FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the expected outcome on December 4? By then, will anyone care?

That has no effect on this topic.

I think residency fraud absolutely plays into the redistricting. The overcrowded schools probably owe a significant amount of overcrowding to it.

If it were really about residency fraud, Madison and Langley would would be a major part of the topic.

I know for sure there are more than 35 cases that could be investigated at Madison. South Lakes and Westfields also have some questionable students.

But sure, let’s move other kids whose families follow the rules into different pyramids so that these kids can keep skirting the rules.

That’s what is happening. It’s not a problem until someone feels their kid got beat to bad in a sport, they don’t like the school that beat their team, or some other BS.

I think residency requirements should be the same across the entire state.

Enforced across the entire state and none of this turning a blind eye to some schools that are breaking the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm applying. We are a Carson-Oakton family that lives much closer to two other high schools. I refuse to let my rich neighbors dictate where my kids go to high school just because they think Oakton is somehow magically a better school (it's not).

No but the demographics at Oakton are different

You're basically restating what the PP said - you think Oakton is better because there are more white people there. The outcome for a smart child will be the same, no matter where that child goes to school. We are also a Carson-Oakton family and I would much prefer that my kids go to Chantilly. We live much, much closer and it's in a better area.

[Anonymous]

As usual, those of us in Western Fairfax County zoned to Oakton are going to get ignored. My neighbors all agree that we'd rather have our kids go to HS somewhere they don't have to get on the highway to get to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm applying. We are a Carson-Oakton family that lives much closer to two other high schools. I refuse to let my rich neighbors dictate where my kids go to high school just because they think Oakton is somehow magically a better school (it's not).

No but the demographics at Oakton are different

You're basically restating what the PP said - you think Oakton is better because there are more white people there. The outcome for a smart child will be the same, no matter where that child goes to school. We are also a Carson-Oakton family and I would much prefer that my kids go to Chantilly. We live much, much closer and it's in a better area.

Chantilly has 2900 kids and everyone who goes there lives close to the school. Also, they just expanded Oakton as part of its very expensive renovation. Someone has to go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm applying. We are a Carson-Oakton family that lives much closer to two other high schools. I refuse to let my rich neighbors dictate where my kids go to high school just because they think Oakton is somehow magically a better school (it's not).

No but the demographics at Oakton are different

You're basically restating what the PP said - you think Oakton is better because there are more white people there. The outcome for a smart child will be the same, no matter where that child goes to school. We are also a Carson-Oakton family and I would much prefer that my kids go to Chantilly. We live much, much closer and it's in a better area.

Chantilly has 2900 kids and everyone who goes there lives close to the school. Also, they just expanded Oakton as part of its very expensive renovation. Someone has to go there.

Not everyone wanted to go to a mega-sized school. The Western high school would’ve been better but FCPS sold the most ideal property to the delight of privileged families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm applying. We are a Carson-Oakton family that lives much closer to two other high schools. I refuse to let my rich neighbors dictate where my kids go to high school just because they think Oakton is somehow magically a better school (it's not).

No but the demographics at Oakton are different

You're basically restating what the PP said - you think Oakton is better because there are more white people there. The outcome for a smart child will be the same, no matter where that child goes to school. We are also a Carson-Oakton family and I would much prefer that my kids go to Chantilly. We live much, much closer and it's in a better area.

Chantilly has 2900 kids and everyone who goes there lives close to the school. Also, they just expanded Oakton as part of its very expensive renovation. Someone has to go there.

Not everyone wanted to go to a mega-sized school. The Western high school would’ve been better but FCPS sold the most ideal property to the delight of privileged families.

It appears they are going to continue to make reference to the mythical Western high school in the next Capital Improvement Program. From a "New Business" item for the upcoming December 5th School Board meeting:

"The updates in the FCPS Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-30 CIP identify current and anticipated funding from general obligation bond referendums for the following capital projects as outlined below.

* * *

​​​Ten years:​​


New School Construction/Repurposing: Western High School (unfunded), Route 1/Pinewood Lakes Early Childhood Center (funded), Tysons Elementary School (unfunded), Pimmit Hills new/repurposing (unfunded), Virginia Hills new/repurposing (unfunded).​​
Site Acquisition: Western High School (funded).​​"

This is yet another reason why they can't be trusted with a "comprehensive boundary review." They continue to refer to a new western high school that few expect to be built, constantly kicking the can down the road for another 10 years. If they can't deal with the public honestly about this phantom project, they can't be trusted to make major boundary changes, either.

[Anonymous]

If the school board rebuilt or added on to Carson and turned it into a Secondary School (heck, buy Nysmith out for the land, it's a shit school anyway), that would solve our problems. They could also turn Oakton into a Secondary School to use up all the space. Done. Boom. Fixed your problems!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the school board rebuilt or added on to Carson and turned it into a Secondary School (heck, buy Nysmith out for the land, it's a shit school anyway), that would solve our problems. They could also turn Oakton into a Secondary School to use up all the space. Done. Boom. Fixed your problems!

What happens to Franklin?

[Anonymous]

Shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic, will just give Reid another couple of years at a $400K plus salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea. Clean up the identity fraud and combine that data with what enrollments would be if AAP centers and general pupil placement were eliminated. I'm not suggested anything be removed. But how can the country get a true picture of where kids are physically located? Census data? Tax records? You have to find that baseline before looking at moving boundaries.

