Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course you end up with issues when you take this long to produce four maps and still have not decided anything. You have groups of unhappy constituents who don't want to move who have spent months saying just that. The people who don't care, because they are not moving and don't care about the ones who are moving, are ignoring what is happening. The ones who want their over-crowded schools to reduce capacity are sending messages and not yelling on boards or at meetings. The entire process is a giant mess.

The ones who want their over-crowded schools to reduce capacity are not quite the unsung heroes you’re making them out to be, since they typically propose to achieve that by moving other people’s kids, not theirs (those embracing the opportunity to move to the new western high school may be an exception).

You seem to want to villainize people who want a less crowded school for their kid who happen to live closer to the school then the people who live at the edges. The only parents allowed an opinion are the people who live at the edges of the boundary? That is BS. Other families are impacted by crowded schools. When schools are crowded, boundaries should be addressed to help relieve the overcrowding.

I am sorry that you are in a position where you might be moved but that is life. You remind me of the people I know who bought a large house at a lower price that was assigned to a Title 1 school and then complained about not getting into a language immersion program so they could switch schools in grade 1 or AAP to move to the Center in grade 3. Your house is on the boundary of the school that you wanted to attend, you might be moved.

But being upset that people want schools that are not overcrowded is ridiculous. And trying to make those people seem awful is unfair. You have the option of moving so you can be in the boundaries of the school that you want. You can also see that there are plenty of successful kids coming out of every HS in the county and figure out how to support your child at their new school.

Ah, you again.

Oink, oink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course you end up with issues when you take this long to produce four maps and still have not decided anything. You have groups of unhappy constituents who don't want to move who have spent months saying just that. The people who don't care, because they are not moving and don't care about the ones who are moving, are ignoring what is happening. The ones who want their over-crowded schools to reduce capacity are sending messages and not yelling on boards or at meetings. The entire process is a giant mess.

The ones who want their over-crowded schools to reduce capacity are not quite the unsung heroes you’re making them out to be, since they typically propose to achieve that by moving other people’s kids, not theirs (those embracing the opportunity to move to the new western high school may be an exception).

Obviously moving kids out is the only way to reduce enrollment. I don't know why you keep posting this as if it's some kind of gotcha. Several board members made similar comments how almost nobody wants to be moved, but for the good of the school system as a whole they need to start making these changes so they can better balance everything as a whole in this and future review cycles.

Obviously, reducing enrollment is not the only way to address schools that are above capacity. Thinking more strategically about where additional capacity is needed is another. FCPS doesn’t think strategically. It slaps additions on schools that don’t need them and then tells others boundary changes are their only option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course you end up with issues when you take this long to produce four maps and still have not decided anything. You have groups of unhappy constituents who don't want to move who have spent months saying just that. The people who don't care, because they are not moving and don't care about the ones who are moving, are ignoring what is happening. The ones who want their over-crowded schools to reduce capacity are sending messages and not yelling on boards or at meetings. The entire process is a giant mess.

The ones who want their over-crowded schools to reduce capacity are not quite the unsung heroes you’re making them out to be, since they typically propose to achieve that by moving other people’s kids, not theirs (those embracing the opportunity to move to the new western high school may be an exception).

You seem to want to villainize people who want a less crowded school for their kid who happen to live closer to the school then the people who live at the edges. The only parents allowed an opinion are the people who live at the edges of the boundary? That is BS. Other families are impacted by crowded schools. When schools are crowded, boundaries should be addressed to help relieve the overcrowding.

I am sorry that you are in a position where you might be moved but that is life. You remind me of the people I know who bought a large house at a lower price that was assigned to a Title 1 school and then complained about not getting into a language immersion program so they could switch schools in grade 1 or AAP to move to the Center in grade 3. Your house is on the boundary of the school that you wanted to attend, you might be moved.

But being upset that people want schools that are not overcrowded is ridiculous. And trying to make those people seem awful is unfair. You have the option of moving so you can be in the boundaries of the school that you want. You can also see that there are plenty of successful kids coming out of every HS in the county and figure out how to support your child at their new school.

Ah, you again.

Oink, oink.

DP. If you listened to any of the work session yesterday, the vibe from most school board members was “people are going to be upset but we have to make changes”. Better start calling therapists for you and your kids now. This is clearly breaking you mentally and I am sure you’ve given your children a ton of anxiety over it too.

[Anonymous]

I was happy to hear Reid and a few board members finally mention the 1700-1800 seats from the western schools that are trailers/modulars in their reasoning for why this school is needed. The people who keep posting how the area is "only 600 over capacity" constantly ignore all the trailers. It was nice to hear the board acknowledge that the goal is for everyone to be able to go to school in a real building and not a temporary trailer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course you end up with issues when you take this long to produce four maps and still have not decided anything. You have groups of unhappy constituents who don't want to move who have spent months saying just that. The people who don't care, because they are not moving and don't care about the ones who are moving, are ignoring what is happening. The ones who want their over-crowded schools to reduce capacity are sending messages and not yelling on boards or at meetings. The entire process is a giant mess.

