FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

School vouchers may become a reality with the bill that passed the House today.. FCPS seems to have picked a terrible time to upset so many of its constituents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:School vouchers may become a reality with the bill that passed the House today.. FCPS seems to have picked a terrible time to upset so many of its constituents.

I never thought I’d ever support vouchers, but FCPS has turned me into a voucher supporter with this unnecessary boundary review.

SB actions have consequences I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School vouchers may become a reality with the bill that passed the House today.. FCPS seems to have picked a terrible time to upset so many of its constituents.

I never thought I’d ever support vouchers, but FCPS has turned me into a voucher supporter with this unnecessary boundary review.

SB actions have consequences I guess.

Most likely because you had it quite good for so long at the detriment of others in the school system. I'll take a wild guess that you aren't somewhere like Justice or Mount Vernon, where families still have to pay significant property tax for below-average schools. Now that more residents may have to share an equal slice of the public burden, they'd rather jump ship and have the taxpayer cover more of their costs instead.

[Anonymous]

That's a silly argument. If the SB moves someone from a good to a not-so-good school, and at the same time the government incentivizes better education by offering vouchers, why wouldn't one take that up?

Most folks have made their peace with their school pyramid.. And SB shaking it up at the same time as vouchers are offered gives every incentive to unhappy folks to jump ship... I would do it in a heartbeat too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School vouchers may become a reality with the bill that passed the House today.. FCPS seems to have picked a terrible time to upset so many of its constituents.

I never thought I’d ever support vouchers, but FCPS has turned me into a voucher supporter with this unnecessary boundary review.

SB actions have consequences I guess.

Most likely because you had it quite good for so long at the detriment of others in the school system. I'll take a wild guess that you aren't somewhere like Justice or Mount Vernon, where families still have to pay significant property tax for below-average schools. Now that more residents may have to share an equal slice of the public burden, they'd rather jump ship and have the taxpayer cover more of their costs instead.

I guess you’ve succinctly summed up the downward spiral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Most likely because you had it quite good for so long at the detriment of others in the school system....

What do you mean by 'at the detriment of others'?

[Anonymous]

Most likely because you had it quite good for so long at the detriment of others in the school system. I'll take a wild guess that you aren't somewhere like Justice or Mount Vernon, where families still have to pay significant property tax for below-average schools. Now that more residents may have to share an equal slice of the public burden, they'd rather jump ship and have the taxpayer cover more of their costs instead.

Please explain how "some have it good" at the detriment of others.
Yes, some schools have better stats than others, but how does that harm the other schools.
You want to make it a boundary issue, when it is not.
The School Board wants to make it a boundary issue. It is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School vouchers may become a reality with the bill that passed the House today.. FCPS seems to have picked a terrible time to upset so many of its constituents.

I never thought I’d ever support vouchers, but FCPS has turned me into a voucher supporter with this unnecessary boundary review.

SB actions have consequences I guess.

Most likely because you had it quite good for so long at the detriment of others in the school system. I'll take a wild guess that you aren't somewhere like Justice or Mount Vernon, where families still have to pay significant property tax for below-average schools. Now that more residents may have to share an equal slice of the public burden, they'd rather jump ship and have the taxpayer cover more of their costs instead.

But none of the proposed changes are doing that (a fraction of Timber Lane being an exception.) They’re shifting students between similarly performing schools. The loudest critics are the ones who want to stay at their current school. I guess vouchers gives them a choice of where they’re going to land, but they still won’t be at their neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

I am not opposed to paying taxes.. we bought into an excellent school district and pay equivalent of a private school education fees just in property taxes.

Now, moving us to a lower rated school, splitting up the kids friends group, increasing our commute - and asking for the same amount in taxes... Ummm, no thank you! We will happily move or take up the vouchers too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

When is Reid going to give up this ridiculous plan of boundary changes? No one wants it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:School vouchers may become a reality with the bill that passed the House today.. FCPS seems to have picked a terrible time to upset so many of its constituents.

I am supportive of the long overdue boundary review but I am pissed off by FCPS’s mismanagement of its budget and by Reid’s incompetence or dishonesty during the Hayfield scandal and extending early release to next year and more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

[Anonymous]

Look. We'd likely all like to get rid of attendance islands, split feeders, long commutes and overcapacity, while staying in our own community school.

And, what is most important to most people? Staying put.
The trouble is that THRU is moving people like they are pawns on a chess board and still have not solved the other issues of attendance islands, split feeders, long commutes, and overcapacity.
In some cases they are creating islands, split feeders, longer commutes. And, they are not taking capacity projections into consideration. I can see at least two high schools that are going to have capacity problems very soon if the last two options are used.

So, at least, keep people where they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?