Redistricting Update: What We’ve Heard, What’s Changing, and What Comes Next
- Kelly Carmichael Booz
- May 7
- 7 min read
May 7, 2025
By: Members of the Strategy and Accountability Committee: Kelly Carmichael Booz (District B), Christopher Harris (District C), and Ryan Reyna (District A)
As we get closer to the final stages of the ACPS redistricting process, we want to share another update on where things stand, what we’ve learned from the community, and how your feedback is shaping our decisions. While the work is not yet finished, the path ahead is becoming clearer, and the input we’ve received from families across the city has been central in getting us here.
Redistricting is complex. It involves tough trade-offs, especially when capacity, proximity, and equity don’t always align. But with every meeting, every data set, and every policy conversation, we’re getting closer to a solution that strengthens our school system and centers students in every decision.
Where We Are Now: Shape Maps, Community Feedback, and What They Show Us
At our April 22 community meeting and April 24 School Board meeting, we reviewed the newest iteration of redistricting proposals—what we’re now calling the Shape Maps: Square, Circle, and Triangle. These replaced the earlier “color” drafts and were updated to reflect more accurate building capacities, projected enrollment, and space needs for programs like early childhood education, city-wide programs, and dual language.
Each map takes a slightly different approach:
Square emphasizes balancing utilization, especially in highly overutilized schools like Patrick Henry, Tucker, and Polk.
Circle tries to reduce transportation needs while still addressing enrollment imbalances across the city.
Triangle focuses on keeping students as close to home as possible, adjusting boundaries only where nearby capacity exists.
Maps presented as of April 22, 2025
What We’re Still Working On: Data, Demographics, and Transportation
These maps are still drafts, and based on feedback, we expect more tweaks, especially in places like the George Mason–Charles Barrett zone and areas impacted by new housing developments.
One of the biggest shifts in this round of redistricting is that the maps now include resident demographic and socio-economic data—race, economic status, and gender—not just based on enrollment, but on where students live. This gives us a better view of how each scenario reshapes the makeup of each school.
That said, as Isaac Johnson from MGT explained at our April 24 meeting, these categories were not used when drawing the shape map boundaries. MGT’s approach is to create scenarios without referencing demographic data upfront, then analyze the impacts after the fact. The intent is to avoid bias, but what we see now is that some scenarios need adjustments to better balance diversity, walkability, and proximity. In short, we have more work to do.
We also know that some important data is still on the way:
Transportation eligibility data—how many students would qualify for a bus under each scenario—is being finalized now and will be shared at the May 14 RAC meeting.
We still don’t have EL (English Learner) and Special Education data broken down by map. That’s something many of us on the Board are continuing to request.
And while current projections estimate 191 K–5 students from the upcoming Sanse and Naja developments, city staff believe that number could be higher. Staff and consultants are working to reconcile those projections.
These are the details we need to finalize boundaries responsibly, and your continued questions are helping us surface them. Getting this right, especially where proximity, diversity, and walkability are in tension, will require further refinements.
What We’ve Heard from You
From public comments, emails, PTA and neighborhood meetings, here are some of the themes we’ve heard again and again:
Families want to understand why changes are being made—and how they benefit students across the city.
Many are open to change, but only if the rationale is clear and implemented thoughtfully.
There’s deep concern about how redistricting affects social cohesion, school culture, and middle school transitions.
And there’s a strong desire to reduce disruption, especially for students in their final years of elementary or middle school.
We’ve tried to take these concerns seriously in the policy conversations that followed.
Where We Are on Policy: What We’ve Agreed To (So Far)
Over the course of two School Board work sessions (April 18 and May 1), we reached Board consensus on several major redistricting-related policy updates, including how we handle deferrals, class sizes, and student transfers.
That said, while consensus gives staff direction, these policies are not final yet. Each will go through a formal review process:
Draft policy language will be reviewed in the strategy and accountability committee
The Board will reconvene on May 15 to review the draft policy language and consider additional redistricting policies that we did not reach consensus on.
Final versions will be presented to the full Board on May 29
The Board will vote on both policies and boundaries on June 12
Community feedback is still welcome during this time, especially as we work through the details of implementation.
Here’s a summary of where things currently stand on policies:
Deferrals (formerly “grandfathering”)
Fifth Grade + Siblings: Rising fifth graders in 2026-2027 (when the new lines are implemented) will be allowed to stay at their current elementary school through 5th grade, and their siblings can stay for one additional year only.
Dual Language Programs: Students currently enrolled in Mount Vernon or John Adams dual language programs can remain through 5th grade.
Douglas MacArthur–George Mason Swing Space: A small group of students, specifically current 3rd graders, who are zoned to move from MacArthur to George Mason in 2026 and would otherwise face a third building transition, will be allowed to finish elementary school at MacArthur through 5th grade.
