The Fairfax County School Board approved its first comprehensive boundary review in nearly 40 years during its Jan. 22 regular meeting. This was the first time the board had done a district-wide reassessment since the mid-1980s. The school board had, during those 40 years, made geographically isolated changes, such as when the “West County High School,” later officially called Westfield High School, opened in 2000. The board shifted the boundaries of the schools immediately adjacent to Westfield to relieve massive overcrowding at nearby Chantilly and Centreville high schools.
The 2026 Fairfax County School Board aimed to address changing demographics in Fairfax County and facility use across Virginia’s largest school system through the comprehensive boundary review. Superintendent Michelle Reid called it a “great beginning” toward long-term progress, acknowledging the process is not perfect but essential for improvement.
The school board voted 8-3 on Jan. 22. Board members who voted in favor praised the “progressive cycle” as a hard-won victory for equity, while those who opposed it criticized the move as a costly, incremental change that does not address the district’s most pressing capacity issues. The final approved plan affects less than 1% of the district’s students.
Reid noted that several sites remain flagged for review in the next calendar year, with new recommendations expected by Jan. 2027.
The Vote Tally
Only 11 of the 12 school board members voted in the 8-3 decision, with the Braddock District seat vacant until after the March 3 special election. Supporting the plan: Karl Frisch (Providence), Kyle McDaniel (At-Large), Melanie K. Meren (Hunter Mill), Marcia St. John-Cunning (Franconia), Robyn Lady (Dranesville), Seema Dixit (Sully), Ricardy Anderson (Mason), and Board Chair Sandy Anderson (Springfield). Opposing the measure: Ryan McElveen (At-Large), Mateo Dunne (Mount Vernon), and Ilryong Moon (At-Large). Supporters cited necessary first steps and community engagement, while opponents criticized procedural confusion, lack of clarity, and equity concerns.
Internal Dissent and Data Criticism
Dunne said he could not support the final motion because he did not clearly know what he was voting on, citing last-minute changes that also created confusion for the public. Dunne pointed to unclear transportation logistics — specifically, who receives busing and at what cost — as key uncertainties.
Using data, Dunne argued the results are modest. The division began the process with 22 attendance islands and ended with 22; it started with 42 split feeders and ended with 35. Furthermore, the district still relies on roughly 800 temporary trailers and modular classrooms, a number reduced by only one or two. He criticized the two-year process as mentally exhausting and said it often felt like “flying by the seat of your pants.”
McElveen called the outcome an “incremental change at extraordinary cost.” He contended that targeted studies could have achieved similar results. McElveen warned that future boards would be preoccupied with ongoing boundary reviews and criticized delays in start-time changes for failing students during the mental health crisis. He called the board’s approach an “unmitigated failure.”
Moon also opposed the delay of start times but stressed the lack of a finalized transportation plan for students “grandfathered” into their old schools. Moon and McElveen argued that this creates an equity gap. Dunn said that the board was asking parents to take a leap of faith “that they could manage the logistics of the transition.”
Support for a Progressive Path Forward
Despite friction, most board members approved the vote, calling it essential groundwork. Lady, who supported the plan, described it as the result of listening to community needs and bringing students to schools with enrollment needs. She expressed pride and excitement in voting for the plan.
McDaniel linked the changes to fairness and efficiency, describing them as steps to align boundaries, balance enrollment, improve access, and run the large district effectively.
Meren, who ultimately voted in favor, still noted procedural confusion, stating some recommendations had not been made public until just before the vote. She emphasized that complete transparency is crucial for making informed decisions.
The Board officially updated Policy 8130 in 2024 before touching any maps. Policy 8130 requires the superintendent to conduct a division-wide boundary review every five years. The board’s commitment to a five-year review cycle ensures regular redistricting in Fairfax County. From October 2024 through November 2025, the board held multiple work sessions and community meetings to untangle so-called “attendance islands” and “split feeders,” where students from the same elementary school are sent to different high schools.
Case Study: Boundary Debt and Renovation Queues
Connecting the dots between the 2006 Westfield High School addition and the 2026 Western High School opening (the former Saudi Academy)
Before Westfield High School opened in 2000 with a design capacity of 2,500 students, the school board shifted the boundaries of adjacent schools to relieve overcrowding at nearby Chantilly and Centreville high schools. No comprehensive boundary change was conducted at the time.
By 2003, Westfield reached its limit. In November, voters approved a bond that included $8.7 million for a permanent 24-room addition; construction began in 2004. Bricks, not boundary changes, were again used by the board to address overcrowding. Although the addition opened in time for the 2006-07 school year, overcrowding persisted.
“Opening-day enrollment was 3,230 students,” said the new principal, Tim Thomas. “Pretty soon, we'll have our own ZIP code,” The Connection reported Sept. 20, 2006. For much of the 2010s, approximately 13 trailers were stationed around the school.
As of January 2026, Westfield has 13 trailers on site, according to January 2026 school facility reports. The new Western High School project, the former Saudi Academy which the school board purchased for $150 million, is underway. It is scheduled to open, with limited, phased enrollment, in August 2026 for the 2026-27 school year.
The school board, through its Jan. 22, 2026, approval of the comprehensive boundary review and updated Policy 8130, is now addressing where students go to school via maps rather than bricks. By rebalancing enrollment across existing buildings, Fairfax County Public Schools aims to prevent the renovation queue from becoming a capacity queue. This shift requires the superintendent to conduct a division-wide boundary review every five years.
Where Is My School in the Renovation Queue?
FCPS staff are currently developing a new renovation queue to follow the 2008 list. The main Capital Improvement Program (CIP) page can be found at fcps.edu/capital-improvement-program This page contains the full PDF of the FY 2027–2031 CIP (as of January 2026), which includes the specific status of every school in the queue.
For School Bond Information, see fcps.edu/about-fcps/facilities-planning-and-future-schools/school-bond-information This link tracks which renovation projects have been approved by voters but are still awaiting funding.
The direct link to the most recent published status table is in the FY 2026 – FY 2030 Adopted CIP Summary. This document shows the line-item list for schools like Centreville High (slated for 2028), Franklin Middle, and various elementary schools, including Poplar Tree, Cub Run, and Union Mill, that are currently ahead of any new potential queue for schools like Westfield.