FCPS Boundary Review Updates

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[google]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
IB will change to fewer schools- mostly on the eastern part of the county. South Lakes and Marshall are well placed to keep theirs.


If you took a survey of current South Lakes parents (in boundary only) they would vote overwhelmingly against IB in favor of AP.

If you leave IB at South Lakes, you will continue to have mass exit from Herndon.


Hold up, I thought there was a mass exit from Herndon elsewhere - because Herndon is so terrible. I am so confused. Which is it? Is Herndon a HS people transfer into or out of?


DP, your “gotcha” isn’t quite working. That poster was saying there is an exodus from Herndon to south lakes.


People will seek a better option, not a great option. They are pupil placing to avoid Herndon, not to seek out IB at South Lakes.

Add AAP to Herndon MS and replace IB with AP at South Lakes and there would be more stability in the Herndon pyramid, fewer transfers to South Lakes, and improved results at both schools.


You’re responding to me and I absolutely agree. Before we going nuclear with boundaries, we should make these obvious fixes first.


This was posted on the prior board before it got locked. Based on 2023-2024 CIP, transfers out excluding TJ placements:

Mount Vernon 304
Herndon 263
Annandale 261
Lewis 193
Falls Church 185
Justice 182
Westfield 172
Hayfield 169
West Potomac 165
Robinson 158
South Lakes 150
Fairfax 137
Centreville 114
Marshall 105
South County 105
West Springfield 104
Edison 102
Lake Braddock 100
Langley 94
Oakton 84
Chantilly 70
Woodson 66
Madison 56
McLean 53

Clear pattern as to which schools people are placing out of. If you stop this, those schools are near capacity and no need to move other kids in for “efficiency”. Plus, it is likely the better students transferring out, and keeping them at their base would improve scores at those schools.


Awesome! This means less comptetition for my high achieving kid at Herndon.


Tell Robyn Lady you like things at Herndon exactly the way they are now. Clearly there's no need to either change the boundaries or repatriate the Herndon-zoned kids at other schools.


They can’t have schools running at 80%, so they either will bring zoned kids back or move new kids in.


DP. Makes zero sense to import new kids when all that needs to be done (if anything) is bring back the zoned kids. But this SB lacks common sense, so I doubt they even realize this.


You're responding to a dopey post. They have a lot of schools under 85% capacity, and that's not an issue unless the school is so small that it can't offer the basics.


You don’t seem very smart. Obviously it is an issue if some schools are at 130% utilization and others, like Herndon, are projected to be below 80% next year per the recent CIP. But if all the transfers are returned to Herndon, it will be at 96% capacity.


The CIP projections are unreliable. If I’ve learned anything through this process, it’s that.


I think we all agree with that, but who cares what we think? That is what the school board is using for the boundary study. If you ignore that premise, you arent offering any constructive feedback.


Hold the phone, you think calling out the faulty projections is not offering any constructive feedback?

That is quite literally the definition of constructive feedback.

The point is that BRAC should be very skeptical of using any projections coming out of the CIP.


The BRAC has no authority and is completely powerless. It is a sham. If you have some facts to show the projections are flawed, then that could be constructive if there were some way to challenge the CIP. But just ignoring the CIP and hoping that the SB isn't planning to use those numbers with its hand-picked no bid consultant is just crazy.


They are going to follow CIP projections whether they are fake news or not. That’s one piece of “analytics” they actually have. The capacity numbers game will be one way they play the subjective vs objective rebalancing.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[google]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
IB will change to fewer schools- mostly on the eastern part of the county. South Lakes and Marshall are well placed to keep theirs.


If you took a survey of current South Lakes parents (in boundary only) they would vote overwhelmingly against IB in favor of AP.

If you leave IB at South Lakes, you will continue to have mass exit from Herndon.


Hold up, I thought there was a mass exit from Herndon elsewhere - because Herndon is so terrible. I am so confused. Which is it? Is Herndon a HS people transfer into or out of?


DP, your “gotcha” isn’t quite working. That poster was saying there is an exodus from Herndon to south lakes.


People will seek a better option, not a great option. They are pupil placing to avoid Herndon, not to seek out IB at South Lakes.

Add AAP to Herndon MS and replace IB with AP at South Lakes and there would be more stability in the Herndon pyramid, fewer transfers to South Lakes, and improved results at both schools.


You’re responding to me and I absolutely agree. Before we going nuclear with boundaries, we should make these obvious fixes first.


This was posted on the prior board before it got locked. Based on 2023-2024 CIP, transfers out excluding TJ placements:

Mount Vernon 304
Herndon 263
Annandale 261
Lewis 193
Falls Church 185
Justice 182
Westfield 172
Hayfield 169
West Potomac 165
Robinson 158
South Lakes 150
Fairfax 137
Centreville 114
Marshall 105
South County 105
West Springfield 104
Edison 102
Lake Braddock 100
Langley 94
Oakton 84
Chantilly 70
Woodson 66
Madison 56
McLean 53

Clear pattern as to which schools people are placing out of. If you stop this, those schools are near capacity and no need to move other kids in for “efficiency”. Plus, it is likely the better students transferring out, and keeping them at their base would improve scores at those schools.


Awesome! This means less comptetition for my high achieving kid at Herndon.


Tell Robyn Lady you like things at Herndon exactly the way they are now. Clearly there's no need to either change the boundaries or repatriate the Herndon-zoned kids at other schools.


They can’t have schools running at 80%, so they either will bring zoned kids back or move new kids in.


DP. Makes zero sense to import new kids when all that needs to be done (if anything) is bring back the zoned kids. But this SB lacks common sense, so I doubt they even realize this.


You're responding to a dopey post. They have a lot of schools under 85% capacity, and that's not an issue unless the school is so small that it can't offer the basics.


You don’t seem very smart. Obviously it is an issue if some schools are at 130% utilization and others, like Herndon, are projected to be below 80% next year per the recent CIP. But if all the transfers are returned to Herndon, it will be at 96% capacity.


