FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That seems conjectural, but agree it's something they should look at if the scenario actually presents itself.

I thought transportation issues were one of the big four categories. So now it’s just an afterthought to consider if it happens.

This whole process is a F’ing joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sounds like a plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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."

First of all, that letter is just an interpretation by some Trump/MAGA appointee. It has no legal effect in and of itself and, in case you haven't noticed, judges appointed by Presidents of both parties are now reining in the worst impulses of Trump and his crew of sycophants.

But, more importantly, the letter, while disparaging goals such as social justice and equity, does not deem them illegal, nor could it. It simply reiterates existing Supreme Court precedent that treating students differently on the basis of race to advance those goals has been deemed unconstitutional. FCPS is not doing that, so it is not at risk if it adjusts boundaries based on Policy 8130.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Assuming you are referring to average standardized test scores when using terms like "best high school" and "worst high school," it's at least as likely that part of McLean will get moved to Falls Church, or that part of Woodson will get moved to Annandale or Falls Church, as that part of Langley will get moved to Herndon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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."

First of all, that letter is just an interpretation by some Trump/MAGA appointee. It has no legal effect in and of itself and, in case you haven't noticed, judges appointed by Presidents of both parties are now reining in the worst impulses of Trump and his crew of sycophants.

But, more importantly, the letter, while disparaging goals such as social justice and equity, does not deem them illegal, nor could it. It simply reiterates existing Supreme Court precedent that treating students differently on the basis of race to advance those goals has been deemed unconstitutional. FCPS is not doing that, so it is not at risk if it adjusts boundaries based on Policy 8130.

Are you somehow saying a government policy that is "unconstitutional" is not "illegal"? That is an interesting argument for sure. And the SB expressly stated that the boundary review was to be conducted under the One Fairfax lens, which means it has to promote racial and social equity. Obviously you don't like the current administration, but the country voted for it, and "sometimes things don't go your way." Bad time for the SB to try to push this through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

And, the question is: WHY?

Annandale and Herndon would both have more affluent kids staying in those schools if IB were removed from FCPS. But, instead, the SB wants to move kids.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Assuming you are referring to average standardized test scores when using terms like "best high school" and "worst high school," it's at least as likely that part of McLean will get moved to Falls Church, or that part of Woodson will get moved to Annandale or Falls Church, as that part of Langley will get moved to Herndon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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."

First of all, that letter is just an interpretation by some Trump/MAGA appointee. It has no legal effect in and of itself and, in case you haven't noticed, judges appointed by Presidents of both parties are now reining in the worst impulses of Trump and his crew of sycophants.

But, more importantly, the letter, while disparaging goals such as social justice and equity, does not deem them illegal, nor could it. It simply reiterates existing Supreme Court precedent that treating students differently on the basis of race to advance those goals has been deemed unconstitutional. FCPS is not doing that, so it is not at risk if it adjusts boundaries based on Policy 8130.

Are you somehow saying a government policy that is "unconstitutional" is not "illegal"? That is an interesting argument for sure. And the SB expressly stated that the boundary review was to be conducted under the One Fairfax lens, which means it has to promote racial and social equity. Obviously you don't like the current administration, but the country voted for it, and "sometimes things don't go your way." Bad time for the SB to try to push this through.

Yes. And, they also risk losing federal funds. Remember, they also have a policy that allows trans girls in the girls' bathroom.

I'd really like to know how much this boundary study has already cost. It's far more than $500K

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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."

First of all, that letter is just an interpretation by some Trump/MAGA appointee. It has no legal effect in and of itself and, in case you haven't noticed, judges appointed by Presidents of both parties are now reining in the worst impulses of Trump and his crew of sycophants.

But, more importantly, the letter, while disparaging goals such as social justice and equity, does not deem them illegal, nor could it. It simply reiterates existing Supreme Court precedent that treating students differently on the basis of race to advance those goals has been deemed unconstitutional. FCPS is not doing that, so it is not at risk if it adjusts boundaries based on Policy 8130.

Are you somehow saying a government policy that is "unconstitutional" is not "illegal"? That is an interesting argument for sure. And the SB expressly stated that the boundary review was to be conducted under the One Fairfax lens, which means it has to promote racial and social equity. Obviously you don't like the current administration, but the country voted for it, and "sometimes things don't go your way." Bad time for the SB to try to push this through.

