FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live nowhere near Langley/Herndon and so it doesn’t affect me at all. But at this point, neither school is over-enrolled or under-enrolled. So why not just leave it alone for now? The kids at the far end of the county would have a big bus ride no matter where they went. Now if Langley was bursting at the seams and crying out for an expansion or modular classrooms, while Herndon sat at 75% capacity, I would say that people have a point and that the already available capacity needs to be used. But that’s not the situation at this point. It may be in the future if Langley has to pick up more kids that are closer to the school due to ongoing growth in Tyson’s … but we’re not there yet. BTW middle class areas got a boost for years on the east end of the county when West Potomac was expanded and had its borders expanded as well when MVHS sat well under capacity nearby. So this definitely isn’t a SES/protecting the rich school thing as plenty of people all over the economic spectrum live near West Potomac HS.

Herndon is under-enrolled now, just not below the arbitrary 60% pulled out of a hat to avoid adding kids to some schools with hundreds of empty seats.

There is almost exactly the same number of students at Herndon and Langley. Who cares how big they made the building. I don’t see an enrollment crisis for a school that has more than 2000 students. If projections hold, it might be a discussion to have in 5 years, but the focus of this review was over capacity schools.

The focus of the review was to comply with amended Policy 8130, which identified commute times and transportation costs as one of four key considerations.

But they punted and arbitrarily focused on schools over 105% capacity instead, along with addressing a few random attendance islands and split feeders that no one previously cared about. Under-capacity schools, on the other hand, were ignored.

They look like idiots for having amended Policy 8130 and then retaining a consultant who largely ignored and only selectively applied the revised policy.

I disagree. Cleaning up split feeder patterns seems to be the least controversial issue in this thread. Unfortunately, the consultants managed to figure out a way to make them even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've asked for this before:

Please show us how you would redo the boundaries. You can start by putting Great Falls in Herndon. Do that. And, then please figure out who goes to Langley, McLean, and Marshall. Go around the beltway adjacent schools all the way to Alexandria. Then, come back on the outside boundary of Fairfax.

I think you will find that if you send Great Falls to Langley, that you will create many, many problems that are not easily solved.

signed,

Parent who does not live in Great Falls or McLean

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

But, as PP suggested, it will probably take another five years to clean this up.

If 2 schools have capacity, then you don't mive anyone.

Rezoning should only occur as a last resort to fix significant overcrowding, if requested by the community.

Rezoning should never occur "just because".

You’ve just rewritten the revised policy that the School Board adopted last year. They could have adopted a policy that reflects your views. They didn’t. Nor do the Thru proposals align with what you’ve suggested. They’ve just targeted a few schools with parents who aren’t as wealthy as Langley.

DP.

Wrong. You just want them to focus on one of the four factors at the exclusion of all else.

Your focus is not on well being of kids, in fact, it’s the opposite. Your focus is on soaking your neighbors out of hatred. Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

You keep forgetting that you would then have a school that would be way underenrolled. Now, please tell us how you would fill it.

I've asked this question repeatedly on this thread. Never get an answer.

If the objective were to remove modulars too, McLean and Marshall have even more students to shed. McLean is at 125% without modulars. They’d need to move an additional 200 students on top of the current proposal. So yes, they could fill Langley if they needed to.

You just gotta let it go, sweetheart. The superintendent’s own no-bid consultant doesn’t agree with your extremist view.

DP. They had previously suggested they wanted to get kids out of both trailers and modulars. For example, Mateo Dunne was dismissive about modulars, calling them “trailers with bathrooms.”

Somehow, when Thru did its work, they took modular capacity into account. Maybe that was a reasonable decision; after all, it costs real money to install modulars and they are nicer than trailers. But there was no advance notice that Thru would be counting modular seats in its capacity analysis.

It’s not an “extremist” view to have at least expected an explanation. If surveyed, people might have agreed with that decision because it results in fewer boundary changes and many prefer stability. But others might have agreed with Dunne.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

You keep forgetting that you would then have a school that would be way underenrolled. Now, please tell us how you would fill it.

I've asked this question repeatedly on this thread. Never get an answer.

If the objective were to remove modulars too, McLean and Marshall have even more students to shed. McLean is at 125% without modulars. They’d need to move an additional 200 students on top of the current proposal. So yes, they could fill Langley if they needed to.

You just gotta let it go, sweetheart. The superintendent’s own no-bid consultant doesn’t agree with your extremist view.

DP. They had previously suggested they wanted to get kids out of both trailers and modulars. For example, Mateo Dunne was dismissive about modulars, calling them “trailers with bathrooms.”

Somehow, when Thru did its work, they took modular capacity into account. Maybe that was a reasonable decision; after all, it costs real money to install modulars and they are nicer than trailers. But there was no advance notice that Thru would be counting modular seats in its capacity analysis.

It’s not an “extremist” view to have at least expected an explanation. If surveyed, people might have agreed with that decision because it results in fewer boundary changes and many prefer stability. But others might have agreed with Dunne.

Including the modulars may have even been based on community feedback because it seems like most families rather stay at their current school in a module than move to a different school.

Which of course goes down the rabbit hole of prioritizing schools reliant on modulars for expansion rather than building out seats at a neighboring school that doesn’t need them and declaring them under utilized…*grumble grumble*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

You keep forgetting that you would then have a school that would be way underenrolled. Now, please tell us how you would fill it.

I've asked this question repeatedly on this thread. Never get an answer.

If the objective were to remove modulars too, McLean and Marshall have even more students to shed. McLean is at 125% without modulars. They’d need to move an additional 200 students on top of the current proposal. So yes, they could fill Langley if they needed to.

You just gotta let it go, sweetheart. The superintendent’s own no-bid consultant doesn’t agree with your extremist view.

DP. They had previously suggested they wanted to get kids out of both trailers and modulars. For example, Mateo Dunne was dismissive about modulars, calling them “trailers with bathrooms.”

Somehow, when Thru did its work, they took modular capacity into account. Maybe that was a reasonable decision; after all, it costs real money to install modulars and they are nicer than trailers. But there was no advance notice that Thru would be counting modular seats in its capacity analysis.

It’s not an “extremist” view to have at least expected an explanation. If surveyed, people might have agreed with that decision because it results in fewer boundary changes and many prefer stability. But others might have agreed with Dunne.

It’s pretty clear from community meetings last fall that very few families want these moves.

The two/three equity posters on this forum are super extreme in their agenda. It’s quite clear they are out of step with the mainstream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

You keep forgetting that you would then have a school that would be way underenrolled. Now, please tell us how you would fill it.

I've asked this question repeatedly on this thread. Never get an answer.

If the objective were to remove modulars too, McLean and Marshall have even more students to shed. McLean is at 125% without modulars. They’d need to move an additional 200 students on top of the current proposal. So yes, they could fill Langley if they needed to.

You just gotta let it go, sweetheart. The superintendent’s own no-bid consultant doesn’t agree with your extremist view.

DP. They had previously suggested they wanted to get kids out of both trailers and modulars. For example, Mateo Dunne was dismissive about modulars, calling them “trailers with bathrooms.”

Somehow, when Thru did its work, they took modular capacity into account. Maybe that was a reasonable decision; after all, it costs real money to install modulars and they are nicer than trailers. But there was no advance notice that Thru would be counting modular seats in its capacity analysis.

It’s not an “extremist” view to have at least expected an explanation. If surveyed, people might have agreed with that decision because it results in fewer boundary changes and many prefer stability. But others might have agreed with Dunne.

It’s pretty clear from community meetings last fall that very few families want these moves.

The two/three equity posters on this forum are super extreme in their agenda. It’s quite clear they are out of step with the mainstream.

Dunno. When the same folks who spent months attacking the School Board and Thru Consulting now turn around and suggest Thru rigorously applied "objective" criteria to come up with reasonable proposals, that seems fairly extreme, or at least self-serving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've asked for this before:

Please show us how you would redo the boundaries. You can start by putting Great Falls in Herndon. Do that. And, then please figure out who goes to Langley, McLean, and Marshall. Go around the beltway adjacent schools all the way to Alexandria. Then, come back on the outside boundary of Fairfax.

I think you will find that if you send Great Falls to Langley, that you will create many, many problems that are not easily solved.

signed,

Parent who does not live in Great Falls or McLean

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

But, as PP suggested, it will probably take another five years to clean this up.

If 2 schools have capacity, then you don't mive anyone.

Rezoning should only occur as a last resort to fix significant overcrowding, if requested by the community.

Rezoning should never occur "just because".

You’ve just rewritten the revised policy that the School Board adopted last year. They could have adopted a policy that reflects your views. They didn’t. Nor do the Thru proposals align with what you’ve suggested. They’ve just targeted a few schools with parents who aren’t as wealthy as Langley.

DP.

Wrong. You just want them to focus on one of the four factors at the exclusion of all else.

Your focus is not on well being of kids, in fact, it’s the opposite. Your focus is on soaking your neighbors out of hatred. Pathetic.

Policy 8130 does not say the fourth factor is only relevant if there is "significant overcrowding" at a school. I understand that you've recently become a big cheerleader for Thru, but your bias is showing. You're more than prepared for plenty of others to get redistricted as long as you are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

You keep forgetting that you would then have a school that would be way underenrolled. Now, please tell us how you would fill it.

I've asked this question repeatedly on this thread. Never get an answer.

If the objective were to remove modulars too, McLean and Marshall have even more students to shed. McLean is at 125% without modulars. They’d need to move an additional 200 students on top of the current proposal. So yes, they could fill Langley if they needed to.

You just gotta let it go, sweetheart. The superintendent’s own no-bid consultant doesn’t agree with your extremist view.

DP. They had previously suggested they wanted to get kids out of both trailers and modulars. For example, Mateo Dunne was dismissive about modulars, calling them “trailers with bathrooms.”

Somehow, when Thru did its work, they took modular capacity into account. Maybe that was a reasonable decision; after all, it costs real money to install modulars and they are nicer than trailers. But there was no advance notice that Thru would be counting modular seats in its capacity analysis.

It’s not an “extremist” view to have at least expected an explanation. If surveyed, people might have agreed with that decision because it results in fewer boundary changes and many prefer stability. But others might have agreed with Dunne.

It’s pretty clear from community meetings last fall that very few families want these moves.

The two/three equity posters on this forum are super extreme in their agenda. It’s quite clear they are out of step with the mainstream.

Dunno. When the same folks who spent months attacking the School Board and Thru Consulting now turn around and suggest Thru rigorously applied "objective" criteria to come up with reasonable proposals, that seems fairly extreme, or at least self-serving.

Equity warriors seeking to move other people’s kids just because farms rates at a school are low are scum. Truly pathetic.

So much for the leftist extremists actually caring about students mental health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've asked for this before:

Please show us how you would redo the boundaries. You can start by putting Great Falls in Herndon. Do that. And, then please figure out who goes to Langley, McLean, and Marshall. Go around the beltway adjacent schools all the way to Alexandria. Then, come back on the outside boundary of Fairfax.

I think you will find that if you send Great Falls to Langley, that you will create many, many problems that are not easily solved.

signed,

Parent who does not live in Great Falls or McLean

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

But, as PP suggested, it will probably take another five years to clean this up.

If 2 schools have capacity, then you don't mive anyone.

Rezoning should only occur as a last resort to fix significant overcrowding, if requested by the community.

Rezoning should never occur "just because".

You’ve just rewritten the revised policy that the School Board adopted last year. They could have adopted a policy that reflects your views. They didn’t. Nor do the Thru proposals align with what you’ve suggested. They’ve just targeted a few schools with parents who aren’t as wealthy as Langley.

DP.

Wrong. You just want them to focus on one of the four factors at the exclusion of all else.

Your focus is not on well being of kids, in fact, it’s the opposite. Your focus is on soaking your neighbors out of hatred. Pathetic.

Policy 8130 does not say the fourth factor is only relevant if there is "significant overcrowding" at a school. I understand that you've recently become a big cheerleader for Thru, but your bias is showing. You're more than prepared for plenty of others to get redistricted as long as you are not.

Nah, that’s your lame narrative. I don’t want anyone to be moved unless the families being moved want it.

Face it, you don’t have public opinion on your side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've asked for this before:

Please show us how you would redo the boundaries. You can start by putting Great Falls in Herndon. Do that. And, then please figure out who goes to Langley, McLean, and Marshall. Go around the beltway adjacent schools all the way to Alexandria. Then, come back on the outside boundary of Fairfax.

I think you will find that if you send Great Falls to Langley, that you will create many, many problems that are not easily solved.

signed,

Parent who does not live in Great Falls or McLean

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

But, as PP suggested, it will probably take another five years to clean this up.

