Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the “renovation” of McLean in 2005 cost around $10 million.

Langley’s recent renovation - which including adding seats that were needed more at McLean than at Langley - cost about $80 million.

And now they are budgeting over $35 million to expand West Potomac and $130 million to renovate Falls Church.

Some of that money should be reallocated to McLean. If Tholen and Frisch can’t make that happen, they should be recalled.

Those two can't do it alone. You at least need at-large and Omeish really wants those "lily white" schools broken up. She's unlikely to support any action that doesn't lead to that outcome. Keys Gamarra can probably be counted on to blow with the wind, and Sizemore is probably indifferent.

McLean is not lily white.

There isn’t a ton of land at McLean for building out, so they’ll need to build up. Perhaps Elaine could get them to treat it as a pilot program for smart, environmentally sensitive construction.

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the “renovation” of McLean in 2005 cost around $10 million.

Langley’s recent renovation - which including adding seats that were needed more at McLean than at Langley - cost about $80 million.

And now they are budgeting over $35 million to expand West Potomac and $130 million to renovate Falls Church.

Some of that money should be reallocated to McLean. If Tholen and Frisch can’t make that happen, they should be recalled.

Those two can't do it alone. You at least need at-large and Omeish really wants those "lily white" schools broken up. She's unlikely to support any action that doesn't lead to that outcome. Keys Gamarra can probably be counted on to blow with the wind, and Sizemore is probably indifferent.

Apparently the “renovation” of McLean in 2005 cost around $10 million.

Langley’s recent renovation - which including adding seats that were needed more at McLean than at Langley - cost about $80 million.

And now they are budgeting over $35 million to expand West Potomac and $130 million to renovate Falls Church.

Some of that money should be reallocated to McLean. If Tholen and Frisch can’t make that happen, they should be recalled.

I don’t see how they can ever push the social engineering agenda when the current Chair has done everything in her power to make sure that her school, West Potomac, is getting a 700-seat, $36 million addition when WestPo wasn’t even in the renovation queue, all so WestPo kids wouldn’t get redistricted to nearby, under-enrolled Mount Vernon. The Board can pretty much toss the pipe dreams that some of them seem to have about sending Langley kids to Herndon or McLean kids to Lee out the window.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you go back you can hear discussion of hiring a consultant, I think as early as 2018.

July was supposed to be their last work session on this URGENTLY NEEDED update to policy, and they planned to vote on it in September with zero input from the public. McLaughlin was one of the few voices calling for consulting the public, along with Schultz, Wilson and I think Moon.

It was so important that they stopped working on it when parents started paying attention.

Go watch 2/06/20 meeting. There is very little about it, but what there is reveals what they want to do. There is an agenda and it is social engineering.

Rather than have us go search that, please state, what do you feel there agenda is in concrete terms rather than "social engineering." Thank you.

+1. That would be helpful. At least tell us where in the video to start watching.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you go back you can hear discussion of hiring a consultant, I think as early as 2018.

July was supposed to be their last work session on this URGENTLY NEEDED update to policy, and they planned to vote on it in September with zero input from the public. McLaughlin was one of the few voices calling for consulting the public, along with Schultz, Wilson and I think Moon.

It was so important that they stopped working on it when parents started paying attention.

Go watch 2/06/20 meeting. There is very little about it, but what there is reveals what they want to do. There is an agenda and it is social engineering.

Rather than have us go search that, please state, what do you feel there agenda is in concrete terms rather than "social engineering." Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:If you go back you can hear discussion of hiring a consultant, I think as early as 2018.

July was supposed to be their last work session on this URGENTLY NEEDED update to policy, and they planned to vote on it in September with zero input from the public. McLaughlin was one of the few voices calling for consulting the public, along with Schultz, Wilson and I think Moon.

It was so important that they stopped working on it when parents started paying attention.

Go watch 2/06/20 meeting. There is very little about it, but what there is reveals what they want to do. There is an agenda and it is social engineering.

If you go back you can hear discussion of hiring a consultant, I think as early as 2018.

July was supposed to be their last work session on this URGENTLY NEEDED update to policy, and they planned to vote on it in September with zero input from the public. McLaughlin was one of the few voices calling for consulting the public, along with Schultz, Wilson and I think Moon.

It was so important that they stopped working on it when parents started paying attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in the community are not going to roll over because of some third-party report. It’s the School Board members who can be the subject of recall petitions and voted out, not the consultant.

The consultant’s hiring was basically a way to take the discussion about boundary policies off the table before the last election.

They were always going to hire a consultant.
Not voting on the policy and pretending they were going to take urgent action on McLean was their plan to stay in power, and it worked.

Kudos to them.

The consultant’s contract is not large and the scope of work is similar to work already performed by staff. It absolutely was part of their strategy to table the discussion last July after the Langley (One Great Falls) parents got seriously agitated.

Don't forget McSpaces!

On another note, congratulations to the McLean girls and boys freshmen basketball teams for going 16-0 and 13-3 this year. You can bet these kids want to stay together over the next three years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in the community are not going to roll over because of some third-party report. It’s the School Board members who can be the subject of recall petitions and voted out, not the consultant.

The consultant’s hiring was basically a way to take the discussion about boundary policies off the table before the last election.

They were always going to hire a consultant.
Not voting on the policy and pretending they were going to take urgent action on McLean was their plan to stay in power, and it worked.

Kudos to them.

The consultant’s contract is not large and the scope of work is similar to work already performed by staff. It absolutely was part of their strategy to table the discussion last July after the Langley (One Great Falls) parents got seriously agitated.

Anonymous wrote:People in the community are not going to roll over because of some third-party report. It’s the School Board members who can be the subject of recall petitions and voted out, not the consultant.

The consultant’s hiring was basically a way to take the discussion about boundary policies off the table before the last election.

They were always going to hire a consultant.
Not voting on the policy and pretending they were going to take urgent action on McLean was their plan to stay in power, and it worked.

Kudos to them.

People in the community are not going to roll over because of some third-party report. It’s the School Board members who can be the subject of recall petitions and voted out, not the consultant.

The consultant’s hiring was basically a way to take the discussion about boundary policies off the table before the last election.

Keep in mind they are still waiting for the consultant's analysis.

Given past discussions I don't think the community should count on anything. Remember they passed that last minute CIP amendment and stopped working on policy because people were pissed at their inaction and the probability that they didn't want to adjust the boundary because it wouldn't change demographics the way they wanted.