FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

This is nothing new. In other words, even with the generous grandfathering provided in recent boundary changes, families still ended up with kids in two high schools. There was no "sibling exemption" to allow younger siblings to attend the same schools as their older siblings.

The constraint, however, was that boundary changes were reserved for situations involving more acute overcrowding or under-enrollment. So, even if siblings did end up in different high schools at the same time, parents at least had the consolation that there was a very good reason.

Now, however, the SB is reserving the right to redistrict for vaguer reasons and with minimal, if any, grandfathering. That's may make Millenial Dude happy, because he's apparently counting on getting switched into a "better" pyramid or someone else's kids getting redistricted into his, but it's going to trigger a giant backlash.

[Anonymous]

In the Langley HS bounds, could someone tell me what elementary and middles are most likely to be moved out of bounds, and which will be left in?

[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.

Hi- you never answered me.

Why should my teenager (current freshman) have to sacrifice their high school career for your kids to…. (Live in a house you were now able to buy? Or was it for your kids to get “better’ playmates from school)?

Studies show kids suffer academically and socially (Not just friendships, but leadership positions etc) if they are forced to switch in the middle of high school.

The studies are very clear about moving academically and socially affecting ALL kids regardless of SES statues.

Studies about school performance of UMC/middle class children who attend title one/ high poverty schools show that they do not suffer academically.

Why are you saying that actively harming FCPS students is okay?

I would say your advocating for you and your family to “achieve your dream” of a house in a great school district by harming kids is far more narcissistic because it is ACTIVELY HARMING KIDS. While the status quo doesn’t.

Now, if you want to start advocating for grandfathering of all children who have started school (particuarly middle and high), then you may get somewhere. Until then, you appear the most narcissistic on this board, asking to help yourself and harm a bunch of teenagers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the Langley HS bounds, could someone tell me what elementary and middles are most likely to be moved out of bounds, and which will be left in?

1. Greatest risk would be areas with Herndon or Reston mailing addresses on the south side of Route 7 currently assigned to Forestville ES, Cooper MS, and Langley HS.

2. Next greatest risk would be areas with Great Falls mailing addresses on the north side of Route 7 currently assigned to Forestville ES, Cooper MS, and Langley HS.

3. Next greatest risk would be areas with Great Falls mailing addresses west of Springvale Road currently assigned to Great Falls ES, Cooper MS, and Langley HS.

4. Lowest risk would be areas with Great Falls, McLean or Vienna mailing addresses east of Springvale Road currently assigned to Great Falls ES, Colvin Run ES, Spring Hill ES, or Churchill Road ES; Cooper MS; and Langley HS.

Note that no one can really say any of these moves are "likely" at this point, nor can one guarantee that other adjustments might not be made. Langley HS itself is not overcrowded, but it shares boundaries with other high schools that are either overcrowded by some measures (McLean HS, Marshall HS) or well under capacity (Herndon HS). So in the context of a comprehensive boundary review, the issue is not simply whether kids might be moved out of Langley because it is overcrowded (it's not), but instead whether kids might be moved in and out of Langley to address capacity issues at other schools with which it shares a boundary.

[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:

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.

Hi- you never answered me.

Why should my teenager (current freshman) have to sacrifice their high school career for your kids to…. (Live in a house you were now able to buy? Or was it for your kids to get “better’ playmates from school)?

Studies show kids suffer academically and socially (Not just friendships, but leadership positions etc) if they are forced to switch in the middle of high school.

The studies are very clear about moving academically and socially affecting ALL kids regardless of SES statues.

Studies about school performance of UMC/middle class children who attend title one/ high poverty schools show that they do not suffer academically.

Why are you saying that actively harming FCPS students is okay?

I would say your advocating for you and your family to “achieve your dream” of a house in a great school district by harming kids is far more narcissistic because it is ACTIVELY HARMING KIDS. While the status quo doesn’t.

Now, if you want to start advocating for grandfathering of all children who have started school (particuarly middle and high), then you may get somewhere. Until then, you appear the most narcissistic on this board, asking to help yourself and harm a bunch of teenagers.

So YOU are saying it's better to harm MY kids so YOUR kids can stay where they are in their bubble? GTFO

Yes I think your kid will survive if they have to move to a new school half way through high school. Military kids have to do it all the time. And if they are moving entire neighborhoods then your kid will know people anyway.

[Anonymous]

So YOU are saying it's better to harm MY kids so YOUR kids can stay where they are in their bubble? GTFO

Yes I think your kid will survive if they have to move to a new school half way through high school. Military kids have to do it all the time. And if they are moving entire neighborhoods then your kid will know people anyway.

