FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a blue county (and it is VERY blue) you people sure are pretty intolerant of diversity. Keep those immigrant children away!

FCPS leadership has been held in low regard for a long time; however, people do tend in many cases to like their existing schools and school-based administrators and teachers.

Now the School Board is poised to do away with the one aspect of the system that people still like.

The point is that the county votes blue - overwhelmingly supporting very relaxed (if any) enforcement of border security. Some county schools (Herndon, Justice, Lewis, Mt. Vernon, Annandale) have absorbed the brunt of this policy. So other schools and neighborhoods don't see the impact. It is time they shared in the difficult situation in which this puts schools. Essentially like Governors Abbott and DeSantis sending migrants to the big cities and Martha's Vineyard - these places need to understand the impact.

As long as the residents in Langley, McLean, Oakton, West Springfield, Robinson, Madison don't see the true impact they will continue voting blue.

Adjusting school boundaries is a very crude way to try and send a message about federal immigration policy. The various schools you mention stand to be affected quite differently, yet still in some cases in ways that will further erode support for FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I lived elsewhere, there were
Minor boundary adjustments every year. This meant there was no need for a huge boundary jump in a single year. It was a system which worked very well. I would love to see that adopted here.

That would stink to have to make all new friends potentially out of nowhere. Probably opt for private if we had a boundary change that had us all of the sudden going to Lewis.

The redistricting advocate on this board would have you believe that there is absolutely no cost to kids when a redistricting occurs. Her desire to homogenous poverty rates at each school blinds her to the horrible costs of redistricting.

You really need to get ovet thinking it’s one person.

No thanks.

Regardless of whether you are one or two, your lowest common denominator way of thinking is in the distinct minority in our county, even among democrats. To me, you (perhaps collectively) are just one single dimension thinker.

But who knows, maybe this board will give you the results you seek. Just be careful what you wish for - a sinking tide lowers all boats.

I feel like you have written over half of the fear mongering posts in this thread. Sometimes I wish we had to register to post on here.

If you’ve got no rebuttal or response attack the messenger, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I lived elsewhere, there were
Minor boundary adjustments every year. This meant there was no need for a huge boundary jump in a single year. It was a system which worked very well. I would love to see that adopted here.

That would stink to have to make all new friends potentially out of nowhere. Probably opt for private if we had a boundary change that had us all of the sudden going to Lewis.

Good luck paying for private schools when your property value is going to drop by 25%, potentially putting you underwater on your mortgage, plus they will have to raise property tax rates to compensate for the massive loss in real estate assessments.

I am far more worried about the drop in property values that will come with another trump presidency since his cronies are determined to get rid of federal employees. Our housing market will collapse.

Red herring. The school redistricting situation is much more relevant to Fairfax housing values than the upcoming election.

It is not a red herring! Have you read about the project 2025 - “Project 2025 is a collection of policy proposals to reshape the executive branch of the U.S. federal government at an unprecedented scale in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election”? This will happen in less than a year if trump wins. Given how much our property values depend on federal jobs and contracting, our area values will collapse while the school board is still I. The “community engagement” portion of any boundary change process.

DP. Can you take this to the Politics forum? This thread is about the School Board’s plan to change school boundaries.

+1

[Anonymous]

From a recent article. This seems very commonsense and straight forward.

“The revised policy retains elements of the existing one, such as assigning students to schools based on proximity to their homes. However, under the proposed changes, when establishing new boundaries, the superintendent must ensure that schools have sufficient capacity for future students; avoid splitting students from the same neighborhood among different schools; minimize student travel times; and provide equal access to programming.

The superintendent may also consider additional factors when setting school boundaries, including the following.

Minimizing disruptions to teaching

Reducing reliance on temporary classrooms

Cutting future budget costs

Ensuring easy access to nearby neighborhoods

Enhancing family involvement

Maintaining long-term stability in school attendance zones

While these additional criteria are optional, At-large school board member Kyle McDaniel emphasized the superintendent must prioritize the first four.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I lived elsewhere, there were
Minor boundary adjustments every year. This meant there was no need for a huge boundary jump in a single year. It was a system which worked very well. I would love to see that adopted here.