Read again.

The boundary change would be done in accordance in Policy 8130, not on the basis of race. Further, Policy 8130 does not include any reference to One Fairfax. And One Fairfax itself does not commit to making decisions "based on race," but rather with a view to making sure that all residents, regardless of their race, have access to opportunities.

You want to toss out "One Fairfax" as if it's some roadmap to explicit demographic balancing in FCPS schools, yet you've pointed to nothing in the document itself that calls for that result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

First admit that you don’t view your neighbors’ kids as human beings and instead view them as cogs in an equity machine. Then admit that there really is no urgent or compelling reason to redistrict kids. Then admit that the school board members aren’t going to move their own kids. Then admit that the community, as shown from the notes of the community meetings don’t want these changes. Then admit that you wouldn’t want your own kids moved. Then admit this will cause UMC families to flee Fairfax county. Then admit that vouchers are much more likely with these boundary changes. Then admit that this will exacerbate the housing crisis with UMC families renting relatively affordable homes in their desired school districts. Then admit that many of your comrades are selfishly pushing boundary changes to profit from an increase in their own property values. Then admit these changes won’t help any current students at these schools.

Then admit that you are a clown. Let’s not pussyfoot around.

The only clowns are racists like you. If UMC want to flee, let them go. Bye. Try to get admission into the already crowded and highly selective privates around here. There aren't many so good luck! Hopefully their DC doesn't have a special need because most privates are notoriously bad at dealing with that. I for one am fine with my kids going to any FCPS school because I parent my kids well enough to know that they will succeed wherever they are. If you're insecure about your kids then I guess you have to go find the exact perfect situation for them to be mediocre. So sad for you. The reason to redistrict is there but you want to act like an ass instead of paying attention. School are overcrowded with kids in trailers, kids are having to take long bus rides in certain cases to get to their base school, and that money and time save could go elsewhere. AND yes it is about positive peer pressure for underperforming schools to level up but also to high achieving kids to get out for their bubbles and learn to live in diversity and empathy. Lessons that a lot of parents on these stupid sites could learn. Most people in this current environment aren't going to be able to own or rent two houses to get their kids to their preferred school and that's okay because their kids will be fine. They aren't going to sell in this market and be able to buy new with these interest rate. That's just facts. The few who can should just go because they won't do much but being morale down for everyone. The greatest predictor for your kid's success isn't the FCPS school they go to it's YOU and your involvement in their learning, your engagement with whatever school they are in, your attitude towards change, and teaching that change is inevitable but also a learning opportunity. Raise kids with grit and not in a bubble of your choosing. My neighborhood will likely get moved. I also bought for the schools because I wanted my kid to have the stability of being with the same kids. But if we are redistricted my kids will be fine because I raised them to be fine and to succeed in any environment they're placed. Sorry you didn't prepare your kids well enough it's too bad for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

First admit that you don’t view your neighbors’ kids as human beings and instead view them as cogs in an equity machine. Then admit that there really is no urgent or compelling reason to redistrict kids. Then admit that the school board members aren’t going to move their own kids. Then admit that the community, as shown from the notes of the community meetings don’t want these changes. Then admit that you wouldn’t want your own kids moved. Then admit this will cause UMC families to flee Fairfax county. Then admit that vouchers are much more likely with these boundary changes. Then admit that this will exacerbate the housing crisis with UMC families renting relatively affordable homes in their desired school districts. Then admit that many of your comrades are selfishly pushing boundary changes to profit from an increase in their own property values. Then admit these changes won’t help any current students at these schools.

Then admit that you are a clown. Let’s not pussyfoot around.

