for the whole district. Please, I am not being facetious. I want to know why this huge comprehensive boundary review is being pushed on everyone when it is not necessary for most. Why not fix the problems instead of causing more issues?

And learning to listen and validate people’s questions and concerns is an important part of being a leader. Not just saying “just because it’s good for others”. Give me actual people it’s better for. With the facts to back it up. Not just “over crowding” because we’ve seen the statistics that the over crowding isn’t continuing based on projections

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sandy has used that exact same phrase, So tell me WHY it’s best for the whole district. Please, I am not being facetious. I want to know why this huge comprehensive boundary review is being pushed on everyone when it is not necessary for most. Why not fix the problems instead of causing more issues?

And learning to listen and validate people’s questions and concerns is an important part of being a leader. Not just saying “just because it’s good for others”. Give me actual people it’s better for. With the facts to back it up. Not just “over crowding” because we’ve seen the statistics that the over crowding isn’t continuing based on projections

The irony is that the changes that are most needed get delayed while they mess around trying to decide which changes that aren't even remotely necessary are going to get imposed on people so they can flex about how they're doing something big.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because the voice of the loud few doesn’t outweigh what is best for the whole district. Your elected official not doing what you want is not the same as not listening to you.

The thing is, we haven’t received answers about what is best for the whole district. Our questions and concerns are met with whatsboutisms and other areas are brought up. I’ve met with political officials who truly listen, rephrase concerns, let us know that they understand and take what we say into consideration— even if it’s not going to be the final solution. They allowed voices to be heard. This was not my experience with our current SB member.

[Anonymous]

Wait...

The Springfield rep managed to get posts deleted that restated her public statements about rezoning, and also statements that said it is fair to criticize policy proposals from the school board, but not to insult or name call?

That is really dystopian that any critique of the chairperson of the FCPS school board is getting deleted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because the voice of the loud few doesn’t outweigh what is best for the whole district. Your elected official not doing what you want is not the same as not listening to you.

But our elected official getting factual critiques deleted from a public message board is a huge issue.

[Anonymous]

I asked about the above - on the website feedback forum. Jeff just deleted everything instead of shifting through a millions posts. It’s too tedious for him to read every single thing and decide what to keep and what not. Which I understand, but that also means deleting important conversations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sandy has used that exact same phrase, So tell me WHY it’s best for the whole district. Please, I am not being facetious. I want to know why this huge comprehensive boundary review is being pushed on everyone when it is not necessary for most. Why not fix the problems instead of causing more issues?

And learning to listen and validate people’s questions and concerns is an important part of being a leader. Not just saying “just because it’s good for others”. Give me actual people it’s better for. With the facts to back it up. Not just “over crowding” because we’ve seen the statistics that the over crowding isn’t continuing based on projections

I have given multiple reasons several times in the beginning of this thread. I am not engaging again because people here are so aggressively one sided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the voice of the loud few doesn’t outweigh what is best for the whole district. Your elected official not doing what you want is not the same as not listening to you.

But our elected official getting factual critiques deleted from a public message board is a huge issue.

Sure but we don’t know who did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the voice of the loud few doesn’t outweigh what is best for the whole district. Your elected official not doing what you want is not the same as not listening to you.

The thing is, we haven’t received answers about what is best for the whole district. Our questions and concerns are met with whatsboutisms and other areas are brought up. I’ve met with political officials who truly listen, rephrase concerns, let us know that they understand and take what we say into consideration— even if it’s not going to be the final solution. They allowed voices to be heard. This was not my experience with our current SB member.

Fair. She isn’t my member so I don’t know about how she has interacted. But I do know that there are pages and pages on here about people attacking anyone who disagrees with them and demanding that their opinion be implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the voice of the loud few doesn’t outweigh what is best for the whole district. Your elected official not doing what you want is not the same as not listening to you.

The thing is, we haven’t received answers about what is best for the whole district. Our questions and concerns are met with whatsboutisms and other areas are brought up. I’ve met with political officials who truly listen, rephrase concerns, let us know that they understand and take what we say into consideration— even if it’s not going to be the final solution. They allowed voices to be heard. This was not my experience with our current SB member.

Simple answer: The School Board wants to "balance" the numbers, I think. Especially, the FARMS numbers. I think that was the original intent. However, the roll out has proven that it is not going to happen.

It is easier to shift and "balance" than to address the need and attempt to educate all where they are. By balancing the numbers, the struggling schools will look better. That does not mean that more students in FCPS will be succeeding in academics, it just means the scores will look better.

Now, some will say that this improves education for all. I do not believe that to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the voice of the loud few doesn’t outweigh what is best for the whole district. Your elected official not doing what you want is not the same as not listening to you.

The thing is, we haven’t received answers about what is best for the whole district. Our questions and concerns are met with whatsboutisms and other areas are brought up. I’ve met with political officials who truly listen, rephrase concerns, let us know that they understand and take what we say into consideration— even if it’s not going to be the final solution. They allowed voices to be heard. This was not my experience with our current SB member.

Simple answer: The School Board wants to "balance" the numbers, I think. Especially, the FARMS numbers. I think that was the original intent. However, the roll out has proven that it is not going to happen.

It is easier to shift and "balance" than to address the need and attempt to educate all where they are. By balancing the numbers, the struggling schools will look better. That does not mean that more students in FCPS will be succeeding in academics, it just means the scores will look better.

Now, some will say that this improves education for all. I do not believe that to be true.

If that was the original intent the proposals released by Thru Consulting, for the most part, have gone in the opposite direction. So if they then come out with something completely different and equally aggressive this fall they will have to explain why they are now making drastic changes and why they’ve wasted everyone’s time for the past 1 1/2 years.

I really think they’ve boxed themselves in. They keep floundering and it just makes them look more and more incompetent.