Anonymous wrote:

At least South Lakes is close to Fox Mill, part of Floris, and part of Crossfield, which was affected. I don’t think that particular boundary change was that bad. It’s also rare to move kids from a better school district to a less desireable district.

It was terrible. And, the SB was nasty to the parents who wanted AP. Some families had already been redistricted two or three times. The particularly nasty part is that it was orchestrated by the South Lakes PTA. (They even posted their plans on a website. Not as savvy to social media as today.) The PTA was giving thumbs up and thumbs down to the choices. It pitted neighborhoods against neighborhoods--and that was not just those being redistricted to South Lakes.

Boundary changes are disruptive. And, when you feel like you are being 'chosen" for someone else's desires, it is kind of disturbing.

At least South Lakes is close to Fox Mill, part of Floris, and part of Crossfield, which was affected. I don’t think that particular boundary change was that bad. It’s also rare to move kids from a better school district to a less desireable district.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Depends on who you ask. Many are now more than fine with it; others wish they hadn't been moved to SL, or from Chantilly to Oakton (which was one of the other changes made at the time).

Some people took huge hits by selling their rezoned houses into a tough RE market in 2008 to get back into their prior districts.

And, now that not as many kids from that area are not going to TJ, there are parents who really, really would like AP over IB. That was a complaint at the time and remains so.

As I recall, they promised parents at the time that they'd add a bunch of AP courses at South Lakes to complement the IB program, and then failed to do so. I'm sure that was a disappointment to some.

Anonymous wrote:

Depends on who you ask. Many are now more than fine with it; others wish they hadn't been moved to SL, or from Chantilly to Oakton (which was one of the other changes made at the time).

Some people took huge hits by selling their rezoned houses into a tough RE market in 2008 to get back into their prior districts.

And, now that not as many kids from that area are not going to TJ, there are parents who really, really would like AP over IB. That was a complaint at the time and remains so.

Anonymous wrote:McLean HS is a mess -capacity wise- current enrollment 2368- capacity 1993. Don't the McLean parents have any pull-compared to GF?

Depends on who you ask. Many are now more than fine with it; others wish they hadn't been moved to SL, or from Chantilly to Oakton (which was one of the other changes made at the time).

Some people took huge hits by selling their rezoned houses into a tough RE market in 2008 to get back into their prior districts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hired a consultant because they love wasting money.

Them stating at the work session that they weren’t tackling boundaries that day wasn’t racism, which is what was suggested earlier.

Admitting that there was Anti Asian sentiment behind the push to change TJ admissions and going forward anyway? Racist

calling Brabrand “dumb and white” as a reason why he can’t manage correctly? Racist

Oh please, learn to read between the lines. Cohen specifically announced during the MGT meeting that she had just then received emails from Daventry parents, literally as the MGT consultant was presenting his PowerPoint, asking her not to reverse the boundary change back to Lewis. Cohen felt the need to publicly reassure them that wasn't happening to take some heat off her back. Call it what you will (classism, elitism, racism, or plain selfishness), but it's glaringly obvious that the reason the Board is so defensive on the topic of boundaries is because they all know the elephant in the room.

And in case you don't know the elephant in the room either: some communities clearly feel threatened that adjustments may lead to more ELL/FARMs populations in their catchment areas.

The wealthy don't mind if a small number of ESOL/FARMS kids are moved to their catchment areas. They do mind very much if they might be moved to a different pyramid.

If you look at the Langley/McLean adjustment, Langley parents made it clear they were fine with having some apartments in Tysons with greater economic diversity moved into their school UNTIL the Great Falls parents realized that moving an area where additional apartments and condos are getting built might increase the odds of western Great Falls eventually getting moved to Herndon. Then they got Tholen to make sure none of those areas were moved to Langley and that an area further from Langley consisting entirely of existing single-family homes was moved instead. The Great Falls Citizens Association stated publicly that was the best possible outcome for them under the circumstances.

That is how the game has been played in FCPS for well over a decade. The South Lakes redistricting from 2008, where the School Board deliberately moved higher-income neighborhoods zoned for Westfield, Oakton, and Madison into South Lakes at a time when South Lakes' enrollment had dropped to around 1400 kids, is ancient history. The School Board members saw the heat that some took for effecting that boundary change and said to themselves "never again."

They hired a boundary policy consultant a few years ago to kick the can down the road, and because some members like to think that a new boundary policy will result in some algorithm for adjusting boundaries that can be applied mechanically and will take the heat off them, but that's a pipe dream. And any time they so much as hint that they might do a county-wide review of actual boundaries (as opposed to just looking at boundary policy), the groups like "One Great Falls" and "Voices of Fairfax" spring into action to oppose them.

No one at Langley or in GF was making anything clear about Strauss’ very reasonable attempt to reduce crowding at McLean by rezoning an area to Langley.

