FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the McLean HS facility is a crummy 1982 Volkswagen Rabbit, then Annandale HS is a 1990 Saturn. Both are total lemons and the campuses need a serious reboot. MCPS has been continuously rebuilding all their old high schools now for decades (or gutting and restoring the historic ones like B-CC HS 25 years ago). FCPS needs to get with the program.

It was easier for them to do what some posters on this thread wanted and redistrict the hell out of Annandale - moving kids in single-family areas to Falls Church, Lake Braddock, Woodson, and Edison - over the years than step up and invest appropriately in AHS.

None of those rezoned kids attend FCPS any longer. They have all graduated and are now adults. It is a completely irrelevant discussion point.

To the contrary, the effect of all the supposedly expedient but ill-advised boundary changes at Annandale are the greatest on the remaining students there now, not the students who graduated a decade ago.

Every family zoned for Annandale now knew exactly what high school pyramid they were purchasing in, and chose convenient location inside the beltway over high school ratings.

So no, the kids currently attending Annandale HS or zoned for that pyramid are not affected by the rezoning that happened decades ago. Their families made an informed choice to buy inside the beltway in the Annandale pyramid. That is on them and has zero to do with the rezoning from before many of these students were even born and years before many of their parents purchased a home zoned for Annandale.

I remember reading in the Washington Post print edition (or it could’ve been one of the hyperlocal papers) about the affluent Wakefield Chapel Rd families who were practically begging to stay in the Annandale HS zone, and spoke positively about the school’s then balanced diversity. They did a feature on the annual parade through the neighborhood with the Annandale HS band, a tradition that went back to when the first homes were constructed on the former dairy farms. They spoke about the then state ranked lacrosse team, where most of the players came from outside the beltway. Even the former Annandale principal spoke up on what a mistake it would be to move the affluent single family neighborhoods out of Annandale HS. (And board members criticized him for his doomsday predictions accusing him of alluding to race and class in a negative light.)

They were all shut down by the school board who said it would be most detrimental to have a supersized school over 2500 students.

I have no stake in the fortunes of that area. But it was an unusually blunt and tone deaf move by the school board. No constituents were calling for the rezoning. It really was an unforced error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

I want them to use available seats before expanding schools. There are cases where this has been ignored when the schools are adjacent. Nobody is talking about sending kids across the county.

And I don't think our blue county would like to admit why some schools are avoided.

Your argumemt makes zero sense


Construction, renovation and expansion is a multi year process, sometimes decades in the making.

Waiting to start the process of expansion until all open seats are filled is just stupid and incredibly ignorant of what is involved in a renovation.

The only acceptable option is to expand high schools whenever a school hits the scheduled full renovation.

Anything else is just a silly, emotional idea based off temper tantrums, wasteful ideas and selfishness.

NO MORE EXPANSIONS!

Umm, so what would you do about the McLean overcrowding? Esp since Fairfax County is focusing growth on Tysons. There's only so many more students that the neighboring HS can take...

I’m serious. Ship them to Langley or another nearby school, or double up students in classrooms, or split the day/calendar somehow so that not everyone is in school at the same time.

Issues at McLean are exaggerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

I want them to use available seats before expanding schools. There are cases where this has been ignored when the schools are adjacent. Nobody is talking about sending kids across the county.

And I don't think our blue county would like to admit why some schools are avoided.

Your argumemt makes zero sense


Construction, renovation and expansion is a multi year process, sometimes decades in the making.

Waiting to start the process of expansion until all open seats are filled is just stupid and incredibly ignorant of what is involved in a renovation.

The only acceptable option is to expand high schools whenever a school hits the scheduled full renovation.

Anything else is just a silly, emotional idea based off temper tantrums, wasteful ideas and selfishness.

NO MORE EXPANSIONS!

Umm, so what would you do about the McLean overcrowding? Esp since Fairfax County is focusing growth on Tysons. There's only so many more students that the neighboring HS can take...

I’m serious. Ship them to Langley or another nearby school, or double up students in classrooms, or split the day/calendar somehow so that not everyone is in school at the same time.

Issues at McLean are exaggerated.

