FCPS HS Boundary

[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.

More like when you’re popping out of your clothes and think the solution is just to buy bigger and bigger clothes instead of addressing the underlying causes of extreme weight gain.

[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.

More like when you’re popping out of your clothes and think the solution is just to buy bigger and bigger clothes instead of addressing the underlying causes of extreme weight gain.

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying that a boundary study will cause the overall county student population to go down? I guess that’s a potential outcome for this disastrous and unnecessary “holistic” boundary study.

[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.

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!

+1. It's actually kind of absurd that anyone would be against the process of an organization reevaluating to improve their operations in a reasonable fashion. Sounds like dinosaur syndrome.

[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.

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!

+1. It's actually kind of absurd that anyone would be against the process of an organization reevaluating to improve their operations in a reasonable fashion. Sounds like dinosaur syndrome.

Have to laugh at this. There’s nothing about announcing a “holistic” boundary review that by itself necessarily suggests improvements in any processes.

For the most, it seems driven by a desire for a lack of accountability by suggesting the School Board can just outsource the responsibility for boundary changes to others, whether its staff or third-party consultants. That’s a pipe dream, because the third parties will still demand that the School Board establish or approve the criteria to be used; the School Board will have to vote of any changes; and the School Board will be on the hook for any failures to have considered factors that matter the most to families, who don’t want their kids treated as widgets.

It also all feels like a bit of smoke and mirrors to provide cover for other decisions that the new members are salivating to make, but don’t want to acknowledge as a priority.

[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.

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!

+1. It's actually kind of absurd that anyone would be against the process of an organization reevaluating to improve their operations in a reasonable fashion. Sounds like dinosaur syndrome.

Have to laugh at this. There’s nothing about announcing a “holistic” boundary review that by itself necessarily suggests improvements in any processes.

For the most, it seems driven by a desire for a lack of accountability by suggesting the School Board can just outsource the responsibility for boundary changes to others, whether its staff or third-party consultants. That’s a pipe dream, because the third parties will still demand that the School Board establish or approve the criteria to be used; the School Board will have to vote of any changes; and the School Board will be on the hook for any failures to have considered factors that matter the most to families, who don’t want their kids treated as widgets.

It also all feels like a bit of smoke and mirrors to provide cover for other decisions that the new members are salivating to make, but don’t want to acknowledge as a priority.

+1. You can be for the efficient operation of the FCPS school system and still know that this thing is going to cause way more problems than it solves and massive disruptions to broad swaths of students. People who believe it’ll just be as easy as scribbling some new lines are deluding themselves. Let’s hope the board comes to its senses.

[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.

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!

+1. It's actually kind of absurd that anyone would be against the process of an organization reevaluating to improve their operations in a reasonable fashion. Sounds like dinosaur syndrome.

Have to laugh at this. There’s nothing about announcing a “holistic” boundary review that by itself necessarily suggests improvements in any processes.

For the most, it seems driven by a desire for a lack of accountability by suggesting the School Board can just outsource the responsibility for boundary changes to others, whether its staff or third-party consultants. That’s a pipe dream, because the third parties will still demand that the School Board establish or approve the criteria to be used; the School Board will have to vote of any changes; and the School Board will be on the hook for any failures to have considered factors that matter the most to families, who don’t want their kids treated as widgets.

It also all feels like a bit of smoke and mirrors to provide cover for other decisions that the new members are salivating to make, but don’t want to acknowledge as a priority.

+1. You can be for the efficient operation of the FCPS school system and still know that this thing is going to cause way more problems than it solves and massive disruptions to broad swaths of students. People who believe it’ll just be as easy as scribbling some new lines are deluding themselves. Let’s hope the board comes to its senses.

+2
I honestly think it's just one person on this forum who *loves* to antagonize by insisting the board will be redoing boundaries all over the county. And that person *loves* the outraged reactions she gets, which is why she continues to pretend she knows something the rest of us do not. My advice - stop rising to the bait and ignore her. I seriously doubt the SB is planning a massive boundary change.

[Anonymous]

They are planning a full boundary change. They have stated it multiple times in public meetings. Dr. Reid slso said last year that she thinks we need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are planning a full boundary change. They have stated it multiple times in public meetings. Dr. Reid slso said last year that she thinks we need it.

It’s like you’re just trying to prove PP’s point.

[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 there is no need for boundary changes, then there must not be any need to expand schools or put kids in trailers either. So, we’re doing well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More like when you’re popping out of your clothes and think the solution is just to buy bigger and bigger clothes instead of addressing the underlying causes of extreme weight gain.

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying that a boundary study will cause the overall county student population to go down? I guess that’s a potential outcome for this disastrous and unnecessary “holistic” boundary study.

I’m saying expanding a school to 2000+ or maintaining it at those levels like gaining weight. Your clothes don’t fit, so you decide to keep buying bigger and bigger clothes instead of making healthy changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 there is no need for boundary changes, then there must not be any need to expand schools or put kids in trailers either. So, we’re doing well.

So obnoxious. Boundary changes have never been the only logical response in FCPS to schools that are above capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 there is no need for boundary changes, then there must not be any need to expand schools or put kids in trailers either. So, we’re doing well.

So obnoxious. Boundary changes have never been the only logical response in FCPS to schools that are above capacity.

+1. It’s like she’s saying if you don’t take my solution then there can be no solution at all. Any high school kid could point out the flaw in that logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 there is no need for boundary changes, then there must not be any need to expand schools or put kids in trailers either. So, we’re doing well.

So obnoxious. Boundary changes have never been the only logical response in FCPS to schools that are above capacity.

You are right boundary changes are not the only solution. However, ruling them outright is obnoxious. Let’s see what the study finds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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!

+1. It's actually kind of absurd that anyone would be against the process of an organization reevaluating to improve their operations in a reasonable fashion. Sounds like dinosaur syndrome.

Have to laugh at this. There’s nothing about announcing a “holistic” boundary review that by itself necessarily suggests improvements in any processes.

For the most, it seems driven by a desire for a lack of accountability by suggesting the School Board can just outsource the responsibility for boundary changes to others, whether its staff or third-party consultants. That’s a pipe dream, because the third parties will still demand that the School Board establish or approve the criteria to be used; the School Board will have to vote of any changes; and the School Board will be on the hook for any failures to have considered factors that matter the most to families, who don’t want their kids treated as widgets.

It also all feels like a bit of smoke and mirrors to provide cover for other decisions that the new members are salivating to make, but don’t want to acknowledge as a priority.

+1. You can be for the efficient operation of the FCPS school system and still know that this thing is going to cause way more problems than it solves and massive disruptions to broad swaths of students. People who believe it’ll just be as easy as scribbling some new lines are deluding themselves. Let’s hope the board comes to its senses.

+2
I honestly think it's just one person on this forum who *loves* to antagonize by insisting the board will be redoing boundaries all over the county. And that person *loves* the outraged reactions she gets, which is why she continues to pretend she knows something the rest of us do not. My advice - stop rising to the bait and ignore her. I seriously doubt the SB is planning a massive boundary change.

This isn't a made-up story to antagonize the community. Their conversations are posted on YouTube if you want to hear it directly from Reid and the Board. Recent FPAC meeting minutes have also included talk of boundary recommendations. This is all posted online, we can't pretend to know something that others don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are planning a full boundary change. They have stated it multiple times in public meetings. Dr. Reid slso said last year that she thinks we need it.

It’s like you’re just trying to prove PP’s point.

Except I am a NP.