FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

The first two-three pages of this thread has around a dozen posts with links to critical boundary policy information, including the original boundary work.

The posts are bulleted with titles, provide links, and in the case of videos, time stamped.

Go back and read the first two-three pages.

The information is right there in this thread, easy to locate and access.

The work is done for you.

You just need to skim the first 2-3 pages and follow the links

To be fair, I don't think any of those links go to the MGT Boundary Study Report. FCPS seems to not be relying on that or linking to it any more.

I linked to it earlier today in this thread. All you have to do is look for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

The first two-three pages of this thread has around a dozen posts with links to critical boundary policy information, including the original boundary work.

The posts are bulleted with titles, provide links, and in the case of videos, time stamped.

Go back and read the first two-three pages.

The information is right there in this thread, easy to locate and access.

The work is done for you.

You just need to skim the first 2-3 pages and follow the links

To be fair, I don't think any of those links go to the MGT Boundary Study Report. FCPS seems to not be relying on that or linking to it any more.

I linked to it earlier today in this thread. All you have to do is look for it.

Yes, thanks

There are several posters sharing links with page notes and time stamps.

For some of the links, you actually need to go to the fcps page linked, then click on several embedded links to get to the documents.

It might take a couple of minutes to click through the landing page, but the info is there if you spend a few minutes looking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

The first two-three pages of this thread has around a dozen posts with links to critical boundary policy information, including the original boundary work.

The posts are bulleted with titles, provide links, and in the case of videos, time stamped.

Go back and read the first two-three pages.

The information is right there in this thread, easy to locate and access.

The work is done for you.

You just need to skim the first 2-3 pages and follow the links

To be fair, I don't think any of those links go to the MGT Boundary Study Report. FCPS seems to not be relying on that or linking to it any more.

I linked to it earlier today in this thread. All you have to do is look for it.

Yeah, I saw that. I was responding to the person who was snarky to the other person who asked for the link and said search the first three pages. I didn't see it in the first three pages of links and am glad you linked it on page 13, but it wasn't obvious before then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

If School Board members like Stu Gibson, Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen hadn’t been so obviously biased and self-serving in orchestrating prior one-off boundary changes, they wouldn’t have felt the need to move to a different process. You can thank them if you don’t like how it turns out this time.

So your assertion is -checks notes- that these school board reps should not listen to their constituents?

DP, in the case of the Langley/McLean transfer under Tholen, she listened to one minority segment of her consituents, and ignored the rest (as well as FCPS staff recommendation). I think the assertion is more 1/ that sometimes a broader view is needed than constraining things within certain boundary pyramids given the evolution of our county over time, and 2/ that if/when we are going to do things local to a particular community or section of the county, that the SB reps should still listen ALL of their constituents, not just selectively those whose interests on an issue are aligned with their own personal preference.

Why have a representative school board then? Seems like you are arguing against representative democracy and for socialism.

At some point, you and the school board will learn people in the county are generally generous, but very very few will go along with their kids being upended in the name of some theoretical greater good (which as discussed wouldn’t even materialize).

Good lord you have reading comprehension issues. I'd like it if the school board reps actually, you know, represented their constituents... not selectively represented a small minority community of them.

Got it, so you just want to listen to the equity warriors in the district. Only follow the will of your constituents when it suits your agenda. 🤡

DP, but if I were paraphrasing your post it would be: "Got it, anyone who doesn't always prioritize the interests of Great Falls over everyone else in Dranesville must be an 'equity warrior'."

That’s just dense. McLean residents didn’t want a bigger move either, and Herndon had no dog in the fight.

You’re just arguing platitudes with no real thought behind them. I’d expect nothing less from you and the school board.

[Anonymous]

McLean would prefer an expansion, but given we're not going to get one anytime soon, a bigger move to Langley (adding the Spring Hill split feeder that staff recommended) was the best option and what we expressed preference for.

[Anonymous]

Grandfathering only seniors is bullsh*t. All sophomores, juniors and seniors deserve to be grandfathered. As well as rising 8th graders and 6th graders. Hell no one deserves to be yanked out of their schools.

[Anonymous]

Here are Thru’s condensed findings from the virtual meetings. It’s appalling that the 6th grade move to middle school was not provoked for any of these conversations with community members. Had that intention been more transparent, there would be many more comments in this.

If they go forward on that movement, that’s really going to cause a blank state wipe of current boundaries to accommodate an impossible Tetris.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/AllVirtualMeetingsSummary.pdf

I also can’t believe these dinky 13 pages are all the consulting firm has to show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are Thru’s condensed findings from the virtual meetings. It’s appalling that the 6th grade move to middle school was not provoked for any of these conversations with community members. Had that intention been more transparent, there would be many more comments in this.

If they go forward on that movement, that’s really going to cause a blank state wipe of current boundaries to accommodate an impossible Tetris.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/AllVirtualMeetingsSummary.pdf

I also can’t believe these dinky 13 pages are all the consulting firm has to show.

Thru sucks. It is just cherry-picking a handful of statements. The overwhelming majority of the county wants stability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are Thru’s condensed findings from the virtual meetings. It’s appalling that the 6th grade move to middle school was not provoked for any of these conversations with community members. Had that intention been more transparent, there would be many more comments in this.

