FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, this is reframing the issue and sidestepping the point, which is that redrawing boundaries to “improve individual school scores” is just a plan to mask poor performing students and schools by moving higher achieving students with different demographics to improve scores. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s been shown all over the place. Gatehouse needs to stop overpaying a bunch of admin staff and actually improve instruction and schools themselves, not use UMC children to achieve what they determine to be their version of “equity.”

DP. Except they haven’t released any plans yet and we know their practice over the past 15 years was to do just the opposite - tinker with boundaries at the margins in ways that typically increased rather than mitigated disparities between nearby schools.

It’s odd that you’ve gotten so worked up over the mere possibility that they might do something that would burst your segregated bubble. Would it really be so horrible to wait until there are actual proposals on the table before reacting so negatively?

DP. Waiting for the proposals serves the school board. It’ll be far too late at that point, and you know that.

Don’t silence families shilling for the school board. It’s a really bad look, especially when you pretend that it’s the sensible thing to do.

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

I don’t think you proofread your second paragraph.

When the school board avoids providing information about relevant criteria, passes the buck/blame to Thru for half a million through a no bid contract that bypassed the RFP process, and continues to say the changes are necessary but provides shifting valid reasons why, you can’t be upset when parents cry foul.

It serves their agenda to be silent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

You are ignoring the enrollment pressures at McLean and Marshall when discussing Langley/Herndon. It was a non-issue back in 1994 when part of Great Falls got moved to Langley (both McLean and Marshall were under-enrolled then) but it's a big part of the equation now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, this is reframing the issue and sidestepping the point, which is that redrawing boundaries to “improve individual school scores” is just a plan to mask poor performing students and schools by moving higher achieving students with different demographics to improve scores. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s been shown all over the place. Gatehouse needs to stop overpaying a bunch of admin staff and actually improve instruction and schools themselves, not use UMC children to achieve what they determine to be their version of “equity.”

DP. Except they haven’t released any plans yet and we know their practice over the past 15 years was to do just the opposite - tinker with boundaries at the margins in ways that typically increased rather than mitigated disparities between nearby schools.

It’s odd that you’ve gotten so worked up over the mere possibility that they might do something that would burst your segregated bubble. Would it really be so horrible to wait until there are actual proposals on the table before reacting so negatively?

DP. Waiting for the proposals serves the school board. It’ll be far too late at that point, and you know that.

Don’t silence families shilling for the school board. It’s a really bad look, especially when you pretend that it’s the sensible thing to do.

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

I don’t think you proofread your second paragraph.

When the school board avoids providing information about relevant criteria, passes the buck/blame to Thru for half a million through a no bid contract that bypassed the RFP process, and continues to say the changes are necessary but provides shifting valid reasons why, you can’t be upset when parents cry foul.

It serves their agenda to be silent.

There is a difference between being silent and manufacturing phony arguments to attack people doing jobs you'd never have the courage or patience to take on. Much easier to be a keyboard warrior treating them like the hired help who didn't get your dishes clean enough after the party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

You are ignoring the enrollment pressures at McLean and Marshall when discussing Langley/Herndon. It was a non-issue back in 1994 when part of Great Falls got moved to Langley (both McLean and Marshall were under-enrolled then) but it's a big part of the equation now.

She’s not ignoring anything. She’s highlighting that the disparity among schools is largely organic and not due to some nefarious actors.

It’s the free market for housing that got us where we are, despite the equity crowd thinking it’s some Illuminati-type plot against minorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

You are ignoring the enrollment pressures at McLean and Marshall when discussing Langley/Herndon. It was a non-issue back in 1994 when part of Great Falls got moved to Langley (both McLean and Marshall were under-enrolled then) but it's a big part of the equation now.

She’s not ignoring anything. She’s highlighting that the disparity among schools is largely organic and not due to some nefarious actors.

It’s the free market for housing that got us where we are, despite the equity crowd thinking it’s some Illuminati-type plot against minorities.

Exactly. But, there is a solution to improve things that costs nothing: Get rid of IB and stop pupil placement in almost all cases. (why do 30 kids PP from Langley to McLean?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

You are ignoring the enrollment pressures at McLean and Marshall when discussing Langley/Herndon. It was a non-issue back in 1994 when part of Great Falls got moved to Langley (both McLean and Marshall were under-enrolled then) but it's a big part of the equation now.

She’s not ignoring anything. She’s highlighting that the disparity among schools is largely organic and not due to some nefarious actors.

It’s the free market for housing that got us where we are, despite the equity crowd thinking it’s some Illuminati-type plot against minorities.

Exactly. But, there is a solution to improve things that costs nothing: Get rid of IB and stop pupil placement in almost all cases. (why do 30 kids PP from Langley to McLean?)