The ones who want their over-crowded schools to reduce capacity are not quite the unsung heroes you’re making them out to be, since they typically propose to achieve that by moving other people’s kids, not theirs (those embracing the opportunity to move to the new western high school may be an exception).

You seem to want to villainize people who want a less crowded school for their kid who happen to live closer to the school then the people who live at the edges. The only parents allowed an opinion are the people who live at the edges of the boundary? That is BS. Other families are impacted by crowded schools. When schools are crowded, boundaries should be addressed to help relieve the overcrowding.

I am sorry that you are in a position where you might be moved but that is life. You remind me of the people I know who bought a large house at a lower price that was assigned to a Title 1 school and then complained about not getting into a language immersion program so they could switch schools in grade 1 or AAP to move to the Center in grade 3. Your house is on the boundary of the school that you wanted to attend, you might be moved.

But being upset that people want schools that are not overcrowded is ridiculous. And trying to make those people seem awful is unfair. You have the option of moving so you can be in the boundaries of the school that you want. You can also see that there are plenty of successful kids coming out of every HS in the county and figure out how to support your child at their new school.

Ah, you again.

Oink, oink.

DP. If you listened to any of the work session yesterday, the vibe from most school board members was “people are going to be upset but we have to make changes”. Better start calling therapists for you and your kids now. This is clearly breaking you mentally and I am sure you’ve given your children a ton of anxiety over it too.

Please. They trot this out occasionally when they think it makes them sound "courageous," and then both they and Reid spend hours on end placating parents at meetings and telling them they'll be accommodated.

[Anonymous]

Ricardy Anderson seemed to be the only member who has concerns about boundaries being established AFTER people have opted in. Where is their common sense. This is a lot more important than which "career path" is chosen.

Have they considered:

There are four elementary schools that are almost firm to be sent to Western. There are two others that are possibilities, but, likely, only one will be sent. Two different high schools involved.

My prediction:
Some from both of those schools will choose to go--my guess is that more from the less likely school will choose to go. This will really screw up the following years and people will be extra angry if siblings are not allowed to go.

They need to pull off the band-aid and establish boundaries in January/February.

The needs/numbers are pretty clear now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ricardy Anderson seemed to be the only member who has concerns about boundaries being established AFTER people have opted in. Where is their common sense. This is a lot more important than which "career path" is chosen.

Have they considered:

There are four elementary schools that are almost firm to be sent to Western. There are two others that are possibilities, but, likely, only one will be sent. Two different high schools involved.

My prediction:
Some from both of those schools will choose to go--my guess is that more from the less likely school will choose to go. This will really screw up the following years and people will be extra angry if siblings are not allowed to go.

They need to pull off the band-aid and establish boundaries in January/February.

The needs/numbers are pretty clear now.

It is very clear that they need to delay all rezoning until fall 2027, using real numbers not 2024 numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was happy to hear Reid and a few board members finally mention the 1700-1800 seats from the western schools that are trailers/modulars in their reasoning for why this school is needed. The people who keep posting how the area is "only 600 over capacity" constantly ignore all the trailers. It was nice to hear the board acknowledge that the goal is for everyone to be able to go to school in a real building and not a temporary trailer.

Modulars are not trailers, and FCPS capacity planning has taken modular seats into account for many years.

They can't ignore modular seats in one part of the county when it's convenient, and take them into account everywhere else. If they want to ignore modular seats they need to completely revamp both the CIP and the ongoing county-wide boundary study. They are treating 105% capacity as the trigger for boundary changes and that 105% includes modular seats.

The best they can do is reiterate that the opportunity arose to buy KAA, they were willing to defer other renovation projects because they thought they were getting a bargain purchase, and say permanent seats are preferable to seats in trailers or modulars. Beyond that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[Anonymous]

It seems like both the school board and Reid are playing chicken and trying to make the other be the one to make the unpopular decisions. The discussion between Reid and Moon over bussing and having to vote on it for grandfathered students without any idea from Reid about the costs is an example of that.
Reid works for the school board. I thought it was her job to come up with the plans. She is the reason this has dragged on too long. She is the reason we won't get the boundary in a timeframe that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was happy to hear Reid and a few board members finally mention the 1700-1800 seats from the western schools that are trailers/modulars in their reasoning for why this school is needed. The people who keep posting how the area is "only 600 over capacity" constantly ignore all the trailers. It was nice to hear the board acknowledge that the goal is for everyone to be able to go to school in a real building and not a temporary trailer.

Modulars are not trailers, and FCPS capacity planning has taken modular seats into account for many years.

