Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the speaker who addressed the West Springfield rep directly.and was like thanks for not touching my kids now don't touch anyone elses. She gave off a mama bear vibe, but for like her whole region.

I told that speaker about this post! We are trying to convince her to run against Sandy!

time stamp for the speaker?

Around 2:20:21

That’s not her. That’s mid talk from a Herndon mom

She starts around 0:38:00

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible for a candidate with rational pragmatic views to win anymore or is it wishful thinking?

Wishful thinking.

The Braddock Dem primary results are proof of this

So we are basically San Fransico with bad weather

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible for a candidate with rational pragmatic views to win anymore or is it wishful thinking?

Wishful thinking.

The Braddock Dem primary results are proof of this

Anonymous wrote:Do you think school board will amend with new changes from Reid’s proposal or just remove some of her changes? I hope nothing new - maybe just add to list of things to look at in future?

They might put some of the Map 4 changes back into play (WSHS comes to mind)

There are some very upset Cardinal Forest families at Reid's last minute changes that switched that Keene Mill island down near White Oaks, Shannon Station, from getting rezoned to White Oaks elementary and Lake Braddock in Map 4, to Reid rezoning them to Cardinal Forest, putting Cardinal Forest well over capacity, and also rezoning walkable Cardinal Forest neighborhoods from Cardinal Forest to farther away Keene Mill elementary.

Moving Shannon Station to White Oaks in Map 4 eliminated an attendance island and decreased West Springfield High School by around 100 students. It also lowered transportation costs by sending them to a closer school, and sent Shannon Station to equivalent schools with the same programs. The Shannon Station move was low hanging fruit and met every last one of the four rezoning mandates given to the BRAC committee by the school board.

Reid's map keeps everyone at WSHS. Reid keeps the recommendation from Map 4 to move two SPAs from Rolling Valley to Saratoga, but leaves one Rolling Valley SPA from the Parkway area at status quo (Rolling Valley > Key > Lewis), which means that instead of being a roughly 60/40 split feeder between WSHS and Lewis, Rolling Valley is now less than 10% split going to Lewis.

What Reid did to the WSHS maps by keeping Emerald Chase at WSHS and rezoning Rolling Valley the way that she did, puts a huge target on WSHS for mid cycle rezoning in the next year or two.

Sandy Anderson openly stated this at the school board meeting last week. Anderson's term goes through 2028. Rezoning WSHS has been her consistent, stated goal since soon after she was sworn in. If she can find a way to rezone neighborhoods out of WSHS in an off cycle rezoning before her term ends, and move RV into WSHS, then she will definitely try.

If you know the history and follow the process, it is clear that Reid's map, trying to keep everyone happy, is the worst case scenario for WSHS as it means continuous, mid cycle rezoning.

I sincerely hope that the school board adopts Map 4 for WSHS, for at least Shannon Station. Or, if they leave Shannon Station at WSHS, then I hope they rezone SPA 8922 along the Parkway to Saratoga, along with the rest of the Rolling Valley Lewis schools.

In my opinion, that is the best way to protect WSHS from mid cycle rezoning.

Is it possible for a candidate with rational pragmatic views to win anymore or is it wishful thinking?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the speaker who addressed the West Springfield rep directly.and was like thanks for not touching my kids now don't touch anyone elses. She gave off a mama bear vibe, but for like her whole region.

I told that speaker about this post! We are trying to convince her to run against Sandy!

time stamp for the speaker?

Around 2:20:21

That’s not her. That’s mid talk from a Herndon mom

Anonymous wrote:Do you think school board will amend with new changes from Reid’s proposal or just remove some of her changes? I hope nothing new - maybe just add to list of things to look at in future?

I do not think they’ll make any amendments that weren’t presented in a previous scenario. They were eviscerated by Beech Tree for considering a move that received zero community engagement. Since they’re openly taking about mid-cycle adjustments, there’s less urgency to add amendments that’ll move people. My guess is the only amendments will be to block certain moves.

Anonymous wrote:Do you think school board will amend with new changes from Reid’s proposal or just remove some of her changes? I hope nothing new - maybe just add to list of things to look at in future?

I doubt they’ll add new changes. There were a ton of pissed off parents speaking at yesterdays meeting (rightfully so) from the school with last minute changes. Glasgow middle I think? All saying changes were very last minute and they had no time to comment.

