Going to the meetings and speaking about property values won't be a good look. Guaranteeing profits for land sales is not within the School Board's purview. |
It's clear that many members of the School Board would like to use boundary changes as a way to reallocate housing equity. However, they won't admit it, and there won't be anything in the revised boundary policy that speaks to that. So anyone who shows up at a School Board meeting and complains about their houses losing value will get brushed off. It may resonate more if people keep driving home the point that over the years FCPS deliberately varied what different schools offer. It's odd to highlight the variety of programs, but then tell parents it really doesn't matter and we can just reassign you, for example, from an AP school to an IB school if we feel like it. The wealthiest will get around it by pupil placing; those with lesser means may have fewer options and won't be able to swing that. |
I don’t have to care for my own family, luckily. It’s the principle for me. Reboundary for capacity and efficiency, try to keep neighborhoods and communities together. |
Better to conduct a truly holistic review so they don’t end up losing tax revenue or degrading strong pyramids simply because someone got redistricting fever. |
You should have ended with "Better to conduct a truly holistic review." After that they can assess the pros and cons of making changes to pyramids or not. |
Just comparing enrollment to total capacity is short-sighted and anything but “holistic.” |
Then building costly, massive 3000-student expansions as a solution is also short-sighted since those are built to accommodate the current enrollment when total capacity is less. |
Total capacity means county-wide but nice try. |
Equity also includes proximity, so I don’t see the School Board bussing students from 7 Corners (adjacent to Justice) to McLean HS in the name of equity, for example. |
Ours was higher under Bush and you don’t want to know what my parent’s were under Reagan. |
This just came in from Robin Lady:
Note the lie: the policy has been continuously modified since 1983, most recently in 2013, which she would have known if she had read the draft policy as the revision history is clearly called out. But of course she's not writing her own communications, unelected PR people are. And not to mention that "saving money" and "pre-k for all" are mutually exclusive. They're absolutely setting out to give the bureaucracy carte blanche to change boundaries around to meet their equity agenda, as long as they can claim it will save money. School board will rubber stamp and boom.... everybody gets a mediocre learning environment with lots of distractions. |
From Robyn Lady’s newsletter - looks like she’s is on the McDaniel burn-it-all-down bandwagon. Note she says “Once” not “If” below:
“One way forward on this is the holistic view of the county wide Boundary Policy which has not been altered in 38 years. By looking at the policy, we can look at capacity issues both over and under, long commutes, fewer buses, more sleep for students, and find ways to save taxpayers money. Based on the February Forum, the Governance Committee has been reviewing Policy 8130. The latest draft can be found here. The next Governance meeting is scheduled for May 20th and is open to the public. Once the policy has been approved by the Board, the next step is operationalizing this new policy.” |
+1 It’s a self-interest play to try to increase her Herndon property values. |
Bingo. The only question now is how much of Langley will get moved to Herndon to ensure students in Great Falls can get “more sleep.” |
I’m excited for the for this new boundary policy to go live. So much academic and social change for the better. |