Sandy Anderson email

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, FCPS is looking thru their equity lens; this a part of the great plan to boost achievement and of course lessen the FARMS numbers. I hope parents refuse to accept this arrangement.

They will. I think sandy has gotten hundreds of emails and there are parent FB groups to band together.

This is going to get very messy and very ugly.

No it isn't. If you watched the meeting, there were about 100 viewing and a room full of Langley parents not wanting to get shifted to Herndon. They all had the same signs and reactions. Nobody cares about any of this except Hunt Valley families. In fact, Forestville folks can almost breathe a little easier because there is no way they would move them if they don't move Hunt Valley.

If maps are drawn that places HV or any West Springfield elementary at Lewis, you don’t think it’s going to get ugly from those parents. It’s not just HV that cares. WS and Keene Mill parents are also watching closely.

WS and Keene are safe. If you know, you know.

No I don’t know. Why?

If HV is moved then they are just creating another attendance island which they wanted to eliminate.

Nope. HV is contiguous with Saratoga, which feeds to Lewis. It would not create an attendance island.

It’s also contiguous with SC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually living under Democrats policy is very different than just voting for Democrats, putting up your "all are welcome" yard signs, but then never actually having those policies impact your life.

Now that open borders are tanking our schools AND some are being forced to actually send their kids to those tanked schools, it's a horse of a different color. I say bring on the vouchers if nothing is going to be done to stop the flow. And I say this as someone who has always supported public schools over private.

This! I have been amused by reactions from those in my neighborhood who previously enjoyed virtue signaling the "love is love, no person is illegal, science is real" yard signs, but who now sing a different tune upon hearing their child may have to go to a school with a high ESOL population. There's a huge gap between what they are willing to say and what they are willing to do. I think this represents much of the left leaning Fairfax UMC: I want others to be helped, so long as it doesn't impact me or my loved ones.

Eh, whatever.

Be amused, but the pushback comes from having the cost fall directly on particular kids. I still don’t principally object to well-funded schools, just to kids being used as resources for equitable gains.

And it isn’t like the book banning crowd has provided a compelling alternative.

Why do we have to be one extreme or the other?

But the burden has always fallen on American kids somewhere. You're only mad now because it's YOUR kids as well as THEIR kids. That's the comedy in this. You can't virtue signal without any skin in the game anymore.

Funny, I always figured taxes are my skin in the game, not my kids. It sounds like you think we should screw certain kids over in the name of equity.

Gross.

Some kids were already getting screwed over. Their parent pay taxes too. You only care now because your own kids might also be screwed too. That's what is gross here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually living under Democrats policy is very different than just voting for Democrats, putting up your "all are welcome" yard signs, but then never actually having those policies impact your life.

Now that open borders are tanking our schools AND some are being forced to actually send their kids to those tanked schools, it's a horse of a different color. I say bring on the vouchers if nothing is going to be done to stop the flow. And I say this as someone who has always supported public schools over private.

This! I have been amused by reactions from those in my neighborhood who previously enjoyed virtue signaling the "love is love, no person is illegal, science is real" yard signs, but who now sing a different tune upon hearing their child may have to go to a school with a high ESOL population. There's a huge gap between what they are willing to say and what they are willing to do. I think this represents much of the left leaning Fairfax UMC: I want others to be helped, so long as it doesn't impact me or my loved ones.

Eh, whatever.

Be amused, but the pushback comes from having the cost fall directly on particular kids. I still don’t principally object to well-funded schools, just to kids being used as resources for equitable gains.

And it isn’t like the book banning crowd has provided a compelling alternative.

Why do we have to be one extreme or the other?

But the burden has always fallen on American kids somewhere. You're only mad now because it's YOUR kids as well as THEIR kids. That's the comedy in this. You can't virtue signal without any skin in the game anymore.

Funny, I always figured taxes are my skin in the game, not my kids. It sounds like you think we should screw certain kids over in the name of equity.

Gross.

Some kids were already getting screwed over. Their parent pay taxes too. You only care now because your own kids might also be screwed too. That's what is gross here.

Da, comrade. What. A. Joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually living under Democrats policy is very different than just voting for Democrats, putting up your "all are welcome" yard signs, but then never actually having those policies impact your life.

Now that open borders are tanking our schools AND some are being forced to actually send their kids to those tanked schools, it's a horse of a different color. I say bring on the vouchers if nothing is going to be done to stop the flow. And I say this as someone who has always supported public schools over private.