If 2 schools have capacity, then you don't mive anyone.

Rezoning should only occur as a last resort to fix significant overcrowding, if requested by the community.

Rezoning should never occur "just because".

You’ve just rewritten the revised policy that the School Board adopted last year. They could have adopted a policy that reflects your views. They didn’t. Nor do the Thru proposals align with what you’ve suggested. They’ve just targeted a few schools with parents who aren’t as wealthy as Langley.

DP.

Wrong. You just want them to focus on one of the four factors at the exclusion of all else.

Your focus is not on well being of kids, in fact, it’s the opposite. Your focus is on soaking your neighbors out of hatred. Pathetic.

Policy 8130 does not say the fourth factor is only relevant if there is "significant overcrowding" at a school. I understand that you've recently become a big cheerleader for Thru, but your bias is showing. You're more than prepared for plenty of others to get redistricted as long as you are not.

Nah, that’s your lame narrative. I don’t want anyone to be moved unless the families being moved want it.

Face it, you don’t have public opinion on your side.

No, it's the obvious reading of Policy 8130. And you would be among the first to limit access to Langley if everyone who wanted to go there was given that opportunity.

It's hard to say what public opinion on these issues is. You live in an echo chamber so hardly know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've asked for this before:

Please show us how you would redo the boundaries. You can start by putting Great Falls in Herndon. Do that. And, then please figure out who goes to Langley, McLean, and Marshall. Go around the beltway adjacent schools all the way to Alexandria. Then, come back on the outside boundary of Fairfax.

I think you will find that if you send Great Falls to Langley, that you will create many, many problems that are not easily solved.

signed,

Parent who does not live in Great Falls or McLean

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

But, as PP suggested, it will probably take another five years to clean this up.

If 2 schools have capacity, then you don't mive anyone.

Rezoning should only occur as a last resort to fix significant overcrowding, if requested by the community.

Rezoning should never occur "just because".

You’ve just rewritten the revised policy that the School Board adopted last year. They could have adopted a policy that reflects your views. They didn’t. Nor do the Thru proposals align with what you’ve suggested. They’ve just targeted a few schools with parents who aren’t as wealthy as Langley.

DP.

Wrong. You just want them to focus on one of the four factors at the exclusion of all else.

Your focus is not on well being of kids, in fact, it’s the opposite. Your focus is on soaking your neighbors out of hatred. Pathetic.

Policy 8130 does not say the fourth factor is only relevant if there is "significant overcrowding" at a school. I understand that you've recently become a big cheerleader for Thru, but your bias is showing. You're more than prepared for plenty of others to get redistricted as long as you are not.

Nah, that’s your lame narrative. I don’t want anyone to be moved unless the families being moved want it.

Face it, you don’t have public opinion on your side.

No, it's the obvious reading of Policy 8130. And you would be among the first to limit access to Langley if everyone who wanted to go there was given that opportunity.

It's hard to say what public opinion on these issues is. You live in an echo chamber so hardly know.

Go look at the feedback from last fall. It’s obvious that equity warriors looking to move kids for farms purposes do not have public opinion on their side. That’s why you continue to complain on anonymous forums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've asked for this before:

Please show us how you would redo the boundaries. You can start by putting Great Falls in Herndon. Do that. And, then please figure out who goes to Langley, McLean, and Marshall. Go around the beltway adjacent schools all the way to Alexandria. Then, come back on the outside boundary of Fairfax.

I think you will find that if you send Great Falls to Langley, that you will create many, many problems that are not easily solved.

signed,

Parent who does not live in Great Falls or McLean

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

But, as PP suggested, it will probably take another five years to clean this up.

If 2 schools have capacity, then you don't mive anyone.

Rezoning should only occur as a last resort to fix significant overcrowding, if requested by the community.

Rezoning should never occur "just because".

You’ve just rewritten the revised policy that the School Board adopted last year. They could have adopted a policy that reflects your views. They didn’t. Nor do the Thru proposals align with what you’ve suggested. They’ve just targeted a few schools with parents who aren’t as wealthy as Langley.

DP.

Wrong. You just want them to focus on one of the four factors at the exclusion of all else.

