FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that those in favor of the adjustment cannot give good, valid reasons why it is needed. FCPS will spend buckets of money on this.

A)Some schools are over capacity.
B)Some schools are under capacity.
Schools A and B share boundaries.
The end.

Agreed. And just based on what they’ve done with the attendance islands so far, I don’t think they are screaming EQUITY. Some gain richer neighborhoods which debunks this being their ONLY and top reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that those in favor of the adjustment cannot give good, valid reasons why it is needed. FCPS will spend buckets of money on this.

A)Some schools are over capacity.
B)Some schools are under capacity.
Schools A and B share boundaries.
The end.

But what if the under-enrollment or over-enrollment isn’t that great? Or moving kids to the under-enrolled school means a longer commute that costs more money, or creates a new split feeder? Or the under-enrolled school is under-enrolled for reasons that FCPS isn’t addressing, such as not offering AP courses or having safety issues?

What you call the end ought to be the beginning, not a foregone conclusion.

I really wish they would have assessed program equity before diving into capacity moves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that those in favor of the adjustment cannot give good, valid reasons why it is needed. FCPS will spend buckets of money on this.

A)Some schools are over capacity.
B)Some schools are under capacity.
Schools A and B share boundaries.
The end.

Maybe a school is over capacity because FCPS planning sucks and we have School Board members like Karl Frisch ignoring it while wasting tens of millions on an unnecessary new elementary school in Dunn Loring.

I want smarter planning and capital investments, not kids moved around like widgets to cover up their incompetence and inattention to detail.

We can do both! Make immediate corrections now and get smarter on capital planning long term. Win-win for all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe I am in the minority viewpoint, or it is just that people like me are not too concerned about all this because our houses are not close to a boundary.

You may think you are not close to a boundary, but that does not matter anymore. When I moved here, we were not close to a boundary. We haven't moved, but the boundaries have.
Elementary is safe for us because we are walkers. At least, I think it is safe. Middle school is very close--yet we are close to a boundary. High school is very close--yet we are close to a boundary.

When the boundaries were drawn, there were valid reasons for them. Traffic patterns, overcrowding at some schools, etc. With limited exceptions, that is not true with this boundary study.

This is kind of like going on vacation and having others come in to rearrange your furniture. They throw away what they think is not useful--but is important to you. And, yes, they also rearrange your kitchen so that you cannot find what you frequently use.

Did FCPS promise you that high school in perpetuity?

Did FCPS promise you an equity-based hand-out paid for by your neighbors?

Boundaries changes. All over the country, not just in Fairfax County.

Build a bridge and get over it.

“Get over it.” This is about real impact to real kids so no, I won’t just “get over it”. Since ES, my MS-aged kid has built connections to their zoned HS through sports, music, and academic activities. They visit the HS and know so many of the kids they’ll soon go to school with. Taking that away (and worse, asking them to switch part way through!) isn’t necessary. I’m all for raising resilient kids, but we’ve already asked these kids to be resilient through a pandemic, which significantly disrupted their education and community. What are we trying to achieve through this exercise that’s worth the real impact it will have on kids? I’d prefer that public schools always prioritize the kids.
Also, any data being used to inform decisions isn’t reliable. This area is facing major changes through the ripple effects of downsizing the federal government and curbing immigration. The region needs to stabilize before we use data to make major and costly decisions.

Adjustments need to happen periodically. If it’s not your kid being moved now, it’s somebody else’s kids later. I personally would
have loved for this review to happen years ago, but it’s not about me (or you). Stop taking this personally.

No actual human being would write “Stop taking this personally” when it involves kids. It’s gotta be a bot or someone with serious issues.

[Anonymous]

Catching up here, but from what I glean from this thread, the people who are pro boundary changes don’t care about mental health of the county’s kids.

It’s us-against-them, MAGA blue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that those in favor of the adjustment cannot give good, valid reasons why it is needed. FCPS will spend buckets of money on this.

A)Some schools are over capacity.
B)Some schools are under capacity.
Schools A and B share boundaries.
The end.

Agreed. And just based on what they’ve done with the attendance islands so far, I don’t think they are screaming EQUITY. Some gain richer neighborhoods which debunks this being their ONLY and top reason.

Some seem obviously driven by equity goals but regardless of that fact if they are making unnecessary changes, including changes that seem anti-equity, it’s not a good thing.

I’m going to point out again that some of the changes to address the evil attendance islands create new split feeders, require kids to travel longer distances, and/or widen capacity issues. If they take two schools that are in the 80-90% capacity range, and propose changes that put one school over 100% and another closer to 70%, they are just setting things up for yet more changes down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that those in favor of the adjustment cannot give good, valid reasons why it is needed. FCPS will spend buckets of money on this.

A)Some schools are over capacity.
B)Some schools are under capacity.
Schools A and B share boundaries.
The end.

Maybe a school is over capacity because FCPS planning sucks and we have School Board members like Karl Frisch ignoring it while wasting tens of millions on an unnecessary new elementary school in Dunn Loring.

I want smarter planning and capital investments, not kids moved around like widgets to cover up their incompetence and inattention to detail.

