School Board Forum on "Boundary and Capacity"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please fix the school boundaries in and around 20171. Thank you.

What’s broken? There are other zip codes where kids go to multiple schools.

20171 is Herndon.

20171 kids go to four different high schools (Chantily, Oakton, Westfield, and SLHS in Reston) but none of them are assigned to Herndon High.

Something is seriously messed up.

20171 is Oak Hill, which happens to border Reston and Herndon. It is not Herndon or Reston, we pay extra to use Herndon and Reston services, like the community center, classes, and pools. The commute to SLHS from Fox Mill is a bit faster than the commute to Herndon High. Fox Mill was moved from Oakton to South Lakes to decrease the number of FARMs kids at SLHS. So yeah, we already did the boundary shuffle. Look else where to fill your social justice warrior BS.

You're still in Herndon... Just as Wolftrap is still in Vienna despite not being in the Town of Vienna. Perhaps if your community welcomed the Herndon name you could be proud of it instead of being embarrassed.

You want to read your bias into every conversation. I don't care about the population at a high school in its day to day function. I care about the opportunities available to my kid. Herndon, Lewis, Justice, Mt. Vernon, South Lakes simply do not have the same opportunities as Langley, McLean, Oakton, and the like. So yeah, I would prefer to be there. We know that we will have to pursue out of school enrichment and extra curriculars to meet our kids interests and needs, so that is what we will do. That doesn't mean that I think that we screw over other kids by shifting boundaries so that other kids are put on the position that the Fox Mill kids were put in.

Maybe the Herndon families should focus on their school and stop worrying about moving other kids from their schools into Herndon. Take pride in your school and stop thnking that it would be better if you brought in the kids from Great Falls.

Lewis and South Lakes while both fine schools, are most dissimilar. Lewis is a small high school that lacks the large middle /upper middle class class cohort needed to support sports, extracurriculars, and varied academic offerings. South Lakes on the other hand is a large high school with a large upper middle class cohort with a plethora of course options and strong athletics.

South Lakes is 32% FARMs and would be a higher percentage FARMs without the Fox Mill kids, that is why the boundary was shifted. Let's not pretend that there are not schools within schools at Herndon and South Lakes, where the AP and IB kids are doing their own things with little interaction with the kids in non-honors classes. South Lakes is very much a high FARMs school, the Fox Mill kids do not shift the numbers that significantly. Moving a small group of kids into Herndon or Lewis or any of the other High FARMs schools might make things look better on paper but it really isn't doing much for those FARMs kids. The new students will move to the AP/IB cohort and be isolated from the FARMs population that don't manage to make it into those programs.

Shifting the boundaries will do little to help the kids that need help. All it does is reduce opportunities for kids whose parents will have the money to pay for private school or pay for extra curricular opportunities. It is a bandaid not a fix.

I would not consider 30% FARMS a HIGH FARMS school. My kids are in a 30% FARMS ES and it is still primarily high achieving white and asian kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what about McLean HS? It clearly needs a renovation and expansion, and yet just marginal fixes is all it gets.

Go away, Mclean mommy.

This poster just made the same post on the other thread. So immature and not even original.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please fix the school boundaries in and around 20171. Thank you.

What’s broken? There are other zip codes where kids go to multiple schools.

20171 is Herndon.

20171 kids go to four different high schools (Chantily, Oakton, Westfield, and SLHS in Reston) but none of them are assigned to Herndon High.

Something is seriously messed up.

You could just as easily say things are messed up because two Reston schools go to Herndon - Aldrin and Armstrong.

The point is that zip codes don’t have much to do with school assignments when the areas in question are just unincorporated parts of the county. Kids in 22182 also go to four high schools - it just happens that none of the four has the name “Vienna HS.”

Madison is a de facto Vienna high school while SLHS is a de facto Reston high school. Some kids in 22182 go to Madison and Many kids in 20194 go to SLHS.

And Herndon is a de facto Herndon high school, but people with Herndon mailing addresses attend schools besides Herndon, people with Vienna mailing addresses attend schools besides Madison, people with Reston mailing addresses attend schools besides South Lakes, etc.

