Boundary Study Feedback

Community Feedback from Boundary Study Meetings

What are the strengths of Option A?

This affects the least number of schools but from the short time we had to review seems to present a solid impact to solve the overcrowding at Glen Forest without having to affect every school.

The strength is the solution it offers Glen Forest.

Strength for Belvedere: the new families would live relatively close to the school.

For Belvedere, this option adds 31 kids, which is the most transferring in under the three options.

Strength is that the families live close by and brings more of Lake Barcroft community together.

If 31 kids will transfer into Belvedere from this option. Does this mean that trailers will have to be used? This seems the better option as it would bring the Barcroft Woods and Lake Barcroft community together.

First option is least burdensome on Parklawn; advantage is that it keeps a more affluent neighborhood in Glen Forest that is currently within the boundary in that boundary – helps with economic diversity of the school and perhaps more resources.

Strength is most relief to Glen Forest. Challenge is a large change in the capacity at Parklawn. Keeps Parklawn reliance on modular.

This option seems to overcorrect because Glen Forest drops to 72% capacity, but 2 other schools become overcrowded.

Yes, excellent point.

Strength: adds students to Beech Tree which is currently under capacity.


What are the challenges of Option A?

Impacts 7 schools and the second highest number of students. Two schools would end up at the same level of overcrowding that Glen Forest is currently at.

7 schools are impacted, but the projected capacity for Glen Forest is still very high.

Sharing the load is good, but a bigger change might have distributed the load better. No one should be near 100% to account for growth if possible.

Takes Sleepy Hollow families away from their friends and neighbors.

Parklawn is very overcrowded with this option.

This decimates Sleepy Hollow. SHES would likely already not be accredited NOW and this option would lead to an even more impoverished school.

Not an option.

I can’t imagine Option A being an actual option. It carves up Sleepy Hollow like a thanksgiving turkey and leaves SHES with MANY challenges.

This option still puts schools at above capacity.

In each option it seems we are trading one overcrowded school for another. We seem to be just moving the overcrowding issue from Glen Forest to Parklawn.

This option still over populates the schools.

Option A seems to move the higher income areas of Sleepy Hollow out of the school. I’m concerned about the equity within the pyramid.

Not a good option for Sleepy Hollow.

Affects way too many families.

Not a fan of this option.

Too much impact on Sleepy Hollow  and will disrupt the diversity and equity.

Can’t Arlington or Alexandria take Glen Forest.

Inequitable for SHES.

And does not take in consideration of special education and the smaller sizes needed for those classes.

Affects too many families.

Impact on families and students.

A challenge for Belvedere is that in its capacity it considers 6 trailers that are in very poor condition. Only in 2019-20 was the school able to bring all classes into the building with approximately 620-630 students. More students than that puts classes outside.

Challenge: modular are in poor condition.

I’m curious how many students Belvedere will gain in this scenario. We are currently at 95% so gaining more students seems like it might be an issue.

Long term? There is development, both underway and planned, in many areas all around Justice. These don’t seem to be taken into account.

This can be said for all the proposals, including the change nothing option.

While the zoning looks good on the map and makes sense, it seems to funnel a lot of students into Parklawn, creating a capacity issue there.

This option, like all options, leaves Parklawn more crowded thank Glen Forest is if we make no change.

All three options seem to transfer the overcapacity issue from one school to another.

This option should be scrapped. The option moves affluent, single-family home families from Sleepy Hollow and Lake Barcroft neighborhoods out of Sleepy Hollow, leaving it with much higher need. Moving more of Lake Barcroft to Belvedere also further increases its privilege.

That is a great point.


What are the strengths of Option B?

Strengths: Impacts the fewest number of students and the fewest number of schools.

Option B had no change to Beech Tree, right?

Only 5 schools are impacted.

If the projected enrollments at Glen Forest are still high, this puts them at a lower capacity for future growth.

Has the least amount of disruption to the current student/teacher relationships in schools.

Least amount of change that disrupts young kids and families.

The shift of the Glen Forest neighborhood to Parklawn makes the most sense in terms of proximity.