If they go forward on that movement, that’s really going to cause a blank state wipe of current boundaries to accommodate an impossible Tetris.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/AllVirtualMeetingsSummary.pdf

I also can’t believe these dinky 13 pages are all the consulting firm has to show.

Thru sucks. It is just cherry-picking a handful of statements. The overwhelming majority of the county wants stability.

At our regional meeting, the response was overwhelmingly against rezoning.

The only support for "equity" was for getting rid of IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are Thru’s condensed findings from the virtual meetings. It’s appalling that the 6th grade move to middle school was not provoked for any of these conversations with community members. Had that intention been more transparent, there would be many more comments in this.

If they go forward on that movement, that’s really going to cause a blank state wipe of current boundaries to accommodate an impossible Tetris.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/AllVirtualMeetingsSummary.pdf

I also can’t believe these dinky 13 pages are all the consulting firm has to show.

Thru sucks. It is just cherry-picking a handful of statements. The overwhelming majority of the county wants stability.

That even came through on Thru--if you read it carefully.
Gee, I could have come up with those answers without this study--and save the county over a half million dollars. I suspect most posters on here could have devised that list.

It would be interesting, though, to see which pyramids--and who--and how many-complained about the overcrowding.
When FCPS is slated to lose population, it makes no sense at all to do this. If schools are not getting appropriate programming, then give it to them--lots cheaper than redrawing boundary lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KJ073EA6/$file/MGT%20Boundary%20Policy%20Presentation.pdf

Of particular note:

Page 27: #1 reason respondents picked their current residence was to have kids attend a particular base schoool

Page 33: Highest priority to address overcrowding should be the construction of addition or additional facilities on school grounds

Page 34: Highest priority to address under-enrolled schools should be program modifications rather than boundary changes

Page 36: When boundary changes are being made, "balance" to reflect county-wide demographics and elminating attendance islands are low priorities

Page 37: Highest priority for implementation of boundary changes is grandfathering of students within existing pyramid

The problem with the Page 33 priority is that it leads to situations like the expansion of West Potomac when there is space available right next door at Mt. Vernon. Terrible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. That is why you can't always build. Or take West Springfield
- if it continues to grow do you add to it or use the space available next door at Lewis? I know what the WS people will say.

In a county of 25 pyramids, you can't let individual pyramids decide how to use facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KJ073EA6/$file/MGT%20Boundary%20Policy%20Presentation.pdf

Of particular note:

Page 27: #1 reason respondents picked their current residence was to have kids attend a particular base schoool

Page 33: Highest priority to address overcrowding should be the construction of addition or additional facilities on school grounds

Page 34: Highest priority to address under-enrolled schools should be program modifications rather than boundary changes

Page 36: When boundary changes are being made, "balance" to reflect county-wide demographics and elminating attendance islands are low priorities

Page 37: Highest priority for implementation of boundary changes is grandfathering of students within existing pyramid

The problem with the Page 33 priority is that it leads to situations like the expansion of West Potomac when there is space available right next door at Mt. Vernon. Terrible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. That is why you can't always build. Or take West Springfield
- if it continues to grow do you add to it or use the space available next door at Lewis? I know what the WS people will say.

In a county of 25 pyramids, you can't let individual pyramids decide how to use facilities.

Why would you think West Springfield would continue to expand? It’s built out and there isn’t much new housing planned there. If anything, the enrollment will probably decline.

Sounds more like you are looking for an excuse to continue to screw the handful of schools like Annandale and McLean that are overdue for an addition, even as Karl Frisch bullied his colleagues into budgeting over $85 million on an unnecessary Dunn Loring ES.

The inconsistencies within FCPS are galling and those pretending to care about using every last seat available now often have themselves been the past beneficiaries of expansions and additions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP.

FCPS - which is admittedly an enormous school system - employs exactly ONE person tasked with residency enforcement. One (1) person.

As for the approved methods that FCPS employee uses, why don’t you do your homework, PP, instead of building straw-man arguments like you did in your post?

So when they switch the boundaries, what stops the kids rezoned as 7th or 9th graders from just registering at their original school? Sounds like one dude who already can't keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KJ073EA6/$file/MGT%20Boundary%20Policy%20Presentation.pdf

Of particular note:

Page 27: #1 reason respondents picked their current residence was to have kids attend a particular base schoool

Page 33: Highest priority to address overcrowding should be the construction of addition or additional facilities on school grounds

Page 34: Highest priority to address under-enrolled schools should be program modifications rather than boundary changes

Page 36: When boundary changes are being made, "balance" to reflect county-wide demographics and elminating attendance islands are low priorities

Page 37: Highest priority for implementation of boundary changes is grandfathering of students within existing pyramid

The problem with the Page 33 priority is that it leads to situations like the expansion of West Potomac when there is space available right next door at Mt. Vernon. Terrible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. That is why you can't always build. Or take West Springfield
- if it continues to grow do you add to it or use the space available next door at Lewis? I know what the WS people will say.

In a county of 25 pyramids, you can't let individual pyramids decide how to use facilities.

WSHS classrooms are not at capacity.

The classes are fewer than 30 students.

The school is not overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

We are a federal government family. The White House announced today a mandate for more reduction in force plans. We are terrified of what’s to come. This area is going to lose so many in, and supporting, this workforce - can FCPS pause so we can deal with one hurricane at a time?