FCPS comprehensive boundary review

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."


I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.


It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.


And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.


Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.


Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP


Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.


Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.


Why on earth would that reduce the incentives? They got rich on the backs of your neighbors and they would just do that again. You’re just approving a wealth transfer from Fairfax families to developers.

Shame. On. You.


Wait, what? What word salad was this post. The DP was talking about incentives that happened in the past. How would they "do it again"?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The “study” is being studied. No decisions have been made yet. Are you worried?


$500K --and likely more
a huge committee with many hand chosen m

Why? Overcrowding could be solved in a traditional manner
Funds? Cut out IB for starters and other special programs that are not successful

The numbers might just resolve themselves.


Because it’s not about solving overcrowding, it’s about equalizing farms across the schools no matter the cost to student mental health.

The school board only pretends to care about those kids.

Are we also considering the mental health of the FARMS kids?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."


I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.


It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.


And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.


Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.


Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP


Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.


Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.


I wish some of the posters that are against being rezoned to Herndon High School and Lewis would just be transparent about their reasoning: FARMS, Latino students and home values.





This is it but doesn't really go well with their "no human is illegal, black live matter, etc." yard sign. It's the consequences of their votes coming home to roost.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."


I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.


It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.


And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.


Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.


Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP


Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.


Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.


Why on earth would that reduce the incentives? They got rich on the backs of your neighbors and they would just do that again. You’re just approving a wealth transfer from Fairfax families to developers.

Shame. On. You.


Wait, what? What word salad was this post. The DP was talking about incentives that happened in the past. How would they "do it again"?


Tell us how your grand plan would reduce incentives for developers who got rich in the backs of those neighbors you are advocating to screw over? Be specific. Dumb it down for me if you have it all figured out.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The “study” is being studied. No decisions have been made yet. Are you worried?


$500K --and likely more
a huge committee with many hand chosen m

Why? Overcrowding could be solved in a traditional manner
Funds? Cut out IB for starters and other special programs that are not successful

The numbers might just resolve themselves.


Because it’s not about solving overcrowding, it’s about equalizing farms across the schools no matter the cost to student mental health.

The school board only pretends to care about those kids.


Are we also considering the mental health of the FARMS kids?

FARMS kids likely have more to worry about than your kid getting the ick from sitting next to them in class. But it's not like you actually care either way. You just think the SB cares more about those kids than yours.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."


I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.


It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.


And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.


Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.


Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP


Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.


Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.


I wish some of the posters that are against being rezoned to Herndon High School and Lewis would just be transparent about their reasoning: FARMS, Latino students and home values.





This is it but doesn't really go well with their "no human is illegal, black live matter, etc." yard sign. It's the consequences of their votes coming home to roost.


Not at all, but that’s what you tell yourselves to justify giving huge payouts to developers on the backs of your innocent neighbors. You have to view us as the enemies to justify your actions. It’s the only way you can live with yourselves.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Can you clarify which current boundaries you view as "older mistakes"?

When I've dug into the history of current boundaries, I've found that some boundaries that may seem odd to people now were the result of decisions that were highly reasonable at the time. In other cases, some past adjustments seemed a bit more sketchy.

That tends to frame how you approach the current exercise. It's much easier to justify disruption when you claim you're righting some past wrong than when you're just saying you think would be an improvement. So I'd be curious as to what you see as the "older mistakes."


I think the PP was referring to the "older mistakes" as putting some neighborhoods south of 7 as Langley School district. This was done at the developer's request by FCPS --likely with pressure from the Board of Supervisors. Why? So, the developer could charge more and the taxes for the county would be higher.

So, the developer--long gone--benefited. And, the county benefited from the higher taxes due to higher priced properties.

And, the purchasers were willing to pay a premium to live there.

Seems to me that the SB wants to blame the purchaser. Not themselves for approving it.


It's my understanding as well that some of those carved out pockets on the other side of Route 7 ended up at Langley due to sweetheart deals - at a time, no less, when a local real estate lawyer was an appointed member of the School Board. But the larger area in Great Falls that was moved to Langley in the mid-90s was reassigned because Herndon was overcrowded at the time and Langley had space. So not all those things are necessarily alike.


And now Herndon has extra space, and is MUCH closer than Langley.


Handouts for developers at the expense of Fairfax citizens. What’s not to love.

The extreme left used to fight corporations like this, not get in bed with them. You are a sellout.


Those developers cashed out years ago and no one on the current SB had anything to do with it.

- DP


Gosh it must hurt to twist yourself in a pretzel to justify prioritizing developers over families.


Seemed like a fairly straightforward observation. If anything, reversing a prior special deal reduces the incentive to developers to try to cut more of them in the future.


I wish some of the posters that are against being rezoned to Herndon High School and Lewis would just be transparent about their reasoning: FARMS, Latino students and home values.





This is it but doesn't really go well with their "no human is illegal, black live matter, etc." yard sign. It's the consequences of their votes coming home to roost.

I find that hard to believe considering everyone with the view is constantly saying I will never vote blue again. At this rate I really hope these families don't get zoned to Herndon. Signed a Herndon resident.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The “study” is being studied. No decisions have been made yet. Are you worried?


$500K --and likely more
a huge committee with many hand chosen m

Why? Overcrowding could be solved in a traditional manner
Funds? Cut out IB for starters and other special programs that are not successful

The numbers might just resolve themselves.


Because it’s not about solving overcrowding, it’s about equalizing farms across the schools no matter the cost to student mental health.

The school board only pretends to care about those kids.


Are we also considering the mental health of the FARMS kids?


FARMS kids likely have more to worry about than your kid getting the ick from sitting next to them in class. But it's not like you actually care either way. You just think the SB cares more about those kids than yours.

