FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP- to clarify- the McLean families are not unhappy with the split, they are upset with the reasoning to FCHS.

The pro boundary change/SJW folks are tripping all over themselves on this one.

“Hell, no, no addition for McLean! Redistrict those kids (again) and eliminate the attendance islands and split feeders!”

“You mean we’re sending most of the FARMS kids there to Falls Church and slashing the FARMS rate at McLean? Hell, no!”

“You mean if we want to keep those FARMS kids at McLean, we have to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood so we don’t have a terrible, awful, very bad attendance island? Hell, no!”

McLean: “How about you just leave our families alone for now and let us know when you’re finally going to renovate our school?”

Shrevewood isn't even zoned to McLean right now. This has nothing to do with McLean parents. It has to do with creating a split feeder for no reason just because they don't want to keep Timberlane an attendance island. I think the idea of ruining other schools to get rid of attendance islands is so stupid. Literally nobody has ever complained specifically about Timberlane being an attendance island. The parents there don't care, they're just happy they're zoned to McLean (and unhappy now). Shrevewood parents on the other hand seem to be just fine with their current pyramid and don't want their school (which has already been torn apart by the previous principal's idiotic removal of the AAP program) torn apart AGAIN.

Agree with you 100%. But the fact is that FCPS staff and Thru are treating the elimination of attendance islands as ground zero for boundary changes. If you look their scenarios, the elimination of attendance islands is treated as the first order of business in "Scenario 1," and everything in "Scenario 1" is repeated in "Scenario 2" and "Scenario 3."

The Timber Lane folks are arguing theirs is not truly an attendance island, and it's true that it's closer to the main McLean area than some other attendance islands are to the main areas at other schools, but it's still an attendance island. So if you really think an attendance island is bad, and must be bridged for a boundary to be acceptable, that means they're going to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood. Shrevewood doesn't want that, so presumably you prefer that, if FCPS is going to do something, they just reassign the island to Falls Church and Marshall (although some of you have expressed reservations about taking on the area west of Hollywood Road) and avoid the bridge.

And, then, if that preference is honored, and the island is reassigned, there are going to be other people complaining about FCPS reducing the FARMS rate at McLean. That's why I said it becomes a tail-chasing exercise when the reality is that most people in the McLean and Marshally pyramids would just like to be left alone.

Why can't they just rezone all of Shrevewood to McLean so they're not splitting the school in half?

If you want to rezone any part of Shrevewood to McLean you’d have to keep part of Lemon Road (which is closer to McLean) there to avoid creating a new attendance island. So then the question would come up as how much of Lemon Road you want assigned to McLean. At a minimum if you assigned all of Shrevewood to McLean - which I don’t think Shrevewood parents necessarily want although they might prefer it to creating a split feeder there - you’d probably also have to reassign any part of Westgate now at McLean to Marshall.

I don’t have enough information to run the numbers for capacity but in that case you’re probably talking about McLean having five 100% feeders (Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, Kent Gardens, Haycock, and Shrevewood) and keeping Lemon Road as a split feeder. And then the two islands still get moved to Langley and Falls Church as proposed and the Westgate areas at McLean moved to GCM. It would probably look kind of like a barbell.

I do see one advantage with this compared to Thru’s proposals, which is that it could keep all of Pimmit Hills at Marshall. On the other hand, some PH areas walkable to McLean would stay at Marshall, and some neighborhoods closer to Marshall would move to McLean.

I’m trying to answer your question, by the way, and not actually advocating for any changes. I still think most people would prefer no changes in these two pyramids.

The Westgate students currently zoned to McLean are walkers. It makes zero sense to move them so that Shrevewood can take their place. Regardless, once you factor in the AAP kids who transfer out of Shrevewood, and add the 120 students they’re shifting from Timber Lane, removing the 75 Westgate kids at McLean won’t be enough to balance the 440 students yield coming from all of Shrevewood.

