FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is exactly why parent preferences should carry little or no weight. Everyone wants different things. Everyone has a different story (we bought in a certain neighborhood for the schools). Everyone is motivated by those personal circumstances. But those are you problems.

FCPS should make the goals and decisions transparent and then just do it.

They have made the goals transparent. "Equity." In their view, that means shifting wealthier kids to poor schools. Not sure how they plan to do the opposite.
This is not about better education. It is to cover up problems they refuse to address.

Such fearmongering has no basis in fact. I’m on the boundary committee and you know how often the facilitators have mentioned type of equity you are talking about? NEVER. They’ve only mentioned equity in the context of equity in program/course offerings. We are still many months away from FCPS proposing boundaries for Committee review. Until then, there’s very little to criticize.

[Anonymous]

Some segment of the population will be unhappy regardless of what happens. So, in the absence of facts right now people are resorting to attacking each other (if this forum is any indication of real life) in hopes of protecting their own interests.
If I truly believe that boundaries need to stay exactly the same and my neighbor believes with all their heart there should be a comprehensive review.....what good are we going to do by yelling at each other? Or anonymously posting on a thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is exactly why parent preferences should carry little or no weight. Everyone wants different things. Everyone has a different story (we bought in a certain neighborhood for the schools). Everyone is motivated by those personal circumstances. But those are you problems.

FCPS should make the goals and decisions transparent and then just do it.

They have made the goals transparent. "Equity." In their view, that means shifting wealthier kids to poor schools. Not sure how they plan to do the opposite.
This is not about better education. It is to cover up problems they refuse to address.

Such fearmongering has no basis in fact. I’m on the boundary committee and you know how often the facilitators have mentioned type of equity you are talking about? NEVER. They’ve only mentioned equity in the context of equity in program/course offerings. We are still many months away from FCPS proposing boundaries for Committee review. Until then, there’s very little to criticize.

DP. I’m not sure what you think that demonstrates. It sounds like you’re slowly being led down a path. That doesn’t mean you’re still not being led down a path, or that you’ll really ever have much agency. But congrats for being on the BRAC, if that’s something you wanted to do.

As for their comments about equity in course/program offerings, that’s clear as mud, because they’ve not discussed anything about the future of AAP centers, IB, or Academy programs, which really should have been vetted and decided before they started looking at boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is exactly why parent preferences should carry little or no weight. Everyone wants different things. Everyone has a different story (we bought in a certain neighborhood for the schools). Everyone is motivated by those personal circumstances. But those are you problems.

FCPS should make the goals and decisions transparent and then just do it.

They have made the goals transparent. "Equity." In their view, that means shifting wealthier kids to poor schools. Not sure how they plan to do the opposite.
This is not about better education. It is to cover up problems they refuse to address.

Such fearmongering has no basis in fact. I’m on the boundary committee and you know how often the facilitators have mentioned type of equity you are talking about? NEVER. They’ve only mentioned equity in the context of equity in program/course offerings. We are still many months away from FCPS proposing boundaries for Committee review. Until then, there’s very little to criticize.

Were you randomly selected or one of the hand-picked members? That matters a lot when evaluating your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is exactly why parent preferences should carry little or no weight. Everyone wants different things. Everyone has a different story (we bought in a certain neighborhood for the schools). Everyone is motivated by those personal circumstances. But those are you problems.

FCPS should make the goals and decisions transparent and then just do it.

They have made the goals transparent. "Equity." In their view, that means shifting wealthier kids to poor schools. Not sure how they plan to do the opposite.
This is not about better education. It is to cover up problems they refuse to address.

Such fearmongering has no basis in fact. I’m on the boundary committee and you know how often the facilitators have mentioned type of equity you are talking about? NEVER. They’ve only mentioned equity in the context of equity in program/course offerings. We are still many months away from FCPS proposing boundaries for Committee review. Until then, there’s very little to criticize.

Were you randomly selected or one of the hand-picked members? That matters a lot when evaluating your post.

Also, since we’ve got at least one BRAC member reading this, can you please emphasize for the other committee members that the study they gave you on December 6 does not support the assertion that commute times shorter than an hour matter for academics or sleep time?

I’ve heard Robyn Lady cite to “studies” as a reason to prioritize transportation and if that is the only thing they have then it’s the flimsiest justification I’ve ever seen. If you haven’t, please read the study and its conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Just arriving to this discussion. Why did my pyramid (Woodson) have 3 members appointed to the BRAC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just arriving to this discussion. Why did my pyramid (Woodson) have 3 members appointed to the BRAC?

Troll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just arriving to this discussion. Why did my pyramid (Woodson) have 3 members appointed to the BRAC?

There is a sb sycophant who made the committee in that pyramid. It seems like the person has bought into the equity agenda, so long as her kids are not moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just arriving to this discussion. Why did my pyramid (Woodson) have 3 members appointed to the BRAC?

There is a sb sycophant who made the committee in that pyramid. It seems like the person has bought into the equity agenda, so long as her kids are not moved.

So gross. Her presence on giant committee just tells you how they reward people who suck up to them and exclude others who might challenge them.

Even worse since she showed up a few weeks ago and publicly said her own school (Mantua) couldn’t possibly be a candidate for redistricting, which makes no sense since Woodson is projected to be one of the most overcrowded high schools by 2029 and Falls Church is being expanded. If you’re going to take that off the table now, then there are plenty of other schools like Forestville that should also be off the table.

This process is so broken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just arriving to this discussion. Why did my pyramid (Woodson) have 3 members appointed to the BRAC?

