FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire almost 200 page thread can be summed up with one of two (or both) statements:

"Oh no, I am racist!" or "Oh no, my home value!"

Can we lock it now?

No. It can be summed up in this way: leave it alone.

Or else what? The SB doesn’t need out permission. They needed and got enough votes to get their positions. I’m not a fan of theirs but this petty sniping is unproductive. Agree the thread needs to be shut down.

Did you grow up in Russia or something? We live in a democracy. No of course the SB doesn’t need our permission. But they are elected and we have every right to try communicate to our elected REPRESENTATIVES what we want them to do on our behalf. That’s how it works.

That is what we elected them for. They are the same team that started the process. Electing them was agreement to continue. The people have spoken whether we like it or not.

Most people only voted for them because the Dems handed out ballots with their names on it.

This "bi-partisan" SB thing is a joke. The community does not want this boundary redistricting. People want to stay where they are. (Some want to stay where they are and have more affluent students join them, but almost all want to stay put.) The SB thinks that by doing this that there will be "equity." What the community wants is good instruction and stability. The SB thinks it can "fix" things --when all this will do is be a "cover up" for those who are not performing up to standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To those who want a boundary change on this forum:
1. Do you have a child attending or soon attending high school?
2. Do you want your child to attend the current high school?

Yes and yes. The schools need to be rebalanced. Whether our HS pyramid is affected or not doesn’t matter to me, nor whether my kids get moved. I also expect the boundaries to be reviews at least every 10 years though major changes may not always be necessary.

I object to parents feeling entitled to a specific pyramid especially if they live in neighborhoods in the edges. This is a county wide district not some podunk city district that has a few high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To those who want a boundary change on this forum:
1. Do you have a child attending or soon attending high school?
2. Do you want your child to attend the current high school?

No, elementary school.

Yes, eventually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who want a boundary change on this forum:
1. Do you have a child attending or soon attending high school?
2. Do you want your child to attend the current high school?

Yes and yes. The schools need to be rebalanced. Whether our HS pyramid is affected or not doesn’t matter to me, nor whether my kids get moved. I also expect the boundaries to be reviews at least every 10 years though major changes may not always be necessary.

I object to parents feeling entitled to a specific pyramid especially if they live in neighborhoods in the edges. This is a county wide district not some podunk city district that has a few high schools.

Tell me your kids are in a poor performing school without telling me that they are…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who want a boundary change on this forum:
1. Do you have a child attending or soon attending high school?
2. Do you want your child to attend the current high school?

Yes and yes. The schools need to be rebalanced. Whether our HS pyramid is affected or not doesn’t matter to me, nor whether my kids get moved. I also expect the boundaries to be reviews at least every 10 years though major changes may not always be necessary.

I object to parents feeling entitled to a specific pyramid especially if they live in neighborhoods in the edges. This is a county wide district not some podunk city district that has a few high schools.

Tell me your kids are in a poor performing school without telling me that they are…

Ok, so? That's probably a major reason for people.
People also are using their hosuing equity and nothing related to education as an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got an email from FCPS thanking me for attending the region 2 meeting and then purporting to summarize the public feedback as focused primarily on the importance of an “equitable” process, reducing transportation times, and standardizing MS grades (6-8 or 7-8) all over the county.

It’s very clear they aren’t listening to those who stressed the importance of stable boundaries and very clear, objective criteria before adjusting any boundaries. The whole process seems to be a sham where they’ll do what they want to do and then claim they had support.

I went to the one at LB (Region 4) and they summed up our meeting as:

What We Heard from You

During the meeting, you emphasized several key priorities including:

Transportation and Proximity: Reducing travel times, prioritizing walkability, and ensuring equitable access to schools.

Coordination with Developers and Local Government: Aligning boundary decisions with growth patterns and planning for sustainable enrollment solutions.

Minimizing Community Disruption: Preserving neighborhood and school community connections to maintain stability and continuity.

Your feedback highlights the need to balance data-driven decisions with community values, ensuring that the boundary review aligns with what matter

The only point I have a bone to pick with was “ensuring equitable access to schools.” No one said that so they’re pretty much pulling that out of thin air.

If no one in Region 4 believes poor kids should have access to strong schools, that's fine. But it is literally FCPS's duty as a public institution to then step in and provide that opportunity for kids whose voices are not represented at the table. I wouldn't call that "out of thin air."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire almost 200 page thread can be summed up with one of two (or both) statements:

"Oh no, I am racist!" or "Oh no, my home value!"

