FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These past few pages are very interesting. It appears to indicate that the “Langley Brigade” would not be bothered if all the houses west of 7 that are currently zoned to Forestville (and have Herndon addresses) were shifted to either Armstrong or Aldrin. These are the types of shifts Thru has proposed up to this point: ES boundary changes that have impacts up the chain.

The angry “end transfers out” posters don’t even know where Armstrong ES is located. That indicates that the “resistance” is limited to those with a Great Falls address. That leaves Thru room to work. Thru can appear as if it has “done something” to shift Langley to Herndon by simply shifting everything west of 7 using ES boundaries.

The “transfer out” argument is silly and ineffective against the types of moves Thru has been proposing. This foolish argument places the focus on Langley to Herndon as a “pull” rather than seeing it for what it is, a “push.” The transfer out argument won’t stop a “Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong” type of move.

For example, say Thru considers moves around Tysons that require capacity relief in the Langley/Mclean/Marshall area. What to do? If they move Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong ES they are moving students from an ES school projected to be at 96% in a few years (Forestville) to one currently at 74% and projected to be at 41% (Armstrong). Arguing about 300 transfers out at the high school level does not move the needle on these elementary school transfers. But the reality is that all the people who are currently zoned for Forestville west of 7 would be shifted from Langley to Herndon with and ES level move, solving capacity concerns at the high school level in the Tysons area. Students were not “pulled” into Herndon because of some capacity vacuum created by transfers out, they were simply “pushed” there by population growth in the Tysons area.

Is that too churlish for you? Does that make me a weirdo? Maybe try to read what is written and consider the potential impacts instead of throwing around insults. Maybe I was trying to guide you to understand the true potential adjustments the Herndon border of the Langley boundary faces on 5/5 without giving FCPS and Thru a roadmap. But you chose insults and condescension and, more importantly, revealed that the Langley brigade only cares about folks East of route 7. This now gives Thru the green light to move “some” of Langley to Herndon and not upset the bulk of the opposition. You basically sold out your neighbors to sound clever on the internet.

As it currently stands, if FCPS moves people all across the county, but makes zero Langley to Herndon moves, the optics are terrible. We have seen the angry blowback previewed on this thread over the past week. Fortunately for FCPS, you can’t get out of your own way, and have given FCPS a path forward by revealing that you DGAF about the houses west of 7. Nice. You all must make lovely neighbors.

We will see what happens.

I don't think so. Both schools aren't crowded. Not moving Chantilly kids or WSHS kids looks foolish.

On that score the 4 AM poster is right. The optics are horrible if they move kids who live two miles from West Springfield out of that school, and force kids out of the Marshall pyramid just to paper over an attendance island at McLean, but leave kids traveling over 10 miles to Langley there following a “comprehensive” review. It completely feeds the narrative that the wealthiest always get their way at Langley, while everyone else gets treated like pawns.

I’ve always found that F’ing over kids with unnecessary boundary moves is worth it so that the optics to the extreme left are slightly better and we can hurt our neighbors with our actions.

So are you going to continue to oppose these boundary changes even if Langley gets a pass? We all know your noisy little group will throw a victory party and watch happily from the sidelines as others bear the brunt of their actions.

I will continue to oppose boundary changes absent urgent pressing needs, which don’t exist anywhere but Coates. I’m sorry to keep repeating myself, but you seem to keep missing it.

No areas should be moved unless families in those areas want to be moved. That’s for Langley and that’s for every other area of the county.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These past few pages are very interesting. It appears to indicate that the “Langley Brigade” would not be bothered if all the houses west of 7 that are currently zoned to Forestville (and have Herndon addresses) were shifted to either Armstrong or Aldrin. These are the types of shifts Thru has proposed up to this point: ES boundary changes that have impacts up the chain.

The angry “end transfers out” posters don’t even know where Armstrong ES is located. That indicates that the “resistance” is limited to those with a Great Falls address. That leaves Thru room to work. Thru can appear as if it has “done something” to shift Langley to Herndon by simply shifting everything west of 7 using ES boundaries.

The “transfer out” argument is silly and ineffective against the types of moves Thru has been proposing. This foolish argument places the focus on Langley to Herndon as a “pull” rather than seeing it for what it is, a “push.” The transfer out argument won’t stop a “Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong” type of move.