Not everyone at McLean zoned for Westgate walks there, and you’re omitting the 200 kids who’d move to Langley and the bulk of the Timber Lane kids who’d move to Falls Church (and not to Shrevewood).

As I said, I don’t have enough information to run all the numbers but neither, apparently, do you.

Shrevewood parent here, and I have no interest in Shrevewood being sent to McLean. I think it would be unfortunate to lose the Falls Hill kids, but I think that kind of split feeder is better than a full switch.

The bigger issue that continues to come up in my mind is the Dunn Loring development. My kid will be gone from Shrevewood at that point so it doesn't impact me, but changing the boundaries now and then having to change them again in '29 seems idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Emerald Chase parent here. We’re getting a lot of hate (and several outright rude comments) about our community. Last night, we had one comment that we encouraged all our parents to vote for. We want to make sure our voices are heard since we have two schools changing and yet no meeting scheduled for our (new or old) pyramid. Per the zoom, they were actually only showing one comment live and they locked it on the display. Other “out of pyramid” schools also voiced opinions (Coates, Hunters Valley, etc.) but we are the only ones getting hate. It is the nature of the way Thru consulting has set up the feedback system that should be attacked, not us. We encourage all communities to participate and stand up for their children.

Also, our community is not being organized through our HOA. Our small SPA is actually made up of 2 HOAs. It is a group of parents that feel very strongly and are working tirelessly to make sure FCPS listens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Emerald Chase parent here. We’re getting a lot of hate (and several outright rude comments) about our community. Last night, we had one comment that we encouraged all our parents to vote for. We want to make sure our voices are heard since we have two schools changing and yet no meeting scheduled for our (new or old) pyramid. Per the zoom, they were actually only showing one comment live and they locked it on the display. Other “out of pyramid” schools also voiced opinions (Coates, Hunters Valley, etc.) but we are the only ones getting hate. It is the nature of the way Thru consulting has set up the feedback system that should be attacked, not us. We encourage all communities to participate and stand up for their children.

Also, our community is not being organized through our HOA. Our small SPA is actually made up of 2 HOAs. It is a group of parents that feel very strongly and are working tirelessly to make sure FCPS listens.

Of course you are going to say that. It is a “bootstraps” statement. Like it is your hard work that is making this happen instead of the existing structure of your community. That is why you are using the words “Tirelessly etc”.

In truth, it is much easier to post links to meetings through already existing email pathways and websites than it is to create those pathways in communities that have no HOA. In a non-HOA Community that would involve door knocking, social media posting across multiple sites, getting personal contact information etc just to get to the point where a community has an email list. I understand people’s defensiveness in me pointing that out, but it isn’t “rude” to say so. It is the truth. Saying things like “we encourage all communities to participate” when many can’t organize as easily as you do is disingenuous.

A community of 240+ votes attending one meeting is not a “small SPA”. We have far far less children in our neighborhood.

It is clear Emerald Chase has beaten the system, but don’t lie to yourself that it is your “tireless efforts.” You have a lot of structure you are relying on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP- to clarify- the McLean families are not unhappy with the split, they are upset with the reasoning to FCHS.

The pro boundary change/SJW folks are tripping all over themselves on this one.

“Hell, no, no addition for McLean! Redistrict those kids (again) and eliminate the attendance islands and split feeders!”

“You mean we’re sending most of the FARMS kids there to Falls Church and slashing the FARMS rate at McLean? Hell, no!”

“You mean if we want to keep those FARMS kids at McLean, we have to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood so we don’t have a terrible, awful, very bad attendance island? Hell, no!”

McLean: “How about you just leave our families alone for now and let us know when you’re finally going to renovate our school?”