GF and other parts of the county did become interested when it was made known that the board was about to vote on a new boundary policy that gave no consideration to neighborhoods, that gave board the right to change boundaries every three years, and that prioritized the “right” racial mix in school buildings when deciding boundaries. They also were going to do a “comprehensive review”, in other words make new boundaries from scratch county wide.


Once this became widely known and they received intense blowback, they cancelled the vote and decided that the boundary between under enrolled Langley and overcrowded McLean should be adjusted after all. The election was a few months away and the majority dem school board didactic want to lose any seats.

If they really believed in what they were doing they wouldn’t have run away when the spotlight hit their policy making decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hired a consultant because they love wasting money.

Them stating at the work session that they weren’t tackling boundaries that day wasn’t racism, which is what was suggested earlier.

Admitting that there was Anti Asian sentiment behind the push to change TJ admissions and going forward anyway? Racist

calling Brabrand “dumb and white” as a reason why he can’t manage correctly? Racist

Oh please, learn to read between the lines. Cohen specifically announced during the MGT meeting that she had just then received emails from Daventry parents, literally as the MGT consultant was presenting his PowerPoint, asking her not to reverse the boundary change back to Lewis. Cohen felt the need to publicly reassure them that wasn't happening to take some heat off her back. Call it what you will (classism, elitism, racism, or plain selfishness), but it's glaringly obvious that the reason the Board is so defensive on the topic of boundaries is because they all know the elephant in the room.

And in case you don't know the elephant in the room either: some communities clearly feel threatened that adjustments may lead to more ELL/FARMs populations in their catchment areas.

The wealthy don't mind if a small number of ESOL/FARMS kids are moved to their catchment areas. They do mind very much if they might be moved to a different pyramid.

If you look at the Langley/McLean adjustment, Langley parents made it clear they were fine with having some apartments in Tysons with greater economic diversity moved into their school UNTIL the Great Falls parents realized that moving an area where additional apartments and condos are getting built might increase the odds of western Great Falls eventually getting moved to Herndon. Then they got Tholen to make sure none of those areas were moved to Langley and that an area further from Langley consisting entirely of existing single-family homes was moved instead. The Great Falls Citizens Association stated publicly that was the best possible outcome for them under the circumstances.

That is how the game has been played in FCPS for well over a decade. The South Lakes redistricting from 2008, where the School Board deliberately moved higher-income neighborhoods zoned for Westfield, Oakton, and Madison into South Lakes at a time when South Lakes' enrollment had dropped to around 1400 kids, is ancient history. The School Board members saw the heat that some took for effecting that boundary change and said to themselves "never again."

They hired a boundary policy consultant a few years ago to kick the can down the road, and because some members like to think that a new boundary policy will result in some algorithm for adjusting boundaries that can be applied mechanically and will take the heat off them, but that's a pipe dream. And any time they so much as hint that they might do a county-wide review of actual boundaries (as opposed to just looking at boundary policy), the groups like "One Great Falls" and "Voices of Fairfax" spring into action to oppose them.

How do people feel about that SL redistricting from 2008- Now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hired a consultant because they love wasting money.

Them stating at the work session that they weren’t tackling boundaries that day wasn’t racism, which is what was suggested earlier.

Admitting that there was Anti Asian sentiment behind the push to change TJ admissions and going forward anyway? Racist

calling Brabrand “dumb and white” as a reason why he can’t manage correctly? Racist

Oh please, learn to read between the lines. Cohen specifically announced during the MGT meeting that she had just then received emails from Daventry parents, literally as the MGT consultant was presenting his PowerPoint, asking her not to reverse the boundary change back to Lewis. Cohen felt the need to publicly reassure them that wasn't happening to take some heat off her back. Call it what you will (classism, elitism, racism, or plain selfishness), but it's glaringly obvious that the reason the Board is so defensive on the topic of boundaries is because they all know the elephant in the room.

And in case you don't know the elephant in the room either: some communities clearly feel threatened that adjustments may lead to more ELL/FARMs populations in their catchment areas.

The wealthy don't mind if a small number of ESOL/FARMS kids are moved to their catchment areas. They do mind very much if they might be moved to a different pyramid.

If you look at the Langley/McLean adjustment, Langley parents made it clear they were fine with having some apartments in Tysons with greater economic diversity moved into their school UNTIL the Great Falls parents realized that moving an area where additional apartments and condos are getting built might increase the odds of western Great Falls eventually getting moved to Herndon. Then they got Tholen to make sure none of those areas were moved to Langley and that an area further from Langley consisting entirely of existing single-family homes was moved instead. The Great Falls Citizens Association stated publicly that was the best possible outcome for them under the circumstances.

That is how the game has been played in FCPS for well over a decade. The South Lakes redistricting from 2008, where the School Board deliberately moved higher-income neighborhoods zoned for Westfield, Oakton, and Madison into South Lakes at a time when South Lakes' enrollment had dropped to around 1400 kids, is ancient history. The School Board members saw the heat that some took for effecting that boundary change and said to themselves "never again."