There is a sb sycophant who made the committee in that pyramid. It seems like the person has bought into the equity agenda, so long as her kids are not moved.

So gross. Her presence on giant committee just tells you how they reward people who suck up to them and exclude others who might challenge them.

Even worse since she showed up a few weeks ago and publicly said her own school (Mantua) couldn’t possibly be a candidate for redistricting, which makes no sense since Woodson is projected to be one of the most overcrowded high schools by 2029 and Falls Church is being expanded. If you’re going to take that off the table now, then there are plenty of other schools like Forestville that should also be off the table.

This process is so broken.

You do not understand the logic of having her on the (extremely large) committee. It neutralizes her. This is what the Advisory Committees do. They make people feel they have had their voice heard, but nothing is ever really changed. There will be something that everyone will be able to think that they made a difference, but the overall redistricting will be on course - to streamline and reduce costs. That is the number one goal. Eliminating previous political favors will seem like retribution to some, but it will just make things easier to run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just arriving to this discussion. Why did my pyramid (Woodson) have 3 members appointed to the BRAC?

There is a sb sycophant who made the committee in that pyramid. It seems like the person has bought into the equity agenda, so long as her kids are not moved.

So gross. Her presence on giant committee just tells you how they reward people who suck up to them and exclude others who might challenge them.

Even worse since she showed up a few weeks ago and publicly said her own school (Mantua) couldn’t possibly be a candidate for redistricting, which makes no sense since Woodson is projected to be one of the most overcrowded high schools by 2029 and Falls Church is being expanded. If you’re going to take that off the table now, then there are plenty of other schools like Forestville that should also be off the table.

This process is so broken.

You do not understand the logic of having her on the (extremely large) committee. It neutralizes her. This is what the Advisory Committees do. They make people feel they have had their voice heard, but nothing is ever really changed. There will be something that everyone will be able to think that they made a difference, but the overall redistricting will be on course - to streamline and reduce costs. That is the number one goal. Eliminating previous political favors will seem like retribution to some, but it will just make things easier to run.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Still waiting for how they are going to achieve any significant cost savings. Moving HS kids mid-stream without grandfathering? That’s the end of the political careers of every Democrat on the SB and BOS.

[Anonymous]

Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

That’s not what they said. They refused to commit to any grandfathering in advance. So it’s all up in the air.

PP keeps talking about all the cost savings associated with boundary changes. If they grandfather as they’ve done in the past, transportation costs go up because they would be running multiple bus routes through the affected neighborhoods for several years.

Perhaps the cost savings would be in the form of reduced future capital spending on facilities, but even then they could end up with some kids traveling longer distances to schools, which would again mean higher transportation costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is exactly why parent preferences should carry little or no weight. Everyone wants different things. Everyone has a different story (we bought in a certain neighborhood for the schools). Everyone is motivated by those personal circumstances. But those are you problems.

FCPS should make the goals and decisions transparent and then just do it.

They have made the goals transparent. "Equity." In their view, that means shifting wealthier kids to poor schools. Not sure how they plan to do the opposite.
This is not about better education. It is to cover up problems they refuse to address.

Such fearmongering has no basis in fact. I’m on the boundary committee and you know how often the facilitators have mentioned type of equity you are talking about? NEVER. They’ve only mentioned equity in the context of equity in program/course offerings. We are still many months away from FCPS proposing boundaries for Committee review. Until then, there’s very little to criticize.

Were you randomly selected or one of the hand-picked members? That matters a lot when evaluating your post.

Also, since we’ve got at least one BRAC member reading this, can you please emphasize for the other committee members that the study they gave you on December 6 does not support the assertion that commute times shorter than an hour matter for academics or sleep time?

I’ve heard Robyn Lady cite to “studies” as a reason to prioritize transportation and if that is the only thing they have then it’s the flimsiest justification I’ve ever seen. If you haven’t, please read the study and its conclusions.

Get over it. There is no reasonable argument for keeping the parts of Great Falls that are damn near in Loudoun in the Langley pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is exactly why parent preferences should carry little or no weight. Everyone wants different things. Everyone has a different story (we bought in a certain neighborhood for the schools). Everyone is motivated by those personal circumstances. But those are you problems.

FCPS should make the goals and decisions transparent and then just do it.

They have made the goals transparent. "Equity." In their view, that means shifting wealthier kids to poor schools. Not sure how they plan to do the opposite.
This is not about better education. It is to cover up problems they refuse to address.

Such fearmongering has no basis in fact. I’m on the boundary committee and you know how often the facilitators have mentioned type of equity you are talking about? NEVER. They’ve only mentioned equity in the context of equity in program/course offerings. We are still many months away from FCPS proposing boundaries for Committee review. Until then, there’s very little to criticize.

Were you randomly selected or one of the hand-picked members? That matters a lot when evaluating your post.

Also, since we’ve got at least one BRAC member reading this, can you please emphasize for the other committee members that the study they gave you on December 6 does not support the assertion that commute times shorter than an hour matter for academics or sleep time?

I’ve heard Robyn Lady cite to “studies” as a reason to prioritize transportation and if that is the only thing they have then it’s the flimsiest justification I’ve ever seen. If you haven’t, please read the study and its conclusions.

Get over it. There is no reasonable argument for keeping the parts of Great Falls that are damn near in Loudoun in the Langley pyramid.

Why do you think they put Great Falls there in the first place? Hint: it was because Langley is on the Arlington border and McLean High is just a very short distance away. The only logical place to fill the school was Great Falls.