The CIP projections are unreliable. If I’ve learned anything through this process, it’s that.


I think we all agree with that, but who cares what we think? That is what the school board is using for the boundary study. If you ignore that premise, you arent offering any constructive feedback.


Hold the phone, you think calling out the faulty projections is not offering any constructive feedback?

That is quite literally the definition of constructive feedback.

The point is that BRAC should be very skeptical of using any projections coming out of the CIP.


The BRAC has no authority and is completely powerless. It is a sham. If you have some facts to show the projections are flawed, then that could be constructive if there were some way to challenge the CIP. But just ignoring the CIP and hoping that the SB isn't planning to use those numbers with its hand-picked no bid consultant is just crazy.


But I’m not ignoring the CIP. I’m calling them out in the shoddy projections contained therein. Ignoring the FLAWS in the CIP is quite literally what you are advocating for.

Look, I get that the SB has their own agenda, and it’ll be tough to dissuade it from that course, but your argument that it’s futile so why bother doesn’t work for me, so I’ll do what I can to advocate against the ill-conceived boundary changes, and then if they go through, I’ll spend lots of time money and effort to work against the Democratic Party that pushed for these boundary changes and will doggedly support any opponent of the current school board members in future elections.


Every time the Democrats do something locally that might get people to look more seriously at their challengers, you have Trump doing something outrageously stupid. Now he's destroying the American economy and depleting the savings accounts of families. Good luck getting people to pay attention to something other than the jobs they've lost and the financial wealth that Trump blew up. The Republicans are going to get routed in the state-wide elections this fall, and we will continue to have all-Democratic School Board in FCPS. They will do whatever they want with school boundaries and pointing out flaws in the CIP projections will get the attention of about 10 people.

Get rid of the MAGA Republicans, starting with Trump, and maybe the local politicians in Fairfax will be different again some day.
Anonymous
If the unhinged and unnecessary school boundary changes go through -- I too will be spending lots of time, money and effort to work against the Democratic Party that pushed for these boundary changes and will doggedly support any opponent of the current school board members in future elections.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:If the unhinged and unnecessary school boundary changes go through -- I too will be spending lots of time, money and effort to work against the Democratic Party that pushed for these boundary changes and will doggedly support any opponent of the current school board members in future elections.



Won’t matter. People have bigger fish to fry than the public school to which your kid is assigned.

Trump’s shenanigans led to a 12-0 Democratic SB in 2019 and he wasn’t nearly as unhinged as he is now. People will take it out on any GOP-endorsed candidate running for any office, state or local, before 2028.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If the unhinged and unnecessary school boundary changes go through -- I too will be spending lots of time, money and effort to work against the Democratic Party that pushed for these boundary changes and will doggedly support any opponent of the current school board members in future elections.



Won’t matter. People have bigger fish to fry than the public school to which your kid is assigned.

Trump’s shenanigans led to a 12-0 Democratic SB in 2019 and he wasn’t nearly as unhinged as he is now. People will take it out on any GOP-endorsed candidate running for any office, state or local, before 2028.


DP.

Your fallacy is assuming that intensity of feelings on the issue don’t matter. Sure, Dems might win statewide this go round, but enough people care about their own kids’ educations that this issue won’t just get drowned out, especially over the long term.

But I guess time will tell. Just like Kyle McDaniels at a strip club, this school board might f around one too many times.
Anonymous
Amen
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[google]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
IB will change to fewer schools- mostly on the eastern part of the county. South Lakes and Marshall are well placed to keep theirs.


If you took a survey of current South Lakes parents (in boundary only) they would vote overwhelmingly against IB in favor of AP.

If you leave IB at South Lakes, you will continue to have mass exit from Herndon.


Hold up, I thought there was a mass exit from Herndon elsewhere - because Herndon is so terrible. I am so confused. Which is it? Is Herndon a HS people transfer into or out of?


DP, your “gotcha” isn’t quite working. That poster was saying there is an exodus from Herndon to south lakes.


People will seek a better option, not a great option. They are pupil placing to avoid Herndon, not to seek out IB at South Lakes.

Add AAP to Herndon MS and replace IB with AP at South Lakes and there would be more stability in the Herndon pyramid, fewer transfers to South Lakes, and improved results at both schools.


You’re responding to me and I absolutely agree. Before we going nuclear with boundaries, we should make these obvious fixes first.


This was posted on the prior board before it got locked. Based on 2023-2024 CIP, transfers out excluding TJ placements:

Mount Vernon 304
Herndon 263
Annandale 261
Lewis 193
Falls Church 185
Justice 182
Westfield 172
Hayfield 169
West Potomac 165
Robinson 158
South Lakes 150
Fairfax 137
Centreville 114
Marshall 105
South County 105
West Springfield 104
Edison 102
Lake Braddock 100
Langley 94
Oakton 84
Chantilly 70
Woodson 66
Madison 56
McLean 53

Clear pattern as to which schools people are placing out of. If you stop this, those schools are near capacity and no need to move other kids in for “efficiency”. Plus, it is likely the better students transferring out, and keeping them at their base would improve scores at those schools.


Awesome! This means less comptetition for my high achieving kid at Herndon.


Tell Robyn Lady you like things at Herndon exactly the way they are now. Clearly there's no need to either change the boundaries or repatriate the Herndon-zoned kids at other schools.


They can’t have schools running at 80%, so they either will bring zoned kids back or move new kids in.


DP. Makes zero sense to import new kids when all that needs to be done (if anything) is bring back the zoned kids. But this SB lacks common sense, so I doubt they even realize this.


You're responding to a dopey post. They have a lot of schools under 85% capacity, and that's not an issue unless the school is so small that it can't offer the basics.


You don’t seem very smart. Obviously it is an issue if some schools are at 130% utilization and others, like Herndon, are projected to be below 80% next year per the recent CIP. But if all the transfers are returned to Herndon, it will be at 96% capacity.


The CIP projections are unreliable. If I’ve learned anything through this process, it’s that.


