FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solution to saving money and making schools more efficient is pretty simple.

Get rid of IB, vast majority don’t want it and FCPS sucks at delivering the program.

Get rid of AAP centers, let’s face it AAP is what general education classes were a decade ago. Group kids in their home schools and offer a viable curriculum.

With everyone at home schools do the math (it is elementary school level math) on if 6-8 middle school works or would require too much to be spent on modifying middle schools.

If you live within two miles of a school walk there, it will help the kids burn off some excess energy and get in shape.

More money for teacher salaries and good curriculum. Most pressing problems solved, you can now all enjoy your weekends.

That is because you haven’t actually seen the budget and have no clue how much it takes to raise salaries. The changes you describe won’t cover it.

Do some research before you start spouting off.

The waste associated with running the nation’s largest bus fleet, overspending on poor curriculums and unwanted programs such as IB is considerable. Will the savings amount to a 7% raise for teachers, no. Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers.

Could have saved $500K on the money being wasted on the boundary consultant.

Look I get the strategy, rile up the masses with the boundary study and do what ever you want anyway is a strategy that has worked over and over at FCPS.

But the times they are a changing.

AAP buses cost 8 million a year
Ib is negligible because teachers need training regardless.

The raise teachers are looking for is $213 million this year.

This AAP argument is dumb once you see the numbers.

You skipped over the biggest bang for the buck option.

“Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers. “

Cut Gatehouse by 50% that will give you $114M plus the $8M on AAP buses will give you a 5% raise. So a win-win.

I didn’t skip it, they changed their argument when they saw me put the numbers in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Just because the meetings are open to all doesn't mean that supporters of boundary changes are going to go. Why would they when they'll be surround by a loud, obnoxious minority anti- boundary narcissists. Who wants to spend an evening trying to convince selfish people to do the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Just because the meetings are open to all doesn't mean that supporters of boundary changes are going to go. Why would they when they'll be surround by a loud, obnoxious minority anti- boundary narcissists. Who wants to spend an evening trying to convince selfish people to do the right thing.

Well, perhaps these "selfish people" want stability for their families. Especially, in these unstable times.

But, since you chose not to go, you have the opportunity here to articulate clearly why you support this boundary review and what you expect will be the results. Please do so. I look forward to reading your response. And, by the way, I am not the PP to whom you were responding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Yes, they were open to all. But why would I schlep out to some evening meeting when I already understand the new policy and the process. I am willing to wait until they release the proposed changes to share my feedback. The people most motivated to go to those meetings are the ones who oppose it. Yes, both groups exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Just because the meetings are open to all doesn't mean that supporters of boundary changes are going to go. Why would they when they'll be surround by a loud, obnoxious minority anti- boundary narcissists. Who wants to spend an evening trying to convince selfish people to do the right thing.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solution to saving money and making schools more efficient is pretty simple.

Get rid of IB, vast majority don’t want it and FCPS sucks at delivering the program.

Get rid of AAP centers, let’s face it AAP is what general education classes were a decade ago. Group kids in their home schools and offer a viable curriculum.

With everyone at home schools do the math (it is elementary school level math) on if 6-8 middle school works or would require too much to be spent on modifying middle schools.

If you live within two miles of a school walk there, it will help the kids burn off some excess energy and get in shape.

More money for teacher salaries and good curriculum. Most pressing problems solved, you can now all enjoy your weekends.

That is because you haven’t actually seen the budget and have no clue how much it takes to raise salaries. The changes you describe won’t cover it.

Do some research before you start spouting off.

The waste associated with running the nation’s largest bus fleet, overspending on poor curriculums and unwanted programs such as IB is considerable. Will the savings amount to a 7% raise for teachers, no. Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers.

Could have saved $500K on the money being wasted on the boundary consultant.

Look I get the strategy, rile up the masses with the boundary study and do what ever you want anyway is a strategy that has worked over and over at FCPS.

But the times they are a changing.

AAP buses cost 8 million a year
Ib is negligible because teachers need training regardless.

