Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

Boy that Crossfield group sure took their friend's talking points and went crazy with the boundary tool! I will be really upset if my younger child ends up at Franklin, we love Carson. The teachers are fantastic and the after school program is amazing. It's also much closer to our home and easier to get to.

+

This is what I don't get. Won't the new school have basically the same population as Carson--except for including Oak Hill (and a lot of them go to Carson for AAP)? Why are these Crossfield parents so determined to stay at Oakton?

Because they are afraid their property values will go down since Oakton is such an "Elite" school. BTW, many of us Crossfield parents would rather our kids go to the new school, because it makes actual sense, for lots of reasons, including the ones you describe, but it appears we are outnumbered, or at least outshouted.

I don't see Melanie Meren agreeing to let Fox Mill go. But, it sounds, from this thread, like a lot of Fox Mill people will opt in.
They really need to drop IB at South Lakes.

Meren will definitely support Crossfield staying with Oakton. If then, Fox Mill has to go.

What makes you think that? I don't think she will let Fox Mill leave South Lakes. And, if Crossfield stays at Oakton, that is very likely.

Part of Crossfield is in Hunter Mill district.

A very small part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You thinking I and the families who seek stability are delusional is very telling.

Why are you more entitled to stability than others?

Thanks for the question.

I’m not. Everyone in the county deserves stability in their pyramid. Thats what the vast majority of residents seek as reflected in the tens of thousands of comments from the thousands of Fairfax families who came out to the various meetings who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes.

Scenario 4 only moves about 2% of kids. Most people have stability. Some will be moved because it makes sense for capacity, transportation…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You thinking I and the families who seek stability are delusional is very telling.

Why are you more entitled to stability than others?

Thanks for the question.

I’m not. Everyone in the county deserves stability in their pyramid. Thats what the vast majority of residents seek as reflected in the tens of thousands of comments from the thousands of Fairfax families who came out to the various meetings who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes.

Scenario 4 only moves about 2% of kids. Most people have stability. Some will be moved because it makes sense for capacity, transportation…

Good thing we will spent close to a million dollars on a sh*t show of a consultant to move 2% of students and still end up with over and underpopulated schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You thinking I and the families who seek stability are delusional is very telling.

Why are you more entitled to stability than others?

Thanks for the question.

I’m not. Everyone in the county deserves stability in their pyramid. Thats what the vast majority of residents seek as reflected in the tens of thousands of comments from the thousands of Fairfax families who came out to the various meetings who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes.

Scenario 4 only moves about 2% of kids. Most people have stability. Some will be moved because it makes sense for capacity, transportation…

Most of the 2% will be moved unnecessarily. Coates relief on the other hand will be delayed unnecessarily.

Most of us are glad that the school board backed down from more disruptive change, but our hearts go out to the kids that will suffer acute mental health issues and other issues from being forced to move schools, and we’ll do this all again ad infinitum due to the revised school board policy 8130, which requires a boundary review every five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

All of the comments are up online as well.

Where can we find the comments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You thinking I and the families who seek stability are delusional is very telling.

Why are you more entitled to stability than others?

Thanks for the question.

I’m not. Everyone in the county deserves stability in their pyramid. Thats what the vast majority of residents seek as reflected in the tens of thousands of comments from the thousands of Fairfax families who came out to the various meetings who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes.

Scenario 4 only moves about 2% of kids. Most people have stability. Some will be moved because it makes sense for capacity, transportation…

Someone pointed this out to me when I, mistakenly, said that 1% of kids were moving; 2% cannot include the number of kids moving with the new HS. If my math is correct, 2% is about 3,600 students. The new HS alone moves between 1,700-2,000 students and there are kids moving to backfill the schools filling in the new HS.

I happen to agree that even that is a relatively small number of kids. The kids at the new HS will all be in the same boat and a small number will be moving from one HS to a different HS. The groups that are screaming the loudest are the ones who are a part of that 2% or 5% or whatever the number ends up being who don’t want to move. The ones that are pasting the message board with messages of doom are the ones who see their kids moving from what they see as a strong school to a weak school or who are afraid they might be moved some day and so it is best to fight every change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

All of the comments are up online as well.

