FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've no idea how many Langley people are on here--probably a lot read it. However, there are plenty of others who are very concerned about this. It is not about being sent to a lower performing school, it is about staying where you are.
I just remember when some Chantilly families were sent to the "better" Oakton. They were very upset. Why? Kids had grown up playing CYA sports. They had siblings at Chantilly and lived VERY close to Chantilly. One parent later attacked Kathy Smith when she was running for Supervisor because she was on the School Board. Neighborhoods were pitted against neighborhoods.
Boundaries should not be changed unless it is absolutely necessary.

Amen. This school board thinks kids are just interchangeable cogs in the FCPS machine.

I’m always floored that the SB has such disdain for its students.

Well technically they are interchangeable for purposes of redistricting. Your house location serves as a proxy for SES and fits the profile of the type of kids they want to move. Anyone who can afford your house will do. There is nothing unique about your child that another child whose parents are in the same economic range couldn't achieve.

I think that this comment right here represents the school board’s thinking.

Everyone should understand that this is how the school board thinks. “F your kids, they aren’t special, and your kids’ community doesn’t matter.”

This is how Sniveling Sandy Anderson views your kids. This is how Marcia St. John- Cunning views your kids, this is how Robyn Lady views your kids. The school board members do not care about your kids as part of this process. They want to equalize the FARMs rate set each school, your kid’s welfare be damned.

They take Fairfax families for granted. Shame on them.

How thick are you? Equalized FARMs rates across the county would kill Title I. They want Title I for all the kids who benefit most from it. If anything that's an argument for concentrating FARMS, not equalizing it.

Title 1 is Federal funding isn’t it? I doubt we can count on that in the current administration. Yes, pretty much no matter how they draw the boundaries, some schools are going to be a lot more difficult in terms of the FARMS/ESOL rate than others simply due to the populations. But the current problem seems to be more the new state regulations and requirements on school quality and accreditation, not anything federal.

NP.

FCPS claims they are facing a “fiscal shortfall,” but FCPS alone decides WHAT they will purchase/fund with their budget;

FCPS has - so far - chosen to keep paying the high salary of Chief Equity Officer, Nardos King, along with her staff of over 60 full time DEI officers;

The only threat to FCPS continuing to receive federal funding is FCPS insistence on maintaining their costly DEI office.


Are the FCPS Board, Michele Reid, and Gatehouse seriously going to cost our kids the Federal funding they need, AND continue paying the 60+ member DEI department?

Any idea what percentage of the $4b budget this department makes up?

[Anonymous]

So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

None of the above.

Start by being honest about when overcrowding is really so acute as to require a boundary change and by gaining a better understanding as to why certain schools may be significantly under-enrolled. For example, is it because a school has IB or because it currently serves neighborhoods with an aging population? If so, they should consider getting rid of IB or waiting until the neighborhoods in question turn over.

Prior school boards routinely said that it was fine for schools to be somewhat (up to 115%) over capacity and they certainly took modular seats into account in determining capacity.

This school board is now taking a different position and it’s not because they care more about kids. It’s because they want to seize any opportunity to redistribute kids to advance ann equity agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are they intent on 6th to MS? Besides Anderson’s campaigning on it I mean?

Is it just to make room for the expanded Pre K program FCPS can’t afford?

Our favorite school board shill and extra special totally randomly selected pyramid representative came on one of the local FB groups to talk about it today. 1, they are hiding the UPK program. They know they probably don’t have the money for it at this point. So there is no official mention of PK and this person also did not mention it. But 2, it’s to align FCPS to neighboring districts that have MS 6-8 and to give 6th graders access to advanced math and help more kids get on track to take Algebra I in 8th/Calc as a HS senior, which is one of FCPS’s goals. Also to give 6th graders access to MS extra-curriculars and electives.

