Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone from Great Falls just posted this on Nextdoor:

"Active Duty/Retired Navy in Fairfax County. $150M USS Saudi Academy to set sail on Thursday with no inspection, no punch list, no sea trial.
Neighbors, I have been trying to seek those concerned with the fact that on Thursday a $150M check of our taxpayer dollars from Fairfax County Public Schools will go to Saudi Arabia for a building in Herndon that has had no engineering inspection, punch list or ops manual developed for educational capability. What would Adm. Rickover think of this? We do not even know if all the sinks, toilets and showers operate or if the Olympic size swimming pool needs to be drained and replastered for $1M. Yet your county leaders (Fairfax County Scool Board) has authorizef buying, with your dollars, this pig in a poke. Tomorrow is the last day to contact your school board members to request a delay in purchase until these fundamental inspections have taken place and are documented."

The responses so far on Next Door are not very sympathetic to her complaints.

I wonder if she realizes that FCPS upped Langley’s expansion back in 2018 by several hundred seats over what had previously been disclosed to county residents in prior CIPs.

At the time Langley parents said that was a smart decision, but some of them sure are agitated over this purchase that will benefit kids in a different part of the county.

Well, I don't care what they do with Forestville, but, since I live in KAA area, I kind of resent the Great Falls people and all their negative comments about the purchase that is so badly needed by this community.

I do not understand why they are so against this. Their new association has strongly objected to it and so has FairFacts matters from what I can tell. THRU made lots of disturbing recommendations about this area and KAA is a wonderful solution to prevent long distant commutes.

We’ve already gone over this ad naseaum , fairfacts matters has taken no position on the new school purchase and it is not a great falls organization.

You shouldn’t lie - it really hurts your credibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone from Great Falls just posted this on Nextdoor:

"Active Duty/Retired Navy in Fairfax County. $150M USS Saudi Academy to set sail on Thursday with no inspection, no punch list, no sea trial.
Neighbors, I have been trying to seek those concerned with the fact that on Thursday a $150M check of our taxpayer dollars from Fairfax County Public Schools will go to Saudi Arabia for a building in Herndon that has had no engineering inspection, punch list or ops manual developed for educational capability. What would Adm. Rickover think of this? We do not even know if all the sinks, toilets and showers operate or if the Olympic size swimming pool needs to be drained and replastered for $1M. Yet your county leaders (Fairfax County Scool Board) has authorizef buying, with your dollars, this pig in a poke. Tomorrow is the last day to contact your school board members to request a delay in purchase until these fundamental inspections have taken place and are documented."

The responses so far on Next Door are not very sympathetic to her complaints.

I wonder if she realizes that FCPS upped Langley’s expansion back in 2018 by several hundred seats over what had previously been disclosed to county residents in prior CIPs.

At the time Langley parents said that was a smart decision, but some of them sure are agitated over this purchase that will benefit kids in a different part of the county.

Well, I don't care what they do with Forestville, but, since I live in KAA area, I kind of resent the Great Falls people and all their negative comments about the purchase that is so badly needed by this community.

I do not understand why they are so against this. Their new association has strongly objected to it and so has FairFacts matters from what I can tell. THRU made lots of disturbing recommendations about this area and KAA is a wonderful solution to prevent long distant commutes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone from Great Falls just posted this on Nextdoor:

"Active Duty/Retired Navy in Fairfax County. $150M USS Saudi Academy to set sail on Thursday with no inspection, no punch list, no sea trial.
Neighbors, I have been trying to seek those concerned with the fact that on Thursday a $150M check of our taxpayer dollars from Fairfax County Public Schools will go to Saudi Arabia for a building in Herndon that has had no engineering inspection, punch list or ops manual developed for educational capability. What would Adm. Rickover think of this? We do not even know if all the sinks, toilets and showers operate or if the Olympic size swimming pool needs to be drained and replastered for $1M. Yet your county leaders (Fairfax County Scool Board) has authorizef buying, with your dollars, this pig in a poke. Tomorrow is the last day to contact your school board members to request a delay in purchase until these fundamental inspections have taken place and are documented."

The responses so far on Next Door are not very sympathetic to her complaints.

I wonder if she realizes that FCPS upped Langley’s expansion back in 2018 by several hundred seats over what had previously been disclosed to county residents in prior CIPs.

At the time Langley parents said that was a smart decision, but some of them sure are agitated over this purchase that will benefit kids in a different part of the county.

