FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

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.

Anyone who thinks that she can add Universal Pre-K; make all middle schools 6-8; and redraw boundaries throughout the county at the same time is just ........

[Anonymous]

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. I am ok with some boundary changes, elimination of AAP centers and nixing of IB programs, all in order to cut those expenses, and hopefully increase teacher pay.

DP. Boundaries don't have to change in order to nix AAP centers and IB programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Anyone who thinks that she can add Universal Pre-K; make all middle schools 6-8; and redraw boundaries throughout the county at the same time is just ........

Right? But when you have an echo chamber like this there’s no one willing to point out the empress has no clothes.

[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.

+1
Reminds me of the "young" posters who insist older people should move out of their homes in order for them (the younger ones) to move in. These people exemplify main character syndrome.

[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.

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.

You are dating yourself with this tired way of framing a situation. No one (under 60) uses that anymore.

DP. Serious question: WTF are you talking about? I'm well under 60 and understood exactly what the PP was talking about. You obviously just want to argue with your stupid ageism BS because you have nothing else.

[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.

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.

DP. The most obnoxious of all are those advocating to move other people's children around so that they themselves can benefit. Tell us, why do YOU want boundary changes? Be specific.

[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.

DP. Then why on earth aren't you lobbying FCPS to FIX the schools you're zoned for and apparently unhappy with? Are you hoping to be rezoned to a better school? I can't think of a single scenario in which this is being proposed. On the contrary, the proposals seem fixated on moving kids to *worse* schools.

[Anonymous]

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

If you think that is all they are giving the consultant, you have never worked for a government agency.

Also, do you think that Gatehouse employees are not spending lots of paid hours on this? Think about it: planning for the committee meetings and community feedback; that little lottery they had to pick committee members; lawyers to review everything; custodians after hours at the meetings; etc. I'm sure others could add additional $$ being spent.

My guess is that FCPS has already spent more than $1million. Think of all the facilitators.

[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.

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.

+100
I can't believe people - to include the SB - actually think moving higher income kids into lower income schools will magically improve them. How utterly stupid.

[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?

No one knows this.

[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.

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.

+100
I can't believe people - to include the SB - actually think moving higher income kids into lower income schools will magically improve them. How utterly stupid.

They have lost sight of their purpose: to educate students.

Their concern is to make the school look better. Not educate the kids. That simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No one knows this.

PP said “most likely.”

If there wasn’t one group of Langley HS parents who perceive themselves at higher risk of being redistricted, we’d have neither FairFACTS Matters nor these long threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No one knows this.

PP said “most likely.”

If there wasn’t one group of Langley HS parents who perceive themselves at higher risk of being redistricted, we’d have neither FairFACTS Matters nor these long threads.

Chantilly parent here. If it weren't for people demanding Great Falls move to Herndon, we would not be having a BRAC at all. That's pretty obvious. There have been people on this forum demanding that for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No one knows this.

PP said “most likely.”

If there wasn’t one group of Langley HS parents who perceive themselves at higher risk of being redistricted, we’d have neither FairFACTS Matters nor these long threads.

Chantilly parent here. If it weren't for people demanding Great Falls move to Herndon, we would not be having a BRAC at all. That's pretty obvious. There have been people on this forum demanding that for years.

Yeah, no. Posters on this forum react to what the School Board is doing, not the other way around.

This has been a goal of some School Board members since at least 2018.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No one knows this.

PP said “most likely.”

If there wasn’t one group of Langley HS parents who perceive themselves at higher risk of being redistricted, we’d have neither FairFACTS Matters nor these long threads.

Chantilly parent here. If it weren't for people demanding Great Falls move to Herndon, we would not be having a BRAC at all. That's pretty obvious. There have been people on this forum demanding that for years.

Yeah, no. Posters on this forum react to what the School Board is doing, not the other way around.

This has been a goal of some School Board members since at least 2018.

Maybe, but there was a thread here where a mom (I think) kept looking for people to put in Herndon. She wanted Great Falls but then was willing to settle for Floris. And, yes, the SB has been after it, too. Long before 2018. But, Strauss wouldn't budge.