School Boundaries and "One Fairfax"

[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.

Because Strauss floated moving parts of the McLean district that are in Providence and Hunter Mill, and not just Dranesville, to Langley. She got out ahead of herself, and Palchik in particular (who also wanted a boundary study involving Shrevewood ES to move forward) pushed back. Brabrand didn't really have a position about Strauss's proposal from early 2019.

Blame everything on One Fairfax if you want, but it's an oversimplification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good for them. I've spoken with some of the McSPaCES people and they don't care why the trailers accumulated at McLean (whether due to One Fairfax or anything else). They just want the trailers removed and for the SB to come up with long-term solutions to the overcrowding.

The VoF web site seems to be more overtly "anti-One Fairfax."

[Anonymous]

Because Strauss floated moving parts of the McLean district that are in Providence and Hunter Mill, and not just Dranesville, to Langley. She got out ahead of herself, and Palchik in particular (who also wanted a boundary study involving Shrevewood ES to move forward) pushed back. Brabrand didn't really have a position about Strauss's proposal from early 2019.

Blame everything on One Fairfax if you want, but it's an oversimplification.

Would that be to get more FARMS? Wouldn't that be OneFairfax? After all, aren't McLean parts of Dranesville much closer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because Strauss floated moving parts of the McLean district that are in Providence and Hunter Mill, and not just Dranesville, to Langley. She got out ahead of herself, and Palchik in particular (who also wanted a boundary study involving Shrevewood ES to move forward) pushed back. Brabrand didn't really have a position about Strauss's proposal from early 2019.

Blame everything on One Fairfax if you want, but it's an oversimplification.

Would that be to get more FARMS? Wouldn't that be OneFairfax? After all, aren't McLean parts of Dranesville much closer?

She'd said in work sessions well before One Fairfax was adopted in 2017 that, if there were to be any boundary study involving the two schools, she would not want to see the demographic gap between the two schools increased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good for them. I've spoken with some of the McSPaCES people and they don't care why the trailers accumulated at McLean (whether due to One Fairfax or anything else). They just want the trailers removed and for the SB to come up with long-term solutions to the overcrowding.

The VoF web site seems to be more overtly "anti-One Fairfax."

Lol. There you go again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good for them. I've spoken with some of the McSPaCES people and they don't care why the trailers accumulated at McLean (whether due to One Fairfax or anything else). They just want the trailers removed and for the SB to come up with long-term solutions to the overcrowding.

The VoF web site seems to be more overtly "anti-One Fairfax."

Lol. There you go again.

What do you mean? Look at the two web sites. McSPaCES has a lot of data on overcrowding and Voices of Fairfax has a video called "The Truth About One Fairfax" prominently displayed, along with a letter to the Board of Supervisors that reads, in part, "One Fairfax feels like Forced Fairfax and may lead to Failed Fairfax." So I think the observation is pretty accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because Strauss floated moving parts of the McLean district that are in Providence and Hunter Mill, and not just Dranesville, to Langley. She got out ahead of herself, and Palchik in particular (who also wanted a boundary study involving Shrevewood ES to move forward) pushed back. Brabrand didn't really have a position about Strauss's proposal from early 2019.

Blame everything on One Fairfax if you want, but it's an oversimplification.

Would that be to get more FARMS? Wouldn't that be OneFairfax? After all, aren't McLean parts of Dranesville much closer?

She'd said in work sessions well before One Fairfax was adopted in 2017 that, if there were to be any boundary study involving the two schools, she would not want to see the demographic gap between the two schools increased.

This concept is stupid. The Poor's may be able to go to mclean or langley for a few years but the price of houses will increase and the Poor's won't be able to afford it and you'll be back in the same place. Get over it, poor people won't be able to attend McLean or Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because Strauss floated moving parts of the McLean district that are in Providence and Hunter Mill, and not just Dranesville, to Langley. She got out ahead of herself, and Palchik in particular (who also wanted a boundary study involving Shrevewood ES to move forward) pushed back. Brabrand didn't really have a position about Strauss's proposal from early 2019.

Blame everything on One Fairfax if you want, but it's an oversimplification.

Would that be to get more FARMS? Wouldn't that be OneFairfax? After all, aren't McLean parts of Dranesville much closer?

She'd said in work sessions well before One Fairfax was adopted in 2017 that, if there were to be any boundary study involving the two schools, she would not want to see the demographic gap between the two schools increased.

This concept is stupid. The Poor's may be able to go to mclean or langley for a few years but the price of houses will increase and the Poor's won't be able to afford it and you'll be back in the same place. Get over it, poor people won't be able to attend McLean or Langley.

"The Poor's" don't live in the increasingly expensive houses that are now being torn down, but thanks for playing.

[Anonymous]

Is “menstrual equity” required by One Fairfax?

I see Ryan McElveen is posting non-stop about it and of course none of the 37 schools getting the free stuff are in Langley or McLean pyramids.

[Anonymous]

This concept is stupid. The Poor's may be able to go to mclean or langley for a few years but the price of houses will increase and the Poor's won't be able to afford it and you'll be back in the same place. Get over it, poor people won't be able to attend McLean or Langley.


"The Poor's" don't live in the increasingly expensive houses that are now being torn down, but thanks for playing.

First PP is just trolling. Probably a OneFairfax supporter.

[Anonymous]

Or, perhaps, a Voice of Fairfax you’d rather remain silent.

[Anonymous]

Well they have put a hold on their one Fairfax change to boundary policy.

Now they are set to vote on redoing McLean/Langley boundaries, which is just one of the things they should have been working on.

I don't doubt that they will come back to it later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This concept is stupid. The Poor's may be able to go to mclean or langley for a few years but the price of houses will increase and the Poor's won't be able to afford it and you'll be back in the same place. Get over it, poor people won't be able to attend McLean or Langley.


"The Poor's" don't live in the increasingly expensive houses that are now being torn down, but thanks for playing.

First PP is just trolling. Probably a OneFairfax supporter.

Some people troll purely for fun, so who knows.

[Anonymous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SppzehDD7K4

I don't know why Brabrand even bothered with that email and video. He's only making it worse.

[Anonymous]

He’s on his way out anyway. Why do we have to tolerate him anymore?