Anonymous wrote:Someone from Great Falls just posted this on Nextdoor:

"Active Duty/Retired Navy in Fairfax County. $150M USS Saudi Academy to set sail on Thursday with no inspection, no punch list, no sea trial.
Neighbors, I have been trying to seek those concerned with the fact that on Thursday a $150M check of our taxpayer dollars from Fairfax County Public Schools will go to Saudi Arabia for a building in Herndon that has had no engineering inspection, punch list or ops manual developed for educational capability. What would Adm. Rickover think of this? We do not even know if all the sinks, toilets and showers operate or if the Olympic size swimming pool needs to be drained and replastered for $1M. Yet your county leaders (Fairfax County Scool Board) has authorizef buying, with your dollars, this pig in a poke. Tomorrow is the last day to contact your school board members to request a delay in purchase until these fundamental inspections have taken place and are documented."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

I was pointing out that PP’s central premise was wrong.

I fully support thru releasing all the priorities for all the regions. While I don’t know specifically what region 1’s priorities were, I know for a fact that they didn’t involve moving schools that are not in their region.

I understand what you're saying, but the thrust of PP's comment wasn't about how the Region 5 priority was communicated to/by FairFACTS Matters, but instead why that was the only priority from any region that FairFACTS Matters highlighted.

Oh, that’s easy. They highlighted it because it was so ridiculous and out of line.

Trust me, plenty of others feel that way about other recommendations so far.

Of course, I think the whole boundary review (except for Coates) is awful, but you don’t pick a fight with your ally when you are fighting with someone else. None of the map recommendations came from BRAC.

Coates is actually in Region 5! I wonder if it cracked their priority list.

I don’t have a clue, I’m not on the BRAC, but Coates feeds partly into a region 1 high school and the proposed fix is to move more students into that region. So it’s fair game, but I also don’t think that there priority would be to keep Coates overcrowded.

As I said before, I hope they release all the proposals for each region.

Since people were selected by pyramid, it is very possible that no one anywhere near Coates or even seriously aware of the problem is on BRAC.

In any case, the Coates issue should have been solved last year--or this year at the latest. This is serious malpractice on the part of fCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

I was pointing out that PP’s central premise was wrong.

I fully support thru releasing all the priorities for all the regions. While I don’t know specifically what region 1’s priorities were, I know for a fact that they didn’t involve moving schools that are not in their region.

I understand what you're saying, but the thrust of PP's comment wasn't about how the Region 5 priority was communicated to/by FairFACTS Matters, but instead why that was the only priority from any region that FairFACTS Matters highlighted.

Oh, that’s easy. They highlighted it because it was so ridiculous and out of line.

Trust me, plenty of others feel that way about other recommendations so far.

Of course, I think the whole boundary review (except for Coates) is awful, but you don’t pick a fight with your ally when you are fighting with someone else. None of the map recommendations came from BRAC.

Coates is actually in Region 5! I wonder if it cracked their priority list.

I don’t have a clue, I’m not on the BRAC, but Coates feeds partly into a region 1 high school and the proposed fix is to move more students into that region. So it’s fair game, but I also don’t think that there priority would be to keep Coates overcrowded.

As I said before, I hope they release all the proposals for each region.

Anonymous wrote:Have deportations had any effect on student numbers? Will some “less desired” schools end up way under enrolled?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

I was pointing out that PP’s central premise was wrong.

I fully support thru releasing all the priorities for all the regions. While I don’t know specifically what region 1’s priorities were, I know for a fact that they didn’t involve moving schools that are not in their region.

I understand what you're saying, but the thrust of PP's comment wasn't about how the Region 5 priority was communicated to/by FairFACTS Matters, but instead why that was the only priority from any region that FairFACTS Matters highlighted.

Oh, that’s easy. They highlighted it because it was so ridiculous and out of line.

Trust me, plenty of others feel that way about other recommendations so far.

Of course, I think the whole boundary review (except for Coates) is awful, but you don’t pick a fight with your ally when you are fighting with someone else. None of the map recommendations came from BRAC.

Coates is actually in Region 5! I wonder if it cracked their priority list.

How could Coates not have been #1 of 10 priorities for that region?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

I was pointing out that PP’s central premise was wrong.

I fully support thru releasing all the priorities for all the regions. While I don’t know specifically what region 1’s priorities were, I know for a fact that they didn’t involve moving schools that are not in their region.

I understand what you're saying, but the thrust of PP's comment wasn't about how the Region 5 priority was communicated to/by FairFACTS Matters, but instead why that was the only priority from any region that FairFACTS Matters highlighted.