Shrevewood isn't even zoned to McLean right now. This has nothing to do with McLean parents. It has to do with creating a split feeder for no reason just because they don't want to keep Timberlane an attendance island. I think the idea of ruining other schools to get rid of attendance islands is so stupid. Literally nobody has ever complained specifically about Timberlane being an attendance island. The parents there don't care, they're just happy they're zoned to McLean (and unhappy now). Shrevewood parents on the other hand seem to be just fine with their current pyramid and don't want their school (which has already been torn apart by the previous principal's idiotic removal of the AAP program) torn apart AGAIN.

Agree with you 100%. But the fact is that FCPS staff and Thru are treating the elimination of attendance islands as ground zero for boundary changes. If you look their scenarios, the elimination of attendance islands is treated as the first order of business in "Scenario 1," and everything in "Scenario 1" is repeated in "Scenario 2" and "Scenario 3."

The Timber Lane folks are arguing theirs is not truly an attendance island, and it's true that it's closer to the main McLean area than some other attendance islands are to the main areas at other schools, but it's still an attendance island. So if you really think an attendance island is bad, and must be bridged for a boundary to be acceptable, that means they're going to create a new split feeder at Shrevewood. Shrevewood doesn't want that, so presumably you prefer that, if FCPS is going to do something, they just reassign the island to Falls Church and Marshall (although some of you have expressed reservations about taking on the area west of Hollywood Road) and avoid the bridge.

And, then, if that preference is honored, and the island is reassigned, there are going to be other people complaining about FCPS reducing the FARMS rate at McLean. That's why I said it becomes a tail-chasing exercise when the reality is that most people in the McLean and Marshally pyramids would just like to be left alone.

Why can't they just rezone all of Shrevewood to McLean so they're not splitting the school in half?

If you want to rezone any part of Shrevewood to McLean you’d have to keep part of Lemon Road (which is closer to McLean) there to avoid creating a new attendance island. So then the question would come up as how much of Lemon Road you want assigned to McLean. At a minimum if you assigned all of Shrevewood to McLean - which I don’t think Shrevewood parents necessarily want although they might prefer it to creating a split feeder there - you’d probably also have to reassign any part of Westgate now at McLean to Marshall.

I don’t have enough information to run the numbers for capacity but in that case you’re probably talking about McLean having five 100% feeders (Franklin Sherman, Chesterbrook, Kent Gardens, Haycock, and Shrevewood) and keeping Lemon Road as a split feeder. And then the two islands still get moved to Langley and Falls Church as proposed and the Westgate areas at McLean moved to GCM. It would probably look kind of like a barbell.

I do see one advantage with this compared to Thru’s proposals, which is that it could keep all of Pimmit Hills at Marshall. On the other hand, some PH areas walkable to McLean would stay at Marshall, and some neighborhoods closer to Marshall would move to McLean.

I’m trying to answer your question, by the way, and not actually advocating for any changes. I still think most people would prefer no changes in these two pyramids.

The Westgate students currently zoned to McLean are walkers. It makes zero sense to move them so that Shrevewood can take their place. Regardless, once you factor in the AAP kids who transfer out of Shrevewood, and add the 120 students they’re shifting from Timber Lane, removing the 75 Westgate kids at McLean won’t be enough to balance the 440 students yield coming from all of Shrevewood.

Not everyone at McLean zoned for Westgate walks there, and you’re omitting the 200 kids who’d move to Langley and the bulk of the Timber Lane kids who’d move to Falls Church (and not to Shrevewood).

As I said, I don’t have enough information to run all the numbers but neither, apparently, do you.

Shrevewood parent here, and I have no interest in Shrevewood being sent to McLean. I think it would be unfortunate to lose the Falls Hill kids, but I think that kind of split feeder is better than a full switch.

The bigger issue that continues to come up in my mind is the Dunn Loring development. My kid will be gone from Shrevewood at that point so it doesn't impact me, but changing the boundaries now and then having to change them again in '29 seems idiotic.

You should talk to the Shrevewood parents who said that, if they were moving any of it, they should move all of it.

