FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Policy 8130 already has a policy and mechanism in place for boundary adjustments to address overcrowding. That doesn't require reviewing or changing all of the boundaries countywide, just adjusting boundaries to deal with the overcrowding. Policy 8130 does not authorize or have a mechanism for "holistic" countywide boundary reviews or adjustments. This is why the school board's first action is to try to revise 8130. No one should have any confidence that this school board could effectively implement a countywide boundary review and adjustment.

People should attend the May 28th work session and express their opposition to "holistic" boundary adjustments for which there is little demand and which would present an array of challenges they haven't even begun to acknowledge.

If there is no need for boundary changes, then there must not be any need to expand schools or put kids in trailers either. So, we’re doing well.

So obnoxious. Boundary changes have never been the only logical response in FCPS to schools that are above capacity.

You are right boundary changes are not the only solution. However, ruling them outright is obnoxious. Let’s see what the study finds.

They’re not doing a study. They already had a useless consultant study.

[Anonymous]

What would be “holistic” would be a review of FCPS programs and facilities to identify and come up with a plan to address disparities.

It’s a misnomer to suggest county-wide boundary changes would be “holistic,” although it’s understand why some would use that word to mislead. It suggests that FCPS can address bigger issues by just reshuffling kids.

Of course, if your school has recently been renovated or expanded and you’re sitting pretty, it’s fine with you if they keep neglecting other schools and start moving other kids around. Heads I win, tails you lose.

It’s not so fine with the rest of us. If they don’t realize that now, they’ll find out in due course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are planning a full boundary change. They have stated it multiple times in public meetings. Dr. Reid slso said last year that she thinks we need it.

It’s like you’re just trying to prove PP’s point.

+1
Yep. Just the usual $hit stirrer, hoping to redistrict kids who aren't even her own into different schools. Rinse and repeat. Don't take the ridiculous threats seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Policy 8130 already has a policy and mechanism in place for boundary adjustments to address overcrowding. That doesn't require reviewing or changing all of the boundaries countywide, just adjusting boundaries to deal with the overcrowding. Policy 8130 does not authorize or have a mechanism for "holistic" countywide boundary reviews or adjustments. This is why the school board's first action is to try to revise 8130. No one should have any confidence that this school board could effectively implement a countywide boundary review and adjustment.

People should attend the May 28th work session and express their opposition to "holistic" boundary adjustments for which there is little demand and which would present an array of challenges they haven't even begun to acknowledge.

If there is no need for boundary changes, then there must not be any need to expand schools or put kids in trailers either. So, we’re doing well.

So obnoxious. Boundary changes have never been the only logical response in FCPS to schools that are above capacity.

+1. It’s like she’s saying if you don’t take my solution then there can be no solution at all. Any high school kid could point out the flaw in that logic.

+2
It's the same PP who natters on about how we should only have small high schools and anything over 2000 is cause for a fainting couch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Exactly. Whenever anyone complains to me, I always make sure they get exactly what they want.

Kids complain that they want a cookie, bam, compelling enough for me.

So when the Facilities Planning Advisory Council, consultants, and real communities recommend ideas for appropriate boundary adjustments but a vocal minority complains about it, guess it's fair to move foward then.

Can we get an idea of how you are defining “real communities?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kyle McDaniel and Mateo Dunne both seem to be big fans of the “holistic review.” McDaniel lives in the Oakton district, and Oakton just got an enormous renovation and a big addition. Dunne lives in the West Potomac district, and West Potomac also just got a big addition outside the renovation queue.

It’s going to seem a tad hypocritical if they now turn around and tell others they should just expect to be redistricted pursuant to a “holistic review” if their schools are overcrowded, regardless of whether people at those schools are even asking for a boundary change, after their own schools have been generously expanded.

It would only be hypocritical if they pushed for those expansions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are planning a full boundary change. They have stated it multiple times in public meetings. Dr. Reid slso said last year that she thinks we need it.

It’s like you’re just trying to prove PP’s point.

PP doesn’t have a point.

Either the board is on record as wanting and planning to do a comprehensive review of the boundaries, or they aren’t.

People getting riled up about it is an expected and understandable reaction. You can

1) cross your fingers it will go nowhere and attack anyone who mentions it
2)pay attention, notify your neighbors and communicate with your school board rep.

If you choose the former and it works out, great. If you get screwed you will have your own laziness and willful blindness to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle McDaniel and Mateo Dunne both seem to be big fans of the “holistic review.” McDaniel lives in the Oakton district, and Oakton just got an enormous renovation and a big addition. Dunne lives in the West Potomac district, and West Potomac also just got a big addition outside the renovation queue.

It’s going to seem a tad hypocritical if they now turn around and tell others they should just expect to be redistricted pursuant to a “holistic review” if their schools are overcrowded, regardless of whether people at those schools are even asking for a boundary change, after their own schools have been generously expanded.

