FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

+1. And I fear they are going to try to jam it in this year before next year’s CIP comes out showing how incredibly off some of their projections are this year.

What if the projections truly are off? Shouldn’t plans be altered then? Plans should be reviewed and adjusted. That’s what planning is.

If they are going to try this holistic review, which I think is absurd, btw, they owe it to us to at least get the numbers right. The way they calculate the five year projections is opaque at best, and likely error prone as we’ve seen wild fluctuations at many schools lately.

A holistic study without correct numbers is likely to solve nothing and upset a lot of folks for no real gains. A truly unforced error by this board to even talk about it.

The hypocrisy is staggering. On the one hand, you have board members claiming boundary decisions should be made “holistically” by “experts” (because they want to pass the buck and avoid accountability), yet they go along with the unnecessary ES in Dunn Loring, which is only happening because Karl Frisch accelerated it and which will require major and unnecessary changes in the local ES boundaries. We aren’t electing very smart people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

Indeed, even our own electoral college system has a built-in method for updated allocations with every census. But a brick-and-mortar school system? Nay, schools don't need any rebalancing whatsoever, let the chips fall where they may!

[Anonymous]

The county needs to distribute affordable housing more uniformly across the county rather than concentrating it in certain communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Policy 8130 already has a policy and mechanism in place for boundary adjustments to address overcrowding. That doesn't require reviewing or changing all of the boundaries countywide, just adjusting boundaries to deal with the overcrowding. Policy 8130 does not authorize or have a mechanism for "holistic" countywide boundary reviews or adjustments. This is why the school board's first action is to try to revise 8130. No one should have any confidence that this school board could effectively implement a countywide boundary review and adjustment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

The best solution in some circumstances may be a boundary change, but in other circumstances it may be to prioritize the expansion of a school.

The only significant groups of people asking for boundary studies recently at their schools have been at Kent Gardens ES, Coates ES, Parklawn ES, and Glasgow MS. The Kent Gardens boundaries have been adjusted, there are boundary studies now underway for Coates and Parklawn, and the School Board just denied Ricardy Anderson's request for a boundary study for Glasgow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Policy 8130 already has a policy and mechanism in place for boundary adjustments to address overcrowding. That doesn't require reviewing or changing all of the boundaries countywide, just adjusting boundaries to deal with the overcrowding. Policy 8130 does not authorize or have a mechanism for "holistic" countywide boundary reviews or adjustments. This is why the school board's first action is to try to revise 8130. No one should have any confidence that this school board could effectively implement a countywide boundary review and adjustment.

People should attend the May 28th work session and express their opposition to "holistic" boundary adjustments for which there is little demand and which would present an array of challenges they haven't even begun to acknowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Policy 8130 already has a policy and mechanism in place for boundary adjustments to address overcrowding. That doesn't require reviewing or changing all of the boundaries countywide, just adjusting boundaries to deal with the overcrowding. Policy 8130 does not authorize or have a mechanism for "holistic" countywide boundary reviews or adjustments. This is why the school board's first action is to try to revise 8130. No one should have any confidence that this school board could effectively implement a countywide boundary review and adjustment.

People should attend the May 28th work session and express their opposition to "holistic" boundary adjustments for which there is little demand and which would present an array of challenges they haven't even begun to acknowledge.

If they kowtow to the don’t-look-under-the-covers mob, they are bigger cowards than previously assumed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Exactly. Whenever anyone complains to me, I always make sure they get exactly what they want.

Kids complain that they want a cookie, bam, compelling enough for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Policy 8130 already has a policy and mechanism in place for boundary adjustments to address overcrowding. That doesn't require reviewing or changing all of the boundaries countywide, just adjusting boundaries to deal with the overcrowding. Policy 8130 does not authorize or have a mechanism for "holistic" countywide boundary reviews or adjustments. This is why the school board's first action is to try to revise 8130. No one should have any confidence that this school board could effectively implement a countywide boundary review and adjustment.

People should attend the May 28th work session and express their opposition to "holistic" boundary adjustments for which there is little demand and which would present an array of challenges they haven't even begun to acknowledge.

The FCPS school board’s holistic medicine approach: we have some concerns about your kidney function, so we’re going to cut off a large chunk of your liver and glue it to your kidney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Exactly. Whenever anyone complains to me, I always make sure they get exactly what they want.

Kids complain that they want a cookie, bam, compelling enough for me.

So when the Facilities Planning Advisory Council, consultants, and real communities recommend ideas for appropriate boundary adjustments but a vocal minority complains about it, guess it's fair to move foward then.

[Anonymous]

Kyle McDaniel and Mateo Dunne both seem to be big fans of the “holistic review.” McDaniel lives in the Oakton district, and Oakton just got an enormous renovation and a big addition. Dunne lives in the West Potomac district, and West Potomac also just got a big addition outside the renovation queue.

It’s going to seem a tad hypocritical if they now turn around and tell others they should just expect to be redistricted pursuant to a “holistic review” if their schools are overcrowded, regardless of whether people at those schools are even asking for a boundary change, after their own schools have been generously expanded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Exactly. Whenever anyone complains to me, I always make sure they get exactly what they want.

Kids complain that they want a cookie, bam, compelling enough for me.

So when the Facilities Planning Advisory Council, consultants, and real communities recommend ideas for appropriate boundary adjustments but a vocal minority complains about it, guess it's fair to move foward then.

Apart from Glasgow, what other “real community” has advocated in any significant numbers for boundary adjustments recently and not been heard?