First Look: Public Review of Fairfax County School Boundary Scenarios

Please Note: In this blog, I am speaking on behalf of myself and no one else including the Boundary Review Advisory Committee (BRAC), Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), 4 Public Education, FCPS Pride, or any other organizations of which I am a member. These are my opinions and observations.

You may know that we are in the middle of the first ever holistic boundary review of the more than 200 public schools in FCPS. The process started late December 2024 with the first meeting of the BRAC. It is now in the process of public review of initial boundary scenarios, so if you haven’t already, you should attend one of the remaining public meetings (e.g., Glasgow Middle School on June 6 6:30-8pm register here) to discuss boundary scenarios and/or review the boundary scenario maps to provide input. 

Boundary Review Process

Everything you need to know about the boundary review process (e.g., timing), can be found here. At this time, the FCPS community is about midway through the process with expectations of final potential boundary scenarios expected at the end of this calendar year prior to further public comment and School Board approval.

Goals of the Boundary Review are outlined in Policy 8130 and the accompanying presentation which include: Transportation (times and safety), Under/Over-crowding, Access to Programming, Split Feeders and Attendance Islands (Proximity).

Please notice that test scores are not mentioned anywhere in the policy, despite the pervasive rumor that boundary analysis and changes were being driven by improving test scores of schools. This rumor is old, tired, and a lie. It was floated during the 2019 School Board campaign by a right-wing PAC and was wrong then, as well.

Please know that the BRAC, FCPS, and the FCSB care about the process and outcomes. They care about children, education, and success. They are all taking this seriously, as this affects their neighborhoods, kids, neighbors, and friends.

What is the BRAC’s role?

One key component of the boundary review process is the BRAC, which is made up of multiple representatives from each pyramid and other community members. The BRAC is expected to offer detailed local knowledge of schools, travel times, and neighborhoods. Additionally, they are expected to interact with the community to answer questions and collect feedback. Click here for the list of BRAC members and their emails.

The BRAC has met about ten times since December 2024, and the first couple of meetings had full tables around the room, but the more recent meetings have had less attendees. There has been great support by Thru Consulting and FCPS during the meetings when we had questions or concerns.

At the BRAC meetings, Thru Consulting and FCPS have presented information to allow the BRAC to do the following: 

• Review and categorize public input to date.

• Learn about the full range of programming available in FCPS. 

• Analyze best practices for decision-making.

• Evaluate different boundary scenarios using our knowledge of our schools, regions, programming, and traffic patterns. Thus far the scenarios evaluated have been: impact of moving 6th grade to middle schools, impact of all students remaining at their base schools (excluding TJ students), attendance islands, split feeders, and severe over/under-crowding.

Only the last three scenarios are included in the current public review. Unfortunately, the scenario reviews conducted by the BRAC lacked significant information, thus it was hard to provide informed and accurate input on the boundary scenarios.

In future reviews, many BRAC meeting attendees asked for the following to be provided when reviewing boundary scenarios by Thru Consulting: 

• Travel distance and time;

• Relevant capacity of and impact on affected schools (i.e., this was not provided for all schools affected by a change, just some);

• Key demographic data about schools and the neighborhoods;

• Walkability of neighborhoods to the school;

• Bus information (e.g., travel times, number of buses per school, etc.); and 

• When affected schools were going to undergo or complete renovation.

Additionally, some schools impacted by split feeders (e.g., Greenbriar East) were not included for analysis, which was confusing and irritating for BRAC members whose kids attend those schools. 

It is important to know that BRAC members are a diverse group of individuals with differing opinions, but two things many on the BRAC seemed to agree upon was that:

1. We lacked necessary data when we reviewed the boundary scenarios to make decisions on whether the suggested changes were appropriate. 

2. Our input on the different boundary scenarios was not incorporated prior to recent public input opportunities; therefore, the maps presented to the public only reflect the consultant’s work, not the knowledge of local parents, staff, and community members.