For example, say Thru considers moves around Tysons that require capacity relief in the Langley/Mclean/Marshall area. What to do? If they move Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong ES they are moving students from an ES school projected to be at 96% in a few years (Forestville) to one currently at 74% and projected to be at 41% (Armstrong). Arguing about 300 transfers out at the high school level does not move the needle on these elementary school transfers. But the reality is that all the people who are currently zoned for Forestville west of 7 would be shifted from Langley to Herndon with and ES level move, solving capacity concerns at the high school level in the Tysons area. Students were not “pulled” into Herndon because of some capacity vacuum created by transfers out, they were simply “pushed” there by population growth in the Tysons area.

Is that too churlish for you? Does that make me a weirdo? Maybe try to read what is written and consider the potential impacts instead of throwing around insults. Maybe I was trying to guide you to understand the true potential adjustments the Herndon border of the Langley boundary faces on 5/5 without giving FCPS and Thru a roadmap. But you chose insults and condescension and, more importantly, revealed that the Langley brigade only cares about folks East of route 7. This now gives Thru the green light to move “some” of Langley to Herndon and not upset the bulk of the opposition. You basically sold out your neighbors to sound clever on the internet.

As it currently stands, if FCPS moves people all across the county, but makes zero Langley to Herndon moves, the optics are terrible. We have seen the angry blowback previewed on this thread over the past week. Fortunately for FCPS, you can’t get out of your own way, and have given FCPS a path forward by revealing that you DGAF about the houses west of 7. Nice. You all must make lovely neighbors.

We will see what happens.

I don't think so. Both schools aren't crowded. Not moving Chantilly kids or WSHS kids looks foolish.

On that score the 4 AM poster is right. The optics are horrible if they move kids who live two miles from West Springfield out of that school, and force kids out of the Marshall pyramid just to paper over an attendance island at McLean, but leave kids traveling over 10 miles to Langley there following a “comprehensive” review. It completely feeds the narrative that the wealthiest always get their way at Langley, while everyone else gets treated like pawns.

I’ve always found that F’ing over kids with unnecessary boundary moves is worth it so that the optics to the extreme left are slightly better and we can hurt our neighbors with our actions.

So are you going to continue to oppose these boundary changes even if Langley gets a pass? We all know your noisy little group will throw a victory party and watch happily from the sidelines as others bear the brunt of their actions.

After hundreds of pages, your argument is just: They should move Forestville kids because others will be moved.

Forgive me, I missed that criteria in the new policy. Where in 8130 does it say we should prioritize sticking it to our neighbors over kids’ mental health?

Forestville is much closer to Herndon. Keep obfuscating.

[Anonymous]

+1 to the sentiment.. Don't move kids for no good reason, and leave all HSers and MSers alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These past few pages are very interesting. It appears to indicate that the “Langley Brigade” would not be bothered if all the houses west of 7 that are currently zoned to Forestville (and have Herndon addresses) were shifted to either Armstrong or Aldrin. These are the types of shifts Thru has proposed up to this point: ES boundary changes that have impacts up the chain.

The angry “end transfers out” posters don’t even know where Armstrong ES is located. That indicates that the “resistance” is limited to those with a Great Falls address. That leaves Thru room to work. Thru can appear as if it has “done something” to shift Langley to Herndon by simply shifting everything west of 7 using ES boundaries.

The “transfer out” argument is silly and ineffective against the types of moves Thru has been proposing. This foolish argument places the focus on Langley to Herndon as a “pull” rather than seeing it for what it is, a “push.” The transfer out argument won’t stop a “Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong” type of move.

For example, say Thru considers moves around Tysons that require capacity relief in the Langley/Mclean/Marshall area. What to do? If they move Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong ES they are moving students from an ES school projected to be at 96% in a few years (Forestville) to one currently at 74% and projected to be at 41% (Armstrong). Arguing about 300 transfers out at the high school level does not move the needle on these elementary school transfers. But the reality is that all the people who are currently zoned for Forestville west of 7 would be shifted from Langley to Herndon with and ES level move, solving capacity concerns at the high school level in the Tysons area. Students were not “pulled” into Herndon because of some capacity vacuum created by transfers out, they were simply “pushed” there by population growth in the Tysons area.

