FCPS HS Boundary

[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.

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.

Your earlier post: "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."

In 2018 and early 2019, there were several work sessions where individual Board members made statements along the lines you suggested, namely that some parents will avoid schools with high FARMS percentages and that, if boundaries were adjusted to reduce the differences in FARMS percentages among schools, parents would be less likely to favor some schools over others.

But these were statements from individual Board members who are no longer on the Board and they never "decided" anything. They were talking about a potential revision to FCPS's boundary "policy" as a prelude to future boundary adjustments and they never even got around to amending the policy. Instead, after some parents and community members vocally objected, they decided to hire a third-party consultant to provide feedback on "best practices" relating to boundary adjustments, and many believe they did so in order to take the issue "off the table" in the months leading up to the fall 2019 School Board elections. That consultant collected a bunch of information on boundary policies in other school systems, conducted some outreach sessions in which most participants reiterated that they preferred expanding schools as needed rather than changing boundaries, and provided its findings to FCPS.

So it's not clear what you think the significance is now of the discussions back in 2018 and early 2019. If your point is that some Democrats on the School Board might like to change boundaries in order to alter school demographics, OK, but they've not gotten very far down that path (and the obstacles are significant, as would be the opposition). On the other hand, if you're claiming that they've already made a "decision" that they now merely have to execute, that's a big overstatement.

[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!

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.

No. Population is trending down in the countries is a colossal waste of money to expand automatically when there is a renovation.
Obviously some schools should be expanded and , maybe some need to be closed and the buildings sold. If the utilization of government schools continues to trend down the county could put the revenue from sales into the schools.

[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.

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.

Your earlier post: "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."

In 2018 and early 2019, there were several work sessions where individual Board members made statements along the lines you suggested, namely that some parents will avoid schools with high FARMS percentages and that, if boundaries were adjusted to reduce the differences in FARMS percentages among schools, parents would be less likely to favor some schools over others.

But these were statements from individual Board members who are no longer on the Board and they never "decided" anything. They were talking about a potential revision to FCPS's boundary "policy" as a prelude to future boundary adjustments and they never even got around to amending the policy. Instead, after some parents and community members vocally objected, they decided to hire a third-party consultant to provide feedback on "best practices" relating to boundary adjustments, and many believe they did so in order to take the issue "off the table" in the months leading up to the fall 2019 School Board elections. That consultant collected a bunch of information on boundary policies in other school systems, conducted some outreach sessions in which most participants reiterated that they preferred expanding schools as needed rather than changing boundaries, and provided its findings to FCPS.

So it's not clear what you think the significance is now of the discussions back in 2018 and early 2019. If your point is that some Democrats on the School Board might like to change boundaries in order to alter school demographics, OK, but they've not gotten very far down that path (and the obstacles are significant, as would be the opposition). On the other hand, if you're claiming that they've already made a "decision" that they now merely have to execute, that's a big overstatement.

“Concluded” is the more accurate term.

What they decide to do with the knowledge is something else.

The most likely scenario is that they make a good deal of noise about “diversity, inclusion and equity” “belonging” , bemoan “privilege” and resolve to “educate” the public and encourage them to “do the work on their istophobia”
And end up tinkering around the edges, pissing a few neighborhoods off with an unwanted reboundary but leaving things largely similar to the status quo.

After all, middle and upper middle class democrats talk a lot of ish but when it comes to school boundaries, they are the same as their republican neighbors.

[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!

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.

No. Population is trending down in the countries is a colossal waste of money to expand automatically when there is a renovation.
Obviously some schools should be expanded and , maybe some need to be closed and the buildings sold. If the utilization of government schools continues to trend down the county could put the revenue from sales into the schools.

DP.

1. Population in the county is trending up again, not down. See population estimates for 7/1/23 vs. 7/1/22.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fairfaxcountyvirginia/PST045223

2. Enrollment in FCPS is trending up again, not down. See 182,482 students in 2/24 vs. 181,628 in 2/23.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/performance-and-accountability/student-reporting

3. Moreover, population growth is uneven in the county. Traditionally, the county has looked to meet the needs of growing areas by expanding school capacity in those areas and, if necessary, closing schools in other areas. If there are any schools that need to be closed in the future, it would most likely be elementary schools, not middle or high schools. In addition, even if schools were closed, FCPS might want to retain the sites, because it won't be easy to find land in the future if they want to open new schools or reopen closed ones.

[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.

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.

Your earlier post: "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."

In 2018 and early 2019, there were several work sessions where individual Board members made statements along the lines you suggested, namely that some parents will avoid schools with high FARMS percentages and that, if boundaries were adjusted to reduce the differences in FARMS percentages among schools, parents would be less likely to favor some schools over others.

But these were statements from individual Board members who are no longer on the Board and they never "decided" anything. They were talking about a potential revision to FCPS's boundary "policy" as a prelude to future boundary adjustments and they never even got around to amending the policy. Instead, after some parents and community members vocally objected, they decided to hire a third-party consultant to provide feedback on "best practices" relating to boundary adjustments, and many believe they did so in order to take the issue "off the table" in the months leading up to the fall 2019 School Board elections. That consultant collected a bunch of information on boundary policies in other school systems, conducted some outreach sessions in which most participants reiterated that they preferred expanding schools as needed rather than changing boundaries, and provided its findings to FCPS.

So it's not clear what you think the significance is now of the discussions back in 2018 and early 2019. If your point is that some Democrats on the School Board might like to change boundaries in order to alter school demographics, OK, but they've not gotten very far down that path (and the obstacles are significant, as would be the opposition). On the other hand, if you're claiming that they've already made a "decision" that they now merely have to execute, that's a big overstatement.