Do you think school board will amend with new changes from Reid’s proposal or just remove some of her changes? I hope nothing new - maybe just add to list of things to look at in future?

Anonymous wrote:Its clearly a personal favor for someone who lives in that neighborhood with a lot of pull.

Johnson is more overcrowded than Fairfax, although still under 105%. It's possible Fairfax City leaned on FCPS again to remove county kids from city schools.

FCPS should look to sever its relationship with Fairfax City. Let them run their own schools like Falls Church City.

Its clearly a personal favor for someone who lives in that neighborhood with a lot of pull.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So nothing to reduce the insane overcrowding at Chantilly. Nice. Why does that school get ignored. My kid is graduating, he can’t even move in the hallways.

They are spending over $200 million on Western to relieve overcrowding at Chantilly.

Question: Will kids who will be freshmen in 2026-27 have to move to Western for 27-28 if their home ends up in the boundary? Or do they get to stay put? If they will have to move, I assume the Oak Hill people will opt in so their kids won’t have to change schools after one year. Unless they do sports and really want their kid to be able to do that freshman year. Or maybe they’ll opt in to Western but take the bus to Chantilly for sports that first year? Seems like a mess either way.

If you don’t opt in but end up within the boundary, you don’t have to attend Western in 2027-28 as a sophomore. Western won’t have a senior class so you can still take the bus to the “old” base school, space permitting. The transportation situation for those students as juniors and seniors is still murky.

They are emphasizing that students looking to opt in as 9th or 10th graders should look at it as a four or three-year commitment to attend Western, even if they ultimately aren’t within the boundary and guaranteed transportation.

I understand the opt-in portion to Western, but what about the Chantilly and Centreville kids slated for Westfield? They can’t move 600 kids to Westfield because that capacity is based on 1000 kids opting in to Western. If a school like Chantilly is depending on capacity relief from kids opting to go to Western, but they aren’t required to move until year 3, why on earth are they moving MORE kids into Chantilly for the 26-27 school year as Reid’s recommendations state.

The big changes won't occur until year 3 when there's no longer an opt-in or opt-out, just new boundaries.

The number of kids being moved into Chantilly isn't huge. It's 45 kids based on 2024-25 enrollment, but (1) Chantilly enrollment is down slightly this year; and (2) most of the students will be grandfathered and some will stay at Fairfax.

I have no opinion as to whether it's necessary to move some Greenbriar East kids from Fairfax to Chantilly. It just doesn't seem like the impact will be that significant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After watching the meeting on YouTube, there is a familiar dynamic at work.

White, seemingly-UMC women zoned to Herndon stood up to advocate for more boundary changes based on equity. They were the women who stood up and clamored that the school board didn’t go big enough. Meanwhile, a POC mom from the area stood up to argue that they shouldn’t move Coates kids to Herndon Elementary, even though the school has capacity.

It’s just a really stark reminder that the people pushing for the larger boundary moves are often at odds with POC in those very communities.

As Marcia St. John Cunning mentioned the other night at the school board meeting, her area told her that they don’t want people at their school if they don’t want to be there.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the UMC whites in these areas, and the people who they claim to be trying to “help” with larger boundary changes.

Speaking directly about Marcia St John Cunning and Lewis - many Lewis pyramid parents spoke during the meeting about feeling the inequity at Lewis. One parent mentioned that fewer students at the school means less opportunities and named specific examples about classes and clubs being cancelled as a direct result of low enrollment. Something that changing boundaries to add more students to the school could directly resolve.
And I don’t see how being a POC matters for that statement, but yes we are a POC family and I fully agree with the Lewis parents

Adding more students to Lewis is right out of the five-part New York Times podcast from last decade called Nice White Parents. The argument of adding more affluent students to Lewis to increase opportunities is almost exactly the situation discussed in the NYC school in that series.

I’m just saying this is our version of that. It is worth a listen for anyone who is advocating for the school board to go bigger with its aims. You’ll quickly learn why that won’t work.

Who is saying to add more affluent students?
I think people are saying to add kids period. It’s not like Lewis is in a terrible neighborhood. Have you even driven around that school and the surrounding neighborhoods? I don’t see a stark difference driving in any direction away from Lewis.

Adding more affluent students to under enrolled schools was discussed yesterday by several speakers, including certain UMC white women looking to go bigger. Even when not said out loud that theme underlies the argument that there isn’t enough niche programming at the schools.

