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.
Awesome! They should definitely take volunteers for a couple years to experiment with and rate teen mental health, GPAs and leadership positions. Your kid can be the experimental group and mine can be in the control group. I hope you child is a current freshman and will have to move Junior year. The can really prove their grit! You must be excited to have your parenting rated in this way!
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.
This is what we call receipts. The school board shills lie and never have anything to back up their claims
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.
This is what we call receipts. The school board shills lie and never have anything to back up their claims
This doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does, but you’re so keen to preserve the current economic segregation at Langley that it gives you shivers. Good.
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.
This is what we call receipts. The school board shills lie and never have anything to back up their claims
This doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does, but you’re so keen to preserve the current economic segregation at Langley that it gives you shivers. Good.
Weird. You made a claim but haven’t backed it up with anything. So on brand for our little SB shill.
I’m surprised you didn’t also accuse me of racism. You haven’t posted without that claim attached in quite some time.
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.
This is what we call receipts. The school board shills lie and never have anything to back up their claims
This doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does, but you’re so keen to preserve the current economic segregation at Langley that it gives you shivers. Good.
Weird. You made a claim but haven’t backed it up with anything. So on brand for our little SB shill.
I’m surprised you didn’t also accuse me of racism. You haven’t posted without that claim attached in quite some time.
You keep track of posts better than you do of posters. Now all you have to do is realize that your “receipts” will get you nothing when you go running off to your MAGA friends.
She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.
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.
Awesome! They should definitely take volunteers for a couple years to experiment with and rate teen mental health, GPAs and leadership positions. Your kid can be the experimental group and mine can be in the control group. I hope you child is a current freshman and will have to move Junior year. The can really prove their grit! You must be excited to have your parenting rated in this way!
What are you going on about? You're making no sense. Get it together.
Anonymous wrote:I’m so confused over the timeline.
SACC enrollment for the 2026 to 2027 school year starts in June. This June.
Then what happens when boundaries are finalized and potentially switched in December?
How is 8 months (Jan through Aug) enough to implement a switch?
I don't think that is when it changes. I think it is SY 2026-2027.
But, you bring up another issue. Just think of all the people trying to get in an already full SACC.
Does anyone think they have even considered staffing? Some teachers may not want to change schools, but may have to because of "programming."
SACC wait lists are going to be a pain. Since they stagger the enrollment over multiple days, elementary schools at the front of the alphabet will have earlier sign up dates on the waitlist than elementary schools at the end of the alphabet. Families might loose their place in line even if they registered at 8AM on the dot.
She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.
I do call you both “SB shills” a lot. It’s such a spot on definition. It’s nearly impossible to come up with a better fit for the clowns that have for months pushed boundary changes for their neighbors but not come up with one single compelling reason for them.
Tell me, since I have your ear, what do you think about requiring the school board’s kids to be moved if they vote for boundary changes. Since you both so love the thought of these changes, surely that is a just result. Right?
Anonymous wrote:I understand residents not wanting to change school districts. However, if your house is in the periphery of any PUBLIC school district, there will always be a chance they will get moved, for any variety of reasons. Our house is walking distance to the high school we chose for our kids for our kids to attend.
But when the school board decides to change the rules of the game and the implicit agreement with UMC that their kids won’t be moved absent compelling reason (which doesn’t exist here) in exchange for UMC support for public schools, it creates real risk for the entire school system. At this point UMC is the only segment of the population that really is going to stand up for public school - that’s why this whole exercise is uber-dangerous.
I’ve been on DCUM long enough to know that most people arguing for boundary changes do so out of spite for neighbors that they perceive as richer. There are the posters that claim that anyone against moving their kids must be in the level of the KKK. These posters seek to cut off their nose to spite their face.
You know who you are.
+1000
What?? Most are arguing for a comprehensive study. Conspiracy theorists against change are arguing against that. Everyone knows there are changes to be made, most easily around reducing commuting time. Knowledge is power you all are off your rockers, the data will show what you don't want to happen (which really solidifies it's factual), or it will play out less drastic. Either way let the options be presented before you jump to conclusions.
+1000. No one should be getting bussed over 8 miles to a school if there is a closer option with space.
Great, then busing students to AAP centers should end and all kids should be educated in their base schools. Right?
Anonymous wrote:Why would parents hate a school so much that they'd put their kids in private schools rather than have their kids attend a certain public school?
Is it the teachers? Are there really horrible teachers at those schools?
Is it that parents don't like the way a school looks? The classrooms look too old and shoddy?
Or is it the kids in the school itself? That you don't like those kids attending those schools?
In your disingenuous list of "reasons," you forgot one: test scores. Would you like to address why one school has excellent test scores and the other one... doesn't? We'll wait.
Forum Index
»
Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}