Abolish Boundary Maps Fairfax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An article in favor of new boundary zones rather than abolishing zones completely-

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3757887.3763006

We’re fresh off the disastrous comprehensive review of the last two years. The study you cite is just ideological drivel.

Ask the FCPS school board whether they thought the juice was worth the squeeze on the latest comprehensive boundary review, and they will all say no.

It was a waste of resources, time, and goodwill across the county. They squandered years where they could’ve actually been working to improve the system, rather than just try to paper over poorer performing schools.

It’s always the same in FCPS, or at least since 2008. They start off with an agenda of balancing demographics and end up increasing disparities among schools.

Ryan McElveen understood this would be the end result here yet again, which is why he was so unenthusiastic about this wasteful county-wide review from its inception. If only the others had listened.

OP, who appears to have been sock puppeting furiously, needs to give it a rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An article in favor of new boundary zones rather than abolishing zones completely-

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3757887.3763006

We’re fresh off the disastrous comprehensive review of the last two years. The study you cite is just ideological drivel.

Ask the FCPS school board whether they thought the juice was worth the squeeze on the latest comprehensive boundary review, and they will all say no.

It was a waste of resources, time, and goodwill across the county. They squandered years where they could’ve actually been working to improve the system, rather than just try to paper over poorer performing schools.

Ideological drivel meaning you disagree? lol what a lazy take

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An article in favor of new boundary zones rather than abolishing zones completely-

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3757887.3763006

We’re fresh off the disastrous comprehensive review of the last two years. The study you cite is just ideological drivel.

Ask the FCPS school board whether they thought the juice was worth the squeeze on the latest comprehensive boundary review, and they will all say no.

It was a waste of resources, time, and goodwill across the county. They squandered years where they could’ve actually been working to improve the system, rather than just try to paper over poorer performing schools.

It’s always the same in FCPS, or at least since 2008. They start off with an agenda of balancing demographics and end up increasing disparities among schools.

Ryan McElveen understood this would be the end result here yet again, which is why he was so unenthusiastic about this wasteful county-wide review from its inception. If only the others had listened.

OP, who appears to have been sock puppeting furiously, needs to give it a rest.

How would this increase disparity? Sounds like an empty threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An article in favor of new boundary zones rather than abolishing zones completely-

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3757887.3763006

We’re fresh off the disastrous comprehensive review of the last two years. The study you cite is just ideological drivel.

Ask the FCPS school board whether they thought the juice was worth the squeeze on the latest comprehensive boundary review, and they will all say no.

It was a waste of resources, time, and goodwill across the county. They squandered years where they could’ve actually been working to improve the system, rather than just try to paper over poorer performing schools.

It’s always the same in FCPS, or at least since 2008. They start off with an agenda of balancing demographics and end up increasing disparities among schools.

Ryan McElveen understood this would be the end result here yet again, which is why he was so unenthusiastic about this wasteful county-wide review from its inception. If only the others had listened.

OP, who appears to have been sock puppeting furiously, needs to give it a rest.

How would this increase disparity? Sounds like an empty threat.

PP is talking about the actual boundary changes in FCPS over the last 15 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An article in favor of new boundary zones rather than abolishing zones completely-

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3757887.3763006

We’re fresh off the disastrous comprehensive review of the last two years. The study you cite is just ideological drivel.

Ask the FCPS school board whether they thought the juice was worth the squeeze on the latest comprehensive boundary review, and they will all say no.

It was a waste of resources, time, and goodwill across the county. They squandered years where they could’ve actually been working to improve the system, rather than just try to paper over poorer performing schools.

It’s always the same in FCPS, or at least since 2008. They start off with an agenda of balancing demographics and end up increasing disparities among schools.

Ryan McElveen understood this would be the end result here yet again, which is why he was so unenthusiastic about this wasteful county-wide review from its inception. If only the others had listened.

OP, who appears to have been sock puppeting furiously, needs to give it a rest.

How would this increase disparity? Sounds like an empty threat.

PP is talking about the actual boundary changes in FCPS over the last 15 years.

What’s the point? Why would they increase disparity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An article in favor of new boundary zones rather than abolishing zones completely-

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3757887.3763006

We’re fresh off the disastrous comprehensive review of the last two years. The study you cite is just ideological drivel.

Ask the FCPS school board whether they thought the juice was worth the squeeze on the latest comprehensive boundary review, and they will all say no.

It was a waste of resources, time, and goodwill across the county. They squandered years where they could’ve actually been working to improve the system, rather than just try to paper over poorer performing schools.

It’s always the same in FCPS, or at least since 2008. They start off with an agenda of balancing demographics and end up increasing disparities among schools.

