Western High School Boundary Map options (A/B/C/D)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just hoping the new maps completely get rid of Scenarios 1&3 which are just so radical.

"Radical" only because you don't like the outcome for you. Scenario 1 is a crowd favorite over in my neck of the woods and accomplishes more of the actual goals FCPS claims to be aiming for with this whole boundary process. It's not perfect, but some minor tweaks make it the best for FCPS as a whole by far.

Luckily no one in the feedback groups at the last two meetings agrees with you. In every group the majority wanted Scenario 2 as it’s more conservative and doesn’t move as many kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just hoping the new maps completely get rid of Scenarios 1&3 which are just so radical.

"Radical" only because you don't like the outcome for you. Scenario 1 is a crowd favorite over in my neck of the woods and accomplishes more of the actual goals FCPS claims to be aiming for with this whole boundary process. It's not perfect, but some minor tweaks make it the best for FCPS as a whole by far.

Luckily no one in the feedback groups at the last two meetings agrees with you. In every group the majority wanted Scenario 2 as it’s more conservative and doesn’t move as many kids.

While this is true, it’s important ppl realize they are going to scrap all scenarios and come up with completely new maps and throw them back at everyone last minute. Notice they didn’t give a date for when the new maps will be released. Don’t be shocked when they decide to repeat their last mistake and disingenuous procedures. The new maps will look nothing like the last set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just hoping the new maps completely get rid of Scenarios 1&3 which are just so radical.

"Radical" only because you don't like the outcome for you. Scenario 1 is a crowd favorite over in my neck of the woods and accomplishes more of the actual goals FCPS claims to be aiming for with this whole boundary process. It's not perfect, but some minor tweaks make it the best for FCPS as a whole by far.

Luckily no one in the feedback groups at the last two meetings agrees with you. In every group the majority wanted Scenario 2 as it’s more conservative and doesn’t move as many kids.

This is absolutely not true. I attended the first meeting and this was NOT the case. Nobody was happy with ANY of the scenarios. You need to stop lying in the hopes that someone from Gatehouse/the consultant will see this and think "Oh yes, the majority want Scenario 2, we should go with that one". It's not going to happen. Other people were at those meetings, too. They didn't like your preferred scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just hoping the new maps completely get rid of Scenarios 1&3 which are just so radical.

"Radical" only because you don't like the outcome for you. Scenario 1 is a crowd favorite over in my neck of the woods and accomplishes more of the actual goals FCPS claims to be aiming for with this whole boundary process. It's not perfect, but some minor tweaks make it the best for FCPS as a whole by far.

Luckily no one in the feedback groups at the last two meetings agrees with you. In every group the majority wanted Scenario 2 as it’s more conservative and doesn’t move as many kids.

What BS. How could you possibly know what the majority of people in each group wanted? My group preferred 1 overwhelmingly.

[Anonymous]

They should just make it part-magnet and part-mediocre school. That way, the people who believe they are owed the school can have their regional school (I.e., the ones who say: it was in the CIP, so they are required to give it to us), and we won’t have the musical chairs fight as to which additional school or two gets moved to a place they don’t want.

It’s like the immediate neighborhoods near the new school are desperately trying to throw a block party that many others don’t want to attend, and the school board is now left to figure out which kids must be forced to go.

Make it stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should just make it part-magnet and part-mediocre school. That way, the people who believe they are owed the school can have their regional school (I.e., the ones who say: it was in the CIP, so they are required to give it to us), and we won’t have the musical chairs fight as to which additional school or two gets moved to a place they don’t want.

It’s like the immediate neighborhoods near the new school are desperately trying to throw a block party that many others don’t want to attend, and the school board is now left to figure out which kids must be forced to go.

Make it stop.

No, they absolutely should not. Overwhelming support was, and still is, behind it being a traditional school. The squabbling now is only because the school board didn't do their jobs and come up with a single map to discuss. Instead they put 3 completely different maps out there ensuring as many as people as possible would be upset by at least one of them and this is what you get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just hoping the new maps completely get rid of Scenarios 1&3 which are just so radical.

"Radical" only because you don't like the outcome for you. Scenario 1 is a crowd favorite over in my neck of the woods and accomplishes more of the actual goals FCPS claims to be aiming for with this whole boundary process. It's not perfect, but some minor tweaks make it the best for FCPS as a whole by far.

