FCPS School Board candidates in Dranesville

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will be able to point to the new policy and say that they have to follow the rules, they were studying McLean all along and since the process wasn't finished the two schools have to be considered in the new policy.

I can be indignant that the School Board didn't plan better and allowed McLean to get overcrowded, or expanded Langley when it was McLean that actually needed the addition.

I can be relieved that the Board is finally taking steps to address the overcrowding and, hopefully, balance the enrollments starting next fall.

What I won't do is assume the worst-case scenario merely because some right-wing groups make stuff up and think that might be a path to getting some R candidates elected to lower-level positions when they aren't competitive in other state and local contests.

It's a myth that this is just right wing parents who are upset. Listen to the Board members at those work sessions. Don't be deceived. Your child could be bused out of your own community. It's not just busing in, it is also busing out. And, it won't be limited to high schools.

The policy should be:
capacity
commute time
distance
community
SES

Yawn.

What the SB was contemplating appropriately would have made capacity the threshold issue (i.e. is a school significantly overenrolled or below capacity).

Only then would they consider a boundary change, and look at factors similar to those identified here (SES, commute time, distance, community). They wouldn't and shouldn't make a fetish out of contiguous boundaries, as avoiding or eliminating attendance islands might conflict with other considerations that deserve equal or greater attention.

Much ado...

[Anonymous]

Yawn.

What the SB was contemplating appropriately would have made capacity the threshold issue (i.e. is a school significantly overenrolled or below capacity).

Only then would they consider a boundary change, and look at factors similar to those identified here (SES, commute time, distance, community). They wouldn't and shouldn't make a fetish out of contiguous boundaries, as avoiding or eliminating attendance islands might conflict with other considerations that deserve equal or greater attention.

Much ado...

Yawn all you want. You put SES first after capacity--and so did they. And, they were also implying there would be county wide redistricting which would eliminate capacity as #1. In fact, capacity was not #1 on their list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yawn.

What the SB was contemplating appropriately would have made capacity the threshold issue (i.e. is a school significantly overenrolled or below capacity).

Only then would they consider a boundary change, and look at factors similar to those identified here (SES, commute time, distance, community). They wouldn't and shouldn't make a fetish out of contiguous boundaries, as avoiding or eliminating attendance islands might conflict with other considerations that deserve equal or greater attention.

Much ado...

Yawn all you want. You put SES first after capacity--and so did they. And, they were also implying there would be county wide redistricting which would eliminate capacity as #1. In fact, capacity was not #1 on their list.

Several Board and staff members were fairly explicit at the July work session that SES and other considerations only kicked in after a decision had already been made that a boundary change was needed for capacity reasons.

[Anonymous]

Yes, once they open a boundary they are free to put rearranging students by demographics and their number one concern.

And they have been planning to open all boundaries (countywide plans, remember. Someone posted it here).

Wonder what the outcome could possibly be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, once they open a boundary they are free to put rearranging students by demographics and their number one concern.

And they have been planning to open all boundaries (countywide plans, remember. Someone posted it here).

Wonder what the outcome could possibly be?

I'm shaking now just thinking about what might happen if they decide to send the "wrong" kids from McLean to Langley...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, once they open a boundary they are free to put rearranging students by demographics and their number one concern.

And they have been planning to open all boundaries (countywide plans, remember. Someone posted it here).

Wonder what the outcome could possibly be?

I'm shaking now just thinking about what might happen if they decide to send the "wrong" kids from McLean to Langley...

Why do you think it is limited to Langley and McLean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current board let McLean stay overcrowded.

In fact, they INSISTED on it.

Pat hynes is on video at the 05-13-2019 video agreeing to proceed with boundary studies for a few elementary schools as long as the board "holds itself accountable" for no new studies until "the process is improved strategically" (until the policy is revised)

That is what the school board referred to as the Nuclear Option, in their words, a complete boundary shakeup like we are seeing in Howard county. I wonder how McLean to Langley change got hastened?

[Anonymous]

More fear mongering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More fear mongering?

Of course.

It's beyond bizarre and I wonder if it will backfire, since the Democrats are easily going to retain control of the School Board, regardless of who gets elected in Dranesville. Maybe they really will stick it to Langley after the election just to send them a message.

[Anonymous]

Why couldn't brabrand say "one Fairfax" to the meeting of PTA presidents and in his email to parents?

Why pretend this is about overcrowding and trailers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More fear mongering?

+1. DCUM has been overrun with hysterics and fear mongering about FCPS boundaries. It’s unlike anything I’ve seen on here with respect to FCPS and I’ve seen a lot of controversial topics in FCPS over the last dozen years. I can only assume these folks will start talking about caravans and moats filled with alligators next.

[Anonymous]

I'm so disappointed in the school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More fear mongering?

+1. DCUM has been overrun with hysterics and fear mongering about FCPS boundaries. It’s unlike anything I’ve seen on here with respect to FCPS and I’ve seen a lot of controversial topics in FCPS over the last dozen years. I can only assume these folks will start talking about caravans and moats filled with alligators next.

Ever been through a boundary adjustment/redistricting? Doesn't sound like it. People generally want to stay put. It might surprise you that "poor" people want to stay put, as well. People on here talk like "poor people" would be thrilled to have their kids bused to a better school. Here's a little information: they want to stay in their communities, too.

[Anonymous]

No one is moving anyone yet but the way these posters tell it, imminent redistributing based on demographics is happening. It’s not and it’s dishonest for people to keep
Posting these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More fear mongering?

+1. DCUM has been overrun with hysterics and fear mongering about FCPS boundaries. It’s unlike anything I’ve seen on here with respect to FCPS and I’ve seen a lot of controversial topics in FCPS over the last dozen years. I can only assume these folks will start talking about caravans and moats filled with alligators next.

Ever been through a boundary adjustment/redistricting? Doesn't sound like it. People generally want to stay put. It might surprise you that "poor" people want to stay put, as well. People on here talk like "poor people" would be thrilled to have their kids bused to a better school. Here's a little information: they want to stay in their communities, too.

DP, but it’s part of the hysteria and fear mongering to which PP referred to suggest that their are imminent, far-reaching plans to bus kids, rich or poor, far from their current schools. I’d call them “community schools,” but for the fact that, if we are being honest, we all know many FCPS students already attend schools outside their immediate communities. There’s no better example of that than the Great Falls students who are bused 12 miles from their homes to attend middle and high schools in McLean.