The only clowns are racists like you. If UMC want to flee, let them go. Bye. Try to get admission into the already crowded and highly selective privates around here. There aren't many so good luck! Hopefully their DC doesn't have a special need because most privates are notoriously bad at dealing with that. I for one am fine with my kids going to any FCPS school because I parent my kids well enough to know that they will succeed wherever they are. If you're insecure about your kids then I guess you have to go find the exact perfect situation for them to be mediocre. So sad for you. The reason to redistrict is there but you want to act like an ass instead of paying attention. School are overcrowded with kids in trailers, kids are having to take long bus rides in certain cases to get to their base school, and that money and time save could go elsewhere. AND yes it is about positive peer pressure for underperforming schools to level up but also to high achieving kids to get out for their bubbles and learn to live in diversity and empathy. Lessons that a lot of parents on these stupid sites could learn. Most people in this current environment aren't going to be able to own or rent two houses to get their kids to their preferred school and that's okay because their kids will be fine. They aren't going to sell in this market and be able to buy new with these interest rate. That's just facts. The few who can should just go because they won't do much but being morale down for everyone. The greatest predictor for your kid's success isn't the FCPS school they go to it's YOU and your involvement in their learning, your engagement with whatever school they are in, your attitude towards change, and teaching that change is inevitable but also a learning opportunity. Raise kids with grit and not in a bubble of your choosing. My neighborhood will likely get moved. I also bought for the schools because I wanted my kid to have the stability of being with the same kids. But if we are redistricted my kids will be fine because I raised them to be fine and to succeed in any environment they're placed. Sorry you didn't prepare your kids well enough it's too bad for them.

There you go again with your “racists!” screed. Your post oozes paternalism- that you know what is best for all the children of the realm. It’s really hard to understand why you want these neighbors in your schools when you can’t stand them. Nonetheless, you’re just a one trick pony (“racists! Everyone!”)

You’re a caricature of the extreme left, and your belief that Fairfax families will just lie down and take your equity BS while thanking you shows just how delusional you are.

You’re the reason that the current administration is in the White House. Extreme to the core without an understanding of how the world works.

The unfortunate thing is that you exist in an echo chamber with Sandy Anderson and her SB crew. You (and they) think that you’re doing god’s work, when you are really just driving the school district further down the spiral.

And, just for the record, most of my neighbors pay more for their kids to go to preschool than they would need to pay for rent in their desired school district. I know you don’t want to believe that this will crowd out poorer families who desperately need that housing, but that willful ignorance is on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

First admit that you don’t view your neighbors’ kids as human beings and instead view them as cogs in an equity machine. Then admit that there really is no urgent or compelling reason to redistrict kids. Then admit that the school board members aren’t going to move their own kids. Then admit that the community, as shown from the notes of the community meetings don’t want these changes. Then admit that you wouldn’t want your own kids moved. Then admit this will cause UMC families to flee Fairfax county. Then admit that vouchers are much more likely with these boundary changes. Then admit that this will exacerbate the housing crisis with UMC families renting relatively affordable homes in their desired school districts. Then admit that many of your comrades are selfishly pushing boundary changes to profit from an increase in their own property values. Then admit these changes won’t help any current students at these schools.

Then admit that you are a clown. Let’s not pussyfoot around.

The only clowns are racists like you. If UMC want to flee, let them go. Bye. Try to get admission into the already crowded and highly selective privates around here. There aren't many so good luck! Hopefully their DC doesn't have a special need because most privates are notoriously bad at dealing with that. I for one am fine with my kids going to any FCPS school because I parent my kids well enough to know that they will succeed wherever they are. If you're insecure about your kids then I guess you have to go find the exact perfect situation for them to be mediocre. So sad for you. The reason to redistrict is there but you want to act like an ass instead of paying attention. School are overcrowded with kids in trailers, kids are having to take long bus rides in certain cases to get to their base school, and that money and time save could go elsewhere. LessoAND yes it is about positive peer pressure for underperforming schools to level up but also to high achieving kids to get out for their bubbles and learn to live in diversity and empathy.ns that a lot of parents on these stupid sites could learn. Most people in this current environment aren't going to be able to own or rent two houses to get their kids to their preferred school and that's okay because their kids will be fine. They aren't going to sell in this market and be able to buy new with these interest rate. That's just facts. The few who can should just go because they won't do much but being morale down for everyone. The greatest predictor for your kid's success isn't the FCPS school they go to it's YOU and your involvement in their learning, your engagement with whatever school they are in, your attitude towards change, and teaching that change is inevitable but also a learning opportunity. Raise kids with grit and not in a bubble of your choosing. My neighborhood will likely get moved. I also bought for the schools because I wanted my kid to have the stability of being with the same kids. But if we are redistricted my kids will be fine because I raised them to be fine and to succeed in any environment they're placed. Sorry you didn't prepare your kids well enough it's too bad for them.

