Anonymous wrote:It would be easier to just create new boundaries across the county. Start as if no boundaries exist and see what they get , adjust to make the numbers make sense and present that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be easier to just create new boundaries across the county. Start as if no boundaries exist and see what they get , adjust to make the numbers make sense and present that.

🤣 This process has been a disaster from the start, so let’s do something that disrupts ten times the number of students?

You aren’t a serious person.

A redraw from scratch was the original plan.

PP's suggestion would just be going back to that.

They are not going back to that. That would involve ticking off one of their wealthier, organized groups.

We all know who (as usual) will emerge unscathed, but their impulse to meddle means they'll still screw things up for some people, as otherwise they'll have nothing to show for their "transformative" boundary project.

So you want them to screw over some of your neighbors? I mean, do you want boundary changes or not? You’re very inconsistent here.

Obviously not, but they make calculated decisions as to who they can get away with screwing over. And that always means leaving one particular area alone while others get torched.

We call your stance: “Pulling a Vanessa”. Advocating for others to be moved but being upset when your own kids are in the crosshairs.

Vanessa affirmatively wants boundary changes that don't include Mantua. Others don't want any boundary changes (besides those relating to Coates and KAA), but think the one pyramid that always gets a pass should be included if they're going to propose to redistrict others.

If you can't tell the difference, that's on you.

It’s just gross hypocrisy all around for the boundary change fans, I guess. A different approach could be just pushing back against unnecessary boundary changes period. Then you wouldn’t be a Vanessa.

There’s nothing hypocritical about noting that one pyramid always gets special treatment and that its exclusion from boundary changes helps grease the wheels of the FCPS machine.

This is disingenuous. Langley’s boundaries are changing. They’re picking up the Spring Hill attendance island which is a high growth area in the heart of Tysons. If they tried or successfully vetoed that recommendation (as it will put capacity at risk in future evaluations) then you’d be onto something.

I think this board just had grand visions for what the boundary recommendations would entail and the consultant didn’t take the bait.

What’s disingenuous is suggesting there’s no difference between having some kids added to your school and getting booted out of your school.

The consultant no doubt was steered by FCPS to yet again avoid antagonizing the noisiest, richest families in the county. Better to trample on others with fewer resources.

You are gross, Vanessa. Truly gross. There are only a few families who I hope get moved as part of this process, primarily any school board member’s kids, but you’ve now been added to the list, because you’re a hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be easier to just create new boundaries across the county. Start as if no boundaries exist and see what they get , adjust to make the numbers make sense and present that.

🤣 This process has been a disaster from the start, so let’s do something that disrupts ten times the number of students?

You aren’t a serious person.

A redraw from scratch was the original plan.

PP's suggestion would just be going back to that.

They are not going back to that. That would involve ticking off one of their wealthier, organized groups.

We all know who (as usual) will emerge unscathed, but their impulse to meddle means they'll still screw things up for some people, as otherwise they'll have nothing to show for their "transformative" boundary project.

So you want them to screw over some of your neighbors? I mean, do you want boundary changes or not? You’re very inconsistent here.

Obviously not, but they make calculated decisions as to who they can get away with screwing over. And that always means leaving one particular area alone while others get torched.

We call your stance: “Pulling a Vanessa”. Advocating for others to be moved but being upset when your own kids are in the crosshairs.

Vanessa affirmatively wants boundary changes that don't include Mantua. Others don't want any boundary changes (besides those relating to Coates and KAA), but think the one pyramid that always gets a pass should be included if they're going to propose to redistrict others.

If you can't tell the difference, that's on you.

It’s just gross hypocrisy all around for the boundary change fans, I guess. A different approach could be just pushing back against unnecessary boundary changes period. Then you wouldn’t be a Vanessa.

There’s nothing hypocritical about noting that one pyramid always gets special treatment and that its exclusion from boundary changes helps grease the wheels of the FCPS machine.

This is disingenuous. Langley’s boundaries are changing. They’re picking up the Spring Hill attendance island which is a high growth area in the heart of Tysons. If they tried or successfully vetoed that recommendation (as it will put capacity at risk in future evaluations) then you’d be onto something.

I think this board just had grand visions for what the boundary recommendations would entail and the consultant didn’t take the bait.

What’s disingenuous is suggesting there’s no difference between having some kids added to your school and getting booted out of your school.

The consultant no doubt was steered by FCPS to yet again avoid antagonizing the noisiest, richest families in the county. Better to trample on others with fewer resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This forum is the evidence of fear of being zoned to schools with large non English speaking populations. How many negative comments have been made about Annandale, Justice, Herndon, Lewis, and Mt. Vernon. What has West Springfield parents freaking out? Burying your head in the sand doesn't make it untrue. I know it is uncomfortable for you all to admit.

This has been stated many times in other places in this forum: Lewis and West Springfield offer very different course options. I moved to the West Springfield neighborhood so my high schoolers could take a wide number of AP courses. I went to an IB high school and I do not want my kids at an IB high school. Lewis does not offer the language that my kids take, or have teams for the sports that my kids play. West Springfield does. These are my reasons that I don’t want my kids to go to Lewis, not a fear of being zoned to a school with large non English speaking populations.

