Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a taxpayer, I would rather have tax money "bussed" to schools that need additional resources and have them spend it in ways that will help the populations that need it, including parenting classes, ESOL for parents, night school, whatever. Break the cycle in the communities that suffer from the cycle.

This.
It's a lot easier to get parents involved if they are comfortable in the environment.

+1.

Now you guys are finally getting it!
Take a page out of the North Arlington Democrat playbook
Here are your key phrases
“Respect immigrant communities”
“allow 40% FRL schools to continue to be vibrant”
“Don’t tear communities apart”
“ keep communities together to honor them”
“ it’s a micro-aggression to point out the achievement gap”
“ it’s better to keep higher needs populations together, so they more effectively receive wrap around services”
Also:
You can also go down the environmental aspects of busing, and how it’s terrible for our carbon footprint.

You don’t have to make a conservative argument. North Arlington has practically written a bible of “progressive” ones.

It's better than busing. Busing does not work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a taxpayer, I would rather have tax money "bussed" to schools that need additional resources and have them spend it in ways that will help the populations that need it, including parenting classes, ESOL for parents, night school, whatever. Break the cycle in the communities that suffer from the cycle.

This.
It's a lot easier to get parents involved if they are comfortable in the environment.

+1.

Now you guys are finally getting it!
Take a page out of the North Arlington Democrat playbook
Here are your key phrases
“Respect immigrant communities”
“allow 40% FRL schools to continue to be vibrant”
“Don’t tear communities apart”
“ keep communities together to honor them”
“ it’s a micro-aggression to point out the achievement gap”
“ it’s better to keep higher needs populations together, so they more effectively receive wrap around services”
Also:
You can also go down the environmental aspects of busing, and how it’s terrible for our carbon footprint.

You don’t have to make a conservative argument. North Arlington has practically written a bible of “progressive” ones.

I mean this in the nicest way. What should we do? Because this thread is a perfect example of the nonsense when it comes to making decisions. We are doing things to avoid blow back from parents who don't want certain populations in their schools, we are getting blow back from parents and board members who want to pursue changes but only if we make sure we are taking into account poverty. I spent hours in meetings where we basically go back and forth. We have the data to do a massive boundary change now to essentially have no school over 110 percent capacity (so, minimum modulars and trailers folks). It is basically dead in the water. Because building more is an easy yes and I am just doing my job and I really have no power to make these choices where blow back is inevitable.

Unfortunately, there's no pleasing all of the people all of the time.
I don't envy anyone in this situation who is actually trying to do their job.

Present your best recommendations with the evidence to justify them. Have a back up or two that may be less unpopular if you anticipate massive resistance, and let the school board make their decision.

I too notice that, assuming you are who you say you are, that some school board members are willing to waste money on an outside consultant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in facilities. Nothing, and I mean nothing beyond capacity expansions is happening, until the new Western High School is funded and built. When that happens, then yes, there will be a very large rewriting of boundaries. But until then, this is all nonsense to essentially undermine the new school from every being built because nothing will ever change.

Are you saying Facilities is so incompetent that it doesn’t plan to adjust the boundaries between overcrowded and under-enrolled high schools for at least a decade?

Not sure if you’re a troll, but if what you say is true then Brabrand is unlikely to last another school year. The BOS will want him out and the School Board will fire him to keep the money flowing.

What I am saying is that we aren't given much leeway. The entire preference has been to expand capacity over shifting capacity to different schools. As this thread shows, even talking about making major changes sparks an insane amount of blow back. People complain less about just making the schools bigger to meet demand.

Right now, there are no immediate plans or plans anytime soon to change any of the high schools. Nothing is happening beyond us getting data and talking through expansions, fwiw.

I think that is last year’s story. If you don’t start balancing the high school enrollments soon, you’ll face criticism the likes of which FCPS leadership has rarely seen. Brabrand will not survive it, nor will Platenberg.

I mean this in the nicest way. What should we do? Because this thread is a perfect example of the nonsense when it comes to making decisions. We are doing things to avoid blow back from parents who don't want certain populations in their schools, we are getting blow back from parents and board members who want to pursue changes but only if we make sure we are taking into account poverty. I spent hours in meetings where we basically go back and forth. We have the data to do a massive boundary change now to essentially have no school over 110 percent capacity (so, minimum modulars and trailers folks). It is basically dead in the water. Because building more is an easy yes and I am just doing my job and I really have no power to make these choices where blow back is inevitable.

