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:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

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.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Yes, they were open to all. But why would I schlep out to some evening meeting when I already understand the new policy and the process. I am willing to wait until they release the proposed changes to share my feedback. The people most motivated to go to those meetings are the ones who oppose it. Yes, both groups exist.

A key part of the process is supposed to be the community feedback at various stages. You opted out of that because you're lazy. You don't trust the process; you're just looking to the School Board to impose changes that benefit you, despite the feedback received during the community sessions.

[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:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

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.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Yes, they were open to all. But why would I schlep out to some evening meeting when I already understand the new policy and the process. I am willing to wait until they release the proposed changes to share my feedback. The people most motivated to go to those meetings are the ones who oppose it. Yes, both groups exist.

So, you don't know why you support it. You don't want to hear the other side of what the SB claims?

I’m extremely well informed on the topic. I know why I support it. I have heard the “arguments” from the gang of those opposed to a review. I can see them for what they are - self-interested defensiveness. I have a desire for the system to run more efficiently and the one-off boundary changes have been the opposite of that. Since I’m supportive of the process and knowledgeable, why would I give up my evening? Why can’t you understand that opinions differ on this?

Interesting that you're smug yet clueless at the same time.

Given the current differences in programs (AAP, IB, Academies, FLI, etc.) that FCPS has deliberately put in place over many years, one-off boundary changes that take them into account probably are the only feasible way to change boundaries at this time, and they should be reserved for acute overcrowding or under-enrollment situations.

County-wide boundary changes now, given those differences, will be impossible to implement efficiently or soundly, and the fact that they have postponed presenting even initial scenarios to the BRAC (which supposedly were intended primarily just to demonstrate how the software works) is a sign of all the problems they will continue to encounter. Reid had no experience with a school division remotely as large as FCPS, and her inexperience and naivete is now abundantly on display.

[Anonymous]

I’m done with your dismissiveness and name calling. Continue talking to yourself all day and all night on this thread. Or go see your grandkids. Your choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solution to saving money and making schools more efficient is pretty simple.

Get rid of IB, vast majority don’t want it and FCPS sucks at delivering the program.

Get rid of AAP centers, let’s face it AAP is what general education classes were a decade ago. Group kids in their home schools and offer a viable curriculum.

With everyone at home schools do the math (it is elementary school level math) on if 6-8 middle school works or would require too much to be spent on modifying middle schools.

If you live within two miles of a school walk there, it will help the kids burn off some excess energy and get in shape.

More money for teacher salaries and good curriculum. Most pressing problems solved, you can now all enjoy your weekends.

That is because you haven’t actually seen the budget and have no clue how much it takes to raise salaries. The changes you describe won’t cover it.

Do some research before you start spouting off.

The waste associated with running the nation’s largest bus fleet, overspending on poor curriculums and unwanted programs such as IB is considerable. Will the savings amount to a 7% raise for teachers, no. Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers.

Could have saved $500K on the money being wasted on the boundary consultant.

Look I get the strategy, rile up the masses with the boundary study and do what ever you want anyway is a strategy that has worked over and over at FCPS.

But the times they are a changing.

AAP buses cost 8 million a year
Ib is negligible because teachers need training regardless.

The raise teachers are looking for is $213 million this year.

This AAP argument is dumb once you see the numbers.

If the argument is dumb for getting rid of AAP center to save $8 million and that includes busing kids all over the country surely the argument to have a few buses drive 2-9 minutes less is too? What could the savings be there? Pennies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m done with your dismissiveness and name calling. Continue talking to yourself all day and all night on this thread. Or go see your grandkids. Your choice.

Sounds good. Au revoir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

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.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Just because the meetings are open to all doesn't mean that supporters of boundary changes are going to go. Why would they when they'll be surround by a loud, obnoxious minority anti- boundary narcissists. Who wants to spend an evening trying to convince selfish people to do the right thing.

Well, perhaps these "selfish people" want stability for their families. Especially, in these unstable times.

But, since you chose not to go, you have the opportunity here to articulate clearly why you support this boundary review and what you expect will be the results. Please do so. I look forward to reading your response. And, by the way, I am not the PP to whom you were responding.

I did, several posts ago. Go back and read, I'm not wasting my time rewriting it.

[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:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

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.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Just because the meetings are open to all doesn't mean that supporters of boundary changes are going to go. Why would they when they'll be surround by a loud, obnoxious minority anti- boundary narcissists. Who wants to spend an evening trying to convince selfish people to do the right thing.

Well, perhaps these "selfish people" want stability for their families. Especially, in these unstable times.

But, since you chose not to go, you have the opportunity here to articulate clearly why you support this boundary review and what you expect will be the results. Please do so. I look forward to reading your response. And, by the way, I am not the PP to whom you were responding.

I did, several posts ago. Go back and read, I'm not wasting my time rewriting it.

