FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand residents not wanting to change school districts. However, if your house is in the periphery of any PUBLIC school district, there will always be a chance they will get moved, for any variety of reasons. Our house is walking distance to the high school we chose for our kids for our kids to attend.

But when the school board decides to change the rules of the game and the implicit agreement with UMC that their kids won’t be moved absent compelling reason (which doesn’t exist here) in exchange for UMC support for public schools, it creates real risk for the entire school system. At this point UMC is the only segment of the population that really is going to stand up for public school - that’s why this whole exercise is uber-dangerous.

I’ve been on DCUM long enough to know that most people arguing for boundary changes do so out of spite for neighbors that they perceive as richer. There are the posters that claim that anyone against moving their kids must be in the level of the KKK. These posters seek to cut off their nose to spite their face.

You know who you are.

Just to remind you, DCUM posters didn’t decide there was a need for a county-wide boundary study. That decision was made by the School Board with the support of the Superintendent. Are you contending they are all motivated by spite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would you define as a compelling reason?

Let’s stick to the current policy. Help me out here. Let’s assume that the capacity rates are the same at two different schools. One is high FARMS, the other is low FARMS. How, exactly, does balancing the FARMS rate between those two schools change the access to programming for students those schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand residents not wanting to change school districts. However, if your house is in the periphery of any PUBLIC school district, there will always be a chance they will get moved, for any variety of reasons. Our house is walking distance to the high school we chose for our kids for our kids to attend.

But when the school board decides to change the rules of the game and the implicit agreement with UMC that their kids won’t be moved absent compelling reason (which doesn’t exist here) in exchange for UMC support for public schools, it creates real risk for the entire school system. At this point UMC is the only segment of the population that really is going to stand up for public school - that’s why this whole exercise is uber-dangerous.

I’ve been on DCUM long enough to know that most people arguing for boundary changes do so out of spite for neighbors that they perceive as richer. There are the posters that claim that anyone against moving their kids must be in the level of the KKK. These posters seek to cut off their nose to spite their face.

You know who you are.

I know why they are doing it:
They want to cover up the poor test scores in some of the schools. It's easier for them that way. Put in more successful kids and the school won't look as bad.

The alternative is that they could work hard to teach the struggling students. They give lip service to that, but do not want to address the real problem.

So, the result? More struggling students. And, more struggling schools.

And, some SB members have a personal interest in this. Some have been vocal about it: Robyn Lady.

Just to remind you, DCUM posters didn’t decide there was a need for a county-wide boundary study. That decision was made by the School Board with the support of the Superintendent. Are you contending they are all motivated by spite?

[Anonymous]

I will even use a specific example. Say you balance the FARMS rate between Herndon High (55%) and Langley (less than 5%).

How does that change “access to programming “?

[Anonymous]

FARMS rates from here:

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13::::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:020,0

And

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13::::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:270,0

[Anonymous]

Wow, those links did not paste well. Let’s try again:

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would you define as a compelling reason?

Let’s stick to the current policy. Help me out here. Let’s assume that the capacity rates are the same at two different schools. One is high FARMS, the other is low FARMS. How, exactly, does balancing the FARMS rate between those two schools change the access to programming for students those schools?

I’d rather you explain what you meant when you referred to “compelling reasons” to adjust boundaries. Presumably you had something in mind, even if it was reverse-engineered not to require any changes to your current school assignments.

[Anonymous]

Anybody? How do boundary changes focused on balancing FARMS levels across all schools result in “equitable access to programming”?

Is FCPS currently withholding programming from high FARMS schools on a system-wide basis? Is FCPS only willing to provide certain programming at a school if there is a certain level of non-farms students at that school? Is that why balancing is necessary?

If that is the case, then FCPS should rethink their biased approach and rebalance program offerings at schools so they stop withholding programming from low income families.

I mean, really. Is the best argument for “access to programming” that FCPS won’t offer a full slate of programs unless there are enough wealthy kids at a school? That sounds like discrimination on the part of FCPS. “Hey, we need more non-FARMS kids in this school because we only offer certain programs if there are a certain number of non-FARMS kids in a school.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anybody? How do boundary changes focused on balancing FARMS levels across all schools result in “equitable access to programming”?