To be fair - I am agnostic on the subject of 6th in middle. That is how I grew up and I do feel that overall, 6th graders are tweens and are “closer” to 7th and 8th than to K-5. But I don’t see how FCPS can do it right now without funding huge expansions at the middle schools, putting a whole grade permanently in trailers or modulars, or converting some elementary schools to middle schools. I also don’t know how it would affect current 6th grade teachers - would they need to get different licenses? This subject needs to be a totally different study than boundary changes and needs to be phased in completely separately.

The responsible thing to do would be to do the boundary changes that they planned on, and then over the next 10 years, figure out how to get 6th into the middle schools, so that those changes can be made 10 years from now (2 review cycles if they are reviewing boundaries every 5 years) and minimize disruption to families.

(But also - how do not all ES have advanced math? I thought advanced math was just either AAP level 2 or 3 math and all schools have at least LIII, even if they don’t have LLIV …)

It makes no sense. The highest achieving math students in FCPS attended middle schools like Carson and Longfellow that are 7-8 schools.

Algebra I in 8th can be a goal without importing 6th graders into middle schools, and Calculus is not going to be the right course for all HS kids, even those taking Algebra I in 8th grade or earlier.

And it's rich to say that a goal is providing 6th graders with access to the extra-curriculars available to 7th and 8th grade students when FCPS is talking about slashing after-school MS programs.

But your post makes a lot of sense. They are trying to do too many things at the same time. It's left everyone totally confused and doubting in their competence. They could have made decisions about 6-8 middle schools earlier, and planned around that. Or they could make some boundary changes, if absolutely necessary, within the next year or two, and revisit the MS model in due course. But throwing all this shit against the wall at the same time is not a good look, especially for Reid.

Carson, Cooper, and Longfellow are the higher achieving AAP Center MS. The higher math numbers there are influenced by the number of AAP students who attend those schools. If those AAP students attended their base MS you would see that the former Center MS math numbers will drop while MS like Franklin, the one I know students from Carson AAP draws, would increase. The lower SES MS would probably see some gains but as much as a MS like Franklin.

The issues is concentrated poverty which leads to Title 1 schools with poor SOL scores and very few kids taking Algebra by 8th grade. Redistricting is not going to make that big of a dent but SLHS scores have moved to the middle of the county after moving a few hundred kids to SLHS in the early 2000's. At worst there will be an improvement in optics with little real change in test scores or outcome for impoverished kids. At best there is an improvement in optics and some impoverished kids are challenged and do better because a change in the overall population. I tend to lean towards it will mainly be optics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are they intent on 6th to MS? Besides Anderson’s campaigning on it I mean?

Is it just to make room for the expanded Pre K program FCPS can’t afford?

Our favorite school board shill and extra special totally randomly selected pyramid representative came on one of the local FB groups to talk about it today. 1, they are hiding the UPK program. They know they probably don’t have the money for it at this point. So there is no official mention of PK and this person also did not mention it. But 2, it’s to align FCPS to neighboring districts that have MS 6-8 and to give 6th graders access to advanced math and help more kids get on track to take Algebra I in 8th/Calc as a HS senior, which is one of FCPS’s goals. Also to give 6th graders access to MS extra-curriculars and electives.

To be fair - I am agnostic on the subject of 6th in middle. That is how I grew up and I do feel that overall, 6th graders are tweens and are “closer” to 7th and 8th than to K-5. But I don’t see how FCPS can do it right now without funding huge expansions at the middle schools, putting a whole grade permanently in trailers or modulars, or converting some elementary schools to middle schools. I also don’t know how it would affect current 6th grade teachers - would they need to get different licenses? This subject needs to be a totally different study than boundary changes and needs to be phased in completely separately.

The responsible thing to do would be to do the boundary changes that they planned on, and then over the next 10 years, figure out how to get 6th into the middle schools, so that those changes can be made 10 years from now (2 review cycles if they are reviewing boundaries every 5 years) and minimize disruption to families.

