FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

So here's the situation as you propose:

FCPS will no longer operate your schools as, effectively, tax-payer funded private-like schools? Your response is to stop funding FCPS.
And if FCPS will allow you to continue attending your private-like schools? Let's make the taxpayers pay even more for your continued self-interest!

DP. Seems like you’re ignoring the fact that Karl Frisch wants to gouge county taxpayers by trying to blackmail them into spending over $85 million on his Dunn Loring ES boondoggle (otherwise other school projects get held up).

Between that and potential boundary changes that are largely unnecessary, it’s entirely reasonable for people to decide they can’t support additional funding for FCPS until there’s a change in direction.

+1
And the more I think about the bolded, the madder I get. Think of what that $85 million could do for FCPS. This SB is absurd.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

So here's the situation as you propose:

FCPS will no longer operate your schools as, effectively, tax-payer funded private-like schools? Your response is to stop funding FCPS.
And if FCPS will allow you to continue attending your private-like schools? Let's make the taxpayers pay even more for your continued self-interest!

DP. This boundary review is going to cost more money than it will ever save.

There are tons of places the budget could be cut and enable them to pay more to the teachers. Start with Nardos King's empire.

+1. That entire group needs to be reassigned to classrooms or terminated.

DP. I vote for terminated - I don't want equity warriors teaching my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time to lobby for charter schools.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

So here's the situation as you propose:

FCPS will no longer operate your schools as, effectively, tax-payer funded private-like schools? Your response is to stop funding FCPS.
And if FCPS will allow you to continue attending your private-like schools? Let's make the taxpayers pay even more for your continued self-interest!

DP. Seems like you’re ignoring the fact that Karl Frisch wants to gouge county taxpayers by trying to blackmail them into spending over $85 million on his Dunn Loring ES boondoggle (otherwise other school projects get held up).

Between that and potential boundary changes that are largely unnecessary, it’s entirely reasonable for people to decide they can’t support additional funding for FCPS until there’s a change in direction.

+1
And the more I think about the bolded, the madder I get. Think of what that $85 million could do for FCPS. This SB is absurd.
DP

It’s the incompetence and venality of people like Karl Frisch that have paved the way for the likes of Trump to take a blowtorch to the federal government and soon the American economy. When you see such obvious waste and corruption at the local level, it’s very easy to assume it exists at other levels of government as well. If only they’d focused on the basics and not launched stupid initiatives like this ill-conceived boundary review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

This is some dumb ass logic bordering. If the SB doesn't do what I want I'm going to hurt my kids more by asking the county to further defund the schools. Unless you have NO actual kids in the schools system, this makes no sense. Which means you're either dumb OR you don't have any kids in the schools now but you're here bugging out about your property value.

I read this to mean PP will pull their kids out of FCPS if there are unacceptable boundary changes and thereafter advocate for FCPS to receive less money. That’s not going to hurt their kids at that point. It might mean folks like PP have a somewhat lower tax burden and pay less for services that do not benefit them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

This is some dumb ass logic bordering. If the SB doesn't do what I want I'm going to hurt my kids more by asking the county to further defund the schools. Unless you have NO actual kids in the schools system, this makes no sense. Which means you're either dumb OR you don't have any kids in the schools now but you're here bugging out about your property value.

I have kids in the school system. It’s perfectly logical. I will support a school system that values my kids, but I will not support a school system that treats them as pawns in their equity game.

We have many options: 1) private school, 2) moving, 3) rent in our desired school district, 4) move to hayfield and play football, etc.

Of course I’d strongly prefer to just stay in the pyramid that we chose. Anyway, it all boils down to my principles - that might be where you are getting confused. To a simple person, it may be “dumb ass logic,” but I feel confident in the approach.

[Anonymous]

I am 100% in agreement with the previous posters logic.

Other than moving my kids to Hayfield, all other options are very much on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% in agreement with the previous posters logic.

Other than moving my kids to Hayfield, all other options are very much on the table.

But the Hayfield approach is the best one, since FCPS blatantly turned a blind eye to the Hayfield scandal and then tried to bury it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

So here's the situation as you propose:

FCPS will no longer operate your schools as, effectively, tax-payer funded private-like schools? Your response is to stop funding FCPS.
And if FCPS will allow you to continue attending your private-like schools? Let's make the taxpayers pay even more for your continued self-interest!

DP. Seems like you’re ignoring the fact that Karl Frisch wants to gouge county taxpayers by trying to blackmail them into spending over $85 million on his Dunn Loring ES boondoggle (otherwise other school projects get held up).

