Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

But they aren't stable for five years.

This map building is a 2 year process. Then a year of people fighting the changes and flipping out, followed by the tremendous disruption of the actual rezoning.

It is guaranteeing over 4 years of continuous chaos and disruption, with the 5th year being everyone gearing up for the next fight.

The 5 year process is short sighted and horribly disruptive.

If they felt they must put a fixed timeline in mandatory rezoning, tge smartest way would be to mandate it every 10 years on the year following the census year.

Then, at least, we would have a stable timeline as well as actual data on growth patterns.

With a five-year review, you get stable boundaries for five-year periods, even if potential boundary adjustments are discussed within those increments.

It seems to be the 10-year model would only work if accompanied by the ability to make ad hoc adjustments if there are exigent circumstances. Otherwise waiting a full decade to fix a major problem seems too long.

And then if you allow for ad hoc changes to address exigent circumstances, you’re kind of conceding that the periodic adjustments can be for relatively unimportant reasons.

So, again, I don’t think the argument really ought to be over the frequency of the review so much as the threshold for making changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

And let’s be clear. The fight they are afraid of is with the Trump administration. They don’t want to end up on Fox News or be targeted by crazies who now feel more emboldened. They’re not afraid of making the typical parent in the community unhappy. No local or community group should be giving themselves too much credit here. They won’t hesitate to do things that anger you if the larger political winds change in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

And let’s be clear. The fight they are afraid of is with the Trump administration. They don’t want to end up on Fox News or be targeted by crazies who now feel more emboldened. They’re not afraid of making the typical parent in the community unhappy. No local or community group should be giving themselves too much credit here. They won’t hesitate to do things that anger you if the larger political winds change in the future.

I disagree. If they are afraid of a fight with Trump administration, they would not be paying legal fees to defy Title IX implementation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

Because of how the high poverty areas (and low poverty areas as well) are concentrated, any serious attempts at balancing would have involved a lot of bussing. Don’t be disingenuous.

Except for one major area that is less than three miles from the closest school which is said to be underenrolled.

The school is under-enrolled because 300 students in the boundary go to different FCPS schools because the school is not desirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

Because of how the high poverty areas (and low poverty areas as well) are concentrated, any serious attempts at balancing would have involved a lot of bussing. Don’t be disingenuous.

Except for one major area that is less than three miles from the closest school which is said to be underenrolled.

The school is under-enrolled because 300 students in the boundary go to different FCPS schools because the school is not desirable.

Undesirable because of unfettered immigration. Not mean or hateful, just the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

But they aren't stable for five years.

This map building is a 2 year process. Then a year of people fighting the changes and flipping out, followed by the tremendous disruption of the actual rezoning.

It is guaranteeing over 4 years of continuous chaos and disruption, with the 5th year being everyone gearing up for the next fight.

The 5 year process is short sighted and horribly disruptive.

If they felt they must put a fixed timeline in mandatory rezoning, tge smartest way would be to mandate it every 10 years on the year following the census year.

Then, at least, we would have a stable timeline as well as actual data on growth patterns.

With a five-year review, you get stable boundaries for five-year periods, even if potential boundary adjustments are discussed within those increments.

It seems to be the 10-year model would only work if accompanied by the ability to make ad hoc adjustments if there are exigent circumstances. Otherwise waiting a full decade to fix a major problem seems too long.

And then if you allow for ad hoc changes to address exigent circumstances, you’re kind of conceding that the periodic adjustments can be for relatively unimportant reasons.

So, again, I don’t think the argument really ought to be over the frequency of the review so much as the threshold for making changes.

There's no reason at all to have added the County-wide 5 year review. They screw around with the CIP every year, ad hoc adjustments are in the policy and adjustments happen all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

And let’s be clear. The fight they are afraid of is with the Trump administration. They don’t want to end up on Fox News or be targeted by crazies who now feel more emboldened. They’re not afraid of making the typical parent in the community unhappy. No local or community group should be giving themselves too much credit here. They won’t hesitate to do things that anger you if the larger political winds change in the future.

