FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post the comments for that one?

They turned it off at 9pm and when i tried to refresh all data was gone. There were a lot about Coates (needs relief now). Quite a few about the McLean island going to falls church (people are against it). Lots for just stopping all together. Wanting residency checks, bringing pupil placements back before moving other kids

Well the interesting thing is the parents in the Falls Church island have a Facebook group that was instructing everyone to vote multiple times using an incognito browser. Their group started when the new boundary was announced and they questioned the “equity” of their children being moved to Falls Church High School. Their new angle is they are pointing out that it removes the one Title 1 school from McLean. Which would be a good point if their private group wasn’t originally focusing on property values and how their children are deserve to go to a school farther than two closer high schools. It seems like they are now trying to use the Title 1 families for their own gain. It should be the next episode of Nice White Parents.

Sounds like the Emerald Chase of Falls Church!

Yes, I am in the group because I am in the neighborhood (and do not want to change boundaries), but I am shocked at what my neighbors believe are valid reasons. This is literally one of the suggested talking points:
“· Moving our assigned HS from one of the top in US (McLean ranked 218, vs. FCHS at 5,630), does not provide equity for us or the children in our neighborhood (I think we need to be careful about how we communicate this point. Suggest we soften it or make it implied. I don’t think we’re going to garner a lot of goodwill being so direct)”

This is gross but not surprising. The title 1 kids at Timberlane never went to McLean. The rich kids did. The Title 1 kids were always at Luther Jackson and Falls Church. Not only is this argument completely disingenuous, it’s totally self-serving. These families are concerned about their property values and ESOL kids. Most of them send their precious children to local privates until 7th grade, just to avoid Timblerlane. They only believe in public schools when it’s the “best” publics their kids are attending. If anything, it’s more equitable to the Title 1 kids to in fact send these rich kids to a lower income schools like Luther Jackson and Falls Church.

That's incorrect. Timber Lane currently splits 60% to McLean and 40% to Falls Church, and the McLean part includes high-FARMS complexes that are just off Route 29 to the north just as the Falls Church parts includes high-FARMS complexes just off Route 29 to the south and off Annandale Road. Both the McLean and Falls Church parts also include a lot of single-family houses, and the ones zoned to McLean tend to be more expensive than the Falls Church houses and less expensive than any other SFHs zoned to McLean.

I don't doubt that it's higher-income families in the Poplar Heights single-family area behind this group, but don't misrepresent the school demographics feeding into both McLean and Falls Church.

You can also see how, when Thru proposed to move this area to Falls Church, they looked to offset it to some degree by moving other areas with apartments from Marshall to McLean, including some within walking distance of Marshall.

I don’t think they were looking for that. I think they saw they had two split feeders and moving Lemon Road balanced their McLean budget better than Westgate. If they were looking to balance apartments, they would have moved Westgate or a SPA from Shrevewood instead of Fall Hills. Majority of the moves that Thru has proposed has been moving SFH neighborhoods to Madison and McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post the comments for that one?

They turned it off at 9pm and when i tried to refresh all data was gone. There were a lot about Coates (needs relief now). Quite a few about the McLean island going to falls church (people are against it). Lots for just stopping all together. Wanting residency checks, bringing pupil placements back before moving other kids

Well the interesting thing is the parents in the Falls Church island have a Facebook group that was instructing everyone to vote multiple times using an incognito browser. Their group started when the new boundary was announced and they questioned the “equity” of their children being moved to Falls Church High School. Their new angle is they are pointing out that it removes the one Title 1 school from McLean. Which would be a good point if their private group wasn’t originally focusing on property values and how their children are deserve to go to a school farther than two closer high schools. It seems like they are now trying to use the Title 1 families for their own gain. It should be the next episode of Nice White Parents.

Sounds like the Emerald Chase of Falls Church!

Yes, I am in the group because I am in the neighborhood (and do not want to change boundaries), but I am shocked at what my neighbors believe are valid reasons. This is literally one of the suggested talking points:
“· Moving our assigned HS from one of the top in US (McLean ranked 218, vs. FCHS at 5,630), does not provide equity for us or the children in our neighborhood (I think we need to be careful about how we communicate this point. Suggest we soften it or make it implied. I don’t think we’re going to garner a lot of goodwill being so direct)”

This is gross but not surprising. The title 1 kids at Timberlane never went to McLean. The rich kids did. The Title 1 kids were always at Luther Jackson and Falls Church. Not only is this argument completely disingenuous, it’s totally self-serving. These families are concerned about their property values and ESOL kids. Most of them send their precious children to local privates until 7th grade, just to avoid Timblerlane. They only believe in public schools when it’s the “best” publics their kids are attending. If anything, it’s more equitable to the Title 1 kids to in fact send these rich kids to a lower income schools like Luther Jackson and Falls Church.

