Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t let up, people. The school board appears to be getting the message that families don’t want their kids moved. Keep up the outreach to remind them of that fact. The five-year clock (with a one-year add on) has started.

This school board would do well to remember Mcelveen’s statements yesterday that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and Lady’s statement that literally nobody said they wanted their kids moved.

Families do want kids moved though. The ones who bought close to their desired schools want the people on the edges moved out to eliminate the overcrowding. The ones who are "fine with the overcrowding" are the ones afraid of being moved - and they are the ones posting here the most and being loud/active. Not taking a side, but that is the reality.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t let up, people. The school board appears to be getting the message that families don’t want their kids moved. Keep up the outreach to remind them of that fact. The five-year clock (with a one-year add on) has started.

This school board would do well to remember Mcelveen’s statements yesterday that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and Lady’s statement that literally nobody said they wanted their kids moved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t let up, people. The school board appears to be getting the message that families don’t want their kids moved. Keep up the outreach to remind them of that fact. The five-year clock (with a one-year add on) has started.

This school board would do well to remember Mcelveen’s statements yesterday that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and Lady’s statement that literally nobody said they wanted their kids moved.

Lady is just talking about Dranesville, and they moved kids in Dranesville (Coates and Longfellow/McLean) to different schools. She’s not against boundary changes. She’s just looking for a way to say all schools are “magical.”

And of course when you re-open boundaries you’ll have parents who do want their kids moved. We saw it with the Wolftrap families who clamored to get moved to Madison, and a slew of Falls Church families who wanted to get moved to Oakton but aren’t getting moved, at least not yet.

I’d pay more attention to what McElveen said last night than anything Lady has to say. This was just the warm-up act for her.

The Longfellow/McLean students moved were from Providence. Although Lady was wrong when she said no one from her district wanted to move. Pimmit Hills is in Drainesville and they wanted to move to McLean HS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t let up, people. The school board appears to be getting the message that families don’t want their kids moved. Keep up the outreach to remind them of that fact. The five-year clock (with a one-year add on) has started.

This school board would do well to remember Mcelveen’s statements yesterday that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and Lady’s statement that literally nobody said they wanted their kids moved.

Lady is just talking about Dranesville, and they moved kids in Dranesville (Coates and Longfellow/McLean) to different schools. She’s not against boundary changes. She’s just looking for a way to say all schools are “magical.”

And of course when you re-open boundaries you’ll have parents who do want their kids moved. We saw it with the Wolftrap families who clamored to get moved to Madison, and a slew of Falls Church families who wanted to get moved to Oakton but aren’t getting moved, at least not yet.

I’d pay more attention to what McElveen said last night than anything Lady has to say. This was just the warm-up act for her.

The Longfellow/McLean students moved were from Providence. Although Lady was wrong when she said no one from her district wanted to move. Pimmit Hills is in Drainesville and they wanted to move to McLean HS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t let up, people. The school board appears to be getting the message that families don’t want their kids moved. Keep up the outreach to remind them of that fact. The five-year clock (with a one-year add on) has started.

This school board would do well to remember Mcelveen’s statements yesterday that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and Lady’s statement that literally nobody said they wanted their kids moved.

Lady is just talking about Dranesville, and they moved kids in Dranesville (Coates and Longfellow/McLean) to different schools. She’s not against boundary changes. She’s just looking for a way to say all schools are “magical.”

And of course when you re-open boundaries you’ll have parents who do want their kids moved. We saw it with the Wolftrap families who clamored to get moved to Madison, and a slew of Falls Church families who wanted to get moved to Oakton but aren’t getting moved, at least not yet.

I’d pay more attention to what McElveen said last night than anything Lady has to say. This was just the warm-up act for her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they vote or not? I just want this over with

I am so glad we are finally over with the boundary changes so we can now move on to the Western HS boundary changes and then after that the priority January 2027 boundary changes and then after that the remaining priority areas for consideration for boundary changes identified by Reid, and then after that the next county-wide five-year review.

And then at some point in the midst of all that they will circle back to vote again on whether to provide transportation to kids affected by the boundary changes.

Like I said, it's such a relief to be done with this once and for all.

It’s what happens when you have a school system the size of Fairfax (both in population and acreage). Change is constant.

Nope. They just wasted two years of the county’s time threatening a comprehensive review only to enact a few rudimentary capacity adjustments that would have been done better under the previous method because FCPS resources wouldn’t have been stretched so thin juggling the entire county’s concerns.

Then maybe someone would have paid attention to the fact that the numbers for Kilmer were bogus. Now they’ve overcorrected for a capacity issue that didn’t exist. Thoreau and Jackson will feel the strain of feeding into 3 recently expanded schools that they don’t have the seats for while Kilmer and Longfellow will be underutilized. And they won’t be able to send Wolftrap back to Kilmer because it was their only accomplishment from this review.

Change is constant, that is true. They were doing a hand full of boundary studies every year. McLean and Langley boundaries have shifted constantly over the last few years as well as Justice’s elementary schools. It’s not like boundary adjustments were invented in the update to policy 8130. The way they barreled through this review, however was a disaster.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t let up, people. The school board appears to be getting the message that families don’t want their kids moved. Keep up the outreach to remind them of that fact. The five-year clock (with a one-year add on) has started.

This school board would do well to remember Mcelveen’s statements yesterday that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and Lady’s statement that literally nobody said they wanted their kids moved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they vote or not? I just want this over with

I am so glad we are finally over with the boundary changes so we can now move on to the Western HS boundary changes and then after that the priority January 2027 boundary changes and then after that the remaining priority areas for consideration for boundary changes identified by Reid, and then after that the next county-wide five-year review.

And then at some point in the midst of all that they will circle back to vote again on whether to provide transportation to kids affected by the boundary changes.

Like I said, it's such a relief to be done with this once and for all.

It’s what happens when you have a school system the size of Fairfax (both in population and acreage). Change is constant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they vote or not? I just want this over with

I am so glad we are finally over with the boundary changes so we can now move on to the Western HS boundary changes and then after that the priority January 2027 boundary changes and then after that the remaining priority areas for consideration for boundary changes identified by Reid, and then after that the next county-wide five-year review.

And then at some point in the midst of all that they will circle back to vote again on whether to provide transportation to kids affected by the boundary changes.

Like I said, it's such a relief to be done with this once and for all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They voted and approved Reid’s recommendation. Still unclear if the areas on the 2027 investigation list will be done sooner than five year changes

Meren was trying to get Reid to commit to either earlier or later than Jan 2027 since that is right in the middle of class selection for middle and high schooler, and completely unfair to them to use the January timeline.

Anonymous wrote:They voted and approved Reid’s recommendation. Still unclear if the areas on the 2027 investigation list will be done sooner than five year changes

Anonymous wrote:Did they vote or not? I just want this over with