FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, the Springfield district folks were fools in the past school board election when they voted Schultz out of office over national issues.

Schultz was the one who helped and supported the Daventry parents with their split feeder elimination. She worked diligently with them, even though they were mostly not from her political party, because she treated them as her constituents even though they were from opposing political groups. She worked for her constituents on school issues, and would have been counted on to fight like a bobcat if the school board started pushing to rezone her neighborhoods out of the pyramid to use the kids as political pawns. She was awfully trumpy, but on school issues, particularly rezoning issues, Schultz put constituency over party. Fighting political rezoning was one of her issues.

Now they lost that kind of representation on the school board, followed by redistricting thanks to McKay and the board of supervisors, that split their representation from Springfield district to Providence, where the primary school board representation is on Lewis and not their zoned high school, West Springfield.

I think many in that part of West Springfield are going to end up regretting the day they voted on local offices because of national politics. They basically voted against their own interests, particularly with regards to school rezoning.

Fair enough, but, just to reiterate:

Not a single school board candidate ran on a redistricting platform. That they feel they somehow have a mandate to do this is very misplaced.

No school board candidate anywhere would get elected by running on a redistricting platform. It is a necessary evil that school boards loathe to do - everywhere. FCPS punting it down the road for so many decades, it is now needed. An overall comprehensive change makes the most sense. It will not be popular - they never are.

We should ask Terry McAuliffe how successful your line of thinking is: Parents and constituents don’t want redistricting? Well, I’m smarter than they are and I know better than they do, so I’m just going to do it anyway.

Also, you say redistricting is now needed. [/b]Your view is in the extreme minority in the county.[b]

redistricting is NEVER popular, but my view is more popular than you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, the Springfield district folks were fools in the past school board election when they voted Schultz out of office over national issues.

Schultz was the one who helped and supported the Daventry parents with their split feeder elimination. She worked diligently with them, even though they were mostly not from her political party, because she treated them as her constituents even though they were from opposing political groups. She worked for her constituents on school issues, and would have been counted on to fight like a bobcat if the school board started pushing to rezone her neighborhoods out of the pyramid to use the kids as political pawns. She was awfully trumpy, but on school issues, particularly rezoning issues, Schultz put constituency over party. Fighting political rezoning was one of her issues.

Now they lost that kind of representation on the school board, followed by redistricting thanks to McKay and the board of supervisors, that split their representation from Springfield district to Providence, where the primary school board representation is on Lewis and not their zoned high school, West Springfield.

I think many in that part of West Springfield are going to end up regretting the day they voted on local offices because of national politics. They basically voted against their own interests, particularly with regards to school rezoning.

Fair enough, but, just to reiterate:

Not a single school board candidate ran on a redistricting platform. That they feel they somehow have a mandate to do this is very misplaced.

No school board candidate anywhere would get elected by running on a redistricting platform. It is a necessary evil that school boards loathe to do - everywhere. FCPS punting it down the road for so many decades, it is now needed. An overall comprehensive change makes the most sense. It will not be popular - they never are.

We should ask Terry McAuliffe how successful your line of thinking is: Parents and constituents don’t want redistricting? Well, I’m smarter than they are and I know better than they do, so I’m just going to do it anyway.

Also, you say redistricting is now needed. Your view is in the extreme minority in the county.

Let's assume that parents keep stuffing their kids into West Springfield (already over capacity). Should we expand WS again before using the available
Space at Lewis? That is not a reasonable thing to do and parents don't get everything they want.

Surely you have this all figured out. I bestow on you the title of FCPS emperor to do your will over the objection of any and all FCPS parents and constituents.

You sound exactly like McAuliffe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, the Springfield district folks were fools in the past school board election when they voted Schultz out of office over national issues.

Schultz was the one who helped and supported the Daventry parents with their split feeder elimination. She worked diligently with them, even though they were mostly not from her political party, because she treated them as her constituents even though they were from opposing political groups. She worked for her constituents on school issues, and would have been counted on to fight like a bobcat if the school board started pushing to rezone her neighborhoods out of the pyramid to use the kids as political pawns. She was awfully trumpy, but on school issues, particularly rezoning issues, Schultz put constituency over party. Fighting political rezoning was one of her issues.

Now they lost that kind of representation on the school board, followed by redistricting thanks to McKay and the board of supervisors, that split their representation from Springfield district to Providence, where the primary school board representation is on Lewis and not their zoned high school, West Springfield.

I think many in that part of West Springfield are going to end up regretting the day they voted on local offices because of national politics. They basically voted against their own interests, particularly with regards to school rezoning.

Fair enough, but, just to reiterate:

Not a single school board candidate ran on a redistricting platform. That they feel they somehow have a mandate to do this is very misplaced.