[Anonymous]

Just wait for the new maps to come out in the fall moving Langley to Herndon. If you think this page is ugly now…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emerald Chase parent here. We’re getting a lot of hate (and several outright rude comments) about our community. Last night, we had one comment that we encouraged all our parents to vote for. We want to make sure our voices are heard since we have two schools changing and yet no meeting scheduled for our (new or old) pyramid. Per the zoom, they were actually only showing one comment live and they locked it on the display. Other “out of pyramid” schools also voiced opinions (Coates, Hunters Valley, etc.) but we are the only ones getting hate. It is the nature of the way Thru consulting has set up the feedback system that should be attacked, not us. We encourage all communities to participate and stand up for their children.

Also, our community is not being organized through our HOA. Our small SPA is actually made up of 2 HOAs. It is a group of parents that feel very strongly and are working tirelessly to make sure FCPS listens.

Of course you are going to say that. It is a “bootstraps” statement. Like it is your hard work that is making this happen instead of the existing structure of your community. That is why you are using the words “Tirelessly etc”.

In truth, it is much easier to post links to meetings through already existing email pathways and websites than it is to create those pathways in communities that have no HOA. In a non-HOA Community that would involve door knocking, social media posting across multiple sites, getting personal contact information etc just to get to the point where a community has an email list. I understand people’s defensiveness in me pointing that out, but it isn’t “rude” to say so. It is the truth. Saying things like “we encourage all communities to participate” when many can’t organize as easily as you do is disingenuous.

A community of 240+ votes attending one meeting is not a “small SPA”. We have far far less children in our neighborhood.

It is clear Emerald Chase has beaten the system, but don’t lie to yourself that it is your “tireless efforts.” You have a lot of structure you are relying on.

But definitely no hate here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

The pigeonhole (?) board has 240+ votes for Emerald Chase and whatever they want, but most comments are “please don’t do this right now”

Emerald Chase is flooding the Lewis meeting?

That is even more ridiculous than them flooding the Robinson meeting

There was one Emerald Chase post that got upvoted tonight surrounded by a bunch about Timberlane, Falls Hill, Hunt Valley, McLean, etc. some of you need to find a new boogeyman

It was upvoted exponentially more than any other comment. It is pretty clear what emerald chase is doing. The others had more comments but only a few upvotes. But emerald chase sounds like a raise the trees and put up tract housing kind of place, so the Astro turfing of meetings fits the community.

Not an Emerald Chase parent. They heard comments that they inappropriately flooded the meeting and backed off. Since then, they put in one comment and let people upvote it. That's no different than what other impacted communities are doing. Or non-impacted communities. There is always a residency check comment, always a SACC comment, always a grandfathering comment. I would be very surprised if the same people aren't logging in to make their points stronger. This is the way they designed the feedback so this is how people are going to play it.

By the end of the night, there were 200+ votes for comments about leaving HV alone, leaving Vienna ES along, and not swapping McLean and Marshall students for no reason. The most frequent comment was about Timber Lane.

Is there a reason you need to hate other places so much? So what if it's the kind of place where they rushed in to put tract housing? People live there. They raise their kids there. They deserve to have their concerns heard.

Hate? Why is speaking up against a community that has an HOA, is encouraging people who don’t even have kids who will be affected to attend meetings that aren’t in their zone equivalent to hate?
It sounds like a community that has tract housing and was named by a developer. This is its truth.
Free speech goes both ways and I think their tactics run contrary to the idea the all voices should be heard and they are attempting to be the loudest/strongest voice so they can be heard. I disagree with that.

If your issue was really just with tactics, you wouldn't have felt the need to be snobby about their community or housing type. You look down on them and that has nothing to do with the Boundary Policy. It's gross.

+1

So you think calling out a tract development as a tract development and saying they can more easily organize thanks to their HOA is a greater evil than attempting to drown out the voices of those who don’t live in a tract development. Talk about gross!

