FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh they will care. The effected homes would lose $100-200k in value overnight. If you are trying to move the equivalent of an entire elementary school, call it ~1,000 homes give or take. That is $100-200 million in home equity destroyed to save expansion/renovation costs for a good school (which will eventually need to be spent anyway because the county will eventually grow because that is how civilizations work).

How well-versed are you in human geography? I would support whatever it is that experts in their fields support. FPAC is a committee of such external experts and even they have stated support of boundary changes in their guidance.

Listening to emotional laymen at community participation who primarily care about their bottom line and their own situation should not hold much weight because they are effectively the equivalent of an anecdote.

I'm just saying that Fairfax Co is projected to grow by 200,000 people in the next 25 years, so ... school expansions and construction are inevitable.

I don’t think so, the growth is more in the type of housing that have fewer children. Most of Tyson’s growth is aimed at dink households (yes some children will live there but at much lower rates).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh they will care. The effected homes would lose $100-200k in value overnight. If you are trying to move the equivalent of an entire elementary school, call it ~1,000 homes give or take. That is $100-200 million in home equity destroyed to save expansion/renovation costs for a good school (which will eventually need to be spent anyway because the county will eventually grow because that is how civilizations work).

How well-versed are you in human geography? I would support whatever it is that experts in their fields support. FPAC is a committee of such external experts and even they have stated support of boundary changes in their guidance.

Listening to emotional laymen at community participation who primarily care about their bottom line and their own situation should not hold much weight because they are effectively the equivalent of an anecdote.

DP. The county puts out annual reports that project growth and also has a "Residential Development Applications" dashboard that estimates potential student yields in different pyramids if various residential projects currently under consideration. FCPS chooses not to factor all that information into account when either forecasting enrollments or making capital investments.

Then, when they end up with a mess on their hands due to their own poor planning, they turn around and claim boundary changes are the solution to their problems. You can't really be surprised that many people act with a mixture of anger and frustration - especially when those on the School Board who are the biggest advocates for redistricting live in areas where the schools were recently expanded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh they will care. The effected homes would lose $100-200k in value overnight. If you are trying to move the equivalent of an entire elementary school, call it ~1,000 homes give or take. That is $100-200 million in home equity destroyed to save expansion/renovation costs for a good school (which will eventually need to be spent anyway because the county will eventually grow because that is how civilizations work).

How well-versed are you in human geography? I would support whatever it is that experts in their fields support. FPAC is a committee of such external experts and even they have stated support of boundary changes in their guidance.

Listening to emotional laymen at community participation who primarily care about their bottom line and their own situation should not hold much weight because they are effectively the equivalent of an anecdote.

I'm just saying that Fairfax Co is projected to grow by 200,000 people in the next 25 years, so ... school expansions and construction are inevitable.

I don’t think so, the growth is more in the type of housing that have fewer children. Most of Tyson’s growth is aimed at dink households (yes some children will live there but at much lower rates).

Please educate yourself. The "Residential Development Applications" dashboard mentioned in the prior post forecasts a potential yield to Marshall of 750 additional students (HS) and to McLean of 631 additional students, due primarily to projects in or near Tysons.

If you look at the elementary schools serving Tysons, at least two (Spring Hill and Westgate) are seeing some significant growth. Spring Hill went from 830 to 946 over the past two years. Westgate went from 551 to 610. While other schools are also seeing some post-Covid rebounds in enrollment, it's generally not to the same degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh they will care. The effected homes would lose $100-200k in value overnight. If you are trying to move the equivalent of an entire elementary school, call it ~1,000 homes give or take. That is $100-200 million in home equity destroyed to save expansion/renovation costs for a good school (which will eventually need to be spent anyway because the county will eventually grow because that is how civilizations work).

How well-versed are you in human geography? I would support whatever it is that experts in their fields support. FPAC is a committee of such external experts and even they have stated support of boundary changes in their guidance.

Listening to emotional laymen at community participation who primarily care about their bottom line and their own situation should not hold much weight because they are effectively the equivalent of an anecdote.

I'm just saying that Fairfax Co is projected to grow by 200,000 people in the next 25 years, so ... school expansions and construction are inevitable.

I don’t think so, the growth is more in the type of housing that have fewer children. Most of Tyson’s growth is aimed at dink households (yes some children will live there but at much lower rates).

Please educate yourself. The "Residential Development Applications" dashboard mentioned in the prior post forecasts a potential yield to Marshall of 750 additional students (HS) and to McLean of 631 additional students, due primarily to projects in or near Tysons.

If you look at the elementary schools serving Tysons, at least two (Spring Hill and Westgate) are seeing some significant growth. Spring Hill went from 830 to 946 over the past two years. Westgate went from 551 to 610. While other schools are also seeing some post-Covid rebounds in enrollment, it's generally not to the same degree.