I think we all agree with that, but who cares what we think? That is what the school board is using for the boundary study. If you ignore that premise, you arent offering any constructive feedback.


Hold the phone, you think calling out the faulty projections is not offering any constructive feedback?

That is quite literally the definition of constructive feedback.

The point is that BRAC should be very skeptical of using any projections coming out of the CIP.


The BRAC has no authority and is completely powerless. It is a sham. If you have some facts to show the projections are flawed, then that could be constructive if there were some way to challenge the CIP. But just ignoring the CIP and hoping that the SB isn't planning to use those numbers with its hand-picked no bid consultant is just crazy.


They are going to follow CIP projections whether they are fake news or not. That’s one piece of “analytics” they actually have. The capacity numbers game will be one way they play the subjective vs objective rebalancing.



Yep, that's my point. Sitting back and "calling out" the numbers as shoddy isn't constructive. That's like a kid handing in a paper and the teacher says this is a bad paper. Ok, great, now what? If someone would do an independent audit of the CIP data that would be valuable, and would go a long way towards uncovering the games they are playing with projections, overexpansion, unnessary pet projects, etc., but just saying the numbers are no good is worthless. Those are the numbers that are going to be the inputs for the Thru Consulting scenario outputs.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If the unhinged and unnecessary school boundary changes go through -- I too will be spending lots of time, money and effort to work against the Democratic Party that pushed for these boundary changes and will doggedly support any opponent of the current school board members in future elections.



Won’t matter. People have bigger fish to fry than the public school to which your kid is assigned.

Trump’s shenanigans led to a 12-0 Democratic SB in 2019 and he wasn’t nearly as unhinged as he is now. People will take it out on any GOP-endorsed candidate running for any office, state or local, before 2028.


Prediction: No final decision on boundaries until after November election.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[google]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
IB will change to fewer schools- mostly on the eastern part of the county. South Lakes and Marshall are well placed to keep theirs.


If you took a survey of current South Lakes parents (in boundary only) they would vote overwhelmingly against IB in favor of AP.

If you leave IB at South Lakes, you will continue to have mass exit from Herndon.


Hold up, I thought there was a mass exit from Herndon elsewhere - because Herndon is so terrible. I am so confused. Which is it? Is Herndon a HS people transfer into or out of?


DP, your “gotcha” isn’t quite working. That poster was saying there is an exodus from Herndon to south lakes.


People will seek a better option, not a great option. They are pupil placing to avoid Herndon, not to seek out IB at South Lakes.

Add AAP to Herndon MS and replace IB with AP at South Lakes and there would be more stability in the Herndon pyramid, fewer transfers to South Lakes, and improved results at both schools.


You’re responding to me and I absolutely agree. Before we going nuclear with boundaries, we should make these obvious fixes first.


This was posted on the prior board before it got locked. Based on 2023-2024 CIP, transfers out excluding TJ placements:

Mount Vernon 304
Herndon 263
Annandale 261
Lewis 193
Falls Church 185
Justice 182
Westfield 172
Hayfield 169
West Potomac 165
Robinson 158
South Lakes 150
Fairfax 137
Centreville 114
Marshall 105
South County 105
West Springfield 104
Edison 102
Lake Braddock 100
Langley 94
Oakton 84
Chantilly 70
Woodson 66
Madison 56
McLean 53

Clear pattern as to which schools people are placing out of. If you stop this, those schools are near capacity and no need to move other kids in for “efficiency”. Plus, it is likely the better students transferring out, and keeping them at their base would improve scores at those schools.


Awesome! This means less comptetition for my high achieving kid at Herndon.


Tell Robyn Lady you like things at Herndon exactly the way they are now. Clearly there's no need to either change the boundaries or repatriate the Herndon-zoned kids at other schools.


They can’t have schools running at 80%, so they either will bring zoned kids back or move new kids in.


DP. Makes zero sense to import new kids when all that needs to be done (if anything) is bring back the zoned kids. But this SB lacks common sense, so I doubt they even realize this.


You're responding to a dopey post. They have a lot of schools under 85% capacity, and that's not an issue unless the school is so small that it can't offer the basics.


You don’t seem very smart. Obviously it is an issue if some schools are at 130% utilization and others, like Herndon, are projected to be below 80% next year per the recent CIP. But if all the transfers are returned to Herndon, it will be at 96% capacity.


The CIP projections are unreliable. If I’ve learned anything through this process, it’s that.


I think we all agree with that, but who cares what we think? That is what the school board is using for the boundary study. If you ignore that premise, you arent offering any constructive feedback.


Hold the phone, you think calling out the faulty projections is not offering any constructive feedback?

That is quite literally the definition of constructive feedback.

The point is that BRAC should be very skeptical of using any projections coming out of the CIP.


The BRAC has no authority and is completely powerless. It is a sham. If you have some facts to show the projections are flawed, then that could be constructive if there were some way to challenge the CIP. But just ignoring the CIP and hoping that the SB isn't planning to use those numbers with its hand-picked no bid consultant is just crazy.


They are going to follow CIP projections whether they are fake news or not. That’s one piece of “analytics” they actually have. The capacity numbers game will be one way they play the subjective vs objective rebalancing.



Yep, that's my point. Sitting back and "calling out" the numbers as shoddy isn't constructive. That's like a kid handing in a paper and the teacher says this is a bad paper. Ok, great, now what? If someone would do an independent audit of the CIP data that would be valuable, and would go a long way towards uncovering the games they are playing with projections, overexpansion, unnessary pet projects, etc., but just saying the numbers are no good is worthless. Those are the numbers that are going to be the inputs for the Thru Consulting scenario outputs.


Yikes. Your view of the world seems to be Let incompetent people do bad things.

A better analogy is if a teacher gives a student a bad grade, and in response the parent of the student talks to the teacher, principal, school board, superintendent, and other parents to let them all know her concerns. Sure maybe nothing will change, but at least everyone knows that it’s a bad teacher.

