FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So to confirm, your position is that allocating 0.15% of the budget to help ensure that our schools and programs and instruction are equitably and inclusively serving the needs of the diverse students and communities that make up our great county is "criminal"?

The actual threat to remove federal funds is the only thing that feels "criminal" here.

If they don't have enough money, then fluff like this needs to be cut.

OK, so ensuring that our schools and programs and instruction are equitably and inclusively serving the needs of the diverse students and communities that make up our great county is no longer "criminal", but now it is "fluff"?

Your ill-considered opinions are the only "fluff" that needs to be cut.

[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?

#1. Eliminate IB, switching all schools to AP, with a phase out for juniors and seniors who are actually pursuing the IB diploma, which is a TINY number of students. This closes the IB transfer loophole.

#2 In 4 years, look at enrollment numbers and test scores post IB. Schools that lose a lot if studdnts through the IB loophole should show enrollment growth by hundreds of high performing students in some cases, like Lewis HS, as kids who are zoned to Lewis return to their neighborhood high school

AND

#3 Put an AAP program in every middle school, closing the middle school AAP transfers. This will also bring dozens or hundreds of high performing studdnts back to the failing high school pyramids. Thrse students attending AAP out of pyramid for middle school often use whatever loophole they can find to stay with their friends for high school in the AAP pyramid.

Doing #2 and #3 will fix many of the issues in 2-4 years. It will balance enrollment in high schools and middle schools without rezoning, save money on busses, improve test scores of lower ranked high schools without rezoning a single student, and will save money by eliminating unwanted, expensive IB.

AND

The big one is do a county wide residency check of all grades in high school, followed by a yearly residency check when kids promote to the next building (Kindergarten/elementary enrollment, 7th grade, 9th grade)

We have multiple families who live out of our zone, who somehow send their kids to our high school that have been closed to transfers for at least a decade. I know several who moved in elementary or middle school who stayed at our school through graduation, in spite living in other pyramids.

Curious how your residency check idea would be implemented? Show a utility bill in your name or similar? Tons of busy work for admins incurring additional costs with marginal if any benefit change from the status quo. Literally follow kids home from school to ensure they live actually live where they say they do? I think that's a tad more of a 1984 dystopian that most county residents are interested in pursuing. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here or that we shouldn't try to prevent people from violating the rules/law, but just unclear what an actual realistic solution would look like that would meaningfully address the issue without being overbearing.

DP.

FCPS - which is admittedly an enormous school system - employs exactly ONE person tasked with residency enforcement. One (1) person.

As for the approved methods that FCPS employee uses, why don’t you do your homework, PP, instead of building straw-man arguments like you did in your post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

#1. Eliminate IB, switching all schools to AP, with a phase out for juniors and seniors who are actually pursuing the IB diploma, which is a TINY number of students. This closes the IB transfer loophole.

#2 In 4 years, look at enrollment numbers and test scores post IB. Schools that lose a lot if studdnts through the IB loophole should show enrollment growth by hundreds of high performing students in some cases, like Lewis HS, as kids who are zoned to Lewis return to their neighborhood high school

AND

#3 Put an AAP program in every middle school, closing the middle school AAP transfers. This will also bring dozens or hundreds of high performing studdnts back to the failing high school pyramids. Thrse students attending AAP out of pyramid for middle school often use whatever loophole they can find to stay with their friends for high school in the AAP pyramid.

Doing #2 and #3 will fix many of the issues in 2-4 years. It will balance enrollment in high schools and middle schools without rezoning, save money on busses, improve test scores of lower ranked high schools without rezoning a single student, and will save money by eliminating unwanted, expensive IB.

AND

The big one is do a county wide residency check of all grades in high school, followed by a yearly residency check when kids promote to the next building (Kindergarten/elementary enrollment, 7th grade, 9th grade)

We have multiple families who live out of our zone, who somehow send their kids to our high school that have been closed to transfers for at least a decade. I know several who moved in elementary or middle school who stayed at our school through graduation, in spite living in other pyramids.

Curious how your residency check idea would be implemented? Show a utility bill in your name or similar? Tons of busy work for admins incurring additional costs with marginal if any benefit change from the status quo. Literally follow kids home from school to ensure they live actually live where they say they do? I think that's a tad more of a 1984 dystopian that most county residents are interested in pursuing. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here or that we shouldn't try to prevent people from violating the rules/law, but just unclear what an actual realistic solution would look like that would meaningfully address the issue without being overbearing.

FCPS owes it to the taxpayers to be a steward of their funds. FCPS just educated 30+ prince william county students for free at Hayfield. They aren't even going after the families for tuition reimbursement. Come on, that's absurd.

Sending kids back to Loudoun or Prince William or Alexandria City to be educated will save FCPS a lot of money and space.