“Concluded” is the more accurate term.

What they decide to do with the knowledge is something else.

The most likely scenario is that they make a good deal of noise about “diversity, inclusion and equity” “belonging” , bemoan “privilege” and resolve to “educate” the public and encourage them to “do the work on their istophobia”
And end up tinkering around the edges, pissing a few neighborhoods off with an unwanted reboundary but leaving things largely similar to the status quo.

After all, middle and upper middle class democrats talk a lot of ish but when it comes to school boundaries, they are the same as their republican neighbors.

They didn't "conclude" on anything either. That's no better a word here than "decide."

There's no shortage of istophobes in FCPS, but they aren't especially good managers, so they are better at talking than executing.

[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.

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.

Did the school board conclude that? Or is that what you wanted them to conclude?

Serious question for you: why do you live in relatively affluent Fairfax County? I would have thought with your views that you’d want to live in an area of the country with higher pockets of poverty. For that matter, why do you live in the US? Shouldn’t your definition of a loyal progressive compel you to move your family to a third world country? Why do your views on progressivism stop at the point where it suits you?

[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!

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.

No. Population is trending down in the countries is a colossal waste of money to expand automatically when there is a renovation.
Obviously some schools should be expanded and , maybe some need to be closed and the buildings sold. If the utilization of government schools continues to trend down the county could put the revenue from sales into the schools.

It would be better to co-locate Gatehouse folks in some schools, and sell Gatehouse.

[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!

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.

No. Population is trending down in the countries is a colossal waste of money to expand automatically when there is a renovation.
Obviously some schools should be expanded and , maybe some need to be closed and the buildings sold. If the utilization of government schools continues to trend down the county could put the revenue from sales into the schools.

Quit trying to make fetch happen.

[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.

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.

Did the school board conclude that? Or is that what you wanted them to conclude?

Serious question for you: why do you live in relatively affluent Fairfax County? I would have thought with your views that you’d want to live in an area of the country with higher pockets of poverty. For that matter, why do you live in the US? Shouldn’t your definition of a loyal progressive compel you to move your family to a third world country? Why do your views on progressivism stop at the point where it suits you?

+100
People who are arrogant enough to opine where OTHER people’s kids should attend school should be required to send their own kids to Lewis, Mt. Vernon, etc.

[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!

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.

No. Population is trending down in the countries is a colossal waste of money to expand automatically when there is a renovation.
Obviously some schools should be expanded and , maybe some need to be closed and the buildings sold. If the utilization of government schools continues to trend down the county could put the revenue from sales into the schools.

Quit trying to make fetch happen.

+1
The PP is relentless. Glad she’s not in charge of anything to do with our schools. How incredibly shortsighted.

[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.

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.

Did the school board conclude that? Or is that what you wanted them to conclude?

Serious question for you: why do you live in relatively affluent Fairfax County? I would have thought with your views that you’d want to live in an area of the country with higher pockets of poverty. For that matter, why do you live in the US? Shouldn’t your definition of a loyal progressive compel you to move your family to a third world country? Why do your views on progressivism stop at the point where it suits you?

So ready to be mad about something that you fail to understand what you are reading.

[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!

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.

No. Population is trending down in the countries is a colossal waste of money to expand automatically when there is a renovation.
Obviously some schools should be expanded and , maybe some need to be closed and the buildings sold. If the utilization of government schools continues to trend down the county could put the revenue from sales into the schools.

It would be better to co-locate Gatehouse folks in some schools, and sell Gatehouse.

Now that’s some creative problem solving.

[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.

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.

Did the school board conclude that? Or is that what you wanted them to conclude?

Serious question for you: why do you live in relatively affluent Fairfax County? I would have thought with your views that you’d want to live in an area of the country with higher pockets of poverty. For that matter, why do you live in the US? Shouldn’t your definition of a loyal progressive compel you to move your family to a third world country? Why do your views on progressivism stop at the point where it suits you?

+100
People who are arrogant enough to opine where OTHER people’s kids should attend school should be required to send their own kids to Lewis, Mt. Vernon, etc.

The very fact that this is a common rebuttal on this forum (that sending kids to MV, Lewis, or the low-income pyramids is a punishment), demonstrates that we admit FCPS is failing the kids and families at those pyramids and action is needed. If not boundaries then funding.

[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.

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.

Did the school board conclude that? Or is that what you wanted them to conclude?

Serious question for you: why do you live in relatively affluent Fairfax County? I would have thought with your views that you’d want to live in an area of the country with higher pockets of poverty. For that matter, why do you live in the US? Shouldn’t your definition of a loyal progressive compel you to move your family to a third world country? Why do your views on progressivism stop at the point where it suits you?

So ready to be mad about something that you fail to understand what you are reading.

Ah yes, I’m the mad one, not you and your vitriol against white FCPS parents. I noticed you didn’t answer the question though - cognitive dissonance is powerful.

[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.

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.

Did the school board conclude that? Or is that what you wanted them to conclude?

Serious question for you: why do you live in relatively affluent Fairfax County? I would have thought with your views that you’d want to live in an area of the country with higher pockets of poverty. For that matter, why do you live in the US? Shouldn’t your definition of a loyal progressive compel you to move your family to a third world country? Why do your views on progressivism stop at the point where it suits you?

+100
People who are arrogant enough to opine where OTHER people’s kids should attend school should be required to send their own kids to Lewis, Mt. Vernon, etc.

Why should anyone have an issue with those schools? You seem to be insinuating they are not good.