No school board candidate anywhere would get elected by running on a redistricting platform. It is a necessary evil that school boards loathe to do - everywhere. FCPS punting it down the road for so many decades, it is now needed. An overall comprehensive change makes the most sense. It will not be popular - they never are.

We should ask Terry McAuliffe how successful your line of thinking is: Parents and constituents don’t want redistricting? Well, I’m smarter than they are and I know better than they do, so I’m just going to do it anyway.

Also, you say redistricting is now needed. Your view is in the extreme minority in the county.

One might say redistricting isn't needed, but I assume those against redistricting are in turn fully supportive of expansions and renovations for select pyramids. Especially their own.

Assessing boundaries and facilities are two sides of the same coin. It's normal to want what is for one's personal circumstances, but all too often some pyramids in FCPS only want to take and never give.

And let's not even say a word about how much property tax someone pays because we all pay the same rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, the Springfield district folks were fools in the past school board election when they voted Schultz out of office over national issues.

Schultz was the one who helped and supported the Daventry parents with their split feeder elimination. She worked diligently with them, even though they were mostly not from her political party, because she treated them as her constituents even though they were from opposing political groups. She worked for her constituents on school issues, and would have been counted on to fight like a bobcat if the school board started pushing to rezone her neighborhoods out of the pyramid to use the kids as political pawns. She was awfully trumpy, but on school issues, particularly rezoning issues, Schultz put constituency over party. Fighting political rezoning was one of her issues.

Now they lost that kind of representation on the school board, followed by redistricting thanks to McKay and the board of supervisors, that split their representation from Springfield district to Providence, where the primary school board representation is on Lewis and not their zoned high school, West Springfield.

I think many in that part of West Springfield are going to end up regretting the day they voted on local offices because of national politics. They basically voted against their own interests, particularly with regards to school rezoning.

Fair enough, but, just to reiterate:

Not a single school board candidate ran on a redistricting platform. That they feel they somehow have a mandate to do this is very misplaced.

No school board candidate anywhere would get elected by running on a redistricting platform. It is a necessary evil that school boards loathe to do - everywhere. FCPS punting it down the road for so many decades, it is now needed. An overall comprehensive change makes the most sense. It will not be popular - they never are.

We should ask Terry McAuliffe how successful your line of thinking is: Parents and constituents don’t want redistricting? Well, I’m smarter than they are and I know better than they do, so I’m just going to do it anyway.

Also, you say redistricting is now needed. [/b]Your view is in the extreme minority in the county.[b]

redistricting is NEVER popular, but my view is more popular than you think.

Sure. That’s why no board ever campaigns on redistricting and would lose if they did. You’re being VERY inconsistent here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, the Springfield district folks were fools in the past school board election when they voted Schultz out of office over national issues.

Schultz was the one who helped and supported the Daventry parents with their split feeder elimination. She worked diligently with them, even though they were mostly not from her political party, because she treated them as her constituents even though they were from opposing political groups. She worked for her constituents on school issues, and would have been counted on to fight like a bobcat if the school board started pushing to rezone her neighborhoods out of the pyramid to use the kids as political pawns. She was awfully trumpy, but on school issues, particularly rezoning issues, Schultz put constituency over party. Fighting political rezoning was one of her issues.

Now they lost that kind of representation on the school board, followed by redistricting thanks to McKay and the board of supervisors, that split their representation from Springfield district to Providence, where the primary school board representation is on Lewis and not their zoned high school, West Springfield.

I think many in that part of West Springfield are going to end up regretting the day they voted on local offices because of national politics. They basically voted against their own interests, particularly with regards to school rezoning.

Fair enough, but, just to reiterate:

Not a single school board candidate ran on a redistricting platform. That they feel they somehow have a mandate to do this is very misplaced.

No school board candidate anywhere would get elected by running on a redistricting platform. It is a necessary evil that school boards loathe to do - everywhere. FCPS punting it down the road for so many decades, it is now needed. An overall comprehensive change makes the most sense. It will not be popular - they never are.

We should ask Terry McAuliffe how successful your line of thinking is: Parents and constituents don’t want redistricting? Well, I’m smarter than they are and I know better than they do, so I’m just going to do it anyway.

Also, you say redistricting is now needed. Your view is in the extreme minority in the county.

One might say redistricting isn't needed, but I assume those against redistricting are in turn fully supportive of expansions and renovations for select pyramids. Especially their own.

Assessing boundaries and facilities are two sides of the same coin. It's normal to want what is for one's personal circumstances, but all too often some pyramids in FCPS only want to take and never give.

And let's not even say a word about how much property tax someone pays because we all pay the same rate.