It would only be hypocritical if they pushed for those expansions.

It's hypocritical if they stand to benefit from expansions to which they never objected, yet now propose to treat others differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are planning a full boundary change. They have stated it multiple times in public meetings. Dr. Reid slso said last year that she thinks we need it.

It’s like you’re just trying to prove PP’s point.

PP doesn’t have a point.

Either the board is on record as wanting and planning to do a comprehensive review of the boundaries, or they aren’t.

People getting riled up about it is an expected and understandable reaction. You can

1) cross your fingers it will go nowhere and attack anyone who mentions it
2)pay attention, notify your neighbors and communicate with your school board rep.

If you choose the former and it works out, great. If you get screwed you will have your own laziness and willful blindness to blame.

People are justifiably concerned when School Board members who seem to have no idea what they're embarking upon make vague statements about "holistic" boundary reviews.

A review of boundaries alone would never be "holistic," as it would not address the underlying issues. A multi-color band aid is still a band aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle McDaniel and Mateo Dunne both seem to be big fans of the “holistic review.” McDaniel lives in the Oakton district, and Oakton just got an enormous renovation and a big addition. Dunne lives in the West Potomac district, and West Potomac also just got a big addition outside the renovation queue.

It’s going to seem a tad hypocritical if they now turn around and tell others they should just expect to be redistricted pursuant to a “holistic review” if their schools are overcrowded, regardless of whether people at those schools are even asking for a boundary change, after their own schools have been generously expanded.

It would only be hypocritical if they pushed for those expansions.

It's hypocritical if they stand to benefit from expansions to which they never objected, yet now propose to treat others differently.

They weren't on the board when then expansions occurred. Dunne's constituents will probably be the angriest about a holistic review because any move of a Ft Hunt ES to the Whitman/MVHS pyramid would pull Sandburg and West Po above the 40% farms rate threshold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle McDaniel and Mateo Dunne both seem to be big fans of the “holistic review.” McDaniel lives in the Oakton district, and Oakton just got an enormous renovation and a big addition. Dunne lives in the West Potomac district, and West Potomac also just got a big addition outside the renovation queue.

It’s going to seem a tad hypocritical if they now turn around and tell others they should just expect to be redistricted pursuant to a “holistic review” if their schools are overcrowded, regardless of whether people at those schools are even asking for a boundary change, after their own schools have been generously expanded.

It would only be hypocritical if they pushed for those expansions.

It's hypocritical if they stand to benefit from expansions to which they never objected, yet now propose to treat others differently.

My kids schoolw as recently renovated. I would guess that a boundary adjustment would cause him to move to a different school that hasn't been renovated. I am fine with that. I didn't ask for the renovation at his building, I have been voting against most of the renovations because they are expanding schools when there are school that are underenrolled. They are going to rebuild a closed school that is not needed. It is a waste of money.

Renovate the schools that need renovation. Don't expand schools when there are schools with space. Boundaries should be reassessed on a regular basis to make the most efficient use of space. FCPS has not completed a boundary reassessment in ages and it needs to be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

Threatening? A healthy organization checks status more often than every 50 years.

They are perfectly capable of adjusting boundaries when there is a compelling need.

People are complaining some schools are overcrowded. How is that not a compelling need to rebalance the boundaries?

Exactly. Whenever anyone complains to me, I always make sure they get exactly what they want.

Kids complain that they want a cookie, bam, compelling enough for me.

So when the Facilities Planning Advisory Council, consultants, and real communities recommend ideas for appropriate boundary adjustments but a vocal minority complains about it, guess it's fair to move foward then.

Apart from Glasgow, what other “real community” has advocated in any significant numbers for boundary adjustments recently and not been heard?

I would argue that the Shrevewood community was not heard. It argued for a boundary adjustment that would balance out the population at Shrevewood, Stenwood, Freedom Hill and maybe another ES. Instead, we are getting the unwanted Dunn Loring school. There is already capacity in nearby ES that could have handled the adjustment. I don't believe anyone at Shrevewood asked for a new ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle McDaniel and Mateo Dunne both seem to be big fans of the “holistic review.” McDaniel lives in the Oakton district, and Oakton just got an enormous renovation and a big addition. Dunne lives in the West Potomac district, and West Potomac also just got a big addition outside the renovation queue.

It’s going to seem a tad hypocritical if they now turn around and tell others they should just expect to be redistricted pursuant to a “holistic review” if their schools are overcrowded, regardless of whether people at those schools are even asking for a boundary change, after their own schools have been generously expanded.

It would only be hypocritical if they pushed for those expansions.

It's hypocritical if they stand to benefit from expansions to which they never objected, yet now propose to treat others differently.

My kids schoolw as recently renovated. I would guess that a boundary adjustment would cause him to move to a different school that hasn't been renovated. I am fine with that. I didn't ask for the renovation at his building, I have been voting against most of the renovations because they are expanding schools when there are school that are underenrolled. They are going to rebuild a closed school that is not needed. It is a waste of money.

