FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

I guess I thought this was mostly about high schools. I guess I assume my elementary school is safe. I have a little concern about the middle school, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess I thought this was mostly about high schools. I guess I assume my elementary school is safe. I have a little concern about the middle school, though.

You should go check out the boundary review webpage. You’ll quickly be disabused of the notion that there will be minimal changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just looked at a good chunk of the feedback for the in-person boundary meetings, and whoa boy the school board is walking into a buzz saw if they try to do anything more than fix split feeders.

It sounds like Thru is going to give the SB (and possibly the whole 100+ member BRAC?) a few maps with different options. It will be interesting to see what direction they go in. Just clean up the ES split feeders and attendance islands as much as possible, and call it a day to try to protect their future political ambitions? Or will SB members/BRAC members egos get in the way and they’ll try to push for more changes, or try to protect their own areas from getting moved, even if they are in a split feeder or attendance island?

Feels a bit like some people are happy to throw others in these attendance islands or split feeders under a bus as long as they are left alone.

I’m agnostic as to whether they change split feeders or attendance islands. It does seem like split feeders are more likely to have people okay with boundary changes, but if the majority in those schools don’t want it changed, I’m wholly supportive of us all telling the school board to F off and don’t make any changes at all.

Seems pretty clear from the boundary meetings that that’s the overwhelming message.

Some of the board members seem to be really pushing for eliminating the split feeders and attendance islands. The islands usually have a much longer bus commute, and in lower income neighborhoods the long bus rides contribute to absenteeism. Families might not have a car, so if a kid misses the bus to a school 3 miles away, they are a lot more likely to miss school entirely vs. if they went to a closer school where they could walk or bike. And we all know how much FCPS is back to pushing attendance because it’s linked to school funding.

Of course, they don’t need a comprehensive boundary review to fix a few split feeders or attendance islands.

Every single high school pyramid has at least one split feeder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just looked at a good chunk of the feedback for the in-person boundary meetings, and whoa boy the school board is walking into a buzz saw if they try to do anything more than fix split feeders.

It sounds like Thru is going to give the SB (and possibly the whole 100+ member BRAC?) a few maps with different options. It will be interesting to see what direction they go in. Just clean up the ES split feeders and attendance islands as much as possible, and call it a day to try to protect their future political ambitions? Or will SB members/BRAC members egos get in the way and they’ll try to push for more changes, or try to protect their own areas from getting moved, even if they are in a split feeder or attendance island?

Feels a bit like some people are happy to throw others in these attendance islands or split feeders under a bus as long as they are left alone.

I’m agnostic as to whether they change split feeders or attendance islands. It does seem like split feeders are more likely to have people okay with boundary changes, but if the majority in those schools don’t want it changed, I’m wholly supportive of us all telling the school board to F off and don’t make any changes at all.

Seems pretty clear from the boundary meetings that that’s the overwhelming message.

Some of the board members seem to be really pushing for eliminating the split feeders and attendance islands. The islands usually have a much longer bus commute, and in lower income neighborhoods the long bus rides contribute to absenteeism. Families might not have a car, so if a kid misses the bus to a school 3 miles away, they are a lot more likely to miss school entirely vs. if they went to a closer school where they could walk or bike. And we all know how much FCPS is back to pushing attendance because it’s linked to school funding.

Of course, they don’t need a comprehensive boundary review to fix a few split feeders or attendance islands.

Every single high school pyramid has at least one split feeder.

It’s pretext here. They could clearly state that they are fixing just split feeders, but they are going way bigger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just looked at a good chunk of the feedback for the in-person boundary meetings, and whoa boy the school board is walking into a buzz saw if they try to do anything more than fix split feeders.

It sounds like Thru is going to give the SB (and possibly the whole 100+ member BRAC?) a few maps with different options. It will be interesting to see what direction they go in. Just clean up the ES split feeders and attendance islands as much as possible, and call it a day to try to protect their future political ambitions? Or will SB members/BRAC members egos get in the way and they’ll try to push for more changes, or try to protect their own areas from getting moved, even if they are in a split feeder or attendance island?

Feels a bit like some people are happy to throw others in these attendance islands or split feeders under a bus as long as they are left alone.

I’m agnostic as to whether they change split feeders or attendance islands. It does seem like split feeders are more likely to have people okay with boundary changes, but if the majority in those schools don’t want it changed, I’m wholly supportive of us all telling the school board to F off and don’t make any changes at all.