Involves the smallest number of students, so should have the smallest impact on families.

Best option

This seems like the best option.

Better option.

Strengths are less of  change in current boundaries, affects less students.

Strength of option B is that it makes minimal boundary changes for the needed effort.

Schools that are just under population from Glen Forest, receive additional students that push their operational number up higher.

Less impact to students overall (number-wise)

Involves the least amount of students and schools.

Option B does not shift a lot of students. It would not really alleviate much of the capacity concerns at Glen Forest.

I don’t  understand the methodology staff used in any of these options. The neighborhoods here that are moved aren’t even contiguous. The Parklawn one in B and C looks particularly gerrymandered.

All three options seem to transfer the overcapacity issue from one school to another.

Is this big enough change to alleviate Glen Forest in the long term?


What are the challenges of Option B?

Challenges: Parklawn still over capacity.

Impacts fewer families but keeps overpopulation in overpopulated areas.

Parklawn carries too much of the increase in students compared to the other schools.

Parklawn: worry that there is now an increase to Parklawn and that they would need to continue using their modular.

Puts too much burden on Parklawn.

Still just trading problems, schools are still above capacity.

Option B seems to move the over crowding from one school to another and doesn’t solve the issues long term.

Still a problem.

Just moving Glen Forest’s burden over to Parklawn.

Option B seems to localize the pain of reassignments to fewer schools, which will be less disruptive to schools, but more disruptive to the few involved.

Our neighborhood which belongs to Parklawn is being completely broken up in an off way. Under the map, my kid will remain at Parklawn (area surrounded by reassigned kids from Parklawn to Belvedere), but many people around us will end up in Belvedere. This is unfortunate since I currently have one kid at Belvedere (due to AAP) and my other kid will remain at Parklawn.

In each option it seems we are trading one overcrowded school for another. We seem to be just moving the overcrowding issue from Glen Forest to Parklawn.

Belvedere capacity is estimated with six trailers in mind. Having classes in those trailers is not a good idea as they are in poor condition. This option would also affect Belvedere’s Free and Reduced percentage, potentially placing the overall percentage below 55% and thus taking Belvedere out of the Title 1 status. Belvedere’s Title 1 allocation allows the school to have a math resource teacher and a second math/reading resource teacher. It also is instrumental in funding planning time for teachers, which is essential for the work of staff in an IB school like Belvedere.

Possible greater impact on school demographics when adjustment is concentrated in one area.

Bailey’s is already quite crowded, and I think in this option students move to Bailey’s.

B & C spread out Belvedere across a greater distance which makes family engagement even more challenging.

Options B & C are much more burdensome on Parklawn which might be solved from adding more modular; but lunch room and other common areas will still be used beyond capacity.

This option would put more stress on pick up


What are the strengths of Option C?

Will this option affect Beech Tree’s title 1 status?

This seems to be the best of the three options as it gives the best balance both in the short term and longer term.

Confusing, but more equitable.

While this option moves the largest number of students and affects the largest number of schools, the aggregate effects seem to be the most equitable across the Region. While not a “perfect” option and not a long-term solution, it appears to be more equitable than option A or option B.

I believe this option provides the largest increase to Beech Tree which is currently the smallest elementary school in the Justice pyramid.

Equity across the schools in the pyramid.

All current schools within the boundaries considered are impacted.

I think this is the fairest way to address the needs across the pyramid.

This seems like this option is the most equitable for all schools, as it involves all 8.

Strength: Mason Crest would no longer be split for high school.

Benefit: Presents an opportunity to rebalance numbers in all schools to acceptable levels.

Geographically it seems to make sense but am curious how the shift impacts the demographics of each school. Current “divisions” of neighborhood seem to be remedied, such as connecting the two pockets of Beech Tree neighborhoods.


What are the challenges of Option C?

Too much change to Beech Tree and Sleepy Hollow after years of building relationships.

Affects the most students and schools.

How does moving Mason Crest students to Beech Tree affect overcrowding in Glen Forest?

Part of Mason Crest to Beech Tree was once part of Beech Tree years ago.

Affects the most amount of students and families = no good.