That is true, the only reason we didn’t end up with large scale bussing for “equity” already is because Covid came up and took over everything for two whole years. They had to back-burner the plans during Covid, and then by the time they were resumed, the national political climate had totally changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

But they aren't stable for five years.

This map building is a 2 year process. Then a year of people fighting the changes and flipping out, followed by the tremendous disruption of the actual rezoning.

It is guaranteeing over 4 years of continuous chaos and disruption, with the 5th year being everyone gearing up for the next fight.

The 5 year process is short sighted and horribly disruptive.

If they felt they must put a fixed timeline in mandatory rezoning, tge smartest way would be to mandate it every 10 years on the year following the census year.

Then, at least, we would have a stable timeline as well as actual data on growth patterns.

With a five-year review, you get stable boundaries for five-year periods, even if potential boundary adjustments are discussed within those increments.

It seems to be the 10-year model would only work if accompanied by the ability to make ad hoc adjustments if there are exigent circumstances. Otherwise waiting a full decade to fix a major problem seems too long.

And then if you allow for ad hoc changes to address exigent circumstances, you’re kind of conceding that the periodic adjustments can be for relatively unimportant reasons.

So, again, I don’t think the argument really ought to be over the frequency of the review so much as the threshold for making changes.

There's no reason at all to have added the County-wide 5 year review. They screw around with the CIP every year, ad hoc adjustments are in the policy and adjustments happen all the time.

I do think it’s more defensible to do ad hoc changes when truly needed than say we’ll do a county-wide review but only every 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

But they aren't stable for five years.

This map building is a 2 year process. Then a year of people fighting the changes and flipping out, followed by the tremendous disruption of the actual rezoning.

It is guaranteeing over 4 years of continuous chaos and disruption, with the 5th year being everyone gearing up for the next fight.

The 5 year process is short sighted and horribly disruptive.

If they felt they must put a fixed timeline in mandatory rezoning, tge smartest way would be to mandate it every 10 years on the year following the census year.

Then, at least, we would have a stable timeline as well as actual data on growth patterns.

With a five-year review, you get stable boundaries for five-year periods, even if potential boundary adjustments are discussed within those increments.

It seems to be the 10-year model would only work if accompanied by the ability to make ad hoc adjustments if there are exigent circumstances. Otherwise waiting a full decade to fix a major problem seems too long.

And then if you allow for ad hoc changes to address exigent circumstances, you’re kind of conceding that the periodic adjustments can be for relatively unimportant reasons.

So, again, I don’t think the argument really ought to be over the frequency of the review so much as the threshold for making changes.

There's no reason at all to have added the County-wide 5 year review. They screw around with the CIP every year, ad hoc adjustments are in the policy and adjustments happen all the time.

I do think it’s more defensible to do ad hoc changes when truly needed than say we’ll do a county-wide review but only every 10 years.

+1 Bravo! So sensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

People will blindly vote on party lines no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

People will blindly vote on party lines no matter what.

Youngkin’s election tells a different story. Virginia was a blue-leaning purple state when he got elected as governor, in large part because of McAuliffe’s stance on public education. Many voters crossed party lines.

It’s tougher with school board elections, because they are low information contests, but not impossible.

[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: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.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

But they aren't stable for five years.

This map building is a 2 year process. Then a year of people fighting the changes and flipping out, followed by the tremendous disruption of the actual rezoning.

It is guaranteeing over 4 years of continuous chaos and disruption, with the 5th year being everyone gearing up for the next fight.

The 5 year process is short sighted and horribly disruptive.

If they felt they must put a fixed timeline in mandatory rezoning, tge smartest way would be to mandate it every 10 years on the year following the census year.

Then, at least, we would have a stable timeline as well as actual data on growth patterns.

With a five-year review, you get stable boundaries for five-year periods, even if potential boundary adjustments are discussed within those increments.

