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

[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.

Lady, what are you smoking? Did you go to the breakout room? That’s exactly how it worked. The breakout rooms were formed after the main presentations. I was one of the spokespeople for one of the online breakout rooms. I know exactly what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lady, what are you smoking? Did you go to the breakout room? That’s exactly how it worked. The breakout rooms were formed after the main presentations. I was one of the spokespeople for one of the online breakout rooms. I know exactly what happened.

DP. Not every spokesperson summarized the views of the whole group. At least one used their time to just talk about what they personally wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I heard we will see one brand new map plus one revised map (scenario 2). After that, Reid will make a final recommendation.

[Anonymous]

I would put the demographic, ES zoning and neighborhood border data into Claude and have this optimized in 5 minutes. The goals should be very simple- proximity and reduction of split feeders. Parents opinions of what school they like should be irrelevant for drawing public school boundaries. Huge waste of money doing what they are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1 There was a poll at the end. At the second meeting, the poll results were not even close. I'm not sure about the first meeting though.

The poll tool wasn't working at the first meeting. But sentiment in the room was primarily for Scenario 2, with a couple folks pointing out things they didn't like about that scenario.

+1 thank you for backing me up. So the PP who said that was not true when I posted that earlier is completely wrong and a liar. There weren’t even at the meeting.

I was at the first meeting, not the second one and no, the poll wasn't working and they absolutely did not say that Scenario 2 was the overwhelming pick. Also, what is wrong with you that you attended BOTH meetings?

[Anonymous]

The new maps need to focus on HS and Ms, leave the ES alone unless it is necessary because a school is over capacity. Someone said Floris might be after taking a bunch of kids from Coates, so maybe move Floris kids to Fox Mill where there is space. Other then that, the focus is the HS and realigning MS to match the HSs as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lady, what are you smoking? Did you go to the breakout room? That’s exactly how it worked. The breakout rooms were formed after the main presentations. I was one of the spokespeople for one of the online breakout rooms. I know exactly what happened.

I attended the first meeting online and there was absolutely no spokesperson in our breakout room. There was an FCPS employee that was taking notes as we all commented on the scenarios. My breakout group didn't even get past Scenario 1 - most people spent the whole time talking about how ridiculous the elementary school changes were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lady, what are you smoking? Did you go to the breakout room? That’s exactly how it worked. The breakout rooms were formed after the main presentations. I was one of the spokespeople for one of the online breakout rooms. I know exactly what happened.

I attended the first meeting online and there was absolutely no spokesperson in our breakout room. There was an FCPS employee that was taking notes as we all commented on the scenarios. My breakout group didn't even get past Scenario 1 - most people spent the whole time talking about how ridiculous the elementary school changes were.

The FCPS employee privately messaged me and asked me to summarize the group’s thoughts. I heard each spokesperson and it sounded like Scenario 2 was the clear winner. I’m sorry that upsets you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The new maps need to focus on HS and Ms, leave the ES alone unless it is necessary because a school is over capacity. Someone said Floris might be after taking a bunch of kids from Coates, so maybe move Floris kids to Fox Mill where there is space. Other than that, the focus is the HS and realigning MS to match the HSs as possible.

Floris won’t be far over capacity. If they are actually going to build the Silver Line ES, leave Floris alone for now (and for once).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1 There was a poll at the end. At the second meeting, the poll results were not even close. I'm not sure about the first meeting though.

The poll tool wasn't working at the first meeting. But sentiment in the room was primarily for Scenario 2, with a couple folks pointing out things they didn't like about that scenario.

+1 thank you for backing me up. So the PP who said that was not true when I posted that earlier is completely wrong and a liar. There weren’t even at the meeting.

I was at the first meeting, not the second one and no, the poll wasn't working and they absolutely did not say that Scenario 2 was the overwhelming pick. Also, what is wrong with you that you attended BOTH meetings?

Each person who summarized their group’s thoughts mostly said Scenario 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1 There was a poll at the end. At the second meeting, the poll results were not even close. I'm not sure about the first meeting though.

The poll tool wasn't working at the first meeting. But sentiment in the room was primarily for Scenario 2, with a couple folks pointing out things they didn't like about that scenario.

+1 thank you for backing me up. So the PP who said that was not true when I posted that earlier is completely wrong and a liar. There weren’t even at the meeting.

I was at the first meeting, not the second one and no, the poll wasn't working and they absolutely did not say that Scenario 2 was the overwhelming pick. Also, what is wrong with you that you attended BOTH meetings?

I was curious to hear the favored scenario at both meetings. It was definitely Scenario 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lady, what are you smoking? Did you go to the breakout room? That’s exactly how it worked. The breakout rooms were formed after the main presentations. I was one of the spokespeople for one of the online breakout rooms. I know exactly what happened.

I attended the first meeting online and there was absolutely no spokesperson in our breakout room. There was an FCPS employee that was taking notes as we all commented on the scenarios. My breakout group didn't even get past Scenario 1 - most people spent the whole time talking about how ridiculous the elementary school changes were.

Well in our breakout room we were asked to give our opinion on each scenario. Based on responses it was clear Scenario 2 was the winner. Then one person from each breakout room was asked to be the spokesperson and share their thoughts with the whole group. We had to summarize our group discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The loss of Oak Hill should cover it. No one else should have to move--and, if it is needed, it makes sense that the Cub Run people would go to Westfield. That should be sufficient to make Chantilly a reasonable size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The loss of Oak Hill should cover it. No one else should have to move--and, if it is needed, it makes sense that the Cub Run people would go to Westfield. That should be sufficient to make Chantilly a reasonable size.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think for sure all the time.