Mason Crest to Beech Tree does not seem to be related to stated problem at Glen Forest.

Affects all schools instead of those closest to impacted areas.

Challenges: Impacts the greatest number of schools and students. Physical barriers make the logistics of moving students from Mason Crest to Beech Tree  mean it will take a lot longer to get to school than it does currently.

Mason Crest is already a split feeder school and was created in part from Beech Tree, and now they would go back there?

Too dramatic a change for Mason Crest, Beech Tree, and Sleepy Hollow families.

A large part of the Mason Crest community slated for Beech Tree came from Belvedere. Regardless, there would need to be a lot more community outreach to the Mason Crest community. I’m not sure how many have been paying attention, thinking this doesn’t pertain to their community.

Affects most amount of students and schools and relieves overcrowding at Glen Forest, but a lot of moves.

Mason Crest not overcrowded. Why mess with it?

It’s good to get rid of a split feeder, but I’m not sure I’d split it the way this is presented.

I’m concerned schools are still over capacity/overcrowded, even after this shift.

Still just trading problems, schools are still above capacity.

Option C seems like a peanut butter spread approach – taking a little off the top of every school. I’m concerned about the numbers of kids impacted.

In each option it seems we are trading one overcrowded school for another. We seem to be just moving the overcrowding issue from Glen Forest to Parklawn.

Not equitable.

Beech Tree seems to add huge areas of residential and loses diversity of Williston community.

Spreads the pain.

Spreads the pain, but still a bit too disruptive to Parklawn. Would be good to have this option but a few more students shifted from Parklawn to Bailey’s.

Seems to affect a lot of schools and families (challenge)

Parklawn gets the burden.

Again this shifts the burden to Parklawn.


I agree, why aren’t more schools built to help with overcrowding. This would help somewhat.

Affects everyone.

This would affect all the schools, which seems unfair and disruptive (challenge).

An immediate challenge of this option is the portion of Mason Crest that is proposed to move to Beech Tree. This section used to be part of Belvedere until Belvedere went through another boundary study 9 years ago. The result of that study was that section going to Mason Crest.

Challenge is that this option affects the most students for the same effect that option B does (with the smallest amount of change)

Challenge: Bailey’s Spanish immersion/magnet would not be available to incoming kinder siblings of those students already attending.

Does this mean there will no longer be a split in middle schools from Mason Crest?

Challenge involves all ES in pyramid.

All three options seem to transfer the overcapacity issue from one school to another.

Seems like you don’t need to move all of the Sleepy Hollow neighborhood away from the school in the neighborhood. I would adjust this option.

Option C overburdens Parklawn, and just moves other students around for the sake of moving them – their capacity numbers remain about the same.


What are the strengths of making no changes?

No change is a strength.

Allows for more time to study the problem and gather community input.

Allows for more time to see what the new enrollment numbers look like post-Covid (strength).  

The strengths are that rather than affecting all schools in the pyramid, a solution with change where change is needed will need to be found.


What are the challenges of making no changes?

Parklawn will be impacted negatively in all the options.

Challenges: Glen Forest doesn’t get the needed relief.

The problem continues to get worse if no changes are made. No change affects more kids overall if you compare the number of kids in overcrowded schools to the number of kids that could get moved.

Challenge: Glen Forest remains way over capacity.

Glen Forest would continue to have a problem with overcrowding. While Beech Tree remains small.

Doesn’t fix

Parklawn over capacity in all scenarios.

Surely there is another option.

The challenges are the size the of Glen Forest.

In lieu of this affecting all schools, can there be infrastructure improvements or build outs in Glen Forest?

Glen Forest needs capacity relief so the status quo is not sustainable.

Challenge is not having relief for Glen Forest.

Challenge is over capacity remains at Glen Forest. Strength is less disruption to school communities and programs.

Options A-C leave Parklawn more crowded than Glen Forest at status quo, so that’s not really tenable for Parklawn unless we don’t think the enrollment projection methodology is accurate.


What else would you like FCPS to know?

Seems like the issue here is that Glen Forest needs more space…I hate to see the county trying to fix what’s not broken (other schools that are under capacity) and shifting so many families around in the process.