The latter two suggestions apply if parents don’t want to be resigned to Langley. Staying in the same zone means they are content with the supposed crowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

Yeah the board decided in 2019 that what made some schools undesirable is too many poor kids and wanted to rearrange schools to make them close enough in poverty percentage that it would discourage parents with options from moving to be in a certain zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the McLean HS facility is a crummy 1982 Volkswagen Rabbit, then Annandale HS is a 1990 Saturn. Both are total lemons and the campuses need a serious reboot. MCPS has been continuously rebuilding all their old high schools now for decades (or gutting and restoring the historic ones like B-CC HS 25 years ago). FCPS needs to get with the program.

It was easier for them to do what some posters on this thread wanted and redistrict the hell out of Annandale - moving kids in single-family areas to Falls Church, Lake Braddock, Woodson, and Edison - over the years than step up and invest appropriately in AHS.

None of those rezoned kids attend FCPS any longer. They have all graduated and are now adults. It is a completely irrelevant discussion point.

To the contrary, the effect of all the supposedly expedient but ill-advised boundary changes at Annandale are the greatest on the remaining students there now, not the students who graduated a decade ago.

Every family zoned for Annandale now knew exactly what high school pyramid they were purchasing in, and chose convenient location inside the beltway over high school ratings.

So no, the kids currently attending Annandale HS or zoned for that pyramid are not affected by the rezoning that happened decades ago. Their families made an informed choice to buy inside the beltway in the Annandale pyramid. That is on them and has zero to do with the rezoning from before many of these students were even born and years before many of their parents purchased a home zoned for Annandale.

I remember reading in the Washington Post print edition (or it could’ve been one of the hyperlocal papers) about the affluent Wakefield Chapel Rd families who were practically begging to stay in the Annandale HS zone, and spoke positively about the school’s then balanced diversity. They did a feature on the annual parade through the neighborhood with the Annandale HS band, a tradition that went back to when the first homes were constructed on the former dairy farms. They spoke about the then state ranked lacrosse team, where most of the players came from outside the beltway. Even the former Annandale principal spoke up on what a mistake it would be to move the affluent single family neighborhoods out of Annandale HS. (And board members criticized him for his doomsday predictions accusing him of alluding to race and class in a negative light.)

They were all shut down by the school board who said it would be most detrimental to have a supersized school over 2500 students.

I have no stake in the fortunes of that area. But it was an unusually blunt and tone deaf move by the school board. No constituents were calling for the rezoning. It really was an unforced error.

It wasn’t quite that one-sided. There were some younger families at Wakefield Forest who were pleased FCPS was going to eliminate the split feeder and move them to a wealthier pyramid (Frost/Woodson). The odd thing was that the School Board went ahead and moved the area over the objections of the School Board member representing the district where Annandale was located. She correctly anticipated that the change would accelerate the concentration of poverty at AHS. So now AHS is left with relatively high FARMS and low capacity when a number of other schools have relatively low FARMS and larger capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

Yeah the board decided in 2019 that what made some schools undesirable is too many poor kids and wanted to rearrange schools to make them close enough in poverty percentage that it would discourage parents with options from moving to be in a certain zone.

They didn’t “decide” anything relating to boundaries in 2019 other than to retain an outside consultant to advise on “best practices” relating to boundary adjustments so that they could put off any further discussion of the topic until after the fall 2019 School Board elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

I want them to use available seats before expanding schools. There are cases where this has been ignored when the schools are adjacent. Nobody is talking about sending kids across the county.

And I don't think our blue county would like to admit why some schools are avoided.

Your argumemt makes zero sense


Construction, renovation and expansion is a multi year process, sometimes decades in the making.

Waiting to start the process of expansion until all open seats are filled is just stupid and incredibly ignorant of what is involved in a renovation.

The only acceptable option is to expand high schools whenever a school hits the scheduled full renovation.

Anything else is just a silly, emotional idea based off temper tantrums, wasteful ideas and selfishness.

NO MORE EXPANSIONS!

Umm, so what would you do about the McLean overcrowding? Esp since Fairfax County is focusing growth on Tysons. There's only so many more students that the neighboring HS can take...

I’m serious. Ship them to Langley or another nearby school, or double up students in classrooms, or split the day/calendar somehow so that not everyone is in school at the same time.

Issues at McLean are exaggerated.

