FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

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.

I mention the residential development issue for the benefit of any BRAC members. Is a serious issue that can be measured by the hundreds of millions of dollars it has cost all of us in unnecessary additions to schools that didn’t need it.

FCPS got us in this mess by using the faulty projections. BRAC should remember that these projections are not reliable whenever thru brings up the projections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[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.

I mention the residential development issue for the benefit of any BRAC members. Is a serious issue that can be measured by the hundreds of millions of dollars it has cost all of us in unnecessary additions to schools that didn’t need it.

FCPS got us in this mess by using the faulty projections. BRAC should remember that these projections are not reliable whenever thru brings up the projections.

You keep talking about BRAC like it is a real thing with real power. It is a fiction. Something to make people feel like the SB is listening. They have zero obligation to listen to BRAC and if you watch any of the reporting from the community meetings the SB is hell-bent on ignoring any feedback that is counter to their plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[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.

I mention the residential development issue for the benefit of any BRAC members. Is a serious issue that can be measured by the hundreds of millions of dollars it has cost all of us in unnecessary additions to schools that didn’t need it.

FCPS got us in this mess by using the faulty projections. BRAC should remember that these projections are not reliable whenever thru brings up the projections.

Are you at Langley? Langley got a larger expansion than it needed and Langley posters defended it vociferously at the time. Their problem is FCPS doubled down and added even more seats for which there is no immediate need at Herndon. Soon we’ll find if they want to move kids around to backfill HHS. They could do it with boundary changes, program changes, both, or neither.

But whatever they do it will likely be met with a shrug by most in the county. To the extent there was ever a scenario where people would get into these details, it will be swamped by people wanting to punish Republicans for enabling Trump’s economic mayhem. He is destroying people’s lives and the vast majority of Republicans just go along with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I mention the residential development issue for the benefit of any BRAC members. Is a serious issue that can be measured by the hundreds of millions of dollars it has cost all of us in unnecessary additions to schools that didn’t need it.

FCPS got us in this mess by using the faulty projections. BRAC should remember that these projections are not reliable whenever thru brings up the projections.

You keep talking about BRAC like it is a real thing with real power. It is a fiction. Something to make people feel like the SB is listening. They have zero obligation to listen to BRAC and if you watch any of the reporting from the community meetings the SB is hell-bent on ignoring any feedback that is counter to their plan.

It’s so true. While I appreciate the community reps for BRAC and the personal time they are putting in, it’s all for show. FCPS will be able to tout they had a parent-led committee plus special interested involved in the decisions. Sure, maybe a fewwwww recommendations or comments may give a tiny lightbulb idea but it’s mostly fluff to cover up decisions that FCPS wants to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I mention the residential development issue for the benefit of any BRAC members. Is a serious issue that can be measured by the hundreds of millions of dollars it has cost all of us in unnecessary additions to schools that didn’t need it.

FCPS got us in this mess by using the faulty projections. BRAC should remember that these projections are not reliable whenever thru brings up the projections.

You keep talking about BRAC like it is a real thing with real power. It is a fiction. Something to make people feel like the SB is listening. They have zero obligation to listen to BRAC and if you watch any of the reporting from the community meetings the SB is hell-bent on ignoring any feedback that is counter to their plan.

It’s so true. While I appreciate the community reps for BRAC and the personal time they are putting in, it’s all for show. FCPS will be able to tout they had a parent-led committee plus special interested involved in the decisions. Sure, maybe a fewwwww recommendations or comments may give a tiny lightbulb idea but it’s mostly fluff to cover up decisions that FCPS wants to make.

Agree with this. From reviewing the BRAC materials that have been posted, it looks like they have been spoon feeding BRAC members materials that engaged parents already understood, or that the BRAC members themselves might have learned in a week or two given the right briefing materials. Instead, it's all been very basic and dribbled out over four months.

One suspects that, when it comes to the actual decisions that FCPS wants to make, that will get pushed through much more quickly, and BRAC members will be hard pressed to absorb it and react with meaningful feedback. But, hey, they can say community members were involved, and the story line is all that matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I mention the residential development issue for the benefit of any BRAC members. Is a serious issue that can be measured by the hundreds of millions of dollars it has cost all of us in unnecessary additions to schools that didn’t need it.

FCPS got us in this mess by using the faulty projections. BRAC should remember that these projections are not reliable whenever thru brings up the projections.

You keep talking about BRAC like it is a real thing with real power. It is a fiction. Something to make people feel like the SB is listening. They have zero obligation to listen to BRAC and if you watch any of the reporting from the community meetings the SB is hell-bent on ignoring any feedback that is counter to their plan.