(But also - how do not all ES have advanced math? I thought advanced math was just either AAP level 2 or 3 math and all schools have at least LIII, even if they don’t have LLIV …)

It makes no sense. The highest achieving math students in FCPS attended middle schools like Carson and Longfellow that are 7-8 schools.

Algebra I in 8th can be a goal without importing 6th graders into middle schools, and Calculus is not going to be the right course for all HS kids, even those taking Algebra I in 8th grade or earlier.

And it's rich to say that a goal is providing 6th graders with access to the extra-curriculars available to 7th and 8th grade students when FCPS is talking about slashing after-school MS programs.

But your post makes a lot of sense. They are trying to do too many things at the same time. It's left everyone totally confused and doubting in their competence. They could have made decisions about 6-8 middle schools earlier, and planned around that. Or they could make some boundary changes, if absolutely necessary, within the next year or two, and revisit the MS model in due course. But throwing all this shit against the wall at the same time is not a good look, especially for Reid.

Carson, Cooper, and Longfellow are the higher achieving AAP Center MS. The higher math numbers there are influenced by the number of AAP students who attend those schools. If those AAP students attended their base MS you would see that the former Center MS math numbers will drop while MS like Franklin, the one I know students from Carson AAP draws, would increase. The lower SES MS would probably see some gains but as much as a MS like Franklin.

The issues is concentrated poverty which leads to Title 1 schools with poor SOL scores and very few kids taking Algebra by 8th grade. Redistricting is not going to make that big of a dent but SLHS scores have moved to the middle of the county after moving a few hundred kids to SLHS in the early 2000's. At worst there will be an improvement in optics with little real change in test scores or outcome for impoverished kids. At best there is an improvement in optics and some impoverished kids are challenged and do better because a change in the overall population. I tend to lean towards it will mainly be optics.

Cooper and Longfellow only serve students who live within the base boundaries of those schools. It’s Carson that still pulls in AAP kids from multiple other pyramids. But, yes, there’s no reason why Franklin kids should keep going to Carson for AAP and Franklin’s scores would surely go up if those kids stayed there. That doesn’t require a boundary change - just a program change.

[Anonymous]

The issues is concentrated poverty which leads to Title 1 schools with poor SOL scores and very few kids taking Algebra by 8th grade. Redistricting is not going to make that big of a dent but SLHS scores have moved to the middle of the county after moving a few hundred kids to SLHS in the early 2000's. At worst there will be an improvement in optics with little real change in test scores or outcome for impoverished kids. At best there is an improvement in optics and some impoverished kids are challenged and do better because a change in the overall population. I tend to lean towards it will mainly be optics.

And, over 100 students transfer there from Herndon for IB. Wouldn't it be better to take away the excuse for transfer and keep the kids at Herndon.

And, those people who were redistricted to South Lakes from Westfield would still prefer AP. Just ask them. Has anyone done that? Doubt it. And, South Lakes likely benefited from the change in entrance rules to TJ--as those neighborhoods were well represented at TJ before the change in admission policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

If School Board members like Stu Gibson, Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen hadn’t been so obviously biased and self-serving in orchestrating prior one-off boundary changes, they wouldn’t have felt the need to move to a different process. You can thank them if you don’t like how it turns out this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've no idea how many Langley people are on here--probably a lot read it. However, there are plenty of others who are very concerned about this. It is not about being sent to a lower performing school, it is about staying where you are.
I just remember when some Chantilly families were sent to the "better" Oakton. They were very upset. Why? Kids had grown up playing CYA sports. They had siblings at Chantilly and lived VERY close to Chantilly. One parent later attacked Kathy Smith when she was running for Supervisor because she was on the School Board. Neighborhoods were pitted against neighborhoods.
Boundaries should not be changed unless it is absolutely necessary.

Amen. This school board thinks kids are just interchangeable cogs in the FCPS machine.

I’m always floored that the SB has such disdain for its students.

Well technically they are interchangeable for purposes of redistricting. Your house location serves as a proxy for SES and fits the profile of the type of kids they want to move. Anyone who can afford your house will do. There is nothing unique about your child that another child whose parents are in the same economic range couldn't achieve.