That would stink to have to make all new friends potentially out of nowhere. Probably opt for private if we had a boundary change that had us all of the sudden going to Lewis.

Good luck paying for private schools when your property value is going to drop by 25%, potentially putting you underwater on your mortgage, plus they will have to raise property tax rates to compensate for the massive loss in real estate assessments.

I am far more worried about the drop in property values that will come with another trump presidency since his cronies are determined to get rid of federal employees. Our housing market will collapse.

Red herring. The school redistricting situation is much more relevant to Fairfax housing values than the upcoming election.

It is not a red herring! Have you read about the project 2025 - “Project 2025 is a collection of policy proposals to reshape the executive branch of the U.S. federal government at an unprecedented scale in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election”? This will happen in less than a year if trump wins. Given how much our property values depend on federal jobs and contracting, our area values will collapse while the school board is still I. The “community engagement” portion of any boundary change process.

DP. Can you take this to the Politics forum? This thread is about the School Board’s plan to change school boundaries.

+1

It is directly related to the assertion that the boundary policy will cause a decline in property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a recent article. This seems very commonsense and straight forward.

“The revised policy retains elements of the existing one, such as assigning students to schools based on proximity to their homes. However, under the proposed changes, when establishing new boundaries, the superintendent must ensure that schools have sufficient capacity for future students; avoid splitting students from the same neighborhood among different schools; minimize student travel times; and provide equal access to programming.

The superintendent may also consider additional factors when setting school boundaries, including the following.

Minimizing disruptions to teaching

Reducing reliance on temporary classrooms

Cutting future budget costs

Ensuring easy access to nearby neighborhoods

Enhancing family involvement

Maintaining long-term stability in school attendance zones

While these additional criteria are optional, At-large school board member Kyle McDaniel emphasized the superintendent must prioritize the first four.”

You keep posting excerpts from the same article. Perhaps you ought to study the draft policy itself.

Or maybe you’re Kyle and just trying to keep putting your name out there. As has been noted, he moved his own family into the Oakton HS district so he picked one of the pyramids not likely to be affected. Classic “do as I say, not as I do” behavior.

[Anonymous]

In the policy, “Equal Access to Programming” I assume means boundaries that allow for convenient and guaranteed transfers to neighboring schools with a unique ancient or foreign language (like Latin/sign language/Italian/etc), or a bespoke program that the base school doesn’t offer (like a Leadership Academy, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the policy, “Equal Access to Programming” I assume means boundaries that allow for convenient and guaranteed transfers to neighboring schools with a unique ancient or foreign language (like Latin/sign language/Italian/etc), or a bespoke program that the base school doesn’t offer (like a Leadership Academy, etc).

Uh, no high school in FCPS offers Italian.

If you're going to come on here and shill for Democrats on the School Board looking to upend some of FCPS's best pyramids, at least try to familiarize yourself with the district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just need to send your kid to private or make sure you avoid being near a poor school boundary. As long as the county continues focus all their attention on these areas and populations, it’s best to avoid them. This isn’t rocket science.

I don't think you live in Fairfax because your advice doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. In at least one case, they are gearing up to move hundreds of kids who live closer to their current school than the poorer school to which they'll be reassigned. In another case, the kids do live closer to the poorer school than their current school, but their neighborhoods have been at their existing school for 30 years and their current school recently got expanded.

It will not matter, unless parents organize to nip this in the bud. Maybe they can call it FCPS-POP or FCPS "Preserve Our Pyramids."

The overwhelming majority of residents in Fairfax county want the progressive equity-focused educational leadership. It has been in all the messaging for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just need to send your kid to private or make sure you avoid being near a poor school boundary. As long as the county continues focus all their attention on these areas and populations, it’s best to avoid them. This isn’t rocket science.

I don't think you live in Fairfax because your advice doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. In at least one case, they are gearing up to move hundreds of kids who live closer to their current school than the poorer school to which they'll be reassigned. In another case, the kids do live closer to the poorer school than their current school, but their neighborhoods have been at their existing school for 30 years and their current school recently got expanded.

It will not matter, unless parents organize to nip this in the bud. Maybe they can call it FCPS-POP or FCPS "Preserve Our Pyramids."

The overwhelming majority of residents in Fairfax county want the progressive equity-focused educational leadership. It has been in all the messaging for years.