Class Size and Capacity Transfers
The Board reached consensus to eliminate capacity transfers, a practice that reassigns students when their neighborhood school is full. We are the only division in the region that still does this, and it disproportionately affects English Learners and students who already experience mid-year moves.
Instead, we will maintain small, reasonable class sizes and replace hard “class caps” with targets, allowing schools some flexibility when enrollment changes unexpectedly.
To support stability between redistricting cycles, we’ll also be adding limited-scope redistricting and option areas as tools for future boundary adjustments.
Transportation and Walk Zones
A new policy will allow students living in walk zones to ride buses if space is available, giving families more flexibility.
Other Policy Consensus
The sibling rule will now apply only while the older sibling is still enrolled, to avoid multi-year rollovers.
All student transfers will require central office approval to ensure consistency across the division.
And we’ve committed to regular monitoring and reporting to track how these policies are working after implementation.
A Closer Look: What’s Next for Middle School?
Many families have asked about potential changes to middle school boundaries. Here’s where things stand.
ACPS currently has two middle schools—Francis C. Hammond and George Washington—that serve students across the city, along with grades 6–8 at Patrick Henry and Jefferson-Houston, our two K–8 campuses. Each of the current draft maps includes middle school boundary scenarios, but across all of them, we continue to see the same issue: there aren’t enough seats to fully address overutilization at the middle school level. Changing boundaries right now would not solve the capacity problem—it would likely just shift it from one school to another.
Because of that, the Board has not made a decision yet on whether to adjust middle school lines in this redistricting cycle. If we don’t change the lines now, we will still need to address two important issues:
Feeder patterns: If elementary boundaries shift for schools like Douglas MacArthur or George Mason, we need to decide whether those students will continue to follow the current feeder pattern to George Washington Middle School. For example, if we add more students to MacArthur and Mason, and we keep the current feeder pattern, that could further increase enrollment pressure at GW, which is already overutilized. Alternatively, if we do away with feeder patterns and maintain the current middle school lines, that could mean some students newly zoned for MacArthur would attend Hammond or Patrick Henry, and some students newly zoned for John Adams (from MacArthur) would attend George Washington.
Future planning: When Jefferson-Houston transitions to a dedicated middle school (currently projected for 2034), we’ll have a new opportunity to revisit middle school boundaries with additional capacity available.
The Board did not reach consensus on deferrals for middle schools. Several Board members expressed support for allowing current 5th and 6th graders to remain through 8th grade if reassigned, but the Board agreed to revisit that policy at a future meeting, after we have more clarity on potential middle school boundary changes and enrollment impacts.
We also discussed the walk zone policy for middle school students. The Board clarified that walk distances will be measured door-to-door, not property line to property line—bringing ACPS in line with common practice in other Northern Virginia school divisions. We are also considering changing the middle school walk zone distance from 1 mile to 1.5 miles, but have decided to allow a little more time prior to making that decision.
The transportation audit and walk zone analysis have now been completed, but the Board agreed to take the upcoming year to better understand the impact of making any recommended changes. We want to be thoughtful about how any shift in walk zone policy would affect student eligibility for transportation, and whether it would reduce or increase service needs in different parts of the city.
This is an area the Board will return to in the coming weeks as we finalize decisions around redistricting maps and related policies.
What’s Next
Here’s what to expect over the next few weeks:
May 8 – School Board meeting
May 12 - Strategy and Accountability Meeting NEW
May 12 – First Public Hearing
May 14 – RAC + Steering Committee meeting (with updated demographics & transportation data)
May 15 – Final Board redistricting work session
May 29 – Final policy and map recommendations presented
June 5 – Second Public Hearing
June 12 – Final School Board vote on new boundaries and redistricting-related policies
Between now and then, we’ll begin drafting official updates to our policies and regulations based on the Board’s direction. Those drafts will go through committee review and be posted publicly before the final vote.
The community can—and should—still weigh in.
Final Thoughts
This process is complex—and at times, messy—but that’s because it matters. The boundaries we set and the policies we put in place will shape how students experience school in Alexandria for years to come.
We’re making progress, and we’re proud of the thoughtfulness the Board, staff, and community have brought to the table. We’ve reached consensus on key implementation policies, and we’ve asked hard questions about how each scenario impacts students, not just on a map, but in classrooms, on buses, and across communities.
There’s more to come. We’re still reviewing final data, refining the maps, and drafting policy language that reflects the direction we’ve set. And through it all, your feedback continues to push us to think more clearly and act more intentionally.
Thanks for being part of this work and for staying engaged.
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
Comentarios