The PP from Langley to McLean is the grandfathering from the boundary change a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

You are ignoring the enrollment pressures at McLean and Marshall when discussing Langley/Herndon. It was a non-issue back in 1994 when part of Great Falls got moved to Langley (both McLean and Marshall were under-enrolled then) but it's a big part of the equation now.

She’s not ignoring anything. She’s highlighting that the disparity among schools is largely organic and not due to some nefarious actors.

It’s the free market for housing that got us where we are, despite the equity crowd thinking it’s some Illuminati-type plot against minorities.

Exactly. But, there is a solution to improve things that costs nothing: Get rid of IB and stop pupil placement in almost all cases. (why do 30 kids PP from Langley to McLean?)

The PP from Langley to McLean is the grandfathering from the boundary change a few years ago.

Thanks. That explains it. Did not know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

You are ignoring the enrollment pressures at McLean and Marshall when discussing Langley/Herndon. It was a non-issue back in 1994 when part of Great Falls got moved to Langley (both McLean and Marshall were under-enrolled then) but it's a big part of the equation now.

She’s not ignoring anything. She’s highlighting that the disparity among schools is largely organic and not due to some nefarious actors.

It’s the free market for housing that got us where we are, despite the equity crowd thinking it’s some Illuminati-type plot against minorities.

That’s a bunch of mumbo jimbo. We don’t have anything like a free market for housing in this county. It’s a tightly controlled market with development dependent on government zoning and various approvals.

And, when it comes to school boundaries, they aren’t “organic” either, but instead determined by a government body that, at various times, has made both intentional and unintentional decisions that magnified the disparities between schools. It’s the prospect that they might be mindful of that now that clearly frightens you so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

You are ignoring the enrollment pressures at McLean and Marshall when discussing Langley/Herndon. It was a non-issue back in 1994 when part of Great Falls got moved to Langley (both McLean and Marshall were under-enrolled then) but it's a big part of the equation now.

She’s not ignoring anything. She’s highlighting that the disparity among schools is largely organic and not due to some nefarious actors.

It’s the free market for housing that got us where we are, despite the equity crowd thinking it’s some Illuminati-type plot against minorities.

Exactly. But, there is a solution to improve things that costs nothing: Get rid of IB and stop pupil placement in almost all cases. (why do 30 kids PP from Langley to McLean?)

FCPS reports the current seniors from the area redistricted from McLean to Langley in 2021 who were given the option to attend either school and picked McLean (they’d gone to Longfellow) the same as pupil placed kids. It’s not like a typical PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

You are ignoring the enrollment pressures at McLean and Marshall when discussing Langley/Herndon. It was a non-issue back in 1994 when part of Great Falls got moved to Langley (both McLean and Marshall were under-enrolled then) but it's a big part of the equation now.

She’s not ignoring anything. She’s highlighting that the disparity among schools is largely organic and not due to some nefarious actors.

It’s the free market for housing that got us where we are, despite the equity crowd thinking it’s some Illuminati-type plot against minorities.

That’s a bunch of mumbo jimbo. We don’t have anything like a free market for housing in this county. It’s a tightly controlled market with development dependent on government zoning and various approvals.

And, when it comes to school boundaries, they aren’t “organic” either, but instead determined by a government body that, at various times, has made both intentional and unintentional decisions that magnified the disparities between schools. It’s the prospect that they might be mindful of that now that clearly frightens you so much.

And, now they are making intentional decisions without consideration of the unintentional consequences. They are not mindful and have proven it by the way they are running this far from transparent "study."
The communities have spoken. They do not want this and the SB and Reid have a fairly easy fix that many seem to resist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, this is reframing the issue and sidestepping the point, which is that redrawing boundaries to “improve individual school scores” is just a plan to mask poor performing students and schools by moving higher achieving students with different demographics to improve scores. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s been shown all over the place. Gatehouse needs to stop overpaying a bunch of admin staff and actually improve instruction and schools themselves, not use UMC children to achieve what they determine to be their version of “equity.”

DP. Except they haven’t released any plans yet and we know their practice over the past 15 years was to do just the opposite - tinker with boundaries at the margins in ways that typically increased rather than mitigated disparities between nearby schools.

It’s odd that you’ve gotten so worked up over the mere possibility that they might do something that would burst your segregated bubble. Would it really be so horrible to wait until there are actual proposals on the table before reacting so negatively?

DP. Waiting for the proposals serves the school board. It’ll be far too late at that point, and you know that.

Don’t silence families shilling for the school board. It’s a really bad look, especially when you pretend that it’s the sensible thing to do.

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

I don’t think you proofread your second paragraph.

