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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think "sentiment in the room" is pretty easy to misinterpret based on your own personal feelings.

I do not disagree.

To get a little more specific, I think they had 8 breakout speak up. IIRC 6 of those favored scenario 2. Some of those pointed out flaws in it. I think one group favored scenario 1, and one group had two people speak, one favoring 1 and one favoring 2.

So what I said stands. The majority wanted scenario 2.

This should not be based on a vote. It should be based on facts, what makes the most sense, and what is logical.

Welcome to politics....

[Anonymous]

This will go on forever if the policy is to exempt every neighborhood that complains from being moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the pp who claimed it was an absolute lie that Scenario 2 was preferred at both meetings?! Cat got her tongue?!

DP, but it's obvious all the Lee's Corner families were fired up since them being moved came out of the blue so they showed up in force. Obviously they were going to choose the only scenario that didn't have them moving. Hopefully FCPS takes everyone's online comments into account for the next maps and gives us a hybrid of 1 and 2 that still achieves the goals of the boundary study while removing some of the changes that don't make any logical sense.

[Anonymous]

I think its clear the boundary tool is just for appeasement and suckers. "Just submit your opinion online"....but the people getting face to faces with SB members or who have plants in Gatehouse are the ones actually getting promises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think "sentiment in the room" is pretty easy to misinterpret based on your own personal feelings.

I do not disagree.

To get a little more specific, I think they had 8 breakout speak up. IIRC 6 of those favored scenario 2. Some of those pointed out flaws in it. I think one group favored scenario 1, and one group had two people speak, one favoring 1 and one favoring 2.

So what I said stands. The majority wanted scenario 2.

This should not be based on a vote. It should be based on facts, what makes the most sense, and what is logical.

They made it clear it wasn’t a vote. It’s just feedback. The feedback was that scenario 2 was the most favored. My guess is the next set of maps will have scenario 2 as well. They are going to get rid of one scenario entirely. My guess is #1. And they are also not going to put LCES at Westfield.

Scenario 2 will return. I think they will combie #1 and #3 and present it as an alternative scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think "sentiment in the room" is pretty easy to misinterpret based on your own personal feelings.

I do not disagree.

To get a little more specific, I think they had 8 breakout speak up. IIRC 6 of those favored scenario 2. Some of those pointed out flaws in it. I think one group favored scenario 1, and one group had two people speak, one favoring 1 and one favoring 2.

So what I said stands. The majority wanted scenario 2.

This should not be based on a vote. It should be based on facts, what makes the most sense, and what is logical.

They made it clear it wasn’t a vote. It’s just feedback. The feedback was that scenario 2 was the most favored. My guess is the next set of maps will have scenario 2 as well. They are going to get rid of one scenario entirely. My guess is #1. And they are also not going to put LCES at Westfield.

Scenario 2 will return. I think they will combie #1 and #3 and present it as an alternative scenario.

Once the SB members send the consultants all the areas they made promises to, there won't be any where left to move!

[Anonymous]

I don't think making decisions based on who cries the hardest is good policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the pp who claimed it was an absolute lie that Scenario 2 was preferred at both meetings?! Cat got her tongue?!

DP, but it's obvious all the Lee's Corner families were fired up since them being moved came out of the blue so they showed up in force. Obviously they were going to choose the only scenario that didn't have them moving. Hopefully FCPS takes everyone's online comments into account for the next maps and gives us a hybrid of 1 and 2 that still achieves the goals of the boundary study while removing some of the changes that don't make any logical sense.

Right, one particular (wealthy) neighborhood was able to organize and show up on a moment's notice and took over the meeting. That's not how policy decisions should be made. FCPS staff should be drawing these boundaries, not consultants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think making decisions based on who cries the hardest is good policy.

This is the thing about democrats.

They say they care about people's opinions but always cater to the loudest voice. And the loudest voice tend to be the wealthier people who have time and money to organize.

Not very different from republicans who cater to the rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think its clear the boundary tool is just for appeasement and suckers. "Just submit your opinion online"....but the people getting face to faces with SB members or who have plants in Gatehouse are the ones actually getting promises.

Speaking of gatehouse plants, I’ve long wondered how often they are posting on DCUM. Clearly a violation of record keeping requirements, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP, but the PP was correct, option 2 won overwhelmingly at both meetings.

Even if you were at both meetings, how do you make this assertion? Was there a vote amongst all attendees (in person and zoom) that quantified the support?

Each breakout room had a spokesperson that had to speak to the larger group and answer what scenario their group favored and what factor was most important in the decision, and every spokesperson said Scenario 2 for the most part. And the number one factor that came up was distance/proximity to school. Everyone agreed it didn’t make sense to pull kids out high schools that were much closer to them geographically and send then to one further away.

Were you asleep during the meeting or did you not attend?

This is not how the virtual sessions worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think making decisions based on who cries the hardest is good policy.

This is the thing about democrats.

They say they care about people's opinions but always cater to the loudest voice. And the loudest voice tend to be the wealthier people who have time and money to organize.

Not very different from republicans who cater to the rich.

So you think the democrats should cater to the silent far left fringe instead? I’m not sure you are the right person to lead the party back from the wilderness.

[Anonymous]

From a purely substantive perspective there is a very strong argument that no one who lives as close to their current school as Lees Corner is to Chantilly should be redistricted. It’s not the only basis upon which a decision could be made, but it would certainly be a reasonable one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a purely substantive perspective there is a very strong argument that no one who lives as close to their current school as Lees Corner is to Chantilly should be redistricted. It’s not the only basis upon which a decision could be made, but it would certainly be a reasonable one.

The problem is Chantilly boundary is already very compact. But they are overcrowded so some families have to move in additon to Oak Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP, but the PP was correct, option 2 won overwhelmingly at both meetings.

Even if you were at both meetings, how do you make this assertion? Was there a vote amongst all attendees (in person and zoom) that quantified the support?

Each breakout room had a spokesperson that had to speak to the larger group and answer what scenario their group favored and what factor was most important in the decision, and every spokesperson said Scenario 2 for the most part. And the number one factor that came up was distance/proximity to school. Everyone agreed it didn’t make sense to pull kids out high schools that were much closer to them geographically and send then to one further away.

Were you asleep during the meeting or did you not attend?

This is not how the virtual sessions worked.

Again DP here, but the PP is 100% correct. Scenario 2 was the clear winner at both meetings. You must not have attended if you think otherwise. It wasn’t even close for any other scenario. 3 was the least popular in both meetings followed by 1. It doesn’t really matter though, you’ll get brand new maps that look nothing like any of these scenarios in a few weeks and everyone will be scrambling to figure this crap out again. Classic FCPS style…nonsensical, unorganized and designed to mess with as many families as possible!