This! I have been amused by reactions from those in my neighborhood who previously enjoyed virtue signaling the "love is love, no person is illegal, science is real" yard signs, but who now sing a different tune upon hearing their child may have to go to a school with a high ESOL population. There's a huge gap between what they are willing to say and what they are willing to do. I think this represents much of the left leaning Fairfax UMC: I want others to be helped, so long as it doesn't impact me or my loved ones.

Eh, whatever.

Be amused, but the pushback comes from having the cost fall directly on particular kids. I still don’t principally object to well-funded schools, just to kids being used as resources for equitable gains.

And it isn’t like the book banning crowd has provided a compelling alternative.

Why do we have to be one extreme or the other?

But the burden has always fallen on American kids somewhere. You're only mad now because it's YOUR kids as well as THEIR kids. That's the comedy in this. You can't virtue signal without any skin in the game anymore.

Funny, I always figured taxes are my skin in the game, not my kids. It sounds like you think we should screw certain kids over in the name of equity.

Gross.

That’s literally what equity is about. Anyone got that baseball game picture with the crates and the fence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Herndon is nowhere remotely close to losing accreditation. Those are just falsehoods spread by Great Falls residents who don’t want district boundaries changed.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/3110860/fairfax-county-high-schools-likely-lose-accreditation-under-virginias-standards/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Herndon is nowhere remotely close to losing accreditation. Those are just falsehoods spread by Great Falls residents who don’t want district boundaries changed.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/3110860/fairfax-county-high-schools-likely-lose-accreditation-under-virginias-standards/

PP should have added “Republican operatives” although many of them live in Great Falls as well.

The author of that piece traffics in rumors, not facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Herndon is nowhere remotely close to losing accreditation. Those are just falsehoods spread by Great Falls residents who don’t want district boundaries changed.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/3110860/fairfax-county-high-schools-likely-lose-accreditation-under-virginias-standards/

PP should have added “Republican operatives” although many of them live in Great Falls as well.

The author of that piece traffics in rumors, not facts.

Even if you were right, I’d trust her rumors over the school board’s outright deception (e.g., we don’t have any specific boundary changes in mind) any day of the week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually living under Democrats policy is very different than just voting for Democrats, putting up your "all are welcome" yard signs, but then never actually having those policies impact your life.

Now that open borders are tanking our schools AND some are being forced to actually send their kids to those tanked schools, it's a horse of a different color. I say bring on the vouchers if nothing is going to be done to stop the flow. And I say this as someone who has always supported public schools over private.

Where and when I was growing up the local privates were religious schools, and at the high school level had less to offer academically.
As (some) public schools tanked and more parents removed their children and enrolled them in private, the privates were able to expand their offerings and now parents with extra money—or willing to make sacrifices— send them to those or they move in bounds for the publics that are still performing.
I wonder if “equity boundaries” have reached my hometown yet. These ideas and policies are pushed in a state and local level by different organizations so if not, it’s a matter of time.

Fixed it. Meant to type “tanked.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually living under Democrats policy is very different than just voting for Democrats, putting up your "all are welcome" yard signs, but then never actually having those policies impact your life.

Now that open borders are tanking our schools AND some are being forced to actually send their kids to those tanked schools, it's a horse of a different color. I say bring on the vouchers if nothing is going to be done to stop the flow. And I say this as someone who has always supported public schools over private.

This! I have been amused by reactions from those in my neighborhood who previously enjoyed virtue signaling the "love is love, no person is illegal, science is real" yard signs, but who now sing a different tune upon hearing their child may have to go to a school with a high ESOL population. There's a huge gap between what they are willing to say and what they are willing to do. I think this represents much of the left leaning Fairfax UMC: I want others to be helped, so long as it doesn't impact me or my loved ones.

Eh, whatever.

Be amused, but the pushback comes from having the cost fall directly on particular kids. I still don’t principally object to well-funded schools, just to kids being used as resources for equitable gains.

And it isn’t like the book banning crowdhas provided a compelling alternative.

Why do we have to be one extreme or the other?

Wanting to keep books with graphic sex illustrations out of public school is hardly the same as preventing the public from buying them for their own collections, and it’s more than a little disturbing that dem leadership insists that this material be made widely available to minors.

Luckily for democrats, their propaganda has been largely successful and most parents haven’t seen the books at issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, FCPS is looking thru their equity lens; this a part of the great plan to boost achievement and of course lessen the FARMS numbers. I hope parents refuse to accept this arrangement.

They will. I think sandy has gotten hundreds of emails and there are parent FB groups to band together.

This is going to get very messy and very ugly.

No it isn't. If you watched the meeting, there were about 100 viewing and a room full of Langley parents not wanting to get shifted to Herndon. They all had the same signs and reactions. Nobody cares about any of this except Hunt Valley families. In fact, Forestville folks can almost breathe a little easier because there is no way they would move them if they don't move Hunt Valley.