Is that too churlish for you? Does that make me a weirdo? Maybe try to read what is written and consider the potential impacts instead of throwing around insults. Maybe I was trying to guide you to understand the true potential adjustments the Herndon border of the Langley boundary faces on 5/5 without giving FCPS and Thru a roadmap. But you chose insults and condescension and, more importantly, revealed that the Langley brigade only cares about folks East of route 7. This now gives Thru the green light to move “some” of Langley to Herndon and not upset the bulk of the opposition. You basically sold out your neighbors to sound clever on the internet.

As it currently stands, if FCPS moves people all across the county, but makes zero Langley to Herndon moves, the optics are terrible. We have seen the angry blowback previewed on this thread over the past week. Fortunately for FCPS, you can’t get out of your own way, and have given FCPS a path forward by revealing that you DGAF about the houses west of 7. Nice. You all must make lovely neighbors.

We will see what happens.

I don't think so. Both schools aren't crowded. Not moving Chantilly kids or WSHS kids looks foolish.

Are you one of the Langley posters? Seems like you tag team between claiming no one should be moved against their will and offering up areas other than Langley like Chantilly and WS to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These past few pages are very interesting. It appears to indicate that the “Langley Brigade” would not be bothered if all the houses west of 7 that are currently zoned to Forestville (and have Herndon addresses) were shifted to either Armstrong or Aldrin. These are the types of shifts Thru has proposed up to this point: ES boundary changes that have impacts up the chain.

The angry “end transfers out” posters don’t even know where Armstrong ES is located. That indicates that the “resistance” is limited to those with a Great Falls address. That leaves Thru room to work. Thru can appear as if it has “done something” to shift Langley to Herndon by simply shifting everything west of 7 using ES boundaries.

The “transfer out” argument is silly and ineffective against the types of moves Thru has been proposing. This foolish argument places the focus on Langley to Herndon as a “pull” rather than seeing it for what it is, a “push.” The transfer out argument won’t stop a “Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong” type of move.

For example, say Thru considers moves around Tysons that require capacity relief in the Langley/Mclean/Marshall area. What to do? If they move Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong ES they are moving students from an ES school projected to be at 96% in a few years (Forestville) to one currently at 74% and projected to be at 41% (Armstrong). Arguing about 300 transfers out at the high school level does not move the needle on these elementary school transfers. But the reality is that all the people who are currently zoned for Forestville west of 7 would be shifted from Langley to Herndon with and ES level move, solving capacity concerns at the high school level in the Tysons area. Students were not “pulled” into Herndon because of some capacity vacuum created by transfers out, they were simply “pushed” there by population growth in the Tysons area.

Is that too churlish for you? Does that make me a weirdo? Maybe try to read what is written and consider the potential impacts instead of throwing around insults. Maybe I was trying to guide you to understand the true potential adjustments the Herndon border of the Langley boundary faces on 5/5 without giving FCPS and Thru a roadmap. But you chose insults and condescension and, more importantly, revealed that the Langley brigade only cares about folks East of route 7. This now gives Thru the green light to move “some” of Langley to Herndon and not upset the bulk of the opposition. You basically sold out your neighbors to sound clever on the internet.

As it currently stands, if FCPS moves people all across the county, but makes zero Langley to Herndon moves, the optics are terrible. We have seen the angry blowback previewed on this thread over the past week. Fortunately for FCPS, you can’t get out of your own way, and have given FCPS a path forward by revealing that you DGAF about the houses west of 7. Nice. You all must make lovely neighbors.

We will see what happens.

I don't think so. Both schools aren't crowded. Not moving Chantilly kids or WSHS kids looks foolish.

Are you one of the Langley posters? Seems like you tag team between claiming no one should be moved against their will and offering up areas other than Langley like Chantilly and WS to move.

Chantilly and WS have compact boundaries. They also do not want to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These past few pages are very interesting. It appears to indicate that the “Langley Brigade” would not be bothered if all the houses west of 7 that are currently zoned to Forestville (and have Herndon addresses) were shifted to either Armstrong or Aldrin. These are the types of shifts Thru has proposed up to this point: ES boundary changes that have impacts up the chain.

The angry “end transfers out” posters don’t even know where Armstrong ES is located. That indicates that the “resistance” is limited to those with a Great Falls address. That leaves Thru room to work. Thru can appear as if it has “done something” to shift Langley to Herndon by simply shifting everything west of 7 using ES boundaries.

