School Boundaries and "One Fairfax"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always told my kids that an unnecessary risk, no matter how small, is an unacceptable risk.

Excellence and success cannot occur with this attitude.

Exactly. Always teach kids to cross the street without looking.

????

Crossing the street without looking (high risk) is very different than freaking out over getting hit by a tornado while having a class or two each day in a trailer (minuscule to non existent risk)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always told my kids that an unnecessary risk, no matter how small, is an unacceptable risk.

Excellence and success cannot occur with this attitude.

Exactly. Always teach kids to cross the street without looking.

????

Crossing the street without looking (high risk) is very different than freaking out over getting hit by a tornado while having a class or two each day in a trailer (minuscule to non existent risk)

True. But, when there is a brick and mortar school just a couple of miles away that has plenty of space, it's kind of hard to figure it out. The only reason given so far has been OneFairfax.

[Anonymous]

Not to mention wasting money on trailers when millions were spent renovating and expanding Langley.

Empty seats and overburdened teachers and students three miles away can't be reassigned because....why again?

One Fairfax. despite the fact that they won't utter the words these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention wasting money on trailers when millions were spent renovating and expanding Langley.

Empty seats and overburdened teachers and students three miles away can't be reassigned because....why again?

One Fairfax. despite the fact that they won't utter the words these days.

Damn, girl, Joe Biden’s going to have to lend you his record player, because you are one broken record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention wasting money on trailers when millions were spent renovating and expanding Langley.

Empty seats and overburdened teachers and students three miles away can't be reassigned because....why again?

One Fairfax. despite the fact that they won't utter the words these days.

Damn, girl, Joe Biden’s going to have to lend you his record player, because you are one broken record.

DP. It never ceases to amaze me when people think there is only one other poster on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention wasting money on trailers when millions were spent renovating and expanding Langley.

Empty seats and overburdened teachers and students three miles away can't be reassigned because....why again?

One Fairfax. despite the fact that they won't utter the words these days.

Damn, girl, Joe Biden’s going to have to lend you his record player, because you are one broken record.

Shouldn't that be "scratched record?"

Broken records are unplayable.

And yes, I will keep bringing up that Brabrand paused most boundary studies so that a One Fairfax lens could be applied.

I will keep bringing up that there was no good reason to have McLean/Langley adjustment timed to the completion of renovations at Langley.

They won't say "One Fairfax" when directly engaging the public about boundaries or boundary policy.

Why?

[Anonymous]

To "not" have the implementation of a new boundary ready when Langley was done, I meant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention wasting money on trailers when millions were spent renovating and expanding Langley.

Empty seats and overburdened teachers and students three miles away can't be reassigned because....why again?

One Fairfax. despite the fact that they won't utter the words these days.

Damn, girl, Joe Biden’s going to have to lend you his record player, because you are one broken record.

DP. It never ceases to amaze me when people think there is only one other poster on this forum.

I'm not the only one but I have mentioned it at least twice lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention wasting money on trailers when millions were spent renovating and expanding Langley.

Empty seats and overburdened teachers and students three miles away can't be reassigned because....why again?

One Fairfax. despite the fact that they won't utter the words these days.

Damn, girl, Joe Biden’s going to have to lend you his record player, because you are one broken record.

DP. It never ceases to amaze me when people think there is only one other poster on this forum.

I'm not the only one but I have mentioned it at least twice lol

Another one here. But, I wonder if the "broken" record accuser has read the title of the thread. It is funny how the SB is trying to change the subject.

[Anonymous]

I know as much about the history of the Langley/McLean issues than anyone posting on this thread.

We’re all in violent agreement that the School Board and Brabrand should have coordinated a boundary study so that some McLean kids could move to Langley as soon as the Langley renovations were substantially complete. To suggest that One Fairfax is the only or even the primary reason that didn’t happen, however, is BS. It just introduced one more element of delay into the process this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know as much about the history of the Langley/McLean issues than anyone posting on this thread.

We’re all in violent agreement that the School Board and Brabrand should have coordinated a boundary study so that some McLean kids could move to Langley as soon as the Langley renovations were substantially complete. To suggest that One Fairfax is the only or even the primary reason that didn’t happen, however, is BS. It just introduced one more element of delay into the process this year.

So, what was another reason? I haven't seen any other reason. It defies reason that it was not done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know as much about the history of the Langley/McLean issues than anyone posting on this thread.

We’re all in violent agreement that the School Board and Brabrand should have coordinated a boundary study so that some McLean kids could move to Langley as soon as the Langley renovations were substantially complete. To suggest that One Fairfax is the only or even the primary reason that didn’t happen, however, is BS. It just introduced one more element of delay into the process this year.