Where is that in the reasons for redistricting?

AND yes it is about positive peer pressure for underperforming schools to level up but also to high achieving kids to get out for their bubbles and learn to live in diversity and empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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."

First of all, that letter is just an interpretation by some Trump/MAGA appointee. It has no legal effect in and of itself and, in case you haven't noticed, judges appointed by Presidents of both parties are now reining in the worst impulses of Trump and his crew of sycophants.

But, more importantly, the letter, while disparaging goals such as social justice and equity, does not deem them illegal, nor could it. It simply reiterates existing Supreme Court precedent that treating students differently on the basis of race to advance those goals has been deemed unconstitutional. FCPS is not doing that, so it is not at risk if it adjusts boundaries based on Policy 8130.

Are you somehow saying a government policy that is "unconstitutional" is not "illegal"? That is an interesting argument for sure. And the SB expressly stated that the boundary review was to be conducted under the One Fairfax lens, which means it has to promote racial and social equity. Obviously you don't like the current administration, but the country voted for it, and "sometimes things don't go your way." Bad time for the SB to try to push this through.

Read again.

The boundary change would be done in accordance in Policy 8130, not on the basis of race. Further, Policy 8130 does not include any reference to One Fairfax. And One Fairfax itself does not commit to making decisions "based on race," but rather with a view to making sure that all residents, regardless of their race, have access to opportunities.

You want to toss out "One Fairfax" as if it's some roadmap to explicit demographic balancing in FCPS schools, yet you've pointed to nothing in the document itself that calls for that result.

This is such a lie!

Both the One Fairfax and Policy 8130 are riddled with the specific word “equity,” and anyone living in Fairfax county knows by now what FCPS means by their use of the term “equity.” FCPS is specifically referring to racial equity. And to a lesser degree: economic equity.

Stop trying to hide what you are doing through redistribution of students in FCPS. Drop the NDA. Allow at least some transparency, FCPS !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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."

First of all, that letter is just an interpretation by some Trump/MAGA appointee. It has no legal effect in and of itself and, in case you haven't noticed, judges appointed by Presidents of both parties are now reining in the worst impulses of Trump and his crew of sycophants.

But, more importantly, the letter, while disparaging goals such as social justice and equity, does not deem them illegal, nor could it. It simply reiterates existing Supreme Court precedent that treating students differently on the basis of race to advance those goals has been deemed unconstitutional. FCPS is not doing that, so it is not at risk if it adjusts boundaries based on Policy 8130.

Are you somehow saying a government policy that is "unconstitutional" is not "illegal"? That is an interesting argument for sure. And the SB expressly stated that the boundary review was to be conducted under the One Fairfax lens, which means it has to promote racial and social equity. Obviously you don't like the current administration, but the country voted for it, and "sometimes things don't go your way." Bad time for the SB to try to push this through.

Read again.

The boundary change would be done in accordance in Policy 8130, not on the basis of race. Further, Policy 8130 does not include any reference to One Fairfax. And One Fairfax itself does not commit to making decisions "based on race," but rather with a view to making sure that all residents, regardless of their race, have access to opportunities.

You want to toss out "One Fairfax" as if it's some roadmap to explicit demographic balancing in FCPS schools, yet you've pointed to nothing in the document itself that calls for that result.

This is such a lie!

Both the One Fairfax and Policy 8130 are riddled with the specific word “equity,” and anyone living in Fairfax county knows by now what FCPS means by their use of the term “equity.” FCPS is specifically referring to racial equity. And to a lesser degree: economic equity.

Stop trying to hide what you are doing through redistribution of students in FCPS. Drop the NDA. Allow at least some transparency, FCPS !

This is full of equity: (8130)

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D7HREM6DA7C5/$file/P8130.pdf

We know what you mean by equity, FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read these boundary posts and release just how selfish and ugly people are not to
mention disingenuous.