The “transfer out” argument is silly and ineffective against the types of moves Thru has been proposing. This foolish argument places the focus on Langley to Herndon as a “pull” rather than seeing it for what it is, a “push.” The transfer out argument won’t stop a “Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong” type of move.

For example, say Thru considers moves around Tysons that require capacity relief in the Langley/Mclean/Marshall area. What to do? If they move Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong ES they are moving students from an ES school projected to be at 96% in a few years (Forestville) to one currently at 74% and projected to be at 41% (Armstrong). Arguing about 300 transfers out at the high school level does not move the needle on these elementary school transfers. But the reality is that all the people who are currently zoned for Forestville west of 7 would be shifted from Langley to Herndon with and ES level move, solving capacity concerns at the high school level in the Tysons area. Students were not “pulled” into Herndon because of some capacity vacuum created by transfers out, they were simply “pushed” there by population growth in the Tysons area.

Is that too churlish for you? Does that make me a weirdo? Maybe try to read what is written and consider the potential impacts instead of throwing around insults. Maybe I was trying to guide you to understand the true potential adjustments the Herndon border of the Langley boundary faces on 5/5 without giving FCPS and Thru a roadmap. But you chose insults and condescension and, more importantly, revealed that the Langley brigade only cares about folks East of route 7. This now gives Thru the green light to move “some” of Langley to Herndon and not upset the bulk of the opposition. You basically sold out your neighbors to sound clever on the internet.

As it currently stands, if FCPS moves people all across the county, but makes zero Langley to Herndon moves, the optics are terrible. We have seen the angry blowback previewed on this thread over the past week. Fortunately for FCPS, you can’t get out of your own way, and have given FCPS a path forward by revealing that you DGAF about the houses west of 7. Nice. You all must make lovely neighbors.

We will see what happens.

I don't think so. Both schools aren't crowded. Not moving Chantilly kids or WSHS kids looks foolish.

On that score the 4 AM poster is right. The optics are horrible if they move kids who live two miles from West Springfield out of that school, and force kids out of the Marshall pyramid just to paper over an attendance island at McLean, but leave kids traveling over 10 miles to Langley there following a “comprehensive” review. It completely feeds the narrative that the wealthiest always get their way at Langley, while everyone else gets treated like pawns.

I’ve always found that F’ing over kids with unnecessary boundary moves is worth it so that the optics to the extreme left are slightly better and we can hurt our neighbors with our actions.

So are you going to continue to oppose these boundary changes even if Langley gets a pass? We all know your noisy little group will throw a victory party and watch happily from the sidelines as others bear the brunt of their actions.

I will continue to oppose boundary changes absent urgent pressing needs, which don’t exist anywhere but Coates. I’m sorry to keep repeating myself, but you seem to keep missing it.

No areas should be moved unless families in those areas want to be moved. That’s for Langley and that’s for every other area of the county.

OK then. My neighborhood wants to be moved to Langley. Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These past few pages are very interesting. It appears to indicate that the “Langley Brigade” would not be bothered if all the houses west of 7 that are currently zoned to Forestville (and have Herndon addresses) were shifted to either Armstrong or Aldrin. These are the types of shifts Thru has proposed up to this point: ES boundary changes that have impacts up the chain.

The angry “end transfers out” posters don’t even know where Armstrong ES is located. That indicates that the “resistance” is limited to those with a Great Falls address. That leaves Thru room to work. Thru can appear as if it has “done something” to shift Langley to Herndon by simply shifting everything west of 7 using ES boundaries.

The “transfer out” argument is silly and ineffective against the types of moves Thru has been proposing.

NP. The transfer out by 300 kids is at a couple of high schools located in different regions. The question is why does that happen at these schools, how is capacity measured in terms of in boundary kids for these schools, and would any changes would make the school more desirable to the local kids who leave. This is an independent question.

There are over 100 ES in FCPS and each poster may know of few local ones. That is expected.

This foolish argument places the focus on Langley to Herndon as a “pull” rather than seeing it for what it is, a “push.” The transfer out argument won’t stop a “Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong” type of move.

