FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the folks shouting on this board are Gatehouse, One Fairfax, true believers. They don’t seem to be aware of the real political cost of their radical vision.

I’ve thought this for a while. Doubly suspicious because any time you make a claim like that “poof” the post disappears.

The school board is deep in its echo chamber as we see daily on this board. Not even the parents and community members at all the meetings overwhelmingly clamoring for no changes has deterred them. Voting booth poison pill, for sure.

I’m more curious about how many times some of these rabid anti boundary change folks have posted. I suspect it’s fewer than ten great falls people who have contributed paged and pages.

You'll never know unless Jeff starts sharing information he typically does not share.

I'm 100% sure the anti-boundary change posts come from others in addition to Great Falls posters. I would say, at a minimum, the posts come from:

* Great Falls and/or Forestville posters who do not want to be rezoned to Herndon;

* West Springfield posters who do not want to be rezoned to Lewis;

* People still smarting from earlier boundary changes, such as the redistricting of Westfield and Oakton kids to South Lakes in 2008; and

* Others who do not see a reason for disruptive boundary changes at a time when enrollments are flat and there are some big macro uncertainties (i.e., DOGE, immigration) looming that could affect future school enrollments, or who think FCPS should have made other decisions (i.e., regarding the future of AAP centers and IB) before embarking on a boundary study.

To the extent FCPS staff are reading this thread it would be a mistake, and inconsistent with the feedback at the community meetings, for them to think it's just folks from two pyramids with serious concerns about the boundary review and how they've approached it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Waples Mill to Fairfax HS true?

Completely speculative and conjectural.

Until the day it becomes a fact and it’s too late to do anything.

These things aren't mutually exclusive. Something could be speculative now. And something could be revealed later as a "proposal" that ends up difficult to derail or challenge.

What seems to be happening on this thread, though, is people intentionally putting out false information to try and build opposition now to something that may never be proposed.

Do you have specific, inside information as to which information that has been posted is “false information”?

Are you part of every internal, informal discussion that will inform the proposal?

Please, do tell. You could set many minds at ease.

Sure, there are no “maps”, no “formal proposals”, but does that mean the shifts referenced in these “maps” have not, and will not be discussed at Gatehouse?

For example, please feel free to state, unequivocally “There is no consideration, whatsoever, that Forestville will shift to Herndon High. It is off the table.”

And then tell us all how you could possibly know this.

As long as all the options remain on the table, the tone and tenor coming out of FCPS (“Shut up and take it, you entitled snowflakes!”) will get people very concerned.

No, of course not. But we saw a poster claiming to have information from "leaked maps," only for FCPS to specifically deny the existence of any such maps.

And some of the purported boundary changes "leaked" did not bear any scrutiny, such as the assertion that FCPS would move three new elementary schools into the Lewis pyramid without moving anyone out of Lewis, which the school clearly doesn't have the capacity to accommodate.

I don't know who might be looking to move Forestville to Herndon. There are people posting here who clearly would or would not like that to happen, but they don't speak for FCPS, nor do I. I know some Great Falls folks grilled Robyn Lady about it at length last year, and she got pulled into hypothetical discussions, but does that mean they will actually propose that and just leave Langley with four ES feeders (Churchill Road, Spring Hill, Colvin Run, and Great Falls)? That would seem odd to me, but I don't really know.

I also don't know the basis for your assertion that "the tone and tenor coming out of FCPS" is "Shut up and take it, you entitled snowflakes." They spend a lot of time emphasizing that they don't have specific proposals yet, and that there will be plenty of opportunity for feedback later. Those of us who have dealt with FCPS on other issues know that the feedback is often ignored but the tone isn't as demeaning as you suggest.

Having had conversations with sb members and others at gatehouse, that does in fact appear to be the tenor coming out of FCPS. I’ve witnessed it firsthand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Waples Mill to Fairfax HS true?

Completely speculative and conjectural.

Until the day it becomes a fact and it’s too late to do anything.

These things aren't mutually exclusive. Something could be speculative now. And something could be revealed later as a "proposal" that ends up difficult to derail or challenge.

What seems to be happening on this thread, though, is people intentionally putting out false information to try and build opposition now to something that may never be proposed.

I guess, but isn't it better to shape an outcome rather than fight something already decided? The goal should be to proactively shape policy instead of just reacting.