Admit that it's about not sending your kids to certain low performing schools while maintaining your property values. Just be up front about this so we can all have a real and candid discussion. Let's not pussyfoot around what is driving this resistance.

I moved to the neighborhood I selected primarily for the school. The house was priced higher than comparable houses in large part because of the school district. I don't want my kid moved to a lower performing school, and I don't want to lose property value as a result, especially for a One Fairfax driven boundary review fraught with misguided objectives and no clear benefits. Please don't tell me this is about "efficiency" or sleep time for kids or some other nonesense. Be honest about that too.

DP. Thank you for your honesty. I can understand why you would not be happy with a boundary change that would affect yout family. However, as most of know, school boundaries can change every so often for a variety of reasons. There was no guarantee / contract between you and fcps when you bought your house stating your address would always be zoned for your desired schools. Homes can loose their values for a variety of reasons. We all gamble when we invest in something, be it stocks or real estate. If your home gets redistricted, and you do not like the new schools, luckily we still live in a free country, and you can send your kids to private school. This is what we did for k-8 for our kids. We cut a lot of expenses, and made a few more sacrifices to make it work.

This is one of the most condescending and brainless posts I have seen in awhile, and there have been some bad posts on here. No one said there was a contract, no one said they were guaranteed a school district, and everyone know houses "loose" value for many reasons. But they don't want a boundary change fot this misguided and frankly illegal reason, and they have enough spine to not just sit there and say oh well I gambled and lost. Thankfully there are enough people with backbones to push back here.

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.

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.

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.

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."

First of all, that letter is just an interpretation by some Trump/MAGA appointee. It has no legal effect in and of itself and, in case you haven't noticed, judges appointed by Presidents of both parties are now reining in the worst impulses of Trump and his crew of sycophants.

But, more importantly, the letter, while disparaging goals such as social justice and equity, does not deem them illegal, nor could it. It simply reiterates existing Supreme Court precedent that treating students differently on the basis of race to advance those goals has been deemed unconstitutional. FCPS is not doing that, so it is not at risk if it adjusts boundaries based on Policy 8130.

Are you somehow saying a government policy that is "unconstitutional" is not "illegal"? That is an interesting argument for sure. And the SB expressly stated that the boundary review was to be conducted under the One Fairfax lens, which means it has to promote racial and social equity. Obviously you don't like the current administration, but the country voted for it, and "sometimes things don't go your way." Bad time for the SB to try to push this through.

Read again.

The boundary change would be done in accordance in Policy 8130, not on the basis of race. Further, Policy 8130 does not include any reference to One Fairfax. And One Fairfax itself does not commit to making decisions "based on race," but rather with a view to making sure that all residents, regardless of their race, have access to opportunities.

You want to toss out "One Fairfax" as if it's some roadmap to explicit demographic balancing in FCPS schools, yet you've pointed to nothing in the document itself that calls for that result.

This is such a lie!

Both the One Fairfax and Policy 8130 are riddled with the specific word “equity,” and anyone living in Fairfax county knows by now what FCPS means by their use of the term “equity.” FCPS is specifically referring to racial equity. And to a lesser degree: economic equity.

Stop trying to hide what you are doing through redistribution of students in FCPS. Drop the NDA. Allow at least some transparency, FCPS !

This is the exact language from the One Fairfax Resolution:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD that: The time is now to move beyond embracing diversity as an asset and implement a new growth model driven by equity — just and fair inclusion into “One Fairfax,” a community in which everyone can participate and prosper. “One Fairfax” can only be realized with an intentional racial and social equity policy at its core for all publicly delivered services. A racial and social equity policy provides both the direction and means to eliminate disparities, and work together to build a vibrant and opportunity-rich society for all. In July 2016, the Fairfax Board of Supervisors and School Board join in this resolution and direct the development of a racial and social equity policy for adoption and strategic actions to advance opportunities and achieve equity that include intentional collective leadership, community engagement, equity tools and infrastructure to support and sustain systemic changes, and shared accountability so collectively, we will realize “One Fairfax,” a community where everyone can participate and prosper.

[Anonymous]

If "equitable programming" is AB or IB, then why do they allow pupil placement? Why do we have one program that costs more and produces less?