Great, so how would you implement a solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

DP, in the case of the Langley/McLean transfer under Tholen, she listened to one minority segment of her consituents, and ignored the rest (as well as FCPS staff recommendation). I think the assertion is more 1/ that sometimes a broader view is needed than constraining things within certain boundary pyramids given the evolution of our county over time, and 2/ that if/when we are going to do things local to a particular community or section of the county, that the SB reps should still listen ALL of their constituents, not just selectively those whose interests on an issue are aligned with their own personal preference.

Why have a representative school board then? Seems like you are arguing against representative democracy and for socialism.

At some point, you and the school board will learn people in the county are generally generous, but very very few will go along with their kids being upended in the name of some theoretical greater good (which as discussed wouldn’t even materialize).

Not the poster you responded to but it seems you can’t read. PP is saying these members should have acted in the best interests of ALL their constituents, not just their neighbors or their noisiest constituents.

But they didn’t and now we’re getting a more comprehensive review because they knew the system of one-off boundary changes orchestrated by self-serving board members like Smith and Tholen was broken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

#1. Eliminate IB, switching all schools to AP, with a phase out for juniors and seniors who are actually pursuing the IB diploma, which is a TINY number of students. This closes the IB transfer loophole.

#2 In 4 years, look at enrollment numbers and test scores post IB. Schools that lose a lot if studdnts through the IB loophole should show enrollment growth by hundreds of high performing students in some cases, like Lewis HS, as kids who are zoned to Lewis return to their neighborhood high school

AND

#3 Put an AAP program in every middle school, closing the middle school AAP transfers. This will also bring dozens or hundreds of high performing studdnts back to the failing high school pyramids. Thrse students attending AAP out of pyramid for middle school often use whatever loophole they can find to stay with their friends for high school in the AAP pyramid.

Doing #2 and #3 will fix many of the issues in 2-4 years. It will balance enrollment in high schools and middle schools without rezoning, save money on busses, improve test scores of lower ranked high schools without rezoning a single student, and will save money by eliminating unwanted, expensive IB.

AND

The big one is do a county wide residency check of all grades in high school, followed by a yearly residency check when kids promote to the next building (Kindergarten/elementary enrollment, 7th grade, 9th grade)

We have multiple families who live out of our zone, who somehow send their kids to our high school that have been closed to transfers for at least a decade. I know several who moved in elementary or middle school who stayed at our school through graduation, in spite living in other pyramids.

Curious how your residency check idea would be implemented? Show a utility bill in your name or similar? Tons of busy work for admins incurring additional costs with marginal if any benefit change from the status quo. Literally follow kids home from school to ensure they live actually live where they say they do? I think that's a tad more of a 1984 dystopian that most county residents are interested in pursuing. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here or that we shouldn't try to prevent people from violating the rules/law, but just unclear what an actual realistic solution would look like that would meaningfully address the issue without being overbearing.

DP.

FCPS - which is admittedly an enormous school system - employs exactly ONE person tasked with residency enforcement. One (1) person.

As for the approved methods that FCPS employee uses, why don’t you do your homework, PP, instead of building straw-man arguments like you did in your post?

To estimate the yearly savings to FCPS from sending students back to the counties where they live, consider what we - the FCPS taxpayers - currently pay:

“2023The FY 2023 Washington Area Board of Education Guide reports that the cost per student in Fairfax County is $18,772. In FCPS' FY 2024 Approved Budget, the cost per pupil is $19,795. Cost per pupil figures are computed by identifying all School Operating Fund costs and entitlement grants directly associated with an instructional program, such ...”

Google it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

#1. Eliminate IB, switching all schools to AP, with a phase out for juniors and seniors who are actually pursuing the IB diploma, which is a TINY number of students. This closes the IB transfer loophole.

#2 In 4 years, look at enrollment numbers and test scores post IB. Schools that lose a lot if studdnts through the IB loophole should show enrollment growth by hundreds of high performing students in some cases, like Lewis HS, as kids who are zoned to Lewis return to their neighborhood high school

AND

#3 Put an AAP program in every middle school, closing the middle school AAP transfers. This will also bring dozens or hundreds of high performing studdnts back to the failing high school pyramids. Thrse students attending AAP out of pyramid for middle school often use whatever loophole they can find to stay with their friends for high school in the AAP pyramid.

Doing #2 and #3 will fix many of the issues in 2-4 years. It will balance enrollment in high schools and middle schools without rezoning, save money on busses, improve test scores of lower ranked high schools without rezoning a single student, and will save money by eliminating unwanted, expensive IB.