Absolutely, but if your vehicle to do that is to put out false information to stir up people you lose credibilty when the false information gets debunked.

On the other hand, if your approach is to say, for example, "We don't know whether FCPS plans to propose moving Forestville to Herndon, but here are X reasons why we believe such a move, if proposed, would be unwise," you would have more credibility, even if the decision-makers ultimately disagreed with you.

The original post with supposed map info clearly said that the information was from a different source and that it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Fcps can shout to the hills that there aren’t maps yet, but id be willing to bet a large sum of money that the conversations about what schools to move have taken place and are taking place at gatehouse, even as they have BRAC members, toiling away.

You can always do what FairFACTS matters just did and submit a FOIA request and see what you get. You're talking about discussions outside the BRAC process, so the weird argument about BRAC deliberations being exempt from FOIA because the BRAC provides advice to Reid wouldn't apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Waples Mill to Fairfax HS true?

Completely speculative and conjectural.

Until the day it becomes a fact and it’s too late to do anything.

These things aren't mutually exclusive. Something could be speculative now. And something could be revealed later as a "proposal" that ends up difficult to derail or challenge.

What seems to be happening on this thread, though, is people intentionally putting out false information to try and build opposition now to something that may never be proposed.

I guess, but isn't it better to shape an outcome rather than fight something already decided? The goal should be to proactively shape policy instead of just reacting.

Absolutely, but if your vehicle to do that is to put out false information to stir up people you lose credibilty when the false information gets debunked.

On the other hand, if your approach is to say, for example, "We don't know whether FCPS plans to propose moving Forestville to Herndon, but here are X reasons why we believe such a move, if proposed, would be unwise," you would have more credibility, even if the decision-makers ultimately disagreed with you.

The original post with supposed map info clearly said that the information was from a different source and that it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Fcps can shout to the hills that there aren’t maps yet, but id be willing to bet a large sum of money that the conversations about what schools to move have taken place and are taking place at gatehouse, even as they have BRAC members, toiling away.

Right! Isn't that the DC way? Have a preordained solution you want to implement, throw money at a contractor to create a post-hoc rationalization that legitimizes and formalizes your preferred solution. Then present it as a fait accompli backed up by data cherry-picked to justify your original preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Waples Mill to Fairfax HS true?

Completely speculative and conjectural.

Until the day it becomes a fact and it’s too late to do anything.

These things aren't mutually exclusive. Something could be speculative now. And something could be revealed later as a "proposal" that ends up difficult to derail or challenge.

What seems to be happening on this thread, though, is people intentionally putting out false information to try and build opposition now to something that may never be proposed.

Do you have specific, inside information as to which information that has been posted is “false information”?

Are you part of every internal, informal discussion that will inform the proposal?

Please, do tell. You could set many minds at ease.

Sure, there are no “maps”, no “formal proposals”, but does that mean the shifts referenced in these “maps” have not, and will not be discussed at Gatehouse?

For example, please feel free to state, unequivocally “There is no consideration, whatsoever, that Forestville will shift to Herndon High. It is off the table.”

And then tell us all how you could possibly know this.

As long as all the options remain on the table, the tone and tenor coming out of FCPS (“Shut up and take it, you entitled snowflakes!”) will get people very concerned.

No, of course not. But we saw a poster claiming to have information from "leaked maps," only for FCPS to specifically deny the existence of any such maps.

And some of the purported boundary changes "leaked" did not bear any scrutiny, such as the assertion that FCPS would move three new elementary schools into the Lewis pyramid without moving anyone out of Lewis, which the school clearly doesn't have the capacity to accommodate.

I don't know who might be looking to move Forestville to Herndon. There are people posting here who clearly would or would not like that to happen, but they don't speak for FCPS, nor do I. I know some Great Falls folks grilled Robyn Lady about it at length last year, and she got pulled into hypothetical discussions, but does that mean they will actually propose that and just leave Langley with four ES feeders (Churchill Road, Spring Hill, Colvin Run, and Great Falls)? That would seem odd to me, but I don't really know.

I also don't know the basis for your assertion that "the tone and tenor coming out of FCPS" is "Shut up and take it, you entitled snowflakes." They spend a lot of time emphasizing that they don't have specific proposals yet, and that there will be plenty of opportunity for feedback later. Those of us who have dealt with FCPS on other issues know that the feedback is often ignored but the tone isn't as demeaning as you suggest.