The same rate does not equal the same absolute amount. You understand that, right?

[Anonymous]

According to the policy, in case of emergencies the Superintendent (and I’m assuming his staff) can make boundary changes without school board consult or approval, as long as no more than 15% of a school’s population would be affected. What would constitute an emergency?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, the Springfield district folks were fools in the past school board election when they voted Schultz out of office over national issues.

Schultz was the one who helped and supported the Daventry parents with their split feeder elimination. She worked diligently with them, even though they were mostly not from her political party, because she treated them as her constituents even though they were from opposing political groups. She worked for her constituents on school issues, and would have been counted on to fight like a bobcat if the school board started pushing to rezone her neighborhoods out of the pyramid to use the kids as political pawns. She was awfully trumpy, but on school issues, particularly rezoning issues, Schultz put constituency over party. Fighting political rezoning was one of her issues.

Now they lost that kind of representation on the school board, followed by redistricting thanks to McKay and the board of supervisors, that split their representation from Springfield district to Providence, where the primary school board representation is on Lewis and not their zoned high school, West Springfield.

I think many in that part of West Springfield are going to end up regretting the day they voted on local offices because of national politics. They basically voted against their own interests, particularly with regards to school rezoning.

Fair enough, but, just to reiterate:

Not a single school board candidate ran on a redistricting platform. That they feel they somehow have a mandate to do this is very misplaced.

No school board candidate anywhere would get elected by running on a redistricting platform. It is a necessary evil that school boards loathe to do - everywhere. FCPS punting it down the road for so many decades, it is now needed. An overall comprehensive change makes the most sense. It will not be popular - they never are.

We should ask Terry McAuliffe how successful your line of thinking is: Parents and constituents don’t want redistricting? Well, I’m smarter than they are and I know better than they do, so I’m just going to do it anyway.

Also, you say redistricting is now needed. Your view is in the extreme minority in the county.

Let's assume that parents keep stuffing their kids into West Springfield (already over capacity). Should we expand WS again before using the available
Space at Lewis? That is not a reasonable thing to do and parents don't get everything they want.

Surely you have this all figured out. I bestow on you the title of FCPS emperor to do your will over the objection of any and all FCPS parents and constituents.

You sound exactly like McAuliffe.

It's just simple logic and fiscal responsibility. Would you have a cap on how big WS could become?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, the Springfield district folks were fools in the past school board election when they voted Schultz out of office over national issues.

Schultz was the one who helped and supported the Daventry parents with their split feeder elimination. She worked diligently with them, even though they were mostly not from her political party, because she treated them as her constituents even though they were from opposing political groups. She worked for her constituents on school issues, and would have been counted on to fight like a bobcat if the school board started pushing to rezone her neighborhoods out of the pyramid to use the kids as political pawns. She was awfully trumpy, but on school issues, particularly rezoning issues, Schultz put constituency over party. Fighting political rezoning was one of her issues.

Now they lost that kind of representation on the school board, followed by redistricting thanks to McKay and the board of supervisors, that split their representation from Springfield district to Providence, where the primary school board representation is on Lewis and not their zoned high school, West Springfield.

I think many in that part of West Springfield are going to end up regretting the day they voted on local offices because of national politics. They basically voted against their own interests, particularly with regards to school rezoning.

Fair enough, but, just to reiterate:

Not a single school board candidate ran on a redistricting platform. That they feel they somehow have a mandate to do this is very misplaced.

No school board candidate anywhere would get elected by running on a redistricting platform. It is a necessary evil that school boards loathe to do - everywhere. FCPS punting it down the road for so many decades, it is now needed. An overall comprehensive change makes the most sense. It will not be popular - they never are.

An "overall comprehensive change" would take into account enrollments, program differences (AAP, AP, IB, Academies, foreign language and other electives), and differences in facilities for which FCPS needs an updated renovation queue.

It's nuts that they have put different programs in place at different schools, and have renovated and built additions at some schools while neglecting other schools, and then want people to pretend everything will be hunky-dory if they just start changing boundaries, as if that is the solution to every challenge facing FCPS.

The protests will be loud, and fully deserved, if that's the path they go down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the policy, in case of emergencies the Superintendent (and I’m assuming his staff) can make boundary changes without school board consult or approval, as long as no more than 15% of a school’s population would be affected. What would constitute an emergency?

Fire.

Earthquake.

Tornado damage.

You know, emergencies

[Anonymous]

So do new HS boundaries take into account the new western HS that FCPS has been pretending for 15+ years it will build?

Or might the fact that FCPS has punted about this school for so long possibly raise some questions as to whether FCPS could ever pull off county-wide changes successfully?

