Final Stretch: What’s Happening in ACPS Redistricting and What Comes Next
- Kelly Carmichael Booz
- 4 hours ago
- 8 min read
May 27, 2025
By: Members of the Strategy and Accountability Committee: Kelly Carmichael Booz (District B), Christopher Harris (District C), and Ryan Reyna (District A)
We’re in the final stretch of the Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS) redistricting process. After months of community feedback, board deliberations, map iterations, and policy revisions, the School Board is scheduled to vote on new elementary boundaries, middle school boundaries, and companion policies on June 12.
At this point, three proposed elementary boundary maps—Triangle 2, Triangle 3, and the Circle Plan—are being advanced to the full Board for consideration, along with three separate options for middle school assignments. Alongside the maps, a full slate of revised redistricting policies is also moving forward.
Since our last redistricting update on May 7, seven additional public meetings have been held, in addition to several PTA and community events. In case you haven’t been able to keep up with all of it (completely understandable!), here’s a breakdown of what’s happened, what’s been decided, and what’s still ahead. Warning. This is a long update.
Three Maps Are Advancing
At the May 21 Steering Committee meeting, members agreed to advance three elementary school maps for School Board consideration:
Triangle Plan 2
Triangle Plan 3
Circle Plan
Each map reflects trade-offs. None is perfect. And in every scenario, some children will be reassigned to a new school community to help the division balance enrollment and reduce reliance on short-term fixes, such as capacity transfers. Some policy decisions, such as deferrals, can help minimize disruption.
No matter which elementary map the board ultimately chooses, we’ll need to make decisions about middle school assignments. Every elementary plan creates ripple effects, especially if we want to avoid overcrowding and keep students together when possible.
Comparing the Maps to Our Guiding Principles
One of the challenges in this process has been comparing maps in a way that reflects our shared goals, especially when each map has numerous moving parts.
The Strategy and Accountability Committee, which is made up of the three of us, developed a side-by-side tool that compares each map against the five guiding principles the board adopted in December:
Prioritize capacity and utilization
Promote neighborhood schools
Align school demographics with the division
Balance utilization across the city
Minimize bus dependency
The tool also includes data on how many students would move into or out of each school, offering an additional lens on community impact. It’s helping us weigh options in a thoughtful and transparent way, and it’s available for the public to view as well.
You can review this helpful tool here.
Why We’re Not “Scoring” the Maps Mathematically
We’ve heard a fair question from the community: why aren’t we scoring each map numerically to show how well it aligns with the five redistricting principles? The short answer is that while we utilize a lot of data on demographics, utilization, and transportation, not every principle can be quantified in a clean, one-size-fits-all manner.
As our consultant, Isaac Johnson, explained at several meetings, many principles “push and pull against one another.” For example, one map might balance enrollment and minimize busing, but result in less demographic diversity. Another might preserve neighborhood cohesion but increase the number of split feeders. And some principles, like “neighborhood schools,” are subjective—what counts as a walkable school in Old Town may be very different from what’s feasible in the West End.
That said, we do examine the data closely. For example, Triangle 3 narrows the spread in economic disadvantage across schools by about 15–17%—a modest but meaningful step toward equity.
Bottom line: No map will check every box—and it’s not realistic to expect one to. Our goal is to make thoughtful, transparent decisions that reflect our values and move us in the right direction, even if no option is perfect.
Responding to Feedback: What’s Changed Along the Way
Throughout this process, community feedback has shaped both the maps and the policies.
Here are a few examples:
After early feedback raised concerns about demographic disparities in Triangle Plan 1, MGT adjusted Study Area 19 in Triangle Plans 2 and 3 to improve the balance between Charles Barrett and George Mason.
Families requested more stability and clarity regarding programmatic transfers and deferrals. As a result, the board clarified eligibility rules, created a two-year deferral for a small group of Douglas MacArthur students who’ve already experienced a swing space, and added sibling preferences with limits to avoid over-enrollment.
Many parents of current middle school students expressed concerns about their children having to switch schools during such a sensitive academic and social period. In response, the board agreed to allow rising 7th and 8th graders to remain at their current middle school through graduation, meaning no students will be moved out of their middle school once they’re already enrolled.
Concerns about transparency in map comparisons led to the development of a side-by-side guiding principles tool, created by the Strategy and Accountability Committee and made publicly available for review by all.
Finally, we retired the older “color maps” not because of pressure from any one school community, but because updated data showed they didn’t account for enrollment in citywide programs. The shape-based maps now reflect a more accurate understanding of where students actually live and attend school.
A Quick Recap of Key Meetings Since Our Last Blog
Here’s a quick rundown of major meetings and milestones since our last update:
May 8 – School Board Meeting
During the public comment portion of our regularly scheduled board meeting, community members shared a wide range of feedback on both boundary maps and the redistricting policy. The board also emphasized the importance of equity, demographic balance, and avoiding unnecessary disruption.
May 12 – Strategy & Accountability Committee Meeting
This newly added meeting helped advance a comprehensive slate of redistricting policies, including deferrals (formerly known as grandfathering), programmatic transfers, enrollment management, and class caps.
May 12 – First Public Hearing on Redistricting
Families voiced concerns about how middle school feeder changes might split elementary schools and urged the board to prevent MacArthur from being split, as well as the potential impact on Patrick Henry. Others spoke to the complexity of the process and the need to prioritize student experience and minimize disruption.
May 14 – Steering Committee Meeting
We reviewed updated demographic projections, transportation analysis, and new maps designed to better balance enrollment and equity. We also previewed the middle school implications if current feeder schools remain unchanged.
May 14 – RAC (Redistricting Advisory Committee) Meeting
RAC members reflected on map trade-offs, policy impacts, and feeder patterns, providing input that helped inform the Steering Committee's recommendations.