Do you hate all kids, or just McLean kids? Because there's a lot of animosity in your post.

According to the latest CIP, McLean will be the most overcrowded HS in FCPS in five years measured by enrollment vs. the number of permanent seats. Since it will also have the fewest permanent seats of any HS/SS, and is also in a high-growth area, it's reasonable to ask FCPS to come up with a plan (for example, an updated renovation queue) to address that in due course that doesn't involving "shipping" more kids off to other schools, larger class sizes, or split shifts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

I want them to use available seats before expanding schools. There are cases where this has been ignored when the schools are adjacent. Nobody is talking about sending kids across the county.

And I don't think our blue county would like to admit why some schools are avoided.

Your argumemt makes zero sense


Construction, renovation and expansion is a multi year process, sometimes decades in the making.

Waiting to start the process of expansion until all open seats are filled is just stupid and incredibly ignorant of what is involved in a renovation.

The only acceptable option is to expand high schools whenever a school hits the scheduled full renovation.

Anything else is just a silly, emotional idea based off temper tantrums, wasteful ideas and selfishness.

NO MORE EXPANSIONS!

Umm, so what would you do about the McLean overcrowding? Esp since Fairfax County is focusing growth on Tysons. There's only so many more students that the neighboring HS can take...

I’m serious. Ship them to Langley or another nearby school, or double up students in classrooms, or split the day/calendar somehow so that not everyone is in school at the same time.

Issues at McLean are exaggerated.

Do you hate all kids, or just McLean kids? Because there's a lot of animosity in your post.

According to the latest CIP, McLean will be the most overcrowded HS in FCPS in five years measured by enrollment vs. the number of permanent seats. Since it will also have the fewest permanent seats of any HS/SS, and is also in a high-growth area, it's reasonable to ask FCPS to come up with a plan (for example, an updated renovation queue) to address that in due course that doesn't involving "shipping" more kids off to other schools, larger class sizes, or split shifts.

My kid attends Marshall, plays sports and is oblivious to most things. But even DC notices how run down McLean HS is compared to the other schools in the Liberty District. Granted, that pulls in the 3 Arlington HS, but going from Langley to Marshall to McLean it is quite obvious that one has been quite neglected compared to the rest. Now layer in the Tysons growth, and there's only so much more McLean can take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

I want them to use available seats before expanding schools. There are cases where this has been ignored when the schools are adjacent. Nobody is talking about sending kids across the county.

And I don't think our blue county would like to admit why some schools are avoided.

Your argumemt makes zero sense


Construction, renovation and expansion is a multi year process, sometimes decades in the making.

Waiting to start the process of expansion until all open seats are filled is just stupid and incredibly ignorant of what is involved in a renovation.

The only acceptable option is to expand high schools whenever a school hits the scheduled full renovation.

Anything else is just a silly, emotional idea based off temper tantrums, wasteful ideas and selfishness.

NO MORE EXPANSIONS!

Umm, so what would you do about the McLean overcrowding? Esp since Fairfax County is focusing growth on Tysons. There's only so many more students that the neighboring HS can take...

I’m serious. Ship them to Langley or another nearby school, or double up students in classrooms, or split the day/calendar somehow so that not everyone is in school at the same time.

Issues at McLean are exaggerated.

Do you hate all kids, or just McLean kids? Because there's a lot of animosity in your post.

According to the latest CIP, McLean will be the most overcrowded HS in FCPS in five years measured by enrollment vs. the number of permanent seats. Since it will also have the fewest permanent seats of any HS/SS, and is also in a high-growth area, it's reasonable to ask FCPS to come up with a plan (for example, an updated renovation queue) to address that in due course that doesn't involving "shipping" more kids off to other schools, larger class sizes, or split shifts.

My kid attends Marshall, plays sports and is oblivious to most things. But even DC notices how run down McLean HS is compared to the other schools in the Liberty District. Granted, that pulls in the 3 Arlington HS, but going from Langley to Marshall to McLean it is quite obvious that one has been quite neglected compared to the rest. Now layer in the Tysons growth, and there's only so much more McLean can take.