How accurate are those forecasts? Relying on them and expanding Bucknell get FCPS a half empty school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It worked really well for some schools. The only ones moved were a small number of kids from Floris and one of the smaller schools in Fox Mill. SLHS scores have improved but it is very much a school within a school and there is not a huge feeling of community. Kids from Floris and Fox Mill move to other schools for AP and Japanese purposes, so rarely Herndon. There are plenty of folks who dislike the IB and would like it to go away. A good number of people move in between MS and HS to go to a different HS.

The kids who do attend SLHS do just fine academically and many of the kids go on to good colleges. I think that part of the "tightness" of the Fox Mill ES feel is that so many kids know, from older siblings and neighbors, that the only consistency they are going to have in school is with the Fox Mill crew. No one else moves from Carson to SLHS with them and they end up taking mainly honors and IB clsses at SLHS so they don't really hang out with a decent percentage of the other kids at SLHS.

And I don't recall a lot of people jumping in to support the schools that were moved, more saving their schools boundaries and throwing other schools uner the bus. So yeah, pretty much what we see in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh they will care. The effected homes would lose $100-200k in value overnight. If you are trying to move the equivalent of an entire elementary school, call it ~1,000 homes give or take. That is $100-200 million in home equity destroyed to save expansion/renovation costs for a good school (which will eventually need to be spent anyway because the county will eventually grow because that is how civilizations work).

There is a reason boundary adjustments are the third rail for school boards. It effects people kids and their largest financial investment, at the same time. It is political suicide in the districts where the changes happen unless the community supports it. I 100% guaranty another democrat will run against them in the election (in addition to a republican).

This is why many districts do regular boundary reviews for the whole district. Just like FCPS is trying to do. The current system means everyone avoids the issue or makes small changes that have ripple affects for others. This work needs to be done regularly without all the political influence.

This is simply not accurate. Most districts DO NOT adjust boundaries regularly or even at all, unless a community is asking for it. Most districts expand facilities to accommodate students as well performing schools and shut down poor performing schools.

school systems adjust boundaries as infrequently as they can. FCPS is no different. They have kicked the can down the road as far as they can for as long as they could. It’s time and it’s going to be over the entire county and in all levels of education. We desperately need a reset. This is it.

The only school systems I know (including FCPS) shut schools when the student population decreases. I haven’t heard of a school that was shut down for that was shut down for poor performance as the main reason, let alone it being practiced by “most” school systems. Although, I am sure there is an example somewhere that you will dig up.

We shall see. Changing school boundaries is the most contentious thing an SB can do unless it is instigated by the community. Moving some kids from one good school to another will be received with ruffled feathers and consternation. Moving kids from a top performing school to a poorly performing school will be met with outright revolts, especially in the communities we all are discussing. If the SB and the superintendent are smart, they will tinker with similarly performing schools. If not, they can probably kiss their further political ambitions goodbye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh they will care. The effected homes would lose $100-200k in value overnight. If you are trying to move the equivalent of an entire elementary school, call it ~1,000 homes give or take. That is $100-200 million in home equity destroyed to save expansion/renovation costs for a good school (which will eventually need to be spent anyway because the county will eventually grow because that is how civilizations work).

How well-versed are you in human geography? I would support whatever it is that experts in their fields support. FPAC is a committee of such external experts and even they have stated support of boundary changes in their guidance.

Listening to emotional laymen at community participation who primarily care about their bottom line and their own situation should not hold much weight because they are effectively the equivalent of an anecdote.

I'm just saying that Fairfax Co is projected to grow by 200,000 people in the next 25 years, so ... school expansions and construction are inevitable.

I don’t think so, the growth is more in the type of housing that have fewer children. Most of Tyson’s growth is aimed at dink households (yes some children will live there but at much lower rates).

Please educate yourself. The "Residential Development Applications" dashboard mentioned in the prior post forecasts a potential yield to Marshall of 750 additional students (HS) and to McLean of 631 additional students, due primarily to projects in or near Tysons.

If you look at the elementary schools serving Tysons, at least two (Spring Hill and Westgate) are seeing some significant growth. Spring Hill went from 830 to 946 over the past two years. Westgate went from 551 to 610. While other schools are also seeing some post-Covid rebounds in enrollment, it's generally not to the same degree.

How accurate are those forecasts? Relying on them and expanding Bucknell get FCPS a half empty school

That dashboard projects a potential yield of 62 more HS kids in the West Potomac pyramid - 21 from a development zoned to Belle View and 41 from the North Hill development zoned to Bucknell. Those numbers would not have resulted in a half-empty school at Bucknell, where the enrollment remains low but did increase 24 students last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh they will care. The effected homes would lose $100-200k in value overnight. If you are trying to move the equivalent of an entire elementary school, call it ~1,000 homes give or take. That is $100-200 million in home equity destroyed to save expansion/renovation costs for a good school (which will eventually need to be spent anyway because the county will eventually grow because that is how civilizations work).