For example, say Thru considers moves around Tysons that require capacity relief in the Langley/Mclean/Marshall area. What to do? If they move Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong ES they are moving students from an ES school projected to be at 96% in a few years (Forestville) to one currently at 74% and projected to be at 41% (Armstrong). Arguing about 300 transfers out at the high school level does not move the needle on these elementary school transfers. But the reality is that all the people who are currently zoned for Forestville west of 7 would be shifted from Langley to Herndon with and ES level move, solving capacity concerns at the high school level in the Tysons area. Students were not “pulled” into Herndon because of some capacity vacuum created by transfers out, they were simply “pushed” there by population growth in the Tysons area.

Did the capacity numbers include projections or were they just based on last year? The new policy includes a review every five years.

Is that too churlish for you? Does that make me a weirdo? Maybe try to read what is written and consider the potential impacts instead of throwing around insults. Maybe I was trying to guide you to understand the true potential adjustments the Herndon border of the Langley boundary faces on 5/5 without giving FCPS and Thru a roadmap. But you chose insults and condescension and, more importantly, revealed that the Langley brigade only cares about folks East of route 7. This now gives Thru the green light to move “some” of Langley to Herndon and not upset the bulk of the opposition. You basically sold out your neighbors to sound clever on the internet.

No insults. Do not understand what your desired outcome is and what is the argument you would like to make in support of that goal. Most comments seem to be in favor of limited changes only when necessary.

As it currently stands, if FCPS moves people all across the county, but makes zero Langley to Herndon moves, the optics are terrible. We have seen the angry blowback previewed on this thread over the past week. Fortunately for FCPS, you can’t get out of your own way, and have given FCPS a path forward by revealing that you DGAF about the houses west of 7. Nice. You all must make lovely neighbors.

We will see what happens.

? Are you saying that FCPS should make moves everywhere so that the optics look good? or make no moves?

What region are you in, what is your goal, and what is your argument in support of the goal? It is not clear in your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These past few pages are very interesting. It appears to indicate that the “Langley Brigade” would not be bothered if all the houses west of 7 that are currently zoned to Forestville (and have Herndon addresses) were shifted to either Armstrong or Aldrin. These are the types of shifts Thru has proposed up to this point: ES boundary changes that have impacts up the chain.

The angry “end transfers out” posters don’t even know where Armstrong ES is located. That indicates that the “resistance” is limited to those with a Great Falls address. That leaves Thru room to work. Thru can appear as if it has “done something” to shift Langley to Herndon by simply shifting everything west of 7 using ES boundaries.

The “transfer out” argument is silly and ineffective against the types of moves Thru has been proposing. This foolish argument places the focus on Langley to Herndon as a “pull” rather than seeing it for what it is, a “push.” The transfer out argument won’t stop a “Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong” type of move.

For example, say Thru considers moves around Tysons that require capacity relief in the Langley/Mclean/Marshall area. What to do? If they move Forestville west of 7 to Armstrong ES they are moving students from an ES school projected to be at 96% in a few years (Forestville) to one currently at 74% and projected to be at 41% (Armstrong). Arguing about 300 transfers out at the high school level does not move the needle on these elementary school transfers. But the reality is that all the people who are currently zoned for Forestville west of 7 would be shifted from Langley to Herndon with and ES level move, solving capacity concerns at the high school level in the Tysons area. Students were not “pulled” into Herndon because of some capacity vacuum created by transfers out, they were simply “pushed” there by population growth in the Tysons area.

Is that too churlish for you? Does that make me a weirdo? Maybe try to read what is written and consider the potential impacts instead of throwing around insults. Maybe I was trying to guide you to understand the true potential adjustments the Herndon border of the Langley boundary faces on 5/5 without giving FCPS and Thru a roadmap. But you chose insults and condescension and, more importantly, revealed that the Langley brigade only cares about folks East of route 7. This now gives Thru the green light to move “some” of Langley to Herndon and not upset the bulk of the opposition. You basically sold out your neighbors to sound clever on the internet.

As it currently stands, if FCPS moves people all across the county, but makes zero Langley to Herndon moves, the optics are terrible. We have seen the angry blowback previewed on this thread over the past week. Fortunately for FCPS, you can’t get out of your own way, and have given FCPS a path forward by revealing that you DGAF about the houses west of 7. Nice. You all must make lovely neighbors.

We will see what happens.