If maps are drawn that places HV or any West Springfield elementary at Lewis, you don’t think it’s going to get ugly from those parents. It’s not just HV that cares. WS and Keene Mill parents are also watching closely.

WS and Keene are safe. If you know, you know.

But wasn’t WSES the one that got gerrymandered OUT of Pat Herrity’s magisterial district? It was discussed in the old thread. There was something very fishy going on there.

Yes, only the “walkers” to Irving MS stayed in the Springfield SB District. The rest of WSES was redistricted to Franconia SB District (where Lewis is). It’s not too hard to see what the plan is. The eastern neighborhoods of WSES are closer to Lewis than WSHS. Except for a few streets that are “walker” distance to Irving MS, moving WSES reduces overcrowding as WSHS and Irving MS, satisfies the “transportation” requirements in the new policy and helps the equity goals of the SB.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the southern HVES neighborhood south of the parkway was also broken off and added to their neighboring ES and fed into SoCo HS freeing up space in HVES to fix overcrowding as HVES and OHES (eliminating the trailers at both schools, another stated SB goal) while allowing both schools the capacity they need to bring AAP4 in-house at the schools (another stated SB goal).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But wasn’t WSES the one that got gerrymandered OUT of Pat Herrity’s magisterial district? It was discussed in the old thread. There was something very fishy going on there.

Yes, only the “walkers” to Irving MS stayed in the Springfield SB District. The rest of WSES was redistricted to Franconia SB District (where Lewis is). It’s not too hard to see what the plan is. The eastern neighborhoods of WSES are closer to Lewis than WSHS. Except for a few streets that are “walker” distance to Irving MS, moving WSES reduces overcrowding as WSHS and Irving MS, satisfies the “transportation” requirements in the new policy and helps the equity goals of the SB.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the southern HVES neighborhood south of the parkway was also broken off and added to their neighboring ES and fed into SoCo HS freeing up space in HVES to fix overcrowding as HVES and OHES (eliminating the trailers at both schools, another stated SB goal) while allowing both schools the capacity they need to bring AAP4 in-house at the schools (another stated SB goal).

I live in this area and your predictions make total sense to me. But that doesn’t mean the School Board agrees. I don’t trust them to make any sort of predictable or sensible decisions. And I really feel for all the families that may be impacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But wasn’t WSES the one that got gerrymandered OUT of Pat Herrity’s magisterial district? It was discussed in the old thread. There was something very fishy going on there.

Yes, only the “walkers” to Irving MS stayed in the Springfield SB District. The rest of WSES was redistricted to Franconia SB District (where Lewis is). It’s not too hard to see what the plan is. The eastern neighborhoods of WSES are closer to Lewis than WSHS. Except for a few streets that are “walker” distance to Irving MS, moving WSES reduces overcrowding as WSHS and Irving MS, satisfies the “transportation” requirements in the new policy and helps the equity goals of the SB.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the southern HVES neighborhood south of the parkway was also broken off and added to their neighboring ES and fed into SoCo HS freeing up space in HVES to fix overcrowding as HVES and OHES (eliminating the trailers at both schools, another stated SB goal) while allowing both schools the capacity they need to bring AAP4 in-house at the schools (another stated SB goal).

I live in this area and your predictions make total sense to me. But that doesn’t mean the School Board agrees. I don’t trust them to make any sort of predictable or sensible decisions. And I really feel for all the families that may be impacted.

They won’t move them to Newington Forest if they shift those families out. They will be Saratoga.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But wasn’t WSES the one that got gerrymandered OUT of Pat Herrity’s magisterial district? It was discussed in the old thread. There was something very fishy going on there.

Yes, only the “walkers” to Irving MS stayed in the Springfield SB District. The rest of WSES was redistricted to Franconia SB District (where Lewis is). It’s not too hard to see what the plan is. The eastern neighborhoods of WSES are closer to Lewis than WSHS. Except for a few streets that are “walker” distance to Irving MS, moving WSES reduces overcrowding as WSHS and Irving MS, satisfies the “transportation” requirements in the new policy and helps the equity goals of the SB.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the southern HVES neighborhood south of the parkway was also broken off and added to their neighboring ES and fed into SoCo HS freeing up space in HVES to fix overcrowding as HVES and OHES (eliminating the trailers at both schools, another stated SB goal) while allowing both schools the capacity they need to bring AAP4 in-house at the schools (another stated SB goal).

I live in this area and your predictions make total sense to me. But that doesn’t mean the School Board agrees. I don’t trust them to make any sort of predictable or sensible decisions. And I really feel for all the families that may be impacted.