There is a reason boundary adjustments are the third rail for school boards. It effects people kids and their largest financial investment, at the same time. It is political suicide in the districts where the changes happen unless the community supports it. I 100% guaranty another democrat will run against them in the election (in addition to a republican).

This is why many districts do regular boundary reviews for the whole district. Just like FCPS is trying to do. The current system means everyone avoids the issue or makes small changes that have ripple affects for others. This work needs to be done regularly without all the political influence.

This is simply not accurate. Most districts DO NOT adjust boundaries regularly or even at all, unless a community is asking for it. Most districts expand facilities to accommodate students as well performing schools and shut down poor performing schools.

school systems adjust boundaries as infrequently as they can. FCPS is no different. They have kicked the can down the road as far as they can for as long as they could. It’s time and it’s going to be over the entire county and in all levels of education. We desperately need a reset. This is it.

The only school systems I know (including FCPS) shut schools when the student population decreases. I haven’t heard of a school that was shut down for that was shut down for poor performance as the main reason, let alone it being practiced by “most” school systems. Although, I am sure there is an example somewhere that you will dig up.

We shall see. Changing school boundaries is the most contentious thing an SB can do unless it is instigated by the community. Moving some kids from one good school to another will be received with ruffled feathers and consternation. Moving kids from a top performing school to a poorly performing school will be met with outright revolts, especially in the communities we all are discussing. If the SB and the superintendent are smart, they will tinker with similarly performing schools. If not, they can probably kiss their further political ambitions goodbye.

As evidence of how contentious this is going to be, just the IDEA of changing the policy that MIGHT result in boundary changes resulted in a group of parents to form a civic organization and grow its membership to 1,500 people and start showing up at meetings to protest and confronting their SB members --- all in only 30 days after they found out about it. Just imagine what happens when firm proposals or made. It will be something to behold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh they will care. The effected homes would lose $100-200k in value overnight. If you are trying to move the equivalent of an entire elementary school, call it ~1,000 homes give or take. That is $100-200 million in home equity destroyed to save expansion/renovation costs for a good school (which will eventually need to be spent anyway because the county will eventually grow because that is how civilizations work).

There is a reason boundary adjustments are the third rail for school boards. It effects people kids and their largest financial investment, at the same time. It is political suicide in the districts where the changes happen unless the community supports it. I 100% guaranty another democrat will run against them in the election (in addition to a republican).

This is why many districts do regular boundary reviews for the whole district. Just like FCPS is trying to do. The current system means everyone avoids the issue or makes small changes that have ripple affects for others. This work needs to be done regularly without all the political influence.

This is simply not accurate. Most districts DO NOT adjust boundaries regularly or even at all, unless a community is asking for it. Most districts expand facilities to accommodate students as well performing schools and shut down poor performing schools.

school systems adjust boundaries as infrequently as they can. FCPS is no different. They have kicked the can down the road as far as they can for as long as they could. It’s time and it’s going to be over the entire county and in all levels of education. We desperately need a reset. This is it.

The only school systems I know (including FCPS) shut schools when the student population decreases. I haven’t heard of a school that was shut down for that was shut down for poor performance as the main reason, let alone it being practiced by “most” school systems. Although, I am sure there is an example somewhere that you will dig up.

We shall see. Changing school boundaries is the most contentious thing an SB can do unless it is instigated by the community. Moving some kids from one good school to another will be received with ruffled feathers and consternation. Moving kids from a top performing school to a poorly performing school will be met with outright revolts, especially in the communities we all are discussing. If the SB and the superintendent are smart, they will tinker with similarly performing schools. If not, they can probably kiss their further political ambitions goodbye.

I hope at least one is brave enough to do what is right over any potential future political career. They need to look at the situation without political agendas (social Justice or protecting mainly the interests of rich supporting constituents). Get FCPS back on track .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It worked really well for some schools. The only ones moved were a small number of kids from Floris and one of the smaller schools in Fox Mill. SLHS scores have improved but it is very much a school within a school and there is not a huge feeling of community. Kids from Floris and Fox Mill move to other schools for AP and Japanese purposes, so rarely Herndon. There are plenty of folks who dislike the IB and would like it to go away. A good number of people move in between MS and HS to go to a different HS.

The kids who do attend SLHS do just fine academically and many of the kids go on to good colleges. I think that part of the "tightness" of the Fox Mill ES feel is that so many kids know, from older siblings and neighbors, that the only consistency they are going to have in school is with the Fox Mill crew. No one else moves from Carson to SLHS with them and they end up taking mainly honors and IB clsses at SLHS so they don't really hang out with a decent percentage of the other kids at SLHS.

