Reply to Boundary Review Meetings

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Boundary Review Meetings"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]BRAC meeting notes are up. They don't include anything involving maps:

https://www.fcps.edu/september-24-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting[/quote]

So they want to increase the commuting time and distance for the McLean students who’d be moved (over 200 students)?  So much for transportation efficiency.

[/quote]
If it helps, the analysis is for the unseen “scenario 4”, so this must be for the Spring Hill kids going to Langley. If Timber Lane were still on the chopping block, McLean would also appear in the biggest transportation decrease section because Timber Lane to FCHS is much shorter than it is to McLean. So a speculative congrats to them![/quote]

I’m not sure I read it that way.  Weren’t they just parsing discrete boundary changes out of all those previously proposed back in June and flagging the ones with the most impact?  Timber Lane to FC vs. McLean might not have made that cut.

It’s confusing because they used the term “Scenario 4,” but they left in the change that would move Chantilly kids to Oakton, and there’s been a lot of feedback to rescind that proposal.  [/quote]

Where are you seeing specific schools?

There is a chart that lists a spattering of high schools with miles, and one map showing the distance of a single Sangster street not slater for rezoning and its driving path to Sangster.

But I am not seeing anything about the schools you mention.[/quote]
Slide 12[/quote]

Yes, Slide 12.

My point is that I think the references to "Top Changes by School" refer to individual boundary changes, rather than all the changes affecting a school.

So let's say there are five changes affecting McLean (one involving McLean to Langley, one involving McLean to Falls Church, one involving McLean to Marshall, and two involving Marshall to McLean).  I think the reference to McLean on Slide 12 just relates to the proposed move of 201 kids living in the Spring Hill island from McLean to Langley.  I don't think it tells you anything about whether they'll carry forward the other changes in the October maps, only that the other changes were less significant in terms of distance/time.

When it comes to moving Timber Lane kids from McLean to Falls Church, it's clearly a shorter distance, but it's probably neutral or even longer in terms of commuting time because kids would be crossing two major roads rather than one.

The fact that they used the term "Scenario 4" in their slide deck creates added confusion, because they've also referred to "Scenario 4" as what will be presented in October.  But I'm reading this mean that they wanted to focus on some of the outliers that would have the most impact on commuting time/distance before they release "Scenario 4" in October.  At least I hope that's the case for the sake of the Chantilly folks, because they've argued strenuously they don't want a much longer commute to Oakton. [/quote]

The Chantilly one doesn't have the *asterick denoting "These will be reverted based on conversation today." near it. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics