FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are you moving out of Westfield to make room for the kids you are moving from Chantilly?

Coates ES, which is why the school board isn’t going to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Transportation times is the easiest part of this.

The fcps transportstion office is one of the most efficient offices of fcps.

+1 I have the least concern about minimizing transportation times. FCPS transportation knows where you can easily get some savings there. I’m VERY concerned about the “access to programming.” What does that even mean? It can mean anything and be a catch-all for any moves they want to make. If they’re so concerned about a lack of academy classes or ES language immersion here or there, they could always start new programs vs. trying to shuffle kids around.

[Anonymous]

Interesting quote in a NYT story tonight about how Dems underperformed in VA compared to 2020.

Dominic Thompson, executive director of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee, noted that Democrats swept county school board elections last year, suggesting that there was no vast voter dissatisfaction with the party on education.

“We were given the trust of voters,” he said. “They allowed us to continue serving our community.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/schools-election-virginia-suburbs.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting quote in a NYT story tonight about how Dems underperformed in VA compared to 2020.

Dominic Thompson, executive director of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee, noted that Democrats swept county school board elections last year, suggesting that there was no vast voter dissatisfaction with the party on education.

“We were given the trust of voters,” he said. “They allowed us to continue serving our community.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/schools-election-virginia-suburbs.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

As long as the republicans don’t want to ban or burn books they should bounce back strong against these current ding dongs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Transportation times is the easiest part of this.

The fcps transportstion office is one of the most efficient offices of fcps.

Ha, says the person responsible for transportation. That’s why the buses are always on time. Oh wait, literally.

Transportation might be a number that they can quantify generally, but how does that factor in to the capacity under over discussion? Thru is way out of its depths.

[Anonymous]

Lots of talk at the meeting tonight about making sure current capacity is uniform and about defining equity to be equal access to programs (and also, they need to define equity). A few tables discussed a desire to get rid of AAP centers and standardized programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk at the meeting tonight about making sure current capacity is uniform and about defining equity to be equal access to programs (and also, they need to define equity). A few tables discussed a desire to get rid of AAP centers and standardized programs.

There was also a lot of talk about reducing transportation times, which the facilitators identified as a key priority along with addressing capacity issues of overcrowding and under enrollment.

[Anonymous]

There was more focus on "equity," whatever that means, in the community comments tonight than there is in revised Policy 8130, maybe because this meeting was at Glasgow MS in the Justice HS pyramid.

[Anonymous]

One other point, Ricardy Anderson was there and said at the end that she was happy that she heard a lot of people expressing a desire for a uniform approach to middle schools in the county (either 7-8 or 6-8 across the board). Don't really know how they could convert the majority of middle schools that are 7-8 schools to 6-8 schools without really blowing up the boundaries, but maybe they could turn the 6-8 schools back to 7-8 schools. Also met a few Glasgow parents who really want that school, which is currently 6-8, downsized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk at the meeting tonight about making sure current capacity is uniform and about defining equity to be equal access to programs (and also, they need to define equity). A few tables discussed a desire to get rid of AAP centers and standardized programs.

There was also a lot of talk about reducing transportation times, which the facilitators identified as a key priority along with addressing capacity issues of overcrowding and under enrollment.

Which meeting were you at? Facilitators never mentioned “a key priority”. That just sounds like a gaslight attempt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was more focus on "equity," whatever that means, in the community comments tonight than there is in revised Policy 8130, maybe because this meeting was at Glasgow MS in the Justice HS pyramid.

It’s such a weasel word. They could have more “equity” by having all the schools on the same damn grading scale and having at least the same, guarantee base AP classes everywhere that will work for probably 80% of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was more focus on "equity," whatever that means, in the community comments tonight than there is in revised Policy 8130, maybe because this meeting was at Glasgow MS in the Justice HS pyramid.

Equity, the ultimate Rorschach test. For some it’s let’s ask the naacp’s opinion (someone actually suggested that tonight) for others, it’s making sure that there are no aap centers and languages are standardized.

One of those approaches is likely illegal, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk at the meeting tonight about making sure current capacity is uniform and about defining equity to be equal access to programs (and also, they need to define equity). A few tables discussed a desire to get rid of AAP centers and standardized programs.

There was also a lot of talk about reducing transportation times, which the facilitators identified as a key priority along with addressing capacity issues of overcrowding and under enrollment.

Which meeting were you at? Facilitators never mentioned “a key priority”. That just sounds like a gaslight attempt.

The meeting tonight at Glasgow. The folks from Thru Consulting who presented prior to the breakout sessions talked about how boundary changes could both address overcrowding and reduce transportation times. I don’t know if they labeled these “key priorities,” but they specifically called these purported benefits out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was more focus on "equity," whatever that means, in the community comments tonight than there is in revised Policy 8130, maybe because this meeting was at Glasgow MS in the Justice HS pyramid.

Equity, the ultimate Rorschach test. For some it’s let’s ask the naacp’s opinion (someone actually suggested that tonight) for others, it’s making sure that there are no aap centers and languages are standardized.

One of those approaches is likely illegal, btw.

These community engagements are prime opportunities to shine a negative spotlight on this boundary review. Are they recorded? Would love for a fairfax times journalist to hear crazy questions like “let’s ask the naacp,” “how do we take away programs that benefit schools with a >40% white population?,” “can you try bussing more wealthy kids farther to benefit high FARMS schools?” “My child is non-binary at Chantilly and feels isolated, will Karl Frisch make sure we balance out lgbtq student populations during this equity experiment?”

Blend in absurd but tangential questions that shine light on this circus and let the media see it for what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk at the meeting tonight about making sure current capacity is uniform and about defining equity to be equal access to programs (and also, they need to define equity). A few tables discussed a desire to get rid of AAP centers and standardized programs.

There was also a lot of talk about reducing transportation times, which the facilitators identified as a key priority along with addressing capacity issues of overcrowding and under enrollment.

Which meeting were you at? Facilitators never mentioned “a key priority”. That just sounds like a gaslight attempt.

The meeting tonight at Glasgow. The folks from Thru Consulting who presented prior to the breakout sessions talked about how boundary changes could both address overcrowding and reduce transportation times. I don’t know if they labeled these “key priorities,” but they specifically called these purported benefits out.

I was there. They listed the factors, which included transportation costs. Nothing more.

No need to lie and say they said something they didn’t. Really bad look.