What is the desired number of students FCPS is trying to move?

What is the number that will make a difference?

Phasing in to any changes at Kindergarten must be a give since once they are in their school, the school community becomes like family to kids. It breaks my heart to imagine separating some of the kids to another school mid-schooling.

Is it not an option to split Glen Forest into an upper and lower, similar to Bailey’s?

Has disruption for current students been analyzed?

A grade-by-grade phasing in would be preferable. There has already been so much change in the past couple of years, I hate for the students to have to go through a third transition in three years.

Will they consider adding 6th grade to ES as well, so we don’t have to change twice?

Option C seems like it gets at a different issue than what has been presented as the core issue. It means that Mason Crest is no longer a split feeder but doesn’t seem to do much more than Option A for the resolution to the issue at Glen Forest. This is frustrating for students who have to move for a reason that isn’t presented as a need. If that issue is a need then I would love to hear more about why. Otherwise it seems this is not the best options.

The Wilson Center should be a school again so Seven Corners doesn’t  have to split up separating neighbors and busing long distances.

Can we have more of an explanation about the consideration of 6th grade in writing? It’s confusing when we are thinking about the future. Thanks!

Move all of these students helps Glen Forest, but actually add to overcrowding at other schools.

What might be the effect on Mason Crest’s FRM percentage in Option C?

There needs to be a lot more outreach to each of the specific schools. Families are going to feel blind-sided.

Process is very important.

If FCPS has an analysis on the impact of the current size of classrooms by grade.

With the loss of students from Mason Crest how would this change the staffing for the school?

Consider the staffing implications for all of these schools. Choose Option B would mean the least disruption not only to students but also to staff.

It seems like the options are either all or nothing for Beech Tree  elementary school. Either no change, or changes that would eventually result in 100% capacity. Why not spread things out a bit more if you’re going to make changes?

Moving less kids around especially after this year with the pandemic and virtual learning seems the most idea. Kids have had to deal with a lot and the fewer kids that lose their school community the better.

None of the options keep schools below 100% capacity (I think). Why not explore other options to solve overcrowding at all schools?

It looks like there needs to be another school built to alleviate future growth.

Please do not change for 21-22 school year. Our kids and staff have gone through so much this year. There should be more options that solve overcrowding everywhere, none of these options solve that problem.

Moving kids around seems to be a temporary bandage – which could affect many families negatively as a result. Also considering Seven Corners possibly developing in the future, it is inevitable we need to build more school buildings rather than shifting kids around.

Consideration of programs

Sleepy Hollow has an amazing autism program. Two of the options do not consider the fact that the program has smaller size classrooms, only the fact that it will fill SHES close to capacity.

Capacity calculations

How are the capacity numbers calculated? At a certain number of students per classroom? How do the capacity numbers for each school reflect each school’s special programs, which would affect the number of students that are actually in each classroom?

I like any option that has considered siblings that already go to separate schools due to the AAP program. I have a 1st grader at Parklawn and a 3rd grader at Belvedere. Parklawn is pretty populated already so it would be great to allow siblings to go to Belvedere with their siblings. Thank you for your consideration.

Permanent Change?

Know that there may be further changes coming to our pyramid from the review of middle school beings grades 6, 7, and 8 vs 7, 8 and the subsequent impact that would have to our elementary schools, are the potential boundary changes being considered to be permanent or temporary changes? If temporary, only until the middle school review, I am concerned about each school’s community identity being impacted.

Please think carefully about the special education support needed in each school. I do not see capacity for special education identified in any of these options.

Consequences of changes

I was at another Mason District school when Annandale HS had a boundary adjustment and neighborhoods were sent to Lake Braddock and WT Woodson, losing some of the diversity and charm AHS had. Years later, Woodson is overcrowded but Annandale is not.

What is the impact if a parent has multiple kids? Do the kids go to different schools or they do they stay at the same school?

Underlying problem not solved.

It doesn’t appear that any of these options address the underlying problem that Region 2 faces of needing to have another school to more evenly distribute both the number of students and need across the region. Is this even a stopgap solution? I don’t think it is. What does FCPS plan to do to solve the longer term capacity challenge that we face?