It’s so true. While I appreciate the community reps for BRAC and the personal time they are putting in, it’s all for show. FCPS will be able to tout they had a parent-led committee plus special interested involved in the decisions. Sure, maybe a fewwwww recommendations or comments may give a tiny lightbulb idea but it’s mostly fluff to cover up decisions that FCPS wants to make.

Agree with this. From reviewing the BRAC materials that have been posted, it looks like they have been spoon feeding BRAC members materials that engaged parents already understood, or that the BRAC members themselves might have learned in a week or two given the right briefing materials. Instead, it's all been very basic and dribbled out over four months.

One suspects that, when it comes to the actual decisions that FCPS wants to make, that will get pushed through much more quickly, and BRAC members will be hard pressed to absorb it and react with meaningful feedback. But, hey, they can say community members were involved, and the story line is all that matters.

Alexandria city public schools is also going through a boundary review. They released their scenarios with a number of options. I wonder if Thru will do the same and how many we will get. The timeline lists another period of community engagement after these are released so those beyond BRAC can give input.

This is going to be battle royale once they are out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes they do and Waples is happening.

The above quote came after a back and forth where one poster said “There is a plan.” 04/04/2025 07:22

And another poster said “Then where is the plan? Speculating doesn’t help.” 04/04/2025 07:33

I agree that speculation does not help. However, there is a recurring voice on this board taunting posters with their “plans” referencing Waples and pushing an “Oakton has no sense of community due to its MS feeders so the boundaries need to change” (on a recent Oakton HS thread). Where there is smoke, there is fire. I say put out the fire by considering what possible “plans” might exist and calling our reps to make our voice heard about how a “plan” affects you and your neighbors before a “plan” becomes a proposal.

Waples is not a split feeder, but it is split across three magisterial districts: Sully (Dixit), Providence (Frisch), and Springfield (Anderson). That makes Waples especially vulnerable to backroom deal making and other “plans.” Know who your rep is (https://www.fcps.edu/facilities-planning-future/maps).

Take a look at two current maps:

The feeder map for high schools with current ES boundaries:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithHighSchoolBoundaries.pdf

And the current magisterial map for Providence (Karl Frisch):

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ProvidenceMagisterialDistrict.pdf

What are the odds the “plan” the poster referenced involves sending all/parts of Fairhill ES and/or Mantua ES to the Oakton HS pyramid while peeling off the parts of Waples ES that are in Frisch’s magisterial district and sending them to Oakton ES to keep them in the Oakton HS pyramid? Then the remaining pieces of Waples ES get shifted to the Fairfax HS pyramid. Is that the plan?

That would serve a “FARMS balancing” shift (increase relative FARMS at Oakton HS, decrease relative FARMS at Fairfax HS). It would likely be a “proximity based” justification. It would also make Karl Frisch’s constituents (and only his) happy.

Before you say “but Oakton ES is so overcrowded,” or “they would never move Waples HS attendance across 66” recall the responses that we have seen across all of the threads: “that’s why it’s comprehensive boundary review, lots of boundaries will change” (to suit their plans) and “if you are on an edge you are at risk as the dominos fall” (because they lined them up to fall that way). They would even “fix” the Flint Hill ES attendance island with those falling dominos to justify the move. In other words, they will make it happen if they want to.

If this is the “plan,” or there is another “plan” that involves moving Waples ES to the Fairfax HS pyramid (with or without dividing it off to keep the Providence district neighborhoods in Oakton) maybe all those Oakton Otter parents who want their kids at the pool this summer to someday become Oakton HS Cougars need to wake up and give Seema Dixit, your Sully District rep, a call. Just keep in mind that Seema Dixit’s aid is a long-time resident of Miller Heights (Providence district), and may support this type of “plan” because it keeps Miller Heights at Oakton HS at the expense of Waples ES (and your kids) shifting to the Fairfax HS pyramid.

If you live in Penderbrook, and you chose to live in Penderbrook for the Oakton HS pyramid, give Sandy Anderson, your Springfield magisterial rep, a call.

If only the AT&T site were slated to be a new middle school instead of high density housing…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When is the next BRAC? Is there an agenda for it yet?

Are they still violating FOIA by excluding the public?

Guessing there will be another in April. They were supposed to be twice a week and then once a month.

Will note that Rachna Sizemore Heizer is holding a town hall to discuss boundary changes on April 9 from 545-630 at Wakefield Forest Elementary School. If you’re in the area, please attend!

So are the individual School Board members now trying to provide assurances to individual communities in their own districts after people like Sizemore-Heizer were the very ones insisting there needed to be a comprehensive review? Robyn Lady met with Langley earlier this week. They set the kitchen on fire and now they are running around with fire extinguishers.

