Anonymous wrote:Trying again to provide working link:

http://www.voicesoffairfax.org/candidates.html

Did not see one word about Forest Edge........

Anonymous wrote:Trying again to provide working link:

http://www.voicesoffairfax.org/candidates.html

Just read Buford's response. She is what we need on School Board. She did not push for IB at Langley, but was presenting several possibilities to handle it on a short-term basis. But, she also made it clear she supported boundary adjustment. Which, until the last week or so, the SB was refusing to consider. Why didn't SB push for this last year?

I haven't read the other responses yet

If I had to do it all over again, I'd send my DCs to private schools. Already I've seen the tide shift; parents who can afford (or some who really can't) will send their children to private.

It used to be an easy decision; why pay for maybe subpar private schools in Fairfax County when we had top notch, top performing, nationally recognized public schools. Happy to see that those most frustrated parents are voting with their feet...

Trying again to provide working link:

http://www.voicesoffairfax.org/candidates.html

Anonymous wrote:

Back fire on the Republican candidate? Karloutsos is backfiring on herself. IB for Langley and a magnet program? Can't fill it with Mclean and if you want more FARMS add in Forest Edge? Buford is another IB for Langley.

source?

Doesn't sound right to me. I'd really like to know where you are getting this.

Anonymous wrote:

Back fire on the Republican candidate? Karloutsos is backfiring on herself. IB for Langley and a magnet program? Can't fill it with Mclean and if you want more FARMS add in Forest Edge? Buford is another IB for Langley.

source?

Not PP, but both Buford and Karloutsos responded to the One Great Falls questionnaires by suggesting that the addition of IB to Langley might attract McLean students to Langley and alleviate the need for a boundary change.

I appreciate that they are trying to be creative, but the odds that FCPS would make Langley the only high school in FCPS with a full range of AP courses and an IB diploma program are zero to none. What Tholen is suggesting - a limited boundary shift of McLean students to Langley followed by an expansion of McLean - is more likely.

Anonymous wrote:

Back fire on the Republican candidate? Karloutsos is backfiring on herself. IB for Langley and a magnet program? Can't fill it with Mclean and if you want more FARMS add in Forest Edge? Buford is another IB for Langley.

source?

I would like to know too. I haven't taken a deep dive but I didn't see any information on their sites recommending IB.

Have any candidates recommended IB this campaign season?

Back fire on the Republican candidate? Karloutsos is backfiring on herself. IB for Langley and a magnet program? Can't fill it with Mclean and if you want more FARMS add in Forest Edge? Buford is another IB for Langley.

source?

Anonymous wrote:Some good testimony from Langley and McLean speakers at the School Board meeting last night about the need to balance the enrollments at those schools.

Corbett Sanders could not have looked more indifferent to what they were saying. She really is a piece of work.

And the Sandburg chorus! Plus her low farms school anniversary. Corbett Sanders is The Queen Bee and has really glommed resources on the bond. Oh well. No Stu Gibson left to call out her BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't watch the whole meeting last night. Did catch a little of Hynes talking about moving kids form McLean to Langley should be obvious or something like that. Funny, that's not what she was singing earlier. They are really trying to get this CIP amendment done now, when it won't make adjustments come any sooner than if they waited until they do the next CIP. Pretty obvious that Strauss is trying to save her reputation and the Dem SB nominee from Dranesville.

It’s September and the next CIP won’t get approved until any earlier than mid-January 2020.

If this means FCPS staff starts working on a boundary study 3-6 months earlier than otherwise might be the case, I do not understand why anyone familiar with the facts would object.

Schultz and Wilson were absolutely trying to kill the amendment simply because they think it will benefit Democratic candidates this fall. So much for doing what’s best for the kids. That will absolutely backfire on the Republican at-large and Dranesville candidates. Wilson, in particular, revealed his ignorance by suggesting that Oakton should be receiving more attention than McLean when Oakton is currently in the midst of a giant, multi-year renovation and expansion.