Seems pretty clear from the boundary meetings that that’s the overwhelming message.

Some of the board members seem to be really pushing for eliminating the split feeders and attendance islands. The islands usually have a much longer bus commute, and in lower income neighborhoods the long bus rides contribute to absenteeism. Families might not have a car, so if a kid misses the bus to a school 3 miles away, they are a lot more likely to miss school entirely vs. if they went to a closer school where they could walk or bike. And we all know how much FCPS is back to pushing attendance because it’s linked to school funding.

Of course, they don’t need a comprehensive boundary review to fix a few split feeders or attendance islands.

Every single high school pyramid has at least one split feeder.

It’s pretext here. They could clearly state that they are fixing just split feeders, but they are going way bigger.

Split feeders are not good, but when you have two middle schools less than 2 miles apart, it's kind of difficult to see how they can do otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just looked at a good chunk of the feedback for the in-person boundary meetings, and whoa boy the school board is walking into a buzz saw if they try to do anything more than fix split feeders.

It sounds like Thru is going to give the SB (and possibly the whole 100+ member BRAC?) a few maps with different options. It will be interesting to see what direction they go in. Just clean up the ES split feeders and attendance islands as much as possible, and call it a day to try to protect their future political ambitions? Or will SB members/BRAC members egos get in the way and they’ll try to push for more changes, or try to protect their own areas from getting moved, even if they are in a split feeder or attendance island?

Feels a bit like some people are happy to throw others in these attendance islands or split feeders under a bus as long as they are left alone.

I’m agnostic as to whether they change split feeders or attendance islands. It does seem like split feeders are more likely to have people okay with boundary changes, but if the majority in those schools don’t want it changed, I’m wholly supportive of us all telling the school board to F off and don’t make any changes at all.

Seems pretty clear from the boundary meetings that that’s the overwhelming message.

Some of the board members seem to be really pushing for eliminating the split feeders and attendance islands. The islands usually have a much longer bus commute, and in lower income neighborhoods the long bus rides contribute to absenteeism. Families might not have a car, so if a kid misses the bus to a school 3 miles away, they are a lot more likely to miss school entirely vs. if they went to a closer school where they could walk or bike. And we all know how much FCPS is back to pushing attendance because it’s linked to school funding.

Of course, they don’t need a comprehensive boundary review to fix a few split feeders or attendance islands.

Every single high school pyramid has at least one split feeder.

It’s pretext here. They could clearly state that they are fixing just split feeders, but they are going way bigger.

Split feeders are not good, but when you have two middle schools less than 2 miles apart, it's kind of difficult to see how they can do otherwise.

Sure. I’m agnostic to whether they fix that issue. Whatever the families at those schools want, I wholeheartedly support. But they certainly shouldn’t go bigger in light of the immense opposition to boundary changes as evidenced by the boundary review meeting notes that they posted.

[Anonymous]

In light of the new administrations changes, the looming population cliff, and current lopsided school populations, I would expect them to make a whole host of boundary changes to more efficiently use our county resources. I would prefer that also include curtailing some projects in the CIP like Dunn poring and centreville to 3000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In light of the new administrations changes, the looming population cliff, and current lopsided school populations, I would expect them to make a whole host of boundary changes to more efficiently use our county resources. I would prefer that also include curtailing some projects in the CIP like Dunn poring and centreville to 3000

Word salad just like The School board and thru

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just looked at a good chunk of the feedback for the in-person boundary meetings, and whoa boy the school board is walking into a buzz saw if they try to do anything more than fix split feeders.

It sounds like Thru is going to give the SB (and possibly the whole 100+ member BRAC?) a few maps with different options. It will be interesting to see what direction they go in. Just clean up the ES split feeders and attendance islands as much as possible, and call it a day to try to protect their future political ambitions? Or will SB members/BRAC members egos get in the way and they’ll try to push for more changes, or try to protect their own areas from getting moved, even if they are in a split feeder or attendance island?

Feels a bit like some people are happy to throw others in these attendance islands or split feeders under a bus as long as they are left alone.

I’m agnostic as to whether they change split feeders or attendance islands. It does seem like split feeders are more likely to have people okay with boundary changes, but if the majority in those schools don’t want it changed, I’m wholly supportive of us all telling the school board to F off and don’t make any changes at all.

Seems pretty clear from the boundary meetings that that’s the overwhelming message.

