Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t let up, people. The school board appears to be getting the message that families don’t want their kids moved. Keep up the outreach to remind them of that fact. The five-year clock (with a one-year add on) has started.

This school board would do well to remember Mcelveen’s statements yesterday that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and Lady’s statement that literally nobody said they wanted their kids moved.

Families do want kids moved though. The ones who bought close to their desired schools want the people on the edges moved out to eliminate the overcrowding. The ones who are "fine with the overcrowding" are the ones afraid of being moved - and they are the ones posting here the most and being loud/active. Not taking a side, but that is the reality.

It’s not always the reality because a lot of people are fine with some overcrowding if it helps keep the school successful. We’ve seen that at Chantilly, McLean, and West Springfield.

Of course, if a boundary change appears inevitable those living closest to the school will eventually offer up those living further away.

Or, if it is a compact boundary, they will offer up those on the other side of the boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t let up, people. The school board appears to be getting the message that families don’t want their kids moved. Keep up the outreach to remind them of that fact. The five-year clock (with a one-year add on) has started.

This school board would do well to remember Mcelveen’s statements yesterday that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and Lady’s statement that literally nobody said they wanted their kids moved.

That crazy lady will use it as a reason buses don't need to be provided as all schools are good and moving kids around randomly has no emotional or academic impact. She has no business in education.

[Anonymous]

When do the boundary changes go into effect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t let up, people. The school board appears to be getting the message that families don’t want their kids moved. Keep up the outreach to remind them of that fact. The five-year clock (with a one-year add on) has started.

This school board would do well to remember Mcelveen’s statements yesterday that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and Lady’s statement that literally nobody said they wanted their kids moved.

Families do want kids moved though. The ones who bought close to their desired schools want the people on the edges moved out to eliminate the overcrowding. The ones who are "fine with the overcrowding" are the ones afraid of being moved - and they are the ones posting here the most and being loud/active. Not taking a side, but that is the reality.

Not necessarily.

My kids won't be rezoned due to proximity.

I got involved when they started the process saying they were not grandfathering, not even high school students, then stayed involved when they announced they would grandfather some kids, but without transportation. Even if my kids were in the rezoned group, we would have been able to take care of transporting our own kids and neighbor kids. The sheer injustice of the grandfathering and bussing issue, violating long held FCPS rezoning practices and policies, locked me into this fight from the very beginning. How could the school board even consider doing this to anyone's high school students?

I got very invested based on the decision to revise policy 8130 and make this rezoning process required every 5 years. A set 5 year rezoning process is terrible for students, schools, families, communities and taxpayers. As McEleven so obviously pointed out last night, it cripples FCPS in perpetuity, by locking all future school boards into a huge, continuous, expensive, time consuming, unwanted, mostly unecessary, rezoning process that was managed much more logically, efficiently, and cost effectively by the old policy 8130. The waste of taxpayer money, starting with the absurd half a million plus no bid contract with Thru was pointless and horrendously wasteful, especially given that essentially zero THRU recommendations were used and we finished the 2 year process exactly where we started.

So no, many of us were not fighting this just to protect our own kids.

We were fighting this because of the abject ridiculousness and wasteful mismanagement of this entire process by the FCPS leadership and school board.

Anyone else in the entire county who wasted this much money, squandered so many resources and time, and produced so little results would have been fired and escorted out of the building months ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The lists are at pp. 12-13 of this document: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/DQCW2B8348CA/$file/Amended%20Comprehensive%20Boundary%20Review%20White%20Paper-Exec%20Summary_1-15-2026%20FINAL.pdf

The issue relating to Greenway Downs, Jefferson Village, City Park Homes, and Kingsley Commons is teed up for January 2027.