I can’t tell what your angle is here, but it just seems like you are trying to tell us to shut up about data discrepancies.

That makes me think you’re at gatehouse.

To reiterate for people reading this thread, including the BRAC members, the CIP projections are faulty and don’t include residential development in key areas. Future year projections are very unreliable.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[google]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
IB will change to fewer schools- mostly on the eastern part of the county. South Lakes and Marshall are well placed to keep theirs.


If you took a survey of current South Lakes parents (in boundary only) they would vote overwhelmingly against IB in favor of AP.

If you leave IB at South Lakes, you will continue to have mass exit from Herndon.


Hold up, I thought there was a mass exit from Herndon elsewhere - because Herndon is so terrible. I am so confused. Which is it? Is Herndon a HS people transfer into or out of?


DP, your “gotcha” isn’t quite working. That poster was saying there is an exodus from Herndon to south lakes.


People will seek a better option, not a great option. They are pupil placing to avoid Herndon, not to seek out IB at South Lakes.

Add AAP to Herndon MS and replace IB with AP at South Lakes and there would be more stability in the Herndon pyramid, fewer transfers to South Lakes, and improved results at both schools.


You’re responding to me and I absolutely agree. Before we going nuclear with boundaries, we should make these obvious fixes first.


This was posted on the prior board before it got locked. Based on 2023-2024 CIP, transfers out excluding TJ placements:

Mount Vernon 304
Herndon 263
Annandale 261
Lewis 193
Falls Church 185
Justice 182
Westfield 172
Hayfield 169
West Potomac 165
Robinson 158
South Lakes 150
Fairfax 137
Centreville 114
Marshall 105
South County 105
West Springfield 104
Edison 102
Lake Braddock 100
Langley 94
Oakton 84
Chantilly 70
Woodson 66
Madison 56
McLean 53

Clear pattern as to which schools people are placing out of. If you stop this, those schools are near capacity and no need to move other kids in for “efficiency”. Plus, it is likely the better students transferring out, and keeping them at their base would improve scores at those schools.


Awesome! This means less comptetition for my high achieving kid at Herndon.


Tell Robyn Lady you like things at Herndon exactly the way they are now. Clearly there's no need to either change the boundaries or repatriate the Herndon-zoned kids at other schools.


They can’t have schools running at 80%, so they either will bring zoned kids back or move new kids in.


DP. Makes zero sense to import new kids when all that needs to be done (if anything) is bring back the zoned kids. But this SB lacks common sense, so I doubt they even realize this.


You're responding to a dopey post. They have a lot of schools under 85% capacity, and that's not an issue unless the school is so small that it can't offer the basics.


You don’t seem very smart. Obviously it is an issue if some schools are at 130% utilization and others, like Herndon, are projected to be below 80% next year per the recent CIP. But if all the transfers are returned to Herndon, it will be at 96% capacity.


The CIP projections are unreliable. If I’ve learned anything through this process, it’s that.


I think we all agree with that, but who cares what we think? That is what the school board is using for the boundary study. If you ignore that premise, you arent offering any constructive feedback.


Hold the phone, you think calling out the faulty projections is not offering any constructive feedback?

That is quite literally the definition of constructive feedback.

The point is that BRAC should be very skeptical of using any projections coming out of the CIP.


The BRAC has no authority and is completely powerless. It is a sham. If you have some facts to show the projections are flawed, then that could be constructive if there were some way to challenge the CIP. But just ignoring the CIP and hoping that the SB isn't planning to use those numbers with its hand-picked no bid consultant is just crazy.


They are going to follow CIP projections whether they are fake news or not. That’s one piece of “analytics” they actually have. The capacity numbers game will be one way they play the subjective vs objective rebalancing.



Yep, that's my point. Sitting back and "calling out" the numbers as shoddy isn't constructive. That's like a kid handing in a paper and the teacher says this is a bad paper. Ok, great, now what? If someone would do an independent audit of the CIP data that would be valuable, and would go a long way towards uncovering the games they are playing with projections, overexpansion, unnessary pet projects, etc., but just saying the numbers are no good is worthless. Those are the numbers that are going to be the inputs for the Thru Consulting scenario outputs.


Yikes. Your view of the world seems to be Let incompetent people do bad things.

A better analogy is if a teacher gives a student a bad grade, and in response the parent of the student talks to the teacher, principal, school board, superintendent, and other parents to let them all know her concerns. Sure maybe nothing will change, but at least everyone knows that it’s a bad teacher.

I can’t tell what your angle is here, but it just seems like you are trying to tell us to shut up about data discrepancies.

That makes me think you’re at gatehouse.

To reiterate for people reading this thread, including the BRAC members, the CIP projections are faulty and don’t include residential development in key areas. Future year projections are very unreliable.


DP. I’ve heard the frequent suggestion that their CIP projections are flawed because they ignore future development until a developer has broken ground.

With Trump blowing up the economy, the likelihood they will invest time and effort changing the methodology has decreased. Stated differently, the likelihood that a lot of these projects will get canceled or deferred has gone up significantly now that the orange idiot is blowing up the American economy and triggering a recession.

And that’s what will be on Fairfax voters’ minds for the next several years. Getting back at the SB for reassigning one Langley feeder to Herndon isn’t going to matter much compared to the fact that Trump, with the complicity of MAGA Republicans (and there isn’t really any type left), is responsible for major job losses and massive wealth destruction in Fairfax and elsewhere.

The Democrats in Fairfax are the opposition and they now have an even bigger blank check to do whatever they want, including changing your local school boundaries.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If the unhinged and unnecessary school boundary changes go through -- I too will be spending lots of time, money and effort to work against the Democratic Party that pushed for these boundary changes and will doggedly support any opponent of the current school board members in future elections.



Won’t matter. People have bigger fish to fry than the public school to which your kid is assigned.

Trump’s shenanigans led to a 12-0 Democratic SB in 2019 and he wasn’t nearly as unhinged as he is now. People will take it out on any GOP-endorsed candidate running for any office, state or local, before 2028.