Where can we find the comments?

https://www.fcps.edu/november-12-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You thinking I and the families who seek stability are delusional is very telling.

Why are you more entitled to stability than others?

Thanks for the question.

I’m not. Everyone in the county deserves stability in their pyramid. Thats what the vast majority of residents seek as reflected in the tens of thousands of comments from the thousands of Fairfax families who came out to the various meetings who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes.

Scenario 4 only moves about 2% of kids. Most people have stability. Some will be moved because it makes sense for capacity, transportation…

Someone pointed this out to me when I, mistakenly, said that 1% of kids were moving; 2% cannot include the number of kids moving with the new HS. If my math is correct, 2% is about 3,600 students. The new HS alone moves between 1,700-2,000 students and there are kids moving to backfill the schools filling in the new HS.

I happen to agree that even that is a relatively small number of kids. The kids at the new HS will all be in the same boat and a small number will be moving from one HS to a different HS. The groups that are screaming the loudest are the ones who are a part of that 2% or 5% or whatever the number ends up being who don’t want to move. The ones that are pasting the message board with messages of doom are the ones who see their kids moving from what they see as a strong school to a weak school or who are afraid they might be moved some day and so it is best to fight every change.

The people who minimize the disruption to FCPS families and FCPS students are just hoping for a handout from Aunt Sandy in the form of a slight increase in their home equity.

Count me on the side of fighting for kids and their mental health, rather than moving them like pawns for your and your neighbors’ poor home choices and your hope for increased home equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You thinking I and the families who seek stability are delusional is very telling.

Why are you more entitled to stability than others?

Thanks for the question.

I’m not. Everyone in the county deserves stability in their pyramid. Thats what the vast majority of residents seek as reflected in the tens of thousands of comments from the thousands of Fairfax families who came out to the various meetings who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes.

Scenario 4 only moves about 2% of kids. Most people have stability. Some will be moved because it makes sense for capacity, transportation…

Someone pointed this out to me when I, mistakenly, said that 1% of kids were moving; 2% cannot include the number of kids moving with the new HS. If my math is correct, 2% is about 3,600 students. The new HS alone moves between 1,700-2,000 students and there are kids moving to backfill the schools filling in the new HS.

I happen to agree that even that is a relatively small number of kids. The kids at the new HS will all be in the same boat and a small number will be moving from one HS to a different HS. The groups that are screaming the loudest are the ones who are a part of that 2% or 5% or whatever the number ends up being who don’t want to move. The ones that are pasting the message board with messages of doom are the ones who see their kids moving from what they see as a strong school to a weak school or who are afraid they might be moved some day and so it is best to fight every change.

The people who minimize the disruption to FCPS families and FCPS students are just hoping for a handout from Aunt Sandy in the form of a slight increase in their home equity.

Count me on the side of fighting for kids and their mental health, rather than moving them like pawns for your and your neighbors’ poor home choices and your hope for increased home equity.

I put you in the category of a Great Falls or WSHS parent who is petrified of the move to Lewis or Herndon and trying to be as melodramatic as possible about the effects of an entire group of kids moving to a new school at the same time. I would say Oakton but you have been using the same line since the entire process started and the Oakton move is too recent.

the move is disruptive but the number of kids is small. The kids will move with a decent size number of other kidsso they won’t be alone. A larger number of kids move in and out of the school district every year due to families moving and most adjust well. Moving and change is a part of life, they will be ok.

The HS kids who would be most impacted don’t look like they will have to move. The kids who have not started at their HS will simply be moving to a HS from MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You thinking I and the families who seek stability are delusional is very telling.

Why are you more entitled to stability than others?

Thanks for the question.

I’m not. Everyone in the county deserves stability in their pyramid. Thats what the vast majority of residents seek as reflected in the tens of thousands of comments from the thousands of Fairfax families who came out to the various meetings who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes.