The other issue - the Falls Church HS families in Briarwood Trace and Briarwood Farms who want to move to Oakton HS - is flagged for the next five-year review cycle. I don’t have much sympathy for these folks. Their ES (Fairhill) has fed 100% to Jackson and Falls Church for years, and Falls Church is getting a big expansion. They just want an upgrade to a wealthier HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The lists are at pp. 12-13 of this document: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/DQCW2B8348CA/$file/Amended%20Comprehensive%20Boundary%20Review%20White%20Paper-Exec%20Summary_1-15-2026%20FINAL.pdf

The issue relating to Greenway Downs, Jefferson Village, City Park Homes, and Kingsley Commons is teed up for January 2027.

The other issue - the Falls Church HS families in Briarwood Trace and Briarwood Farms who want to move to Oakton HS - is flagged for the next five-year review cycle. I don’t have much sympathy for these folks. Their ES (Fairhill) has fed 100% to Jackson and Falls Church for years, and Falls Church is getting a big expansion. They just want an upgrade to a wealthier HS.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Wait, sorry, so after all this - months of meetings etc. - they voted on proposal that they hadn't fully seen? And that was never publically disclosed - even during this meeting prior to the vote? I'm sure those last minute changes were relatively minor - but (again) seems like pretty flawed process particularly with all the attention on this topic...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The lists are at pp. 12-13 of this document: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/DQCW2B8348CA/$file/Amended%20Comprehensive%20Boundary%20Review%20White%20Paper-Exec%20Summary_1-15-2026%20FINAL.pdf

The issue relating to Greenway Downs, Jefferson Village, City Park Homes, and Kingsley Commons is teed up for January 2027.

The other issue - the Falls Church HS families in Briarwood Trace and Briarwood Farms who want to move to Oakton HS - is flagged for the next five-year review cycle. I don’t have much sympathy for these folks. Their ES (Fairhill) has fed 100% to Jackson and Falls Church for years, and Falls Church is getting a big expansion. They just want an upgrade to a wealthier HS.

Great, thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The lists are at pp. 12-13 of this document: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/DQCW2B8348CA/$file/Amended%20Comprehensive%20Boundary%20Review%20White%20Paper-Exec%20Summary_1-15-2026%20FINAL.pdf

The issue relating to Greenway Downs, Jefferson Village, City Park Homes, and Kingsley Commons is teed up for January 2027.

The other issue - the Falls Church HS families in Briarwood Trace and Briarwood Farms who want to move to Oakton HS - is flagged for the next five-year review cycle. I don’t have much sympathy for these folks. Their ES (Fairhill) has fed 100% to Jackson and Falls Church for years, and Falls Church is getting a big expansion. They just want an upgrade to a wealthier HS.

Thanks so much. ZERO surprise that the Briarwood folks are pushing for that.

Would really love to finally get that JV/GD/CPH situation resolved in a logical manner. I haven't tracked the specific Kinglsey Commons aspect. Is it similar to the JV situation and it's own island?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year.

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.

Moving a bunch of Wolftrap kids to Madison means that Marshall has more space for pupil placements for IB from Langley, McLean, Madison, and Falls Church. Marshall had
been largely closed to pupil placements for years. Those kids will boost Marshall’s scores.

The biggest concern is reassigning 10 SPAs from Kilmer to Thoreau based on phony information about Kilmer’s capacity. Kilmer’s ratings and reputation are likely going to decline and that will have spillover effects on the entire Marshall pyramid.

That’s one reason why Ryan McElveen, who went to Marshall and whose father taught at Kilmer, was the most vocal opponent of the boundary proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed.

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze.

Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.

What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.

Great, thank you. Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?). Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.

Wait, sorry, so after all this - months of meetings etc. - they voted on proposal that they hadn't fully seen? And that was never publically disclosed - even during this meeting prior to the vote? I'm sure those last minute changes were relatively minor - but (again) seems like pretty flawed process particularly with all the attention on this topic...

Yes.

That is what the ones who voted against it said.

Some who voted for it complained about not seeing what they were voting for, but they still voted yes.