Between that and potential boundary changes that are largely unnecessary, it’s entirely reasonable for people to decide they can’t support additional funding for FCPS until there’s a change in direction.

+1
And the more I think about the bolded, the madder I get. Think of what that $85 million could do for FCPS. This SB is absurd.
DP

The money could have gone to a new ES built at Blake Lane park, which might be very needed in the future if the ATT redevelopment attracts a lot of families. Oakton ES is already overcrowded, and these kids will need a place to go to school. This is part of the reason Waples ES families are worried about the boundary rezoning process. ATT bringing in lots of new kids seems like it could set up dominoes that would result in existing, established communities getting disrupted and shuffled around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

So here's the situation as you propose:

FCPS will no longer operate your schools as, effectively, tax-payer funded private-like schools? Your response is to stop funding FCPS.
And if FCPS will allow you to continue attending your private-like schools? Let's make the taxpayers pay even more for your continued self-interest!

DP. Seems like you’re ignoring the fact that Karl Frisch wants to gouge county taxpayers by trying to blackmail them into spending over $85 million on his Dunn Loring ES boondoggle (otherwise other school projects get held up).

Between that and potential boundary changes that are largely unnecessary, it’s entirely reasonable for people to decide they can’t support additional funding for FCPS until there’s a change in direction.

+1
And the more I think about the bolded, the madder I get. Think of what that $85 million could do for FCPS. This SB is absurd.
DP

The money could have gone to a new ES built at Blake Lane park, which might be very needed in the future if the ATT redevelopment attracts a lot of families. Oakton ES is already overcrowded, and these kids will need a place to go to school. This is part of the reason Waples ES families are worried about the boundary rezoning process. ATT bringing in lots of new kids seems like it could set up dominoes that would result in existing, established communities getting disrupted and shuffled around.

But then Karl and his childless friends couldn’t have their dog park Won’t someone please think of the poor people with dogs and no kids. Wah wahhhh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

So here's the situation as you propose:

FCPS will no longer operate your schools as, effectively, tax-payer funded private-like schools? Your response is to stop funding FCPS.
And if FCPS will allow you to continue attending your private-like schools? Let's make the taxpayers pay even more for your continued self-interest!

DP. Seems like you’re ignoring the fact that Karl Frisch wants to gouge county taxpayers by trying to blackmail them into spending over $85 million on his Dunn Loring ES boondoggle (otherwise other school projects get held up).

Between that and potential boundary changes that are largely unnecessary, it’s entirely reasonable for people to decide they can’t support additional funding for FCPS until there’s a change in direction.

+1
And the more I think about the bolded, the madder I get. Think of what that $85 million could do for FCPS. This SB is absurd.
DP

The money could have gone to a new ES built at Blake Lane park, which might be very needed in the future if the ATT redevelopment attracts a lot of families. Oakton ES is already overcrowded, and these kids will need a place to go to school. This is part of the reason Waples ES families are worried about the boundary rezoning process. ATT bringing in lots of new kids seems like it could set up dominoes that would result in existing, established communities getting disrupted and shuffled around.

Blake Lane is not, and was not needed. Neither is Dunn Loring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

So here's the situation as you propose:

FCPS will no longer operate your schools as, effectively, tax-payer funded private-like schools? Your response is to stop funding FCPS.
And if FCPS will allow you to continue attending your private-like schools? Let's make the taxpayers pay even more for your continued self-interest!

DP. Seems like you’re ignoring the fact that Karl Frisch wants to gouge county taxpayers by trying to blackmail them into spending over $85 million on his Dunn Loring ES boondoggle (otherwise other school projects get held up).

Between that and potential boundary changes that are largely unnecessary, it’s entirely reasonable for people to decide they can’t support additional funding for FCPS until there’s a change in direction.

+1
And the more I think about the bolded, the madder I get. Think of what that $85 million could do for FCPS. This SB is absurd.
DP

The money could have gone to a new ES built at Blake Lane park, which might be very needed in the future if the ATT redevelopment attracts a lot of families. Oakton ES is already overcrowded, and these kids will need a place to go to school. This is part of the reason Waples ES families are worried about the boundary rezoning process. ATT bringing in lots of new kids seems like it could set up dominoes that would result in existing, established communities getting disrupted and shuffled around.

But then Karl and his childless friends couldn’t have their dog park Won’t someone please think of the poor people with dogs and no kids. Wah wahhhh.

The bigots have arrived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

So here's the situation as you propose:

FCPS will no longer operate your schools as, effectively, tax-payer funded private-like schools? Your response is to stop funding FCPS.
And if FCPS will allow you to continue attending your private-like schools? Let's make the taxpayers pay even more for your continued self-interest!