This makes too much sense.

They really don’t care on getting things right. Just look at how long they’ve neglected McLean HS, yet plan to waste over $80 million on a new and unnecessary Dunn Loring ES. It becomes a power play for them to demonstrate they can do whatever the hell they want, regardless of whether it makes sense.

The only way things will ever get better is if people like Karl Frisch are expelled from public office.

Elections have consequences.

Did any of the candidates get/take any party funding?

School Board elections are nonpartisan (supposedly). So no: no party funding. However,

- the parties issue "endorsements." On the partisan "sample ballots" handed out to everyone outside voting locations, the parties "suggest" what voters should vote for.

Frisch and the other democrats, appeared on the "sample ballots" as democrats. They now have complete single-party rule over FCPS, yet again.

Whatever you feel about their absolute mandate to do whatever they want, is irrelevant. THEY believe they have an absolute mandate, and they act on it.

[Anonymous]

Are other parents hearing this?

A big FCPS political activist just outed himself as being one of the people "randomly selected" for the parents advisory committee on rezoning.

The activist is a publicly open political activist for lbgtq causes and school board donor, with no children in FCPS. He is one of the people who seems to get a public speaking spot at nearly every school board meeting, in spite of those also designated as "random" selection. He was given one of the limited committee spots on the parent committee, in spite of not being a parent.

This is while FCPS, Reid and the school board are claiming the spots were "randomly" selected from the 1600 parent volunteers.

If the committee is so limited, why was one of the precious spots given to a non parent, political activist with no skin in the game?

Were the rest of the spots given to FCPS school board members' friends, favored activists and donors as a way to rubber stamp the county wide rezoning?

Where is the transparency of this committee?

Where are the meeting minutes and videos of their work?

Why are childless political activists getting spots on the committee, when the spots are so limited?

Does anyone have information to share on the committee and its appointments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea. Clean up the identity fraud and combine that data with what enrollments would be if AAP centers and general pupil placement were eliminated. I'm not suggested anything be removed. But how can the country get a true picture of where kids are physically located? Census data? Tax records? You have to find that baseline before looking at moving boundaries.

This makes too much sense.

They really don’t care on getting things right. Just look at how long they’ve neglected McLean HS, yet plan to waste over $80 million on a new and unnecessary Dunn Loring ES. It becomes a power play for them to demonstrate they can do whatever the hell they want, regardless of whether it makes sense.

The only way things will ever get better is if people like Karl Frisch are expelled from public office.

Elections have consequences.

Did any of the candidates get/take any party funding?

School Board elections are nonpartisan (supposedly). So no: no party funding. However,

- the parties issue "endorsements." On the partisan "sample ballots" handed out to everyone outside voting locations, the parties "suggest" what voters should vote for.

Frisch and the other democrats, appeared on the "sample ballots" as democrats. They now have complete single-party rule over FCPS, yet again.

Whatever you feel about their absolute mandate to do whatever they want, is irrelevant. THEY believe they have an absolute mandate, and they act on it.

They do not need to "believe" they have an absolute mandate.

It is a fact that they have an absolute mandate to do whatever they want for whatever reason.

That is what blue no matter who Fairfax County voted for.

You didn't just vote in one party rule, you voted in the extreme fringe one party rule, voting against the reasonable moderate democrat who ran as an independent.

If you vote all blue in local elections, this is 100% on you. You gave them a definitive mandate. They are acting on it.

If you want something different, vote differently next time.

If not, just accept that the school board is going to ignore parent feedback to do whatever they want.

They have a mandate to do just that.

[Anonymous]

How is a non parent on the parent committee? Name the dude.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how they can redo HS boundaries without a concrete plan for the new Western HS. Could someone ask that at the Westfield meeting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are other parents hearing this?

A big FCPS political activist just outed himself as being one of the people "randomly selected" for the parents advisory committee on rezoning.

The activist is a publicly open political activist for lbgtq causes and school board donor, with no children in FCPS. He is one of the people who seems to get a public speaking spot at nearly every school board meeting, in spite of those also designated as "random" selection. He was given one of the limited committee spots on the parent committee, in spite of not being a parent.

This is while FCPS, Reid and the school board are claiming the spots were "randomly" selected from the 1600 parent volunteers.

If the committee is so limited, why was one of the precious spots given to a non parent, political activist with no skin in the game?

Were the rest of the spots given to FCPS school board members' friends, favored activists and donors as a way to rubber stamp the county wide rezoning?

Where is the transparency of this committee?

Where are the meeting minutes and videos of their work?

Why are childless political activists getting spots on the committee, when the spots are so limited?

Does anyone have information to share on the committee and its appointments?

I think you need to read the description of the BRAC more carefully.

It suggests there were 48 randomly selected members, two from each pyramid, and then a number of additional appointed members composed of teachers, staff, and members of other FCPS committees. The total size of the BRAC wasn’t specified.

At the end of the day Reid and the School Board will do what they want to do regardless of the input from the BRAC. Of course, the more easily manipulated the BRAC is, the better for them.

None of that will keep the parents who want to sue from suing. They will still have standing; it’s just very hard to challenge a School Board decision in court successfully. The courts are usually very deferential.