Renovate the schools that need renovation. Don't expand schools when there are schools with space. Boundaries should be reassessed on a regular basis to make the most efficient use of space. FCPS has not completed a boundary reassessment in ages and it needs to be done.

Are you willing to share your current school pyramid and projected realigned school pyramid? I’m guessing that you’d be trading up, which is why you are advocating for redistricting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle McDaniel and Mateo Dunne both seem to be big fans of the “holistic review.” McDaniel lives in the Oakton district, and Oakton just got an enormous renovation and a big addition. Dunne lives in the West Potomac district, and West Potomac also just got a big addition outside the renovation queue.

It’s going to seem a tad hypocritical if they now turn around and tell others they should just expect to be redistricted pursuant to a “holistic review” if their schools are overcrowded, regardless of whether people at those schools are even asking for a boundary change, after their own schools have been generously expanded.

It would only be hypocritical if they pushed for those expansions.

It's hypocritical if they stand to benefit from expansions to which they never objected, yet now propose to treat others differently.

My kids schoolw as recently renovated. I would guess that a boundary adjustment would cause him to move to a different school that hasn't been renovated. I am fine with that. I didn't ask for the renovation at his building, I have been voting against most of the renovations because they are expanding schools when there are school that are underenrolled. They are going to rebuild a closed school that is not needed. It is a waste of money.

Renovate the schools that need renovation. Don't expand schools when there are schools with space. Boundaries should be reassessed on a regular basis to make the most efficient use of space. FCPS has not completed a boundary reassessment in ages and it needs to be done.

Are you willing to share your current school pyramid and projected realigned school pyramid? I’m guessing that you’d be trading up, which is why you are advocating for redistricting.

South Lakes. We would move to Herndon. I doubt that we would move to any of the other schools in the area because they are over crowded and would be shifting kids to other schools. Both schools have been recently renovated but that is the least of my priorities for HS. I am looking at available classes and experiences for my kid. The big change for us would be IB to AP, and I am not opposed to that. Herndon is a lower performing school the South Lakes.

I am not worried about it because I know plenty of parents who have had good experiences at Herndon. I know that we are involved parents who will be keeping an eye on our kids experience. I know that he will be in the IB/AP program at whatever school he lands at, which means he will be fine. It South Lakes and Herndon that essentially means he will be in a school within a school. I doubt that the school board will make any real changes to anything because parents at McLean and Langley and whosever would land at Liberty or Mt Vernon or other HS will throw a hissy fit and block whatever changes are recommended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle McDaniel and Mateo Dunne both seem to be big fans of the “holistic review.” McDaniel lives in the Oakton district, and Oakton just got an enormous renovation and a big addition. Dunne lives in the West Potomac district, and West Potomac also just got a big addition outside the renovation queue.

It’s going to seem a tad hypocritical if they now turn around and tell others they should just expect to be redistricted pursuant to a “holistic review” if their schools are overcrowded, regardless of whether people at those schools are even asking for a boundary change, after their own schools have been generously expanded.

It would only be hypocritical if they pushed for those expansions.

It's hypocritical if they stand to benefit from expansions to which they never objected, yet now propose to treat others differently.

My kids schoolw as recently renovated. I would guess that a boundary adjustment would cause him to move to a different school that hasn't been renovated. I am fine with that. I didn't ask for the renovation at his building, I have been voting against most of the renovations because they are expanding schools when there are school that are underenrolled. They are going to rebuild a closed school that is not needed. It is a waste of money.

Renovate the schools that need renovation. Don't expand schools when there are schools with space. Boundaries should be reassessed on a regular basis to make the most efficient use of space. FCPS has not completed a boundary reassessment in ages and it needs to be done.

Are you willing to share your current school pyramid and projected realigned school pyramid? I’m guessing that you’d be trading up, which is why you are advocating for redistricting.

South Lakes. We would move to Herndon. I doubt that we would move to any of the other schools in the area because they are over crowded and would be shifting kids to other schools. Both schools have been recently renovated but that is the least of my priorities for HS. I am looking at available classes and experiences for my kid. The big change for us would be IB to AP, and I am not opposed to that. Herndon is a lower performing school the South Lakes.

I am not worried about it because I know plenty of parents who have had good experiences at Herndon. I know that we are involved parents who will be keeping an eye on our kids experience. I know that he will be in the IB/AP program at whatever school he lands at, which means he will be fine. It South Lakes and Herndon that essentially means he will be in a school within a school. I doubt that the school board will make any real changes to anything because parents at McLean and Langley and whosever would land at Liberty or Mt Vernon or other HS will throw a hissy fit and block whatever changes are recommended.

I appreciate the honest response.

I’m not sure that many FCPS parents feel the same way that you do when it comes to redistricting.