I don’t know how this is going to change anything. Schools are going to continue to be overcrowded. Regardless of this change. Has Fairfax County taken into consideration how this will effect the children?

I still don’t understand the timing, this seems crazy to consider this during COVID when it’s unclear what will happen post-Covid.


The data provided do not take equity into account. I’m trying to envision how each proposed option would affect socio-economic diversity and equity at each of our region’s schools and I’m struggling to do so in the absence of having access to data showing what free and reduced lunch eligibility would look like under each option. Please ensure that equity is taken into account in considering these decisions.

How is this change going to stop future overcrowding? I don’t see how this is going to change anything. Schools are going to continue to be overcrowded. Regardless of this change. Has Fairfax County taken into consideration how this will effect children?


I think the phasing is a great idea but I was not clear if that would be part of this particular process.

I would like to see an overlay of the social vulnerability index over the proposed solutions so that we can determine equity within the pyramid.


Please think about resources and not overburdening schools with limited resources.


Think about equity. It would be nice to see some more income diversity in some of the schools like Parklawn and Glen Forest. It gives opportunities to students as well as the community and PTA.

Willston Center

Turn Willston Center back into a school like the community has been saying for a DECADE! Stop kicking the can down the road.

Agreed. I wonder why opening a school at Willston is not a proposed solution?

New Schools

Is there an option to create a new school (similar to Bailey’s Upper) along Columbia Pike corridor in Seven Corners or Bailey’s Crossroad in some of the vacant buildings? I think this should be considered, especially given how quickly that building was retrofitted.

Willston Center

Is the Willston Center an option to reclaim from the County?

How would this shift in student support like ESOL teachers?

There would be more of a need for them depending on the need of the students and the impacts of the change.

School Board Approved Phasing

Based on the presented regulations, phasing may be approved by the School Board, but it is not a guarantee. The School Board needs to approve phasing as to mitigate additional stress of changes on kids after coming off a year in a pandemic.

Options not detailed enough to know impact.

Without information on the demographic/student information of the areas being proposed to be shifted in various scenarios, it is impossible to understand how the changes would impact the school losing those students – how will diversity be impacted? Will students using services or in special programs be caught up in the move? There has not been enough information or time to review and provide informed feedback.

I echo concerns about breaking up neighborhoods and oppose that idea. In addition, students at Sleepy Hollow neighborhood have been going to Sleepy Hollow elementary school since it opened in 1954. It doesn’t make sense to me to move them to another school under Option A or C.


We are still in a pandemic, so we do not know the true numbers of enrollment because some families have enrolled into private or homeschool. This may change with the dwindling of COVID and the return to five days a week next school year. Why are we doing the boundary adjustment now and so quickly for the 21-22 school year?

I agree.

What part of Sleepy Hollow road will have an impact? The change shows Sleepy Hollow road as a border. So are students living on Sleepy Hollow road being transferred?

I’m curious the impact on school demographics, particularly income/qualification for free-reduced lunch with these changes – how would Option A impact Belvedere’s Title 1 status, or really any of the schools.

What are the criteria and weighting of the options that are being used?

What is the durability of the decision? Will this need to be adjusted a year down the line and some kids with three changes?

I’m wondering what outreach efforts are being made to hear directly from more families, particularly families from neighborhoods that would be moved, as well has historically marginalized groups.

Belvedere is overcrowded and has capacity issues with drop off, pick up, etc. So the slide could be more clear about the 6 “temporary classrooms” which are trailers on the playground. However, neither of the three options really seems to make a huge difference in alleviating or adding to the problem. (Option B add the most kids at 31)

None of these options are great for Parklawn ES. Each option brings Parklawn over capacity.

The projections seem off for Belvedere. I think Belvedere will see growth in the upcoming years given the changeover in the neighborhood and families with young children have moved in.

All the schools are crowded and I don’t see any improvement moving the kids from one school to another school. It will be better to expand the school.

How long will schools have to travel with these changes, how will bus times be impacted?

