FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can anyone look at this map and go, "yeah, this looks reasonable, we should never adjust boundaries".

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithMiddleSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Because we have brains that function. It’s pretty low level thinking to jump to grand conclusions based off one 2D map.

and when you ask an actual question, this is what ignorant adults resort to. This is why whatever is going to happen will happen and the public will get not a lot of say. That "one 2d map" provides a LOT of data.

You mean your leading question? Sure technically it was a question, just like the sb asks four “questions” at each session. Dumb questions get dumb replies.

Are you sure you aren’t an ignorant adult like me? Seems pretty simple to herald one map, when the CIP alone contains dozens (hundreds?).

You’re the living embodiment of the Harvard guy at the bar in Good Will Hunting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can anyone look at this map and go, "yeah, this looks reasonable, we should never adjust boundaries".

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithMiddleSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Because we have brains that function. It’s pretty low level thinking to jump to grand conclusions based off one 2D map.

and when you ask an actual question, this is what ignorant adults resort to. This is why whatever is going to happen will happen and the public will get not a lot of say. That "one 2d map" provides a LOT of data.

DP. It actually doesn’t tell you anything about the population density of different areas or why boundaries may have evolved as they did.

It’s odd that a prettier map seems to matter so much to some people. Did people living in a split feeder or attendance island ever do you harm? If attendance islands are so awful, why did Reid just come up with a map for Region 5 that left Marshall detached from the rest of the region? If split feeders are such an abomination, why did another SB controlled by Democrats turn Thoreau into a three-way split feeder to Madison, Marshall, and Oakton?

So much of this seems to be about something other than what the SB and its partisan supporters are claiming it’s about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can anyone look at this map and go, "yeah, this looks reasonable, we should never adjust boundaries".

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithMiddleSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Because we have brains that function. It’s pretty low level thinking to jump to grand conclusions based off one 2D map.

and when you ask an actual question, this is what ignorant adults resort to. This is why whatever is going to happen will happen and the public will get not a lot of say. That "one 2d map" provides a LOT of data.

DP. It actually doesn’t tell you anything about the population density of different areas or why boundaries may have evolved as they did.

It’s odd that a prettier map seems to matter so much to some people. Did people living in a split feeder or attendance island ever do you harm? If attendance islands are so awful, why did Reid just come up with a map for Region 5 that left Marshall detached from the rest of the region? If split feeders are such an abomination, why did another SB controlled by Democrats turn Thoreau into a three-way split feeder to Madison, Marshall, and Oakton?

So much of this seems to be about something other than what the SB and its partisan supporters are claiming it’s about.

But look at how pretty the map is, right. So many colors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t everybody think that eliminating split feeders and reducing bus times is a good idea?
But what another commenter said is absolutely correct, if the board isn’t providing information at these meetings, that will just fuel more anger and speculation.

I believe if Reid and the board had said from the beginning, “we are going to hire a consultant to clean up our boundary maps with the goal of eliminating split feeders and attendance islands throughout the county and this will also help us reduce bus times in many places” that they would not be facing this degree of backlash and distrust. But they can’t get their messaging right and no one knows what’s going on. Is it just fixing the weird situations? Is it a full nuke of the map and starting from scratch with a focus on SES equity? Is it something in between? They aren’t being fully transparent and that’s how rumors and distrust gets started. I’ve heard multiple “my neighbor’s friend at church’s daughter in law works for Gatehouse and she said blah blah blah” type rumors and I don’t think it necessarily had to come to this.

It is right on the website.

By reviewing boundaries, we seek to:

*Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.

*Balance available capacity to make the best use of our school facilities.

*Establish consistent “attendance zones” by removing isolated attendance areas and reducing split feeder patterns. This would increase the likelihood that students from the same neighborhood would be assigned to the same schools which are also the closest option.

*Minimize travel time for students.

But it’s the “equitable access to facilities” and the “balance available capacity” pieces that have given people a lot of concern. It’s coming across as a catch-all for doing whatever they want and trying to achieve the mythical “30% FARMS” at every school, or at least every high school. Again - if they had left it at “cleaning up attendance islands” and “reducing as many split feeders as possible” I don’t think people would have a huge problem. There are some weirdo boundaries on the current map for sure, and fixing these probably would reduce transit times/costs as well.

If you watch the school board meetings, especially the daytime work sessions, you will see that "equitable access" is their primary focus for rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t everybody think that eliminating split feeders and reducing bus times is a good idea?
But what another commenter said is absolutely correct, if the board isn’t providing information at these meetings, that will just fuel more anger and speculation.

I believe if Reid and the board had said from the beginning, “we are going to hire a consultant to clean up our boundary maps with the goal of eliminating split feeders and attendance islands throughout the county and this will also help us reduce bus times in many places” that they would not be facing this degree of backlash and distrust. But they can’t get their messaging right and no one knows what’s going on. Is it just fixing the weird situations? Is it a full nuke of the map and starting from scratch with a focus on SES equity? Is it something in between? They aren’t being fully transparent and that’s how rumors and distrust gets started. I’ve heard multiple “my neighbor’s friend at church’s daughter in law works for Gatehouse and she said blah blah blah” type rumors and I don’t think it necessarily had to come to this.

It is right on the website.

By reviewing boundaries, we seek to:

*Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.

*Balance available capacity to make the best use of our school facilities.

*Establish consistent “attendance zones” by removing isolated attendance areas and reducing split feeder patterns. This would increase the likelihood that students from the same neighborhood would be assigned to the same schools which are also the closest option.

*Minimize travel time for students.

But it’s the “equitable access to facilities” and the “balance available capacity” pieces that have given people a lot of concern. It’s coming across as a catch-all for doing whatever they want and trying to achieve the mythical “30% FARMS” at every school, or at least every high school. Again - if they had left it at “cleaning up attendance islands” and “reducing as many split feeders as possible” I don’t think people would have a huge problem. There are some weirdo boundaries on the current map for sure, and fixing these probably would reduce transit times/costs as well.

If you watch the school board meetings, especially the daytime work sessions, you will see that "equitable access" is their primary focus for rezoning.

One of the informational handouts at the community engagement meetings states "we shall prioritize the following criteria, in no particular order, when recommending individual school boundaries: access to school programming, enrollment/capacity, proximity, transportation.

This is patently false and is designed to give the SB max flexibility to create a facade that they are treating everything with detail and a case-by-case basis. In reality, it is so they can use any of the criteria for a given region/school that best suits their equity agenda. WSHS parents, be prepared to hear capacity is the top priority driving your kids to Lewis although transportation and proximity don't make sense. Langley parents, be prepared to hear how proximity and transportation drive your kids' migration to Herndon. Funny enough, I don't think access to programming will be the main driver for any moves.

The problem here is the SB is applying the criteria case by case to maximize their equity agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t everybody think that eliminating split feeders and reducing bus times is a good idea?
But what another commenter said is absolutely correct, if the board isn’t providing information at these meetings, that will just fuel more anger and speculation.

I believe if Reid and the board had said from the beginning, “we are going to hire a consultant to clean up our boundary maps with the goal of eliminating split feeders and attendance islands throughout the county and this will also help us reduce bus times in many places” that they would not be facing this degree of backlash and distrust. But they can’t get their messaging right and no one knows what’s going on. Is it just fixing the weird situations? Is it a full nuke of the map and starting from scratch with a focus on SES equity? Is it something in between? They aren’t being fully transparent and that’s how rumors and distrust gets started. I’ve heard multiple “my neighbor’s friend at church’s daughter in law works for Gatehouse and she said blah blah blah” type rumors and I don’t think it necessarily had to come to this.

It is right on the website.

By reviewing boundaries, we seek to:

*Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.

*Balance available capacity to make the best use of our school facilities.

*Establish consistent “attendance zones” by removing isolated attendance areas and reducing split feeder patterns. This would increase the likelihood that students from the same neighborhood would be assigned to the same schools which are also the closest option.

*Minimize travel time for students.

But it’s the “equitable access to facilities” and the “balance available capacity” pieces that have given people a lot of concern. It’s coming across as a catch-all for doing whatever they want and trying to achieve the mythical “30% FARMS” at every school, or at least every high school. Again - if they had left it at “cleaning up attendance islands” and “reducing as many split feeders as possible” I don’t think people would have a huge problem. There are some weirdo boundaries on the current map for sure, and fixing these probably would reduce transit times/costs as well.

If you watch the school board meetings, especially the daytime work sessions, you will see that "equitable access" is their primary focus for rezoning.

They have been jawboning about this for over seven years and no one knows what they really have in mind.

If they wanted to create greater "equitable access," two things they could do that wouldn't bankrupt FCPS are eliminating AAP centers and replacing IB across the county with AP. But they won't commit to either, or even hold a serious discussion about it.

Other "inequities" are baked into the system and there's not much they can do about it. I doubt they give a crap about an ESOL kid at Langley who may not have access to the same resources as an ESOL kid at Justice or a kid at Madison who doesn't have direct access to the same Academy options that are available at Fairfax. And that's because the primary audience of this School Board is UMC (and primarily White) families at high FARMS schools who want them to take a sledgehammer to higher performing schools, and miscellaneous hangers-on who don't care about that but will support whatever the School Board does with boundaries so long as the School Board continues to support their agendas (Special Ed, LBGTQ rights, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t everybody think that eliminating split feeders and reducing bus times is a good idea?
But what another commenter said is absolutely correct, if the board isn’t providing information at these meetings, that will just fuel more anger and speculation.

I believe if Reid and the board had said from the beginning, “we are going to hire a consultant to clean up our boundary maps with the goal of eliminating split feeders and attendance islands throughout the county and this will also help us reduce bus times in many places” that they would not be facing this degree of backlash and distrust. But they can’t get their messaging right and no one knows what’s going on. Is it just fixing the weird situations? Is it a full nuke of the map and starting from scratch with a focus on SES equity? Is it something in between? They aren’t being fully transparent and that’s how rumors and distrust gets started. I’ve heard multiple “my neighbor’s friend at church’s daughter in law works for Gatehouse and she said blah blah blah” type rumors and I don’t think it necessarily had to come to this.

It is right on the website.

By reviewing boundaries, we seek to:

*Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.

*Balance available capacity to make the best use of our school facilities.

*Establish consistent “attendance zones” by removing isolated attendance areas and reducing split feeder patterns. This would increase the likelihood that students from the same neighborhood would be assigned to the same schools which are also the closest option.

*Minimize travel time for students.

But it’s the “equitable access to facilities” and the “balance available capacity” pieces that have given people a lot of concern. It’s coming across as a catch-all for doing whatever they want and trying to achieve the mythical “30% FARMS” at every school, or at least every high school. Again - if they had left it at “cleaning up attendance islands” and “reducing as many split feeders as possible” I don’t think people would have a huge problem. There are some weirdo boundaries on the current map for sure, and fixing these probably would reduce transit times/costs as well.

If you watch the school board meetings, especially the daytime work sessions, you will see that "equitable access" is their primary focus for rezoning.

One of the informational handouts at the community engagement meetings states "we shall prioritize the following criteria, in no particular order, when recommending individual school boundaries: access to school programming, enrollment/capacity, proximity, transportation.

This is patently false and is designed to give the SB max flexibility to create a facade that they are treating everything with detail and a case-by-case basis. In reality, it is so they can use any of the criteria for a given region/school that best suits their equity agenda. WSHS parents, be prepared to hear capacity is the top priority driving your kids to Lewis although transportation and proximity don't make sense. Langley parents, be prepared to hear how proximity and transportation drive your kids' migration to Herndon. Funny enough, I don't think access to programming will be the main driver for any moves.

The problem here is the SB is applying the criteria case by case to maximize their equity agenda.

Of course. Parents want a roadmap and the School Board wants a menu, so they can do what they want and then say it aligns with one of their four boxes (even if it conflicts with others).