Anonymous wrote:

This forum is the evidence of fear of being zoned to schools with large non English speaking populations. How many negative comments have been made about Annandale, Justice, Herndon, Lewis, and Mt. Vernon. What has West Springfield parents freaking out? Burying your head in the sand doesn't make it untrue. I know it is uncomfortable for you all to admit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be easier to just create new boundaries across the county. Start as if no boundaries exist and see what they get , adjust to make the numbers make sense and present that.

🤣 This process has been a disaster from the start, so let’s do something that disrupts ten times the number of students?

You aren’t a serious person.

A redraw from scratch was the original plan.

PP's suggestion would just be going back to that.

They are not going back to that. That would involve ticking off one of their wealthier, organized groups.

We all know who (as usual) will emerge unscathed, but their impulse to meddle means they'll still screw things up for some people, as otherwise they'll have nothing to show for their "transformative" boundary project.

So you want them to screw over some of your neighbors? I mean, do you want boundary changes or not? You’re very inconsistent here.

Obviously not, but they make calculated decisions as to who they can get away with screwing over. And that always means leaving one particular area alone while others get torched.

We call your stance: “Pulling a Vanessa”. Advocating for others to be moved but being upset when your own kids are in the crosshairs.

Vanessa affirmatively wants boundary changes that don't include Mantua. Others don't want any boundary changes (besides those relating to Coates and KAA), but think the one pyramid that always gets a pass should be included if they're going to propose to redistrict others.

If you can't tell the difference, that's on you.

It’s just gross hypocrisy all around for the boundary change fans, I guess. A different approach could be just pushing back against unnecessary boundary changes period. Then you wouldn’t be a Vanessa.

There’s nothing hypocritical about noting that one pyramid always gets special treatment and that its exclusion from boundary changes helps grease the wheels of the FCPS machine.

This is disingenuous. Langley’s boundaries are changing. They’re picking up the Spring Hill attendance island which is a high growth area in the heart of Tysons. If they tried or successfully vetoed that recommendation (as it will put capacity at risk in future evaluations) then you’d be onto something.

I think this board just had grand visions for what the boundary recommendations would entail and the consultant didn’t take the bait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From another thread (on contacting the School Board):

"Look, you and I are largely aligned ideologically, but I will never vote for a D in an FCPS SB election again. They hid their boundary review intentions during their campaigns, ignored their constituents to cram it through, and are hurrying the process to try to avoid blowback in 2027 (it won’t work).

As much as I don’t want all the things that you mention might come with an R on the school board, I’d rather those than having the school board look at my kid as their resource to paper over a poor performing school. All the R stuff I can discuss and contextualize with my kid. I can’t discuss away them having to leave their friends and have a significantly altered education because the school board felt the need to pick winners and losers based on zip code.

"

This is the evidence of people fearing being zoned to the high ESL population schools.

I wrote that, and you are absolutely wrong. You want the county to engage in a grand social experiment using our kids as your lab rats.

It’s quite clear from the community feedback to date that you are in the minority when it comes to believing that kids should be moved to satisfy your quota.

But don’t take my word for it, look at the status of the Democratic brand in our country. You’re turning off a ton of moderates with your ill-informed posts.

But why is it such a grand social experiment? Ask yourself that? How did FCPS get to the point where people are so fearful of attending certain schools?

It is because the schools have become very different - because immigration was uncontrolled due to bad policy and lack of enforcement. And those students have ended up concentrated in certain schools. These are the facts.

Moderate Democrat here. It would take a lot to get me to vote for a republican candidate in todays political environment. I am not electing someone who is likely to rubber stamp the Trump agenda. Since pretty much 0 Republicans have been willing to speak out against Trump or vote opposite of the party line, I can't vote Republican because I won't vote for people who will rubber stamp unconstitutional practices.

Not to mention, the Republican party keeps running candidates who are even more damaging then the Democrats. Which sucks but that is where I stand.

I'll vote, like a lot of parents in the county, by pupil placing my kid into a better school, that offers the classes that he will want to take. Others are voting by going to private school.

As for the idea that they just start boundary review from scratch, why not? Remove the boundaries. Lay out the ES boundaries first, with the goal of keeping schools at 90% capacity. Lay out the MS boundaries next and then the HS. I would bet that the vast majority of the county would be at the same ES, MS, and HS. The changes would be at the schools that need it most. Some of those are changes that people are fighting, like moving to Lewis and moving to Herndon, but most people will stay where they are. Just like most people are staying where they are now. The loudest voices in this thread are the parents who don't want to move to schools like Lewis and Herndon from schools like WSHS and Langley for the obvious reasons, no one wants to move from a school with a large group of kids focused on college to a school where most of the kids are not focused on college. The offered classes are different, and the community feel is different.

I know people who have had a great experience at Herndon, you can get a great education there. The teachers are excellent and the kids I know have enjoyed their time there. But they had fewer AP choices then a kid at Oakton, McLean, Chantilly, or Langley. The club choices are different. It is not because the kids are bad or dangerous but because the focus of the families is different. Ignoring that and calling people who want their kids to attend a school with more AP options and more academic club options racist is ridiculous. Moving MC and UMC families to SLHS improved test scores only because you moved kids who have parents focused on education and who participated in the IB program. There is 0 indication that the test scores for the ELL and FARMs kids have improved. The test score incrase looks good but it only masks the societal issues that schools cannot fix associated with generational poverty and immigration from impoverished countries with limited educational opportunities for their citizens.
\

You and all the other people like you are the problem. Limousine liberals that vote for destructive policies and then game their way out of them.