That's incorrect. Timber Lane currently splits 60% to McLean and 40% to Falls Church, and the McLean part includes high-FARMS complexes that are just off Route 29 to the north just as the Falls Church parts includes high-FARMS complexes just off Route 29 to the south and off Annandale Road. Both the McLean and Falls Church parts also include a lot of single-family houses, and the ones zoned to McLean tend to be more expensive than the Falls Church houses and less expensive than any other SFHs zoned to McLean.

I don't doubt that it's higher-income families in the Poplar Heights single-family area behind this group, but don't misrepresent the school demographics feeding into both McLean and Falls Church.

You can also see how, when Thru proposed to move this area to Falls Church, they looked to offset it to some degree by moving other areas with apartments from Marshall to McLean, including some within walking distance of Marshall.

I don’t think they were looking for that. I think they saw they had two split feeders and moving Lemon Road balanced their McLean budget better than Westgate. If they were looking to balance apartments, they would have moved Westgate or a SPA from Shrevewood instead of Fall Hills. Majority of the moves that Thru has proposed has been moving SFH neighborhoods to Madison and McLean.

Balancing demographics appears to be very low priority in this whole process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post the comments for that one?

They turned it off at 9pm and when i tried to refresh all data was gone. There were a lot about Coates (needs relief now). Quite a few about the McLean island going to falls church (people are against it). Lots for just stopping all together. Wanting residency checks, bringing pupil placements back before moving other kids

Well the interesting thing is the parents in the Falls Church island have a Facebook group that was instructing everyone to vote multiple times using an incognito browser. Their group started when the new boundary was announced and they questioned the “equity” of their children being moved to Falls Church High School. Their new angle is they are pointing out that it removes the one Title 1 school from McLean. Which would be a good point if their private group wasn’t originally focusing on property values and how their children are deserve to go to a school farther than two closer high schools. It seems like they are now trying to use the Title 1 families for their own gain. It should be the next episode of Nice White Parents.

Sounds like the Emerald Chase of Falls Church!

Yes, I am in the group because I am in the neighborhood (and do not want to change boundaries), but I am shocked at what my neighbors believe are valid reasons. This is literally one of the suggested talking points:
“· Moving our assigned HS from one of the top in US (McLean ranked 218, vs. FCHS at 5,630), does not provide equity for us or the children in our neighborhood (I think we need to be careful about how we communicate this point. Suggest we soften it or make it implied. I don’t think we’re going to garner a lot of goodwill being so direct)”

Here is their longer lists of talking points: https://timberlanemcleanpyramid.com/?page_id=23

As I understand it, Emerald Chase wants to use the boundary study as an opportunity to move to a new HS (Chantilly). These folks, like many others who are the subject of Thru's latest proposals, want to stay at their current school (McLean).

A lot of people want to stay at their current school, which makes sense. Pretending it’s because of your concern for the education your Title 1 neighbors, which is what the group is saying will get the most attention, is ridiculous.

If Forestville was a Title I school, and Thru was proposing to move them to Herndon to fill up some of the vacant seats there, those parents would be making the same argument.

People will make every argument they think is at their disposal to stay put. It's not insane to think an all-Democratic school board will have second thoughts about moving the only Title I feeder to McLean out of the pyramid. And these folks only found out last week that Thru was proposing to redistrict them. None of the earlier BRAC slides had this area moving to Falls Church.

Almost all want to stay put.

I went through several boundary redistrictings when new schools were built.

After the first meeting, my friend looked at me and said that everyone wants to stay where they are---even the people in the "poorer" schools.
This is what the SB does not get. The community does not want this. The only ones that may want it are the ones that want others to move to their schools. They don't want to leave, they just want wealthier students to join them.

I bet you're also ok with gerrymandering at the political level. Everyone has the politician that they like! Leave the districts alone! Who cares that actual communities are being split up?

No. Not for gerrymandering, but, I'm trying to understand how that breaks up a community?
School boundary changes do break up communities. Schools are communities. Not sure that a Congressional district is.
Stupid comparison.

[Anonymous]

Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

Then, why is Thru breaking up my tight knit neighborhood and sending two streets 11 miles away through heavy traffic when they currently go to a school that is less than 3 miles away?
Our current school has a compact boundary.
All our schools are easily within a ten minute drive. Why does Thru want to change that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

Just pointing out that no one in the community is complaining about the current travel time for their kids. No one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

Then, why is Thru breaking up my tight knit neighborhood and sending two streets 11 miles away through heavy traffic when they currently go to a school that is less than 3 miles away?
Our current school has a compact boundary.
All our schools are easily within a ten minute drive. Why does Thru want to change that?