I think your projecting a little here.
Weren’t the Lewis parents happy with the idea of adding Bren Mar elementary to Lewis? Great schools says that school is over 50% low income.

Call it projection, but I encourage everyone to listen to the Podcast. One of the takeaways is that nice white patents, often with the veneer of trying to help POC, end up controlling these schools to the detriment of the people that they are supposedly trying to help. A big takeaway is they end up doing more harm than good.

Wait, you mean people advocate for their own kids and use whatever arguments they think are at their disposal?

That’s not exactly news, and indeed what you are doing here by looking for a way to discredit recent comments by “nice white parents” at schools like Herndon and Lewis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After watching the meeting on YouTube, there is a familiar dynamic at work.

White, seemingly-UMC women zoned to Herndon stood up to advocate for more boundary changes based on equity. They were the women who stood up and clamored that the school board didn’t go big enough. Meanwhile, a POC mom from the area stood up to argue that they shouldn’t move Coates kids to Herndon Elementary, even though the school has capacity.

It’s just a really stark reminder that the people pushing for the larger boundary moves are often at odds with POC in those very communities.

As Marcia St. John Cunning mentioned the other night at the school board meeting, her area told her that they don’t want people at their school if they don’t want to be there.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the UMC whites in these areas, and the people who they claim to be trying to “help” with larger boundary changes.

Speaking directly about Marcia St John Cunning and Lewis - many Lewis pyramid parents spoke during the meeting about feeling the inequity at Lewis. One parent mentioned that fewer students at the school means less opportunities and named specific examples about classes and clubs being cancelled as a direct result of low enrollment. Something that changing boundaries to add more students to the school could directly resolve.
And I don’t see how being a POC matters for that statement, but yes we are a POC family and I fully agree with the Lewis parents

Adding more students to Lewis is right out of the five-part New York Times podcast from last decade called Nice White Parents. The argument of adding more affluent students to Lewis to increase opportunities is almost exactly the situation discussed in the NYC school in that series.

I’m just saying this is our version of that. It is worth a listen for anyone who is advocating for the school board to go bigger with its aims. You’ll quickly learn why that won’t work.

Who is saying to add more affluent students?
I think people are saying to add kids period. It’s not like Lewis is in a terrible neighborhood. Have you even driven around that school and the surrounding neighborhoods? I don’t see a stark difference driving in any direction away from Lewis.

Adding more affluent students to under enrolled schools was discussed yesterday by several speakers, including certain UMC white women looking to go bigger. Even when not said out loud that theme underlies the argument that there isn’t enough niche programming at the schools.

I think your projecting a little here.
Weren’t the Lewis parents happy with the idea of adding Bren Mar elementary to Lewis? Great schools says that school is over 50% low income.

Call it projection, but I encourage everyone to listen to the Podcast. One of the takeaways is that nice white patents, often with the veneer of trying to help POC, end up controlling these schools to the detriment of the people that they are supposedly trying to help. A big takeaway is they end up doing more harm than good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So nothing to reduce the insane overcrowding at Chantilly. Nice. Why does that school get ignored. My kid is graduating, he can’t even move in the hallways.

They are spending over $200 million on Western to relieve overcrowding at Chantilly.

Question: Will kids who will be freshmen in 2026-27 have to move to Western for 27-28 if their home ends up in the boundary? Or do they get to stay put? If they will have to move, I assume the Oak Hill people will opt in so their kids won’t have to change schools after one year. Unless they do sports and really want their kid to be able to do that freshman year. Or maybe they’ll opt in to Western but take the bus to Chantilly for sports that first year? Seems like a mess either way.

If you don’t opt in but end up within the boundary, you don’t have to attend Western in 2027-28 as a sophomore. Western won’t have a senior class so you can still take the bus to the “old” base school, space permitting. The transportation situation for those students as juniors and seniors is still murky.

They are emphasizing that students looking to opt in as 9th or 10th graders should look at it as a four or three-year commitment to attend Western, even if they ultimately aren’t within the boundary and guaranteed transportation.

I understand the opt-in portion to Western, but what about the Chantilly and Centreville kids slated for Westfield? They can’t move 600 kids to Westfield because that capacity is based on 1000 kids opting in to Western. If a school like Chantilly is depending on capacity relief from kids opting to go to Western, but they aren’t required to move until year 3, why on earth are they moving MORE kids into Chantilly for the 26-27 school year as Reid’s recommendations state.