FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Why should only certain schools and neighborhoods suffer the consequences of blue voting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You gotta wonder if Gatehouse is reconsidering their commitment to the boundary review after their party got trounced on Tuesday.

Especially since Hispanics abandoned the party and voters sent a message that they loathe identity politics.

I wonder if the school board and its party will finally start thinking through the implications of its plans to screw over the kids of many of the only remaining plank in the democratic base - educated voters.

The boundaries aren’t based on race or identity. It’s for efficiency, split feeders … the election is over, I wish people would focus on the schools and the issues related to 40 years of ad hoc boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You gotta wonder if Gatehouse is reconsidering their commitment to the boundary review after their party got trounced on Tuesday.

Especially since Hispanics abandoned the party and voters sent a message that they loathe identity politics.

I wonder if the school board and its party will finally start thinking through the implications of its plans to screw over the kids of many of the only remaining plank in the democratic base - educated voters.

The boundaries aren’t based on race or identity. It’s for efficiency, split feeders … the election is over, I wish people would focus on the schools and the issues related to 40 years of ad hoc boundary changes.

Your denial of one fairfax and the implicit goals of the school board is a symptom of what got trump re-elected.

[Anonymous]

Your willingness to accept inefficiencies in boundaries is why the school budget is so big.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You gotta wonder if Gatehouse is reconsidering their commitment to the boundary review after their party got trounced on Tuesday.

Especially since Hispanics abandoned the party and voters sent a message that they loathe identity politics.

I wonder if the school board and its party will finally start thinking through the implications of its plans to screw over the kids of many of the only remaining plank in the democratic base - educated voters.

The boundaries aren’t based on race or identity. It’s for efficiency, split feeders … the election is over, I wish people would focus on the schools and the issues related to 40 years of ad hoc boundary changes.

I’m so sick of people like you telling everyone to buy into the fiction that this is about efficiency.

Democrats do NOT care about efficiency. They are the ones who expanded West Potomac to 3000 seats and are now planning to build an expensive new elementary school in Dunn Loring for which there is NO need.

But because they think they can cram down some other unwanted boundary changes by claiming it’s in the name of efficiency, they enlist their foot soldiers like you to peddle their nonsense.

If they care about good planning, let them come up with an updated renovation queue first. Then we might have a better understanding of the assumptions upon which any boundary changes are really necessary.

[Anonymous]

The election is over and the incoming administration has pledged to start mass deportations on day one. Another stated goal is to bring efficiency to the federal government and ax thousands of federal jobs and move others out of DC. Regardless of how you voted, these policy priorities would have a major impact on our area and school populations. It might not be felt right away but it might not make sense to do boundary changes based on current school population projections if these things actually happen. Or at the very least these population changes should be considered next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your willingness to accept inefficiencies in boundaries is why the school budget is so big.

DP but that’s nonsense. The size of the operating budget has infinitely more to do with the number of staff positions, including the number of Gatehouse specialists who never set foot in a classroom, than it does with school boundaries.

And transportation costs will go up if they end up running multiple bus routes to numerous neighborhoods (assuming any grandfathering).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You gotta wonder if Gatehouse is reconsidering their commitment to the boundary review after their party got trounced on Tuesday.

Especially since Hispanics abandoned the party and voters sent a message that they loathe identity politics.

I wonder if the school board and its party will finally start thinking through the implications of its plans to screw over the kids of many of the only remaining plank in the democratic base - educated voters.

The boundaries aren’t based on race or identity. It’s for efficiency, split feeders … the election is over, I wish people would focus on the schools and the issues related to 40 years of ad hoc boundary changes.

I’m so sick of people like you telling everyone to buy into the fiction that this is about efficiency.

Democrats do NOT care about efficiency. They are the ones who expanded West Potomac to 3000 seats and are now planning to build an expensive new elementary school in Dunn Loring for which there is NO need.

But because they think they can cram down some other unwanted boundary changes by claiming it’s in the name of efficiency, they enlist their foot soldiers like you to peddle their nonsense.

If they care about good planning, let them come up with an updated renovation queue first. Then we might have a better understanding of the assumptions upon which any boundary changes are really necessary.

Democrats aren't all the same, just as I wouldn't accuse Republicans of all being the same. Some schools in the past decade got lucky with being at the top of the old queue at the right place at the right time, and some prior board members took advantage of that to serve their self-interests.

Totally with you that West Potomac should not have been expanded when MV has space, but others like West Springfield and Langley got away with avoidable development (where WS could have been relieved with boundary changes, and Langley's simply wasn't necessary because it's a below-average size HS). This board at the very least wants to stop that practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You gotta wonder if Gatehouse is reconsidering their commitment to the boundary review after their party got trounced on Tuesday.

Especially since Hispanics abandoned the party and voters sent a message that they loathe identity politics.

I wonder if the school board and its party will finally start thinking through the implications of its plans to screw over the kids of many of the only remaining plank in the democratic base - educated voters.

The boundaries aren’t based on race or identity. It’s for efficiency, split feeders … the election is over, I wish people would focus on the schools and the issues related to 40 years of ad hoc boundary changes.

I’m so sick of people like you telling everyone to buy into the fiction that this is about efficiency.

Democrats do NOT care about efficiency. They are the ones who expanded West Potomac to 3000 seats and are now planning to build an expensive new elementary school in Dunn Loring for which there is NO need.

But because they think they can cram down some other unwanted boundary changes by claiming it’s in the name of efficiency, they enlist their foot soldiers like you to peddle their nonsense.

If they care about good planning, let them come up with an updated renovation queue first. Then we might have a better understanding of the assumptions upon which any boundary changes are really necessary.

Democrats aren't all the same, just as I wouldn't accuse Republicans of all being the same. Some schools in the past decade got lucky with being at the top of the old queue at the right place at the right time, and some prior board members took advantage of that to serve their self-interests.

Totally with you that West Potomac should not have been expanded when MV has space, but others like West Springfield and Langley got away with avoidable development (where WS could have been relieved with boundary changes, and Langley's simply wasn't necessary because it's a below-average size HS). This board at the very least wants to stop that practice.

If they had any common sense they would realize that a relatively small number of high schools ended up with the short end of the stick, and come up with a new renovation queue to address those disparities before they start monkeying around with boundaries.

Your claim that this new board is somehow committed to doing things better is totally belied by the fact that they are prepared to waste $85 million on Dunn Loring ES when it couldn’t be clearer that no school is needed at that location. If they had the slightest commitment to efficiency they would be canceling that project and putting the money to better use.

[Anonymous]

I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

[Anonymous]

A huge huge question that needs to be answered is whether the centreville/chantilly expansion is far off enough that they’ll need to move those kids, at least temporarily, to Westfield.

Seems likely based on the current timeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?