DP here.

1. What "bubble?" And, please tell us how your kids are being harmed by keeping current boundaries.
2. Yes, military kids move. But, it is hard and many resent it terribly. Do you have any idea how many military members go to their next assignment "unaccompanied?" (That means without their families.) They do this because they do not want their teens to have to change high schools mid stream. And, in addition, many military members retire at that time rather than move their kids.
3. And, it depends on what you call a neighborhood. Not all kids will be moving with anything other than a street or two with the way they are doing this. Remember, they are redoing all levels of school boundaries. Some neighborhoods blend into others and will be separated.

[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:

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.

Hi- you never answered me.

Why should my teenager (current freshman) have to sacrifice their high school career for your kids to…. (Live in a house you were now able to buy? Or was it for your kids to get “better’ playmates from school)?

Studies show kids suffer academically and socially (Not just friendships, but leadership positions etc) if they are forced to switch in the middle of high school.

The studies are very clear about moving academically and socially affecting ALL kids regardless of SES statues.

Studies about school performance of UMC/middle class children who attend title one/ high poverty schools show that they do not suffer academically.

Why are you saying that actively harming FCPS students is okay?

I would say your advocating for you and your family to “achieve your dream” of a house in a great school district by harming kids is far more narcissistic because it is ACTIVELY HARMING KIDS. While the status quo doesn’t.

Now, if you want to start advocating for grandfathering of all children who have started school (particuarly middle and high), then you may get somewhere. Until then, you appear the most narcissistic on this board, asking to help yourself and harm a bunch of teenagers.

So YOU are saying it's better to harm MY kids so YOUR kids can stay where they are in their bubble? GTFO

Yes I think your kid will survive if they have to move to a new school half way through high school. Military kids have to do it all the time. And if they are moving entire neighborhoods then your kid will know people anyway.

DP. You need to be more specific as how your kid will be "harmed" by attending the schools that serve the neighborhood where you chose to buy or rent.

As for moving kids halfway through high school, military families voluntarily choose a lifestyle that's associated with frequent moves, and yet when they have a chance for some stability when it comes to schools for their kids they place at least as high a value on stability as anyone else.

Further, you seem not to understand how these boundary changes work. You could have a kid attending a middle school with 1100 kids or a high school with 2300 kids, and they could change the boundaries so that only one or two neighborhoods (so, say, 100 to 200 kids max) get reassigned. Suddenly your kids would be around a very different group of classmates. In the past, FCPS has phased in boundary changes to avoid this type of disruption, but they are now refusing to provide similar assurances.

Without a more persuasive justification, you're just coming across as someone who thinks you're entitled to an "upgrade" merely because you perceive someone else may be getting something "better." They could rezone kids from a school with more affluent families to your school, or rezone your kids to a wealthier school, and next thing you know you'll still be resenting the parents who send their kids to privates.

[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.

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.

This is nothing new. In other words, even with the generous grandfathering provided in recent boundary changes, families still ended up with kids in two high schools. There was no "sibling exemption" to allow younger siblings to attend the same schools as their older siblings.

The constraint, however, was that boundary changes were reserved for situations involving more acute overcrowding or under-enrollment. So, even if siblings did end up in different high schools at the same time, parents at least had the consolation that there was a very good reason.

Now, however, the SB is reserving the right to redistrict for vaguer reasons and with minimal, if any, grandfathering. That's may make Millenial Dude happy, because he's apparently counting on getting switched into a "better" pyramid or someone else's kids getting redistricted into his, but it's going to trigger a giant backlash.

Having kids in two different HS due to boundary changes is nothing new and is annoying but is something that is doable. It happened in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and beyond. It is part of life.

[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:

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.

Hi- you never answered me.

Why should my teenager (current freshman) have to sacrifice their high school career for your kids to…. (Live in a house you were now able to buy? Or was it for your kids to get “better’ playmates from school)?

Studies show kids suffer academically and socially (Not just friendships, but leadership positions etc) if they are forced to switch in the middle of high school.

The studies are very clear about moving academically and socially affecting ALL kids regardless of SES statues.

Studies about school performance of UMC/middle class children who attend title one/ high poverty schools show that they do not suffer academically.

Why are you saying that actively harming FCPS students is okay?

I would say your advocating for you and your family to “achieve your dream” of a house in a great school district by harming kids is far more narcissistic because it is ACTIVELY HARMING KIDS. While the status quo doesn’t.

