School Board Forum on "Boundary and Capacity"

[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:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

I'm a DP, but yes that's my primary motive. I grew up very poor and went to an equally poor high school. But I'm one of the lucky ones that ended up in grad school despite having parents that didn't know anything.

Anyway, I've seen the significant negative effects of concentrating all the poor kids in a few places. I appreciate wealthy families and respect the effort they put into their communities. They have the luxury of time that poor parents simply don't. Teachers and principals at the poor schools really do try hard to create community but it always lacks in comparison to a healthy PTSA. FCPS has suggested they will make efforts to give funds to schools with weak community donations but we have yet to see that roll out. It's not just money but also clubs and activities. So yes, I think sending poor kids to wealthy high schools has plenty of benefits.

Yeah, to your Herndon property values.

I actually agree with PP to a large extent, having looked into this issue. The problem is that to maintain a high- performing school, you have to keep the percentage of children from poorer families pretty low.

FCPS might well be able to bring some benefit to a certain number of poorer children with a boundary change, but it could only do so with a limited number of schools. (Because of the high percentage of poorer students that it now has— see the tipping point study)

Picture the uproar if they changed boundaries in the top ten pyramids and those schools remained strong while the others statistically performed even worse than before.

It could prove untenable politically.
Imagine the bitterness of the parents whose children did not luck into one of the high performing schools.

On the other hand, it could well be counter balanced by the parents who were reboundaried to a higher-ranking school.

And imagine if you are totally wrong, and all the schools end up awful. I, for one, am not interested in finding out whether your agenda would work in practice. And I don’t want my kids being your Guinea pigs.

Hypothetically if a redistricting went through that was perfectly "equitable" and distributed kids at each pyramid to represent the true demographics of FCPS, we'd have schools that are 37% White, 28% Hispanic, 20% Asian, and 10% Black, the rest Other. And 33% FARMs. That's Fairfax County.

Coincidentally, Fairfax HS matches that demographic and FARMs split very closely. So, if every school in FCPS was a replica of Fairfax HS would that be "awful" and a deal-breaker for everyone to up and leave? Of course not. Now that's only a thought experiment, but the melodrama about terrible schools is unwarranted.

Yes, let’s talk about impossible hypotheticals rather than reality.

Hypothetically, if we all had a billion dollars, then we could genetically engineer unicorns that fart rainbows.

Or maybe we should just stick to the reality we have. Namely, that redistricting would be a horrible, disruptive idea that would likely exacerbate the counties problems and hurt students, and poor students in particular.

How would moving some students from West Springfield to Lewis hurt the poor students? More classes would likely be available. They might be able to field teams in every sport. Sounds terrible.

DP. So, are those *your* WSF kids you're suggesting be moved to Lewis? I'm certain you could request a transfer there for them. Good luck!

+100
Don’t you love the morons who see fit to opine on where other people’s kids should go to school? Especially when they have nothing to do with the schools in question. So pathetic.

Any taxpayer should opine if money and resources are handled efficiently and effectively.

Sure. You are beyond transparent on your one-woman crusade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the Langley bastion finally fall? I hope so. Rooting for this board.

Bitter much?

Gatehouse should make the best use of facilities, giving weight to efficiency and budget.
If the Langley boundaries change due to that then whatever.

The Langley boundaries may well need to change in a few years based on capacity and logistical issues, but if that happens they'll still claim it's being done to "punish" them. Hopefully with Robyn Lady representing the district rather than Elaine Tholen, decisions will be based on the merits and not just a desire to place Langley's interests over everyone else's.

DP. You are truly the only person who cares. Neither Langley nor Herndon are overcrowded so you’re simply creating drama where there is none - all because you are obsessed with schools your kids don’t even attend. Be well.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

I'm a DP, but yes that's my primary motive. I grew up very poor and went to an equally poor high school. But I'm one of the lucky ones that ended up in grad school despite having parents that didn't know anything.

Anyway, I've seen the significant negative effects of concentrating all the poor kids in a few places. I appreciate wealthy families and respect the effort they put into their communities. They have the luxury of time that poor parents simply don't. Teachers and principals at the poor schools really do try hard to create community but it always lacks in comparison to a healthy PTSA. FCPS has suggested they will make efforts to give funds to schools with weak community donations but we have yet to see that roll out. It's not just money but also clubs and activities. So yes, I think sending poor kids to wealthy high schools has plenty of benefits.

Yeah, to your Herndon property values.

I actually agree with PP to a large extent, having looked into this issue. The problem is that to maintain a high- performing school, you have to keep the percentage of children from poorer families pretty low.