Agree. I guess the PP lives on a two acre lot with a custom built home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

The pigeonhole (?) board has 240+ votes for Emerald Chase and whatever they want, but most comments are “please don’t do this right now”

Emerald Chase is flooding the Lewis meeting?

That is even more ridiculous than them flooding the Robinson meeting

There was one Emerald Chase post that got upvoted tonight surrounded by a bunch about Timberlane, Falls Hill, Hunt Valley, McLean, etc. some of you need to find a new boogeyman

It was upvoted exponentially more than any other comment. It is pretty clear what emerald chase is doing. The others had more comments but only a few upvotes. But emerald chase sounds like a raise the trees and put up tract housing kind of place, so the Astro turfing of meetings fits the community.

Not an Emerald Chase parent. They heard comments that they inappropriately flooded the meeting and backed off. Since then, they put in one comment and let people upvote it. That's no different than what other impacted communities are doing. Or non-impacted communities. There is always a residency check comment, always a SACC comment, always a grandfathering comment. I would be very surprised if the same people aren't logging in to make their points stronger. This is the way they designed the feedback so this is how people are going to play it.

By the end of the night, there were 200+ votes for comments about leaving HV alone, leaving Vienna ES along, and not swapping McLean and Marshall students for no reason. The most frequent comment was about Timber Lane.

Is there a reason you need to hate other places so much? So what if it's the kind of place where they rushed in to put tract housing? People live there. They raise their kids there. They deserve to have their concerns heard.

The community meetings shouldn’t be a directionless free for all. There should have been a meeting per impacted pyramid. Therefore they could get meaningful feedback for those impacted areas, and Emerald Chase would only have to frenzy click during the Chantilly meeting.

Thru’s process of focusing on the Top 5 comments is lazy, pitting neighbors against neighbors, and is (everyone’s favorite buzz word) inequitable to communities who don’t have the resources to spam pigeonhole every other night.

Policy 8130 specificly states that before any proposals are made, fcps shall have a publicly advertised meeting in each pyramid that will be affected by rezoning.

Fcps has already violated that part of Policy 8130.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

The pigeonhole (?) board has 240+ votes for Emerald Chase and whatever they want, but most comments are “please don’t do this right now”

Emerald Chase is flooding the Lewis meeting?

That is even more ridiculous than them flooding the Robinson meeting

There was one Emerald Chase post that got upvoted tonight surrounded by a bunch about Timberlane, Falls Hill, Hunt Valley, McLean, etc. some of you need to find a new boogeyman

It was upvoted exponentially more than any other comment. It is pretty clear what emerald chase is doing. The others had more comments but only a few upvotes. But emerald chase sounds like a raise the trees and put up tract housing kind of place, so the Astro turfing of meetings fits the community.

Not an Emerald Chase parent. They heard comments that they inappropriately flooded the meeting and backed off. Since then, they put in one comment and let people upvote it. That's no different than what other impacted communities are doing. Or non-impacted communities. There is always a residency check comment, always a SACC comment, always a grandfathering comment. I would be very surprised if the same people aren't logging in to make their points stronger. This is the way they designed the feedback so this is how people are going to play it.

By the end of the night, there were 200+ votes for comments about leaving HV alone, leaving Vienna ES along, and not swapping McLean and Marshall students for no reason. The most frequent comment was about Timber Lane.

Is there a reason you need to hate other places so much? So what if it's the kind of place where they rushed in to put tract housing? People live there. They raise their kids there. They deserve to have their concerns heard.

Hate? Why is speaking up against a community that has an HOA, is encouraging people who don’t even have kids who will be affected to attend meetings that aren’t in their zone equivalent to hate?
It sounds like a community that has tract housing and was named by a developer. This is its truth.
Free speech goes both ways and I think their tactics run contrary to the idea the all voices should be heard and they are attempting to be the loudest/strongest voice so they can be heard. I disagree with that.

If your issue was really just with tactics, you wouldn't have felt the need to be snobby about their community or housing type. You look down on them and that has nothing to do with the Boundary Policy. It's gross.

