FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate how people on this thread keep saying “no one wants boundary changes” when there are posts supportive of a comprehensive review and explaining the reasons. More bullying and dismissiveness by the well-funded, self-interested, entitled opponents.

I bet those IP addresses can be tracked back to gatehouse employees working from home LOL.

This is a perfect example of the dismissiveness those of us who support the review for district wide efficiencies face. I’m a parent, not a gatehouse employee. I just care about running things more efficiently. I also wish they would get rid of the Dunn Loring useless project, try to get the king Abdullah land to address overcrowding, get rid of nardos king and her useless staff and trainings (but not the hearings office), fire the hayfield principal and coach, stop sending bad principals to gatehouse and more. I wish republicans had run non-nuts for SB, especially in Providence (where I don’t live). I value public education, know money is tight and getting tighter and think overenrolled schools next to underenrolled schools is wasteful.

Also not a Gatehouse employee here, just another FCPS parent, who leans left of center, and agrees with the above post 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More than $50,000 is extremely well funded opposition. It’s weird that PP can’t admit that.

Not when they are up against a school system with a nearly $4 billion annual budget and spent over $8 million in legal expenses last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate how people on this thread keep saying “no one wants boundary changes” when there are posts supportive of a comprehensive review and explaining the reasons. More bullying and dismissiveness by the well-funded, self-interested, entitled opponents.

I am a teacher and I think this is absolutely needed. Not necessarily on an equity stand point but due to operational. There are many kids going to schools that are farther away when other schools are closer. That should be fixed. Some of the boundaries truly make no sense. The piece meal boundary solutions are a quick fix approach but then another school becomes over capacity. The whole system needs an overhaul. I hope also get rid of split feeders. It should be these 8 ES go to this middle school and this high school. I think AP should be offered at all high schools and more languages should be offered at base schools. AAP centers should go away and everyone shoukd be educated at their base schools. There should be specific SPED programming in all pyramids so those kids don’t need crazy long bus rides.

I think most parents on here not wanting this are at risk of moving to a less desirable school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate how people on this thread keep saying “no one wants boundary changes” when there are posts supportive of a comprehensive review and explaining the reasons. More bullying and dismissiveness by the well-funded, self-interested, entitled opponents.

I am a teacher and I think this is absolutely needed. Not necessarily on an equity stand point but due to operational. There are many kids going to schools that are farther away when other schools are closer. That should be fixed. Some of the boundaries truly make no sense. The piece meal boundary solutions are a quick fix approach but then another school becomes over capacity. The whole system needs an overhaul. I hope also get rid of split feeders. It should be these 8 ES go to this middle school and this high school. I think AP should be offered at all high schools and more languages should be offered at base schools. AAP centers should go away and everyone shoukd be educated at their base schools. There should be specific SPED programming in all pyramids so those kids don’t need crazy long bus rides.

I think most parents on here not wanting this are at risk of moving to a less desirable school.

Adding on.. I do think 6th, 8th, 11th and 12th should be grandfathered to whatever decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate how people on this thread keep saying “no one wants boundary changes” when there are posts supportive of a comprehensive review and explaining the reasons. More bullying and dismissiveness by the well-funded, self-interested, entitled opponents.

I am a teacher and I think this is absolutely needed. Not necessarily on an equity stand point but due to operational. There are many kids going to schools that are farther away when other schools are closer. That should be fixed. Some of the boundaries truly make no sense. The piece meal boundary solutions are a quick fix approach but then another school becomes over capacity. The whole system needs an overhaul. I hope also get rid of split feeders. It should be these 8 ES go to this middle school and this high school. I think AP should be offered at all high schools and more languages should be offered at base schools. AAP centers should go away and everyone shoukd be educated at their base schools. There should be specific SPED programming in all pyramids so those kids don’t need crazy long bus rides.

I think most parents on here not wanting this are at risk of moving to a less desirable school.

Adding on.. I do think 6th, 8th, 11th and 12th should be grandfathered to whatever decisions.

Sped kids have longer bus rides regardless of where they are. They have to wait for lifts, unbuckling and door to door service regardless. They also sometimes get delayed at the school checking to make sure all the students are accounted for and checking with early dismissal/absence lists as they count each child. All of these safety procedures are important and necessary, but they take longer. It would be interesting to see how much all of that adds to the length of the bus rides vs. distance. Are kids traveling across the entire county for services or just a pyramid over? If they travel far, is the specific program worth the drive for the child and parent? I personally see more sped vans than I used to, which may help this particular issue as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate how people on this thread keep saying “no one wants boundary changes” when there are posts supportive of a comprehensive review and explaining the reasons. More bullying and dismissiveness by the well-funded, self-interested, entitled opponents.

I bet those IP addresses can be tracked back to gatehouse employees working from home LOL.

Absolutely. And I bet they are charging us overtime for their Saturday work today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate how people on this thread keep saying “no one wants boundary changes” when there are posts supportive of a comprehensive review and explaining the reasons. More bullying and dismissiveness by the well-funded, self-interested, entitled opponents.

I’m sure you could find posts supporting anything if you look hard enough.

Honestly, the best response to this has already been plainly stated. People are fine moving other people’s kids, just not their own. Hypocrites abound here. I’ve literally only heard of one person who wants his kids to move, and it’s because he thinks he can get rezoned to a better pyramid. Most people don’t even want that.