Step 1: steal underpants.
Step 3: profits!

You are a South Park gnome who has never told us how the farms kids’ mental health is hurt under the current scenario.

Last I checked you all Hate high SES students so please tell us how moving them against their will will in any way help their mental health. Be specific. Again dumb it down for us.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The “study” is being studied. No decisions have been made yet. Are you worried?


$500K --and likely more
a huge committee with many hand chosen m

Why? Overcrowding could be solved in a traditional manner
Funds? Cut out IB for starters and other special programs that are not successful

The numbers might just resolve themselves.


Because it’s not about solving overcrowding, it’s about equalizing farms across the schools no matter the cost to student mental health.

The school board only pretends to care about those kids.


Are we also considering the mental health of the FARMS kids?

Yeah, that's not going to happen. You'd have to have a school lottery system before it was even remotely a possibility.

FYI, ran some numbers and here are the percentage of housing units (all types) in each HS pyramid valued for $1M or more by Fairfax County in 2023:

Langley 89.1%
Madison 49.9%
McLean 41.5%
Oakton 24.7%
South County 17.9%
Woodson 16.7%
Marshall 16.5%
Robinson 15.9%
West Potomac 11.6%
Lake Braddock 11.5%
Chantilly 9.9%
Justice 8.2%
South Lakes 6.1%
Fairfax 6.0%
Herndon 5.6%
Falls Church 5.4%
Mount Vernon 4.4%
West Springfield 4.2%
Edison 4.0%
Centreville 3.7%
Annandale 3.4%
Westfield 3.0%
Lewis 2.9%
Hayfield 2.1%

Source: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/demographics/interactive-map-high-school

Obviously, the level of wealth in the Langley pyramid is off the charts compared to every other pyramid, and some apparently are terrified by the prospect FCPS might reduce the gap even a little (although it's not clear anyone from FCPS has even said that's a goal).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The “study” is being studied. No decisions have been made yet. Are you worried?


$500K --and likely more
a huge committee with many hand chosen m

Why? Overcrowding could be solved in a traditional manner
Funds? Cut out IB for starters and other special programs that are not successful

The numbers might just resolve themselves.


Because it’s not about solving overcrowding, it’s about equalizing farms across the schools no matter the cost to student mental health.

The school board only pretends to care about those kids.


Are we also considering the mental health of the FARMS kids?


Yeah, that's not going to happen. You'd have to have a school lottery system before it was even remotely a possibility.

FYI, ran some numbers and here are the percentage of housing units (all types) in each HS pyramid valued for $1M or more by Fairfax County in 2023:

Langley 89.1%
Madison 49.9%
McLean 41.5%
Oakton 24.7%
South County 17.9%
Woodson 16.7%
Marshall 16.5%
Robinson 15.9%
West Potomac 11.6%
Lake Braddock 11.5%
Chantilly 9.9%
Justice 8.2%
South Lakes 6.1%
Fairfax 6.0%
Herndon 5.6%
Falls Church 5.4%
Mount Vernon 4.4%
West Springfield 4.2%
Edison 4.0%
Centreville 3.7%
Annandale 3.4%
Westfield 3.0%
Lewis 2.9%
Hayfield 2.1%

Source: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/demographics/interactive-map-high-school

Obviously, the level of wealth in the Langley pyramid is off the charts compared to every other pyramid, and some apparently are terrified by the prospect FCPS might reduce the gap even a little (although it's not clear anyone from FCPS has even said that's a goal).

Reducing the gap only works when you F over those families by reducing those houses under a million. You’re talking about destroying the tax base to destroy your neighbors home value for equity.

Not hard to see why I became a republican this year.
Anonymous
Obviously, the level of wealth in the Langley pyramid is off the charts compared to every other pyramid, and some apparently are terrified by the prospect FCPS might reduce the gap even a little (although it's not clear anyone from FCPS has even said that's a goal).


I live in a pyramid that is middle of the road on your list. Please explain what it is going to help by taking kids out of Langley? Who is it going to help?

I can tell you--as from a neighborhood zoned to way down the chart from Langley--that most people want to stay in their current school. I learned this a long time ago at a ms boundary meeting--no matter what school a family is in, they want to stay there--even if the school is not highly rated. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor.

Why is that so hard to understand?
Anonymous
I'd need more empirical data before I'd agree that a redistricting that was either intended or had the effect of reducing the wealth gap between Langley and every other FCPS high school would damage, much less "destroy," the tax base.

Sounds a bit hysterical.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Obviously, the level of wealth in the Langley pyramid is off the charts compared to every other pyramid, and some apparently are terrified by the prospect FCPS might reduce the gap even a little (although it's not clear anyone from FCPS has even said that's a goal).


I live in a pyramid that is middle of the road on your list. Please explain what it is going to help by taking kids out of Langley? Who is it going to help?

I can tell you--as from a neighborhood zoned to way down the chart from Langley--that most people want to stay in their current school. I learned this a long time ago at a ms boundary meeting--no matter what school a family is in, they want to stay there--even if the school is not highly rated. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Why is it so hard to understand that if you are being bussed 12 miles to a school when another very viable school is 3 miles away that should be addressed.
Anonymous
A PUBLIC school system should have equal access to programming, academics, clubs, languages, etc.
Because....it's public. And they can make decisions to steer all schools in the same direction.
If you want something different, go private.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I'd need more empirical data before I'd agree that a redistricting that was either intended or had the effect of reducing the wealth gap between Langley and every other FCPS high school would damage, much less "destroy," the tax base.

Sounds a bit hysterical.


My goodness, your comrade picked homes over $1 million and argued that was a good proxy to figure out what neighbors we should screw over. I’m merely working within her framework.

What other false outrage do you have?
Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
Go to: