FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

AAP centers and IB schools are the drivers for kids not attending their home schools and so are a core element in making decisions to address boundaries.

If you can’t see that then, you will never see why the current effort if continued is not going to solve the problem.

If you can’t see that local economy is about to be disrupted and CIP data may no longer be reliable you will be disappointed with whatever changes are made.

If you are unaware that the K-12 student population will continue to drop going forward then you are as uniformed as the SB and Reid.

Agree no need for name calling.

You are hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

DP. Look, we all want to be able to rely on the CIP, but there are known significant issues with the projections contained therein. Specifically, there is an undercount of new students from residential developments. It’s a known issue and an easy fix, but it has not been fixed yet.

Until then, we’re flying blind with the CIP, and we can thank this issue for the unnecessary expansions that have been made over the last decade or so. These expansions are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you want the CIP to be reliable, tell FCPS to fix the way it considers residential development projected to be completed in five years or less that has not broken ground.

And you are not making a self-serving argument….

Under your path of logic, we should not rely on the CIP projections that include a much-needed renovation/expansion to Centreville that would relieve over-capacity and send several ES that are closer to Centreville into Centreville and out of Fairfax. It would directly address capacity and allow FCPS to 1) fix an attendance island and 2) make Fairfax HS just for Fairfax city.

Your arguments are weak and do collateral damage to strong, planning-based arguments across the county.

Weirdly hostile response. I haven’t looked at the centreville situation enough to know whether it’s necessary or not.

My argument is for accuracy using math and logic (two concepts which apparently you think are “weak”). I’m not sure why anyone would be against that, but I guess DCUM has all kinds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

DP. Look, we all want to be able to rely on the CIP, but there are known significant issues with the projections contained therein. Specifically, there is an undercount of new students from residential developments. It’s a known issue and an easy fix, but it has not been fixed yet.

Until then, we’re flying blind with the CIP, and we can thank this issue for the unnecessary expansions that have been made over the last decade or so. These expansions are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you want the CIP to be reliable, tell FCPS to fix the way it considers residential development projected to be completed in five years or less that has not broken ground.

And you are not making a self-serving argument….

Under your path of logic, we should not rely on the CIP projections that include a much-needed renovation/expansion to Centreville that would relieve over-capacity and send several ES that are closer to Centreville into Centreville and out of Fairfax. It would directly address capacity and allow FCPS to 1) fix an attendance island and 2) make Fairfax HS just for Fairfax city.

Your arguments are weak and do collateral damage to strong, planning-based arguments across the county.

Weirdly hostile response. I haven’t looked at the centreville situation enough to know whether it’s necessary or not.

My argument is for accuracy using math and logic (two concepts which apparently you think are “weak”). I’m not sure why anyone would be against that, but I guess DCUM has all kinds.

DP. I think the issue is that you’re complaining that FCPS doesn’t adequately account for students from new developments when forecasting enrollments but then tying it to “unnecessary expansions.” You haven’t explained why, in your opinion, one leads to the other.

If you want to say that FCPS isn’t investing its capital resources where there is the greatest need, which more accurate projections would make even clearer, that would be a more compelling argument.

I understand the frustration, and think you’ve into a buzz saw of FCPS apologists, who expect they won’t be affected by boundary changes and are perfectly happy for others to get moved, even if the real reasons for moving them are never acknowledged and we’re still going to end up with a lot of transfers due to the current AAP Center and IB models.

[Anonymous]

Here are some facts:

No high school in FCPS is too small. The only high school that is terribly overcrowded is projected to lose membership over the next years and is operating well.
Any boundary adjustment will necessarily result in many students who currently live near schools going further away because of the domino effect.

Two of the schools much discussed on this thread are directly impacted by the AP/IB pupil placement in or out. Eliminating IB would send kids back to base school.

Our FCPS budget is obviously strained. Getting rid of IB would save some dollars. In the budget, it might seem like peanuts, but it still counts. I suspect if you surveyed neighborhoods that currently have IB, that the parents would overwhelmingly vote for AP. I would suggest you begin with Fox Mill (formerly Oakton) and neighborhoods near Frying Pan Park off of Monroe that were formerly assigned to Westfield.