Can we lock it now?

No. It can be summed up in this way: leave it alone.

Or else what? The SB doesn’t need out permission. They needed and got enough votes to get their positions. I’m not a fan of theirs but this petty sniping is unproductive. Agree the thread needs to be shut down.

Did you grow up in Russia or something? We live in a democracy. No of course the SB doesn’t need our permission. But they are elected and we have every right to try communicate to our elected REPRESENTATIVES what we want them to do on our behalf. That’s how it works.

That is what we elected them for. They are the same team that started the process. Electing them was agreement to continue. The people have spoken whether we like it or not.

If you believe that then you have to subscribe to the view that the SB members are not independent members exercising objective judgment, as the law contemplates, but instead just party hacks implementing a plan discussed by a different group of people who belong to the same political party six years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got an email from FCPS thanking me for attending the region 2 meeting and then purporting to summarize the public feedback as focused primarily on the importance of an “equitable” process, reducing transportation times, and standardizing MS grades (6-8 or 7-8) all over the county.

It’s very clear they aren’t listening to those who stressed the importance of stable boundaries and very clear, objective criteria before adjusting any boundaries. The whole process seems to be a sham where they’ll do what they want to do and then claim they had support.

I went to the one at LB (Region 4) and they summed up our meeting as:

What We Heard from You

During the meeting, you emphasized several key priorities including:

Transportation and Proximity: Reducing travel times, prioritizing walkability, and ensuring equitable access to schools.

Coordination with Developers and Local Government: Aligning boundary decisions with growth patterns and planning for sustainable enrollment solutions.

Minimizing Community Disruption: Preserving neighborhood and school community connections to maintain stability and continuity.

Your feedback highlights the need to balance data-driven decisions with community values, ensuring that the boundary review aligns with what matter

The only point I have a bone to pick with was “ensuring equitable access to schools.” No one said that so they’re pretty much pulling that out of thin air.

If no one in Region 4 believes poor kids should have access to strong schools, that's fine. But it is literally FCPS's duty as a public institution to then step in and provide that opportunity for kids whose voices are not represented at the table. I wouldn't call that "out of thin air."

This isn’t about poor kids not being the center of attention at an ever-increasing number of FCPS schools. They absolutely are.

It’s about the wealthier families at those same schools wanting MC and UMC kids redistricted to their schools so they’ll have more high-achieving peers.

They can placate these people - who certainly have the ear of the FCDC - but they will be chasing after and redistributing a smaller pool of the “right” kids over time, as families with options exit FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so? That's probably a major reason for people.
People also are using their hosuing equity and nothing related to education as an argument.

No. They are using their own families and their own children as an argument.

Have you ever had children in two different high schools. Having to miss one game because the other kid is playing in a game elsewhere? Having to purchase two sets of spirit gear. Having to deal with how to transport for after school activities in two different directions?

And, to purchase a house near one school--but because you are on the "fringes"--even though the fringe is very close and it is the closest high school --to be sent to another school that is quite a bit further away?

Sounds like you do not have a high school student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who want a boundary change on this forum:
1. Do you have a child attending or soon attending high school?
2. Do you want your child to attend the current high school?

Yes and yes. The schools need to be rebalanced. Whether our HS pyramid is affected or not doesn’t matter to me, nor whether my kids get moved. I also expect the boundaries to be reviews at least every 10 years though major changes may not always be necessary.

I object to parents feeling entitled to a specific pyramid especially if they live in neighborhoods in the edges. This is a county wide district not some podunk city district that has a few high schools.

Tell me your kids are in a poor performing school without telling me that they are…

NP. My school is in a middle of the road pyramid. I'm not worried about whether is performs better or worse. I'm worried about overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ok, so? That's probably a major reason for people.
People also are using their hosuing equity and nothing related to education as an argument.

No. They are using their own families and their own children as an argument.

Have you ever had children in two different high schools. Having to miss one game because the other kid is playing in a game elsewhere? Having to purchase two sets of spirit gear. Having to deal with how to transport for after school activities in two different directions?

And, to purchase a house near one school--but because you are on the "fringes"--even though the fringe is very close and it is the closest high school --to be sent to another school that is quite a bit further away?

Sounds like you do not have a high school student.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I got an email from FCPS thanking me for attending the region 2 meeting and then purporting to summarize the public feedback as focused primarily on the importance of an “equitable” process, reducing transportation times, and standardizing MS grades (6-8 or 7-8) all over the county.

