FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

Yeah not worth disrupting us for!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

So moving about 40-50 kids from one pocket (10 or so per grade) to then turn around and add in the RVES/Lewis kids isn’t solving this at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

Yeah not worth disrupting us for!

Just pointing out it that WS is indeed overcrowded.

It would be very stupid to move Hunt Valley students out and move Rolling Valley /Lewis students to WS.

Especially since Lewis is 200 under Program Capacity and 450-500 under Design Capacity. Not ideal. Kill IB and standardize language offerings to get the transfers back. That is the first step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

Yeah not worth disrupting us for!

Just pointing out it that WS is indeed overcrowded.

It would be very stupid to move Hunt Valley students out and move Rolling Valley /Lewis students to WS.

Especially since Lewis is 200 under Program Capacity and 450-500 under Design Capacity. Not ideal. Kill IB and standardize language offerings to get the transfers back. That is the first step.

I'm shocked that the SB hasn't mentioned sunsetting the IB program and replacing it with AP. We are currently zoned for an IB school. If we don't move before my 4th grader starts high school, we will absolutely look into transferring to another high school for AP offerings. Both my spouse and I entered college with a semester of credits because of our AP scores in high school and we want our kids to have the same opportunity. If they just had a robust offering of AP classes in our zoned high school, they wouldn't be risk losing more educated families from IB schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

So moving about 40-50 kids from one pocket (10 or so per grade) to then turn around and add in the RVES/Lewis kids isn’t solving this at all.

So you're making the case for wider boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

Yeah not worth disrupting us for!

Just pointing out it that WS is indeed overcrowded.

It would be very stupid to move Hunt Valley students out and move Rolling Valley /Lewis students to WS.

Especially since Lewis is 200 under Program Capacity and 450-500 under Design Capacity. Not ideal. Kill IB and standardize language offerings to get the transfers back. That is the first step.

I'm shocked that the SB hasn't mentioned sunsetting the IB program and replacing it with AP. We are currently zoned for an IB school. If we don't move before my 4th grader starts high school, we will absolutely look into transferring to another high school for AP offerings. Both my spouse and I entered college with a semester of credits because of our AP scores in high school and we want our kids to have the same opportunity. If they just had a robust offering of AP classes in our zoned high school, they wouldn't be risk losing more educated families from IB schools.

It would make too much sense. Therefore, the School Board, which is enamored of IB's marketing pitch that it creates "global citizens" and "lifelong learners," won't consider it. The fact that so few students at IB schools in FCPS actually end up getting IB diplomas has never seemed to matter much to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

It's not an "open secret" because it's not true. The people committing residency fraud are people whose families have the time and money to transport them to and from school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

It's not an "open secret" because it's not true. The people committing residency fraud are people whose families have the time and money to transport them to and from school.

If you were right then Sandy Anderson and her minions would’ve hired a whole battalion of residency investigators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I believe the policy is abused, but I don't think the numbers are why schools are overcrowded because of it. That doesn't make it right, though. And, FWIW, wealthier families are capable of pupil placing for lots of reasons.

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

It's not an "open secret" because it's not true. The people committing residency fraud are people whose families have the time and money to transport them to and from school.

If you were right then Sandy Anderson and her minions would’ve hired a whole battalion of residency investigators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

It's not an "open secret" because it's not true. The people committing residency fraud are people whose families have the time and money to transport them to and from school.

Poor people have plenty of time and most have access to cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

It's not an "open secret" because it's not true. The people committing residency fraud are people whose families have the time and money to transport them to and from school.

Poor people have plenty of time and most have access to cars.

No words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

So moving about 40-50 kids from one pocket (10 or so per grade) to then turn around and add in the RVES/Lewis kids isn’t solving this at all.

So you're making the case for wider boundary changes.

No- I’m calling out the hypocrisy. If WSHS is overcrowded and Lewis is lower enrollment, why would you move kids from WSHS (not to Lewis) just to move Lewis kids into WSHS? How does that help Lewis? How does that help WSHS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

So moving about 40-50 kids from one pocket (10 or so per grade) to then turn around and add in the RVES/Lewis kids isn’t solving this at all.

So you're making the case for wider boundary changes.

No- I’m calling out the hypocrisy. If WSHS is overcrowded and Lewis is lower enrollment, why would you move kids from WSHS (not to Lewis) just to move Lewis kids into WSHS? How does that help Lewis? How does that help WSHS?

DP. None of the Thru Consulting recommendations to date moved Lewis kids to West Springfield. They just moved West Springfield kids to South County and Lake Braddock. So if they do something different next time and propose to move some Lewis kids to West Springfield it’s possible they’d propose to move even more West Springfield kids to Lewis. Who really knows?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

It's not an "open secret" because it's not true. The people committing residency fraud are people whose families have the time and money to transport them to and from school.

If you were right then Sandy Anderson and her minions would’ve hired a whole battalion of residency investigators.

Oooooor perhaps the “equity” talk is just a bunch of talk and lip service to get elected and play to the base, and they don’t even particularly care one way or another. If the RV split really does end up at Irving/WSHS, that pretty much proves it.

[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:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

So moving about 40-50 kids from one pocket (10 or so per grade) to then turn around and add in the RVES/Lewis kids isn’t solving this at all.

So you're making the case for wider boundary changes.

No- I’m calling out the hypocrisy. If WSHS is overcrowded and Lewis is lower enrollment, why would you move kids from WSHS (not to Lewis) just to move Lewis kids into WSHS? How does that help Lewis? How does that help WSHS?

DP. None of the Thru Consulting recommendations to date moved Lewis kids to West Springfield. They just moved West Springfield kids to South County and Lake Braddock. So if they do something different next time and propose to move some Lewis kids to West Springfield it’s possible they’d propose to move even more West Springfield kids to Lewis. Who really knows?

Our SB member continues to talk about moving RVES kids to WSHS.