Having had conversations with sb members and others at gatehouse, that does in fact appear to be the tenor coming out of FCPS. I’ve witnessed it firsthand.

"Tenor" is kind of a cheat word here, as is "tone." I'm sure no one is saying "Shut up and take it, you entitled snowflakes," so then it all becomes a question of how you're interpreting what they are actually saying and how it personally makes you feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Waples Mill to Fairfax HS true?

Completely speculative and conjectural.

Until the day it becomes a fact and it’s too late to do anything.

These things aren't mutually exclusive. Something could be speculative now. And something could be revealed later as a "proposal" that ends up difficult to derail or challenge.

What seems to be happening on this thread, though, is people intentionally putting out false information to try and build opposition now to something that may never be proposed.

I guess, but isn't it better to shape an outcome rather than fight something already decided? The goal should be to proactively shape policy instead of just reacting.

Absolutely, but if your vehicle to do that is to put out false information to stir up people you lose credibilty when the false information gets debunked.

On the other hand, if your approach is to say, for example, "We don't know whether FCPS plans to propose moving Forestville to Herndon, but here are X reasons why we believe such a move, if proposed, would be unwise," you would have more credibility, even if the decision-makers ultimately disagreed with you.

The original post with supposed map info clearly said that the information was from a different source and that it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Fcps can shout to the hills that there aren’t maps yet, but id be willing to bet a large sum of money that the conversations about what schools to move have taken place and are taking place at gatehouse, even as they have BRAC members, toiling away.

Right! Isn't that the DC way? Have a preordained solution you want to implement, throw money at a contractor to create a post-hoc rationalization that legitimizes and formalizes your preferred solution. Then present it as a fait accompli backed up by data cherry-picked to justify your original preference.

Notice also how March-June as the timeline for maps to be released became June. They are going to wait to release them after school is out and people are on vacation.
So with a March-June deadline, I bet there are 3 different maps available from Thru and the board is currently decide which one of the 3 to present. Or which 2 to present. You know they aren’t going to present all 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the folks shouting on this board are Gatehouse, One Fairfax, true believers. They don’t seem to be aware of the real political cost of their radical vision.

I’ve thought this for a while. Doubly suspicious because any time you make a claim like that “poof” the post disappears.

The school board is deep in its echo chamber as we see daily on this board. Not even the parents and community members at all the meetings overwhelmingly clamoring for no changes has deterred them. Voting booth poison pill, for sure.

I’m more curious about how many times some of these rabid anti boundary change folks have posted. I suspect it’s fewer than ten great falls people who have contributed paged and pages.

You'll never know unless Jeff starts sharing information he typically does not share.

I'm 100% sure the anti-boundary change posts come from others in addition to Great Falls posters. I would say, at a minimum, the posts come from:

* Great Falls and/or Forestville posters who do not want to be rezoned to Herndon;

* West Springfield posters who do not want to be rezoned to Lewis;

* People still smarting from earlier boundary changes, such as the redistricting of Westfield and Oakton kids to South Lakes in 2008; and

* Others who do not see a reason for disruptive boundary changes at a time when enrollments are flat and there are some big macro uncertainties (i.e., DOGE, immigration) looming that could affect future school enrollments, or who think FCPS should have made other decisions (i.e., regarding the future of AAP centers and IB) before embarking on a boundary study.

To the extent FCPS staff are reading this thread it would be a mistake, and inconsistent with the feedback at the community meetings, for them to think it's just folks from two pyramids with serious concerns about the boundary review and how they've approached it.

And to add another point. ANY school with kids that get moved is going to create a firestorm. People who know they are in the crosshairs are paying attention, others aren’t, but when they get moved you better believe they’ll come with the same fury.

The school board can’t win here. It’s a political trap no matter what moves they do, unless they just solve attendance islands, and even that will be difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the folks shouting on this board are Gatehouse, One Fairfax, true believers. They don’t seem to be aware of the real political cost of their radical vision.

I’ve thought this for a while. Doubly suspicious because any time you make a claim like that “poof” the post disappears.

The school board is deep in its echo chamber as we see daily on this board. Not even the parents and community members at all the meetings overwhelmingly clamoring for no changes has deterred them. Voting booth poison pill, for sure.

I’m more curious about how many times some of these rabid anti boundary change folks have posted. I suspect it’s fewer than ten great falls people who have contributed paged and pages.