Interesting. So I’m reading this to mean there’s really no need to hire an independent consultant because the staff already can access and map the data to generate solutions?

Beyond that, I can’t tell staff or the School Board how to do their jobs. We’re in a predicament because there has been an enormous lack of backbone in standing up to those who might criticize unpopular changes.

What I can tell you is that the public’s willingness to keep funding additions that may not be needed or to tolerate major capacity imbalances among schools is being stretched very thin, and that quite a few people in FCPS will be out of their jobs if they don’t start to address some of the most glaring situations soon. Brabrand and Platenberg, in particular, will take the fall for the collective failure within FCPS to manage its facilities more effectively.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe Langley is only enrolled until they move kids from McLean to Langley. At that point, Langley won't be under enrolled. Not sure why there is so much posting about Langley when it is going to at capacity soon anyway.

Which explains why FCPS is not moving some of McLean to Langley. They have other plans........

Which is what? Last I heard they were moving McLean kids to Langley.

I thought they weren’t because the closest homes to Langley are some of the most expensive homes in McLean high and that goes against one Fairfax.

They can move other areas zoned for McLean to Langley if they prefer not to move the neighborhoods that are closest/most expensive. Those other areas are still closer to Langley than many areas currently zoned for Langley.

If they want to address overcrowding at McLean AND maximize efficiency, seems that it would be better to add the areas closest to Langley.

They are already stretched with a shortage of drivers and drivers having difficulties with managing their routes to accommodate personal needs (specifically bathroom breaks if I recall Platenburgs comments correctly)

Those kids won’t be walking in any event, as they’d have to cross both Dolley Madison and Georgetown Pike. So FCPS can look at alternatives that would increase the diversity at Langley. The draft revisions to the boundary policy certainly don’t seem to contemplate that the School Board would go with the option that makes the wealthiest school richer, but who knows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in facilities. Nothing, and I mean nothing beyond capacity expansions is happening, until the new Western High School is funded and built. When that happens, then yes, there will be a very large rewriting of boundaries. But until then, this is all nonsense to essentially undermine the new school from every being built because nothing will ever change.

Are you saying Facilities is so incompetent that it doesn’t plan to adjust the boundaries between overcrowded and under-enrolled high schools for at least a decade?

Not sure if you’re a troll, but if what you say is true then Brabrand is unlikely to last another school year. The BOS will want him out and the School Board will fire him to keep the money flowing.

What I am saying is that we aren't given much leeway. The entire preference has been to expand capacity over shifting capacity to different schools. As this thread shows, even talking about making major changes sparks an insane amount of blow back. People complain less about just making the schools bigger to meet demand.

Right now, there are no immediate plans or plans anytime soon to change any of the high schools. Nothing is happening beyond us getting data and talking through expansions, fwiw.

I think that is last year’s story. If you don’t start balancing the high school enrollments soon, you’ll face criticism the likes of which FCPS leadership has rarely seen. Brabrand will not survive it, nor will Platenberg.

I mean this in the nicest way. What should we do? Because this thread is a perfect example of the nonsense when it comes to making decisions. We are doing things to avoid blow back from parents who don't want certain populations in their schools, we are getting blow back from parents and board members who want to pursue changes but only if we make sure we are taking into account poverty. I spent hours in meetings where we basically go back and forth. We have the data to do a massive boundary change now to essentially have no school over 110 percent capacity (so, minimum modulars and trailers folks). It is basically dead in the water. Because building more is an easy yes and I am just doing my job and I really have no power to make these choices where blow back is inevitable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe Langley is only enrolled until they move kids from McLean to Langley. At that point, Langley won't be under enrolled. Not sure why there is so much posting about Langley when it is going to at capacity soon anyway.

Which explains why FCPS is not moving some of McLean to Langley. They have other plans........

Which is what? Last I heard they were moving McLean kids to Langley.

I thought they weren’t because the closest homes to Langley are some of the most expensive homes in McLean high and that goes against one Fairfax.

They can move other areas zoned for McLean to Langley if they prefer not to move the neighborhoods that are closest/most expensive. Those other areas are still closer to Langley than many areas currently zoned for Langley.

If they want to address overcrowding at McLean AND maximize efficiency, seems that it would be better to add the areas closest to Langley.

They are already stretched with a shortage of drivers and drivers having difficulties with managing their routes to accommodate personal needs (specifically bathroom breaks if I recall Platenburgs comments correctly)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe Langley is only enrolled until they move kids from McLean to Langley. At that point, Langley won't be under enrolled. Not sure why there is so much posting about Langley when it is going to at capacity soon anyway.

