FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is literally part of their job to look at boundaries. They don't have to campaign on them. Fiscally it is the right thing to do instead of always building new capacity. This may include closing schools.

The people driving this waited until their own schools like West Potomac, Justice, Madison, and Oakton got additional capacity, and now they urge fiscal restraint and boundary changes?

They are from the same party that approved those prior decisions, so they don’t have a lot of legitimacy when they now claim there are no alternatives. It’s simply an opportunistic power play to move kids for social engineering.

Continuing the bad behavior of previous boards is not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The board should have stopped Karen Corbett Sanders but they did not. But that should not be repeated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is literally part of their job to look at boundaries. They don't have to campaign on them. Fiscally it is the right thing to do instead of always building new capacity. This may include closing schools.

Let’s not pretend that changing 40 years of precedent where this used to be a bottom up process (schools/communities asked for changes if they felt it was a good idea) and replacing it with a top down system (the superintendent and sb hire a consultant to propose changes based on FCPS facilities team projections and only after the decision is 90% baked do they engage the community) should not be a campaign issue. It certainly should. And it will be.

If they try to make this type of fundamental change before the next election, I am confident they will face recall elections.

The recall petitions are a good idea. They won’t be successful when it comes to recalling the current SB members but they will tarnish the Democratic brand by calling attention to the utter hypocrisy of people who waited until their own schools got expansions before they started demanding that other people’s kids get redistricted, and that will have an impact on other upcoming local elections as well as the willingness of these clowns to seek re-election to the SB.

[Anonymous]

There is a reason they are trying to jam this through by fall of 2026. It gives a little bit of time before the next election.

Doesn’t that show just how unpopular this is though? What a tone deaf, unaccountable approach to redistricting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is literally part of their job to look at boundaries. They don't have to campaign on them. Fiscally it is the right thing to do instead of always building new capacity. This may include closing schools.

The people driving this waited until their own schools like West Potomac, Justice, Madison, and Oakton got additional capacity, and now they urge fiscal restraint and boundary changes?

They are from the same party that approved those prior decisions, so they don’t have a lot of legitimacy when they now claim there are no alternatives. It’s simply an opportunistic power play to move kids for social engineering.

Continuing the bad behavior of previous boards is not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The board should have stopped Karen Corbett Sanders but they did not. But that should not be repeated.

OK. No more expansions of high schools to 3000 seats like West Potomac. Too big.

That doesn’t mean other schools shouldn’t be expanded to 2500 or kids should get kicked out of schools with 2600 or so kids when the parents aren’t asking to be redistricted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

What may be more effective than litigation, folks should consider launching candidates to oppose sb members that vote in favor of the policy change in the 2027 election. It is remarkably undemocratic that these members did not make a peep about this change during their campaigns. They should be forced to defend their position at the ballot box.

The problem is that the republicans put up extremist candidates. I was fully prepared to vote for republicans for school board in the fall but each one was a culture warrior focused on things like books and trans kids instead of fixing the operational mistakes and screwed up priorities of FCPS. If they can find normal people next time around, they might win. Problem is being on the school board is a crappy job - you work all the time, get paid almost nothing and have to deal with tons of people attacking you all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

The head of the Langley group definitely made veiled threats last night about litigation if the board adopts the policy revisions later this month.

They are bullies who don’t care about anyone else and can’t believe they might not always get their way.

It’s actually not a Langley group, but you know that already, just trying to add your spin to the SB’s unpopular policies.

Your definition of bullying is really weird -not sure when advocating for all of Fairfax county kids became bullying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason they are trying to jam this through by fall of 2026. It gives a little bit of time before the next election.

Doesn’t that show just how unpopular this is though? What a tone deaf, unaccountable approach to redistricting.

If they jam this through to start in the fall of 2026 and there is minimal grandfathering with kids forced to switch schools mid-stream there will be maximum dissatisfaction with the School board. The changes be challenging at that point to unwind but they will pay a price.

I know School Board elections are low information contests and many vote a party line but county-wide boundary changes with minimal phasing is a different animal. If they want to do something they haven’t done in 40 years that ignores all the intervening changes in FCPS schools and programs they will trigger a reaction they haven’t seen in decades as well.

[Anonymous]

Do the 60% of voters who don't have school age children care as much about redistricting- in favor or against? The 40% who do are probably split on boundary policy. If the SB does it sooner rather than later- they spin- we got it done- limited disruption, more efficient and saved tax payers $. I don't think you would see a republican takeover- of the SB or a successful recall effort. Litigation wise - it won't work to stop a boundary policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

The head of the Langley group definitely made veiled threats last night about litigation if the board adopts the policy revisions later this month.

They are bullies who don’t care about anyone else and can’t believe they might not always get their way.

It’s actually not a Langley group, but you know that already, just trying to add your spin to the SB’s unpopular policies.

Your definition of bullying is really weird -not sure when advocating for all of Fairfax county kids became bullying.

This is hilarious. Yes, great falls folks are well known for their concern about others in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the 60% of voters who don't have school age children care as much about redistricting- in favor or against? The 40% who do are probably split on boundary policy. If the SB does it sooner rather than later- they spin- we got it done- limited disruption, more efficient and saved tax payers $. I don't think you would see a republican takeover- of the SB or a successful recall effort. Litigation wise - it won't work to stop a boundary policy.

Um, limited disruption and saved taxpayer money?

Somebody has not been paying any attention at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

The head of the Langley group definitely made veiled threats last night about litigation if the board adopts the policy revisions later this month.

They are bullies who don’t care about anyone else and can’t believe they might not always get their way.

It’s actually not a Langley group, but you know that already, just trying to add your spin to the SB’s unpopular policies.

Your definition of bullying is really weird -not sure when advocating for all of Fairfax county kids became bullying.

This is hilarious. Yes, great falls folks are well known for their concern about others in the county.

Welcome back, SJW! Did you go somewhere nice for your summer vacation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

The head of the Langley group definitely made veiled threats last night about litigation if the board adopts the policy revisions later this month.

They are bullies who don’t care about anyone else and can’t believe they might not always get their way.

It’s actually not a Langley group, but you know that already, just trying to add your spin to the SB’s unpopular policies.

Your definition of bullying is really weird -not sure when advocating for all of Fairfax county kids became bullying.

These people don’t advocate for kids in our pyramid. It’s mostly Langley parents advocating for Great Falls to stay out of Herndon with a few West Springfield parents along for the ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the 60% of voters who don't have school age children care as much about redistricting- in favor or against? The 40% who do are probably split on boundary policy. If the SB does it sooner rather than later- they spin- we got it done- limited disruption, more efficient and saved tax payers $. I don't think you would see a republican takeover- of the SB or a successful recall effort. Litigation wise - it won't work to stop a boundary policy.

It’s a case of the SB winning the battle by pushing this now and possibly losing the war.

For example, in a place like Dranesville, if the net result of all this is to invest nothing in McLean, which continues to need an addition, but redistrict a lot of Langley and McLean kids to other schools it’s the end of Jimmy Bierman’s political career. He’ll be seen as a weak do-nothing who hid behind his seat on the BOS and let Robyn Lady get away with screwing many constituents.

If you think I’m exaggerating, look at the one School Board member who has now pivoted sharply to the center (and clearly has larger political ambitions) - Ryan McElveen. He knows exactly how toxic this may turn out.

Similiarly, Karl Frisch, who has larger political ambitions, is keeping as quiet as possible about all this. He’s more than happy to let Lady, McDaniel, Anderson, and Dunne take the lead in talking about the merits of Policy 8130 revisions and a county-wide redistricting and take the hits right now. That will work for him until it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

The head of the Langley group definitely made veiled threats last night about litigation if the board adopts the policy revisions later this month.

They are bullies who don’t care about anyone else and can’t believe they might not always get their way.

It’s actually not a Langley group, but you know that already, just trying to add your spin to the SB’s unpopular policies.

Your definition of bullying is really weird -not sure when advocating for all of Fairfax county kids became bullying.

These people don’t advocate for kids in our pyramid. It’s mostly Langley parents advocating for Great Falls to stay out of Herndon with a few West Springfield parents along for the ride.

You are just straight up lying. The group includes members across the county and invites everyone in the county to join.

You are just making assumptions based on your own prejudices and biases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Litigation can drag any changes out for years and make it a county wide issue. I would assume that along with litigation, they will pressure their county reps and state reps to oppose boundary changes.

How well did that work out for the people who sued over being sent to South Lakes back in 2008? The board posts from today could be carbon copies of the ones back then. Lots of whinging and threats to send their kids to private school, with nothing but a whimper as the court cases all failed to change any of it.