Time stamp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

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.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

Speak for yourself. There are very young families like mine that are in the early stages of family planning or already have infants and young toddlers. We wholeheartedly support boundary changes if it means our kids will have a chance to attend from a wider selection of better schools all across the area.

Specifically, I emphasize we are young because have been entirely left behind by the real estate situation. It does not seem fair that many of my generation will not be able to afford the same quality of life those just a few years ahead of us were able to. I hear it at my federal office water cooler talk every time there's a newsworthy housing or interest rate surge - that there's absolutely no way they could afford to buy a house now in the pyramid they bought if they had not bought before the 2020 surge started it all.

So yes, some of us would rather see a normalization occur across the county that lets young families afford good schools without giving up everything. It may be that there are other ways FCPS can achieve that, but boundaries is one part of the toolset.

I see, so you want to bring others down to your level so you can take from them. Icky.

I would absolutely love to know what your thoughts would be if our situations were switched. I don't think you'd happily accept the status quo as it is now. I'm sure you bought into an excellent pyramid many, many years ago with an absurdly low mortgage compared to the current market, and have enjoyed the fruits of FCPS's good standing.

To simply dismiss the valid concerns of up-and-coming young families (e.g., public sector, not doctors and lawyers) as wanting to bring others down is not a fair accusation. Desiring that FCPS schools over here are just as viable as schools over there is not icky. This is public school we're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

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.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

Speak for yourself. There are very young families like mine that are in the early stages of family planning or already have infants and young toddlers. We wholeheartedly support boundary changes if it means our kids will have a chance to attend from a wider selection of better schools all across the area.

Specifically, I emphasize we are young because have been entirely left behind by the real estate situation. It does not seem fair that many of my generation will not be able to afford the same quality of life those just a few years ahead of us were able to. I hear it at my federal office water cooler talk every time there's a newsworthy housing or interest rate surge - that there's absolutely no way they could afford to buy a house now in the pyramid they bought if they had not bought before the 2020 surge started it all.

So yes, some of us would rather see a normalization occur across the county that lets young families afford good schools without giving up everything. It may be that there are other ways FCPS can achieve that, but boundaries is one part of the toolset.

I see, so you want to bring others down to your level so you can take from them. Icky.

I would absolutely love to know what your thoughts would be if our situations were switched. I don't think you'd happily accept the status quo as it is now. I'm sure you bought into an excellent pyramid many, many years ago with an absurdly low mortgage compared to the current market, and have enjoyed the fruits of FCPS's good standing.

To simply dismiss the valid concerns of up-and-coming young families (e.g., public sector, not doctors and lawyers) as wanting to bring others down is not a fair accusation. Desiring that FCPS schools over here are just as viable as schools over there is not icky. This is public school we're talking about.

I live in a part of the county a lot of people here would turn their noses up at. But it’s not going to improve whatever school by changing boundaries to move in a few high income areas. It just isn’t. It’s not going to improve safety and crime issues at the schools, it’s not going to bring up the bottom, and it’s not going to fix the well documented attendance problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

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.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

Speak for yourself. There are very young families like mine that are in the early stages of family planning or already have infants and young toddlers. We wholeheartedly support boundary changes if it means our kids will have a chance to attend from a wider selection of better schools all across the area.

Specifically, I emphasize we are young because have been entirely left behind by the real estate situation. It does not seem fair that many of my generation will not be able to afford the same quality of life those just a few years ahead of us were able to. I hear it at my federal office water cooler talk every time there's a newsworthy housing or interest rate surge - that there's absolutely no way they could afford to buy a house now in the pyramid they bought if they had not bought before the 2020 surge started it all.

So yes, some of us would rather see a normalization occur across the county that lets young families afford good schools without giving up everything. It may be that there are other ways FCPS can achieve that, but boundaries is one part of the toolset.

I see, so you want to bring others down to your level so you can take from them. Icky.

I would absolutely love to know what your thoughts would be if our situations were switched. I don't think you'd happily accept the status quo as it is now. I'm sure you bought into an excellent pyramid many, many years ago with an absurdly low mortgage compared to the current market, and have enjoyed the fruits of FCPS's good standing.

To simply dismiss the valid concerns of up-and-coming young families (e.g., public sector, not doctors and lawyers) as wanting to bring others down is not a fair accusation. Desiring that FCPS schools over here are just as viable as schools over there is not icky. This is public school we're talking about.

Wow. So, that is your reason. You don't like your pyramid. Are you the one that has been calling people who want to keep their schools racist?
Sounds like your children must be small. You likely don't yet understand how important it is to have stability. Sometimes, it is not possible. Examples might be loss of a job requiring a move or selling a house. But, for the most part people choose their homes for a reason and don't want to uproot their kids and send them to a different school when they have made friends and formed groups where they are. Some of the kids moved will put their families in the terrible position of having kids in two high schools at the same time. That is two sets of PTA's, two sets of after school activities/sports; and, two directions to go. Imagine the position this puts a single parent in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

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.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

Speak for yourself. There are very young families like mine that are in the early stages of family planning or already have infants and young toddlers. We wholeheartedly support boundary changes if it means our kids will have a chance to attend from a wider selection of better schools all across the area.