FCPS might well be able to bring some benefit to a certain number of poorer children with a boundary change, but it could only do so with a limited number of schools. (Because of the high percentage of poorer students that it now has— see the tipping point study)

Picture the uproar if they changed boundaries in the top ten pyramids and those schools remained strong while the others statistically performed even worse than before.

It could prove untenable politically.
Imagine the bitterness of the parents whose children did not luck into one of the high performing schools.

On the other hand, it could well be counter balanced by the parents who were reboundaried to a higher-ranking school.

And imagine if you are totally wrong, and all the schools end up awful. I, for one, am not interested in finding out whether your agenda would work in practice. And I don’t want my kids being your Guinea pigs.

Hypothetically if a redistricting went through that was perfectly "equitable" and distributed kids at each pyramid to represent the true demographics of FCPS, we'd have schools that are 37% White, 28% Hispanic, 20% Asian, and 10% Black, the rest Other. And 33% FARMs. That's Fairfax County.

Coincidentally, Fairfax HS matches that demographic and FARMs split very closely. So, if every school in FCPS was a replica of Fairfax HS would that be "awful" and a deal-breaker for everyone to up and leave? Of course not. Now that's only a thought experiment, but the melodrama about terrible schools is unwarranted.

Yes, let’s talk about impossible hypotheticals rather than reality.

Hypothetically, if we all had a billion dollars, then we could genetically engineer unicorns that fart rainbows.

Or maybe we should just stick to the reality we have. Namely, that redistricting would be a horrible, disruptive idea that would likely exacerbate the counties problems and hurt students, and poor students in particular.

How would moving some students from West Springfield to Lewis hurt the poor students? More classes would likely be available. They might be able to field teams in every sport. Sounds terrible.

DP. So, are those *your* WSF kids you're suggesting be moved to Lewis? I'm certain you could request a transfer there for them. Good luck!

+100
Don’t you love the morons who see fit to opine on where other people’s kids should go to school? Especially when they have nothing to do with the schools in question. So pathetic.

DP. None of the School Board members who'll eventually be deciding what to do with West Springfield and Lewis have a connection to either school.

The problem really isn't WS or Lewis and no matter how many times you post about this, that's not going to change.

If you look upthread you were responding to posts (not mine) about WS and Lewis.

DP. There is a problem at Lewis. It's enrollment is dropping. Expected to be in the 1400s in five years. It will be half the size of WS - the school that was the recipient of Lewis students in boundary changes. WS is and will continue to be overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the Langley bastion finally fall? I hope so. Rooting for this board.

Bitter much?

Gatehouse should make the best use of facilities, giving weight to efficiency and budget.
If the Langley boundaries change due to that then whatever.

The Langley boundaries may well need to change in a few years based on capacity and logistical issues, but if that happens they'll still claim it's being done to "punish" them. Hopefully with Robyn Lady representing the district rather than Elaine Tholen, decisions will be based on the merits and not just a desire to place Langley's interests over everyone else's.

“still?”
Where/when did Langley parents protest possible boundary changes with the argument that the school board wanted to punish them for something?

As to hoping the latest Dranesville rep will advocate for boundaries based on the merits of different options (which will apparently be demonstrated only if she wants to alter boundaries in a way that you desire)
—- I am old enough to remember all the crowing about Jane Strauss not being around to “protect” the Langley boundaries anymore after Elaine was elected, and we see how that worked out for people emotionally invested in some drastic change.

[Anonymous]

It was clear from the time that Tholen scrubbed her campaign website of any favorable references to “One Fairfax” that she would do what her Great Falls neighbors wanted. And she did, for the most part.

Anyway with so much growth in Tysons and nearby areas they may need to move more kids to Langley at some point and the difference now is that Herndon has more space if they need to move kids there.

[Anonymous]

If it happens, it happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the Langley bastion finally fall? I hope so. Rooting for this board.

Bitter much?

Gatehouse should make the best use of facilities, giving weight to efficiency and budget.
If the Langley boundaries change due to that then whatever.

The Langley boundaries may well need to change in a few years based on capacity and logistical issues, but if that happens they'll still claim it's being done to "punish" them. Hopefully with Robyn Lady representing the district rather than Elaine Tholen, decisions will be based on the merits and not just a desire to place Langley's interests over everyone else's.

“still?”
Where/when did Langley parents protest possible boundary changes with the argument that the school board wanted to punish them for something?

As to hoping the latest Dranesville rep will advocate for boundaries based on the merits of different options (which will apparently be demonstrated only if she wants to alter boundaries in a way that you desire)
—- I am old enough to remember all the crowing about Jane Strauss not being around to “protect” the Langley boundaries anymore after Elaine was elected, and we see how that worked out for people emotionally invested in some drastic change.