If McLean can take no more, then perhaps we should send some kids from McLean to Mt. Vernon. After all, the distance from McLean HS to MVHS is about the same as western Great Falls to Langley, so the precedent is set that it is not an unreasonable commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

I want them to use available seats before expanding schools. There are cases where this has been ignored when the schools are adjacent. Nobody is talking about sending kids across the county.

And I don't think our blue county would like to admit why some schools are avoided.

Your argumemt makes zero sense


Construction, renovation and expansion is a multi year process, sometimes decades in the making.

Waiting to start the process of expansion until all open seats are filled is just stupid and incredibly ignorant of what is involved in a renovation.

The only acceptable option is to expand high schools whenever a school hits the scheduled full renovation.

Anything else is just a silly, emotional idea based off temper tantrums, wasteful ideas and selfishness.

NO MORE EXPANSIONS!

Umm, so what would you do about the McLean overcrowding? Esp since Fairfax County is focusing growth on Tysons. There's only so many more students that the neighboring HS can take...

I’m serious. Ship them to Langley or another nearby school, or double up students in classrooms, or split the day/calendar somehow so that not everyone is in school at the same time.

Issues at McLean are exaggerated.

Do you hate all kids, or just McLean kids? Because there's a lot of animosity in your post.

According to the latest CIP, McLean will be the most overcrowded HS in FCPS in five years measured by enrollment vs. the number of permanent seats. Since it will also have the fewest permanent seats of any HS/SS, and is also in a high-growth area, it's reasonable to ask FCPS to come up with a plan (for example, an updated renovation queue) to address that in due course that doesn't involving "shipping" more kids off to other schools, larger class sizes, or split shifts.

My kid attends Marshall, plays sports and is oblivious to most things. But even DC notices how run down McLean HS is compared to the other schools in the Liberty District. Granted, that pulls in the 3 Arlington HS, but going from Langley to Marshall to McLean it is quite obvious that one has been quite neglected compared to the rest. Now layer in the Tysons growth, and there's only so much more McLean can take.

It looks better now than Falls Church, Langley, and Marshall looked before their renovations. But it’s an aging building that got a cut-rate “renovation” 20 years ago, and the difference between the school and its neighboring schools is or will be stark enough that they need to come up with a plan.

Robyn Lady, the new School Board member, called MHS an “eyesore” at a public meeting earlier this month and, while it’s nice if she was trying to be empathetic, it’s ultimately just an insult if she says something like that in public, unless she actually follows up and does something about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

I want them to use available seats before expanding schools. There are cases where this has been ignored when the schools are adjacent. Nobody is talking about sending kids across the county.

And I don't think our blue county would like to admit why some schools are avoided.

Your argumemt makes zero sense


Construction, renovation and expansion is a multi year process, sometimes decades in the making.

Waiting to start the process of expansion until all open seats are filled is just stupid and incredibly ignorant of what is involved in a renovation.

The only acceptable option is to expand high schools whenever a school hits the scheduled full renovation.

Anything else is just a silly, emotional idea based off temper tantrums, wasteful ideas and selfishness.

NO MORE EXPANSIONS!

Umm, so what would you do about the McLean overcrowding? Esp since Fairfax County is focusing growth on Tysons. There's only so many more students that the neighboring HS can take...

I’m serious. Ship them to Langley or another nearby school, or double up students in classrooms, or split the day/calendar somehow so that not everyone is in school at the same time.

Issues at McLean are exaggerated.

Do you hate all kids, or just McLean kids? Because there's a lot of animosity in your post.

According to the latest CIP, McLean will be the most overcrowded HS in FCPS in five years measured by enrollment vs. the number of permanent seats. Since it will also have the fewest permanent seats of any HS/SS, and is also in a high-growth area, it's reasonable to ask FCPS to come up with a plan (for example, an updated renovation queue) to address that in due course that doesn't involving "shipping" more kids off to other schools, larger class sizes, or split shifts.

My kid attends Marshall, plays sports and is oblivious to most things. But even DC notices how run down McLean HS is compared to the other schools in the Liberty District. Granted, that pulls in the 3 Arlington HS, but going from Langley to Marshall to McLean it is quite obvious that one has been quite neglected compared to the rest. Now layer in the Tysons growth, and there's only so much more McLean can take.