So, if you or your compatriot would like to affirm that your kids are likely to be moved, especially to a poorer performing school, I’d give your complaint a modicum more of attention, but as it is now, you’re just looking at these kids as pawns who are interchangeable with other kids, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate how people on this thread keep saying “no one wants boundary changes” when there are posts supportive of a comprehensive review and explaining the reasons. More bullying and dismissiveness by the well-funded, self-interested, entitled opponents.

I bet those IP addresses can be tracked back to gatehouse employees working from home LOL.

Absolutely. And I bet they are charging us overtime for their Saturday work today.

Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live in the periphery of any school zone, boundary changes will always be a possibilty. Why is this so hard to understand?

+1. No one guaranteed a school assignment. Just a district.

Because normal human beings don’t understand how radical this school board is willing to get. It’s always been an implicit agreement with the professional class in Fairfax and other blue areas that school pyramid stability is the third rail and not to be changed absent a compelling reason.

Only recently has the school board gotten out over its skis, and I’m quite confident they don’t fully understand how detrimental even a handful of the oft discussed changes would be to the entire county because of the flight of highly engaged parents from the school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More than $50,000 is extremely well funded opposition. It’s weird that PP can’t admit that.

Wait, there’s a 50k[b] oppo campaign?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than $50,000 is extremely well funded opposition. It’s weird that PP can’t admit that.

Wait, there’s a 50k[b] oppo campaign?

Yes. The great falls community has funded fairfacts matter at 50K or more. They know they’re vulnerable to redistricting because they’ve looked at a map. They have historically fought any change to their area and succeeded because of wealth, influence and very loud voices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than $50,000 is extremely well funded opposition. It’s weird that PP can’t admit that.

Wait, there’s a 50k[b] oppo campaign?

Yes. The great falls community has funded fairfacts matter at 50K or more. They know they’re vulnerable to redistricting because they’ve looked at a map. They have historically fought any change to their area and succeeded because of wealth, influence and very loud voices.

Maybe you should try to FOIA something and find out how much it costs. And, even then, FCPS can made a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than $50,000 is extremely well funded opposition. It’s weird that PP can’t admit that.

Wait, there’s a 50k[b] oppo campaign?

Yes. The great falls community has funded fairfacts matter at 50K or more. They know they’re vulnerable to redistricting because they’ve looked at a map. They have historically fought any change to their area and succeeded because of wealth, influence and very loud voices.

I get why you lie, but fairfacts matters is not a great falls organization, and you have no basis for your assertion that it’s all been funded by great falls. There are people in that group from all over the county.

I continue to think that you are getting scared of the group, which is why you are weirdly obsessed with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than $50,000 is extremely well funded opposition. It’s weird that PP can’t admit that.

Wait, there’s a 50k oppo campaign?

Yes. The great falls community has funded fairfacts matter at 50K or more. [b]They know they’re vulnerable to redistricting because they’ve looked at a map. They have historically fought any change to their area and succeeded because of wealth, influence and very loud voices.

Well put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate how people on this thread keep saying “no one wants boundary changes” when there are posts supportive of a comprehensive review and explaining the reasons. More bullying and dismissiveness by the well-funded, self-interested, entitled opponents.

What you are omitting is that they are also explaining that "No on wants boundary changes for their own kids and communities. You cut off the meaning of their comments.

The people like your post who want boundary changes also do not want boundary changes for their own kids and communities, so they actually fall into not wanting boundary changes if it means their own kid and kids friends will have to change schools. You are actually all in agreement about not wanting your own school reszoned.

The people who want boundary changes want boundary changes for other people's kids

Other people's kids are not your pawns.

DP. The old paradigm in FCPS was that boundary changes were a last resort (i.e., there needed to be acute overcrowding - like over 115% capacity - or extreme under-enrollment) and modular seats (but not trailers) counted towards calculating a school's design and program capacity.

You still had School Board members like Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen making sure that any boundary changes favored their schools at the expense of others, but the initial threshold for boundary changes limited the extent of the potential disruption to communities.

Now that's gone out the window with the "comprehensive county-wide boundary review," and the open-ended factors that can be cited to justify boundary changes. They aren't setting any objective thresholds to trigger a boundary change. Meanwhile, you have School Board members like Mateo Dunne, whose own school (West Potomac) got a huge expansion paid for by all county taxpayers, claiming that we can't expand other schools and that modular capacity should be ignored because modulars are just (his words) "trailers with plumbing." That opens up a ton more schools to potential boundary changes.

Add to that the sometimes tangible desire on the part of some School Board members to redistrict schools like Langley, McLean, and West Springfield, and people just feel like their kids are being set up to serve a political agenda. People can talk about how FCPS needs to operate efficiently, but then we also see Karl Frisch wasting over $85 million on a completely unnecessary new ES in Dunn Loring (it will no doubt end up getting repurposed at some point) and it's abundantly clear that efficiency is not a priority for this School Board. If they had even a scintilla of common sense, they would have stripped that boondoggle out of the CIP, and put the funds to better use, but loyalty to Frisch outweighed any sense of fiduciary duty to taxpayers.

Reid puts on a smiley face about the disaster in the making, but it's not the least bit persuasive.

This ES that we don't need could fund the middle school after school program for 20 years.

Or have funded additions to two high schools and avoided a lot of disruptive redistricting. Frisch should be indicted for fraud and the other School Board members who supported Dunn Loring removed from office.

They don’t care about efficiency one bit. They just want an excuse to move kids.