Scenario 4 only moves about 2% of kids. Most people have stability. Some will be moved because it makes sense for capacity, transportation…

Someone pointed this out to me when I, mistakenly, said that 1% of kids were moving; 2% cannot include the number of kids moving with the new HS. If my math is correct, 2% is about 3,600 students. The new HS alone moves between 1,700-2,000 students and there are kids moving to backfill the schools filling in the new HS.

I happen to agree that even that is a relatively small number of kids. The kids at the new HS will all be in the same boat and a small number will be moving from one HS to a different HS. The groups that are screaming the loudest are the ones who are a part of that 2% or 5% or whatever the number ends up being who don’t want to move. The ones that are pasting the message board with messages of doom are the ones who see their kids moving from what they see as a strong school to a weak school or who are afraid they might be moved some day and so it is best to fight every change.

The people who minimize the disruption to FCPS families and FCPS students are just hoping for a handout from Aunt Sandy in the form of a slight increase in their home equity.

Count me on the side of fighting for kids and their mental health, rather than moving them like pawns for your and your neighbors’ poor home choices and your hope for increased home equity.

I put you in the category of a Great Falls or WSHS parent who is petrified of the move to Lewis or Herndon and trying to be as melodramatic as possible about the effects of an entire group of kids moving to a new school at the same time. I would say Oakton but you have been using the same line since the entire process started and the Oakton move is too recent.

the move is disruptive but the number of kids is small. The kids will move with a decent size number of other kidsso they won’t be alone. A larger number of kids move in and out of the school district every year due to families moving and most adjust well. Moving and change is a part of life, they will be ok.

The HS kids who would be most impacted don’t look like they will have to move. The kids who have not started at their HS will simply be moving to a HS from MS.

Oh look, it’s an equity warrior with nothing new to contribute to the conversation. Look, just be up front with us that you want a handout from your neighbors.

As reflected in the overwhelming number of comments received by thousands of FCPS families, no one wants their kid’s moved just because you hope for a little house value bump. You keep pretending like kids’ mental health isn’t important, in your pursuit of a redistricting “solution” in search of a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

All of the comments are up online as well.

Where can we find the comments?

https://www.fcps.edu/november-12-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

They didn’t post the region 2 comments correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

All of the comments are up online as well.

Where can we find the comments?

https://www.fcps.edu/november-12-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

They didn’t post the region 2 comments correctly.

A lot of the comments are posted incorrectly or in the wrong region. My kids go to Gunston which is heavily impacted by proposed changes and comments are in multiple regions. There are hundreds of comments about this school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

All of the comments are up online as well.

Where can we find the comments?

https://www.fcps.edu/november-12-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

They didn’t post the region 2 comments correctly.

A lot of the comments are posted incorrectly or in the wrong region. My kids go to Gunston which is heavily impacted by proposed changes and comments are in multiple regions. There are hundreds of comments about this school.

The region 2 comments weren’t posted in the wrong place or unnecessarily repeated. They were omitted entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

Boy that Crossfield group sure took their friend's talking points and went crazy with the boundary tool! I will be really upset if my younger child ends up at Franklin, we love Carson. The teachers are fantastic and the after school program is amazing. It's also much closer to our home and easier to get to.

+

This is what I don't get. Won't the new school have basically the same population as Carson--except for including Oak Hill (and a lot of them go to Carson for AAP)? Why are these Crossfield parents so determined to stay at Oakton?

Because they are afraid their property values will go down since Oakton is such an "Elite" school. BTW, many of us Crossfield parents would rather our kids go to the new school, because it makes actual sense, for lots of reasons, including the ones you describe, but it appears we are outnumbered, or at least outshouted.

I wish I could say it's really obvious that it's the same person and their friends that posted that talking point over and over again, but I don't think the board or the BRAC members will realize that. Same with the person who posted over and over again about "not tearing Crossfield apart" over Fox Mill Woods. It's already "torn apart", FMW has gone to South Lakes for a long time and while I certainly don't know everyone in the neighborhood, everyone I do now in that neighborhood wants to stay in Reston schools.

[Anonymous]

DH and I both put in comments about moving Crossfield to Western, but they were removed.