+100
There is no rational discussion to be had with the PP, who continues to rant about schools which her children don’t even attend. Interesting how she’ll never disclose where her kids actually do go to school.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

I'm a DP, but yes that's my primary motive. I grew up very poor and went to an equally poor high school. But I'm one of the lucky ones that ended up in grad school despite having parents that didn't know anything.

Anyway, I've seen the significant negative effects of concentrating all the poor kids in a few places. I appreciate wealthy families and respect the effort they put into their communities. They have the luxury of time that poor parents simply don't. Teachers and principals at the poor schools really do try hard to create community but it always lacks in comparison to a healthy PTSA. FCPS has suggested they will make efforts to give funds to schools with weak community donations but we have yet to see that roll out. It's not just money but also clubs and activities. So yes, I think sending poor kids to wealthy high schools has plenty of benefits.

Yeah, to your Herndon property values.

I actually agree with PP to a large extent, having looked into this issue. The problem is that to maintain a high- performing school, you have to keep the percentage of children from poorer families pretty low.

FCPS might well be able to bring some benefit to a certain number of poorer children with a boundary change, but it could only do so with a limited number of schools. (Because of the high percentage of poorer students that it now has— see the tipping point study)

Picture the uproar if they changed boundaries in the top ten pyramids and those schools remained strong while the others statistically performed even worse than before.

It could prove untenable politically.
Imagine the bitterness of the parents whose children did not luck into one of the high performing schools.

On the other hand, it could well be counter balanced by the parents who were reboundaried to a higher-ranking school.

And imagine if you are totally wrong, and all the schools end up awful. I, for one, am not interested in finding out whether your agenda would work in practice. And I don’t want my kids being your Guinea pigs.

Hypothetically if a redistricting went through that was perfectly "equitable" and distributed kids at each pyramid to represent the true demographics of FCPS, we'd have schools that are 37% White, 28% Hispanic, 20% Asian, and 10% Black, the rest Other. And 33% FARMs. That's Fairfax County.

Coincidentally, Fairfax HS matches that demographic and FARMs split very closely. So, if every school in FCPS was a replica of Fairfax HS would that be "awful" and a deal-breaker for everyone to up and leave? Of course not. Now that's only a thought experiment, but the melodrama about terrible schools is unwarranted.

Yes, let’s talk about impossible hypotheticals rather than reality.

Hypothetically, if we all had a billion dollars, then we could genetically engineer unicorns that fart rainbows.

Or maybe we should just stick to the reality we have. Namely, that redistricting would be a horrible, disruptive idea that would likely exacerbate the counties problems and hurt students, and poor students in particular.

How would moving some students from West Springfield to Lewis hurt the poor students? More classes would likely be available. They might be able to field teams in every sport. Sounds terrible.

DP. So, are those *your* WSF kids you're suggesting be moved to Lewis? I'm certain you could request a transfer there for them. Good luck!

+100
Don’t you love the morons who see fit to opine on where other people’s kids should go to school? Especially when they have nothing to do with the schools in question. So pathetic.

Any taxpayer should opine if money and resources are handled efficiently and effectively.

Sure. You are beyond transparent on your one-woman crusade.

???

[Anonymous]

While they’re at school boundaries, could they also look at district boundaries? Why should Langley and McLean be in the same district as Herndon? Herndon is more aligned with SLHS and Chantilly. Langley and McLean should really be in a district by themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While they’re at school boundaries, could they also look at district boundaries? Why should Langley and McLean be in the same district as Herndon? Herndon is more aligned with SLHS and Chantilly. Langley and McLean should really be in a district by themselves.

Do you mean pyramids? Langley and McLean are in different pyramids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While they’re at school boundaries, could they also look at district boundaries? Why should Langley and McLean be in the same district as Herndon? Herndon is more aligned with SLHS and Chantilly. Langley and McLean should really be in a district by themselves.

Do you mean pyramids? Langley and McLean are in different pyramids.

No I mean districts. McLean, Langley and Herndon all belong to the Dranesville District. And theoretically, they have a representative that looks out for all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karl Frisch is claiming that the School Board shouldn’t make “one-off” decisions about boundaries or school expansions because they are politicians, yet he single-handedly is going to force boundary adjustments for most of the elementary schools within the Marshall pyramid in a few years by pushing through the Dunn Loring ES project, which based on staff’s prior analysis was on the back burner and not at all a priority before Frisch decided to accelerate it.

Why they are doing now will just be used as an excuse for not dealing with long-overcrowded and/or neglected schools. These people suck.