May 15 – School Board Work Session on Redistricting
Board members reviewed a detailed draft of the policy language, clarifying eligibility for deferral, programmatic transfer rules, enrollment planning, and middle school assignments. These drafts are now available for public review.
May 21 – Steering Committee Meeting
The committee agreed to advance Triangle 2, Triangle 3, and the Circle Plan to the full board, as well as three considerations for middle school lines, with a request for additional data on middle school. The Strategy & Accountability Committee also met to review and finalize draft redistricting policies, which reflect months of input and collaboration. It also requested data on allowing more students newly zoned for George Mason to be allowed an additional deferral year.
Policy Agreements: Where We’ve Landed
As of May 15, the School Board has reached consensus on all remaining redistricting-related policies. These will guide how new boundaries are implemented—and how transitions are handled starting in the fall of 2026. The draft policies will be presented to the Board on May 29, 2025, and voted on at the June 12, 2025, board meeting.
Attendance & Placement (JCD & JCD-R)
Students will attend their newly zoned school unless they qualify for a deferral or programmatic transfer.
Programmatic transfers (e.g., Dual Language, K–8) will only be granted if there’s space at the grade level and the school remains under 110% utilization.
Siblings of students in programmatic transfers who are not yet enrolled at the school will not receive guaranteed placement but will receive lottery preference if space is available.
Administrative transfers (for health, safety, or housing changes) will require approval from the central office.
Deferrals (JCE-R2)
Rising 5th graders in the fall of 2026, along with their siblings, can remain at their current elementary school for one year.
Rising 7th and 8th graders in the fall of 2026 (currently 5th and 6th graders) can also stay at their current middle school for one or two years.
A small group of rising 4th graders from Douglas MacArthur in the fall of 2026 will be allowed to stay through 5th grade, having previously attended the swing space.
Class Sizes & Transfers (IHB & Planning Factors)
Class caps are now separate from staffing formulas and will only be used to prevent overcrowding if the number of students exceeds the projected enrollment.
Capacity transfers (moving kids out of overcrowded schools) are ending.
This change is aimed at equity: 65% of capacity-transferred students were English Learners.
Transportation (EEA & Related Regulations)
Families in walk zones with hazardous conditions (e.g., highways) will still receive bus service.
A new request process will allow some families currently in a walk zone to ride the bus if space is available on an existing route.
Transportation will continue for deferrals and transfers, but may vary based on school, year, and demand.
Middle School Boundaries: What Happens Next?
While the elementary maps are the focus of this redistricting process, middle school assignments are a critical companion decision.
Here are the three options we’re weighing:
Option A: Follow New Elementary Feeders
Students attend the middle school aligned with their new elementary school (e.g., newly zoned MacArthur students attend GW).
Pro: Keeps peer groups together
Con: GW could reach 140% + utilization; not recommended by the Steering Committee
Option B: Preserve Current Middle School Boundaries
Middle school zones remain unchanged from the current 2024-25 school year boundaries, even as elementary boundaries shift.
Pro: Avoids overcrowding
Con: Some elementary schools would be split between GW and Hammond
Option C: Redraw the Line Along Quaker Lane
This would relocate some students who currently attend GW to Hammond, helping to balance enrollment.
Pro: Better balances capacity
Con: Splits elementary communities and changes historical feeder lines
While the Steering Committee did not recommend Option A, given its impact on crowding, all three options are coming to the board for discussion.
No middle school boundary option will get us to our target of 90–110% utilization across campuses. In fact, even under the most balanced scenario, both George Washington and Hammond would still hover around 120% utilization. That’s a modest improvement from today, but far from ideal. Regardless of the path we choose, we’ll still face middle school capacity challenges, and additional solutions will need to be explored by the Board and City Council.
Through this process, it’s become increasingly clear that we need to prioritize middle school capacity sooner than currently planned. Board members have raised this in the Steering Committee, Board Work Sessions, and our budget meetings. We expect more conversations about middle school capacity this fall as part of our CIP process.
What’s Next?
As we approach the final vote, several outstanding items are still in motion.
At the May 21 Steering Committee meeting, members requested additional analysis for the full board to consider. This includes:
Potential adjustments to Jefferson-Houston’s middle school boundary,
Clarity around how Option B (preserving current middle school zones) would be implemented, and
An assessment of the impact of allowing one-year deferrals for students newly rezoned to George Mason, beyond the smaller subset of MacArthur students who attended the swing space in kindergarten and already received deferral approval.
These updates are expected to be shared at the May 29 School Board meeting, alongside the three proposed elementary maps, middle school options, and finalized policies.
May 29 – School Board Meeting, public comment is available
June 5 – Final Public Hearing on Redistricting
June 11 – Final Steering Committee Meeting
June 12 – School Board Vote
If you’ve read this far into our redistricting summary, thank you; you've earned our virtual gold star. Although this is a lengthy update, we wanted to summarize the numerous moving parts involved in a complex topic. We appreciate everyone who has engaged in the process with thoughtful and heartfelt feedback, even when it has been difficult.
Have thoughts or questions? Please keep reaching out.
We encourage everyone to continue engaging in this process by:
Attending and/or speaking at public meetings and hearings
Providing feedback via email at ask@acps.k12.va.us
Staying informed through the ACPS Redistricting Website and reviewing the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page
Speaking with RAC members to share perspectives
Inviting us to speak at your PTA meetings or civic associations
Kelly Carmichael Booz, District B
Chair, ACPS Redistricting Steering Committee
Vice Chair, ACPS School Board
Chris Harris, District C
Vice Chair, ACPS Redistricting Steering Committee
ACPS School Board Member
Ryan Reyna, District A
ACPS Redistricting Steering Committee Member
ACPS School Board Member