You seem to want additional areas with Herndon (or Oak Hill) mailing addresses moved to Herndon for demographic reasons, and if that's the case you should just make that argument rather than suggest that Herndon is being treated differently than Vienna, Reston, etc.

That was not my argument. Communities like Herndon, Vienna, Oakton, and South Lakes have their own high schools.

20171, whether it’s called Herndon or Oak Hill, doesn’t have one. 20171 is solidly middle class and quite distinct from 20170 Herndon or Reston. Instead of building a high school, the county continues the four way split.

Thus an identity crisis (is it part of Herndon or unqiue enough to have a distinct name such as Oak Hill?).

You do know your argument is frivolous, right? If your area has an identity crisis, it’s because it’s just part of the unincorporated Fairfax suburbs. It’s not because it doesn’t have its own high school.

You could just as easily say Reston has an identity crisis because some students attend Langley, Oakton has an identity crisis because some of its students attend Madison, Vienna has an identity crisis because some of its students attend Marshall, etc.

Disagree.

High schools are big part of community. Let’s say there is no Oakton high school. What’s the point of Oakton area then?

Yes some kids in Reston attend Langley or Herndon High. Reston as a community still does have its own high school. That makes a big difference.

I dunno, what was the point of Oakton before OHS got built in the late 60s?

And there's no high school in Great Falls. Are you saying there's no community there?

Um, Langley?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what about McLean HS? It clearly needs a renovation and expansion, and yet just marginal fixes is all it gets.

Go away, Mclean mommy.

Don’t assume my gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what about McLean HS? It clearly needs a renovation and expansion, and yet just marginal fixes is all it gets.

Go away, Mclean mommy.

Don’t assume my gender.

I don't care what gender you are, but you post the same thing over and over again complaining about McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Herndon families should focus on their school and stop worrying about moving other kids from their schools into Herndon. Take pride in your school and stop thnking that it would be better if you brought in the kids from Great Falls.

These aren't people with kids in Herndon. They're people with houses zoned for Herndon and want that property value to go up because Herndon is filled with such subpar students that it drags their property value down.

[Anonymous]

On another thread, but equally relevant to this one:

From Kyle McDaniel, one of the new at-large members:

"On February 13th, the School Board will hold a work session to discuss a path forward that addresses significant gaps in existing policies, and creates a roadmap for a division wide boundary adjustment. In my comments last night, I stated that I will not support any more one-off boundary changes until we overhaul these flawed policies, and implement a County-wide boundary study to fix the overcrowding that has plagued our schools for decades."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On another thread, but equally relevant to this one:

From Kyle McDaniel, one of the new at-large members:

"On February 13th, the School Board will hold a work session to discuss a path forward that addresses significant gaps in existing policies, and creates a roadmap for a division wide boundary adjustment. In my comments last night, I stated that I will not support any more one-off boundary changes until we overhaul these flawed policies, and implement a County-wide boundary study to fix the overcrowding that has plagued our schools for decades."

These newbies are not ready for the blowback. They should ask some of the folks who were on the school board back in 2019 how this is going to go for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On another thread, but equally relevant to this one:

From Kyle McDaniel, one of the new at-large members:

"On February 13th, the School Board will hold a work session to discuss a path forward that addresses significant gaps in existing policies, and creates a roadmap for a division wide boundary adjustment. In my comments last night, I stated that I will not support any more one-off boundary changes until we overhaul these flawed policies, and implement a County-wide boundary study to fix the overcrowding that has plagued our schools for decades."

These newbies are not ready for the blowback. They should ask some of the folks who were on the school board back in 2019 how this is going to go for them.

Hasn't he been on the school board before?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On another thread, but equally relevant to this one:

From Kyle McDaniel, one of the new at-large members:

"On February 13th, the School Board will hold a work session to discuss a path forward that addresses significant gaps in existing policies, and creates a roadmap for a division wide boundary adjustment. In my comments last night, I stated that I will not support any more one-off boundary changes until we overhaul these flawed policies, and implement a County-wide boundary study to fix the overcrowding that has plagued our schools for decades."

These newbies are not ready for the blowback. They should ask some of the folks who were on the school board back in 2019 how this is going to go for them.

Hasn't he been on the school board before?

McDaniel ran for the School Board in 2019 and lost to Cohen. The other two at-large members (Moon and McElveen) are returnees.

