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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed. [/quote]

As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process.   But he got it right tonight.  The juice was not worth the squeeze. [/quote]
Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.[/quote]

What was overall jist of what he said?  He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes).  Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?[/quote]

Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations.

The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review.

Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway.  Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it.  Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc.  The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote.  Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well.  [/quote]

Great, thank you.  Other thing heard before I had to mercifully stop listening was Frisch bring up two other priorities (I think one involving Oakton?).  Are those part of the Jan 2027 "priorities" - is there list of those somewhere?[/quote]

The school board voted to approve the final recommendations without seeing the last minite changes and without them being posted publicly.

That was another conplaint by the opposition group, McEleven, Moon, Dunne and I think one other, either Anderson or Meren.[/quote]

Meren complained about it but she voted in favor Reid’s recommendations anyway. I don’t think she wanted to block the Vienna parents eager to switch from Marshall to Madison and maybe she’s hoping for the support of the majority block when Western boundaries come up later this year. [/quote]

Hopefully this will be proven incorrect and Marshall will remain equal to or slightly above or below Madison from an academic perspective - but if the moves Meren pushed further isolates a select number of schools in FCPS schools as higher academic performers and the gap between Marshall and Madison expands than Meren will be looked at as a key contributor to the decline of FCPS.  [/quote]
I don’t think this move alone will hurt Marshall. Its FARM rates will go up which will make it less desirable for some buyers, but its location will continue to make it the compromise school when the neighboring high performance pyramids are out of budget.

What might tip the scales is if they carve out Tysons Green and send them to Madison, which is being considered for the 2027 review. Plus, if they add Shrevewood back into the equation for the JV, GD, Kingsley Commons review. That could pull low income apartments to balance the sudden capacity availability they created at Marshall by shedding several of its SFH neighborhoods. [/quote]

They’ve already told Tysons Green they have priority transfers to Madison.  And Madison still has space to spare.  [/quote]

What are boundary streets for Tysons Green?  It seems like with the name Tysons in it Marshall would clearly be the school assigned.[/quote]

http://www.greatertysonsgreen.org/location.html

You're right that the area should stay at Marshall, but the homes have Vienna addresses and one result of this boundary review is that many with a Vienna address left at Kilmer and Marshall will now fight to get moved since they've largely redefined Kilmer and Marshall as Tysons/Pimmit/Idylwood schools (with one attendance island left in Vienna out towards Reston).

It's a crappy result for Kilmer and Marshall, and Melanie Meren and Karl Frisch are primarily responsible.  Neither of them even acknowledged that they turned a Westbriar attendance island into a Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island.    [/quote]
Stenwood, Freedom Hill, and Westbriar are Vienna. Lemon Road, Westgate, and Shrevewood are Falls Church. It’s still about 50/50. [/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