Ryan McElveen understood this would be the end result here yet again, which is why he was so unenthusiastic about this wasteful county-wide review from its inception. If only the others had listened.

OP, who appears to have been sock puppeting furiously, needs to give it a rest.

How would this increase disparity? Sounds like an empty threat.

PP is talking about the actual boundary changes in FCPS over the last 15 years.

What’s the point? Why would they increase disparity?

If you have to ask that question, you haven't been paying attention and don't know the school district you're dealing with.

[Anonymous]

If Meren were serious about listening to constituents she would also go after eliminating IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An article in favor of new boundary zones rather than abolishing zones completely-

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3757887.3763006

We’re fresh off the disastrous comprehensive review of the last two years. The study you cite is just ideological drivel.

Ask the FCPS school board whether they thought the juice was worth the squeeze on the latest comprehensive boundary review, and they will all say no.

It was a waste of resources, time, and goodwill across the county. They squandered years where they could’ve actually been working to improve the system, rather than just try to paper over poorer performing schools.

Ideological drivel meaning you disagree? lol what a lazy take

As opposed to your lazy take pointing to an article that you probably didn’t read (or even skim)? Didn’t even try to put forward a summary. You’ve got five years before the next boundary review so you might as well go find a hobby, rather than argue an ideology that is out of step with even deep blue Fairfax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An article in favor of new boundary zones rather than abolishing zones completely-

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3757887.3763006

We’re fresh off the disastrous comprehensive review of the last two years. The study you cite is just ideological drivel.

Ask the FCPS school board whether they thought the juice was worth the squeeze on the latest comprehensive boundary review, and they will all say no.

It was a waste of resources, time, and goodwill across the county. They squandered years where they could’ve actually been working to improve the system, rather than just try to paper over poorer performing schools.

It’s always the same in FCPS, or at least since 2008. They start off with an agenda of balancing demographics and end up increasing disparities among schools.

Ryan McElveen understood this would be the end result here yet again, which is why he was so unenthusiastic about this wasteful county-wide review from its inception. If only the others had listened.

OP, who appears to have been sock puppeting furiously, needs to give it a rest.

How would this increase disparity? Sounds like an empty threat.

PP is talking about the actual boundary changes in FCPS over the last 15 years.

What’s the point? Why would they increase disparity?

If you have to ask that question, you haven't been paying attention and don't know the school district you're dealing with.

I’d just like to hear you try to explain your argument, which apparently you cannot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An article in favor of new boundary zones rather than abolishing zones completely-

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3757887.3763006

We’re fresh off the disastrous comprehensive review of the last two years. The study you cite is just ideological drivel.

Ask the FCPS school board whether they thought the juice was worth the squeeze on the latest comprehensive boundary review, and they will all say no.

It was a waste of resources, time, and goodwill across the county. They squandered years where they could’ve actually been working to improve the system, rather than just try to paper over poorer performing schools.

Ideological drivel meaning you disagree? lol what a lazy take

As opposed to your lazy take pointing to an article that you probably didn’t read (or even skim)? Didn’t even try to put forward a summary. You’ve got five years before the next boundary review so you might as well go find a hobby, rather than argue an ideology that is out of step with even deep blue Fairfax.

The Abolish movement is bipartisan, so I don’t know why you’re taking about deep blue.

[Anonymous]

Imagine a system where there were no school boundaries and parents were left to arrange their kids’ transportation, leading to far more cars on the roads and more kids unable to attend the schools close to their homes because they were closed to transfers dropping out.

The same policy types would be advocating for a socialist system where the government pays for buses to transport kids to schools and more kids could walk to school.

Oh wait, we have that already.

[Anonymous]

Yawn. This is such an irrelevant pipe dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine a system where there were no school boundaries and parents were left to arrange their kids’ transportation, leading to far more cars on the roads and more kids unable to attend the schools close to their homes because they were closed to transfers dropping out.

The same policy types would be advocating for a socialist system where the government pays for buses to transport kids to schools and more kids could walk to school.

Oh wait, we have that already.

Why said there would be no busses in the new plan without boundaries?

Tell us how FCPS can provide buses when there are no boundaries.

[Anonymous]

sure and lets abolish property taxes like florida

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine a system where there were no school boundaries and parents were left to arrange their kids’ transportation, leading to far more cars on the roads and more kids unable to attend the schools close to their homes because they were closed to transfers dropping out.

The same policy types would be advocating for a socialist system where the government pays for buses to transport kids to schools and more kids could walk to school.

Oh wait, we have that already.

Why said there would be no busses in the new plan without boundaries?

Tell us how FCPS can provide buses when there are no boundaries.

Private school kids take public transportation. Public school kids could figure out a school bus system that goes to multiple schools.