FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP- that did not happen to me at the table where I sat.

I had a specific agenda to find out what the %$% they mean by academic access, to tell them that they need residency checks after 5th and 8th grades, and to ask why they are actually doing this/ to add transparency. I am connected to no groups and didn’t see a document. NO one at my table seemed connected to any outside group. There were over 50 tables, so maybe the coordinated groups were unable to be spread wide.

I think overall it was clear region 4 is not behind redoing boundaries and wants more transparency in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP- that did not happen to me at the table where I sat.

I had a specific agenda to find out what the %$% they mean by academic access, to tell them that they need residency checks after 5th and 8th grades, and to ask why they are actually doing this/ to add transparency. I am connected to no groups and didn’t see a document. NO one at my table seemed connected to any outside group. There were over 50 tables, so maybe the coordinated groups were unable to be spread wide.

I think overall it was clear region 4 is not behind redoing boundaries and wants more transparency in the process.

+1. PP is just trying to minimize parents who showed up to participate in community engagement. Kinda pathetic that she has a problem with people wanting to participate in the process, but what would you expect from the school board shills?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP- that did not happen to me at the table where I sat.

I had a specific agenda to find out what the %$% they mean by academic access, to tell them that they need residency checks after 5th and 8th grades, and to ask why they are actually doing this/ to add transparency. I am connected to no groups and didn’t see a document. NO one at my table seemed connected to any outside group. There were over 50 tables, so maybe the coordinated groups were unable to be spread wide.

I think overall it was clear region 4 is not behind redoing boundaries and wants more transparency in the process.

I was there last night too and I also didn’t see any evidence of some organized effort. I think some people have been reading the arguments on various Facebook groups because some of those got repeated.

Early before the meeting started they asked people who were sitting alone at a table to move to a closer table so they’d have 3 or 4 people at each table. I was one of them and I just picked a random table. And quite a few people showed up late and just randomly picked a table. Everyone at my table is in the WSHS pyramid and we all had different concerns. I wrote all of them down on our table’s handout. Fair to say, tho, that we all agreed that they shouldn’t be making changes in our pyramid except eliminating the split feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP- that did not happen to me at the table where I sat.

I had a specific agenda to find out what the %$% they mean by academic access, to tell them that they need residency checks after 5th and 8th grades, and to ask why they are actually doing this/ to add transparency. I am connected to no groups and didn’t see a document. NO one at my table seemed connected to any outside group. There were over 50 tables, so maybe the coordinated groups were unable to be spread wide.

I think overall it was clear region 4 is not behind redoing boundaries and wants more transparency in the process.

+1. PP is just trying to minimize parents who showed up to participate in community engagement. Kinda pathetic that she has a problem with people wanting to participate in the process, but what would you expect from the school board shills?

Uh, I was there, so I was also engaging, so I don’t know why I would minimize it. I feel passionately about DS continuing to be a walker to all of his schools.

There’s literally a post on FB encouraging people to do what I had posted about in FairFACTS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Soooo..


A few corrections are needed for this post.

The document was created by and for Mantua parents, from Region 5 who were attending the Region 4 meeting.

The Mantua parents were told not to be the speaker at the tables, especially if they spoke at the previous meetings.

The Mantua parents were very respectful and did not monopolize the conversation.

At the meeting last night (Tuesday 12/3), the parents who spoke were all or mostly parents from Region 4, the school pyramids that this meeting was organized for: WSHS, Lake Braddock, SoCo, Robinson, and Centerville.

The speakers were all unanimous in their concerns, that they want rezoning to be the absolute last option and only if absolutely necessary, that neighborhood schools should be preserved as much as possible, that the school board should only use the most accurate transparent information to rezone, that a residency study/confirmation should occur prior to any rezoning, that the process needs to be 100% transparent, particularly the parents advisory committee with no NDAs, and that if the school board is so confident that rezoning is such a good idea, they need to delay it to spring of 2028 following the 2027 elections, and run on rezoning so the citizens can make the decision.

