Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HV to Lewis? makes sense

Fine. Send the whole school. Not just the few neighborhoods currently being told are going to SC.

Nope.

The part of Hunt Valley inside the parkway is less than 10 minutes to WSHS

Some of the HV houses are less than 2 miles to WSHS.

The shouldn’t be creating a new split feeder with HV and moving just part of HV to Lewis would create an attendance island.

Right now, they are going to Silverbroik > SoCo, correct?

That is not a bad option, especially for the neighborhood at the end of Gambril closest to SoCo. Their elementary, MS and HS will all be closer.

The neighborhoods at the end of Gambrill would stay at HV but would go to SCMS and HS. Silverbrook is over in the other direction in Fairfax Station and gets mostly kids from Crosspointe (and some of the neighborhoods right off Hooes). Newington Forest/SC is slated to get Sangster’s little island which is behind the church basically on the corner of the Parkway and Pohick. Those people would definitely be closer to their new schools but they understandably don’t want to move …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HV to Lewis? makes sense

Fine. Send the whole school. Not just the few neighborhoods currently being told are going to SC.

Nope.

The part of Hunt Valley inside the parkway is less than 10 minutes to WSHS

Some of the HV houses are less than 2 miles to WSHS.

The shouldn’t be creating a new split feeder with HV and moving just part of HV to Lewis would create an attendance island.

Given the choice, the neighborhoods inside the parkway that are 10 minutes, 2-3 miles from WSHS would very much prefer a split feeder over getting rezoned in the name of "keeping Hunt Valley together."

They will be furious if the other neighborhoods near South County draw them into getting rezoned too.

No one wants to be moved. Even the neighborhoods across the parkway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

Coates is significantly overcrowded. So much so that they did a separate study last fall and winter to fast track the changes.

Guess what happened? Since they were distracted with the broader comprehensive review, they delayed fixing the overcrowding at Coates this year. Instead they delayed it a year to be rolled into the broader changes.

So it’s way worse than just moving some kids unnecessarily. They also intentionally screwed over the one school that needed relief this year.

They suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HV to Lewis? makes sense

Fine. Send the whole school. Not just the few neighborhoods currently being told are going to SC.

Nope.

The part of Hunt Valley inside the parkway is less than 10 minutes to WSHS

Some of the HV houses are less than 2 miles to WSHS.

The shouldn’t be creating a new split feeder with HV and moving just part of HV to Lewis would create an attendance island.

Given the choice, the neighborhoods inside the parkway that are 10 minutes, 2-3 miles from WSHS would very much prefer a split feeder over getting rezoned in the name of "keeping Hunt Valley together."

They will be furious if the other neighborhoods near South County draw them into getting rezoned too.

Be furious with the school board. None of the HV families asked for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HV to Lewis? makes sense

Fine. Send the whole school. Not just the few neighborhoods currently being told are going to SC.

Nope.

The part of Hunt Valley inside the parkway is less than 10 minutes to WSHS

Some of the HV houses are less than 2 miles to WSHS.

The shouldn’t be creating a new split feeder with HV and moving just part of HV to Lewis would create an attendance island.

Given the choice, the neighborhoods inside the parkway that are 10 minutes, 2-3 miles from WSHS would very much prefer a split feeder over getting rezoned in the name of "keeping Hunt Valley together."

They will be furious if the other neighborhoods near South County draw them into getting rezoned too.

Be furious with the school board. None of the HV families asked for this.

Two things can be true at the same time.

We can be unhappy with the school board, and also unhappy with anyone who tries to drag a neighborhood not slated for rezoning into getting rezoning under some push of if one street gets rezoned then all streets need to get rezoned.

If you asked the homes inside the parkway, their unified sentiment would be that if FCPS is insisting upon rezoning Hunt Valley, or WSHS in general, it needs to be as few neighborhoods as possible and only those on the farthest edges that make geographic sense.

No one has any desire to get rezoned if they weren't on the original maps.

Pushing to rezone other neighborhoods under some "keep everyone together" mantra will infuriate many people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HV to Lewis? makes sense

Fine. Send the whole school. Not just the few neighborhoods currently being told are going to SC.

Nope.

The part of Hunt Valley inside the parkway is less than 10 minutes to WSHS

Some of the HV houses are less than 2 miles to WSHS.

The shouldn’t be creating a new split feeder with HV and moving just part of HV to Lewis would create an attendance island.

Given the choice, the neighborhoods inside the parkway that are 10 minutes, 2-3 miles from WSHS would very much prefer a split feeder over getting rezoned in the name of "keeping Hunt Valley together."

They will be furious if the other neighborhoods near South County draw them into getting rezoned too.

Be furious with the school board. None of the HV families asked for this.

Two things can be true at the same time.

We can be unhappy with the school board, and also unhappy with anyone who tries to drag a neighborhood not slated for rezoning into getting rezoning under some push of if one street gets rezoned then all streets need to get rezoned.

If you asked the homes inside the parkway, their unified sentiment would be that if FCPS is insisting upon rezoning Hunt Valley, or WSHS in general, it needs to be as few neighborhoods as possible and only those on the farthest edges that make geographic sense.

No one has any desire to get rezoned if they weren't on the original maps.

Pushing to rezone other neighborhoods under some "keep everyone together" mantra will infuriate many people.

They’ve already said the original maps pertaining to HV were a mistake. So do you think they are not moving anyone or moving all of HV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HV to Lewis? makes sense

Makes no sense in any world. Saratoga mom is back

[Anonymous]

Happy BRAC-eve, when we will learn which kids get screwed in this next round of unwanted boundary changes.

Vote against these school board bums any chance you get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

If you look at the boundaries, you will see that there are some strange weird ones that have been created over the years when different political entities lobbies for different things. This was supposed to streamline the boundaries and make them more logical and efficient. There are many bus routes that mean buses criss cross around the county. There has been some attempt to minimize islands and elongated boundaries. Of course, the political forces that made those boundaries have all been alerted and reorganizing and pushing back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

If you look at the boundaries, you will see that there are some strange weird ones that have been created over the years when different political entities lobbies for different things. This was supposed to streamline the boundaries and make them more logical and efficient. There are many bus routes that mean buses criss cross around the county. There has been some attempt to minimize islands and elongated boundaries. Of course, the political forces that made those boundaries have all been alerted and reorganizing and pushing back.

Weak sauce from gatehouse propagandists. The political forces described here are families across the entire county that don’t believe that kids should be moved absent an urgent need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

If you look at the boundaries, you will see that there are some strange weird ones that have been created over the years when different political entities lobbies for different things. This was supposed to streamline the boundaries and make them more logical and efficient. There are many bus routes that mean buses criss cross around the county. There has been some attempt to minimize islands and elongated boundaries. Of course, the political forces that made those boundaries have all been alerted and reorganizing and pushing back.

It’s not the case that the current attendance islands are primarily a result of political lobbying. They are more the result of one-off decisions in the past to try and balance enrollments while minimizing boundary changes.

And then, after they’ve existed for decades, the question comes up as to whether the juice is really worth the squeeze to fix them just to have a prettier map. In most cases, eliminating them - whether by reassigning an island or reassigning another area to bridge the island - isn’t going to result in any significant transportation changes and could even increase transportation costs or enrollment disparities among nearby schools.

Conversely, there are a few instances where areas have gotten assigned to a school as a result of political lobbying, but those areas are contiguous to the school’s existing boundaries and don’t create an attendance islands. Again, the question comes up as to whether undoing those boundaries if they’ve now been in place for decades is really going to accomplish much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.