Right now they are setting themselves up for a battle royale, because they are promising big changes (the first county-wide boundary revisions since the mid-1980s), and suggesting it's going to be based primarily on recommendations from FCPS staff or third-party consultants. But assigned that task, the FCPS staff or third-party consultants will insist that the School Board not only identify the relevant criteria, but prioritize them. The fingers will be pointing in every which direction.

And once any priority is identified that could lead to moving anyone out of one school in particular - Langley - they'll be met with a tidal wave of opposition from an outspoken and wealthy community that wants their kids at Langley, and Langley alone, and will denounce their perceived opponents as "social engineers," etc.

It's possible the new Board won't wilt like the prior Board did in 2018-19 after all, there is more precedent now to suggest that Democrats on the School Board can do whatever they want and get re-elected to the School Board or elected to higher office. They could also launch their own PR effort to basically portray the Langley parents leading the opposition (not all Langley parents, but the ones who were previously behind "One Great Falls" and "Voices of Fairfax" and could be expected to rear their heads again) as elitist, out-of-touch, MAGA types. And, given that the overcrowding at some schools may have gone on even longer by the time they get around to this, there may be broader support for a comprehensive review (although the survey results from the consultant that was hired suggest parents just want more additions and renovations, which of course costs more money, and not boundary changes).

But it won't be pretty, and it won't be easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On another thread, but equally relevant to this one:

From Kyle McDaniel, one of the new at-large members:

"On February 13th, the School Board will hold a work session to discuss a path forward that addresses significant gaps in existing policies, and creates a roadmap for a division wide boundary adjustment. In my comments last night, I stated that I will not support any more one-off boundary changes until we overhaul these flawed policies, and implement a County-wide boundary study to fix the overcrowding that has plagued our schools for decades."

These newbies are not ready for the blowback. They should ask some of the folks who were on the school board back in 2019 how this is going to go for them.

Hasn't he been on the school board before?

McDaniel ran for the School Board in 2019 and lost to Cohen. The other two at-large members (Moon and McElveen) are returnees.

Right now they are setting themselves up for a battle royale, because they are promising big changes (the first county-wide boundary revisions since the mid-1980s), and suggesting it's going to be based primarily on recommendations from FCPS staff or third-party consultants. But assigned that task, the FCPS staff or third-party consultants will insist that the School Board not only identify the relevant criteria, but prioritize them. The fingers will be pointing in every which direction.

And once any priority is identified that could lead to moving anyone out of one school in particular - Langley - they'll be met with a tidal wave of opposition from an outspoken and wealthy community that wants their kids at Langley, and Langley alone, and will denounce their perceived opponents as "social engineers," etc.

It's possible the new Board won't wilt like the prior Board did in 2018-19 after all, there is more precedent now to suggest that Democrats on the School Board can do whatever they want and get re-elected to the School Board or elected to higher office. They could also launch their own PR effort to basically portray the Langley parents leading the opposition (not all Langley parents, but the ones who were previously behind "One Great Falls" and "Voices of Fairfax" and could be expected to rear their heads again) as elitist, out-of-touch, MAGA types. And, given that the overcrowding at some schools may have gone on even longer by the time they get around to this, there may be broader support for a comprehensive review (although the survey results from the consultant that was hired suggest parents just want more additions and renovations, which of course costs more money, and not boundary changes).

But it won't be pretty, and it won't be easy.

I for one am done voting yes to every referendum asking for funding towards FCPS facilities, just because well-off parents are throwing hissy fits over their demands for unnecessary luxury renovations. The level of disparity is too far gone now. Some pyramids got very lucky in the past half decade but I'm frustrated that we would effectively subsidize the wealthiest communities at the cost of the poorest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On another thread, but equally relevant to this one:

From Kyle McDaniel, one of the new at-large members:

"On February 13th, the School Board will hold a work session to discuss a path forward that addresses significant gaps in existing policies, and creates a roadmap for a division wide boundary adjustment. In my comments last night, I stated that I will not support any more one-off boundary changes until we overhaul these flawed policies, and implement a County-wide boundary study to fix the overcrowding that has plagued our schools for decades."

These newbies are not ready for the blowback. They should ask some of the folks who were on the school board back in 2019 how this is going to go for them.