So, what was another reason? I haven't seen any other reason. It defies reason that it was not done.

* FCPS hasn't had enormous confidence in its enrollment forecasts so had held off on any Langley/McLean study

* People like MHS, so Strauss knew that any change would be controversial; she thought she could let her successor deal with it

* When MHS grew more than expected in 2018-19, Strauss and FCPS Facilities Staff thought Board members would quickly go along with Strauss' proposal early this year for a boundary study, but were proven wrong:

- some Board members were afraid a Langley/McLean study would leapfrog other boundary studies involving schools in their districts

- some Board members were concerned that Strauss wanted to move areas in their districts to Langley, but had not consulted them in advance

- some Board members wanted any boundary change postponed until the Board had revised the boundary policy and/or conducted a broader county-wide review of boundaries.

Only the last factor is tied to One Fairfax; the other factors are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know as much about the history of the Langley/McLean issues than anyone posting on this thread.

We’re all in violent agreement that the School Board and Brabrand should have coordinated a boundary study so that some McLean kids could move to Langley as soon as the Langley renovations were substantially complete. To suggest that One Fairfax is the only or even the primary reason that didn’t happen, however, is BS. It just introduced one more element of delay into the process this year.

So, what was another reason? I haven't seen any other reason. It defies reason that it was not done.

* FCPS hasn't had enormous confidence in its enrollment forecasts so had held off on any Langley/McLean study

* People like MHS, so Strauss knew that any change would be controversial; she thought she could let her successor deal with it

* When MHS grew more than expected in 2018-19, Strauss and FCPS Facilities Staff thought Board members would quickly go along with Strauss' proposal early this year for a boundary study, but were proven wrong:

- some Board members were afraid a Langley/McLean study would leapfrog other boundary studies involving schools in their districts

- some Board members were concerned that Strauss wanted to move areas in their districts to Langley, but had not consulted them in advance

- some Board members wanted any boundary change postponed until the Board had revised the boundary policy and/or conducted a broader county-wide review of boundaries.

Only the last factor is tied to One Fairfax; the other factors are not.

And why didn't they want to go along with Strauss? Why didn't Braband want to go along with Strauss? Wouldn't that be OneFairfax?

Why would any Board member think Strauss would want kids from their district? The only reason that would even be considered would be OneFairfax. Other than that, McLean is the obvious answer--because McLean is overcrowded and has lots of trailers, if you had not heard.

Sorry, they made their position clear at the work sessions earlier--the ones no one was paying attention to until this summer.

[Anonymous]

Brabrand just told the FCCpta that the 1.5 year pause was the beginning of the process.

Very reassuring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know as much about the history of the Langley/McLean issues than anyone posting on this thread.

We’re all in violent agreement that the School Board and Brabrand should have coordinated a boundary study so that some McLean kids could move to Langley as soon as the Langley renovations were substantially complete. To suggest that One Fairfax is the only or even the primary reason that didn’t happen, however, is BS. It just introduced one more element of delay into the process this year.

So, what was another reason? I haven't seen any other reason. It defies reason that it was not done.

* FCPS hasn't had enormous confidence in its enrollment forecasts so had held off on any Langley/McLean study

* People like MHS, so Strauss knew that any change would be controversial; she thought she could let her successor deal with it

* When MHS grew more than expected in 2018-19, Strauss and FCPS Facilities Staff thought Board members would quickly go along with Strauss' proposal early this year for a boundary study, but were proven wrong:

- some Board members were afraid a Langley/McLean study would leapfrog other boundary studies involving schools in their districts

- some Board members were concerned that Strauss wanted to move areas in their districts to Langley, but had not consulted them in advance

- some Board members wanted any boundary change postponed until the Board had revised the boundary policy and/or conducted a broader county-wide review of boundaries.

Only the last factor is tied to One Fairfax; the other factors are not.

And why didn't they want to go along with Strauss? Why didn't Braband want to go along with Strauss? Wouldn't that be OneFairfax?

Why would any Board member think Strauss would want kids from their district? The only reason that would even be considered would be OneFairfax. Other than that, McLean is the obvious answer--because McLean is overcrowded and has lots of trailers, if you had not heard.

Sorry, they made their position clear at the work sessions earlier--the ones no one was paying attention to until this summer.

Exactly. They said "one Fairfax" fifty thousand times, and Brabrand said he paused studies for one Fairfax.

It's all on tape.

Then when McLean parents and Mcspaces along with Langley parents and VoF raised enough hell, it suddenly became a priority.