AND

The big one is do a county wide residency check of all grades in high school, followed by a yearly residency check when kids promote to the next building (Kindergarten/elementary enrollment, 7th grade, 9th grade)

We have multiple families who live out of our zone, who somehow send their kids to our high school that have been closed to transfers for at least a decade. I know several who moved in elementary or middle school who stayed at our school through graduation, in spite living in other pyramids.

Curious how your residency check idea would be implemented? Show a utility bill in your name or similar? Tons of busy work for admins incurring additional costs with marginal if any benefit change from the status quo. Literally follow kids home from school to ensure they live actually live where they say they do? I think that's a tad more of a 1984 dystopian that most county residents are interested in pursuing. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here or that we shouldn't try to prevent people from violating the rules/law, but just unclear what an actual realistic solution would look like that would meaningfully address the issue without being overbearing.

DP.

FCPS - which is admittedly an enormous school system - employs exactly ONE person tasked with residency enforcement. One (1) person.

As for the approved methods that FCPS employee uses, why don’t you do your homework, PP, instead of building straw-man arguments like you did in your post?

So you are happy with the current methods, you just think they are understaffed. How much do you want to spend on staffing up residency enforcement, and what are the estimates for how much will be saved?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

#1. Eliminate IB, switching all schools to AP, with a phase out for juniors and seniors who are actually pursuing the IB diploma, which is a TINY number of students. This closes the IB transfer loophole.

#2 In 4 years, look at enrollment numbers and test scores post IB. Schools that lose a lot if studdnts through the IB loophole should show enrollment growth by hundreds of high performing students in some cases, like Lewis HS, as kids who are zoned to Lewis return to their neighborhood high school

AND

#3 Put an AAP program in every middle school, closing the middle school AAP transfers. This will also bring dozens or hundreds of high performing studdnts back to the failing high school pyramids. Thrse students attending AAP out of pyramid for middle school often use whatever loophole they can find to stay with their friends for high school in the AAP pyramid.

Doing #2 and #3 will fix many of the issues in 2-4 years. It will balance enrollment in high schools and middle schools without rezoning, save money on busses, improve test scores of lower ranked high schools without rezoning a single student, and will save money by eliminating unwanted, expensive IB.

AND

The big one is do a county wide residency check of all grades in high school, followed by a yearly residency check when kids promote to the next building (Kindergarten/elementary enrollment, 7th grade, 9th grade)

We have multiple families who live out of our zone, who somehow send their kids to our high school that have been closed to transfers for at least a decade. I know several who moved in elementary or middle school who stayed at our school through graduation, in spite living in other pyramids.

Curious how your residency check idea would be implemented? Show a utility bill in your name or similar? Tons of busy work for admins incurring additional costs with marginal if any benefit change from the status quo. Literally follow kids home from school to ensure they live actually live where they say they do? I think that's a tad more of a 1984 dystopian that most county residents are interested in pursuing. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here or that we shouldn't try to prevent people from violating the rules/law, but just unclear what an actual realistic solution would look like that would meaningfully address the issue without being overbearing.

DP.

FCPS - which is admittedly an enormous school system - employs exactly ONE person tasked with residency enforcement. One (1) person.

As for the approved methods that FCPS employee uses, why don’t you do your homework, PP, instead of building straw-man arguments like you did in your post?

To estimate the yearly savings to FCPS from sending students back to the counties where they live, consider what we - the FCPS taxpayers - currently pay:

“2023The FY 2023 Washington Area Board of Education Guide reports that the cost per student in Fairfax County is $18,772. In FCPS' FY 2024 Approved Budget, the cost per pupil is $19,795. Cost per pupil figures are computed by identifying all School Operating Fund costs and entitlement grants directly associated with an instructional program, such ...”

Google it.

That's not the marginal cost per pupil, which is what matters, not the average cost. That also doesn't provide any estimate of the number of students that would be identified for each additional residency enforcement staffer we hire and pay a fully loaded cost for (salary, benefits, provide office space and equipment, etc.)

(# of students such a staffer would identify and successfully remove from the district * marginal cost per student) - fully loaded cost of staffer = net cost/benefit of pursuing this (in purely economic terms)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

#1. Eliminate IB, switching all schools to AP, with a phase out for juniors and seniors who are actually pursuing the IB diploma, which is a TINY number of students. This closes the IB transfer loophole.

#2 In 4 years, look at enrollment numbers and test scores post IB. Schools that lose a lot if studdnts through the IB loophole should show enrollment growth by hundreds of high performing students in some cases, like Lewis HS, as kids who are zoned to Lewis return to their neighborhood high school

AND

#3 Put an AAP program in every middle school, closing the middle school AAP transfers. This will also bring dozens or hundreds of high performing studdnts back to the failing high school pyramids. Thrse students attending AAP out of pyramid for middle school often use whatever loophole they can find to stay with their friends for high school in the AAP pyramid.