Hasn't he been on the school board before?

McDaniel ran for the School Board in 2019 and lost to Cohen. The other two at-large members (Moon and McElveen) are returnees.

Right now they are setting themselves up for a battle royale, because they are promising big changes (the first county-wide boundary revisions since the mid-1980s), and suggesting it's going to be based primarily on recommendations from FCPS staff or third-party consultants. But assigned that task, the FCPS staff or third-party consultants will insist that the School Board not only identify the relevant criteria, but prioritize them. The fingers will be pointing in every which direction.

And once any priority is identified that could lead to moving anyone out of one school in particular - Langley - they'll be met with a tidal wave of opposition from an outspoken and wealthy community that wants their kids at Langley, and Langley alone, and will denounce their perceived opponents as "social engineers," etc.

It's possible the new Board won't wilt like the prior Board did in 2018-19 after all, there is more precedent now to suggest that Democrats on the School Board can do whatever they want and get re-elected to the School Board or elected to higher office. They could also launch their own PR effort to basically portray the Langley parents leading the opposition (not all Langley parents, but the ones who were previously behind "One Great Falls" and "Voices of Fairfax" and could be expected to rear their heads again) as elitist, out-of-touch, MAGA types. And, given that the overcrowding at some schools may have gone on even longer by the time they get around to this, there may be broader support for a comprehensive review (although the survey results from the consultant that was hired suggest parents just want more additions and renovations, which of course costs more money, and not boundary changes).

But it won't be pretty, and it won't be easy.

I for one am done voting yes to every referendum asking for funding towards FCPS facilities, just because well-off parents are throwing hissy fits over their demands for unnecessary luxury renovations. The level of disparity is too far gone now. Some pyramids got very lucky in the past half decade but I'm frustrated that we would effectively subsidize the wealthiest communities at the cost of the poorest.

Bond referenda always pass and when you vote against one people just think you don't want to pay taxes, not that you're concerned with how money may have been allocated in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On another thread, but equally relevant to this one:

From Kyle McDaniel, one of the new at-large members:

"On February 13th, the School Board will hold a work session to discuss a path forward that addresses significant gaps in existing policies, and creates a roadmap for a division wide boundary adjustment. In my comments last night, I stated that I will not support any more one-off boundary changes until we overhaul these flawed policies, and implement a County-wide boundary study to fix the overcrowding that has plagued our schools for decades."

These newbies are not ready for the blowback. They should ask some of the folks who were on the school board back in 2019 how this is going to go for them.

Hasn't he been on the school board before?

McDaniel ran for the School Board in 2019 and lost to Cohen. The other two at-large members (Moon and McElveen) are returnees.

Right now they are setting themselves up for a battle royale, because they are promising big changes (the first county-wide boundary revisions since the mid-1980s), and suggesting it's going to be based primarily on recommendations from FCPS staff or third-party consultants. But assigned that task, the FCPS staff or third-party consultants will insist that the School Board not only identify the relevant criteria, but prioritize them. The fingers will be pointing in every which direction.

And once any priority is identified that could lead to moving anyone out of one school in particular - Langley - they'll be met with a tidal wave of opposition from an outspoken and wealthy community that wants their kids at Langley, and Langley alone, and will denounce their perceived opponents as "social engineers," etc.

It's possible the new Board won't wilt like the prior Board did in 2018-19 after all, there is more precedent now to suggest that Democrats on the School Board can do whatever they want and get re-elected to the School Board or elected to higher office. They could also launch their own PR effort to basically portray the Langley parents leading the opposition (not all Langley parents, but the ones who were previously behind "One Great Falls" and "Voices of Fairfax" and could be expected to rear their heads again) as elitist, out-of-touch, MAGA types. And, given that the overcrowding at some schools may have gone on even longer by the time they get around to this, there may be broader support for a comprehensive review (although the survey results from the consultant that was hired suggest parents just want more additions and renovations, which of course costs more money, and not boundary changes).

But it won't be pretty, and it won't be easy.

I for one am done voting yes to every referendum asking for funding towards FCPS facilities, just because well-off parents are throwing hissy fits over their demands for unnecessary luxury renovations. The level of disparity is too far gone now. Some pyramids got very lucky in the past half decade but I'm frustrated that we would effectively subsidize the wealthiest communities at the cost of the poorest.