We can do both! Make immediate corrections now and get smarter on capital planning long term. Win-win for all!

We should be so lucky, but it just ends up being the “get-out-of-jail” card for SB members like Frisch. It takes the pressure off, with someone else’s kids being the pawns to cover up his incompetence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that those in favor of the adjustment cannot give good, valid reasons why it is needed. FCPS will spend buckets of money on this.

A)Some schools are over capacity.
B)Some schools are under capacity.
Schools A and B share boundaries.
The end.

Agreed. And just based on what they’ve done with the attendance islands so far, I don’t think they are screaming EQUITY. Some gain richer neighborhoods which debunks this being their ONLY and top reason.

Some seem obviously driven by equity goals but regardless of that fact if they are making unnecessary changes, including changes that seem anti-equity, it’s not a good thing.

I’m going to point out again that some of the changes to address the evil attendance islands create new split feeders, require kids to travel longer distances, and/or widen capacity issues. If they take two schools that are in the 80-90% capacity range, and propose changes that put one school over 100% and another closer to 70%, they are just setting things up for yet more changes down the road.

Agree. One of the changes makes no sense to me, and it gives me the impression that it is a set up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Catching up here, but from what I glean from this thread, the people who are pro boundary changes don’t care about mental health of the county’s kids.

It’s us-against-them, MAGA blue.

You should call them MFGA but their unnecessary changes in the making are self-inflicted wounds that will be about as beneficial for FCPS as Trump’s tariff debacle has been for the stock market.

[Anonymous]

We can do both! Make immediate corrections now and get smarter on capital planning long term. Win-win for all!

An empty promise that does nothing for those kids ripped out of their neighborhood school or those families who have two high schools--or, I guess, even worse, two elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

From reading this thread, there are two schools that the SB wants to "fix." A simple solution would be to make all schools AP and eliminate the pupil placements out of those two schools.

This would save tons of dollars and most families--who do not want to change schools--would be very pleased.

A simple and cheap solution. Common sense is needed here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that those in favor of the adjustment cannot give good, valid reasons why it is needed. FCPS will spend buckets of money on this.

A)Some schools are over capacity.
B)Some schools are under capacity.
Schools A and B share boundaries.
The end.

Agreed. And just based on what they’ve done with the attendance islands so far, I don’t think they are screaming EQUITY. Some gain richer neighborhoods which debunks this being their ONLY and top reason.

Some seem obviously driven by equity goals but regardless of that fact if they are making unnecessary changes, including changes that seem anti-equity, it’s not a good thing.

I’m going to point out again that some of the changes to address the evil attendance islands create new split feeders, require kids to travel longer distances, and/or widen capacity issues. If they take two schools that are in the 80-90% capacity range, and propose changes that put one school over 100% and another closer to 70%, they are just setting things up for yet more changes down the road.

Agree. One of the changes makes no sense to me, and it gives me the impression that it is a set up.

Did i miss that the boundary study concluded? And changes have been finalized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that those in favor of the adjustment cannot give good, valid reasons why it is needed. FCPS will spend buckets of money on this.

A)Some schools are over capacity.
B)Some schools are under capacity.
Schools A and B share boundaries.
The end.

Agreed. And just based on what they’ve done with the attendance islands so far, I don’t think they are screaming EQUITY. Some gain richer neighborhoods which debunks this being their ONLY and top reason.

Some seem obviously driven by equity goals but regardless of that fact if they are making unnecessary changes, including changes that seem anti-equity, it’s not a good thing.

I’m going to point out again that some of the changes to address the evil attendance islands create new split feeders, require kids to travel longer distances, and/or widen capacity issues. If they take two schools that are in the 80-90% capacity range, and propose changes that put one school over 100% and another closer to 70%, they are just setting things up for yet more changes down the road.

Agree. One of the changes makes no sense to me, and it gives me the impression that it is a set up.

Did i miss that the boundary study concluded? And changes have been finalized?

DP. I sure hope not. A lot of what they tossed out there on 4/11 was totally inane.

[Anonymous]

Was anything shared about Oakton/Vienna from April 11th information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of the county has a house that is walkable to the trifecta of elementary middle and high school? Much less than 1%, right, if any?

Everyone else is just gambling on their house? Gtfo.

I summo but greater than 1%. We can walk to all three of ours. Terraset(?)-Hughes-SLHS are adjacent and walkable for many.

Can someone identify this poster’s logical fallacy/fallacies? There is definitely a name for it, I just can’t recall at the moment.

I think enough people have chimed in about walking distance.

I think it might be “confirmation bias”, but the funny thing is you can easily verify that a lot of the claimed trifecta walking areas are not really walkable to all three schools.

For instance, there may be a student who could hypothetically walk 1.25 miles on average to dranesville elementary or Herndon middle, but nobody closer, since the schools are 2.5 miles apart.

Turns out, there really are only few and far between areas, where you could live close enough to all 3 schools to be safe, and I don’t even think that is completely safe. I bet less than a thousand students fit into that category, perhaps far less.

The MFGA crowd is going to drive away our tax base with its us-vs-the supposed rich mentality. They might as well go support the orange Demi-God if they are going to advocate for short sighted boundary changes.