When the school board avoids providing information about relevant criteria, passes the buck/blame to Thru for half a million through a no bid contract that bypassed the RFP process, and continues to say the changes are necessary but provides shifting valid reasons why, you can’t be upset when parents cry foul.

It serves their agenda to be silent.

There is a difference between being silent and manufacturing phony arguments to attack people doing jobs you'd never have the courage or patience to take on. Much easier to be a keyboard warrior treating them like the hired help who didn't get your dishes clean enough after the party.

GD, you clamor about boundary change opponents being racist, Then you post $hit like this.

You should look in the mirror every once in a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

You are ignoring the enrollment pressures at McLean and Marshall when discussing Langley/Herndon. It was a non-issue back in 1994 when part of Great Falls got moved to Langley (both McLean and Marshall were under-enrolled then) but it's a big part of the equation now.

She’s not ignoring anything. She’s highlighting that the disparity among schools is largely organic and not due to some nefarious actors.

It’s the free market for housing that got us where we are, despite the equity crowd thinking it’s some Illuminati-type plot against minorities.

That’s a bunch of mumbo jimbo. We don’t have anything like a free market for housing in this county. It’s a tightly controlled market with development dependent on government zoning and various approvals.

And, when it comes to school boundaries, they aren’t “organic” either, but instead determined by a government body that, at various times, has made both intentional and unintentional decisions that magnified the disparities between schools. It’s the prospect that they might be mindful of that now that clearly frightens you so much.

So we should go after Fairfax families for the decisions made by the board of supervisors and prior school boards?

You like to frame this as some big conspiracy. You and the extreme right are all the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the only way to have any impact is to make assertions about FCPS’s intentions and future proposals that may well turn out to be unfounded? Maybe that’s strategic, but it’s also dishonest. And I note that you apparently have no problem with past decisions by FCPS that increased disparities between nearby schools. I guess it was fine for FCPS to basically create a system of winners and losers as long as you came out ahead.

DP. I don't think that is the issue here.

For example: When GF was sent to Langley, Herndon was fine. People were happy with Herndon. The current issue with Herndon's membership had nothing to do with the Langley boundary. Langley needed more students then and Herndon was full. That is not the current situation. Herndon is well over 2000 and will continue to be. And, Langley continues to be in a corner of Fairfax County next to a nearby high school.

You are ignoring the enrollment pressures at McLean and Marshall when discussing Langley/Herndon. It was a non-issue back in 1994 when part of Great Falls got moved to Langley (both McLean and Marshall were under-enrolled then) but it's a big part of the equation now.

She’s not ignoring anything. She’s highlighting that the disparity among schools is largely organic and not due to some nefarious actors.

It’s the free market for housing that got us where we are, despite the equity crowd thinking it’s some Illuminati-type plot against minorities.

That’s a bunch of mumbo jimbo. We don’t have anything like a free market for housing in this county. It’s a tightly controlled market with development dependent on government zoning and various approvals.

And, when it comes to school boundaries, they aren’t “organic” either, but instead determined by a government body that, at various times, has made both intentional and unintentional decisions that magnified the disparities between schools. It’s the prospect that they might be mindful of that now that clearly frightens you so much.

And, now they are making intentional decisions without consideration of the unintentional consequences. They are not mindful and have proven it by the way they are running this far from transparent "study."
The communities have spoken. They do not want this and the SB and Reid have a fairly easy fix that many seem to resist.

If you’re saying the easy “fix” is to point to the regional uncertainties and their impact on future enrollments as a basis to defer indefinitely, I don’t disagree.

But that’s a decision they’d have to come to on their own. It can’t be foisted upon them by the same people who’d be objecting even if there were no DOGE and the local economy were booming.

And there are informed people within the county who either support or don’t object to boundary changes. It’s hard to say how many in percentage terms because there’s been no truly comprehensive survey. However, pretending these folks aren’t out there is denigrating. It’s like you’re claiming these people don’t exist or don’t matter because they don’t share your views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I would like to know more about the scenarios. Two were mentioned in the FCPS email yesterday. Are they actual possibilities, or is the purpose of the scenarios to just give the BRAC more background knowledge on what the whole situation looks like?

From the email:

“Dr. Reid welcomed the group and reminded the committee that at the next meetings the first two scenarios will be reviewed, to include evaluation of 6th grade in middle school, and a scenario that assumes all students attend the school that they are zoned to attend based on the current boundary.”

Those were just test scenarios to understand what the data would look like and to help explain the Frontline GIS tool. At this time, neither of those scenarios are ACTUAL plans for boundary change. They were helpful to understand the impact on capacity and enrollment at schools.

It is basically a meeting to ensure that we all understand the flexibility of the GIS tool as well.