Karl Frisch shouldn't even be allowed on the school board. Having children in the system should be a requirement for being elected to the school board, and having children in the system should be a requirement for voting for the school board. Why are we allowing people without any skin in the game to make decisions about our kid's education?

So you sincerely believe the following people should not have a say at all?

1. Arthur, whose kids are FCPS alumni. Arthur believes that strong schools build a strong community, and therefore, he has a vested interest in what happens in the community schools.

2. Beatrice, a retired teacher who lives in the community in which she taught for 35 years.

3. Carlos, a current FCPS teacher who has 15+ years of experience in education

4. Dania, a young woman who doesn't yet have children, but who hopes to have them within the next couple years.

5. Elliot, a professor of educational policy who lives in Fairfax County.

6. Farrah, a recent graduate of FCPS who has strong feelings about the state of our schools.

ANYONE who cares about our community should care about our public schools. They all have a right to vote, run for office (yes, even for school board!), and voice their opinions.

Saying you should have to have children in the system in order to run for SB or to vote is gross discrimination and is voter suppression. Think about how that would sound if you replaced your qualifier (about having school-age children) with a different one, such as gender, sex, religion, skin color, difference in ability, etc. Think about that. Just think. I hope you are ashamed of yourself!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the Langley bastion finally fall? I hope so. Rooting for this board.

Bitter much?

Gatehouse should make the best use of facilities, giving weight to efficiency and budget.
If the Langley boundaries change due to that then whatever.

The Langley boundaries may well need to change in a few years based on capacity and logistical issues, but if that happens they'll still claim it's being done to "punish" them. Hopefully with Robyn Lady representing the district rather than Elaine Tholen, decisions will be based on the merits and not just a desire to place Langley's interests over everyone else's.

“still?”
Where/when did Langley parents protest possible boundary changes with the argument that the school board wanted to punish them for something?

As to hoping the latest Dranesville rep will advocate for boundaries based on the merits of different options (which will apparently be demonstrated only if she wants to alter boundaries in a way that you desire)
—- I am old enough to remember all the crowing about Jane Strauss not being around to “protect” the Langley boundaries anymore after Elaine was elected, and we see how that worked out for people emotionally invested in some drastic change.

+100
There is no rational discussion to be had with the PP, who continues to rant about schools which her children don’t even attend. Interesting how she’ll never disclose where her kids actually do go to school.

+1. Her social engineering crusade is truly pathetic at this point. She is likely as insufferable in real life as she is on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While they’re at school boundaries, could they also look at district boundaries? Why should Langley and McLean be in the same district as Herndon? Herndon is more aligned with SLHS and Chantilly. Langley and McLean should really be in a district by themselves.

FCPS has Herndon and Langley in the same region (Region 1) and McLean in a different region (Region 2).

All three are in the same magisterial district (Dranesville), but FCPS has no role in deciding what the boundaries of the magisterial districts should be. The Board of Supervisors tinkered with the magisterial districts a couple of years ago after the results of the 2020 census came out to make sure all the magisterial districts had more or less the same number of residents, but there weren't any changes, or any significant changes, to the Dranesville District. The most significant changes were to the Springfield District.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the Langley bastion finally fall? I hope so. Rooting for this board.

Bitter much?

Gatehouse should make the best use of facilities, giving weight to efficiency and budget.
If the Langley boundaries change due to that then whatever.

The Langley boundaries may well need to change in a few years based on capacity and logistical issues, but if that happens they'll still claim it's being done to "punish" them. Hopefully with Robyn Lady representing the district rather than Elaine Tholen, decisions will be based on the merits and not just a desire to place Langley's interests over everyone else's.

“still?”
Where/when did Langley parents protest possible boundary changes with the argument that the school board wanted to punish them for something?

As to hoping the latest Dranesville rep will advocate for boundaries based on the merits of different options (which will apparently be demonstrated only if she wants to alter boundaries in a way that you desire)
—- I am old enough to remember all the crowing about Jane Strauss not being around to “protect” the Langley boundaries anymore after Elaine was elected, and we see how that worked out for people emotionally invested in some drastic change.

+100
There is no rational discussion to be had with the PP, who continues to rant about schools which her children don’t even attend. Interesting how she’ll never disclose where her kids actually do go to school.

+1. Her social engineering crusade is truly pathetic at this point. She is likely as insufferable in real life as she is on this forum.

Are you sock puppeting or do all these Langley posters sound EXACTLY the same?

I mean people will point out that changes should only be made, if at all, if needed based on capacity and logistics, and you'll still flail away about "social engineering."