I think that this comment right here represents the school board’s thinking.

Everyone should understand that this is how the school board thinks. “F your kids, they aren’t special, and your kids’ community doesn’t matter.”

This is how Sniveling Sandy Anderson views your kids. This is how Marcia St. John- Cunning views your kids, this is how Robyn Lady views your kids. The school board members do not care about your kids as part of this process. They want to equalize the FARMs rate set each school, your kid’s welfare be damned.

They take Fairfax families for granted. Shame on them.

How thick are you? Equalized FARMs rates across the county would kill Title I. They want Title I for all the kids who benefit most from it. If anything that's an argument for concentrating FARMS, not equalizing it.

Title 1 is Federal funding isn’t it? I doubt we can count on that in the current administration. Yes, pretty much no matter how they draw the boundaries, some schools are going to be a lot more difficult in terms of the FARMS/ESOL rate than others simply due to the populations. But the current problem seems to be more the new state regulations and requirements on school quality and accreditation, not anything federal.

NP.

FCPS claims they are facing a “fiscal shortfall,” but FCPS alone decides WHAT they will purchase/fund with their budget;

FCPS has - so far - chosen to keep paying the high salary of Chief Equity Officer, Nardos King, along with her staff of over 60 full time DEI officers;

The only threat to FCPS continuing to receive federal funding is FCPS insistence on maintaining their costly DEI office.


Are the FCPS Board, Michele Reid, and Gatehouse seriously going to cost our kids the Federal funding they need, AND continue paying the 60+ member DEI department?

Any idea what percentage of the $4b budget this department makes up?

$6.4 million…it is criminal for them to maintain this in the face of federal funding removal threat

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/pricetag-of-equity-in-fairfax-county-schools-6-4-million/article_6e14ee46-db8a-11ef-ba7b-4b737bdff938.html?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

If School Board members like Stu Gibson, Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen hadn’t been so obviously biased and self-serving in orchestrating prior one-off boundary changes, they wouldn’t have felt the need to move to a different process. You can thank them if you don’t like how it turns out this time.

Again, that is on the Board as a whole. One person cannot cause a boundary change. The Board voted for it. They have to own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

None of the above.

Start by being honest about when overcrowding is really so acute as to require a boundary change and by gaining a better understanding as to why certain schools may be significantly under-enrolled. For example, is it because a school has IB or because it currently serves neighborhoods with an aging population? If so, they should consider getting rid of IB or waiting until the neighborhoods in question turn over.

Prior school boards routinely said that it was fine for schools to be somewhat (up to 115%) over capacity and they certainly took modular seats into account in determining capacity.

This school board is now taking a different position and it’s not because they care more about kids. It’s because they want to seize any opportunity to redistribute kids to advance ann equity agenda.

A - because their numbers are incorrect. I have a kid at WSHS which is supposedly stuffed to the gills. It's simply not true. His classes all have about 25 kids. He's had zero problem getting in to the electives and courses he wants. The cafeteria has open tables at every lunch hour. They don't have or need any modulars/trailers. Yes, sports and clubs are competitive, but he likes that they are also very strong and competitive with other high schools. All of the upcoming classes are smaller from what I've seen, and Springfield has no room to build new housing so that isn't an issue. If there was an actual need to redraw boundaries to relieve over crowding, I think the people attending the school would know. And I've never heard anyone suggest that since we got our recent renovation. That's why people don't want to break up our very compact, community boundary to accommodate 6th in middle/universal pre-k or to fill out numbers at a nearby school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

If School Board members like Stu Gibson, Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen hadn’t been so obviously biased and self-serving in orchestrating prior one-off boundary changes, they wouldn’t have felt the need to move to a different process. You can thank them if you don’t like how it turns out this time.

Again, that is on the Board as a whole. One person cannot cause a boundary change. The Board voted for it. They have to own it.