If McLean can take no more, then perhaps we should send some kids from McLean to Mt. Vernon. After all, the distance from McLean HS to MVHS is about the same as western Great Falls to Langley, so the precedent is set that it is not an unreasonable commute.

the distance may be the same, but the commute time would be longer. Why move them that far when two contiguous HS are or will be under enrolled. Falls Church HS will be ready soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

I want them to use available seats before expanding schools. There are cases where this has been ignored when the schools are adjacent. Nobody is talking about sending kids across the county.

And I don't think our blue county would like to admit why some schools are avoided.

Your argumemt makes zero sense


Construction, renovation and expansion is a multi year process, sometimes decades in the making.

Waiting to start the process of expansion until all open seats are filled is just stupid and incredibly ignorant of what is involved in a renovation.

The only acceptable option is to expand high schools whenever a school hits the scheduled full renovation.

Anything else is just a silly, emotional idea based off temper tantrums, wasteful ideas and selfishness.

NO MORE EXPANSIONS!

Umm, so what would you do about the McLean overcrowding? Esp since Fairfax County is focusing growth on Tysons. There's only so many more students that the neighboring HS can take...

I’m serious. Ship them to Langley or another nearby school, or double up students in classrooms, or split the day/calendar somehow so that not everyone is in school at the same time.

Issues at McLean are exaggerated.

Do you hate all kids, or just McLean kids? Because there's a lot of animosity in your post.

According to the latest CIP, McLean will be the most overcrowded HS in FCPS in five years measured by enrollment vs. the number of permanent seats. Since it will also have the fewest permanent seats of any HS/SS, and is also in a high-growth area, it's reasonable to ask FCPS to come up with a plan (for example, an updated renovation queue) to address that in due course that doesn't involving "shipping" more kids off to other schools, larger class sizes, or split shifts.

My kid attends Marshall, plays sports and is oblivious to most things. But even DC notices how run down McLean HS is compared to the other schools in the Liberty District. Granted, that pulls in the 3 Arlington HS, but going from Langley to Marshall to McLean it is quite obvious that one has been quite neglected compared to the rest. Now layer in the Tysons growth, and there's only so much more McLean can take.

If McLean can take no more, then perhaps we should send some kids from McLean to Mt. Vernon. After all, the distance from McLean HS to MVHS is about the same as western Great Falls to Langley, so the precedent is set that it is not an unreasonable commute.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Seems to me if you really wanted more kids at Mount Vernon, you should have killed the West Potomac expansion to 3000 seats. Trying to make amends for that now by bypassing the Falls Church, Annandale, Edison, and Hayfield boundaries to move kids at a school with fewer than 2000 permanent seats to MVHS is obviously ludicrous, but you know that.

Say what you will about the Langley boundaries, but at least they are contiguous and generally track Georgetown Pike.

[Anonymous]

Ive voted against every CIP bond. I can’t help how other people vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

I want them to use available seats before expanding schools. There are cases where this has been ignored when the schools are adjacent. Nobody is talking about sending kids across the county.

And I don't think our blue county would like to admit why some schools are avoided.

Your argumemt makes zero sense


Construction, renovation and expansion is a multi year process, sometimes decades in the making.

Waiting to start the process of expansion until all open seats are filled is just stupid and incredibly ignorant of what is involved in a renovation.

The only acceptable option is to expand high schools whenever a school hits the scheduled full renovation.

Anything else is just a silly, emotional idea based off temper tantrums, wasteful ideas and selfishness.

NO MORE EXPANSIONS!

DP. Stop throwing tantrums. When a school is scheduled for renovation - and there is space available - it makes perfect fiscal sense to expand it as well. Population ebbs and flows and it's foolish and shortsighted not to expand when you have the chance to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

Yeah the board decided in 2019 that what made some schools undesirable is too many poor kids and wanted to rearrange schools to make them close enough in poverty percentage that it would discourage parents with options from moving to be in a certain zone.

They didn’t “decide” anything relating to boundaries in 2019 other than to retain an outside consultant to advise on “best practices” relating to boundary adjustments so that they could put off any further discussion of the topic until after the fall 2019 School Board elections.

Tell that to someone who didn’t watch the work sessions, and who didn’t also see them conclude that many white people, (no matter how progressive lol) will avoid a school that is not white enough to suit them.