[Anonymous]

It's become so obvious the SB is rushing to failure on this. How about this? Focus on putting together a solid plan. A plan that the next SB can enact, and if it can it will be because the people have spoken with their votes. SB candidates will have to be transparent about their boundary review position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how they can redo HS boundaries without a concrete plan for the new Western HS. Could someone ask that at the Westfield meeting?

The western HS is illusory. It is always 10 more years away. They simply don’t know how to take it out of the CIP since some of the land acquisition costs were funded by a prior bond. But they have no site, the overwhelming percentage of the costs are not yet funded, and they’ve continued to expand many of the high schools that serve kids living in the western part of the county.

Of course it’s fair to ask for clarification, but you won’t get a clear answer at the meeting. Ask if they really still plan to build Centreville out to 3000 as well.

None of this got asked at the Westfield meeting. From what I could tell (sitting near the back) it seemed like the meeting may have been brigaded by an organized group from another region (I didn't hear where they were from, but I saw someone else post somewhere that it was Mantua Elem parents? They flat out said they were going to every meeting in front of the whole group.) These parents were all very vocal about how no boundary adjustments were acceptable in any way/shape/form. One lady even suggested boundaries should be fixed forever, and schools should just 'adapt' to changing populations (which is logistically just not realistic, at least in some situations).

The meeting wasn't so much them telling us anything as them asking us for our input/feedback in a pretty generic way.

Last night’s had a similar feel with people pushing a very specific agenda at certain tables. There was a document circulated telling parents to sit at certain tables and be the spokesperson.

[Anonymous]

Also people cheered when they said it shouldn’t swayed by political influence but then also cheered that the school board members should have to run for election on redistricting. I know the hope is that the school board members do nothing then, but that is more likely to be swayed by political influence and perhaps some vocal minorities because school districts don’t line up with board member districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also people cheered when they said it shouldn’t swayed by political influence but then also cheered that the school board members should have to run for election on redistricting. I know the hope is that the school board members do nothing then, but that is more likely to be swayed by political influence and perhaps some vocal minorities because school districts don’t line up with board member districts.

Not sure why folks think that opposing political.parties would do anything different/better. But, it's the cycle.of politics I suppose.

[Anonymous]

One group sitting at multiple tables? Shady except that the school board’s hand selected FPAC has been doing just that at multiple meetings.

If you are okay with FPAC doing it but not parents, then you have a messed up moral compass.

And no, I’m not one of those parents.

[Anonymous]

"Messed up moral compass"
Jesus. That poster wasn't even comparing those two things.

Sometimes I wish this site wasn't mostly anonymous....but then you probably wouldn't see as much engagement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.”

No one is explaining what this mean though. Equitable facilities are a function of the CIP not boundaries. Programs vary school to school but I highly doubt they plan to put immersion in everywhere nor eliminate all IB so again what does this mean??

I think this is the super-secret way to eliminate the IB/AP transfer option. If both programs are viewed as “equitable”…..no need to allow transfers. We don’t have choice enrollment in FCPS, unlike other school districts.

I doubt that. They’ll keep pupil placements only because that’s what allows them to maintain equitable access to programming without offering uniform courses across the board.

Mateo Dunne is being the most transparent about his approach and he lists equitable access to programming under crowding. It aligns with the thought that by moving students from a school that’s over capacity to a school that’s under capacity, the under capacity school can offer more extracurriculars. The problem is the schools that are grossly over capacity have very tight boundaries, so they can’t shift students without violating their first objective of sending kids to their closest school and staying in their community.

But doesn’t this go against IB and AP being equal? I mean, if kids want advanced studies, both programs offer them. I think they are going to limit these transfers except for possible language transfers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Messed up moral compass"
Jesus. That poster wasn't even comparing those two things.

Sometimes I wish this site wasn't mostly anonymous....but then you probably wouldn't see as much engagement

Yeah, I know you’ve mentioned that before. You express your desire that DCUM wasn’t anonymous by, wait for it, posting anonymously on DCUM🙄

I’m guessing you are an FPAC member.