For whatever option is chosen, what are the mitigation strategies for the schools that remain at max or near max capacity?

What is the likelihood of Belvedere getting new trailers if our school population is going to increase?

These options are not good for Belvedere as it underestimates the school’s overcrowded reality without trailers. No parent wants their child in one of those trailers.

None of these options seem optimal for Belvedere as it would be overcrowded. In my particular neighborhood, there has been high overturn to families with younger kids. All families will have their kids attend Belvedere.

How will this impact levels of school segregation in FCPS?

I would like to see information posted to include what major changes to programs at each school would result from the options.

Also I’m curious as to where the projected population counts come from as many of the stagnant projections don’t seem to make sense.

Belvedere already has a problem with kiss and ride, where there is a long line that causes issues in the neighborhood and makes walking unsafe. Adding more students can only make this situation worse.

Are there discussions to reallocate resources from parts of the county to cover infrastructure investments in Mason District?

There should be consideration for when a school has gone through a boundary change. Belvedere already had to go through this when Mason Crest opened.

Return 6th grade to elementary

I would like to see the 6th grade students at elementary schools. 6 grade is too young to be at the middle school.

I am not familiar with area. How do current proposals impact the demographics of each school?

Are we going to consider the equity between schools? Bailey’s Primary might have smaller population but we also got close to 70 newcomers K-2 in 2018-19 school year. Each of those newcomers are amazing but they needed a lot of support.

I’m wondering if/how the different option affects Bailey’s title 1 status.

Is this presentation available in Spanish and other languages?

The differences between Bailey’s primary and Bailey’s upper could quickly shift with any boundary changes.

Just curious about how sustainable this will be with the future projections, it appears that some of the other schools, in particular Baileys primary could reach over capacity as well.

Agreed with this, and how do the magnet and immersion #s get calculated?

Most of the elementary schools in the pyramid (not including Sleepy Hollow and Beech Tree, and Bailey’s upper) will be approaching or exceeding capacity in years to come, without modular. This should be considered in changes made.

How will the boundary shifts affect the magnet student opportunities for this half of FCPS?

On behalf of a Bailey’s parent: If their children are in SACC at Bailey’s will they go automatically be in the Sleepy SACC or will they need to apply. 2. The children are in Spanish Immersion, can they stay at Bailey’s Spanish Immersion or have to move?

How do changes made affect numbers being able to be accepted to Bailey’s immersion and magnet programs? In what ways are effects to these programs being considered?

Please keep in mind that Bailey’s will always be overcrowded due to the housing surrounding Bailey’s.

While Bailey’s Primary and Bailey’s Upper are two separate schools, it should also be seen as a single school community so creating a larger student population is not ideal for an elementary school.

I agree with this statement. There was a reason why they had to create a new school for Bailey’s Upper. At Bailey’s, we had over 1300 students when it was K-5.

How are future years projected? There are a ton of young pre-pre-K age kids in the Bailey’s zone as the zoning stands now.

Will magnet and immersion programs be impacted?

All options will present overcrowding to Parklawn.

Isn’t there any plans to build an extra school.

What was the methodology staff used to develop these options?

Have you considered making Bailey’s and Bailey’s Upper separate schools?

Our neighbors want to better understand how phasing would be implemented for families with younger siblings, rising K, etc.

Why not build a new school at Willston?

I was wondering something similar. This would alleviate a lot of the impact on students, families, programs, resources, etc. Especially when looking through the equity lens. Secondly, it would possibly prevent other schools in the pyramid exceeding capacity in the very near future.

How do the boundary changes affect acceptance numbers of out of boundary students in the special programs in Bailey’s (e.g. Magnet, immersion) and other schools (e.g. Belvedere AAP)?

The Justice Pyramid area appears to be reaching capacity at many elementary schools. What is the long term plan?

Can we stop busing to AAP? I think that would keep more kids at home schools and affect populations.

We get the magnet program at Bailey’s ES because we wanted to get language models at Bailey’s for our language learners. I’m concerned we are going backwards if the magnet program is going to be affected. The Bailey’s PTA worked very hard to be the first Title 1 magnet program at Bailey’s.