That’s just not true. Literally no SB member campaigned on redistricting, and we all know why, because they would not be on the board if they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just need to send your kid to private or make sure you avoid being near a poor school boundary. As long as the county continues focus all their attention on these areas and populations, it’s best to avoid them. This isn’t rocket science.

I don't think you live in Fairfax because your advice doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. In at least one case, they are gearing up to move hundreds of kids who live closer to their current school than the poorer school to which they'll be reassigned. In another case, the kids do live closer to the poorer school than their current school, but their neighborhoods have been at their existing school for 30 years and their current school recently got expanded.

It will not matter, unless parents organize to nip this in the bud. Maybe they can call it FCPS-POP or FCPS "Preserve Our Pyramids."

The overwhelming majority of residents in Fairfax county want the progressive equity-focused educational leadership. It has been in all the messaging for years.

That’s just not true. Literally no SB member campaigned on redistricting, and we all know why, because they would not be on the board if they did.

Exactly this, not to mention that the word "equity" doesn't appear once in the draft of the revised boundary policy. They clearly have an agenda, but they won't be transparent about their agenda precisely because it's an unpopular one they didn't campaign on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the policy, “Equal Access to Programming” I assume means boundaries that allow for convenient and guaranteed transfers to neighboring schools with a unique ancient or foreign language (like Latin/sign language/Italian/etc), or a bespoke program that the base school doesn’t offer (like a Leadership Academy, etc).

Uh, no high school in FCPS offers Italian.

If you're going to come on here and shill for Democrats on the School Board looking to upend some of FCPS's best pyramids, at least try to familiarize yourself with the district.

Equal Access to programming could actually negate the need for boundary changes if students can conveniently transfer over the boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the policy, “Equal Access to Programming” I assume means boundaries that allow for convenient and guaranteed transfers to neighboring schools with a unique ancient or foreign language (like Latin/sign language/Italian/etc), or a bespoke program that the base school doesn’t offer (like a Leadership Academy, etc).

Uh, no high school in FCPS offers Italian.

If you're going to come on here and shill for Democrats on the School Board looking to upend some of FCPS's best pyramids, at least try to familiarize yourself with the district.

Equal Access to programming could actually negate the need for boundary changes if students can conveniently transfer over the boundary.

No one knows what they mean by "equal access to programming." Most likely they'll reiterate that it means every student has access to challenging courses, which is already the case.

This whole exercise is being driven by a desire to bail out Lewis and stick it to West Springfield and a few other pyramids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the policy, “Equal Access to Programming” I assume means boundaries that allow for convenient and guaranteed transfers to neighboring schools with a unique ancient or foreign language (like Latin/sign language/Italian/etc), or a bespoke program that the base school doesn’t offer (like a Leadership Academy, etc).

Uh, no high school in FCPS offers Italian.

If you're going to come on here and shill for Democrats on the School Board looking to upend some of FCPS's best pyramids, at least try to familiarize yourself with the district.

Equal Access to programming could actually negate the need for boundary changes if students can conveniently transfer over the boundary.

No one knows what they mean by "equal access to programming." Most likely they'll reiterate that it means every student has access to challenging courses, which is already the case.

This whole exercise is being driven by a desire to bail out Lewis and stick it to West Springfield and a few other pyramids.

Are any board members publically in support of this? I’ve seen no evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the policy, “Equal Access to Programming” I assume means boundaries that allow for convenient and guaranteed transfers to neighboring schools with a unique ancient or foreign language (like Latin/sign language/Italian/etc), or a bespoke program that the base school doesn’t offer (like a Leadership Academy, etc).

Uh, no high school in FCPS offers Italian.

If you're going to come on here and shill for Democrats on the School Board looking to upend some of FCPS's best pyramids, at least try to familiarize yourself with the district.

Equal Access to programming could actually negate the need for boundary changes if students can conveniently transfer over the boundary.

No one knows what they mean by "equal access to programming." Most likely they'll reiterate that it means every student has access to challenging courses, which is already the case.

This whole exercise is being driven by a desire to bail out Lewis and stick it to West Springfield and a few other pyramids.

Are any board members publically in support of this? I’ve seen no evidence.

Look harder.