Bond referenda always pass and when you vote against one people just think you don't want to pay taxes, not that you're concerned with how money may have been allocated in the past.

The worst part of it, is that the County has been requesting all these funds without a long-term plan for addressing overcrowding. I’m generally for funding improvements in schools, but I want my tax dollars to be spent effectively and efficiently, and there should be a long-term plan that leverages all the tools the County has (bonds, redistricting, public-private partnerships, revenue generating opportunities on County lands, etc.) to get the most out of our tax dollars. There should be a written proposal that says, “we are requesting funding to renovate and expand school X, which will allow us to expand the advanced academic programs offered at that school, and leverage the additional capacity to reduce or eliminate overcrowding at schools X, Y, and Z.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On another thread, but equally relevant to this one:

From Kyle McDaniel, one of the new at-large members:

"On February 13th, the School Board will hold a work session to discuss a path forward that addresses significant gaps in existing policies, and creates a roadmap for a division wide boundary adjustment. In my comments last night, I stated that I will not support any more one-off boundary changes until we overhaul these flawed policies, and implement a County-wide boundary study to fix the overcrowding that has plagued our schools for decades."

These newbies are not ready for the blowback. They should ask some of the folks who were on the school board back in 2019 how this is going to go for them.

Hasn't he been on the school board before?

McDaniel ran for the School Board in 2019 and lost to Cohen. The other two at-large members (Moon and McElveen) are returnees.

Right now they are setting themselves up for a battle royale, because they are promising big changes (the first county-wide boundary revisions since the mid-1980s), and suggesting it's going to be based primarily on recommendations from FCPS staff or third-party consultants. But assigned that task, the FCPS staff or third-party consultants will insist that the School Board not only identify the relevant criteria, but prioritize them. The fingers will be pointing in every which direction.

And once any priority is identified that could lead to moving anyone out of one school in particular - Langley - they'll be met with a tidal wave of opposition from an outspoken and wealthy community that wants their kids at Langley, and Langley alone, and will denounce their perceived opponents as "social engineers," etc.

It's possible the new Board won't wilt like the prior Board did in 2018-19 after all, there is more precedent now to suggest that Democrats on the School Board can do whatever they want and get re-elected to the School Board or elected to higher office. They could also launch their own PR effort to basically portray the Langley parents leading the opposition (not all Langley parents, but the ones who were previously behind "One Great Falls" and "Voices of Fairfax" and could be expected to rear their heads again) as elitist, out-of-touch, MAGA types. And, given that the overcrowding at some schools may have gone on even longer by the time they get around to this, there may be broader support for a comprehensive review (although the survey results from the consultant that was hired suggest parents just want more additions and renovations, which of course costs more money, and not boundary changes).

But it won't be pretty, and it won't be easy.

I for one am done voting yes to every referendum asking for funding towards FCPS facilities, just because well-off parents are throwing hissy fits over their demands for unnecessary luxury renovations. The level of disparity is too far gone now. Some pyramids got very lucky in the past half decade but I'm frustrated that we would effectively subsidize the wealthiest communities at the cost of the poorest.

Bond referenda always pass and when you vote against one people just think you don't want to pay taxes, not that you're concerned with how money may have been allocated in the past.

The worst part of it, is that the County has been requesting all these funds without a long-term plan for addressing overcrowding. I’m generally for funding improvements in schools, but I want my tax dollars to be spent effectively and efficiently, and there should be a long-term plan that leverages all the tools the County has (bonds, redistricting, public-private partnerships, revenue generating opportunities on County lands, etc.) to get the most out of our tax dollars. There should be a written proposal that says, “we are requesting funding to renovate and expand school X, which will allow us to expand the advanced academic programs offered at that school, and leverage the additional capacity to reduce or eliminate overcrowding at schools X, Y, and Z.”

The results of the discussion at Thursday's Board meeting seem to be in agreement with your reasoning. Board members are committing to stopping one-off solutions for capacity and boundaries in isolated situations. They agreed the next capacity decision will involve a complete look at boundaries across the county.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but supported one-offs that night again. Including yet another one by Ricardy.