From reading this thread, I understand there are elementary schools that are overcrowded. This needs to be addressed as in the past--on a case by case basis. This will not be solved with a wide boundary study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

DP. Look, we all want to be able to rely on the CIP, but there are known significant issues with the projections contained therein. Specifically, there is an undercount of new students from residential developments. It’s a known issue and an easy fix, but it has not been fixed yet.

Until then, we’re flying blind with the CIP, and we can thank this issue for the unnecessary expansions that have been made over the last decade or so. These expansions are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you want the CIP to be reliable, tell FCPS to fix the way it considers residential development projected to be completed in five years or less that has not broken ground.

And you are not making a self-serving argument….

Under your path of logic, we should not rely on the CIP projections that include a much-needed renovation/expansion to Centreville that would relieve over-capacity and send several ES that are closer to Centreville into Centreville and out of Fairfax. It would directly address capacity and allow FCPS to 1) fix an attendance island and 2) make Fairfax HS just for Fairfax city.

Your arguments are weak and do collateral damage to strong, planning-based arguments across the county.

Weirdly hostile response. I haven’t looked at the centreville situation enough to know whether it’s necessary or not.

My argument is for accuracy using math and logic (two concepts which apparently you think are “weak”). I’m not sure why anyone would be against that, but I guess DCUM has all kinds.

Says the person calling people ignorant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. [b]The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

DP. Look, we all want to be able to rely on the CIP, but there are known significant issues with the projections contained therein. Specifically, there is an undercount of new students from residential developments. It’s a known issue and an easy fix, but it has not been fixed yet.

Until then, we’re flying blind with the CIP, and we can thank this issue for the unnecessary expansions that have been made over the last decade or so. These expansions are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you want the CIP to be reliable, tell FCPS to fix the way it considers residential development projected to be completed in five years or less that has not broken ground.

And you are not making a self-serving argument….

Under your path of logic, we should not rely on the CIP projections that include a much-needed renovation/expansion to Centreville that would relieve over-capacity and send several ES that are closer to Centreville into Centreville and out of Fairfax. It would directly address capacity and allow FCPS to 1) fix an attendance island and 2) make Fairfax HS just for Fairfax city.

Your arguments are weak and do collateral damage to strong, planning-based arguments across the county.

Weirdly hostile response. I haven’t looked at the centreville situation enough to know whether it’s necessary or not.

My argument is for accuracy using math and logic (two concepts which apparently you think are “weak”). I’m not sure why anyone would be against that, but I guess DCUM has all kinds.

DP. I think the issue is that you’re complaining that FCPS doesn’t adequately account for students from new developments when forecasting enrollments but then tying it to “unnecessary expansions.” You haven’t explained why, in your opinion, one leads to the other.

If you want to say that FCPS isn’t investing its capital resources where there is the greatest need, which more accurate projections would make even clearer, that would be a more compelling argument.

I understand the frustration, and think you’ve into a buzz saw of FCPS apologists, who expect they won’t be affected by boundary changes and are perfectly happy for others to get moved, even if the real reasons for moving them are never acknowledged and we’re still going to end up with a lot of transfers due to the current AAP Center and IB models.

Buzz saw, yes. FCPS apologist, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

DP. Look, we all want to be able to rely on the CIP, but there are known significant issues with the projections contained therein. Specifically, there is an undercount of new students from residential developments. It’s a known issue and an easy fix, but it has not been fixed yet.

Until then, we’re flying blind with the CIP, and we can thank this issue for the unnecessary expansions that have been made over the last decade or so. These expansions are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you want the CIP to be reliable, tell FCPS to fix the way it considers residential development projected to be completed in five years or less that has not broken ground.

And you are not making a self-serving argument….

Under your path of logic, we should not rely on the CIP projections that include a much-needed renovation/expansion to Centreville that would relieve over-capacity and send several ES that are closer to Centreville into Centreville and out of Fairfax. It would directly address capacity and allow FCPS to 1) fix an attendance island and 2) make Fairfax HS just for Fairfax city.

Your arguments are weak and do collateral damage to strong, planning-based arguments across the county.

Weirdly hostile response. I haven’t looked at the centreville situation enough to know whether it’s necessary or not.