You'll never know unless Jeff starts sharing information he typically does not share.

I'm 100% sure the anti-boundary change posts come from others in addition to Great Falls posters. I would say, at a minimum, the posts come from:

* Great Falls and/or Forestville posters who do not want to be rezoned to Herndon;

* West Springfield posters who do not want to be rezoned to Lewis;

* People still smarting from earlier boundary changes, such as the redistricting of Westfield and Oakton kids to South Lakes in 2008; and

* Others who do not see a reason for disruptive boundary changes at a time when enrollments are flat and there are some big macro uncertainties (i.e., DOGE, immigration) looming that could affect future school enrollments, or who think FCPS should have made other decisions (i.e., regarding the future of AAP centers and IB) before embarking on a boundary study.

To the extent FCPS staff are reading this thread it would be a mistake, and inconsistent with the feedback at the community meetings, for them to think it's just folks from two pyramids with serious concerns about the boundary review and how they've approached it.

And to add another point. ANY school with kids that get moved is going to create a firestorm. People who know they are in the crosshairs are paying attention, others aren’t, but when they get moved you better believe they’ll come with the same fury.

The school board can’t win here. It’s a political trap no matter what moves they do, unless they just solve attendance islands, and even that will be difficult.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends a lot on the move and whether there is grandfathering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

* Others who do not see a reason for disruptive boundary changes at a time when enrollments are flat and there are some big macro uncertainties (i.e., DOGE, immigration) looming that could affect future school enrollments, or who think FCPS should have made other decisions (i.e., regarding the future of AAP centers and IB) before embarking on a boundary study.

The CIP projections could be highly inaccurate based on the points mentioned above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the folks shouting on this board are Gatehouse, One Fairfax, true believers. They don’t seem to be aware of the real political cost of their radical vision.

They are safe. Fairfax County is firmly Dem so they can do what they want and still stay in charge. It doesn't matter if the government schools decline. People with money will put their kids in private and continue voting Dem.

[Anonymous]

They are not going about this in any way that is good.

Which schools are having problems? Not the ones with too many students.

What are the problems in the schools that ARE having problems?
Achievement
Truancy
etc

Are the students in the schools with problems going to be helped by more students? Does that even make sense?

So, what is the purpose?
to make the schools look better on paper.

That's it.

This is NOT about equity. This is simply about optics.

If it were about equity, they would be focused on helping the "underserved." They would be far more concerned about truancy, tutoring, and facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are not going about this in any way that is good.

Which schools are having problems? Not the ones with too many students.

What are the problems in the schools that ARE having problems?
Achievement
Truancy
etc

Are the students in the schools with problems going to be helped by more students? Does that even make sense?

So, what is the purpose?
to make the schools look better on paper.

That's it.

This is NOT about equity. This is simply about optics.

If it were about equity, they would be focused on helping the "underserved." They would be far more concerned about truancy, tutoring, and facilities.

"Equity" is always about optics.

Equity has never been about helping the underserved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving HVES to Lewis would be farther from their homes. Also, HVES is only about 52.6% white; it is hardly a segregated school. The issue is between high- and low-performers, not race.

FCPS doesn't have segregated schools.

Anymore

AAP schools are a form of segregation.

AKA special education and is needed.

That claim is an insult to ACTUAL special education. A faster curriculum - because that's all AAP is - is NOT a gifted program. GMAFB.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving HVES to Lewis would be farther from their homes. Also, HVES is only about 52.6% white; it is hardly a segregated school. The issue is between high- and low-performers, not race.

FCPS doesn't have segregated schools.

Anymore

AAP schools are a form of segregation.

AKA special education and is needed.

That claim is an insult to ACTUAL special education. A faster curriculum - because that's all AAP is - is NOT a gifted program. GMAFB.
DP

Gifted education is considered special ed in Virginia and mandated by the state.

It has been for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving HVES to Lewis would be farther from their homes. Also, HVES is only about 52.6% white; it is hardly a segregated school. The issue is between high- and low-performers, not race.

FCPS doesn't have segregated schools.

Anymore

AAP schools are a form of segregation.

AKA special education and is needed.

AAP is NOT GT. It is not special education. Mainstream special ed. Mainstream GT.

+1
I would argue that SPED is *already* mainstreamed. So why isn't GT?