And I don't recall a lot of people jumping in to support the schools that were moved, more saving their schools boundaries and throwing other schools uner the bus. So yeah, pretty much what we see in this thread.

It wasn't just Floris and Fox Mill. A good chunk of Wolftrap was also moved to Sunrise Valley and then from Thoreau/Madison to Hughes/South Lakes. A not insignificant number of families in that "Madison island" ended up pupil placing their kids for AP to avoid South Lakes or selling their houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As evidence of how contentious this is going to be, just the IDEA of changing the policy that MIGHT result in boundary changes resulted in a group of parents to form a civic organization and grow its membership to 1,500 people and start showing up at meetings to protest and confronting their SB members --- all in only 30 days after they found out about it. Just imagine what happens when firm proposals or made. It will be something to behold.

Keep telling yourself you have any say in the matter. Here is a thread from last time with plenty of people making the same arguments, like:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to provide you disappointing news, but the redistricting will never happen.
Too many lawsuits by homeowners claiming that their home values will be hurt because
the proposed redistricting.

All the same themes. Calling people who don't want it racist, blaming politicians (notably it was supposedly the republicans' fault last time), calling the enrollment projections into question, etc. Hundreds of pages of drivel by people who think they matter, just like this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The FB group is small and spends most of its time asking for money for eventual law suits. There might be more active school specific FB groups but those are also likely to be small. And the people who mention what school their kids are in or will attend tend to be SHS and Langley. The people who are most upset about this and are most vocal about it tend to be from those specific schools. the Oakton, Centerville, Chantilly, SLHS parents I know don't seem to be all that worried. Most think that something needs to be done because of over crowding.

1,300 doesn’t strike me a a particularly small FB group, but do go on.

And the reason others at those schools seem indifferent is because they are ill-informed about the actual intentions of this school board where they are seeking to reset the entire map.

The school board staff poster seems to be very active this morning!

1,300 people is smaller then Lewis HS. A good percentage of those members are there just to see what people are saying about the changes and are not actual supporters. The social media posts they made to share have not been seen in any of the local groups that I am a member in. The go fund me for legal action is not close to being funded nor is the amount they are asking for close to what it will cost to sue. Most of the posts are made by admin.

So yeah, is is a small group that does not seem to be positioned to be all that influential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As evidence of how contentious this is going to be, just the IDEA of changing the policy that MIGHT result in boundary changes resulted in a group of parents to form a civic organization and grow its membership to 1,500 people and start showing up at meetings to protest and confronting their SB members --- all in only 30 days after they found out about it. Just imagine what happens when firm proposals or made. It will be something to behold.

Keep telling yourself you have any say in the matter. Here is a thread from last time with plenty of people making the same arguments, like:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to provide you disappointing news, but the redistricting will never happen.
Too many lawsuits by homeowners claiming that their home values will be hurt because
the proposed redistricting.

All the same themes. Calling people who don't want it racist, blaming politicians (notably it was supposedly the republicans' fault last time), calling the enrollment projections into question, etc. Hundreds of pages of drivel by people who think they matter, just like this thread.

DP. People learn from the last go-around.

The School Board learns that redistricting based on specific equity and demographic goals won't fly. That's why they now pretend the redistricting is intended to serve efficiency goals.

The opponents learn that you can't just complain about a potential loss of housing equity. That's why they are digging into the data that the School Board is either relying upon or ignoring to suggest their actions are either based on flawed data or not sufficiently data-driven.

A School Board has authority to adjust boundaries within its jurisdiction, and courts don't want to micro-manage public schools. They have other things to do. On the other hand, once you get Langley parents involved (which wasn't the case in 2008), the stakes get higher, more resources are brought to the table to delay the process, and the electorial consequences ratchet up. The School Board member who championed the South Lakes redistricting (Stu Gibson) never ran for office again, and the Dranesville member who made a hash out of the flawed 2021 Langley/McLean redistricting (Elaine Tholen) didn't seek re-election either. That's one reason why Karl Frisch et al are trying to push all this down to Reid and FCPS staff but at the end of the day it's still the elected officials who'll be held accountable.

[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.

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.

The Springfield district republican endorsed candidate was far more qualified than Sandy Anderson, and much more centrist/moderate.

She would not have supported rezoning, and would have fought for her constituents to stay in their neighborhood schools.

If you voted for anderson, then you chose poorly and the more fringe extreme candidate of the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SHS = WSHS, missed a letter. Sorry

WSHS parents are adamently against rezoning


If you think they want rezoning then you are grossly misinformed.