FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:KAA will be quite popular in Sully. Very few people really want the Dunn Loring school. It's Karl Frisch's personal boondoggle.

+1
If they would put the kibosh on the Dunn Loring folly, that would go a long way to making up the funds used to purchase KAA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read a lot of “boundary changes for thee, but not for me, unless we get moved to a higher rated school.”. So, will the consequence be depopulated lower rated schools, to point where even fewer advanced classes will be offered at them? Feels quite NIMBY-ish to me, and “screw them for being poor.”.

You sound like certain school board members. Nobody is saying screw the poor. Only the equity-minded crew who want to start class warfare with their neighbors.

It’s less NIMBY and more NOTBOOKS (not on the backs of our kids)

Very “ME” vs “WE”. Ok, I got it.

Your extremist purity test ends up costing the democrats a lot of elections.

Does it? In Fairfax? 1 Republican Board of Supervisors member, 0 Republican School Board members. They could lose a number of seats and still be in full control.

While a massive boundary shift might get the School Board in a lot of trouble, some targeted adjustments, even unpopular ones, are not likely to cost the Democrats full control in Fairfax.

Good point. Let me go talk to the Democratic president, senate, and House. I guess what you are saying is you like the status quo. (To deflect your anticipated response, I voted Harris).

Like I said, purity test has cost a lot of elections.

DP. What's the "purity test" for local politicians in Fairfax? I just see them muddling their way to bad decisions that will degrade FCPS and are the textbook definition of "the juice isn't worth the squeeze." But there doesn't seem to be much ideological purity on display.

It happens frequently in this discussion. Loyal Dems get called “limousine liberals” or racist for believing that boundary changes aren’t good for the county or party. It wouldn’t matter if this is where it stayed, but the boundary change process has really shown that the school board seems to want to rid the party of moderates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People don't want to be moved to worst schools , no one wants to go from McLean to Marshall, Marshall to Falls Church , however the opposite is fine. You would rather be at McLean than Marshall, Marshall rather than Falls Church

The opposite is NOT fine. The are plenty of us that do NOT want to go from Marshall to McLean! I am so tired of the narrative that McLean is some Mecca that everyone wants to be part of.

Exactly. People want to stay at the pyramid that their families chose when they decided to buy in Fairfax County.

+100
Totally agree. We have no desire to move to McLean.

Sure, but then no new construction permits (especially for high density housing) should be granted by Fairfax County to avoid over-crowding at schools. Zero growth. Everybody stays put. New teachers, and other public servants will have to live in PWC, or even WV in order to find cheaper housing. More traffic and contamination, and exhausted teachers. Utopia!

[Anonymous]

McLean has been overcrowded. They haven’t lobbied for anyone to be moved into their school against their will. That’s all FCPS’s doing.

[Anonymous]

Do we know the agenda for the August 5 BRAC meeting yet?

[Anonymous]

Moon mentioned the boundary study in his email tonight and it sounds like he’s very enthusiastic about how things have been going.

“I'm in favor of this policy because I believe in supporting families with transparency and compassion during times of change.” — re: recent grandfathering changes.

In regards to the broader review, he says he’s heard concerns but blah blah blah: “Boundary changes can bring real uncertainty for families. I’ve heard from many parents and community members who worry about how changes might disrupt their child’s friendships, learning environment, or sense of stability. These concerns are deeply valid. That’s why this revised policy is so meaningful.”

Braddock families, please keep this in mind re:
Board of Supervisors race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moon mentioned the boundary study in his email tonight and it sounds like he’s very enthusiastic about how things have been going.

“I'm in favor of this policy because I believe in supporting families with transparency and compassion during times of change.” — re: recent grandfathering changes.

In regards to the broader review, he says he’s heard concerns but blah blah blah: “Boundary changes can bring real uncertainty for families. I’ve heard from many parents and community members who worry about how changes might disrupt their child’s friendships, learning environment, or sense of stability. These concerns are deeply valid. That’s why this revised policy is so meaningful.”

Braddock families, please keep this in mind re:
Board of Supervisors race.

While I appreciate this revised policy on phasing, I hope that they aren’t thinking that the issue is solved and stops here. Many neighborhoods are still feeling uneasy and stressed about the unknowns future of their kids’ schooling. They’re now faced with having siblings split amongst highschools.

[Anonymous]

While I appreciate this revised policy on phasing, I hope that they aren’t thinking that the issue is solved and stops here.

Like locking the DEI thread makes it go away?