I say they stop creating fear and uncertainty in our communities by focusing on additions where they are most needed and putting a lid on their bogus rhetoric about a “holistic” review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So do new HS boundaries take into account the new western HS that FCPS has been pretending for 15+ years it will build?

Or might the fact that FCPS has punted about this school for so long possibly raise some questions as to whether FCPS could ever pull off county-wide changes successfully?

I say they stop creating fear and uncertainty in our communities by focusing on additions where they are most needed and putting a lid on their bogus rhetoric about a “holistic” review.

Absolutely not. Some of us taxpayers are done with voting yes to paying hundreds of millions to benefit only certain other pyramids on the timescale of decades.

Invest those hundreds of millions in educating the child and use space where it is available - because there is actually quite a bit of available space according to the CIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do new HS boundaries take into account the new western HS that FCPS has been pretending for 15+ years it will build?

Or might the fact that FCPS has punted about this school for so long possibly raise some questions as to whether FCPS could ever pull off county-wide changes successfully?

I say they stop creating fear and uncertainty in our communities by focusing on additions where they are most needed and putting a lid on their bogus rhetoric about a “holistic” review.

Absolutely not. Some of us taxpayers are done with voting yes to paying hundreds of millions to benefit only certain other pyramids on the timescale of decades.

Invest those hundreds of millions in educating the child and use space where it is available - because there is actually quite a bit of available space according to the CIP.

Taxpayers regularly approve school bonds, and by large margins. You're just a cheapskate who has no real handle on FCPS's past and current expenditures and simply wants to shortchange certain pyramids in the future because you resent them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do new HS boundaries take into account the new western HS that FCPS has been pretending for 15+ years it will build?

Or might the fact that FCPS has punted about this school for so long possibly raise some questions as to whether FCPS could ever pull off county-wide changes successfully?

I say they stop creating fear and uncertainty in our communities by focusing on additions where they are most needed and putting a lid on their bogus rhetoric about a “holistic” review.

Absolutely not. Some of us taxpayers are done with voting yes to paying hundreds of millions to benefit only certain other pyramids on the timescale of decades.

Invest those hundreds of millions in educating the child and use space where it is available - because there is actually quite a bit of available space according to the CIP.

Taxpayers regularly approve school bonds, and by large margins. You're just a cheapskate who has no real handle on FCPS's past and current expenditures and simply wants to shortchange certain pyramids in the future because you resent them.

They also don’t seem to have a grasp on how bond funding can and cannot be spent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do new HS boundaries take into account the new western HS that FCPS has been pretending for 15+ years it will build?

Or might the fact that FCPS has punted about this school for so long possibly raise some questions as to whether FCPS could ever pull off county-wide changes successfully?

I say they stop creating fear and uncertainty in our communities by focusing on additions where they are most needed and putting a lid on their bogus rhetoric about a “holistic” review.

Absolutely not. Some of us taxpayers are done with voting yes to paying hundreds of millions to benefit only certain other pyramids on the timescale of decades.

Invest those hundreds of millions in educating the child and use space where it is available - because there is actually quite a bit of available space according to the CIP.

Taxpayers regularly approve school bonds, and by large margins. You're just a cheapskate who has no real handle on FCPS's past and current expenditures and simply wants to shortchange certain pyramids in the future because you resent them.

Historically, yes. But the budget is shrinking relatively speaking and teacher pay still isn't where it needs to be for this area. Smart voters will question the benefits of approving another luxurious expansion way over there when one fourth of the schools over here are aging and set to be ignored for another decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do new HS boundaries take into account the new western HS that FCPS has been pretending for 15+ years it will build?

Or might the fact that FCPS has punted about this school for so long possibly raise some questions as to whether FCPS could ever pull off county-wide changes successfully?

I say they stop creating fear and uncertainty in our communities by focusing on additions where they are most needed and putting a lid on their bogus rhetoric about a “holistic” review.

Absolutely not. Some of us taxpayers are done with voting yes to paying hundreds of millions to benefit only certain other pyramids on the timescale of decades.

Invest those hundreds of millions in educating the child and use space where it is available - because there is actually quite a bit of available space according to the CIP.

Taxpayers regularly approve school bonds, and by large margins. You're just a cheapskate who has no real handle on FCPS's past and current expenditures and simply wants to shortchange certain pyramids in the future because you resent them.

Historically, yes. But the budget is shrinking relatively speaking and teacher pay still isn't where it needs to be for this area. Smart voters will question the benefits of approving another luxurious expansion way over there when one fourth of the schools over here are aging and set to be ignored for another decade.

Schools are built to the same standards across northern Virginia. If you want to lower your standards, perhaps move to some county down state that is still using a school house last renovated in 1965.