Now, if you want to start advocating for grandfathering of all children who have started school (particuarly middle and high), then you may get somewhere. Until then, you appear the most narcissistic on this board, asking to help yourself and harm a bunch of teenagers.

So YOU are saying it's better to harm MY kids so YOUR kids can stay where they are in their bubble? GTFO

Yes I think your kid will survive if they have to move to a new school half way through high school. Military kids have to do it all the time. And if they are moving entire neighborhoods then your kid will know people anyway.

Oh dear - you don’t understand and are getting caught up in your position.

If your middle class kid stays in their current title one school there is no harm to them. Research says that kid will perform about the same as a middle class kid from anywhere.

When you MOVE kids in the middle of their school year (ex when they change after starting 9-12) there is harm. They do worse across academic and social and mental health measures.

And your conjectures are wrong. Many military families stay in one place for high school (either splitting up or declining assignments). It harms kids.

It is proven. I provided a summary before. Google it yourself if you don’t believe me.

Yes your stance is harming teens.

[Anonymous]

Sorry I wrote move kids in middle of school year and meant not during a traditional transition (ex. between middle and high or elementary and middle).

[Anonymous]

Having kids in two different HS due to boundary changes is nothing new and is annoying but is something that is doable. It happened in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and beyond. It is part of life.

But, it is proven to be detrimental. Why would the SB choose to do this? And, it is anything but routine as you suggest.

Not only is it annoying, but it is expensive and very, very difficult. Especially if your kids have after school activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Having kids in two different HS due to boundary changes is nothing new and is annoying but is something that is doable. It happened in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and beyond. It is part of life.

But, it is proven to be detrimental. Why would the SB choose to do this? And, it is anything but routine as you suggest.

Not only is it annoying, but it is expensive and very, very difficult. Especially if your kids have after school activities.

DP. It really does happen fairly often.

The level of "difficulty" associated with having kids at two schools seems to be directly correlated with the perception that the younger kids would be rezoned to a "worse" school.

[Anonymous]

DP. It really does happen fairly often.

The level of "difficulty" associated with having kids at two schools seems to be directly correlated with the perception that the younger kids would be rezoned to a "worse" school.

You are very, very mistaken. And, remember, the younger kid is likely being pulled out of the school the older sibling attended. Think a rising sophomore and a rising senior.

You really want this, don't you? You are not considering kids and families.

[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:

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.

Hi- you never answered me.

Why should my teenager (current freshman) have to sacrifice their high school career for your kids to…. (Live in a house you were now able to buy? Or was it for your kids to get “better’ playmates from school)?

Studies show kids suffer academically and socially (Not just friendships, but leadership positions etc) if they are forced to switch in the middle of high school.

The studies are very clear about moving academically and socially affecting ALL kids regardless of SES statues.

Studies about school performance of UMC/middle class children who attend title one/ high poverty schools show that they do not suffer academically.

Why are you saying that actively harming FCPS students is okay?

I would say your advocating for you and your family to “achieve your dream” of a house in a great school district by harming kids is far more narcissistic because it is ACTIVELY HARMING KIDS. While the status quo doesn’t.

Now, if you want to start advocating for grandfathering of all children who have started school (particuarly middle and high), then you may get somewhere. Until then, you appear the most narcissistic on this board, asking to help yourself and harm a bunch of teenagers.

So YOU are saying it's better to harm MY kids so YOUR kids can stay where they are in their bubble? GTFO

Yes I think your kid will survive if they have to move to a new school half way through high school. Military kids have to do it all the time. And if they are moving entire neighborhoods then your kid will know people anyway.

DP. Are you seriously saying GTFO because parents are not okay with you f’ing with their kids’ lives? That poster is right, you are a GD narcissist to think that parents wanting their kids to stay in pyramid amounts to “harm” for your child.

Perhaps earn more, you moochy freeloader. Maybe “GTFO” and earn a degree to make more money. Otherwise, stop kvetching about your lot in life, that you apparently are too lazy to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP. It really does happen fairly often.

The level of "difficulty" associated with having kids at two schools seems to be directly correlated with the perception that the younger kids would be rezoned to a "worse" school.

You are very, very mistaken. And, remember, the younger kid is likely being pulled out of the school the older sibling attended. Think a rising sophomore and a rising senior.

You really want this, don't you? You are not considering kids and families.

No, I don’t want it. At all. You’re confusing me with another poster.

I just know it’s happened with prior boundary changes and this level of angst about the potential inconvenience was neither voiced nor tolerated.