Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

And let’s be clear. The fight they are afraid of is with the Trump administration. They don’t want to end up on Fox News or be targeted by crazies who now feel more emboldened. They’re not afraid of making the typical parent in the community unhappy. No local or community group should be giving themselves too much credit here. They won’t hesitate to do things that anger you if the larger political winds change in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

Because of how the high poverty areas (and low poverty areas as well) are concentrated, any serious attempts at balancing would have involved a lot of bussing. Don’t be disingenuous.

Except for one major area that is less than three miles from the closest school which is said to be underenrolled.

"Less than 3 miles" is Daventry and half of Keene Mill Elementary, not Hunt Valley which is miles away from Lewis.

This comment referred to a very different area--no where near WSpringfield or Lewis. This thread is about FCPS--not just one area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

Because of how the high poverty areas (and low poverty areas as well) are concentrated, any serious attempts at balancing would have involved a lot of bussing. Don’t be disingenuous.

Except for one major area that is less than three miles from the closest school which is said to be underenrolled.

"Less than 3 miles" is Daventry and half of Keene Mill Elementary, not Hunt Valley which is miles away from Lewis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

But they aren't stable for five years.

This map building is a 2 year process. Then a year of people fighting the changes and flipping out, followed by the tremendous disruption of the actual rezoning.

It is guaranteeing over 4 years of continuous chaos and disruption, with the 5th year being everyone gearing up for the next fight.

The 5 year process is short sighted and horribly disruptive.

If they felt they must put a fixed timeline in mandatory rezoning, tge smartest way would be to mandate it every 10 years on the year following the census year.

Then, at least, we would have a stable timeline as well as actual data on growth patterns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

Because of how the high poverty areas (and low poverty areas as well) are concentrated, any serious attempts at balancing would have involved a lot of bussing. Don’t be disingenuous.

Except for one major area that is less than three miles from the closest school which is said to be underenrolled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

Because of how the high poverty areas (and low poverty areas as well) are concentrated, any serious attempts at balancing would have involved a lot of bussing. Don’t be disingenuous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

Ad hoc makes sense--rather than doing a fruitbasket turnover. However, it appears they intend to do select groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb." The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed. But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past. Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

The videos from October 2024 and earlier are all online.

This process was started due to Equity and One Fairfax.

At one of the 8130 work sessions, Reid even called out the Chief Equity Officer and told her that her office needs to be involved in making sure each school move advanced One Fairfax. It is all on video. One of the old mega threads had links to FCPS board docs videos and time stamps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

They were never going to bus kids “all over the county” for the sake of SES/FARMS “balancing.” They might have bused kids to closer schools to address some of the unbalanced SES/FARMS rates, but they backed off that to avoid a fight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

+2 I think they realized that the political environment was suddenly very different and backed off of full equity moves. Also the recent budget cuts making it so transportation has to be more efficient - there’s simply not enough money to bus kids all over the county for the sake of SES/FARMS balancing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason.

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.

Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board. But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic. Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.

Yes, you get it. I remember how they were talking about boundary changes before last year's election. It was all about equity and One Fairfax. The tone distinctly changed after that. This was way before any maps came out. They very clearly backed off of doing the larger scale changes they were initially signaling they wanted to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.

If you look at the boundaries, you will see that there are some strange weird ones that have been created over the years when different political entities lobbies for different things. This was supposed to streamline the boundaries and make them more logical and efficient. There are many bus routes that mean buses criss cross around the county. There has been some attempt to minimize islands and elongated boundaries. Of course, the political forces that made those boundaries have all been alerted and reorganizing and pushing back.

Weak sauce from gatehouse propagandists. The political forces described here are families across the entire county that don’t believe that kids should be moved absent an urgent need.

+1. Some of these pro-Schopl Board groups like “4 Public Education” make up a fake narrative to suggest their SB friends are correcting some big historical injustice, when it’s mostly just pointless meddling. They should fix Coates and leave others alone.