It seems to be the 10-year model would only work if accompanied by the ability to make ad hoc adjustments if there are exigent circumstances. Otherwise waiting a full decade to fix a major problem seems too long.

And then if you allow for ad hoc changes to address exigent circumstances, you’re kind of conceding that the periodic adjustments can be for relatively unimportant reasons.

So, again, I don’t think the argument really ought to be over the frequency of the review so much as the threshold for making changes.

There's no reason at all to have added the County-wide 5 year review. They screw around with the CIP every year, ad hoc adjustments are in the policy and adjustments happen all the time.

I do think it’s more defensible to do ad hoc changes when truly needed than say we’ll do a county-wide review but only every 10 years.

+1 Bravo! So sensible.

This. Coates is a great example. Should have been done already, but we are 'waiting for the comprehensive boundary review. Stupid on so many levels. Meanwhile, the school is bursting at the seams and it is a very uncomfortable situation.

Boundary adjustments are disruptive to the community. To do a comprehensive one on a regular schedule is not needed. When schools are too crowded or underserved to make the curriculum suffer, there is a need for a change.

[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: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.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

But they aren't stable for five years.

This map building is a 2 year process. Then a year of people fighting the changes and flipping out, followed by the tremendous disruption of the actual rezoning.

It is guaranteeing over 4 years of continuous chaos and disruption, with the 5th year being everyone gearing up for the next fight.

The 5 year process is short sighted and horribly disruptive.

If they felt they must put a fixed timeline in mandatory rezoning, tge smartest way would be to mandate it every 10 years on the year following the census year.

Then, at least, we would have a stable timeline as well as actual data on growth patterns.

With a five-year review, you get stable boundaries for five-year periods, even if potential boundary adjustments are discussed within those increments.

It seems to be the 10-year model would only work if accompanied by the ability to make ad hoc adjustments if there are exigent circumstances. Otherwise waiting a full decade to fix a major problem seems too long.

And then if you allow for ad hoc changes to address exigent circumstances, you’re kind of conceding that the periodic adjustments can be for relatively unimportant reasons.

So, again, I don’t think the argument really ought to be over the frequency of the review so much as the threshold for making changes.

There's no reason at all to have added the County-wide 5 year review. They screw around with the CIP every year, ad hoc adjustments are in the policy and adjustments happen all the time.

I do think it’s more defensible to do ad hoc changes when truly needed than say we’ll do a county-wide review but only every 10 years.

+1 Bravo! So sensible.

This. Coates is a great example. Should have been done already, but we are 'waiting for the comprehensive boundary review. Stupid on so many levels. Meanwhile, the school is bursting at the seams and it is a very uncomfortable situation.

Boundary adjustments are disruptive to the community. To do a comprehensive one on a regular schedule is not needed. When schools are too crowded or underserved to make the curriculum suffer, there is a need for a change.

+1. I wouldn’t have chosen a house in the county if I knew that we’d have to run a boundary gauntlet three or four times with the schools. I just don’t get why they think that approach is okay?

[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: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.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

But they aren't stable for five years.

This map building is a 2 year process. Then a year of people fighting the changes and flipping out, followed by the tremendous disruption of the actual rezoning.

It is guaranteeing over 4 years of continuous chaos and disruption, with the 5th year being everyone gearing up for the next fight.

The 5 year process is short sighted and horribly disruptive.

If they felt they must put a fixed timeline in mandatory rezoning, tge smartest way would be to mandate it every 10 years on the year following the census year.

Then, at least, we would have a stable timeline as well as actual data on growth patterns.

With a five-year review, you get stable boundaries for five-year periods, even if potential boundary adjustments are discussed within those increments.

It seems to be the 10-year model would only work if accompanied by the ability to make ad hoc adjustments if there are exigent circumstances. Otherwise waiting a full decade to fix a major problem seems too long.

And then if you allow for ad hoc changes to address exigent circumstances, you’re kind of conceding that the periodic adjustments can be for relatively unimportant reasons.