Specifically, I emphasize we are young because have been entirely left behind by the real estate situation. It does not seem fair that many of my generation will not be able to afford the same quality of life those just a few years ahead of us were able to. I hear it at my federal office water cooler talk every time there's a newsworthy housing or interest rate surge - that there's absolutely no way they could afford to buy a house now in the pyramid they bought if they had not bought before the 2020 surge started it all.

So yes, some of us would rather see a normalization occur across the county that lets young families afford good schools without giving up everything. It may be that there are other ways FCPS can achieve that, but boundaries is one part of the toolset.

I see, so you want to bring others down to your level so you can take from them. Icky.

I would absolutely love to know what your thoughts would be if our situations were switched. I don't think you'd happily accept the status quo as it is now. I'm sure you bought into an excellent pyramid many, many years ago with an absurdly low mortgage compared to the current market, and have enjoyed the fruits of FCPS's good standing.

To simply dismiss the valid concerns of up-and-coming young families (e.g., public sector, not doctors and lawyers) as wanting to bring others down is not a fair accusation. Desiring that FCPS schools over here are just as viable as schools over there is not icky. This is public school we're talking about.

We bought a year ago. And bought for the pyramid. We wanted stability for our kids after a move for work. And now they may be moved again. We sacrificed a lot to live in our pyramid. And continue to. I work in a title 1 school. I’m no doctor. We almost moved to loudoun county for the schools/housing prices. That’s an option if you can’t afford where you want to live. But to say i would rather move your kids to being my school up is awful. You have young kids so i dont think you understand the impact on the kids you want to move as pawns. Just because someone’s interest rate may be lower than yours and you think that’s unfair it doesn’t give you reason to want to move kids to bring your school up.

How would you feel if this happens, your school becomes better and then when your kids are halfway through their education they get moved to a low performing school to bring that school up?

[Anonymous]

*bring my school up not being

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

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.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

Speak for yourself. There are very young families like mine that are in the early stages of family planning or already have infants and young toddlers. We wholeheartedly support boundary changes if it means our kids will have a chance to attend from a wider selection of better schools all across the area.

Specifically, I emphasize we are young because have been entirely left behind by the real estate situation. It does not seem fair that many of my generation will not be able to afford the same quality of life those just a few years ahead of us were able to. I hear it at my federal office water cooler talk every time there's a newsworthy housing or interest rate surge - that there's absolutely no way they could afford to buy a house now in the pyramid they bought if they had not bought before the 2020 surge started it all.

So yes, some of us would rather see a normalization occur across the county that lets young families afford good schools without giving up everything. It may be that there are other ways FCPS can achieve that, but boundaries is one part of the toolset.

I see, so you want to bring others down to your level so you can take from them. Icky.

I would absolutely love to know what your thoughts would be if our situations were switched. I don't think you'd happily accept the status quo as it is now. I'm sure you bought into an excellent pyramid many, many years ago with an absurdly low mortgage compared to the current market, and have enjoyed the fruits of FCPS's good standing.

To simply dismiss the valid concerns of up-and-coming young families (e.g., public sector, not doctors and lawyers) as wanting to bring others down is not a fair accusation. Desiring that FCPS schools over here are just as viable as schools over there is not icky. This is public school we're talking about.

I have friends who are much better off than me. Ones that have multimillion dollar houses in various locations, etc.

I never covet what they have, and i would never want to take from my neighbors, especially in a negative sum game. I pride myself on not being a mooch.

All that to say, I guess if I were in your shoes I’d go back to school? I certainly wouldn’t blame my neighbors for the state of the housing market.

[Anonymous]

Urgent: Stop the Zoning Change That Could Destroy Our Communities!

Developers are trying to change church zoning in Franklin Farm, allowing anything to be built on their land—commercial buildings, high-density housing, and more. If this goes through, it will set a dangerous precedent, making it easier for similar projects to invade neighborhoods everywhere—including yours. It will effect our schools and boundaries.

This isn’t just about one community—it’s about protecting all of us from unchecked development that puts profit over people. We must stop this now. Sign the petition and share it before it’s too late!

Sign here: https://www.change.org/p/franklin-farm-opposition-to-multi-unit-road-creation-through-farm?recruiter=10458685&recruited_by_id=8286a170-b4c1-0130-ac65-38ac6f16d25f&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_medium=copylink&utm_content=cl_sharecopy_490434786_en-US%3A3

Your neighborhood could be next.

[Anonymous]

We need more housing so more people can afford to live and work here (like teachers!). Not sure why you would oppose this.