I don't think so. Both schools aren't crowded. Not moving Chantilly kids or WSHS kids looks foolish.

On that score the 4 AM poster is right. The optics are horrible if they move kids who live two miles from West Springfield out of that school, and force kids out of the Marshall pyramid just to paper over an attendance island at McLean, but leave kids traveling over 10 miles to Langley there following a “comprehensive” review. It completely feeds the narrative that the wealthiest always get their way at Langley, while everyone else gets treated like pawns.

I’ve always found that F’ing over kids with unnecessary boundary moves is worth it so that the optics to the extreme left are slightly better and we can hurt our neighbors with our actions.

So are you going to continue to oppose these boundary changes even if Langley gets a pass? We all know your noisy little group will throw a victory party and watch happily from the sidelines as others bear the brunt of their actions.

I will continue to oppose boundary changes absent urgent pressing needs, which don’t exist anywhere but Coates. I’m sorry to keep repeating myself, but you seem to keep missing it.

No areas should be moved unless families in those areas want to be moved. That’s for Langley and that’s for every other area of the county.

OK then. My neighborhood wants to be moved to Langley. Done.

As long as you’re not causing cascading effects forcing other schools to move, I’d have no objection. (Though I’m sure your community doesn’t actually want to move pyramids and this is a feeble gotcha attempt.)

Not the answer you expected, huh?

[Anonymous]

People need to stop obsessing about Langley.

The likely reassignment of the Spring Hill island from McLean to Langley and the Spring Gate Apartments from Marshall to McLean means that Tysons will in the future be about 50% Marshall, 30% Langley, and 20% McLean (which will still have to accommodate more growth near the West Falls Church Metro).

That means Langley won't be just single-family homes in the future, and further growth in Tysons, if/when it materializes, will push kids into other schools at some point.

FCPS is playing long ball here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the map:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithHighSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Everything west of route 7 that is currently zoned to Forestville, but that has a Herndon address, is at risk of being peeled off of Forestville and sent to either Armstrong or Aldrin. Arguing about 300 IB/AP/language outplacements at the high school level does not alter that reality.

None of Thru’s proposals involved shifting an ES entirely from one pyramid to another. They were all “boundary adjustments” that alter ES attendance. That should be your focus. Those west of 7 pockets are the highest risk to flip to Herndon high via a redraw of the ES boundaries.

That far west chunk south of 7 is pretty big and very close to HHS. As the crow flies, not that much closer to Armstrong than Forestville. I would be surprised if the board doesn't flip that chunk to Armstrong if both it and HHS have capacity. Nevertheless, they should look at why kids are transferring out of HHS before moving other kids there--who may also transfer out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on, folks.

Let’s be realistic. The school board will never approve a move from Langley to Herndon. Herndon is over 60% capacity, and when/if South Lakes High School (SLHS) closes to transfers, Herndon’s enrollment will only increase.

Let’s stop talking about that scenario. It’s a waste of time.

They seem fairly anchored to leaving schools within the 60-105% range alone, but that's just one of their "guiding principles." They also refer to alignment with Policy 8130 and the SB (if not Thru) could identify that as an independent basis to move kids from Langley to Herndon regardless of whether Langley is over 105% or Herndon under 60%.

I'm not advocating for this. I just think that, politically, the optics are horrible if they propose to move kids who live within a mile or two of West Springfield to Lewis or South County, and do nothing to move at least some Langley kids to Herndon when Herndon is much closer. It makes it look as if all the talk about transportation efficiencies was a sham and they got bullied into leaving Langley alone. I've heard all the arguments about how traffic is worse in Herndon so the commuting times wouldn't be reduced as much as you'd think, but people will look at the maps and draw their own conclusions.

They don't really care about optics when it comes to Langley/Herndon.

For the past ten years, I've heard talk of moving Great Falls kids from Langley to Herndon. For some reason, certain posters keep bringing it up.

Doesn’t matter what they think. It's not going to happen.

Full stop.

Why because you and your rich friends founded some sort of association that is lobbying against it? Donating thousands to school board members? You're trying to buy your way out of being rezoned and everybody knows it.

I am in FairFACTs Matters and no where close to Langley nor Herndon. Nor WSHS and Lewis.

There’s also no requirement to donate anything.

+2 it’s literally just a FB group. You can join it whenever you want!

