FCPS Boundary Review Updates
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Because the original premise for the boundary study was equity by attempting to even out school performance. |
Anonymous
That’s not the criteria in policy 8130. Why do you support inefficient use of resources? |
Anonymous
DP. It’s the School Board that is responsible for the inefficient use of FCPS’s capital resources. Families shouldn’t be pawns to cover up their incompetence. |
Anonymous
SoCo is a good school though, it’s not like it’s a Mount Vernon or Lewis. Saratoga mom would love to be zoned for SoCo. South Run Oaks is off of Silverbrook, the same road that SoCo is on!!! Additionally, most varsity sports teams are easier to make the team at SoCo vs Lake Braddock. The families of South Run Oaks are part of the South County community. There is no reason to move them to Lake Braddock. |
Anonymous
Thru + Reid 's staff did show incredibly sloppy work as seen in the prior post. Add to it 'forgetting" new Falls Chuch HS capacity and targeting capacity at 105%. Westgate is closer to Mclean than Lemon Road but there was no boundary change in drafts between those 2 sites. MOCO is similar in scope to FCPS and the way changes in MOCO are happeneing or proposed differs dramatically from FCPS. Regions are geographic and optional/magnet programs will be geographic. https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/06/25/mcps-leaning-toward-regional-programming-model/ Nothing like the Marshall in Region 5 with Westfield . MOCO also has a new schools opening, did a spreadsheet on program transfers for HS. FCPS does not provide this and the entire junk from Thru ignored program location https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ56678E2B/$file/Attachment%20D%20SY2025%20Student%20Enrollment%20Countywide%20Programs%20250724.pdf |
Anonymous
Westgate is 0.8 miles closer to McLean than Lemon Road is, but Lemon Road is 1.0 mile closer to Longfellow than Westgate is. Westgate is also closer to Kilmer than to Longfellow. All these schools are close to one another, so proximity really isn't a compelling reason to change established boundaries. |
Anonymous
Compelling reason is Tysons exists. Lemon Rd boundary has walkers to Marshall and that alone is a compelling reason. Kilmer is a range from Westgate of 2.5 to 3.6 miles and Longfellow is about 2.7. Longfellow has greater capacity than Kilmer so it could be the same situation as Carson:KAA. ES is a basic 7 years, HS 4, and MS 2. Walk zone eligible is relevant so skip the MS argument for non walkers to either site. |
Anonymous
They are addressing Tysons growth by proposing to move the Spring Hill island to Langley. It doesn't have much relevance to which parts of Lemon Road or Westgate feed to Marshall or McLean. And there are kids at Lemon Road who can walk or quickly bike to Longfellow. They neither want nor need to get moved to Kilmer/Marshall, just as those within walking distance of Marshall don't want to get moved to Longfellow/McLean. Longfellow already is the "same situation" as some hope for Carson relative to KAA, insofar as everyone at Longfellow feeds to McLean. |
Anonymous
Why are you arguing? Why would FCPS bus current HS walkers? It makes no sense but at least one Lemon RD poster was fine with that. ..To remove split feeders for Westgate and Lemon RD do you have any other idea? Weirdly Thru listed some errors BUT not those transporting walkers. "Same situation" referred to larger MS program capacity v HS program capacity. Mclean HS = 1926 [inc 12 room modular 2211 and uses 4 trailers] and Longfellow is 1314. Mclean 24-25 membership was 2379. |
Anonymous
They shouldn’t change boundaries to bus current walkers. Eliminating the split feeders at Westgate and Lemon Road is a misplaced priority when the boundaries are well established and no one is being bused a long distance. Sure, some might like it, but most neither need nor want to be rezoned. The capacity imbalance between Longfellow and McLean (Longfellow serves two grades, but has over 50% of the capacity of McLean, which serves four grades) can and should be addressed by the current modular at MHS and school’s eventual expansion. Also, next year is the first year in which the 2021 boundary change with Langley will have been fully phased in, so the MHS enrollment stands to decline this fall. |
Anonymous
|
People don't want to be moved to worst schools , no one wants to go from McLean to Marshall, Marshall to Falls Church , however the opposite is fine. You would rather be at McLean than Marshall, Marshall rather than Falls Church The opposite is NOT fine. The are plenty of us that do NOT want to go from Marshall to McLean! I am so tired of the narrative that McLean is some Mecca that everyone wants to be part of. |
Anonymous
People don't want to be moved to worst schools , no one wants to go from McLean to Marshall, Marshall to Falls Church , however the opposite is fine. You would rather be at McLean than Marshall, Marshall rather than Falls Church The opposite is NOT fine. The are plenty of us that do NOT want to go from Marshall to McLean! I am so tired of the narrative that McLean is some Mecca that everyone wants to be part of. Exactly. People want to stay at the pyramid that their families chose when they decided to buy in Fairfax County. |
Anonymous
People don't want to be moved to worst schools , no one wants to go from McLean to Marshall, Marshall to Falls Church , however the opposite is fine. You would rather be at McLean than Marshall, Marshall rather than Falls Church The opposite is NOT fine. The are plenty of us that do NOT want to go from Marshall to McLean! I am so tired of the narrative that McLean is some Mecca that everyone wants to be part of. I’ve seen plenty of posts on this thread acknowledging that most McLean families don’t want to be moved to Marshall and most Marshall families don’t want to be moved to McLean. There have been a few posts from Marshall posters (including one yesterday) saying they’d welcome a move to McLean, but most people just want to stay put. If you feel strongly about this, you should let Karl Frisch and Robyn Lady know they are barking up the wrong tree when they act like it’s a big public service to eliminate split feeders and attendance islands. If they’d engaged in more outreach, or paid more attention to the prior outreach, before they amended Policy 8130 last year, it would have been very obvious stability was a more important priority for most families. |
Anonymous
| I read a lot of “boundary changes for thee, but not for me, unless we get moved to a higher rated school.”. So, will the consequence be depopulated lower rated schools, to point where even fewer advanced classes will be offered at them? Feels quite NIMBY-ish to me, and “screw them for being poor.”. |
Anonymous
You sound like certain school board members. Nobody is saying screw the poor. Only the equity-minded crew who want to start class warfare with their neighbors. It’s less NIMBY and more NOTBOOKS (not on the backs of our kids) |