Reply to Boundary Review Meetings

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Boundary Review Meetings"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This place gets more wild every time I check back.

Good faith question - I know who/which schools are making the community argument. Where is the counterargument coming from? I assume people happy in their zoning are off not on DCUM so what particular boundary is the other side of this internet brawl so unhappy about?[/quote]

You can be happy with your school assignment and unhappy that your elected officials would kowtow so much to the wealthiest, noisiest parents in the county. It makes a mockery of public education. [/quote]

The school board listening to constituents saves public education. You keep pretending that dragging all the schools down to the lowest level will somehow save the system. In reality, the opposite is true, it’ll severely diminish the school system.[/quote]

Are you saying that if you are rich, your kids should only go to school with other rich kids?  Low income kids should study alongside other poor kids, despite some of these families with large income disparities living in relative proximity?

Are you saying the non Oakton, Langley and Mclean boundary zones should continually be grateful to them because they raise the tax base?

[/quote]
What I’m saying is that social engineering doesn’t work, in part because it drives away a critical block of support for public schools, namely the UMC.

I know it’s hard for you to understand, but I really do want to keep my kids in the school system and hope that the school board doesn’t force my hand.

It’s so incredibly penny wise pound foolish to assume that these parents are going to stick around through continued uncertainty where they lose their communities.
[/quote]

If a kid is admitted to a private the county collects the same property tax from you but FCPS has 1 less kid on it's budget.  There has not been a magical expansion of private schools.

If scenario 5 removes the 190 from Timber Lane, Mclean is at 105% without the used /relocated modular.  For the Langley pyramid Churchill RD has an old modular. 124% without it.  Spring Hill has the only growth in Langley feeders in 20 years: plus 208.  All others down 533 and that VDOE number excludes the diminished Forestville to Forest Edge AAP feed.

What does it mean for static boundaries?  Residences did not disappear but k-12 population aged out.   So circumstances will eventually change as real estate turns over compounding the Langley overcapacity from the Spring Hill island SPA.  [/quote]

Word salad lady strikes again.  [/quote]

Very convenient for you to disparage those facts with a rude comment.  Even Thru now includes capacity utilization % without modulars.  What's your explanation for the large membership decreases at Forestville, Great Falls Elementary, Churchill Road, and Colvin Run?  [/quote]

Thru included capacity utilization without modulars in response to a specific request from a couple of School Board members, but none of the actual proposals in Scenario 4 are based on utilization excluding modular seats.  Hard to see why they'd do that in Scenario 5, much less for only one school.

I'm also not seeing these large membership decreases at Forestville (about the same this year as in 2016-17, 2020-21, and 2022-23), Churchill Road (about the same as last year and higher than 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23), or Colvin Run (highest enrollment this year since 2019-20) that you're claiming.  Great Falls is down, but that's one Langley feeder out of five.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics