Reply to FCPS Boundary Review Updates

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "FCPS Boundary Review Updates"

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]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

What is their WHY? [/quote]

[b]I'm one of the frequent WSHS[/b] posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and [b]solving an actual problem,[/b] 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. [/quote]

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding. [/quote]

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.  :roll: [/quote]

Exactly this.[/quote]

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.[/quote]

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. [/quote]
So you're making the case for wider boundary changes.[/quote]
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? [/quote]

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? [/quote]

The Springfield school board rep has been publicly stating for months that she won't support grandfathering WSHS students because she wants to move Lewis/Rolling Valley kids into their spots.
[/quote]

They’ve now formally committed in Policy 8130 to grandfathering current students when there is a boundary change (other than one associated with the opening of a new school or the closure of an existing one) by unanimous vote.  That included Sandy Anderson. [/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