So, again, I don’t think the argument really ought to be over the frequency of the review so much as the threshold for making changes.

There's no reason at all to have added the County-wide 5 year review. They screw around with the CIP every year, ad hoc adjustments are in the policy and adjustments happen all the time.

I do think it’s more defensible to do ad hoc changes when truly needed than say we’ll do a county-wide review but only every 10 years.

+1 Bravo! So sensible.

This. Coates is a great example. Should have been done already, but we are 'waiting for the comprehensive boundary review. Stupid on so many levels. Meanwhile, the school is bursting at the seams and it is a very uncomfortable situation.

Boundary adjustments are disruptive to the community. To do a comprehensive one on a regular schedule is not needed. When schools are too crowded or underserved to make the curriculum suffer, there is a need for a change.

+1. I wouldn’t have chosen a house in the county if I knew that we’d have to run a boundary gauntlet three or four times with the schools. I just don’t get why they think that approach is okay?

It is not okay.

I am the one that said if they were going to do a set interval, at least spread it out 10 years after the census.

But really, they need to revert to the old 8130 where rezoning requests went bottoms up, from the principals to Gatehouse when schools got too crowded to manage, not this arbitrary 5 year schedule.

Honestly, I think the ideal policy would be once a school goes over 105% capacity, a full residency check should automatically occur, with all out of bound kids returned to their base schools. Then, if enforcing residency lowers enrollment, the school does not get rezoned.

[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: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.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

But they aren't stable for five years.

This map building is a 2 year process. Then a year of people fighting the changes and flipping out, followed by the tremendous disruption of the actual rezoning.

It is guaranteeing over 4 years of continuous chaos and disruption, with the 5th year being everyone gearing up for the next fight.

The 5 year process is short sighted and horribly disruptive.

If they felt they must put a fixed timeline in mandatory rezoning, tge smartest way would be to mandate it every 10 years on the year following the census year.

Then, at least, we would have a stable timeline as well as actual data on growth patterns.

With a five-year review, you get stable boundaries for five-year periods, even if potential boundary adjustments are discussed within those increments.

It seems to be the 10-year model would only work if accompanied by the ability to make ad hoc adjustments if there are exigent circumstances. Otherwise waiting a full decade to fix a major problem seems too long.

And then if you allow for ad hoc changes to address exigent circumstances, you’re kind of conceding that the periodic adjustments can be for relatively unimportant reasons.

So, again, I don’t think the argument really ought to be over the frequency of the review so much as the threshold for making changes.

There's no reason at all to have added the County-wide 5 year review. They screw around with the CIP every year, ad hoc adjustments are in the policy and adjustments happen all the time.

I do think it’s more defensible to do ad hoc changes when truly needed than say we’ll do a county-wide review but only every 10 years.

+1 Bravo! So sensible.

This. Coates is a great example. Should have been done already, but we are 'waiting for the comprehensive boundary review. Stupid on so many levels. Meanwhile, the school is bursting at the seams and it is a very uncomfortable situation.

Boundary adjustments are disruptive to the community. To do a comprehensive one on a regular schedule is not needed. When schools are too crowded or underserved to make the curriculum suffer, there is a need for a change.

+1. I wouldn’t have chosen a house in the county if I knew that we’d have to run a boundary gauntlet three or four times with the schools. I just don’t get why they think that approach is okay?

It is not okay.

I am the one that said if they were going to do a set interval, at least spread it out 10 years after the census.

But really, they need to revert to the old 8130 where rezoning requests went bottoms up, from the principals to Gatehouse when schools got too crowded to manage, not this arbitrary 5 year schedule.

Honestly, I think the ideal policy would be once a school goes over 105% capacity, a full residency check should automatically occur, with all out of bound kids returned to their base schools. Then, if enforcing residency lowers enrollment, the school does not get rezoned.

This type of tripwire is totally unfair unless we’ve also first made sure all schools have or will have adequate capacity. 105% at a recently expanded school looks quite different than 105% at a neglected one.