Some of the board members seem to be really pushing for eliminating the split feeders and attendance islands. The islands usually have a much longer bus commute, and in lower income neighborhoods the long bus rides contribute to absenteeism. Families might not have a car, so if a kid misses the bus to a school 3 miles away, they are a lot more likely to miss school entirely vs. if they went to a closer school where they could walk or bike. And we all know how much FCPS is back to pushing attendance because it’s linked to school funding.

Of course, they don’t need a comprehensive boundary review to fix a few split feeders or attendance islands.

Every single high school pyramid has at least one split feeder.

It’s pretext here. They could clearly state that they are fixing just split feeders, but they are going way bigger.

Split feeders are not good, but when you have two middle schools less than 2 miles apart, it's kind of difficult to see how they can do otherwise.

If it's roughly a 50/50 split sure, but if you're in a split feeder like Sangster where a solid majority of kids are zoned for one and a small percent for the other, it does suck to be in the small percent.

[Anonymous]

Many of the posts on this thread are from Langley families not wanting to be redistricted to Herndon or West Springfield families not wanting to be redistricted to Lewis.

They are prepared to throw the School Board a bone in the form of redistricting OTHER families in split feeders and attendance islands.

Those families may or may not want to be redistricted, or in some cases moving those families could weaken schools.

They should not move kids just so they can declare their boundary study a success while placating the noisiest parents from Langley and West Springfield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of the posts on this thread are from Langley families not wanting to be redistricted to Herndon or West Springfield families not wanting to be redistricted to Lewis.

They are prepared to throw the School Board a bone in the form of redistricting OTHER families in split feeders and attendance islands.

Those families may or may not want to be redistricted, or in some cases moving those families could weaken schools.

They should not move kids just so they can declare their boundary study a success while placating the noisiest parents from Langley and West Springfield.

I don't doubt there are many Langley people on here. However, I am neither Langley nor West Springfield. There are lots of schools in this mix. Mine is one that Robyn Lady specifically mentioned as needing to move kids out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of the posts on this thread are from Langley families not wanting to be redistricted to Herndon or West Springfield families not wanting to be redistricted to Lewis.

They are prepared to throw the School Board a bone in the form of redistricting OTHER families in split feeders and attendance islands.

Those families may or may not want to be redistricted, or in some cases moving those families could weaken schools.

They should not move kids just so they can declare their boundary study a success while placating the noisiest parents from Langley and West Springfield.

Wtaf. Go back and read the last page and a half. No one from Langley is throwing anyone else under the bus.

We know you like to hate on Langley, but that’s pretty close to slander, my dear.

If you want to advocate to mess with other kids, whatever. But no need to LIE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the posts on this thread are from Langley families not wanting to be redistricted to Herndon or West Springfield families not wanting to be redistricted to Lewis.

They are prepared to throw the School Board a bone in the form of redistricting OTHER families in split feeders and attendance islands.

Those families may or may not want to be redistricted, or in some cases moving those families could weaken schools.

They should not move kids just so they can declare their boundary study a success while placating the noisiest parents from Langley and West Springfield.

Wtaf. Go back and read the last page and a half. No one from Langley is throwing anyone else under the bus.

We know you like to hate on Langley, but that’s pretty close to slander, my dear.

If you want to advocate to mess with other kids, whatever. But no need to LIE.

You know, I used to think the “noisiest voices” didn’t deserve to be placated. Then the last election happened and many USA citizens didn’t vote, and seemed to not care. Listening to people who don’t/can’t show up and guessing what is on their mind is impossible.

In our democracy showing up and using your voice is part of our job as citizens, not something to be derided.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s important for FCPS to implement sweeping boundary changes so that they can deliver on the equity that they talk about. Removing AAP would also help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the posts on this thread are from Langley families not wanting to be redistricted to Herndon or West Springfield families not wanting to be redistricted to Lewis.

They are prepared to throw the School Board a bone in the form of redistricting OTHER families in split feeders and attendance islands.

Those families may or may not want to be redistricted, or in some cases moving those families could weaken schools.

They should not move kids just so they can declare their boundary study a success while placating the noisiest parents from Langley and West Springfield.

Wtaf. Go back and read the last page and a half. No one from Langley is throwing anyone else under the bus.

We know you like to hate on Langley, but that’s pretty close to slander, my dear.

If you want to advocate to mess with other kids, whatever. But no need to LIE.

+100
Really sick of the poster(s) who keep making that claim. Plenty of people stand to be redistricted if the SB has their way - not just a portion of Langley. WSHS parents are very upset too, just as one example.