Oh, that’s easy. They highlighted it because it was so ridiculous and out of line.

Trust me, plenty of others feel that way about other recommendations so far.

Of course, I think the whole boundary review (except for Coates) is awful, but you don’t pick a fight with your ally when you are fighting with someone else. None of the map recommendations came from BRAC.

Coates is actually in Region 5! I wonder if it cracked their priority list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS claimed they're doing a District-wide rezoning, so why shouldn't "Region 5" be able to suggest changes anywhere in the County?
But, as they've always done, they wire the results based on SB/staff-defined criteria and processes - Langley can't be considered in the South Lakes redistricting because it's not on the list. Emerald Chase has to move from Floris because Lees Corner's not on the list. Per the process, you're only allowed to answer our questions. Per the process, we get to mess around with the maps between every session and no maps are final until the SB approves them...

the exercise given to the brac was priorities for their region. not the entire process. they didn’t follow instructions. if everyone could make county wide priorities everyone’s may have looked different. the brac were supposed to review the comments from their region and create priorities from that. in region 5 not one single comment mentioned forestville so how could it be a priority. like someone else said if westbriar island wants moved that should have been their priority. not to move an entire school out of the pyramid for 40ish students in an island to join

Why are you saying "40ish students in an island"? Westbriar had 845 kids last year. Exclude the kids from other schools going to Westbriar for AAP and the number is 749. The island appears to account for significantly more than 5% of so of that number.

Again, we don't know if the Forestville recommendation had anything to do with Westbriar, and Robyn Lady has already given Forestville assurances that the recommendation will be discounted. But it sure seems like more than 40 kids from that island go to Westbriar.

Westbriar would only be moving its attendance island to Colvin Run. Currently the island is being reassigned to Wolftrap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

I was pointing out that PP’s central premise was wrong.

I fully support thru releasing all the priorities for all the regions. While I don’t know specifically what region 1’s priorities were, I know for a fact that they didn’t involve moving schools that are not in their region.

I understand what you're saying, but the thrust of PP's comment wasn't about how the Region 5 priority was communicated to/by FairFACTS Matters, but instead why that was the only priority from any region that FairFACTS Matters highlighted.

Oh, that’s easy. They highlighted it because it was so ridiculous and out of line.

Trust me, plenty of others feel that way about other recommendations so far.

Of course, I think the whole boundary review (except for Coates) is awful, but you don’t pick a fight with your ally when you are fighting with someone else. None of the map recommendations came from BRAC.

Coates is actually in Region 5! I wonder if it cracked their priority list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS claimed they're doing a District-wide rezoning, so why shouldn't "Region 5" be able to suggest changes anywhere in the County?
But, as they've always done, they wire the results based on SB/staff-defined criteria and processes - Langley can't be considered in the South Lakes redistricting because it's not on the list. Emerald Chase has to move from Floris because Lees Corner's not on the list. Per the process, you're only allowed to answer our questions. Per the process, we get to mess around with the maps between every session and no maps are final until the SB approves them...

the exercise given to the brac was priorities for their region. not the entire process. they didn’t follow instructions. if everyone could make county wide priorities everyone’s may have looked different. the brac were supposed to review the comments from their region and create priorities from that. in region 5 not one single comment mentioned forestville so how could it be a priority. like someone else said if westbriar island wants moved that should have been their priority. not to move an entire school out of the pyramid for 40ish students in an island to join

Why are you saying "40ish students in an island"? Westbriar had 845 kids last year. Exclude the kids from other schools going to Westbriar for AAP and the number is 749. The island appears to account for significantly more than 5% of so of that number.

Again, we don't know if the Forestville recommendation had anything to do with Westbriar, and Robyn Lady has already given Forestville assurances that the recommendation will be discounted. But it sure seems like more than 40 kids from that island go to Westbriar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

I was pointing out that PP’s central premise was wrong.

I fully support thru releasing all the priorities for all the regions. While I don’t know specifically what region 1’s priorities were, I know for a fact that they didn’t involve moving schools that are not in their region.

I understand what you're saying, but the thrust of PP's comment wasn't about how the Region 5 priority was communicated to/by FairFACTS Matters, but instead why that was the only priority from any region that FairFACTS Matters highlighted.

Oh, that’s easy. They highlighted it because it was so ridiculous and out of line.

Trust me, plenty of others feel that way about other recommendations so far.

Of course, I think the whole boundary review (except for Coates) is awful, but you don’t pick a fight with your ally when you are fighting with someone else. None of the map recommendations came from BRAC.