The raise teachers are looking for is $213 million this year.

This AAP argument is dumb once you see the numbers.

You skipped over the biggest bang for the buck option.

“Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers. “

Cut Gatehouse by 50% that will give you $114M plus the $8M on AAP buses will give you a 5% raise. So a win-win.

I didn’t skip it, they changed their argument when they saw me put the numbers in.

No, provided 3 ways to save money that could then be better spent on students and front line teachers acknowledging that money saved would not provide for the full 7% raise.

You don’t like the ideas I get it. You are the budget expert how much can we add to total savings by getting rid of IB? How much is FCPS spending on poor elementary school curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Yes, they were open to all. But why would I schlep out to some evening meeting when I already understand the new policy and the process. I am willing to wait until they release the proposed changes to share my feedback. The people most motivated to go to those meetings are the ones who oppose it. Yes, both groups exist.

So, you don't know why you support it. You don't want to hear the other side of what the SB claims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

You do realize you are responding to more than 1 (maybe multiple) people?

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Yes, they were open to all. But why would I schlep out to some evening meeting when I already understand the new policy and the process. I am willing to wait until they release the proposed changes to share my feedback. The people most motivated to go to those meetings are the ones who oppose it. Yes, both groups exist.

So, you don't know why you support it. You don't want to hear the other side of what the SB claims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solution to saving money and making schools more efficient is pretty simple.

Get rid of IB, vast majority don’t want it and FCPS sucks at delivering the program.

Get rid of AAP centers, let’s face it AAP is what general education classes were a decade ago. Group kids in their home schools and offer a viable curriculum.

With everyone at home schools do the math (it is elementary school level math) on if 6-8 middle school works or would require too much to be spent on modifying middle schools.

If you live within two miles of a school walk there, it will help the kids burn off some excess energy and get in shape.

More money for teacher salaries and good curriculum. Most pressing problems solved, you can now all enjoy your weekends.

That is because you haven’t actually seen the budget and have no clue how much it takes to raise salaries. The changes you describe won’t cover it.

Do some research before you start spouting off.

The waste associated with running the nation’s largest bus fleet, overspending on poor curriculums and unwanted programs such as IB is considerable. Will the savings amount to a 7% raise for teachers, no. Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers.

Could have saved $500K on the money being wasted on the boundary consultant.

Look I get the strategy, rile up the masses with the boundary study and do what ever you want anyway is a strategy that has worked over and over at FCPS.

But the times they are a changing.

AAP buses cost 8 million a year
Ib is negligible because teachers need training regardless.

The raise teachers are looking for is $213 million this year.

This AAP argument is dumb once you see the numbers.

You skipped over the biggest bang for the buck option.

“Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers. “

Cut Gatehouse by 50% that will give you $114M plus the $8M on AAP buses will give you a 5% raise. So a win-win.

I didn’t skip it, they changed their argument when they saw me put the numbers in.

No, provided 3 ways to save money that could then be better spent on students and front line teachers acknowledging that money saved would not provide for the full 7% raise.

You don’t like the ideas I get it. You are the budget expert how much can we add to total savings by getting rid of IB? How much is FCPS spending on poor elementary school curriculum?

You are mad and calling me a ‘budget expert”. I’m not. I teach preschool for a living, but I do know how to google and back up my information when I post. You should try it. I’m interested in what you find, but absolutely the poster who brought this up said nothing about gatehouse in the beginning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Just because the meetings are open to all doesn't mean that supporters of boundary changes are going to go. Why would they when they'll be surround by a loud, obnoxious minority anti- boundary narcissists. Who wants to spend an evening trying to convince selfish people to do the right thing.

So you want others to assume you’re in the majority, with no evidence that’s the case, and do the “right thing,” without having bothered to articulate exactly what that is or why it wolf be an improvement? Your sense of entitlement is through the roof.

It’s also profoundly sad, because the interactions between those who did attend the meetings was quite respectful, even when people had different perspectives. In your case, however, it appears you want boundary changes that would boost your own housing values handed to you on a platter, at the expense of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solution to saving money and making schools more efficient is pretty simple.