A Fb group that raised over $50,000.

They regularly pay for FOIA requests, which add up.

I wouldn't donate to them, but I hope they are using the funds for what they were intended for.

Thanks for that information. Sad that there has to be a group that needs FOIA. I am grateful to those who donate. If FCPS would be more transparent, FOIA would not be necessary.

It was only through FairFacts’ advocacy that the BRAC member list was disclosed and that they started putting their meeting notes online. Otherwise we’d all be in the dark about this.

Also noting they just posted this. Thus far, this has been the only way for community members to engage with the closed-door BRAC. The pyramid nor special interest members are not doing this unless you happen to have a direct connection.

“For those looking to send community feedback, please email us at [e-mail] with your questions or comments. We have already submitted three communications reflecting community feedback and will continue to share the most commonly asked questions moving forward. We will provide previous communications with community feedback below.“

How disgusting that these people are only sharing information with a small handful of members of the county who live in one specific area and not everyone.

Also it's clearly not a Facebook group when they have their own domain.

Maybe you don’t understand. Fairfacts matters is soliciting feedback to provide to Fairfax County, since they have spots on BRAC now. They are opening the dialogue to everyone across the county, not just one particular pyramid. Oh, and it seems that anyone can join- it’s a county-wide organization.

I’m guessing you understand and that you are just desperately trying to make them the bad guy, but just in case you didn’t understand, I figured i would directly address your concerns.

Are they politically motivated? Just answer the question.

If you're asking if the group is a bunch of Republicans calling attention to school boundaries in an effort to swing elections, the answer is a definitive "no."

There are certainly a handful of republicans who reminded the group in its first weeks that they voted for the fairfax dems who have had re-districting for equity on their agenda for years now. A few independents who tell the group to accept equity redistricting as the price to pay for all the dem stuff they want their school board to do.

Mostly it's democrats who just want to stay democrats and to work with the board for the outcome they want. The LAST thing they want is to vote for republicans or be called republicans.

Thanks, I just have nightmares about Joanne Sears and Rory Cooper whose open FCPS effort had a very clear Republican agenda and whose agenda worked - angry mommas elected Glenn Youngkin. I don't want a repeat of that.

All the dems have to do is renounce their equity stuff and the percentage of angry mommas who would flip republican for the sake of their kids will be happy and vote blue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the map:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithHighSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Everything west of route 7 that is currently zoned to Forestville, but that has a Herndon address, is at risk of being peeled off of Forestville and sent to either Armstrong or Aldrin. Arguing about 300 IB/AP/language outplacements at the high school level does not alter that reality.

None of Thru’s proposals involved shifting an ES entirely from one pyramid to another. They were all “boundary adjustments” that alter ES attendance. That should be your focus. Those west of 7 pockets are the highest risk to flip to Herndon high via a redraw of the ES boundaries.

That far west chunk south of 7 is pretty big and very close to HHS. As the crow flies, not that much closer to Armstrong than Forestville. I would be surprised if the board doesn't flip that chunk to Armstrong if both it and HHS have capacity. Nevertheless, they should look at why kids are transferring out of HHS before moving other kids there--who may also transfer out.

Easily said when your own child is not affected.

I'm not in that area, but i understand what a move can do. You are talking about moving kids currently in a school that is not overcrowded to another school. Likely resulting in families with kids in two different elementary schools, etc.
Do you not understand that this is about children and their families. Lots of ramifications: day care facility transportation for kids in two different schools that may not be serviced by the same center.

Will kids currently in SAAC get priority in the new school? etc. Lots of issues here. Not to mention leaving friends behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the map:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithHighSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Everything west of route 7 that is currently zoned to Forestville, but that has a Herndon address, is at risk of being peeled off of Forestville and sent to either Armstrong or Aldrin. Arguing about 300 IB/AP/language outplacements at the high school level does not alter that reality.

None of Thru’s proposals involved shifting an ES entirely from one pyramid to another. They were all “boundary adjustments” that alter ES attendance. That should be your focus. Those west of 7 pockets are the highest risk to flip to Herndon high via a redraw of the ES boundaries.

That far west chunk south of 7 is pretty big and very close to HHS. As the crow flies, not that much closer to Armstrong than Forestville. I would be surprised if the board doesn't flip that chunk to Armstrong if both it and HHS have capacity. Nevertheless, they should look at why kids are transferring out of HHS before moving other kids there--who may also transfer out.