Your focus is not on well being of kids, in fact, it’s the opposite. Your focus is on soaking your neighbors out of hatred. Pathetic.

Policy 8130 does not say the fourth factor is only relevant if there is "significant overcrowding" at a school. I understand that you've recently become a big cheerleader for Thru, but your bias is showing. You're more than prepared for plenty of others to get redistricted as long as you are not.

Nah, that’s your lame narrative. I don’t want anyone to be moved unless the families being moved want it.

Face it, you don’t have public opinion on your side.

No, it's the obvious reading of Policy 8130. And you would be among the first to limit access to Langley if everyone who wanted to go there was given that opportunity.

It's hard to say what public opinion on these issues is. You live in an echo chamber so hardly know.

Go look at the feedback from last fall. It’s obvious that equity warriors looking to move kids for farms purposes do not have public opinion on their side. That’s why you continue to complain on anonymous forums.

The feedback from a couple of years ago (not last fall) was that people opposed boundary changes generally.

No one asked whether, if FCPS was going to make other changes, it should go ahead and move kids to a closer school with plenty of excess capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've asked for this before:

Please show us how you would redo the boundaries. You can start by putting Great Falls in Herndon. Do that. And, then please figure out who goes to Langley, McLean, and Marshall. Go around the beltway adjacent schools all the way to Alexandria. Then, come back on the outside boundary of Fairfax.

I think you will find that if you send Great Falls to Langley, that you will create many, many problems that are not easily solved.

signed,

Parent who does not live in Great Falls or McLean

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

But, as PP suggested, it will probably take another five years to clean this up.

If 2 schools have capacity, then you don't mive anyone.

Rezoning should only occur as a last resort to fix significant overcrowding, if requested by the community.

Rezoning should never occur "just because".

You’ve just rewritten the revised policy that the School Board adopted last year. They could have adopted a policy that reflects your views. They didn’t. Nor do the Thru proposals align with what you’ve suggested. They’ve just targeted a few schools with parents who aren’t as wealthy as Langley.

DP.

Wrong. You just want them to focus on one of the four factors at the exclusion of all else.

Your focus is not on well being of kids, in fact, it’s the opposite. Your focus is on soaking your neighbors out of hatred. Pathetic.

Policy 8130 does not say the fourth factor is only relevant if there is "significant overcrowding" at a school. I understand that you've recently become a big cheerleader for Thru, but your bias is showing. You're more than prepared for plenty of others to get redistricted as long as you are not.

Nah, that’s your lame narrative. I don’t want anyone to be moved unless the families being moved want it.

Face it, you don’t have public opinion on your side.

No, it's the obvious reading of Policy 8130. And you would be among the first to limit access to Langley if everyone who wanted to go there was given that opportunity.

It's hard to say what public opinion on these issues is. You live in an echo chamber so hardly know.

Go look at the feedback from last fall. It’s obvious that equity warriors looking to move kids for farms purposes do not have public opinion on their side. That’s why you continue to complain on anonymous forums.

The feedback from a couple of years ago (not last fall) was that people opposed boundary changes generally.

No one asked whether, if FCPS was going to make other changes, it should go ahead and move kids to a closer school with plenty of excess capacity.

Feedback from last fall was overwhelmingly to keep kids in their current pyramids absent a compelling reason to move them.

Don’t take my word for it. Go look at the feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've asked for this before:

Please show us how you would redo the boundaries. You can start by putting Great Falls in Herndon. Do that. And, then please figure out who goes to Langley, McLean, and Marshall. Go around the beltway adjacent schools all the way to Alexandria. Then, come back on the outside boundary of Fairfax.

I think you will find that if you send Great Falls to Langley, that you will create many, many problems that are not easily solved.

signed,

Parent who does not live in Great Falls or McLean

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

But, as PP suggested, it will probably take another five years to clean this up.

If 2 schools have capacity, then you don't mive anyone.

Rezoning should only occur as a last resort to fix significant overcrowding, if requested by the community.

Rezoning should never occur "just because".

You’ve just rewritten the revised policy that the School Board adopted last year. They could have adopted a policy that reflects your views. They didn’t. Nor do the Thru proposals align with what you’ve suggested. They’ve just targeted a few schools with parents who aren’t as wealthy as Langley.

DP.

Wrong. You just want them to focus on one of the four factors at the exclusion of all else.