Megan McLaughlin made a lot of sense when she actually engaged Jeff Platenberg to speak to the benefits of directing staff resources to addressing the McLean overcrowding sooner rather than later. He pointed out that McLean was projected to be the most overcrowded high school in the county by 2023 and that McLean was “unique” among the overcrowded high schools in having no solution yet identified by FCPS to address that overcrowding.

Back fire on the Republican candidate? Karloutsos is backfiring on herself. IB for Langley and a magnet program? Can't fill it with Mclean and if you want more FARMS add in Forest Edge? Buford is another IB for Langley. FCPS IB stats v cost per pupil are dismal. Ardavan Mobeshari moved here from NJ and was thrown by no in perpetuity on an attendance area. In 5 years there could be a CIP/comprehensive plan resurrecting the North Reston HS. That thing could be an alternative build to west county. Also suggest IB for Herndon.

Meanwhile on 9/12/19 Tholen said move Mclean into the place and One Fairfax shouldn't not be in effect based on income. Also best informed and interested on school sites and potential sites. Flexible and not dogmatic. It takes a lot for the BOS to materially alter the FCPS bond referendum and they did for "Blake Lane Park" and Tholen is the only one who even bothered to inform themselves on the issue.

Yes, clearly I have only watched work sessions!

I'm glad there seems to be movement on this issue but the politics of it annoy me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't watch the whole meeting last night. Did catch a little of Hynes talking about moving kids form McLean to Langley should be obvious or something like that. Funny, that's not what she was singing earlier. They are really trying to get this CIP amendment done now, when it won't make adjustments come any sooner than if they waited until they do the next CIP. Pretty obvious that Strauss is trying to save her reputation and the Dem SB nominee from Dranesville.

She showed up to advocate for McLean and Langley families.

I sat back from my laptop in surprise when they called her name.

It’s not unusual for SB candidates to testify in the months leading up to an election in order to get the message out about their priorities. Two of the Republican SB candidates testified at a meeting in late July (Palathingal and Bayer).

Anonymous wrote:Didn't watch the whole meeting last night. Did catch a little of Hynes talking about moving kids form McLean to Langley should be obvious or something like that. Funny, that's not what she was singing earlier. They are really trying to get this CIP amendment done now, when it won't make adjustments come any sooner than if they waited until they do the next CIP. Pretty obvious that Strauss is trying to save her reputation and the Dem SB nominee from Dranesville.

She showed up to advocate for McLean and Langley families.

I sat back from my laptop in surprise when they called her name.

Anonymous wrote:Didn't watch the whole meeting last night. Did catch a little of Hynes talking about moving kids form McLean to Langley should be obvious or something like that. Funny, that's not what she was singing earlier. They are really trying to get this CIP amendment done now, when it won't make adjustments come any sooner than if they waited until they do the next CIP. Pretty obvious that Strauss is trying to save her reputation and the Dem SB nominee from Dranesville.

It’s September and the next CIP won’t get approved until any earlier than mid-January 2020.

If this means FCPS staff starts working on a boundary study 3-6 months earlier than otherwise might be the case, I do not understand why anyone familiar with the facts would object.

Schultz and Wilson were absolutely trying to kill the amendment simply because they think it will benefit Democratic candidates this fall. So much for doing what’s best for the kids. That will absolutely backfire on the Republican at-large and Dranesville candidates. Wilson, in particular, revealed his ignorance by suggesting that Oakton should be receiving more attention than McLean when Oakton is currently in the midst of a giant, multi-year renovation and expansion.

Megan McLaughlin made a lot of sense when she actually engaged Jeff Platenberg to speak to the benefits of directing staff resources to addressing the McLean overcrowding sooner rather than later. He pointed out that McLean was projected to be the most overcrowded high school in the county by 2023 and that McLean was “unique” among the overcrowded high schools in having no solution yet identified by FCPS to address that overcrowding.

Didn't watch the whole meeting last night. Did catch a little of Hynes talking about moving kids form McLean to Langley should be obvious or something like that. Funny, that's not what she was singing earlier. They are really trying to get this CIP amendment done now, when it won't make adjustments come any sooner than if they waited until they do the next CIP. Pretty obvious that Strauss is trying to save her reputation and the Dem SB nominee from Dranesville.