Easily said when your own child is not affected.

I'm not in that area, but i understand what a move can do. You are talking about moving kids currently in a school that is not overcrowded to another school. Likely resulting in families with kids in two different elementary schools, etc.
Do you not understand that this is about children and their families. Lots of ramifications: day care facility transportation for kids in two different schools that may not be serviced by the same center.

Will kids currently in SAAC get priority in the new school? etc. Lots of issues here. Not to mention leaving friends behind.

DP. Same comments could be made about just about any kid/family ever affected by a boundary change, whether it's a change based on overcrowding or under-utilization, getting rid of an island/split feeder, or reducing transportation time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the map:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithHighSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Everything west of route 7 that is currently zoned to Forestville, but that has a Herndon address, is at risk of being peeled off of Forestville and sent to either Armstrong or Aldrin. Arguing about 300 IB/AP/language outplacements at the high school level does not alter that reality.

None of Thru’s proposals involved shifting an ES entirely from one pyramid to another. They were all “boundary adjustments” that alter ES attendance. That should be your focus. Those west of 7 pockets are the highest risk to flip to Herndon high via a redraw of the ES boundaries.

That far west chunk south of 7 is pretty big and very close to HHS. As the crow flies, not that much closer to Armstrong than Forestville. I would be surprised if the board doesn't flip that chunk to Armstrong if both it and HHS have capacity. Nevertheless, they should look at why kids are transferring out of HHS before moving other kids there--who may also transfer out.

Easily said when your own child is not affected.

I'm not in that area, but i understand what a move can do. You are talking about moving kids currently in a school that is not overcrowded to another school. Likely resulting in families with kids in two different elementary schools, etc.
Do you not understand that this is about children and their families. Lots of ramifications: day care facility transportation for kids in two different schools that may not be serviced by the same center.

Will kids currently in SAAC get priority in the new school? etc. Lots of issues here. Not to mention leaving friends behind.

DP. Same comments could be made about just about any kid/family ever affected by a boundary change, whether it's a change based on overcrowding or under-utilization, getting rid of an island/split feeder, or reducing transportation time.

But, you think it is fine to move kids because you can. Remember, the parents did not draw the initial boundaries. They may have chosen them, but they did not draw them.

Why move kids just because?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the map:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/SY2024-25ElementarySchoolBoundarieswithHighSchoolBoundaries.pdf

Everything west of route 7 that is currently zoned to Forestville, but that has a Herndon address, is at risk of being peeled off of Forestville and sent to either Armstrong or Aldrin. Arguing about 300 IB/AP/language outplacements at the high school level does not alter that reality.

None of Thru’s proposals involved shifting an ES entirely from one pyramid to another. They were all “boundary adjustments” that alter ES attendance. That should be your focus. Those west of 7 pockets are the highest risk to flip to Herndon high via a redraw of the ES boundaries.

That far west chunk south of 7 is pretty big and very close to HHS. As the crow flies, not that much closer to Armstrong than Forestville. I would be surprised if the board doesn't flip that chunk to Armstrong if both it and HHS have capacity. Nevertheless, they should look at why kids are transferring out of HHS before moving other kids there--who may also transfer out.

Easily said when your own child is not affected.

I'm not in that area, but i understand what a move can do. You are talking about moving kids currently in a school that is not overcrowded to another school. Likely resulting in families with kids in two different elementary schools, etc.
Do you not understand that this is about children and their families. Lots of ramifications: day care facility transportation for kids in two different schools that may not be serviced by the same center.

Will kids currently in SAAC get priority in the new school? etc. Lots of issues here. Not to mention leaving friends behind.

DP. Same comments could be made about just about any kid/family ever affected by a boundary change, whether it's a change based on overcrowding or under-utilization, getting rid of an island/split feeder, or reducing transportation time.

But, you think it is fine to move kids because you can. Remember, the parents did not draw the initial boundaries. They may have chosen them, but they did not draw them.

Why move kids just because?

I don’t think we should move kids “just because.” I’m pointing out that some people here are far more tolerant of moving other kids than they are of moving kids in the Langley pyramid. If you’re not picking up on that you have a giant blind spot.