Boundaries assessment update 2023

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd love for the state to place FCPS in receivership due to its complete and utter incompetence when it's come to capital spending and facilities management.

Because state bureaucrats are models of good governance and competence? Ha!

[Anonymous]

The topic also came up at FPAC meetings a couple times throughout the year. Their minutes specifically mention looking at county-wide boundary changes to keep up with demographics and densities across the county that have changed considerably. Whether the Board will pay attention to their advisory councils is another matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd love for the state to place FCPS in receivership due to its complete and utter incompetence when it's come to capital spending and facilities management.

Have you seen the incompetence of Youngkin’s VDOE? No thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The topic also came up at FPAC meetings a couple times throughout the year. Their minutes specifically mention looking at county-wide boundary changes to keep up with demographics and densities across the county that have changed considerably. Whether the Board will pay attention to their advisory councils is another matter.

That recommendation has been made and ignored many times. For example, Cathy Hosek (the Mount Vernon rep on FPAC) was rabid about county-wide boundary changes but they went ahead and did a massive expansion of West Potomac instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The topic also came up at FPAC meetings a couple times throughout the year. Their minutes specifically mention looking at county-wide boundary changes to keep up with demographics and densities across the county that have changed considerably. Whether the Board will pay attention to their advisory councils is another matter.

Do any of these people have high school students? Do you have any idea how disruptive a county wide boundary study would be. Just follow along with some of the suggestions for Carson Middle.School on this thread. A commenter seemed to think that Carson "High" would draw from same group as Carson Middle. Then, the commenter suggested that doing that would free up Chantilly and Centreville kids to go to South Lakes, Westfield and Oakton. Sound good in theory, except that would make Chantilly kids go further and through the "Carson" neighborhoods.

I live in Western Fairfax and have a pretty good grasp of boundaries for South Lakes, Westfield, Oakton and Chantilly. I'm a little vague on the boundareis between Centreville and Westfield. To me, they blend--but someone who lives there may see it differently.

I've seen several posts on here about Glasgow--I have no idea of its boundaries and neighborhoods. I've a vague idea of Mt Vernon and West Potomas as I lived down there years ago, but I'm sure it has all changed.

A county wide study would result in disrupting families, schools and academics.

Here's a suggestion:

Step 1: Get rid of IB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love for the state to place FCPS in receivership due to its complete and utter incompetence when it's come to capital spending and facilities management.

Have you seen the incompetence of Youngkin’s VDOE? No thank you.

Youngkins team had a huge mess to clean up from the previous administration.

[Anonymous]

Why should someone at Chantilly who spreads misinformation about the feasibility or impact of boundary changes get to weigh in on IB?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should someone at Chantilly who spreads misinformation about the feasibility or impact of boundary changes get to weigh in on IB?

+1 I'm scratching my head a bit with the IB comment too. A county wide study sounds like a great way to avoid domino effects of region/pyramid only changes. As with any reform, there will be a transition period that will make many people unhappy. It's really just unavoidable. Change, even when it's the right, fair thing to do is just hard. Maybe this will be the superintendent that tackles it. Maybe not.

[Anonymous]

I'm not the Chantilly person who posted about getting rid of IB, but IB has caused issues with transfers across the county. So standardizing on AP would eliminate one issue that comes into play with potential boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should someone at Chantilly who spreads misinformation about the feasibility or impact of boundary changes get to weigh in on IB?

Just what "misinformation" are you talking about? Please give examples.

And, as PP said, IB vs AP has a huge impact on lots of issues here. Pupil placement for one affects attitudes on redistricting and enables people to pupil place out of a school they don't like.

IB is more expensive and some of the schools with IB have very few students in the program.
Also, if you start shifting kids from school to school, it has a HUGE impact on students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love for the state to place FCPS in receivership due to its complete and utter incompetence when it's come to capital spending and facilities management.

Have you seen the incompetence of Youngkin’s VDOE? No thank you.

Youngkins team had a huge mess to clean up from the previous administration.

No it doesn’t, it just disagrees with the previous administration and is remaking the VDOE following the Christian right’s plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should someone at Chantilly who spreads misinformation about the feasibility or impact of boundary changes get to weigh in on IB?

Just what "misinformation" are you talking about? Please give examples.

And, as PP said, IB vs AP has a huge impact on lots of issues here. Pupil placement for one affects attitudes on redistricting and enables people to pupil place out of a school they don't like.

IB is more expensive and some of the schools with IB have very few students in the program.
Also, if you start shifting kids from school to school, it has a HUGE impact on students.

That's a bit of a hyperbole. Kids aren't going to be shifted around school to school in a disarray as you imply. There are years of advanced notice and then phased implementation as kids "age out" of the changes while they remain in their original pyramid.

The impact of switching is close to none, because the actual transitions would be natural anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should someone at Chantilly who spreads misinformation about the feasibility or impact of boundary changes get to weigh in on IB?

Just what "misinformation" are you talking about? Please give examples.

And, as PP said, IB vs AP has a huge impact on lots of issues here. Pupil placement for one affects attitudes on redistricting and enables people to pupil place out of a school they don't like.

IB is more expensive and some of the schools with IB have very few students in the program.
Also, if you start shifting kids from school to school, it has a HUGE impact on students.

That's a bit of a hyperbole. Kids aren't going to be shifted around school to school in a disarray as you imply. There are years of advanced notice and then phased implementation as kids "age out" of the changes while they remain in their original pyramid.

The impact of switching is close to none, because the actual transitions would be natural anyway.

clueless. Obviously doesn't know anyone who ended up with kids in different high schools as a result of redistricting. It is extremely disruptive. And, do you really think it would go smoothly in Fairfax County?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should someone at Chantilly who spreads misinformation about the feasibility or impact of boundary changes get to weigh in on IB?

Just what "misinformation" are you talking about? Please give examples.

And, as PP said, IB vs AP has a huge impact on lots of issues here. Pupil placement for one affects attitudes on redistricting and enables people to pupil place out of a school they don't like.

IB is more expensive and some of the schools with IB have very few students in the program.
Also, if you start shifting kids from school to school, it has a HUGE impact on students.

Well, for one, the claim that any boundary change involving Chantilly would force kids to travel through a new Carson HS boundaries to get to another high school.

And it’s off-putting for Chantilly posters to churn out reasons why they should never be moved out of CHS but then blithely suggest folks who like IB should no longer have that option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should someone at Chantilly who spreads misinformation about the feasibility or impact of boundary changes get to weigh in on IB?

Just what "misinformation" are you talking about? Please give examples.

And, as PP said, IB vs AP has a huge impact on lots of issues here. Pupil placement for one affects attitudes on redistricting and enables people to pupil place out of a school they don't like.

IB is more expensive and some of the schools with IB have very few students in the program.
Also, if you start shifting kids from school to school, it has a HUGE impact on students.

That's a bit of a hyperbole. Kids aren't going to be shifted around school to school in a disarray as you imply. There are years of advanced notice and then phased implementation as kids "age out" of the changes while they remain in their original pyramid.

The impact of switching is close to none, because the actual transitions would be natural anyway.

They can grandfather generously if there are small boundary changes only affecting a few schools at a time. If they made big changes across the county simultaneously it would be harder to run all the multiple bus routes associated with a gradual phase-in.