They won’t move them to Newington Forest if they shift those families out. They will be Saratoga.

I don’t know that any elementary changes will be made. But we are in the HV area that is 0.7 miles from newington and 1.4 from Saratoga. 1.6 from our current Hunt Valley. There is also a Sangster pocket around the corner from
HV boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But wasn’t WSES the one that got gerrymandered OUT of Pat Herrity’s magisterial district? It was discussed in the old thread. There was something very fishy going on there.

Yes, only the “walkers” to Irving MS stayed in the Springfield SB District. The rest of WSES was redistricted to Franconia SB District (where Lewis is). It’s not too hard to see what the plan is. The eastern neighborhoods of WSES are closer to Lewis than WSHS. Except for a few streets that are “walker” distance to Irving MS, moving WSES reduces overcrowding as WSHS and Irving MS, satisfies the “transportation” requirements in the new policy and helps the equity goals of the SB.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the southern HVES neighborhood south of the parkway was also broken off and added to their neighboring ES and fed into SoCo HS freeing up space in HVES to fix overcrowding as HVES and OHES (eliminating the trailers at both schools, another stated SB goal) while allowing both schools the capacity they need to bring AAP4 in-house at the schools (another stated SB goal).

I live in this area and your predictions make total sense to me. But that doesn’t mean the School Board agrees. I don’t trust them to make any sort of predictable or sensible decisions. And I really feel for all the families that may be impacted.

They won’t move them to Newington Forest if they shift those families out. They will be Saratoga.

I don’t know that either ES could absorb that many students. Both are physically small with 3, maybe 4 classes per grade level. Saratoga also has Pre-K Head Start kids that need to be in smaller class sizes so are probably occupying 2 classrooms. HV south of the parkway doesn’t look like a large area, but the houses are surprisingly well packed in and there are lots of families. But cutting at least some of them out of HV gives a lot more room to adjust boundaries with OH and Sangster and room to put in LLIV at HV/OH, two of the last remaining schools without it.

You could probably cut off the smaller Sangster/LB attendance island behind St. Raymond’s to Newington Forest/South County though without creating too much overcrowding. It would relieve a little pressure at Sangster, but LB doesn’t need to lose any kids at this point. Newington Forest just got a renovation and got rid of their trailers maybe a year or two before Covid and it took years to complete, so I doubt they’d put it in the queue for an expansion at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But wasn’t WSES the one that got gerrymandered OUT of Pat Herrity’s magisterial district? It was discussed in the old thread. There was something very fishy going on there.

Yes, only the “walkers” to Irving MS stayed in the Springfield SB District. The rest of WSES was redistricted to Franconia SB District (where Lewis is). It’s not too hard to see what the plan is. The eastern neighborhoods of WSES are closer to Lewis than WSHS. Except for a few streets that are “walker” distance to Irving MS, moving WSES reduces overcrowding as WSHS and Irving MS, satisfies the “transportation” requirements in the new policy and helps the equity goals of the SB.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the southern HVES neighborhood south of the parkway was also broken off and added to their neighboring ES and fed into SoCo HS freeing up space in HVES to fix overcrowding as HVES and OHES (eliminating the trailers at both schools, another stated SB goal) while allowing both schools the capacity they need to bring AAP4 in-house at the schools (another stated SB goal).

I live in this area and your predictions make total sense to me. But that doesn’t mean the School Board agrees. I don’t trust them to make any sort of predictable or sensible decisions. And I really feel for all the families that may be impacted.

They won’t move them to Newington Forest if they shift those families out. They will be Saratoga.

I don’t know that either ES could absorb that many students. Both are physically small with 3, maybe 4 classes per grade level. Saratoga also has Pre-K Head Start kids that need to be in smaller class sizes so are probably occupying 2 classrooms. HV south of the parkway doesn’t look like a large area, but the houses are surprisingly well packed in and there are lots of families. But cutting at least some of them out of HV gives a lot more room to adjust boundaries with OH and Sangster and room to put in LLIV at HV/OH, two of the last remaining schools without it.

You could probably cut off the smaller Sangster/LB attendance island behind St. Raymond’s to Newington Forest/South County though without creating too much overcrowding. It would relieve a little pressure at Sangster, but LB doesn’t need to lose any kids at this point. Newington Forest just got a renovation and got rid of their trailers maybe a year or two before Covid and it took years to complete, so I doubt they’d put it in the queue for an expansion at this point.

I definitely think it’s not clear cut. If they move the entire HV boundary to Lewis then it’s kind of unfair that kids literally around the corner can stay at LB or WSHS.