Is FCPS currently withholding programming from high FARMS schools on a system-wide basis? Is FCPS only willing to provide certain programming at a school if there is a certain level of non-farms students at that school? Is that why balancing is necessary?

If that is the case, then FCPS should rethink their biased approach and rebalance program offerings at schools so they stop withholding programming from low income families.

I mean, really. Is the best argument for “access to programming” that FCPS won’t offer a full slate of programs unless there are enough wealthy kids at a school? That sounds like discrimination on the part of FCPS. “Hey, we need more non-FARMS kids in this school because we only offer certain programs if there are a certain number of non-FARMS kids in a school.”

Even the more affluent schools do not often the same programs. That is the ridiculous part of this whole process.

But, one thing that is not 'access to programming" is having IB in some schools and AP in others. But, it does allow parents to take their kids out of certain schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anybody? How do boundary changes focused on balancing FARMS levels across all schools result in “equitable access to programming”?

Is FCPS currently withholding programming from high FARMS schools on a system-wide basis? Is FCPS only willing to provide certain programming at a school if there is a certain level of non-farms students at that school? Is that why balancing is necessary?

If that is the case, then FCPS should rethink their biased approach and rebalance program offerings at schools so they stop withholding programming from low income families.

I mean, really. Is the best argument for “access to programming” that FCPS won’t offer a full slate of programs unless there are enough wealthy kids at a school? That sounds like discrimination on the part of FCPS. “Hey, we need more non-FARMS kids in this school because we only offer certain programs if there are a certain number of non-FARMS kids in a school.”

So, still no explanation as to what you’d consider “compelling reasons” for a boundary change?

Apparently you toss out terms to try and sound reasonable but can’t even explain what they mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would you define as a compelling reason?

Let’s stick to the current policy. Help me out here. Let’s assume that the capacity rates are the same at two different schools. One is high FARMS, the other is low FARMS. How, exactly, does balancing the FARMS rate between those two schools change the access to programming for students those schools?

I’d rather you explain what you meant when you referred to “compelling reasons” to adjust boundaries. Presumably you had something in mind, even if it was reverse-engineered not to require any changes to your current school assignments.

I am a DP from the “compelling reasons” poster. I can see you don’t have any idea how balancing FARMS across schools relates to equitable access to programming and are instead spoiling for some kind of fight. That’s a shame.

I’ll bite. Coates and Parklawn have compelling reasons. 20 trailers on an elementary school lot is a compelling reason. A CIP that recommends a boundary adjustment to address that severe capacity problem is a reasonable approach to address that compelling reason.

Now that I answered your question, will you answer mine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody? How do boundary changes focused on balancing FARMS levels across all schools result in “equitable access to programming”?

Is FCPS currently withholding programming from high FARMS schools on a system-wide basis? Is FCPS only willing to provide certain programming at a school if there is a certain level of non-farms students at that school? Is that why balancing is necessary?

If that is the case, then FCPS should rethink their biased approach and rebalance program offerings at schools so they stop withholding programming from low income families.

I mean, really. Is the best argument for “access to programming” that FCPS won’t offer a full slate of programs unless there are enough wealthy kids at a school? That sounds like discrimination on the part of FCPS. “Hey, we need more non-FARMS kids in this school because we only offer certain programs if there are a certain number of non-FARMS kids in a school.”

So, still no explanation as to what you’d consider “compelling reasons” for a boundary change?

Apparently you toss out terms to try and sound reasonable but can’t even explain what they mean.

You have your posters mixed up. I did not say “compelling reason”. That was someone else. Nevertheless, I give one example of a “compelling reason” below.

[Anonymous]

Oakton boundary changes still happening?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of middle school AAP centers - it seems like a transportation nightmare and creates a lot of student placements out of the assigned MS. I could go either way on elementary. I don’t love them from a transportation standpoint and it seems like it puts a lot of 20% full buses on the road. But maybe better to keep them as still not every school has LLIV (two big ES in the WS pyramid do not). MS AAP seems like it could be handled by just offering more MS advanced/honors classes.

But, getting rid of centers is a pipe dream now because the advocacy groups have the ear of the SB and continue to promote their existence.

I believe this is part of the long term plan - to make every middle school an AAP center so kids are attending their home school in their community.

No, the plan is AAP in every elementary school and honors at every middle. No more AAP at middle schools.

I specifically questioned Mateo Dunne about the AAP centers at one of his outreach meetings because it seems to add a lot of transportation costs, buses on the road, and kids not attending their community schools which seems to be a goal of this boundary change fiasco. And he said there were interest groups keeping the centers afloat and there were no plans to change them. I don’t get why, it seems like putting LLIV at all the elementaries and middle school AAP at all the middles, and dumping centers and the associated transportation, would be a cost savings and would result in more kids attending their local schools. But I guess it’s better to fool around with all the boundaries. /s

+1
Amazing that this glaring example of waste and inefficiency is staring them right in the face but they're still listening to the usual "interest groups." That, right there, tells me these boundary changes aren't at all about saving money and time. These people are liars.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Found it!

I'd forgotten how egregious this is. Talk about bigotry.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFJi-tHjWXg

If I recall this correctly, there was some guy from Reston interviewing Omeish when she was a candidate in 2019 and complaining about the Langley boundaries. She went along with it, but it wasn't like she brought it up or added much.

You say "Talk about bigotry." If I recall, the Reston guy claimed that Langley was skimming the "creme of the crop" from Herndon and Reston neighborhoods. So you can claim that's bigoted if he was equating wealthier families, mostly White and Asian, with the "creme of the crop." On the other hand, FCPS has curated Langley's boundaries over the years so that, in 2025, it still has no condos and apartments and only a small number of townhouses. That didn't happen by accident, so there may have been some bigotry at play there as well.

It will be interesting to see if, once again, other parts of the county are subjected to boundary changes while no one gets moved out of Langley.

big·ot
[ˈbiɡət]
noun
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city" · "a racist bigot"

The vitriol in his speech was troubling. The definition of bigot seems applicable. These are kids he is talking about. And, I looked it up--Langley is around 50% white. Using the term "lily white" seems like a slur.

+1
The interviewer was a horrible, blatant bigot. And Omeish just went right along with him.

This was six years ago and Omeish isn’t on the SB any longer. Meanwhile the bigotry of the Langley community towards Hispanics in Herndon has never ceased.

Remember your unhinged post from a couple of days ago on this topic? Because we sure do.

You have no credibility because you continue to assert, without any basis, that your neighbors are racist.

You. Are. Disgusting.

1. You are confliating posters.

2. Don't pretend that people are your "neighbors" when you constantly proclaim your desire not to interact with their kids.

3. The constant denigration of Herndon by Great Falls posters is as bigoted as anything from that old interview with Omeish.

Get. Over. Yourselves.

“Constant denigration”? You must clearly have receipts. Would love to see them. Feel free to show us the constant denigration. Go find them. We’ll wait. (Pathetic if you can’t back up your claims).

When you claim everyone is racist you become the boy who cried wolf and you do a real disservice to actual racism. You are the problem, it’s you.

All you needed to do was look at 10:45 for an example of the condescending, insulting posts.

But it's OK. Once your kids get reassigned to Herndon, at least some of you will change your tune.

NP. Stop with the Herndon bashing. You could do far worse outside of there or Lewis or whatever other school you want to denigrate. Get a grip and stop hyperventilating. FX County residents voted for this board. Now, we are stuck with them. And don’t act like this is a surprise. It has been on the agenda for years and voters ignored it, because candidates focus on the new stuff in campaigns not what is already in progress. Voters should have also paid attention to residential zoning which continues to pick winners and losers. And to other policies. Voters created this mess, now we’re stuck.(HHS parent)

Some of the Great Falls/Langley posters are bullies but when they are reassigned to Herndon at least some of them will come around. Until then they will just continue to insult Herndon, the School Board, and any parents who acknowledge that some boundary changes may be appropriate.

DP. With every one of your posts, you're proving to be the biggest bully on this board.