It’s like some pathetic shell game where they’ll still pick a few targets to “fix” to save face and they won’t care if it’s fair or not to those folks.

Went to one of these meetings at an elementary school which was set up by the PTA. VERY few parents in attendance. Probably b/c there are an incredible number of people who are ignorant of the boundary review or thought it was just a standard review of the overcrowded schools that wouldn't affect them. There was no useful information presented except a lot of generic talk about why they're doing it and how there's no "secret maps" and no decisions have been made. It wasn't helpful at all. It really needed to be done at the high school for our pyramid so that more parents would have been there to hear it. My experience has been that many of the elementary school parents who aren't invested yet in the middle/high school are kind of ambivalent to the change. It's the high school parents who don't want their child moved from the school they're currently at or don't want younger siblings to attend a different high school.

Was that the recent one at Waples? Isn’t that committee run by folks who live in Miller Heights?

If “the plan” keeps them in the Oakton pyramid, I bet a lot of fuss and bother out of the other neighborhoods that feed into Waples could really upset the apple cart.

Has that committee reached out to anybody that signed up for emails? Shared any ways for people to speak up? Or we just being managed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When is the next BRAC? Is there an agenda for it yet?

Are they still violating FOIA by excluding the public?

Guessing there will be another in April. They were supposed to be twice a week and then once a month.

Will note that Rachna Sizemore Heizer is holding a town hall to discuss boundary changes on April 9 from 545-630 at Wakefield Forest Elementary School. If you’re in the area, please attend!

So are the individual School Board members now trying to provide assurances to individual communities in their own districts after people like Sizemore-Heizer were the very ones insisting there needed to be a comprehensive review? Robyn Lady met with Langley earlier this week. They set the kitchen on fire and now they are running around with fire extinguishers.

It’s like some pathetic shell game where they’ll still pick a few targets to “fix” to save face and they won’t care if it’s fair or not to those folks.

Went to one of these meetings at an elementary school which was set up by the PTA. VERY few parents in attendance. Probably b/c there are an incredible number of people who are ignorant of the boundary review or thought it was just a standard review of the overcrowded schools that wouldn't affect them. There was no useful information presented except a lot of generic talk about why they're doing it and how there's no "secret maps" and no decisions have been made. It wasn't helpful at all. It really needed to be done at the high school for our pyramid so that more parents would have been there to hear it. My experience has been that many of the elementary school parents who aren't invested yet in the middle/high school are kind of ambivalent to the change. It's the high school parents who don't want their child moved from the school they're currently at or don't want younger siblings to attend a different high school.

Was that the recent one at Waples? Isn’t that committee run by folks who live in Miller Heights?

If “the plan” keeps them in the Oakton pyramid, I bet a lot of fuss and bother out of the other neighborhoods that feed into Waples could really upset the apple cart.

Has that committee reached out to anybody that signed up for emails? Shared any ways for people to speak up? Or we just being managed?

Noting there is an open-to-the-public town hall at the newly renovated Wakefield forest elementary school. Rachna will be there representing for the Braddock district. I recommend anyone in the area attending.

[Anonymous]

It’s all of Waples. Penderbrook is a big part of Waples. Many of us serving on that committee live in Penderbrook and don’t want our kids at Fairfax HS.

[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.

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.

Too good!
DP

[Anonymous]

The boundary realignment needs to be paused immediately.

We're only 2 months into this “burn the government down” administration. The massive federal unemployment, the indefinite hiring freezes, the RIFs and lay offs, the relocation of any remaining feds to other parts of the country, all impact Northern Virginia and particularly Fairfax County.

And that’s not even taking into account the “ripple effect” on private industry in FCPS.

Halt the review now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The boundary realignment needs to be paused immediately.

We're only 2 months into this “burn the government down” administration. The massive federal unemployment, the indefinite hiring freezes, the RIFs and lay offs, the relocation of any remaining feds to other parts of the country, all impact Northern Virginia and particularly Fairfax County.

And that’s not even taking into account the “ripple effect” on private industry in FCPS.

Halt the review now!

+1. It’s going to get really bad for our area. Instead of picking fights with parents and families, this school board could actually support them by providing a modicum of stability. It’s GD infuriating.

[Anonymous]

I know 2 families planning on leaving the area entirely due to the federal job cuts. They’re taking the DRP and moving. 30s with early Elementary and preschool-aged kids who would have been in school in the next few years.

They need to put this whole exercise on pause until the dust settles. No 6th to middle either - FCPS won’t have the budget to start a robust UPK program at this rate.

[Anonymous]

Let’s put Kyle McDaniel in control of the Thru account.