I can't speak specifically to your family's individual situation. But, I don't think it's in the county's interest to cater to people at the individual level and in the present They should focus on the aggregate and with a horizon that extends beyond kids just today. Making more compact communities which are connected, that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

Then, why is Thru breaking up my tight knit neighborhood and sending two streets 11 miles away through heavy traffic when they currently go to a school that is less than 3 miles away?
Our current school has a compact boundary.
All our schools are easily within a ten minute drive. Why does Thru want to change that?

I can't speak specifically to your family's individual situation. But, I don't think it's in the county's interest to cater to people at the individual level and in the present They should focus on the aggregate and with a horizon that extends beyond kids just today. Making more compact communities which are connected, that makes sense.

Responding to my own comment to add, I do think Thru's proposals come short in this regard. They had an opportunity to make tighter and more cohesive communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

Then, why is Thru breaking up my tight knit neighborhood and sending two streets 11 miles away through heavy traffic when they currently go to a school that is less than 3 miles away?
Our current school has a compact boundary.
All our schools are easily within a ten minute drive. Why does Thru want to change that?

I can't speak specifically to your family's individual situation. But, I don't think it's in the county's interest to cater to people at the individual level and in the present They should focus on the aggregate and with a horizon that extends beyond kids just today. Making more compact communities which are connected, that makes sense.

Oh yeah, we should totally screw over families now for some vague sense of theoretical future payoff based on planning from a school district that can’t even accurately project a couple years into the future.

🤡 show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

Then, why is Thru breaking up my tight knit neighborhood and sending two streets 11 miles away through heavy traffic when they currently go to a school that is less than 3 miles away?
Our current school has a compact boundary.
All our schools are easily within a ten minute drive. Why does Thru want to change that?

I can't speak specifically to your family's individual situation. But, I don't think it's in the county's interest to cater to people at the individual level and in the present They should focus on the aggregate and with a horizon that extends beyond kids just today. Making more compact communities which are connected, that makes sense.

What makes you think they are doing that? They are doing just the opposite in a number of cases. And, there is no need. And, it is not my family's individual situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

Then, why is Thru breaking up my tight knit neighborhood and sending two streets 11 miles away through heavy traffic when they currently go to a school that is less than 3 miles away?
Our current school has a compact boundary.
All our schools are easily within a ten minute drive. Why does Thru want to change that?

I can't speak specifically to your family's individual situation. But, I don't think it's in the county's interest to cater to people at the individual level and in the present They should focus on the aggregate and with a horizon that extends beyond kids just today. Making more compact communities which are connected, that makes sense.

Oh yeah, we should totally screw over families now for some vague sense of theoretical future payoff based on planning from a school district that can’t even accurately project a couple years into the future.

🤡 show.

1. the payoffs are not all in the future. Connecting communities within a school district is important. No need to project into an unpredictable future to see the benefits of that. Kids who will be entering kindergarten next year will have the opportunity to continue throughout their educational career with their neighbors. They will live closer to their schools and their peers.

2. Preventing any change because it'll have an effect on the situations of some individuals within that community shows a distorted level of entitlement by those individuals. Your situation should not trump that of everyone else in the county. You are not special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

Then, why is Thru breaking up my tight knit neighborhood and sending two streets 11 miles away through heavy traffic when they currently go to a school that is less than 3 miles away?
Our current school has a compact boundary.
All our schools are easily within a ten minute drive. Why does Thru want to change that?

I can't speak specifically to your family's individual situation. But, I don't think it's in the county's interest to cater to people at the individual level and in the present They should focus on the aggregate and with a horizon that extends beyond kids just today. Making more compact communities which are connected, that makes sense.

What makes you think they are doing that? They are doing just the opposite in a number of cases. And, there is no need. And, it is [b]not my family's individual situation.[/b]

So you are the arbiter of if there is a need?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

Then, why is Thru breaking up my tight knit neighborhood and sending two streets 11 miles away through heavy traffic when they currently go to a school that is less than 3 miles away?
Our current school has a compact boundary.
All our schools are easily within a ten minute drive. Why does Thru want to change that?

I can't speak specifically to your family's individual situation. But, I don't think it's in the county's interest to cater to people at the individual level and in the present They should focus on the aggregate and with a horizon that extends beyond kids just today. Making more compact communities which are connected, that makes sense.

Oh yeah, we should totally screw over families now for some vague sense of theoretical future payoff based on planning from a school district that can’t even accurately project a couple years into the future.

🤡 show.

1. the payoffs are not all in the future. Connecting communities within a school district is important. No need to project into an unpredictable future to see the benefits of that. Kids who will be entering kindergarten next year will have the opportunity to continue throughout their educational career with their neighbors. They will live closer to their schools and their peers.