Of course. But the old process was one SB member drove the process and the other SB members were deferential, especially if the changes only involved schools in the other member’s district.

That process was abused, and they decided they had to approach changes differently and more holistically. There’s one community in particular that doesn’t like that it no longer can treat its local SB member like a puppet on a string, but so it goes.

[Anonymous]

Before they throw the baby out with the bathwater, they need to 1) get rid of IB and 2) do a thorough check of residences. Many many students are not attending their zoned schools. Transferring for languages should not be allowed-there should be a section of fairfax online academy for the more obscure languages, or FCPS could just drop them and offer only the the standard spanish/french at every school.
Once everyone is back at their assigned school, THEN the SB can properly assess which schools are actually overcrowded and which have space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've no idea how many Langley people are on here--probably a lot read it. However, there are plenty of others who are very concerned about this. It is not about being sent to a lower performing school, it is about staying where you are.
I just remember when some Chantilly families were sent to the "better" Oakton. They were very upset. Why? Kids had grown up playing CYA sports. They had siblings at Chantilly and lived VERY close to Chantilly. One parent later attacked Kathy Smith when she was running for Supervisor because she was on the School Board. Neighborhoods were pitted against neighborhoods.
Boundaries should not be changed unless it is absolutely necessary.

Amen. This school board thinks kids are just interchangeable cogs in the FCPS machine.

I’m always floored that the SB has such disdain for its students.

Well technically they are interchangeable for purposes of redistricting. Your house location serves as a proxy for SES and fits the profile of the type of kids they want to move. Anyone who can afford your house will do. There is nothing unique about your child that another child whose parents are in the same economic range couldn't achieve.

I think that this comment right here represents the school board’s thinking.

Everyone should understand that this is how the school board thinks. “F your kids, they aren’t special, and your kids’ community doesn’t matter.”

This is how Sniveling Sandy Anderson views your kids. This is how Marcia St. John- Cunning views your kids, this is how Robyn Lady views your kids. The school board members do not care about your kids as part of this process. They want to equalize the FARMs rate set each school, your kid’s welfare be damned.

They take Fairfax families for granted. Shame on them.

How thick are you? Equalized FARMs rates across the county would kill Title I. They want Title I for all the kids who benefit most from it. If anything that's an argument for concentrating FARMS, not equalizing it.

Title 1 is Federal funding isn’t it? I doubt we can count on that in the current administration. Yes, pretty much no matter how they draw the boundaries, some schools are going to be a lot more difficult in terms of the FARMS/ESOL rate than others simply due to the populations. But the current problem seems to be more the new state regulations and requirements on school quality and accreditation, not anything federal.

NP.

FCPS claims they are facing a “fiscal shortfall,” but FCPS alone decides WHAT they will purchase/fund with their budget;

FCPS has - so far - chosen to keep paying the high salary of Chief Equity Officer, Nardos King, along with her staff of over 60 full time DEI officers;

The only threat to FCPS continuing to receive federal funding is FCPS insistence on maintaining their costly DEI office.


Are the FCPS Board, Michele Reid, and Gatehouse seriously going to cost our kids the Federal funding they need, AND continue paying the 60+ member DEI department?

Any idea what percentage of the $4b budget this department makes up?

$6.4 million…it is criminal for them to maintain this in the face of federal funding removal threat

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/pricetag-of-equity-in-fairfax-county-schools-6-4-million/article_6e14ee46-db8a-11ef-ba7b-4b737bdff938.html?

Jeez! Get rid of the useless DEI office and use the savings for the middle school afterschool program and middle school camp that the county wants to cut, and still have 2 million left over. No brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

If School Board members like Stu Gibson, Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen hadn’t been so obviously biased and self-serving in orchestrating prior one-off boundary changes, they wouldn’t have felt the need to move to a different process. You can thank them if you don’t like how it turns out this time.

So your assertion is -checks notes- that these school board reps should not listen to their constituents?