My argument is for accuracy using math and logic (two concepts which apparently you think are “weak”). I’m not sure why anyone would be against that, but I guess DCUM has all kinds.

Says the person calling people ignorant

Says the person dropping racial slurs about minorities.

If you pretend I’m calling people ignorant I can make $hit up about you too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

DP. Look, we all want to be able to rely on the CIP, but there are known significant issues with the projections contained therein. Specifically, there is an undercount of new students from residential developments. It’s a known issue and an easy fix, but it has not been fixed yet.

Until then, we’re flying blind with the CIP, and we can thank this issue for the unnecessary expansions that have been made over the last decade or so. These expansions are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you want the CIP to be reliable, tell FCPS to fix the way it considers residential development projected to be completed in five years or less that has not broken ground.

And you are not making a self-serving argument….

Under your path of logic, we should not rely on the CIP projections that include a much-needed renovation/expansion to Centreville that would relieve over-capacity and send several ES that are closer to Centreville into Centreville and out of Fairfax. It would directly address capacity and allow FCPS to 1) fix an attendance island and 2) make Fairfax HS just for Fairfax city.

Your arguments are weak and do collateral damage to strong, planning-based arguments across the county.

Weirdly hostile response. I haven’t looked at the centreville situation enough to know whether it’s necessary or not.

My argument is for accuracy using math and logic (two concepts which apparently you think are “weak”). I’m not sure why anyone would be against that, but I guess DCUM has all kinds.

DP. I think the issue is that you’re complaining that FCPS doesn’t adequately account for students from new developments when forecasting enrollments but then tying it to “unnecessary expansions.” You haven’t explained why, in your opinion, one leads to the other.

If you want to say that FCPS isn’t investing its capital resources where there is the greatest need, which more accurate projections would make even clearer, that would be a more compelling argument.

I understand the frustration, and think you’ve into a buzz saw of FCPS apologists, who expect they won’t be affected by boundary changes and are perfectly happy for others to get moved, even if the real reasons for moving them are never acknowledged and we’re still going to end up with a lot of transfers due to the current AAP Center and IB models.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

DP. Look, we all want to be able to rely on the CIP, but there are known significant issues with the projections contained therein. Specifically, there is an undercount of new students from residential developments. It’s a known issue and an easy fix, but it has not been fixed yet.

Until then, we’re flying blind with the CIP, and we can thank this issue for the unnecessary expansions that have been made over the last decade or so. These expansions are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you want the CIP to be reliable, tell FCPS to fix the way it considers residential development projected to be completed in five years or less that has not broken ground.

And you are not making a self-serving argument….

Under your path of logic, we should not rely on the CIP projections that include a much-needed renovation/expansion to Centreville that would relieve over-capacity and send several ES that are closer to Centreville into Centreville and out of Fairfax. It would directly address capacity and allow FCPS to 1) fix an attendance island and 2) make Fairfax HS just for Fairfax city.

Your arguments are weak and do collateral damage to strong, planning-based arguments across the county.

Weirdly hostile response. I haven’t looked at the centreville situation enough to know whether it’s necessary or not.

My argument is for accuracy using math and logic (two concepts which apparently you think are “weak”). I’m not sure why anyone would be against that, but I guess DCUM has all kinds.

Says the person calling people ignorant

Says the person dropping racial slurs about minorities.

If you pretend I’m calling people ignorant I can make $hit up about you too.

Excuse me?!?!? When did that happen?!?!?

[Anonymous]

Read the thread. I directly responded to comments calling people ignorant. Apparently credibility is not important to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read the thread. I directly responded to comments calling people ignorant. Apparently credibility is not important to you.

Do you know what DP means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the thread. I directly responded to comments calling people ignorant. Apparently credibility is not important to you.

Do you know what DP means?

Yes I do. Do you know what “flailing” and “casting about” mean?

[Anonymous]

This is, in fact, a DP that the posters sparring above.

I think we need a reset because no one can now follow who is responding to whom, or the basis for their apparent disagreement.

In that vein, I'd ask if people have a credible basis to believe FCPS is preparing to pause this boundary review, which was suggested earlier but may have been wishful thinking rather than an informed statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is, in fact, a DP that the posters sparring above.

I think we need a reset because no one can now follow who is responding to whom, or the basis for their apparent disagreement.