2. Preventing any change because it'll have an effect on the situations of some individuals within that community shows a distorted level of entitlement by those individuals. Your situation should not trump that of everyone else in the county. You are not special.

Blah blah blah. You’re arguing for some theoretical benefit in exchange for the mental health of kids, Sandy.

It’s you. You. You’re the problem. It’s you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post the comments for that one?

They turned it off at 9pm and when i tried to refresh all data was gone. There were a lot about Coates (needs relief now). Quite a few about the McLean island going to falls church (people are against it). Lots for just stopping all together. Wanting residency checks, bringing pupil placements back before moving other kids

Well the interesting thing is the parents in the Falls Church island have a Facebook group that was instructing everyone to vote multiple times using an incognito browser. Their group started when the new boundary was announced and they questioned the “equity” of their children being moved to Falls Church High School. Their new angle is they are pointing out that it removes the one Title 1 school from McLean. Which would be a good point if their private group wasn’t originally focusing on property values and how their children are deserve to go to a school farther than two closer high schools. It seems like they are now trying to use the Title 1 families for their own gain. It should be the next episode of Nice White Parents.

Sounds like the Emerald Chase of Falls Church!

Yes, I am in the group because I am in the neighborhood (and do not want to change boundaries), but I am shocked at what my neighbors believe are valid reasons. This is literally one of the suggested talking points:
“· Moving our assigned HS from one of the top in US (McLean ranked 218, vs. FCHS at 5,630), does not provide equity for us or the children in our neighborhood (I think we need to be careful about how we communicate this point. Suggest we soften it or make it implied. I don’t think we’re going to garner a lot of goodwill being so direct)”

This is gross but not surprising. The title 1 kids at Timberlane never went to McLean. The rich kids did. The Title 1 kids were always at Luther Jackson and Falls Church. Not only is this argument completely disingenuous, it’s totally self-serving. These families are concerned about their property values and ESOL kids. Most of them send their precious children to local privates until 7th grade, just to avoid Timblerlane. They only believe in public schools when it’s the “best” publics their kids are attending. If anything, it’s more equitable to the Title 1 kids to in fact send these rich kids to a lower income schools like Luther Jackson and Falls Church.

That's incorrect. Timber Lane currently splits 60% to McLean and 40% to Falls Church, and the McLean part includes high-FARMS complexes that are just off Route 29 to the north just as the Falls Church parts includes high-FARMS complexes just off Route 29 to the south and off Annandale Road. Both the McLean and Falls Church parts also include a lot of single-family houses, and the ones zoned to McLean tend to be more expensive than the Falls Church houses and less expensive than any other SFHs zoned to McLean.

I don't doubt that it's higher-income families in the Poplar Heights single-family area behind this group, but don't misrepresent the school demographics feeding into both McLean and Falls Church.

You can also see how, when Thru proposed to move this area to Falls Church, they looked to offset it to some degree by moving other areas with apartments from Marshall to McLean, including some within walking distance of Marshall.

I don’t think they were looking for that. I think they saw they had two split feeders and moving Lemon Road balanced their McLean budget better than Westgate. If they were looking to balance apartments, they would have moved Westgate or a SPA from Shrevewood instead of Fall Hills. Majority of the moves that Thru has proposed has been moving SFH neighborhoods to Madison and McLean.

Balancing demographics appears to be very low priority in this whole process.

Louder for the Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having more compact school districts with less travel time so kids live in closer proximity to their peers throughout their education and ensuring all the kids in a feeder school within a district go to the same secondary and high schools. It may be an inconvenience for some kids now. But, that's very shortsighted. Overcrowding is not the sole issue that this boundary adjustment is addressing. Community cohesion and reduced travel times are also legitimate concerns.

Then, why is Thru breaking up my tight knit neighborhood and sending two streets 11 miles away through heavy traffic when they currently go to a school that is less than 3 miles away?
Our current school has a compact boundary.
All our schools are easily within a ten minute drive. Why does Thru want to change that?

I can't speak specifically to your family's individual situation. But, I don't think it's in the county's interest to cater to people at the individual level and in the present They should focus on the aggregate and with a horizon that extends beyond kids just today. Making more compact communities which are connected, that makes sense.

What makes you think they are doing that? They are doing just the opposite in a number of cases. And, there is no need. And, it is [b]not my family's individual situation.[/b]

So you are the arbiter of if there is a need?

And, you are? What makes you think there is a need? Kids are being removed from their current school and sent 11 miles away when the current nearby school is losing membership over the next few years. And, they are dividing a neighborhood that is contained and has no major roads dividing it.