They can't ignore modular seats in one part of the county when it's convenient, and take them into account everywhere else. If they want to ignore modular seats they need to completely revamp both the CIP and the ongoing county-wide boundary study. They are treating 105% capacity as the trigger for boundary changes and that 105% includes modular seats.

The best they can do is reiterate that the opportunity arose to buy KAA, they were willing to defer other renovation projects because they thought they were getting a bargain purchase, and say permanent seats are preferable to seats in trailers or modulars. Beyond that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

As one board member said, "trailers are trailers, whether or not they have plumbing"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was happy to hear Reid and a few board members finally mention the 1700-1800 seats from the western schools that are trailers/modulars in their reasoning for why this school is needed. The people who keep posting how the area is "only 600 over capacity" constantly ignore all the trailers. It was nice to hear the board acknowledge that the goal is for everyone to be able to go to school in a real building and not a temporary trailer.

Modulars are not trailers, and FCPS capacity planning has taken modular seats into account for many years.

They can't ignore modular seats in one part of the county when it's convenient, and take them into account everywhere else. If they want to ignore modular seats they need to completely revamp both the CIP and the ongoing county-wide boundary study. They are treating 105% capacity as the trigger for boundary changes and that 105% includes modular seats.

The best they can do is reiterate that the opportunity arose to buy KAA, they were willing to defer other renovation projects because they thought they were getting a bargain purchase, and say permanent seats are preferable to seats in trailers or modulars. Beyond that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

As one board member said, "trailers are trailers, whether or not they have plumbing"

That's BS. Their entire capital program and county-wide boundary study is built around treating modulars, which are hooked up to utilities, as the equivalent of permanent seats.

They are getting heat from some quarters for buying KAA and under-estimating both the time and money it will take to get it fully up and running, so of course they feel the need to defend the decision. One way to do so is to pretend modular seats don't count in the western part of the county, even though they are counted everywhere else.

[Anonymous]

There are 58 trailers combined in Centreville, Chantilly, and Westfield. That does not include modulars. Assuming 20 students per trailer (and that is an extremely conservative number) that means overcrowding of 1160--plus the number of overcrowding is already over 300.

Assume 25-30 students per trailer and the number goes up significantly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was happy to hear Reid and a few board members finally mention the 1700-1800 seats from the western schools that are trailers/modulars in their reasoning for why this school is needed. The people who keep posting how the area is "only 600 over capacity" constantly ignore all the trailers. It was nice to hear the board acknowledge that the goal is for everyone to be able to go to school in a real building and not a temporary trailer.

Modulars are not trailers, and FCPS capacity planning has taken modular seats into account for many years.

They can't ignore modular seats in one part of the county when it's convenient, and take them into account everywhere else. If they want to ignore modular seats they need to completely revamp both the CIP and the ongoing county-wide boundary study. They are treating 105% capacity as the trigger for boundary changes and that 105% includes modular seats.

The best they can do is reiterate that the opportunity arose to buy KAA, they were willing to defer other renovation projects because they thought they were getting a bargain purchase, and say permanent seats are preferable to seats in trailers or modulars. Beyond that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

As one board member said, "trailers are trailers, whether or not they have plumbing"

LOL. So what's their plan to handle Kilmer MS, at 158% capacity if you treat the modular there as a trailer?

If they really believe that overcrowding at Kilmer should have been their top priority, not overcrowding at Chantilly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are 58 trailers combined in Centreville, Chantilly, and Westfield. That does not include modulars. Assuming 20 students per trailer (and that is an extremely conservative number) that means overcrowding of 1160--plus the number of overcrowding is already over 300.

Assume 25-30 students per trailer and the number goes up significantly.

You'd really have to probe why a school that's under capacity like Westfield has trailers. Sometimes schools don't use space efficiently. In some cases, schools needed trailers at one point and then they are left on school grounds because FCPS has nowhere else to put them. You can't make a blanket assumption that every trailer has 20 kids.

Again, you can start coming up with manufactured numbers that treat one part of the county differently than every other part of the county, but you might want to be careful about the implications of that approach, because it has implications for a lot of other areas/schools as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if anyone caught today's school board boundary work session...but what a clown show. Board Members not getting the numbers they are asking for, Dunne threatening to censure another board member because she accused other board members of 'mailing secret deals', Sandy Anderson spewing about only hearing from the 'loud' voices, Lady saying she will flat out refuse the notion of providing phased transportation, many board members railing on the absolutely terrible job Thru Consulting did...I'm so disappointed in our elected officials and this whole process.

That’s Sandy’s schtick, when she hears that the community is against something she proposes then she pretends that there is a silent cohort somewhere that supports exactly her agenda. This allows her to ignore her constituents no matter what they tell her. Other board members do this too.

Absolutely. She acts like a martyr for the “silent who can’t organize”. She’s yet to explain who they are.