Prediction: No final decision on boundaries until after November election.


I had the same thought. I have a feeling they may not even roll out scenarios before then. They have the lead in current polling in the Governor's race and risk blowing that up with stupid proposals right now. Just say that based on feedback from the BRAC (even though they won't listen to BRAC at all), they are going to revise some ideas and push the timetable out. Then they drop the ridiculous plans on us right after the election.
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:[google]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
IB will change to fewer schools- mostly on the eastern part of the county. South Lakes and Marshall are well placed to keep theirs.


If you took a survey of current South Lakes parents (in boundary only) they would vote overwhelmingly against IB in favor of AP.

If you leave IB at South Lakes, you will continue to have mass exit from Herndon.


Hold up, I thought there was a mass exit from Herndon elsewhere - because Herndon is so terrible. I am so confused. Which is it? Is Herndon a HS people transfer into or out of?


DP, your “gotcha” isn’t quite working. That poster was saying there is an exodus from Herndon to south lakes.


People will seek a better option, not a great option. They are pupil placing to avoid Herndon, not to seek out IB at South Lakes.

Add AAP to Herndon MS and replace IB with AP at South Lakes and there would be more stability in the Herndon pyramid, fewer transfers to South Lakes, and improved results at both schools.


You’re responding to me and I absolutely agree. Before we going nuclear with boundaries, we should make these obvious fixes first.


This was posted on the prior board before it got locked. Based on 2023-2024 CIP, transfers out excluding TJ placements:

Mount Vernon 304
Herndon 263
Annandale 261
Lewis 193
Falls Church 185
Justice 182
Westfield 172
Hayfield 169
West Potomac 165
Robinson 158
South Lakes 150
Fairfax 137
Centreville 114
Marshall 105
South County 105
West Springfield 104
Edison 102
Lake Braddock 100
Langley 94
Oakton 84
Chantilly 70
Woodson 66
Madison 56
McLean 53

Clear pattern as to which schools people are placing out of. If you stop this, those schools are near capacity and no need to move other kids in for “efficiency”. Plus, it is likely the better students transferring out, and keeping them at their base would improve scores at those schools.


Awesome! This means less comptetition for my high achieving kid at Herndon.


Tell Robyn Lady you like things at Herndon exactly the way they are now. Clearly there's no need to either change the boundaries or repatriate the Herndon-zoned kids at other schools.


They can’t have schools running at 80%, so they either will bring zoned kids back or move new kids in.


DP. Makes zero sense to import new kids when all that needs to be done (if anything) is bring back the zoned kids. But this SB lacks common sense, so I doubt they even realize this.


You're responding to a dopey post. They have a lot of schools under 85% capacity, and that's not an issue unless the school is so small that it can't offer the basics.


You don’t seem very smart. Obviously it is an issue if some schools are at 130% utilization and others, like Herndon, are projected to be below 80% next year per the recent CIP. But if all the transfers are returned to Herndon, it will be at 96% capacity.


The CIP projections are unreliable. If I’ve learned anything through this process, it’s that.


I think we all agree with that, but who cares what we think? That is what the school board is using for the boundary study. If you ignore that premise, you arent offering any constructive feedback.


Hold the phone, you think calling out the faulty projections is not offering any constructive feedback?

That is quite literally the definition of constructive feedback.

The point is that BRAC should be very skeptical of using any projections coming out of the CIP.


The BRAC has no authority and is completely powerless. It is a sham. If you have some facts to show the projections are flawed, then that could be constructive if there were some way to challenge the CIP. But just ignoring the CIP and hoping that the SB isn't planning to use those numbers with its hand-picked no bid consultant is just crazy.


They are going to follow CIP projections whether they are fake news or not. That’s one piece of “analytics” they actually have. The capacity numbers game will be one way they play the subjective vs objective rebalancing.



Yep, that's my point. Sitting back and "calling out" the numbers as shoddy isn't constructive. That's like a kid handing in a paper and the teacher says this is a bad paper. Ok, great, now what? If someone would do an independent audit of the CIP data that would be valuable, and would go a long way towards uncovering the games they are playing with projections, overexpansion, unnessary pet projects, etc., but just saying the numbers are no good is worthless. Those are the numbers that are going to be the inputs for the Thru Consulting scenario outputs.


Yikes. Your view of the world seems to be Let incompetent people do bad things.

A better analogy is if a teacher gives a student a bad grade, and in response the parent of the student talks to the teacher, principal, school board, superintendent, and other parents to let them all know her concerns. Sure maybe nothing will change, but at least everyone knows that it’s a bad teacher.

I can’t tell what your angle is here, but it just seems like you are trying to tell us to shut up about data discrepancies.

That makes me think you’re at gatehouse.

To reiterate for people reading this thread, including the BRAC members, the CIP projections are faulty and don’t include residential development in key areas. Future year projections are very unreliable.


DP. I’ve heard the frequent suggestion that their CIP projections are flawed because they ignore future development until a developer has broken ground.

With Trump blowing up the economy, the likelihood they will invest time and effort changing the methodology has decreased. Stated differently, the likelihood that a lot of these projects will get canceled or deferred has gone up significantly now that the orange idiot is blowing up the American economy and triggering a recession.

And that’s what will be on Fairfax voters’ minds for the next several years. Getting back at the SB for reassigning one Langley feeder to Herndon isn’t going to matter much compared to the fact that Trump, with the complicity of MAGA Republicans (and there isn’t really any type left), is responsible for major job losses and massive wealth destruction in Fairfax and elsewhere.

The Democrats in Fairfax are the opposition and they now have an even bigger blank check to do whatever they want, including changing your local school boundaries.



Got it. So your view is that the school board can do whatever it wants because of what’s happening at the federal level.

It’s ironic that you use the term blank check, because the school board keeps telling us they don’t have enough money. As residents continue to send their kids private or move to loudoun, there will come a tipping point where we’ll get vouchers, and the county will deserve the further decrease in funding.