In that vein, I'd ask if people have a credible basis to believe FCPS is preparing to pause this boundary review, which was suggested earlier but may have been wishful thinking rather than an informed statement.

Sounds good. Yeah, I’ll disengage, I just really dislike when people accuse me of saying stuff that I didn’t, especially when I clearly use DP to start the post.

That said, I second your request for corroboration about the potential boundary pause.

[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:Email will be sent out after break about the pause.

That would be the best outcome for all parties. FCPS doing the right thing for once, priceless.

A pause just pushes the problem onto other people's kids. Either drop the whole thing or get it over with. No need to drag it out.

Are you completely ignorant?

You’ve never heard of DOGE? You have no idea of the scope of firings of .gov employees? You fail to understand ripple effects we are seeing? You’re blind to the self-deportations resulting from ICE enforcement?

Maybe go away now, PP. or just stop posting your ignorance.

You're delusional if you think anyone is pulling their kids out of school and self-deporting. Stop drinking the kool-aid and use some critical thinking. I've known a few gov employees who have been RIF'd and none of them are leaving either. We're all two income families here.
I'd be happy if the boundary adjustments were strictly limited in scope to overcrowding and scoped accordingly. The school board has not once said anything about adjusting IB vs AP, or anything about eliminating AAP centers as part of this effort. That's just posters on here wishing for alternatives to what the board has said they are actually trying to do. I don't see why it's so hard to directly ask and get an official answer one way or another about if those things could be incorporated - but again, I'd rather they do as little as possible like 90% of the posters on here.

I agree with the bolded. Saying “go away” and calling a poster “ignorant” because they do not agree with your wishful thinking about your “fix AAP and IB/AP” escape hatch.

I have a student at an AAP center. It is an excellent experience that meets their needs. There are logistical efficiencies to consolidating these resources in a MS. The experience the CLTs at my DCs MS reflect the years-long investment in this resource concentration.

I also oppose several approaches taken in the current boundary review. I strongly believe using the current CIP as a planning tool gives families more reliable notice for planning, and links adjustments more clearly to capacity needs. But I suspect the “fix AAP / fix AP/IB” will also “argue” that the CIP is a lie that should not be used to adjust boundaries.

Then they shout folks down as “ignorant” when they share their own experiences in NoVa an state a view that I share: FCPS shows no sign of slowing down and has likely decided to proceed with a more narrow boundary adjustment. So their credibility falls a bit more, in my view.

At some point, those of us with the law and the facts on their side who oppose certain aspects of this thing will leave the room when those who don’t have the law and the facts on their side keep simply pounding the table and shouting at the rest of us. Leave AAP alone. AP/IB is not the silver bullet that you think it is. If we can’t rely on the CIP to make arguments based in facts as FCPS presents them, all you are saying to the world is “nothing is ever supportable,” which is a losing argument.

DP. Look, we all want to be able to rely on the CIP, but there are known significant issues with the projections contained therein. Specifically, there is an undercount of new students from residential developments. It’s a known issue and an easy fix, but it has not been fixed yet.

Until then, we’re flying blind with the CIP, and we can thank this issue for the unnecessary expansions that have been made over the last decade or so. These expansions are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you want the CIP to be reliable, tell FCPS to fix the way it considers residential development projected to be completed in five years or less that has not broken ground.

And you are not making a self-serving argument….

Under your path of logic, we should not rely on the CIP projections that include a much-needed renovation/expansion to Centreville that would relieve over-capacity and send several ES that are closer to Centreville into Centreville and out of Fairfax. It would directly address capacity and allow FCPS to 1) fix an attendance island and 2) make Fairfax HS just for Fairfax city.

Your arguments are weak and do collateral damage to strong, planning-based arguments across the county.

Weirdly hostile response. I haven’t looked at the centreville situation enough to know whether it’s necessary or not.

My argument is for accuracy using math and logic (two concepts which apparently you think are “weak”). I’m not sure why anyone would be against that, but I guess DCUM has all kinds.

Says the person calling people ignorant

Says the person dropping racial slurs about minorities.

If you pretend I’m calling people ignorant I can make $hit up about you too.

Excuse me?!?!? When did that happen?!?!?

It did not happen.