Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One other thing--is BRAC involved? Chantilly's reps on BRAC live close to the Centreville boundary. There are no reps from Chantilly or Westfield that live in the Oak Hill area. Not sure about Oakton or South Lakes.
That does not seem fair.

And, remember, here are the goals of the committee:

Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.
Balance available capacity to make the best use of our school facilities.
Establish consistent “attendance zones (school boundaries)” by addressing isolated attendance areas (islands) and reducing split feeder patterns.
Minimize travel time for students.

Those aren’t necessarily the goals of the BRAC. They are the factors highlighted in the School Board’s policy.

Not really the same thing, and we’ve watched Reid, Thru, and others basically ignore some of those factors - in particular minimizing travel time - for months. Families have also made it clear they’d prefer stable boundaries over disruptive changes to eliminate attendance islands and split feeders. Idiots like Rachna Sizemore-Heizer made this a priority when they pushed through Policy 8130 revisions without seeking public input first (and ignoring prior public input), so now they are watering down the other boundary proposals and the Oakton parents opposing a move to Western have taken a page from that playbook.

Anonymous wrote:One other thing--is BRAC involved? Chantilly's reps on BRAC live close to the Centreville boundary. There are no reps from Chantilly or Westfield that live in the Oak Hill area. Not sure about Oakton or South Lakes.
That does not seem fair.

And, remember, here are the goals of the committee:

Ensure equitable access to programs and facilities.
Balance available capacity to make the best use of our school facilities.
Establish consistent “attendance zones (school boundaries)” by addressing isolated attendance areas (islands) and reducing split feeder patterns.
Minimize travel time for students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm tired of FCPS always giving the most weight and caring the most about the loudest voices (RIO people) and the people with money (Langley people).

Nothing makes more sense than moving Crossfield to Western. It is the most obvious of all the boundary decisions. FCPS needs to make common sense decisions.

Westfield is the school that is changing the most students in any proposal and none of their parents are out making a spectacle of themselves in public.

Agree.

I don't think the RIO people made the website but they are all too happy to quickly vote for Option E because it leaves them out. They couldn't care less what happens to any other school as long as they aren't affected.

If/when the commenting tool comes up, and if Option E stays the way it was, people need to flood the comments saying how bad it is. Completely unfair to Westfield and to people close to Chantilly who would be moved all because a PTO mom with too much time on her hands is busy sucking up to the school board and whoever else at FCPS she can get on the phone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm tired of FCPS always giving the most weight and caring the most about the loudest voices (RIO people) and the people with money (Langley people).

Nothing makes more sense than moving Crossfield to Western. It is the most obvious of all the boundary decisions. FCPS needs to make common sense decisions.

Westfield is the school that is changing the most students in any proposal and none of their parents are out making a spectacle of themselves in public.

Agree.

Anonymous wrote:Given the original RIO dissemination of the website with the Scenario has been silent regarding the source of the data, and/or why it was all of a sudden pulled, I'd be convinced it was a fake site until someone can confirm otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not going to approve a map that leaves a school at 62% enrollment. Is there is a corresponding map for the general redistricting that would get Westfield above 85%? If not, I would think this is BS.

I can see a 5th map that leaves out moving from SLHS because Meren doesn't want to lose students there but not one that nearly empties Westfield.

I think the issue was that it moved Centreville kids to Chantilly instead of Westfield. In order to do that, they had to remove more Chantilly kids.

A PP posted reasons why she thinks it might be a real FCPS creation. I'm not sure I agree, but PP makes a pretty good case for it.
Also, Dixit lives in the Centreville area and she is probably getting pushback from some of her neighbors.

I know that the Crossfield people are the loudest voices, but it really makes the most sense to send them to the new school. That commute is brutal.
And, honestly, after listening to the two very loud voices at the citizen participation portion of the last SB meeting, I am even more convinced they should be moved.
Decisions should not be made on arrogance of parents. Some common sense should apply. And, I'm still in awe of the man who wants to name the new school but does not want his kids to go there. And, the woman who is upset because her younger child won't be able to ride in the car to Oakton with her older child.
Driving along those winding back roads or I 66 to school would not be what I would want for my teenage driver.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this actually real? It’s not a FCPS domain and came to light from the RIO folks. Sure this isn’t just something cooked up to support their cause?

Wow..good catch. It's down now. I totally fell for it.just shows what little trust in FCPS common sense I have. It was a r ridiculous proposal, but quite well done. Matched THRU maps and charts.

Hmm. I was trying to figure out if it was legit, and noted that the commenting tool for the main boundary review had a similar .org website. So I think it’s real but maybe they didn’t mean to publish it yet because there haven’t been any communications about a commenting period being open. That would track with how FCPS rolls, just look at the recent mistake releasing a snow closure announcement. Another issue was it said “no assignment” for HS for the Crossfield area on Option E which is obviously not right.

My question is how did anyone find the website the first place without any communication about it from FCPS. I wonder if a certain someone at RIO is being given special access to info from someone within FCPS.