DP. Seems like you’re ignoring the fact that Karl Frisch wants to gouge county taxpayers by trying to blackmail them into spending over $85 million on his Dunn Loring ES boondoggle (otherwise other school projects get held up).

Between that and potential boundary changes that are largely unnecessary, it’s entirely reasonable for people to decide they can’t support additional funding for FCPS until there’s a change in direction.

+1
And the more I think about the bolded, the madder I get. Think of what that $85 million could do for FCPS. This SB is absurd.
DP

The money could have gone to a new ES built at Blake Lane park, which might be very needed in the future if the ATT redevelopment attracts a lot of families. Oakton ES is already overcrowded, and these kids will need a place to go to school. This is part of the reason Waples ES families are worried about the boundary rezoning process. ATT bringing in lots of new kids seems like it could set up dominoes that would result in existing, established communities getting disrupted and shuffled around.

But then Karl and his childless friends couldn’t have their dog park Won’t someone please think of the poor people with dogs and no kids. Wah wahhhh.

The bigots have arrived.

Pointing out that the Chair of the School Board has no children is "bigoted?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

So here's the situation as you propose:

FCPS will no longer operate your schools as, effectively, tax-payer funded private-like schools? Your response is to stop funding FCPS.
And if FCPS will allow you to continue attending your private-like schools? Let's make the taxpayers pay even more for your continued self-interest!

DP. Seems like you’re ignoring the fact that Karl Frisch wants to gouge county taxpayers by trying to blackmail them into spending over $85 million on his Dunn Loring ES boondoggle (otherwise other school projects get held up).

Between that and potential boundary changes that are largely unnecessary, it’s entirely reasonable for people to decide they can’t support additional funding for FCPS until there’s a change in direction.

+1
And the more I think about the bolded, the madder I get. Think of what that $85 million could do for FCPS. This SB is absurd.
DP

The money could have gone to a new ES built at Blake Lane park, which might be very needed in the future if the ATT redevelopment attracts a lot of families. Oakton ES is already overcrowded, and these kids will need a place to go to school. This is part of the reason Waples ES families are worried about the boundary rezoning process. ATT bringing in lots of new kids seems like it could set up dominoes that would result in existing, established communities getting disrupted and shuffled around.

Blake Lane is not, and was not needed. Neither is Dunn Loring.

The money didn’t have to be spent on a new ES school in Providence.

The School Board could have used it to build additions to McLean and Chantilly HS or accelerate some other project in the renovation queue. But they want to change boundaries and that a-hole Frisch wants some new building he can take credit for.

I hope it’s the end of his political career. He is such a moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the FCPS email about the budget shortfall. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask for families to advocate for more money when the SB is about to significantly and detrimentally unnecessarily move kids as part of the boundary review.

If they go through with the boundary changes, I look forward to annually advocating for as little money to go to FCPS as possible.

If they drop the whole boundary change nonsense then I’d consider advocating for more money.

So here's the situation as you propose:

FCPS will no longer operate your schools as, effectively, tax-payer funded private-like schools? Your response is to stop funding FCPS.
And if FCPS will allow you to continue attending your private-like schools? Let's make the taxpayers pay even more for your continued self-interest!

DP. Seems like you’re ignoring the fact that Karl Frisch wants to gouge county taxpayers by trying to blackmail them into spending over $85 million on his Dunn Loring ES boondoggle (otherwise other school projects get held up).

Between that and potential boundary changes that are largely unnecessary, it’s entirely reasonable for people to decide they can’t support additional funding for FCPS until there’s a change in direction.

+1
And the more I think about the bolded, the madder I get. Think of what that $85 million could do for FCPS. This SB is absurd.
DP

The money could have gone to a new ES built at Blake Lane park, which might be very needed in the future if the ATT redevelopment attracts a lot of families. Oakton ES is already overcrowded, and these kids will need a place to go to school. This is part of the reason Waples ES families are worried about the boundary rezoning process. ATT bringing in lots of new kids seems like it could set up dominoes that would result in existing, established communities getting disrupted and shuffled around.

But then Karl and his childless friends couldn’t have their dog park Won’t someone please think of the poor people with dogs and no kids. Wah wahhhh.

The bigots have arrived.

Pointing out that the Chair of the School Board has no children is "bigoted?"

Ignore the PP. They call people “bigots” every time it’s correctly pointed out that Frisch looks out for his friends and not FCPS kids.