FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

+1

[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.

It will improve overall school test scores and that’s all that matters to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It will improve overall school test scores and that’s all that matters to them.

It will reduce overall test scores, although it might improve them at some schools. The goal is to narrow the gap rather than raise the overall average.

[Anonymous]

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

Why? Why is cramming more people into the same area the answer? That didn't solve the affordability problem in any other large city in the US. Is New York City affordable? They have great public transit and high rises, with very limited private vehicle ownership and single family homes. Yet it's less affordable there.

We were so close. More and more people were working remote and living where it made the most sense for them. Not piling all on top of one another like rats on a sinking ship. Now we're moving backwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You aren't special. The same post was made by countless others during the rise of the 2008 housing bubble. And comparing the same neighborhoods across generations isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. When my neighbors bought in my Oakton HS zoned neighborhood back in the 80s and 90s there was nothing out here. It was probably comparable to Faquier County today, or far western Loudoun County. Pretending you should be able to buy the same neighborhood today with the same type of job is ridiculous. There are far more people here today and no more land. Of course the price should be higher, even inflation-adjusted. If you want that same affordability, go look at something farther out - just like they were doing back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would much rather see them come up with a new renovation queue that prioritizes adding seats where they are needed, rather than continuing to add hundreds of seats to schools that don’t need them, simply because they were in a renovation queue developed over 15 years ago.

What would be even better is if they actually build new schools instead of piecemealing together 3000 student behemoths. Blake Lane ES should have been built. The western high school should have been built. If they want 6-8 middle schools then build the capacity and switch over each pyramid as it comes online. Buy back the King Abdullah Academy land and start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You aren't special. The same post was made by countless others during the rise of the 2008 housing bubble. And comparing the same neighborhoods across generations isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. When my neighbors bought in my Oakton HS zoned neighborhood back in the 80s and 90s there was nothing out here. It was probably comparable to Faquier County today, or far western Loudoun County. Pretending you should be able to buy the same neighborhood today with the same type of job is ridiculous. There are far more people here today and no more land. Of course the price should be higher, even inflation-adjusted. If you want that same affordability, go look at something farther out - just like they were doing back then.

LOL! I remember pre-kids driving out to visit friends in Franklin Farm (we lived in Arlington) and thinking "why in the world would anyone live this far out!" Kids change your point of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It will improve overall school test scores and that’s all that matters to them.

All Reid and the SB care about is not having any “failing” schools. Moving high scoring kids to lower scoring schools also helps to lower and “scoring gaps”.

Win-win for Reid and SB, no failing schools and “equity” in scoring.

[Anonymous]

So when is the next BRAC meeting? I’d like to attend.

Public can attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when is the next BRAC meeting? I’d like to attend.

Public can attend?

Don't think so. And members have to sign NDA, so it is anything but transparent. Don't know reps from my pyramid and they come from a the same neighborhood.at other end of boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when is the next BRAC meeting? I’d like to attend.

Public can attend?

Don't think so. And members have to sign NDA, so it is anything but transparent. Don't know reps from my pyramid and they come from a the same neighborhood.at other end of boundary.

That’s BS. It’s a violation of FOIA, right? They could easily just broadcast the meetings like they do the regular meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when is the next BRAC meeting? I’d like to attend.

Public can attend?

Don't think so. And members have to sign NDA, so it is anything but transparent. Don't know reps from my pyramid and they come from a the same neighborhood.at other end of boundary.

That’s BS. It’s a violation of FOIA, right? They could easily just broadcast the meetings like they do the regular meetings.

I think I remember reading somewhere (maybe on this forum) that Reid claims that her committees are not subject to FOIA. i suspect that is one reason that she has removed the FLE committee and moved it to her charge.
They do not like FOIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when is the next BRAC meeting? I’d like to attend.

Public can attend?

Don't think so. And members have to sign NDA, so it is anything but transparent. Don't know reps from my pyramid and they come from a the same neighborhood.at other end of boundary.

That’s BS. It’s a violation of FOIA, right? They could easily just broadcast the meetings like they do the regular meetings.

I think I remember reading somewhere (maybe on this forum) that Reid claims that her committees are not subject to FOIA. i suspect that is one reason that she has removed the FLE committee and moved it to her charge.
They do not like FOIA.

Didn’t Dunne say the SB voted to create the committee? It seems specious at best to call it her committee if the SB created it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when is the next BRAC meeting? I’d like to attend.

Public can attend?

Don't think so. And members have to sign NDA, so it is anything but transparent. Don't know reps from my pyramid and they come from a the same neighborhood.at other end of boundary.

That’s BS. It’s a violation of FOIA, right? They could easily just broadcast the meetings like they do the regular meetings.

I think I remember reading somewhere (maybe on this forum) that Reid claims that her committees are not subject to FOIA. i suspect that is one reason that she has removed the FLE committee and moved it to her charge.
They do not like FOIA.

Didn’t Dunne say the SB voted to create the committee? It seems specious at best to call it her committee if the SB created it.

I don't doubt this, but don't recall it. I may not have been paying attention. But, I have problems with anything in government that is not subject to FOIA. I see no reason for privacy and national security is certainly not at risk here. The only thing at risk is the credibility and trust of the processes involved. That is the only reason I can see for an NDA. They don't want us to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when is the next BRAC meeting? I’d like to attend.

Public can attend?

Don't think so. And members have to sign NDA, so it is anything but transparent. Don't know reps from my pyramid and they come from a the same neighborhood.at other end of boundary.

That’s BS. It’s a violation of FOIA, right? They could easily just broadcast the meetings like they do the regular meetings.

I think I remember reading somewhere (maybe on this forum) that Reid claims that her committees are not subject to FOIA. i suspect that is one reason that she has removed the FLE committee and moved it to her charge.
They do not like FOIA.

Didn’t Dunne say the SB voted to create the committee? It seems specious at best to call it her committee if the SB created it.

I don't doubt this, but don't recall it. I may not have been paying attention. But, I have problems with anything in government that is not subject to FOIA. I see no reason for privacy and national security is certainly not at risk here. The only thing at risk is the credibility and trust of the processes involved. That is the only reason I can see for an NDA. They don't want us to know.

My bad, it was Kyle McDaniel:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/area-residents-ask-what-happened-to-mother-no-35/article_b904ab6c-faac-11ef-9d3c-c3bb6b474982.html

In the article, he crows about how he voted to create the committee. It’s definitely a SB committee, which is subject to FOIA.