Which explains why FCPS is not moving some of McLean to Langley. They have other plans........

Which is what? Last I heard they were moving McLean kids to Langley.

I thought they weren’t because the closest homes to Langley are some of the most expensive homes in McLean high and that goes against one Fairfax.

They can move other areas zoned for McLean to Langley if they prefer not to move the neighborhoods that are closest/most expensive. Those other areas are still closer to Langley than many areas currently zoned for Langley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe Langley is only enrolled until they move kids from McLean to Langley. At that point, Langley won't be under enrolled. Not sure why there is so much posting about Langley when it is going to at capacity soon anyway.

Which explains why FCPS is not moving some of McLean to Langley. They have other plans........

Which is what? Last I heard they were moving McLean kids to Langley.

I thought they weren’t because the closest homes to Langley are some of the most expensive homes in McLean high and that goes against one Fairfax.

That appears to be the problem.

Maybe, in the spirit of "One Fairfax", the BOS will buy property across from Langley and build affordable housing. Maybe, take the park where they have baseball fields and kids play lacrosse right next door to the CIA.........that wouldn't set Fairfax County back too much..................

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe Langley is only enrolled until they move kids from McLean to Langley. At that point, Langley won't be under enrolled. Not sure why there is so much posting about Langley when it is going to at capacity soon anyway.

Which explains why FCPS is not moving some of McLean to Langley. They have other plans........

Which is what? Last I heard they were moving McLean kids to Langley.

They will. If you watch the last work session, there were several School Board members who said they needed to start acting on this soon. It’s not that they especially want to do any favors for McLean. It’s just that they’ll appear to be totally lacking in common sense, and they’ll give “One Fairfax” a terrible name, if they can’t make progress at relieving the overcrowding at one of the most overcrowded high schools when it is only a few miles away from one of its most under-enrolled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe Langley is only enrolled until they move kids from McLean to Langley. At that point, Langley won't be under enrolled. Not sure why there is so much posting about Langley when it is going to at capacity soon anyway.

Which explains why FCPS is not moving some of McLean to Langley. They have other plans........

Which is what? Last I heard they were moving McLean kids to Langley.

I thought they weren’t because the closest homes to Langley are some of the most expensive homes in McLean high and that goes against one Fairfax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe Langley is only enrolled until they move kids from McLean to Langley. At that point, Langley won't be under enrolled. Not sure why there is so much posting about Langley when it is going to at capacity soon anyway.

Which explains why FCPS is not moving some of McLean to Langley. They have other plans........

Which is what? Last I heard they were moving McLean kids to Langley.

Arlington just went though this for elementary. It was a shot show. Some homeowners did get screwed. Thing is everyone is going to eventually suffer in some way because more and more kids just keep coming. Whether it’s overcrowed, more kids same resources, bigger class sizes, competition for sports teams...

Anonymous wrote:

As a taxpayer, I would rather have tax money "bussed" to schools that need additional resources and have them spend it in ways that will help the populations that need it, including parenting classes, ESOL for parents, night school, whatever. Break the cycle in the communities that suffer from the cycle.

This.
It's a lot easier to get parents involved if they are comfortable in the environment.

+1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in facilities. Nothing, and I mean nothing beyond capacity expansions is happening, until the new Western High School is funded and built. When that happens, then yes, there will be a very large rewriting of boundaries. But until then, this is all nonsense to essentially undermine the new school from every being built because nothing will ever change.

Are you saying Facilities is so incompetent that it doesn’t plan to adjust the boundaries between overcrowded and under-enrolled high schools for at least a decade?

Not sure if you’re a troll, but if what you say is true then Brabrand is unlikely to last another school year. The BOS will want him out and the School Board will fire him to keep the money flowing.

What I am saying is that we aren't given much leeway. The entire preference has been to expand capacity over shifting capacity to different schools. As this thread shows, even talking about making major changes sparks an insane amount of blow back. People complain less about just making the schools bigger to meet demand.

Right now, there are no immediate plans or plans anytime soon to change any of the high schools. Nothing is happening beyond us getting data and talking through expansions, fwiw.

I think that is last year’s story. If you don’t start balancing the high school enrollments soon, you’ll face criticism the likes of which FCPS leadership has rarely seen. Brabrand will not survive it, nor will Platenberg.