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:

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.

Did you really type that? Yikes!

[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.

Did you really type that? Yikes!

Yup. I did. I spent like 5 minutes waiting for a cake to cool writing it.

Researchers, on the other hand, spent months gathering data etc to show that moving kids around harms them.

FCPS used a study from UAE to show a longer commute is harder on kids, but researchers right here in the USA have spent tons of time researching moving schools and its effect on students. Funny that they aren’t mentioning those studies in the boundary meetings.

[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:

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.

Did you really type that? Yikes!

Yup. I did. I spent like 5 minutes waiting for a cake to cool writing it.

Researchers, on the other hand, spent months gathering data etc to show that moving kids around harms them.

FCPS used a study from UAE to show a longer commute is harder on kids, but researchers right here in the USA have spent tons of time researching moving schools and its effect on students. Funny that they aren’t mentioning those studies in the boundary meetings.

I think that some are getting confused about the post they are responding to. Since some posts include several other threads it gets confusing. Maybe, highlight the part you are reponding to.

[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:

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.

Did you really type that? Yikes!

Yup. I did. I spent like 5 minutes waiting for a cake to cool writing it.

Researchers, on the other hand, spent months gathering data etc to show that moving kids around harms them.

FCPS used a study from UAE to show a longer commute is harder on kids, but researchers right here in the USA have spent tons of time researching moving schools and its effect on students. Funny that they aren’t mentioning those studies in the boundary meetings.

I asked if you really meant this, included in your original long post?

Or was it for your kids to get “better’ playmates from school)?

Because, yikes!!!

[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.

Exactly how are we harming your kids by making them going to the school zoned for the home you chose? No one made you buy or rent there. You can move. Find a smaller fixer upper where you want to go to school. Other people shouldn’t have to feel ok about moving their kids out of the pyramid they chose just because you feel short changed

[Anonymous]

Exactly how are we harming your kids by making them going to the school zoned for the home you chose? No one made you buy or rent there. You can move. Find a smaller fixer upper where you want to go to school. Other people shouldn’t have to feel ok about moving their kids out of the pyramid they chose just because you feel short changed

I, too, would love an answer to this. I really want to know how she thinks her kid is being harmed.

[Anonymous]

Wah, wah, wah, wah. Petty fighting among parents is what the school board wants. That way they can say they made the right decision and perfect compromise because no one is truly happy. Stop playing into to their hands.

Whole host of valid reasons for not doing the boundary study now. Declining population, uncertainty around development due to downsizing of federal workforce and contract spending, impact of economic contraction of school funding, need to make precursor decisions on IB and AAP, as well as desire/need to move to 6-8 middle school.

Force them to address precursor decisions, and delay effort for 12-18 months or accept catastrophic failure.

[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:

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.

Did you really type that? Yikes!

Yup. I did. I spent like 5 minutes waiting for a cake to cool writing it.

Researchers, on the other hand, spent months gathering data etc to show that moving kids around harms them.

FCPS used a study from UAE to show a longer commute is harder on kids, but researchers right here in the USA have spent tons of time researching moving schools and its effect on students. Funny that they aren’t mentioning those studies in the boundary meetings.

I asked if you really meant this, included in your original long post?

Or was it for your kids to get “better’ playmates from school)?

Because, yikes!!!

What makes a child a “better playmate”?

[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:

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.

Did you really type that? Yikes!

Yup. I did. I spent like 5 minutes waiting for a cake to cool writing it.

Researchers, on the other hand, spent months gathering data etc to show that moving kids around harms them.

FCPS used a study from UAE to show a longer commute is harder on kids, but researchers right here in the USA have spent tons of time researching moving schools and its effect on students. Funny that they aren’t mentioning those studies in the boundary meetings.

I asked if you really meant this, included in your original long post?

Or was it for your kids to get “better’ playmates from school)?

Because, yikes!!!

I extrapolated from the PP’s post:

“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.“

I didn’t have the time to pull up the post earlier, but yeah to me, they seem to want either “better playmates” or a bigger house or both.

[Anonymous]

It’s hard to see why major, costly, disruptive School Board decisions should be driven by someone having a FOMO.

[Anonymous]

It amazes me--especially in light of DOGE--how the School Board can think this is a good idea. This is almost a DOGE effort on the part of FCPS. Doing something that might be helpful, but upsets so many people. And, I don't think this is helpful at all. The only efficient thing about BRAC is that is an efficient way to upset the county parents and communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to see why major, costly, disruptive School Board decisions should be driven by someone having a FOMO.

Exactly this. That poster is a scourge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me--especially in light of DOGE--how the School Board can think this is a good idea. This is almost a DOGE effort on the part of FCPS. Doing something that might be helpful, but upsets so many people. And, I don't think this is helpful at all. The only efficient thing about BRAC is that is an efficient way to upset the county parents and communities.

If they weren’t engaged in the binary nonsense, they would be enjoying much more support as they battle for federal funds. I’m shocked that they’re this myopic (though I really shouldn’t be at this point).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me--especially in light of DOGE--how the School Board can think this is a good idea. This is almost a DOGE effort on the part of FCPS. Doing something that might be helpful, but upsets so many people. And, I don't think this is helpful at all. The only efficient thing about BRAC is that is an efficient way to upset the county parents and communities.

If they weren’t engaged in the binary nonsense, they would be enjoying much more support as they battle for federal funds. I’m shocked that they’re this myopic (though I really shouldn’t be at this point).

*boundary, not binary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me--especially in light of DOGE--how the School Board can think this is a good idea. This is almost a DOGE effort on the part of FCPS. Doing something that might be helpful, but upsets so many people. And, I don't think this is helpful at all. The only efficient thing about BRAC is that is an efficient way to upset the county parents and communities.

I think you need to recognize that those running FCPS now don’t know the schools in the district very well and function in an echo chamber.

They have mismanaged capital spending for the last 10-15 years. They added space where it wasn’t needed and failed to add seats where they were needed. Simultaneously they let a bunch of schools, mostly IB schools and their feeders, decline to the point where their continued accreditation is now in question. And then they hired a superintendent who’d come from a much smaller district, who still has no handle on the differences among FCPS schools when it comes to programming, but arrived with a desire to add pre-K to all elementary schools and change all 7-8 middle schools to 6-8 middle schools.

The echo chamber concluded they could fix all these problems, which are largely of their own making, by claiming county-wide boundary changes were justified in the name of “efficiency.” While this may be legal, it poses a slew of practical, logistical, and political challenges that they failed to grapple with before launching their boundary review.

It’s been left to parents, many of whom have a far better handle on these challenges than the School Board and Reid, to point out these challenges. Their instinct is to ignore these parents, get their proxies (the so-called “shills”) to insult them, and stack their advisory committee with “friendly faces.” But the impediments to pulling off county-wide changes aren’t going away, and we’re just now starting to see some of them manifest themselves. The irregularities with the creation of the BRAC and the delay of the unveiling of the initial boundary scenarios are just the canary in the coal mine. Things will only get worse from here.

In a sense, the uncertainty in future enrollments in FCPS due to DOGE, etc, is a gift horse to FCPS. A county-wide boundary review was always going to be a mess that was the capability of the current crew to pull off successfully. But now they have something specific they could point to as a basis to defer such changes indefinitely and focus on other approaches to addressing the real issues confronting FCPS. But it’s unclear they have the brains to realize this. Their instinct, whenever they’ve dug themselves into a hole, is to just keep digging.