Long term cynicism allowing politicians to do whatever they want has gotten us to where we are as a country. That’s on you and people that think like 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:[google]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
IB will change to fewer schools- mostly on the eastern part of the county. South Lakes and Marshall are well placed to keep theirs.


If you took a survey of current South Lakes parents (in boundary only) they would vote overwhelmingly against IB in favor of AP.

If you leave IB at South Lakes, you will continue to have mass exit from Herndon.


Hold up, I thought there was a mass exit from Herndon elsewhere - because Herndon is so terrible. I am so confused. Which is it? Is Herndon a HS people transfer into or out of?


DP, your “gotcha” isn’t quite working. That poster was saying there is an exodus from Herndon to south lakes.


People will seek a better option, not a great option. They are pupil placing to avoid Herndon, not to seek out IB at South Lakes.

Add AAP to Herndon MS and replace IB with AP at South Lakes and there would be more stability in the Herndon pyramid, fewer transfers to South Lakes, and improved results at both schools.


You’re responding to me and I absolutely agree. Before we going nuclear with boundaries, we should make these obvious fixes first.


This was posted on the prior board before it got locked. Based on 2023-2024 CIP, transfers out excluding TJ placements:

Mount Vernon 304
Herndon 263
Annandale 261
Lewis 193
Falls Church 185
Justice 182
Westfield 172
Hayfield 169
West Potomac 165
Robinson 158
South Lakes 150
Fairfax 137
Centreville 114
Marshall 105
South County 105
West Springfield 104
Edison 102
Lake Braddock 100
Langley 94
Oakton 84
Chantilly 70
Woodson 66
Madison 56
McLean 53

Clear pattern as to which schools people are placing out of. If you stop this, those schools are near capacity and no need to move other kids in for “efficiency”. Plus, it is likely the better students transferring out, and keeping them at their base would improve scores at those schools.


Awesome! This means less comptetition for my high achieving kid at Herndon.


Tell Robyn Lady you like things at Herndon exactly the way they are now. Clearly there's no need to either change the boundaries or repatriate the Herndon-zoned kids at other schools.


They can’t have schools running at 80%, so they either will bring zoned kids back or move new kids in.


DP. Makes zero sense to import new kids when all that needs to be done (if anything) is bring back the zoned kids. But this SB lacks common sense, so I doubt they even realize this.


You're responding to a dopey post. They have a lot of schools under 85% capacity, and that's not an issue unless the school is so small that it can't offer the basics.


You don’t seem very smart. Obviously it is an issue if some schools are at 130% utilization and others, like Herndon, are projected to be below 80% next year per the recent CIP. But if all the transfers are returned to Herndon, it will be at 96% capacity.


The CIP projections are unreliable. If I’ve learned anything through this process, it’s that.


I think we all agree with that, but who cares what we think? That is what the school board is using for the boundary study. If you ignore that premise, you arent offering any constructive feedback.


Hold the phone, you think calling out the faulty projections is not offering any constructive feedback?

That is quite literally the definition of constructive feedback.

The point is that BRAC should be very skeptical of using any projections coming out of the CIP.


The BRAC has no authority and is completely powerless. It is a sham. If you have some facts to show the projections are flawed, then that could be constructive if there were some way to challenge the CIP. But just ignoring the CIP and hoping that the SB isn't planning to use those numbers with its hand-picked no bid consultant is just crazy.


They are going to follow CIP projections whether they are fake news or not. That’s one piece of “analytics” they actually have. The capacity numbers game will be one way they play the subjective vs objective rebalancing.



Yep, that's my point. Sitting back and "calling out" the numbers as shoddy isn't constructive. That's like a kid handing in a paper and the teacher says this is a bad paper. Ok, great, now what? If someone would do an independent audit of the CIP data that would be valuable, and would go a long way towards uncovering the games they are playing with projections, overexpansion, unnessary pet projects, etc., but just saying the numbers are no good is worthless. Those are the numbers that are going to be the inputs for the Thru Consulting scenario outputs.


Yikes. Your view of the world seems to be Let incompetent people do bad things.

A better analogy is if a teacher gives a student a bad grade, and in response the parent of the student talks to the teacher, principal, school board, superintendent, and other parents to let them all know her concerns. Sure maybe nothing will change, but at least everyone knows that it’s a bad teacher.

I can’t tell what your angle is here, but it just seems like you are trying to tell us to shut up about data discrepancies.

That makes me think you’re at gatehouse.

To reiterate for people reading this thread, including the BRAC members, the CIP projections are faulty and don’t include residential development in key areas. Future year projections are very unreliable.


DP. I’ve heard the frequent suggestion that their CIP projections are flawed because they ignore future development until a developer has broken ground.

With Trump blowing up the economy, the likelihood they will invest time and effort changing the methodology has decreased. Stated differently, the likelihood that a lot of these projects will get canceled or deferred has gone up significantly now that the orange idiot is blowing up the American economy and triggering a recession.

And that’s what will be on Fairfax voters’ minds for the next several years. Getting back at the SB for reassigning one Langley feeder to Herndon isn’t going to matter much compared to the fact that Trump, with the complicity of MAGA Republicans (and there isn’t really any type left), is responsible for major job losses and massive wealth destruction in Fairfax and elsewhere.

The Democrats in Fairfax are the opposition and they now have an even bigger blank check to do whatever they want, including changing your local school boundaries.



Got it. So your view is that the school board can do whatever it wants because of what’s happening at the federal level.

It’s ironic that you use the term blank check, because the school board keeps telling us they don’t have enough money. As residents continue to send their kids private or move to loudoun, there will come a tipping point where we’ll get vouchers, and the county will deserve the further decrease in funding.

Long term cynicism allowing politicians to do whatever they want has gotten us to where we are as a country. That’s on you and people that think like you.