   (Below are my personal views on boundaries after reviewing a couple dozen Region 5 boundary change maps and attending all but one of the BRAC meetings.)

   

Next Steps of the Process

Click to test out the Boundary Scenario Tool

Those who have attended the BRAC meetings have worked hard to understand school boundaries and neighborhoods at multiple levels; however, we don’t live in all of the neighborhoods, which is why your input is important! These are the next steps:

1. Fairfax community members should check out the Sample Boundary Scenarios: These are draft scenarios for your review, developed by the consultant, Thru Consulting: They involve solving for split feeders, attendance islands, and severe over/under capacity schools with some additional changes by the consultant. However, these boundary scenarios: 

   1. Were not developed by the FCSB, FCPS, or BRAC. 

   2. Do not incorporate critical input from the BRAC.

   3. DO NOT include a number of considerations including: travel times, travel safety, buses, AAP centers, language immersion, special education, etc.

2. In Person Public Input: Seven meetings were scheduled around Fairfax County. The last meeting is on Friday, June 6, 6:30-8 p.m., at Glasgow Middle School. If you haven’t already, you should:

   1. Attend the remaining public meeting (register here) to discuss boundary scenarios, and/or

   2. Review the boundary scenario maps to provide input. 

3. Additional BRAC Review: The BRAC will review the responses and concerns to develop final scenarios to be completed by December 2025.

4. Final Opportunity for Public Input: Public notice for additional public input should occur sometime in January 2026 before the School Board votes on the changes.

Outstanding Community Concerns

Finally, there have been intense community concerns about this process and possible outcomes:

1. Current Boundary Scenarios: I’ve heard both concern and relief about the current boundary scenarios. One big issue, I’ve heard is with the Crossfield feeder split, which involved recommendations that would drastically increase bus rides at all levels, irresponsibly split neighborhoods, and move students around for little benefit.That being said, I (personally) feel that the three scenarios out for public input are somewhat immature and will change greatly over the next several months, but I strongly suggest people offer input…specific input about the positive or negative impact of changes.    

2. Phasing of School Changes: Everyone I’ve spoken to supports phasing (formerly known as “grandfathering”) which permits students, especially those in middle and high school to remain in the school they started. In the last 20 years, nearly every boundary change included phasing boundary changes, and phasing is included in Policy 8130. We all understand how devastating it can be to move a middle or high school student to a new school. In fact, when I was a student in FCPS, they did this to my class–ripped seniors out of our high school and moved them to our high school rival. This had a devastating impact on students and families. Mental health concerns soared, and four students took their own lives.

3. Rumors about Boundary Changes: Rumors have instilled unneeded fear in neighborhoods and have ignored the facts. For example, there has been a rumor that the intent of Policy 8130 isn’t to address decades of failure to address boundary issues, but is to move kids around just to raise test scores at some “poor performing schools.” Some sharing this rumor refer to these as “equity boundary changes,” meaning that somehow “equity” would invite uprooting children from their schools just to increase test scores at other schools. Of course, this is an unfounded and ridiculous rumor, because:

   • That is not how equity works. 

   • It would be harmful and disruptive, and wouldn’t be fair or equitable to anyone. 

   • Moving kids around to “improve test scores” has never been suggested and it would never work.

   • Finally, the school board, BRAC, and communities wouldn’t permit it.

4. Poor versus High Performing Schools: These are terms used to reflect schools overall standardized test scores, not the capacity or quality of students, much less the quality of the school. In fact, When you listen to the stories of success and warm communities of the so-called “poor performing schools” you might realize that you and your family would feel at home there. Thus, it may be acceptable to use the terms “high” and “poor” performing schools when describing their test scores, but not as a pejorative to describe the students or the school, because one standardized test score does reflect how great or smart the students are in a school. 

For more information: Feel free to read two previous blogs by 4PE about the New Boundary Policy and History of Boundaries and Policy in Fairfax County, because they may answer some concerns or questions.