Luckily no one in the feedback groups at the last two meetings agrees with you. In every group the majority wanted Scenario 2 as it’s more conservative and doesn’t move as many kids.

This is absolutely not true. I attended the first meeting and this was NOT the case. Nobody was happy with ANY of the scenarios. You need to stop lying in the hopes that someone from Gatehouse/the consultant will see this and think "Oh yes, the majority want Scenario 2, we should go with that one". It's not going to happen. Other people were at those meetings, too. They didn't like your preferred scenario.

Yes it is. Every group spokesperson that night said Scenario 2 was the least offensive. In fact, at the second meeting the consultants even said Scenario 2 was designed to be the most conservative, moving the least amount of kids and less distance problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just hoping the new maps completely get rid of Scenarios 1&3 which are just so radical.

"Radical" only because you don't like the outcome for you. Scenario 1 is a crowd favorite over in my neck of the woods and accomplishes more of the actual goals FCPS claims to be aiming for with this whole boundary process. It's not perfect, but some minor tweaks make it the best for FCPS as a whole by far.

Luckily no one in the feedback groups at the last two meetings agrees with you. In every group the majority wanted Scenario 2 as it’s more conservative and doesn’t move as many kids.

What BS. How could you possibly know what the majority of people in each group wanted? My group preferred 1 overwhelmingly.

Different poster- I don't know what happened at the first meeting, but at the second meeting, they did a poll of all participants at the end and showed the results on the screen. It was something like 82% of meeting participants (online and in-person) choosing Scenario 2. Scenario 1 was second, and Scenario 3 was basically nonexistent. At my table of 9, It was 6 for Scenario 2 and 3 for Scenario 1, though we actually all agreed that every option was bad, and they needed to start over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just make it part-magnet and part-mediocre school. That way, the people who believe they are owed the school can have their regional school (I.e., the ones who say: it was in the CIP, so they are required to give it to us), and we won’t have the musical chairs fight as to which additional school or two gets moved to a place they don’t want.

It’s like the immediate neighborhoods near the new school are desperately trying to throw a block party that many others don’t want to attend, and the school board is now left to figure out which kids must be forced to go.

Make it stop.

No, they absolutely should not. Overwhelming support was, and still is, behind it being a traditional school. The squabbling now is only because the school board didn't do their jobs and come up with a single map to discuss. Instead they put 3 completely different maps out there ensuring as many as people as possible would be upset by at least one of them and this is what you get.

Presenting multiple options is not bad. Presenting multiple options, each of which was convoluted in a different way, was a bad idea. They should have focused on setting high school boundaries, with a minimum number of changes to MS and ES boundaries. Instead, it feels more like they treated Skyview as an opportunity to make a lot of unnecessary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just hoping the new maps completely get rid of Scenarios 1&3 which are just so radical.

"Radical" only because you don't like the outcome for you. Scenario 1 is a crowd favorite over in my neck of the woods and accomplishes more of the actual goals FCPS claims to be aiming for with this whole boundary process. It's not perfect, but some minor tweaks make it the best for FCPS as a whole by far.

Luckily no one in the feedback groups at the last two meetings agrees with you. In every group the majority wanted Scenario 2 as it’s more conservative and doesn’t move as many kids.

What BS. How could you possibly know what the majority of people in each group wanted? My group preferred 1 overwhelmingly.

Different poster- I don't know what happened at the first meeting, but at the second meeting, they did a poll of all participants at the end and showed the results on the screen. It was something like 82% of meeting participants (online and in-person) choosing Scenario 2. Scenario 1 was second, and Scenario 3 was basically nonexistent. At my table of 9, It was 6 for Scenario 2 and 3 for Scenario 1, though we actually all agreed that every option was bad, and they needed to start over.

Yep. I was at both meetings. At meeting 1, Scenario 2 was even more preferred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m seeing a lot of lame rationalizations. If they seed Skyview with 1000+ kids from Westfield, some kids from other schools will need to move to Westfield, and the most obvious place to start is Centreville.

The shouldn’t need to seed Skyview with 1,000 Westfield kids if they simply move all of Franklin Farm (including Crossfield), Fox Mill, and Oak Hill. Those plus the opt ins and maybe half the Westfield kids would be plenty.

That would actually be a really nice school.

And it would defy geography! Look at a map. No one on the north side of hwy 50 should be going to Westfield. They were only sent there because there was no other place to send them at the time. It is a terrible, awful commute.

