What do I need to know about the Fairfax County School Board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please feel free to go back to whatever decade you belong in. Calling kids "Title I kids" was, and is, a bad idea.

Please tell me what is offensive about using the term. They are getting benefits that other kids do not get. Just like magnet programs or AAP, it is an identifier.

Depends on how you look at it. The benefit is a meal, and the other kids aren't going hungry.

No. The reference was to Title I. If you think the only benefit the kids get is a meal, you are really uninformed. Title I kids get smaller classes, more resources for instruction, and other educational benefits that are not given to kids in other schools. If you mean free lunches by a meal, there are many kids in schools that are not identified as Title I who get free meals. Calling kids "Title I kids" is not a slur. Why do you think it is?

You were using "Title I kids" to refer to students whose families are eligible for FARMS. It's reductive, like calling people "illegals," and right out of the right-wing playbook. You weren't using "Title I kids" to refer to all the kids at Title I schools, regardless of their family incomes.

I'm happy that this county and its elected School Board are, for the most part, kinder than this.

[Anonymous]

Too bad you aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too bad you aren't.

Sounds like you are the snowflake in the room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad you aren't.

Sounds like you are the snowflake in the room.

=How ironic of you to worry about the school board being kind when you are spewing lies, accusations, and names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad you aren't.

Sounds like you are the snowflake in the room.

=How ironic of you to worry about the school board being kind when you are spewing lies, accusations, and names.

Sir,

Your first letter, in a style too peremptory, made a demand, in my opinion, unprecedented and unwarrantable. My answer, pointing out the embarrassment, gave you an opportunity to take a less exceptionable course. You have not chosen to do it, but by your last letter, received this day, containing expressions indecorous and improper, you have increased the difficulties to explanation, intrinsically incident to the nature of your application.

If by a “definite reply” you mean the direct avowal or disavowal required in your first letter, I have no other answer to give than that which has already been given. If you mean anything different admitting of greater latitude, it is requisite you should explain.

I have the honor to be, Sir
Your Obdt. St

[Anonymous]

You were using "Title I kids" to refer to students whose families are eligible for FARMS. It's reductive, like calling people "illegals," and right out of the right-wing playbook. You werYou were using "Title I kids" to refer to students whose families are eligible for FARMS. It's reductive, like calling people "illegals," and right out of the right-wing playbook. You weren't using "Title I kids" to refer to all the kids at Title I schools, regardless of their family incomes.
en't using "Title I kids" to refer to all the kids at Title I schools, regardless of their family incomes.

I think you think there is only one other poster on here. I'm the one who taught "Title I kids" when they were identified individually. Now, any child in a Title I school is a "Title I kid." It is not a perjorative. Why do you think it is?

There are lots of FARMS kids who are not in Title I schools. But, FARMs is also not a perjorative. What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You were using "Title I kids" to refer to students whose families are eligible for FARMS. It's reductive, like calling people "illegals," and right out of the right-wing playbook. You werYou were using "Title I kids" to refer to students whose families are eligible for FARMS. It's reductive, like calling people "illegals," and right out of the right-wing playbook. You weren't using "Title I kids" to refer to all the kids at Title I schools, regardless of their family incomes.
en't using "Title I kids" to refer to all the kids at Title I schools, regardless of their family incomes.

I think you think there is only one other poster on here. I'm the one who taught "Title I kids" when they were identified individually. Now, any child in a Title I school is a "Title I kid." It is not a perjorative. Why do you think it is?

There are lots of FARMS kids who are not in Title I schools. But, FARMs is also not a perjorative. What is wrong with you?

Already explained. Are you dense, or just argumentative?

In either case, glad to read that you “taught” in a Title I school, and not that you are currently teaching at one. Our children deserve better than teachers who are happy to slap labels like “Title I kid” on them. If you don’t get that, shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too large to be managed properly, OP. That is all you need to know.

Beg to differ. Independent analyses rated FCPS as having effective management. And having had kids at multiple school districts of differing sizes, I would say it's one of the more efficient, streamlined school systems. A bit impersonal for my tastes, but I wouldn't say poorly managed at all.

Please document your assertion about "independent analyses rated FCPS as having effective management". Who did these analyses and when and using what criteria? The FCPS Office of Auditor General has done two contract audits (in 2015 and 2018) and found substantive deficiencies that were not addressed in the three intervening years. There has been no audit of Special Ed programs since 2000 - even when FCPS expenditures and services to SpecEd kids are signficantly greater than any of the peer districts. The pension is mis-managed and underfunded. Other posters have noted the increase in class sizes, and the need for a western high school/boundary changes, and the lack of progress in closing achievement gaps. So, what has been effectively managed, beyond the careers and salaries of administrators and school board members holding their chairs for 20 years and more (e.g. Strauss and Moon)?

Please beg to differ but provide some real information to support your assertion.

[Anonymous]

Already explained. Are you dense, or just argumentative?

In either case, glad to read that you “taught” in a Title I school, and not that you are currently teaching at one. Our children deserve better than teachers who are happy to slap labels like “Title I kid” on them. If you don’t get that, shame on you.

Please explain why you are so defensive. It is not a slur and was never meant to be.

[Anonymous]

Don’t understand why people thinks facts are slurs. Get a grip.

[Anonymous]

We've been happy with FCPS. There are some people who don't like the Democratic majority on the School Board. They can't win the elections, so they post on anonymous forums to vent their frustrations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We've been happy with FCPS. There are some people who don't like the Democratic majority on the School Board. They can't win the elections, so they post on anonymous forums to vent their frustrations.

Contesting elections is important, particularly when the structure favors the incumbent party. But participation in the process of funding and governing FCPS is the job of every citizen of Fairfax County and can be conducted in many ways - there are those who become informed, participate, contribute suggestions, highlight failings/shortfalls, call out self-interested and corrupt practices and generally act like conscientious citizens, and endure snarky comments from posters on anonymous forums ;=)

[Anonymous]

I was interested in the suggestion that the FARMS enrollment in FCPS is spiraling out of control, or that this could be due in any way to School Board policies.

Turns out that the growth in the FARMS percentage in FCPS over the past 15 years has been lower than in the state of Virginia as a whole. Loudoun is the only public school system of any size in Virginia with a lower FARMS rate than Fairfax. Changes in the FARMS eligibility formulas may have something to do with the increase as well. Families currently can have incomes that are 185% of the poverty level and qualify for assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was interested in the suggestion that the FARMS enrollment in FCPS is spiraling out of control, or that this could be due in any way to School Board policies.

Turns out that the growth in the FARMS percentage in FCPS over the past 15 years has been lower than in the state of Virginia as a whole. Loudoun is the only public school system of any size in Virginia with a lower FARMS rate than Fairfax. Changes in the FARMS eligibility formulas may have something to do with the increase as well. Families currently can have incomes that are 185% of the poverty level and qualify for assistance.

Needs Based Staffing is current FCPS policy that allocates more resources (teachers, support staff and administrators - funding) to schools based on their FARMS percentage. The changes in County population demographics are what they are, but these changes reflect in changing allocation of limited funds and resources between schools. The School Board also determines whether and how to fund other identified needs. As an example, spending on General Ed students has actually fallen (in inflation adj terms) over the past 5 years while spending on SpecEd and ESOL students has increased over the same period (all on a per pupil basis) - in large part a futile attempt to address the "achievement gap" (and to be responsive to organized groups advvocating and promoting special interests). The allocation of funds as between the many programs and segments (GenEd, SpecEd, ESOL, AAP, AP, IB, TJHSS, arts, science, transportation, sports etc) is very much the purview of the School Board. These allocations and entitlements, and seeking more pay and benefits for teachers, staff and administrators, are largely what challenges the School Board. The net result is that increasing FARMS enrollment, under current FCPS policies, is diverting significant funds, and this is becoming more widely understood and advocates are devising and implementing actions to protect and advance their interests and concerns. Normal stuff...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was interested in the suggestion that the FARMS enrollment in FCPS is spiraling out of control, or that this could be due in any way to School Board policies.

Turns out that the growth in the FARMS percentage in FCPS over the past 15 years has been lower than in the state of Virginia as a whole. Loudoun is the only public school system of any size in Virginia with a lower FARMS rate than Fairfax. Changes in the FARMS eligibility formulas may have something to do with the increase as well. Families currently can have incomes that are 185% of the poverty level and qualify for assistance.

Needs Based Staffing is current FCPS policy that allocates more resources (teachers, support staff and administrators - funding) to schools based on their FARMS percentage. The changes in County population demographics are what they are, but these changes reflect in changing allocation of limited funds and resources between schools. The School Board also determines whether and how to fund other identified needs. As an example, spending on General Ed students has actually fallen (in inflation adj terms) over the past 5 years while spending on SpecEd and ESOL students has increased over the same period (all on a per pupil basis) - in large part a futile attempt to address the "achievement gap" (and to be responsive to organized groups advvocating and promoting special interests). The allocation of funds as between the many programs and segments (GenEd, SpecEd, ESOL, AAP, AP, IB, TJHSS, arts, science, transportation, sports etc) is very much the purview of the School Board. These allocations and entitlements, and seeking more pay and benefits for teachers, staff and administrators, are largely what challenges the School Board. The net result is that increasing FARMS enrollment, under current FCPS policies, is diverting significant funds, and this is becoming more widely understood and advocates are devising and implementing actions to protect and advance their interests and concerns. Normal stuff...

Addressing the needs of the less privileged is neither futile nor a "diversion" of funds. It's doing what we, as a society, need to do to educate the adults of the future.