Your focus is not on well being of kids, in fact, it’s the opposite. Your focus is on soaking your neighbors out of hatred. Pathetic.

Policy 8130 does not say the fourth factor is only relevant if there is "significant overcrowding" at a school. I understand that you've recently become a big cheerleader for Thru, but your bias is showing. You're more than prepared for plenty of others to get redistricted as long as you are not.

Nah, that’s your lame narrative. I don’t want anyone to be moved unless the families being moved want it.

Face it, you don’t have public opinion on your side.

No, it's the obvious reading of Policy 8130. And you would be among the first to limit access to Langley if everyone who wanted to go there was given that opportunity.

It's hard to say what public opinion on these issues is. You live in an echo chamber so hardly know.

Go look at the feedback from last fall. It’s obvious that equity warriors looking to move kids for farms purposes do not have public opinion on their side. That’s why you continue to complain on anonymous forums.

The feedback from a couple of years ago (not last fall) was that people opposed boundary changes generally.

No one asked whether, if FCPS was going to make other changes, it should go ahead and move kids to a closer school with plenty of excess capacity.

Feedback from last fall was overwhelmingly to keep kids in their current pyramids absent a compelling reason to move them.

Don’t take my word for it. Go look at the feedback.

The reasons they are now effectively treating as compelling are no more compelling than reasons they're ignoring. It's devolved mostly into an exercise in placating those most likely to complain the loudest while still allowing Reid to claim she did something. Pathetic.

[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:I've asked for this before:

Please show us how you would redo the boundaries. You can start by putting Great Falls in Herndon. Do that. And, then please figure out who goes to Langley, McLean, and Marshall. Go around the beltway adjacent schools all the way to Alexandria. Then, come back on the outside boundary of Fairfax.

I think you will find that if you send Great Falls to Langley, that you will create many, many problems that are not easily solved.

signed,

Parent who does not live in Great Falls or McLean

Yes, sending Great Falls to Langley has created problems that aren’t easily solved, starting with the sense of entitlement.

It’s obvious that, if two schools both have capacity, we should send kids to the closer school, in this case Herndon.

But, as PP suggested, it will probably take another five years to clean this up.

If 2 schools have capacity, then you don't mive anyone.

Rezoning should only occur as a last resort to fix significant overcrowding, if requested by the community.

Rezoning should never occur "just because".

You’ve just rewritten the revised policy that the School Board adopted last year. They could have adopted a policy that reflects your views. They didn’t. Nor do the Thru proposals align with what you’ve suggested. They’ve just targeted a few schools with parents who aren’t as wealthy as Langley.

DP.

Wrong. You just want them to focus on one of the four factors at the exclusion of all else.

Your focus is not on well being of kids, in fact, it’s the opposite. Your focus is on soaking your neighbors out of hatred. Pathetic.

Policy 8130 does not say the fourth factor is only relevant if there is "significant overcrowding" at a school. I understand that you've recently become a big cheerleader for Thru, but your bias is showing. You're more than prepared for plenty of others to get redistricted as long as you are not.

Nah, that’s your lame narrative. I don’t want anyone to be moved unless the families being moved want it.

Face it, you don’t have public opinion on your side.

No, it's the obvious reading of Policy 8130. And you would be among the first to limit access to Langley if everyone who wanted to go there was given that opportunity.

It's hard to say what public opinion on these issues is. You live in an echo chamber so hardly know.

Go look at the feedback from last fall. It’s obvious that equity warriors looking to move kids for farms purposes do not have public opinion on their side. That’s why you continue to complain on anonymous forums.

The feedback from a couple of years ago (not last fall) was that people opposed boundary changes generally.

No one asked whether, if FCPS was going to make other changes, it should go ahead and move kids to a closer school with plenty of excess capacity.

Feedback from last fall was overwhelmingly to keep kids in their current pyramids absent a compelling reason to move them.

Don’t take my word for it. Go look at the feedback.

The reasons they are now effectively treating as compelling are no more compelling than reasons they're ignoring. It's devolved mostly into an exercise in placating those most likely to complain the loudest while still allowing Reid to claim she did something. Pathetic.

Again:

Feedback from last fall was overwhelmingly to keep kids in their current pyramids absent a compelling reason to move them.

Don’t take my word for it. Go look at the feedback.