They hired a boundary policy consultant a few years ago to kick the can down the road, and because some members like to think that a new boundary policy will result in some algorithm for adjusting boundaries that can be applied mechanically and will take the heat off them, but that's a pipe dream. And any time they so much as hint that they might do a county-wide review of actual boundaries (as opposed to just looking at boundary policy), the groups like "One Great Falls" and "Voices of Fairfax" spring into action to oppose them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hired a consultant because they love wasting money.

Them stating at the work session that they weren’t tackling boundaries that day wasn’t racism, which is what was suggested earlier.

Admitting that there was Anti Asian sentiment behind the push to change TJ admissions and going forward anyway? Racist

calling Brabrand “dumb and white” as a reason why he can’t manage correctly? Racist

Oh please, learn to read between the lines. Cohen specifically announced during the MGT meeting that she had just then received emails from Daventry parents, literally as the MGT consultant was presenting his PowerPoint, asking her not to reverse the boundary change back to Lewis. Cohen felt the need to publicly reassure them that wasn't happening to take some heat off her back. Call it what you will (classism, elitism, racism, or plain selfishness), but it's glaringly obvious that the reason the Board is so defensive on the topic of boundaries is because they all know the elephant in the room.

And in case you don't know the elephant in the room either: some communities clearly feel threatened that adjustments may lead to more ELL/FARMs populations in their catchment areas.

The wealthy don't mind if a small number of ESOL/FARMS kids are moved to their catchment areas. They do mind very much if they might be moved to a different pyramid.

If you look at the Langley/McLean adjustment, Langley parents made it clear they were fine with having some apartments in Tysons with greater economic diversity moved into their school UNTIL the Great Falls parents realized that moving an area where additional apartments and condos are getting built might increase the odds of western Great Falls eventually getting moved to Herndon. Then they got Tholen to make sure none of those areas were moved to Langley and that an area further from Langley consisting entirely of existing single-family homes was moved instead. The Great Falls Citizens Association stated publicly that was the best possible outcome for them under the circumstances.

That is how the game has been played in FCPS for well over a decade. The South Lakes redistricting from 2008, where the School Board deliberately moved higher-income neighborhoods zoned for Westfield, Oakton, and Madison into South Lakes at a time when South Lakes' enrollment had dropped to around 1400 kids, is ancient history. The School Board members saw the heat that some took for effecting that boundary change and said to themselves "never again."

They hired a boundary policy consultant a few years ago to kick the can down the road, and because some members like to think that a new boundary policy will result in some algorithm for adjusting boundaries that can be applied mechanically and will take the heat off them, but that's a pipe dream. And any time they so much as hint that they might do a county-wide review of actual boundaries (as opposed to just looking at boundary policy), the groups like "One Great Falls" and "Voices of Fairfax" spring into action to oppose them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hired a consultant because they love wasting money.

Them stating at the work session that they weren’t tackling boundaries that day wasn’t racism, which is what was suggested earlier.

Admitting that there was Anti Asian sentiment behind the push to change TJ admissions and going forward anyway? Racist

calling Brabrand “dumb and white” as a reason why he can’t manage correctly? Racist

Oh please, learn to read between the lines. Cohen specifically announced during the MGT meeting that she had just then received emails from Daventry parents, literally as the MGT consultant was presenting his PowerPoint, asking her not to reverse the boundary change back to Lewis. Cohen felt the need to publicly reassure them that wasn't happening to take some heat off her back. Call it what you will (classism, elitism, racism, or plain selfishness), but it's glaringly obvious that the reason the Board is so defensive on the topic of boundaries is because they all know the elephant in the room.

And in case you don't know the elephant in the room either: some communities clearly feel threatened that adjustments may lead to more ELL/FARMs populations in their catchment areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hired a consultant because they love wasting money.

Them stating at the work session that they weren’t tackling boundaries that day wasn’t racism, which is what was suggested earlier.

Admitting that there was Anti Asian sentiment behind the push to change TJ admissions and going forward anyway? Racist

calling Brabrand “dumb and white” as a reason why he can’t manage correctly? Racist

Oh please, learn to read between the lines. Cohen specifically announced during the MGT meeting that she had just then received emails from Daventry parents, literally as the MGT consultant was presenting his PowerPoint, asking her not to reverse the boundary change back to Lewis. Cohen felt the need to publicly reassure them that wasn't happening to take some heat off her back. Call it what you will (classism, elitism, racism, or plain selfishness), but it's glaringly obvious that the reason the Board is so defensive on the topic of boundaries is because they all know the elephant in the room.

And in case you don't know the elephant in the room either: some communities clearly feel threatened that adjustments may lead to more ELL/FARMs populations in their catchment areas.

Anonymous wrote:They hired a consultant because they love wasting money.

Them stating at the work session that they weren’t tackling boundaries that day wasn’t racism, which is what was suggested earlier.

Admitting that there was Anti Asian sentiment behind the push to change TJ admissions and going forward anyway? Racist

calling Brabrand “dumb and white” as a reason why he can’t manage correctly? Racist