Much as I would love vouchers (recently left FCPS for private), this county is moving more and more towards catering to the elderly and the youth population is declining. I don't think vouchers will 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:
Anonymous wrote:[google]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
IB will change to fewer schools- mostly on the eastern part of the county. South Lakes and Marshall are well placed to keep theirs.


If you took a survey of current South Lakes parents (in boundary only) they would vote overwhelmingly against IB in favor of AP.

If you leave IB at South Lakes, you will continue to have mass exit from Herndon.


Hold up, I thought there was a mass exit from Herndon elsewhere - because Herndon is so terrible. I am so confused. Which is it? Is Herndon a HS people transfer into or out of?


DP, your “gotcha” isn’t quite working. That poster was saying there is an exodus from Herndon to south lakes.


People will seek a better option, not a great option. They are pupil placing to avoid Herndon, not to seek out IB at South Lakes.

Add AAP to Herndon MS and replace IB with AP at South Lakes and there would be more stability in the Herndon pyramid, fewer transfers to South Lakes, and improved results at both schools.


You’re responding to me and I absolutely agree. Before we going nuclear with boundaries, we should make these obvious fixes first.


This was posted on the prior board before it got locked. Based on 2023-2024 CIP, transfers out excluding TJ placements:

Mount Vernon 304
Herndon 263
Annandale 261
Lewis 193
Falls Church 185
Justice 182
Westfield 172
Hayfield 169
West Potomac 165
Robinson 158
South Lakes 150
Fairfax 137
Centreville 114
Marshall 105
South County 105
West Springfield 104
Edison 102
Lake Braddock 100
Langley 94
Oakton 84
Chantilly 70
Woodson 66
Madison 56
McLean 53

Clear pattern as to which schools people are placing out of. If you stop this, those schools are near capacity and no need to move other kids in for “efficiency”. Plus, it is likely the better students transferring out, and keeping them at their base would improve scores at those schools.


Awesome! This means less comptetition for my high achieving kid at Herndon.


Tell Robyn Lady you like things at Herndon exactly the way they are now. Clearly there's no need to either change the boundaries or repatriate the Herndon-zoned kids at other schools.


They can’t have schools running at 80%, so they either will bring zoned kids back or move new kids in.


DP. Makes zero sense to import new kids when all that needs to be done (if anything) is bring back the zoned kids. But this SB lacks common sense, so I doubt they even realize this.


You're responding to a dopey post. They have a lot of schools under 85% capacity, and that's not an issue unless the school is so small that it can't offer the basics.


You don’t seem very smart. Obviously it is an issue if some schools are at 130% utilization and others, like Herndon, are projected to be below 80% next year per the recent CIP. But if all the transfers are returned to Herndon, it will be at 96% capacity.


The CIP projections are unreliable. If I’ve learned anything through this process, it’s that.


I think we all agree with that, but who cares what we think? That is what the school board is using for the boundary study. If you ignore that premise, you arent offering any constructive feedback.


Hold the phone, you think calling out the faulty projections is not offering any constructive feedback?

That is quite literally the definition of constructive feedback.

The point is that BRAC should be very skeptical of using any projections coming out of the CIP.


The BRAC has no authority and is completely powerless. It is a sham. If you have some facts to show the projections are flawed, then that could be constructive if there were some way to challenge the CIP. But just ignoring the CIP and hoping that the SB isn't planning to use those numbers with its hand-picked no bid consultant is just crazy.


They are going to follow CIP projections whether they are fake news or not. That’s one piece of “analytics” they actually have. The capacity numbers game will be one way they play the subjective vs objective rebalancing.



Yep, that's my point. Sitting back and "calling out" the numbers as shoddy isn't constructive. That's like a kid handing in a paper and the teacher says this is a bad paper. Ok, great, now what? If someone would do an independent audit of the CIP data that would be valuable, and would go a long way towards uncovering the games they are playing with projections, overexpansion, unnessary pet projects, etc., but just saying the numbers are no good is worthless. Those are the numbers that are going to be the inputs for the Thru Consulting scenario outputs.


Yikes. Your view of the world seems to be Let incompetent people do bad things.

A better analogy is if a teacher gives a student a bad grade, and in response the parent of the student talks to the teacher, principal, school board, superintendent, and other parents to let them all know her concerns. Sure maybe nothing will change, but at least everyone knows that it’s a bad teacher.

I can’t tell what your angle is here, but it just seems like you are trying to tell us to shut up about data discrepancies.

That makes me think you’re at gatehouse.

To reiterate for people reading this thread, including the BRAC members, the CIP projections are faulty and don’t include residential development in key areas. Future year projections are very unreliable.


DP. I’ve heard the frequent suggestion that their CIP projections are flawed because they ignore future development until a developer has broken ground.

With Trump blowing up the economy, the likelihood they will invest time and effort changing the methodology has decreased. Stated differently, the likelihood that a lot of these projects will get canceled or deferred has gone up significantly now that the orange idiot is blowing up the American economy and triggering a recession.

And that’s what will be on Fairfax voters’ minds for the next several years. Getting back at the SB for reassigning one Langley feeder to Herndon isn’t going to matter much compared to the fact that Trump, with the complicity of MAGA Republicans (and there isn’t really any type left), is responsible for major job losses and massive wealth destruction in Fairfax and elsewhere.

The Democrats in Fairfax are the opposition and they now have an even bigger blank check to do whatever they want, including changing your local school boundaries.



Got it. So your view is that the school board can do whatever it wants because of what’s happening at the federal level.

It’s ironic that you use the term blank check, because the school board keeps telling us they don’t have enough money. As residents continue to send their kids private or move to loudoun, there will come a tipping point where we’ll get vouchers, and the county will deserve the further decrease in funding.

Long term cynicism allowing politicians to do whatever they want has gotten us to where we are as a country. That’s on you and people that think like you.


Much as I would love vouchers (recently left FCPS for private), this county is moving more and more towards catering to the elderly and the youth population is declining. I don't think vouchers will happen.


Vouchers would like come down from the state level, not the county. They might even come down from the federal level, though that is less likely
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:[google]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
IB will change to fewer schools- mostly on the eastern part of the county. South Lakes and Marshall are well placed to keep theirs.


If you took a survey of current South Lakes parents (in boundary only) they would vote overwhelmingly against IB in favor of AP.

If you leave IB at South Lakes, you will continue to have mass exit from Herndon.


Hold up, I thought there was a mass exit from Herndon elsewhere - because Herndon is so terrible. I am so confused. Which is it? Is Herndon a HS people transfer into or out of?


DP, your “gotcha” isn’t quite working. That poster was saying there is an exodus from Herndon to south lakes.


People will seek a better option, not a great option. They are pupil placing to avoid Herndon, not to seek out IB at South Lakes.

Add AAP to Herndon MS and replace IB with AP at South Lakes and there would be more stability in the Herndon pyramid, fewer transfers to South Lakes, and improved results at both schools.


You’re responding to me and I absolutely agree. Before we going nuclear with boundaries, we should make these obvious fixes first.


This was posted on the prior board before it got locked. Based on 2023-2024 CIP, transfers out excluding TJ placements:

Mount Vernon 304
Herndon 263
Annandale 261
Lewis 193
Falls Church 185
Justice 182
Westfield 172
Hayfield 169
West Potomac 165
Robinson 158
South Lakes 150
Fairfax 137
Centreville 114
Marshall 105
South County 105
West Springfield 104
Edison 102
Lake Braddock 100
Langley 94
Oakton 84
Chantilly 70
Woodson 66
Madison 56
McLean 53

Clear pattern as to which schools people are placing out of. If you stop this, those schools are near capacity and no need to move other kids in for “efficiency”. Plus, it is likely the better students transferring out, and keeping them at their base would improve scores at those schools.


Awesome! This means less comptetition for my high achieving kid at Herndon.


Tell Robyn Lady you like things at Herndon exactly the way they are now. Clearly there's no need to either change the boundaries or repatriate the Herndon-zoned kids at other schools.


They can’t have schools running at 80%, so they either will bring zoned kids back or move new kids in.


DP. Makes zero sense to import new kids when all that needs to be done (if anything) is bring back the zoned kids. But this SB lacks common sense, so I doubt they even realize this.


You're responding to a dopey post. They have a lot of schools under 85% capacity, and that's not an issue unless the school is so small that it can't offer the basics.


You don’t seem very smart. Obviously it is an issue if some schools are at 130% utilization and others, like Herndon, are projected to be below 80% next year per the recent CIP. But if all the transfers are returned to Herndon, it will be at 96% capacity.


The CIP projections are unreliable. If I’ve learned anything through this process, it’s that.


I think we all agree with that, but who cares what we think? That is what the school board is using for the boundary study. If you ignore that premise, you arent offering any constructive feedback.


Hold the phone, you think calling out the faulty projections is not offering any constructive feedback?

That is quite literally the definition of constructive feedback.

The point is that BRAC should be very skeptical of using any projections coming out of the CIP.


The BRAC has no authority and is completely powerless. It is a sham. If you have some facts to show the projections are flawed, then that could be constructive if there were some way to challenge the CIP. But just ignoring the CIP and hoping that the SB isn't planning to use those numbers with its hand-picked no bid consultant is just crazy.


They are going to follow CIP projections whether they are fake news or not. That’s one piece of “analytics” they actually have. The capacity numbers game will be one way they play the subjective vs objective rebalancing.



Yep, that's my point. Sitting back and "calling out" the numbers as shoddy isn't constructive. That's like a kid handing in a paper and the teacher says this is a bad paper. Ok, great, now what? If someone would do an independent audit of the CIP data that would be valuable, and would go a long way towards uncovering the games they are playing with projections, overexpansion, unnessary pet projects, etc., but just saying the numbers are no good is worthless. Those are the numbers that are going to be the inputs for the Thru Consulting scenario outputs.


Yikes. Your view of the world seems to be Let incompetent people do bad things.

A better analogy is if a teacher gives a student a bad grade, and in response the parent of the student talks to the teacher, principal, school board, superintendent, and other parents to let them all know her concerns. Sure maybe nothing will change, but at least everyone knows that it’s a bad teacher.

I can’t tell what your angle is here, but it just seems like you are trying to tell us to shut up about data discrepancies.

That makes me think you’re at gatehouse.

To reiterate for people reading this thread, including the BRAC members, the CIP projections are faulty and don’t include residential development in key areas. Future year projections are very unreliable.


DP. I’ve heard the frequent suggestion that their CIP projections are flawed because they ignore future development until a developer has broken ground.

With Trump blowing up the economy, the likelihood they will invest time and effort changing the methodology has decreased. Stated differently, the likelihood that a lot of these projects will get canceled or deferred has gone up significantly now that the orange idiot is blowing up the American economy and triggering a recession.

And that’s what will be on Fairfax voters’ minds for the next several years. Getting back at the SB for reassigning one Langley feeder to Herndon isn’t going to matter much compared to the fact that Trump, with the complicity of MAGA Republicans (and there isn’t really any type left), is responsible for major job losses and massive wealth destruction in Fairfax and elsewhere.

The Democrats in Fairfax are the opposition and they now have an even bigger blank check to do whatever they want, including changing your local school boundaries.



Got it. So your view is that the school board can do whatever it wants because of what’s happening at the federal level.

It’s ironic that you use the term blank check, because the school board keeps telling us they don’t have enough money. As residents continue to send their kids private or move to loudoun, there will come a tipping point where we’ll get vouchers, and the county will deserve the further decrease in funding.

Long term cynicism allowing politicians to do whatever they want has gotten us to where we are as a country. That’s on you and people that think like you.


It’s my assessment, not necessarily my preference, although I do think Republicans at every level of government who are intimidated by and kowtow to the orange idiot need to pay a price politically.

At some point you’ll realize that you can scream 10x as loud and post on a forum like this 10x as much as others and you still only have one vote in a low-information election like a SB election.
Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
Go to: