Forum Index
»
Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
FCPS Boundary Review Updates
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You came on here to say "sometimes things don't go your way"? Ok, thanks. |
Anonymous
No one really knows because the BRAC process is so secretive, but the prior slides had "Data Analysis and Draft Scenarios" set for March to June 2025 and "Post-Analysis Community Engagement" for May-September 2025 and "Final Scenario Development" for October-December 2025. |
Anonymous
DP. You say "no one said there was a contract," but at least one anti-boundary poster has repeatedly claimed there is an "implicit agreement" between FCPS and UMC parents that their kids wouldn't get moved except in rare circumstances. A contract is an agreement, so... Also, even if what FCPS does is poorly reasoned and not aligned with the preferences of certain communities, it's not illegal just because it may affect the loudest or wealthiest parents in the county. The anti-boundary crowd is its own echo chamber, just like the School Board. You can work yourselves into a frenzy and convince yourself that a boundary change is illegal, but that doesn't make it so unless you find evidence that you clearly haven't found yet. |
Anonymous
I said implicit agreement. You have to be pretty dense to think that implicit agreement =contract. What it does mean is that there has been a quid pro quo in our county that UMC will support public schools, even allowing more money to go to poorer performing schools, and in exchange FCPS won’t try to ram unpopular unnecessary boundary changes through over the objections of the vast majority of county residents. Just like you believe they can ram these changes through, UMC can likewise vote with their feet. Once we leave the school system who is going to support your programs? Vouchers are tantalizingly close to reality in Virginia. You sure you can lose our support? Really think that one through. |
Anonymous
I realize there are issues with some elementary schools being overcrowded--and I am not familiar with those. But, those are better resolved on an individual basis--as in the current Coaters and Parklawn situations. But, I see no need to redistrict high schools. FWIW, having taught in Title I schools, I feel it is especially important to keep the kids close to the school and reduce transportation needs for those kids. It is very difficult to get parental support into the school when there is poverty involved. It is key to have the parents near the kids' schools whenever possible. In other words, don't put them on longer bus rides. After school activities are important for all kids and great distances reduce that. |
Anonymous
Fear not. No one thinks for a second there's been an enforceable contract not to change the boundaries of UMC neighborhoods. I was just pointing out the self-serving gloss you've put on the past practice of certain School Board members of favoring the interests of their wealthier constituents over others. [P.S. - The term "quid pro quo" often has an unsavory connotation, so you might reconsider your use of it here.] Also, you previously claimed the contemplated boundary changes were "frankly illegal." At present, you have no basis to make such an assertion. If a legal boundary change causes you to leave the county, so be it. You can take your wagon train of angry former Langley parents to the hills, and life will go on. |
Anonymous
What kids at Title I schools are we talking about potentially bussing longer distances through boundary changes? I recognize this is a case of "long bus rides for me, but not for thee," but that scenario is not really what has the anti-boundary change crowd agitated. |
Anonymous
I also ask myself, if they do re-zone some Langley homes to Herndon, how many families would be affected? Probably not enough to make a big difference regarding the UMC property tax revenue. I doubt that is a major concern of fcps. I also read a few pages back, that Herndon families were super excited to have some of the Langley kids at Herndon, because that would mean our home values would go up. So, looks like “even stevens” to me when it comes to prooerty taxes. |
Anonymous
I don't know of any. But, if they are moving kids around, it is likely that, with the domino effect, some will have to go greater distances if they are not currently right next to a school. This needs to be considered when drawing boundaries. It is really difficult to get parents into a school if the school is not convenient. |
Anonymous
No need to reconsider the term “quid pro quo” it works here. Someone (you?) just wrote: “a contract is an agreement…” so you are at best being lazy with your wording, and likely just throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks, with no consistency in your arguments. I didn’t make any assertion that it was “frankly illegal.” Yet again, you conflate posters. I get that you have a chip on your shoulder, but query whether your rage is preventing you from making logical arguments as you shill for the school board. |
Anonymous
I’ve never heard of even stevens, but if you mean that you think the drop and increase will equal each other, I’d strongly recommend an introductory Econ class. It’s hard to discuss Econ with people who have no foundation in it. Please educate yourself. |
Anonymous
Well, the current administration disagrees with you. Read the February 14 Dear Colleague Letter from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. The letter "explains and reiterates existing legal requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other relevant authorities." One Fairfax was designed to acheive "racial and social equity" and the school board expressly stated multiple times on the record that the boundary policy was to be conducted under the One Fairfax lens to achieve those goals. In fact, they are required to do so based on their revision to Policy 8130. As set forth in the Febraury 14 letter, "The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent." "All educational institutions are advised to: (1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race." |
Anonymous
Not enough kids would get moved to Herndon to make any significant improvement in the quality of Herndon. And most of those parents would pull their kids or move before sending them to Herndon - who wants to go from one of the best FCPS high schools to one of the worst. No other group of students is being asked to go from a top 5 school to a bottom 5 school. |
Anonymous
That seems conjectural, but agree it's something they should look at if the scenario actually presents itself. |
Anonymous
You're flailing now. Thought you should know. |