Get rid of IB, vast majority don’t want it and FCPS sucks at delivering the program.

Get rid of AAP centers, let’s face it AAP is what general education classes were a decade ago. Group kids in their home schools and offer a viable curriculum.

With everyone at home schools do the math (it is elementary school level math) on if 6-8 middle school works or would require too much to be spent on modifying middle schools.

If you live within two miles of a school walk there, it will help the kids burn off some excess energy and get in shape.

More money for teacher salaries and good curriculum. Most pressing problems solved, you can now all enjoy your weekends.

That is because you haven’t actually seen the budget and have no clue how much it takes to raise salaries. The changes you describe won’t cover it.

Do some research before you start spouting off.

The waste associated with running the nation’s largest bus fleet, overspending on poor curriculums and unwanted programs such as IB is considerable. Will the savings amount to a 7% raise for teachers, no. Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers.

Could have saved $500K on the money being wasted on the boundary consultant.

Look I get the strategy, rile up the masses with the boundary study and do what ever you want anyway is a strategy that has worked over and over at FCPS.

But the times they are a changing.

AAP buses cost 8 million a year
Ib is negligible because teachers need training regardless.

The raise teachers are looking for is $213 million this year.

This AAP argument is dumb once you see the numbers.

You skipped over the biggest bang for the buck option.

“Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers. “

Cut Gatehouse by 50% that will give you $114M plus the $8M on AAP buses will give you a 5% raise. So a win-win.

I didn’t skip it, they changed their argument when they saw me put the numbers in.

No, provided 3 ways to save money that could then be better spent on students and front line teachers acknowledging that money saved would not provide for the full 7% raise.

You don’t like the ideas I get it. You are the budget expert how much can we add to total savings by getting rid of IB? How much is FCPS spending on poor elementary school curriculum?

You are mad and calling me a ‘budget expert”. I’m not. I teach preschool for a living, but I do know how to google and back up my information when I post. You should try it. I’m interested in what you find, but absolutely the poster who brought this up said nothing about gatehouse in the beginning.

Pretty sure that more than one person replied to you. There are many ways to save money and an earlier PP may not have provided enough, but provided some of those ways. Believe me, if you worked in the public school system you would know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shill” again? Bingo!

Please get a thesaurus.

She also needs a hobby. I would love to know how many posts this “shill” overuser has made on the boundary threads. I also bet she is a senior citizen who doesn’t even have kids in the schools.

Not that poster, but it's strange that you're not at all concerned that Karl Frisch has no kids at all. Why is that?

He was elected to his position by his constituents (not me) so he has earned his position and vote. The seniors in Great Falls are only concerned about their property values.

It’s funny how much you are stereotyping seniors. It’s almost like all your claims of bias and discrimination are a tell for your own thoughts.

Were all of the community meeting participants who were overwhelmingly against boundary changes old too?

Yep, time to sit down, shill. You frankly just aren’t very good at this. But to be fair, you don’t have compelling arguments because there aren’t any to be had.

No one wants boundary changes, everyone who went to the community meetings saw that.

False. People have said they approve of the boundary review and have given reasons. But you dismiss them as school board shills and continue to reiterate your gross generalizations that no wants them, that people want “changes for thee, but not for me…” It’s troubling. Please find another hobby.

Tell us you haven’t looked at any of the notes from the community feedback sessions without telling us.

Overwhelming opposition in our county to boundary changes. Overwhelming.

Those of us who are supportive of the review didn’t go to the meetings. I’m happy to let the process play out and see what the recommendations are. You have made a sweeping assessment based on a small sample of the most agitated members of the community.

That’s not convincing. The community meetings were open to all and a perfect opportunity for those supportive of boundary changes to express their views in a safe environment surrounded by FCPS officials who themselves want to adjust boundaries.

At the meeting I attended, there were certainly some who supported boundary adjustments, especially to reduce the enrollment at one of the middle schools in the region. But the overwhelming sentiment was that FCPS should not change boundaries absent clearly articulated, objective criteria for doing so.