+1

So you think calling out a tract development as a tract development and saying they can more easily organize thanks to their HOA is a greater evil than attempting to drown out the voices of those who don’t live in a tract development. Talk about gross!

Agree. I guess the PP lives on a two acre lot with a custom built home.

Definitely at the western edge of the Langley district worried that any changes to these scenarios will shift currently untouched lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A friend sent me a screenshot of a poster calling out families who send their kids to St. James instead of their zoned elementary school. I can't find the post to comment.

We bought our land and built a house zoned for the middle and high school we wanted for our kids, not the elementary school. With the proposed scenarios, it seems like that may not happen. We have three options: fight, comply, or move. We're going to start by fighting. Families do what they feel is best for their kids.

Oh the “best for our kids”. We can all see through what this really means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend sent me a screenshot of a poster calling out families who send their kids to St. James instead of their zoned elementary school. I can't find the post to comment.

We bought our land and built a house zoned for the middle and high school we wanted for our kids, not the elementary school. With the proposed scenarios, it seems like that may not happen. We have three options: fight, comply, or move. We're going to start by fighting. Families do what they feel is best for their kids.

Oh the “best for our kids”. We can all see through what this really means.

Please tell us. Because that is what it means to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

The pigeonhole (?) board has 240+ votes for Emerald Chase and whatever they want, but most comments are “please don’t do this right now”

Emerald Chase is flooding the Lewis meeting?

That is even more ridiculous than them flooding the Robinson meeting

There was one Emerald Chase post that got upvoted tonight surrounded by a bunch about Timberlane, Falls Hill, Hunt Valley, McLean, etc. some of you need to find a new boogeyman

It was upvoted exponentially more than any other comment. It is pretty clear what emerald chase is doing. The others had more comments but only a few upvotes. But emerald chase sounds like a raise the trees and put up tract housing kind of place, so the Astro turfing of meetings fits the community.

Not an Emerald Chase parent. They heard comments that they inappropriately flooded the meeting and backed off. Since then, they put in one comment and let people upvote it. That's no different than what other impacted communities are doing. Or non-impacted communities. There is always a residency check comment, always a SACC comment, always a grandfathering comment. I would be very surprised if the same people aren't logging in to make their points stronger. This is the way they designed the feedback so this is how people are going to play it.

By the end of the night, there were 200+ votes for comments about leaving HV alone, leaving Vienna ES along, and not swapping McLean and Marshall students for no reason. The most frequent comment was about Timber Lane.

Is there a reason you need to hate other places so much? So what if it's the kind of place where they rushed in to put tract housing? People live there. They raise their kids there. They deserve to have their concerns heard.

Hate? Why is speaking up against a community that has an HOA, is encouraging people who don’t even have kids who will be affected to attend meetings that aren’t in their zone equivalent to hate?
It sounds like a community that has tract housing and was named by a developer. This is its truth.
Free speech goes both ways and I think their tactics run contrary to the idea the all voices should be heard and they are attempting to be the loudest/strongest voice so they can be heard. I disagree with that.

If your issue was really just with tactics, you wouldn't have felt the need to be snobby about their community or housing type. You look down on them and that has nothing to do with the Boundary Policy. It's gross.

+1

So you think calling out a tract development as a tract development and saying they can more easily organize thanks to their HOA is a greater evil than attempting to drown out the voices of those who don’t live in a tract development. Talk about gross!

Agree. I guess the PP lives on a two acre lot with a custom built home.

Definitely at the western edge of the Langley district worried that any changes to these scenarios will shift currently untouched lines.

None of these scenarios push Langley over 105%. And that’s not even factoring in 100 pupil placements that raises capacity. Why would all of a sudden there be massive changes to Langley come the fall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Lewis meeting this evening, the overwhelming sentiment was against boundary changes. Always great to have to burn a Friday evening to help FCPS discover the obvious.