Bingo. Can’t believe how stupid and venal some of these folks are. A “really nice school” in their view creates a new Westfield attendance island north of Route 50 where kids at Coates and McNair get bused past Skyview on their long trip to Westfield.

Tell me about it. Our solution for the 3-mile commute next year will be "younger sibling gets dropped off at Skyview as older sibling drives to Westfield." We're fortunate to have this option that many families won't - but even for us the afternoon will be a choice between spending more than an hour on multiple buses or walking home.

[Anonymous]

I've been to both meetings as well and since Lees Corner has showed up in force and been very vocal, Scenario 2 has been deemed the favorite, but I'll say from my discussions with non Lees Corner people that Scenarios 1 and 3 are more popular than you'd think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m seeing a lot of lame rationalizations. If they seed Skyview with 1000+ kids from Westfield, some kids from other schools will need to move to Westfield, and the most obvious place to start is Centreville.

The shouldn’t need to seed Skyview with 1,000 Westfield kids if they simply move all of Franklin Farm (including Crossfield), Fox Mill, and Oak Hill. Those plus the opt ins and maybe half the Westfield kids would be plenty.

That would actually be a really nice school.

And it would defy geography! Look at a map. No one on the north side of hwy 50 should be going to Westfield. They were only sent there because there was no other place to send them at the time. It is a terrible, awful commute.

Bingo. Can’t believe how stupid and venal some of these folks are. A “really nice school” in their view creates a new Westfield attendance island north of Route 50 where kids at Coates and McNair get bused past Skyview on their long trip to Westfield.

Tell me about it. Our solution for the 3-mile commute next year will be "younger sibling gets dropped off at Skyview as older sibling drives to Westfield." We're fortunate to have this option that many families won't - but even for us the afternoon will be a choice between spending more than an hour on multiple buses or walking home.

I’m not following. Why would your Skyview kid get dropped off? No bus? Also, I bet you can just pupil place at Westfield if older sibling goes there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m seeing a lot of lame rationalizations. If they seed Skyview with 1000+ kids from Westfield, some kids from other schools will need to move to Westfield, and the most obvious place to start is Centreville.

The shouldn’t need to seed Skyview with 1,000 Westfield kids if they simply move all of Franklin Farm (including Crossfield), Fox Mill, and Oak Hill. Those plus the opt ins and maybe half the Westfield kids would be plenty.

That would actually be a really nice school.

And it would defy geography! Look at a map. No one on the north side of hwy 50 should be going to Westfield. They were only sent there because there was no other place to send them at the time. It is a terrible, awful commute.

Bingo. Can’t believe how stupid and venal some of these folks are. A “really nice school” in their view creates a new Westfield attendance island north of Route 50 where kids at Coates and McNair get bused past Skyview on their long trip to Westfield.

Tell me about it. Our solution for the 3-mile commute next year will be "younger sibling gets dropped off at Skyview as older sibling drives to Westfield." We're fortunate to have this option that many families won't - but even for us the afternoon will be a choice between spending more than an hour on multiple buses or walking home.

I’m not following. Why would your Skyview kid get dropped off? No bus? Also, I bet you can just pupil place at Westfield if older sibling goes there.

Younger child opted in to Skyview - likes both the emphasis on STEM and its location as our neighborhood school. Even though every scenario has us in the Skyview boundary until that boundary is official (27-28 school year) there's no direct bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just make it part-magnet and part-mediocre school. That way, the people who believe they are owed the school can have their regional school (I.e., the ones who say: it was in the CIP, so they are required to give it to us), and we won’t have the musical chairs fight as to which additional school or two gets moved to a place they don’t want.

It’s like the immediate neighborhoods near the new school are desperately trying to throw a block party that many others don’t want to attend, and the school board is now left to figure out which kids must be forced to go.

Make it stop.

No, they absolutely should not. Overwhelming support was, and still is, behind it being a traditional school. The squabbling now is only because the school board didn't do their jobs and come up with a single map to discuss. Instead they put 3 completely different maps out there ensuring as many as people as possible would be upset by at least one of them and this is what you get.

When you say overwhelming support, you mean from your geographic area. Most people outside of that two or three elementary catchment area would be happier with a magnet school. You sound like you are one of those parents who believes that you have a god-given right to the school.