These responses were grass roots, not coordinated,and reflected the overwhelming will of the Region 4 communities.

Any dissent to these viewpoints above were from a handful of citizens from a different region who wanted equity rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP- that did not happen to me at the table where I sat.

I had a specific agenda to find out what the %$% they mean by academic access, to tell them that they need residency checks after 5th and 8th grades, and to ask why they are actually doing this/ to add transparency. I am connected to no groups and didn’t see a document. NO one at my table seemed connected to any outside group. There were over 50 tables, so maybe the coordinated groups were unable to be spread wide.

I think overall it was clear region 4 is not behind redoing boundaries and wants more transparency in the process.

I was there last night too and I also didn’t see any evidence of some organized effort. I think some people have been reading the arguments on various Facebook groups because some of those got repeated.

Early before the meeting started they asked people who were sitting alone at a table to move to a closer table so they’d have 3 or 4 people at each table. I was one of them and I just picked a random table. And quite a few people showed up late and just randomly picked a table. Everyone at my table is in the WSHS pyramid and we all had different concerns. I wrote all of them down on our table’s handout. Fair to say, tho, that we all agreed that they shouldn’t be making changes in our pyramid except eliminating the split feeders.

This may be why I felt the way I did about it seeming like an agenda - the talking points. And then couple that with the FairFacts post with those talking points - and the suggested tables and roles - on the same document.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

What the person you are responding to stated is untrue.

There were a lot of neighbors at the Region 4 event last night: people who knew each other from school or church, people whose kids attended different schools or parents whose kids played sports together or did community theater together, or military people running into people they were stationed with,who were gathering together and mingling before hand, then going to their respective tables for the meeting part.

It was truly a community gathering of people who had similar concerns.

If that person you are quoting thought it was some organized formal group, they are dead wrong. People knew the format of the meeting, and to spread out so there were a variety of voices at each table. But even with spreading out, nearly everyone had similar concerns and feedback.

It might have looked that way from the outside looking in if you weren't from the community and were unfamiliar with how that Burke/West Springfield rolls. But that is the way that particular community is. For a huge county, it is very neighborly and small town-ish with intertwined relationships between those communities, even those attending different schools and from different neighborhoods .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP- that did not happen to me at the table where I sat.

I had a specific agenda to find out what the %$% they mean by academic access, to tell them that they need residency checks after 5th and 8th grades, and to ask why they are actually doing this/ to add transparency. I am connected to no groups and didn’t see a document. NO one at my table seemed connected to any outside group. There were over 50 tables, so maybe the coordinated groups were unable to be spread wide.

I think overall it was clear region 4 is not behind redoing boundaries and wants more transparency in the process.

I was there last night too and I also didn’t see any evidence of some organized effort. I think some people have been reading the arguments on various Facebook groups because some of those got repeated.

Early before the meeting started they asked people who were sitting alone at a table to move to a closer table so they’d have 3 or 4 people at each table. I was one of them and I just picked a random table. And quite a few people showed up late and just randomly picked a table. Everyone at my table is in the WSHS pyramid and we all had different concerns. I wrote all of them down on our table’s handout. Fair to say, tho, that we all agreed that they shouldn’t be making changes in our pyramid except eliminating the split feeders.

This may be why I felt the way I did about it seeming like an agenda - the talking points. And then couple that with the FairFacts post with those talking points - and the suggested tables and roles - on the same document.

Do you mean FPAC or fairfacts? FPAC spreads out and likely pushes its agenda at those tables.

I am still floored that people think it’s some conspiracy rather than the fact that nobody wants the change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP- that did not happen to me at the table where I sat.

I had a specific agenda to find out what the %$% they mean by academic access, to tell them that they need residency checks after 5th and 8th grades, and to ask why they are actually doing this/ to add transparency. I am connected to no groups and didn’t see a document. NO one at my table seemed connected to any outside group. There were over 50 tables, so maybe the coordinated groups were unable to be spread wide.

I think overall it was clear region 4 is not behind redoing boundaries and wants more transparency in the process.

I was there last night too and I also didn’t see any evidence of some organized effort. I think some people have been reading the arguments on various Facebook groups because some of those got repeated.

Early before the meeting started they asked people who were sitting alone at a table to move to a closer table so they’d have 3 or 4 people at each table. I was one of them and I just picked a random table. And quite a few people showed up late and just randomly picked a table. Everyone at my table is in the WSHS pyramid and we all had different concerns. I wrote all of them down on our table’s handout. Fair to say, tho, that we all agreed that they shouldn’t be making changes in our pyramid except eliminating the split feeders.

This may be why I felt the way I did about it seeming like an agenda - the talking points. And then couple that with the FairFacts post with those talking points - and the suggested tables and roles - on the same document.

They were reposting a document from Mantua Elementary, which is not part of region 4.

The document was posted to help share the questions that would be at the meeting so they could collect their thoughts in advance.

Believe it or not, what those Mantua parents put in writing are fairly universal opinions for a huge number of FCPS families across the district.

[Anonymous]

FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

Mantua is NOT region 4 (the meeting last nightwas Region 4)

Mantua parents were organized (their document snd website demonstrate thier organization,) but their sentiments are shared by most families in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

No one is saying you are lying about the existing of that Mantua document. Tons of people are aware of it

What we are saying is that the ideas in the Mantua document are fairly common sentiments and not unique to the Mantua families. No one last night was regurgitating the Mantua talking points. Everyone who spoke actually spoke off the cuff, except for one guy who read his tables top 3 items in like 10 seconds then sat down. Yes, everyone there who spoke shared very similar sentiments, because wanting stability for your kids, accurate enrollment data, school board accountability, and transparency from your local government especially when your kids lives might be turned upside down, are fairly universal sentiments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

Ah comments, took some searching. Anyway, I still am baffled by people being upset with the public who wants to engage with the school board, but turns a blind eye to FPAC members who are hand picked by the school board (likely surreptitiously) participating in the process at the community engagement sessions.

Smells fishy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

No one is saying you are lying about the existing of that Mantua document. Tons of people are aware of it

What we are saying is that the ideas in the Mantua document are fairly common sentiments and not unique to the Mantua families. No one last night was regurgitating the Mantua talking points. Everyone who spoke actually spoke off the cuff, except for one guy who read his tables top 3 items in like 10 seconds then sat down. Yes, everyone there who spoke shared very similar sentiments, because wanting stability for your kids, accurate enrollment data, school board accountability, and transparency from your local government especially when your kids lives might be turned upside down, are fairly universal sentiments.

Amen. Yesterday is but a sliver of what the school board will face when proposed maps are released.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

No one is saying you are lying about the existing of that Mantua document. Tons of people are aware of it

What we are saying is that the ideas in the Mantua document are fairly common sentiments and not unique to the Mantua families. No one last night was regurgitating the Mantua talking points. Everyone who spoke actually spoke off the cuff, except for one guy who read his tables top 3 items in like 10 seconds then sat down. Yes, everyone there who spoke shared very similar sentiments, because wanting stability for your kids, accurate enrollment data, school board accountability, and transparency from your local government especially when your kids lives might be turned upside down, are fairly universal sentiments.

The post has since been corrected above that seemed to question it. Maybe it was a misunderstanding re:regions.

I don’t disagree with any of the concerns raised about redistricting, but I also don’t think there’s an easy answer to the problem of overcrowding either.

My concern, whether it was last night or another meeting, is that by dominating these roles in a coordinated effort at meetings - and the assertion a poster made earlier that the same group said they are going to all regional meetings, other voices become drowned out. And my concern would be that they would make an illogical decision for boundaries based on sway from that vocal minority.