Any Lewis parents there? Anyone tell them to drop IB?

The pigeonhole (?) board has 240+ votes for Emerald Chase and whatever they want, but most comments are “please don’t do this right now”

Emerald Chase is flooding the Lewis meeting?

That is even more ridiculous than them flooding the Robinson meeting

There was one Emerald Chase post that got upvoted tonight surrounded by a bunch about Timberlane, Falls Hill, Hunt Valley, McLean, etc. some of you need to find a new boogeyman

It was upvoted exponentially more than any other comment. It is pretty clear what emerald chase is doing. The others had more comments but only a few upvotes. But emerald chase sounds like a raise the trees and put up tract housing kind of place, so the Astro turfing of meetings fits the community.

Not an Emerald Chase parent. They heard comments that they inappropriately flooded the meeting and backed off. Since then, they put in one comment and let people upvote it. That's no different than what other impacted communities are doing. Or non-impacted communities. There is always a residency check comment, always a SACC comment, always a grandfathering comment. I would be very surprised if the same people aren't logging in to make their points stronger. This is the way they designed the feedback so this is how people are going to play it.

By the end of the night, there were 200+ votes for comments about leaving HV alone, leaving Vienna ES along, and not swapping McLean and Marshall students for no reason. The most frequent comment was about Timber Lane.

Is there a reason you need to hate other places so much? So what if it's the kind of place where they rushed in to put tract housing? People live there. They raise their kids there. They deserve to have their concerns heard.

Hate? Why is speaking up against a community that has an HOA, is encouraging people who don’t even have kids who will be affected to attend meetings that aren’t in their zone equivalent to hate?
It sounds like a community that has tract housing and was named by a developer. This is its truth.
Free speech goes both ways and I think their tactics run contrary to the idea the all voices should be heard and they are attempting to be the loudest/strongest voice so they can be heard. I disagree with that.

If your issue was really just with tactics, you wouldn't have felt the need to be snobby about their community or housing type. You look down on them and that has nothing to do with the Boundary Policy. It's gross.

+1

So you think calling out a tract development as a tract development and saying they can more easily organize thanks to their HOA is a greater evil than attempting to drown out the voices of those who don’t live in a tract development. Talk about gross!

Agree. I guess the PP lives on a two acre lot with a custom built home.

Definitely at the western edge of the Langley district worried that any changes to these scenarios will shift currently untouched lines.

None of these scenarios push Langley over 105%. And that’s not even factoring in 100 pupil placements that raises capacity. Why would all of a sudden there be massive changes to Langley come the fall?

Yes, that will be the question.

[Anonymous]

In truth, it is much easier to post links to meetings through already existing email pathways and websites than it is to create those pathways in communities that have no HOA. In a non-HOA Community that would involve door knocking, social media posting across multiple sites, getting personal contact information etc just to get to the point where a community has an email list. I understand people’s defensiveness in me pointing that out, but it isn’t “rude” to say so. It is the truth. Saying things like “we encourage all communities to participate” when many can’t organize as easily as you do is disingenuous.

I've been watching this thread because I went through this with my kids. I do live in tract housing with an HOA. Our HOA was not involved at all. However, our PTA parents became seriously engaged and formed groups to fight a change.

However, at that time, they were not taking elementary neighborhoods and splitting them as they are now. That hits closer to home. Anyone who cannot see that either has an agenda or has never had children.
I don't blame anyone who wants to keep the status quo.

Anyone who does not want to keep the status quo is likely someone who has no attachment to their current community and school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wait for the new maps to come out in the fall moving Langley to Herndon. If you think this page is ugly now…

Ah, so we’re back to the secret map stage? I think there are some posters who just want to sow confusion so people don’t pay attention to what’s actually before them at the moment.

I have no doubt that, if new maps were to emerge moving part of Langley to Herndon, it would generate a lot of attention. But there are no such maps now, and Thru could not reconcile moving any part of Langley consistent with its stated priorities.