Doing #2 and #3 will fix many of the issues in 2-4 years. It will balance enrollment in high schools and middle schools without rezoning, save money on busses, improve test scores of lower ranked high schools without rezoning a single student, and will save money by eliminating unwanted, expensive IB.

AND

The big one is do a county wide residency check of all grades in high school, followed by a yearly residency check when kids promote to the next building (Kindergarten/elementary enrollment, 7th grade, 9th grade)

We have multiple families who live out of our zone, who somehow send their kids to our high school that have been closed to transfers for at least a decade. I know several who moved in elementary or middle school who stayed at our school through graduation, in spite living in other pyramids.

Curious how your residency check idea would be implemented? Show a utility bill in your name or similar? Tons of busy work for admins incurring additional costs with marginal if any benefit change from the status quo. Literally follow kids home from school to ensure they live actually live where they say they do? I think that's a tad more of a 1984 dystopian that most county residents are interested in pursuing. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here or that we shouldn't try to prevent people from violating the rules/law, but just unclear what an actual realistic solution would look like that would meaningfully address the issue without being overbearing.

DP.

FCPS - which is admittedly an enormous school system - employs exactly ONE person tasked with residency enforcement. One (1) person.

As for the approved methods that FCPS employee uses, why don’t you do your homework, PP, instead of building straw-man arguments like you did in your post?

So you are happy with the current methods, you just think they are understaffed. How much do you want to spend on staffing up residency enforcement, and what are the estimates for how much will be saved?

Seems like they just posted in the post above yours roughly $20,000 per student violation found, plus more for any others deterred from even attempting in the face of stricter enforcement. Should be pretty easy to justify a few more staff at that rate.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how a school system with 180,000 kids only has one person total to deal with residency but has an entire office for "DEI" programming. I would say transfer over some of the DEI people to residency enforcement, but my guess is that they wouldn't be very good at it.

[Anonymous]

The savings from finding kids who should be educated by other school systems AND the money made by assessing unpaid back tuition to their families should cover more staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

DP, in the case of the Langley/McLean transfer under Tholen, she listened to one minority segment of her consituents, and ignored the rest (as well as FCPS staff recommendation). I think the assertion is more 1/ that sometimes a broader view is needed than constraining things within certain boundary pyramids given the evolution of our county over time, and 2/ that if/when we are going to do things local to a particular community or section of the county, that the SB reps should still listen ALL of their constituents, not just selectively those whose interests on an issue are aligned with their own personal preference.

Why have a representative school board then? Seems like you are arguing against representative democracy and for socialism.

At some point, you and the school board will learn people in the county are generally generous, but very very few will go along with their kids being upended in the name of some theoretical greater good (which as discussed wouldn’t even materialize).

Good lord you have reading comprehension issues. I'd like it if the school board reps actually, you know, represented their constituents... not selectively represented a small minority community of them.

[Anonymous]

The answer is that FCPS does NOT want to find the kids who shouldn't be in FCPS schools. They aren't looking because they don't want to find.

[Anonymous]

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?

You think that Stu and Kathy listened to their constiuents? And, I think you are referring to the 2008 redistricting which was Janie Strauss--not Elaine Tholen.

The only constituents that Stu listened to was the PTA at South Lakes High School which orchestrated the whole thing. They even had maps posted on their PTA site until someone found it and posted the link on Fairfax Underground. They refused to accept McNair and really wanted Armstrong and Aldrin, but Herndon PTA stepped in on that.

Believe me, NONE of Kathy Smith's constituents wanted the boundary shift. She did it as a favor to her friend, Stu. And, if Stu had listened to most of his constituents it would never have happened. Fox Mill and the Floris neighborhoods absolutely did not want it. When it came to be a "done deal" the redistricted from Floris and Fox Mill begged for AP. They were ignored. Go find the video from 2008 of the speakers. It was awful how they were treated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So to confirm, your position is that allocating 0.15% of the budget to help ensure that our schools and programs and instruction are equitably and inclusively serving the needs of the diverse students and communities that make up our great county is "criminal"?

The actual threat to remove federal funds is the only thing that feels "criminal" here.

If they don't have enough money, then fluff like this needs to be cut.

OK, so ensuring that our schools and programs and instruction are equitably and inclusively serving the needs of the diverse students and communities that make up our great county is no longer "criminal", but now it is "fluff"?

Your ill-considered opinions are the only "fluff" that needs to be cut.

Please tell me what programs and instruction are missing from schools? Why do we need a 6 million dollar office to ensure that nothing is missing? Can't we trust our Superintendents to ensure that? It's not that hard and it does not require redrawing boundary lines.