It’s very clear they aren’t listening to those who stressed the importance of stable boundaries and very clear, objective criteria before adjusting any boundaries. The whole process seems to be a sham where they’ll do what they want to do and then claim they had support.

Which schools are region 2?

Our mweting last week was passionately against rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got an email from FCPS thanking me for attending the region 2 meeting and then purporting to summarize the public feedback as focused primarily on the importance of an “equitable” process, reducing transportation times, and standardizing MS grades (6-8 or 7-8) all over the county.

It’s very clear they aren’t listening to those who stressed the importance of stable boundaries and very clear, objective criteria before adjusting any boundaries. The whole process seems to be a sham where they’ll do what they want to do and then claim they had support.

I went to the one at LB (Region 4) and they summed up our meeting as:

What We Heard from You

During the meeting, you emphasized several key priorities including:

Transportation and Proximity: Reducing travel times, prioritizing walkability, and ensuring equitable access to schools.

Coordination with Developers and Local Government: Aligning boundary decisions with growth patterns and planning for sustainable enrollment solutions.

Minimizing Community Disruption: Preserving neighborhood and school community connections to maintain stability and continuity.

Your feedback highlights the need to balance data-driven decisions with community values, ensuring that the boundary review aligns with what matters most to families.

The only point I have a bone to pick with was “ensuring equitable access to schools.” No one said that so they’re pretty much pulling that out of thin air.

Agree.

No one said that at the Lake Braddock meeting.

One Lewis parent at our table did say something similar, but along the lines of if FCPS does not fix the deficits at our school and facility first before rezoning, ir doesn't matter who they rezone because no one will want to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got an email from FCPS thanking me for attending the region 2 meeting and then purporting to summarize the public feedback as focused primarily on the importance of an “equitable” process, reducing transportation times, and standardizing MS grades (6-8 or 7-8) all over the county.

It’s very clear they aren’t listening to those who stressed the importance of stable boundaries and very clear, objective criteria before adjusting any boundaries. The whole process seems to be a sham where they’ll do what they want to do and then claim they had support.

I went to the one at LB (Region 4) and they summed up our meeting as:

What We Heard from You

During the meeting, you emphasized several key priorities including:

Transportation and Proximity: Reducing travel times, prioritizing walkability, and ensuring equitable access to schools.

Coordination with Developers and Local Government: Aligning boundary decisions with growth patterns and planning for sustainable enrollment solutions.

Minimizing Community Disruption: Preserving neighborhood and school community connections to maintain stability and continuity.

Your feedback highlights the need to balance data-driven decisions with community values, ensuring that the boundary review aligns with what matters most to families.

The only point I have a bone to pick with was “ensuring equitable access to schools.” No one said that so they’re pretty much pulling that out of thin air.

Agree.

No one said that at the Lake Braddock meeting.

One Lewis parent at our table did say something similar, but along the lines of if FCPS does not fix the deficits at our school and facility first before rezoning, ir doesn't matter who they rezone because no one will want to attend.

They need plans to upgrade the three oldest high schools - Annandale, McLean, and Lewis. Not saying it can happen overnight, but planning for their renovation should be a higher priority than boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire almost 200 page thread can be summed up with one of two (or both) statements:

"Oh no, I am racist!" or "Oh no, my home value!"

Can we lock it now?

No. It can be summed up in this way: leave it alone.

Or else what? The SB doesn’t need out permission. They needed and got enough votes to get their positions. I’m not a fan of theirs but this petty sniping is unproductive. Agree the thread needs to be shut down.

Did you grow up in Russia or something? We live in a democracy. No of course the SB doesn’t need our permission. But they are elected and we have every right to try communicate to our elected REPRESENTATIVES what we want them to do on our behalf. That’s how it works.

That is what we elected them for. They are the same team that started the process. Electing them was agreement to continue. The people have spoken whether we like it or not.

Most people only voted for them because the Dems handed out ballots with their names on it.

This "bi-partisan" SB thing is a joke. The community does not want this boundary redistricting. People want to stay where they are. (Some want to stay where they are and have more affluent students join them, but almost all want to stay put.) The SB thinks that by doing this that there will be "equity." What the community wants is good instruction and stability. The SB thinks it can "fix" things --when all this will do is be a "cover up" for those who are not performing up to standards.

They chose to be ignorant and vote blue no matter who. THAT was a deliberate choice. 🤷‍♀️