Yes, they were open to all. But why would I schlep out to some evening meeting when I already understand the new policy and the process. I am willing to wait until they release the proposed changes to share my feedback. The people most motivated to go to those meetings are the ones who oppose it. Yes, both groups exist.

So, you don't know why you support it. You don't want to hear the other side of what the SB claims?

I’m extremely well informed on the topic. I know why I support it. I have heard the “arguments” from the gang of those opposed to a review. I can see them for what they are - self-interested defensiveness. I have a desire for the system to run more efficiently and the one-off boundary changes have been the opposite of that. Since I’m supportive of the process and knowledgeable, why would I give up my evening? Why can’t you understand that opinions differ on this?

[Anonymous]

I’m extremely well informed on the topic. I know why I support it. I have heard the “arguments” from the gang of those opposed to a review. I can see them for what they are - self-interested defensiveness. I have a desire for the system to run more efficiently and the one-off boundary changes have been the opposite of that. Since I’m supportive of the process and knowledgeable, why would I give up my evening? Why can’t you understand that opinions differ on this?

Great. Finally someone can explain to me how this will make FCPS run more smoothly and efficiently. Being a former teacher and a parent, I look forward to understanding how this is going to better educate our students. TIA. I look forward to having this conversation here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solution to saving money and making schools more efficient is pretty simple.

Get rid of IB, vast majority don’t want it and FCPS sucks at delivering the program.

Get rid of AAP centers, let’s face it AAP is what general education classes were a decade ago. Group kids in their home schools and offer a viable curriculum.

With everyone at home schools do the math (it is elementary school level math) on if 6-8 middle school works or would require too much to be spent on modifying middle schools.

If you live within two miles of a school walk there, it will help the kids burn off some excess energy and get in shape.

More money for teacher salaries and good curriculum. Most pressing problems solved, you can now all enjoy your weekends.

That is because you haven’t actually seen the budget and have no clue how much it takes to raise salaries. The changes you describe won’t cover it.

Do some research before you start spouting off.

The waste associated with running the nation’s largest bus fleet, overspending on poor curriculums and unwanted programs such as IB is considerable. Will the savings amount to a 7% raise for teachers, no. Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers.

Could have saved $500K on the money being wasted on the boundary consultant.

Look I get the strategy, rile up the masses with the boundary study and do what ever you want anyway is a strategy that has worked over and over at FCPS.

But the times they are a changing.

AAP buses cost 8 million a year
Ib is negligible because teachers need training regardless.

The raise teachers are looking for is $213 million this year.

This AAP argument is dumb once you see the numbers.

You skipped over the biggest bang for the buck option.

“Go further and cut the administrative bloat at Gatehouse and more more will be available for students and front line teachers. “

Cut Gatehouse by 50% that will give you $114M plus the $8M on AAP buses will give you a 5% raise. So a win-win.

I didn’t skip it, they changed their argument when they saw me put the numbers in.

No, provided 3 ways to save money that could then be better spent on students and front line teachers acknowledging that money saved would not provide for the full 7% raise.

You don’t like the ideas I get it. You are the budget expert how much can we add to total savings by getting rid of IB? How much is FCPS spending on poor elementary school curriculum?

You are mad and calling me a ‘budget expert”. I’m not. I teach preschool for a living, but I do know how to google and back up my information when I post. You should try it. I’m interested in what you find, but absolutely the poster who brought this up said nothing about gatehouse in the beginning.

Not mad. It was my post you commented on, I brought down the part about gutting at Gatehouse which was in the original post for reference.

Cutting the items I mentioned and looking at the numbers before committing to a switch 6-8 for middle school all make far more sense than the changing boundaries.

FCPS is bloated and inefficient changing boundaries will only lead to more problems, not solve the existing ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I’m extremely well informed on the topic. I know why I support it. I have heard the “arguments” from the gang of those opposed to a review. I can see them for what they are - self-interested defensiveness. I have a desire for the system to run more efficiently and the one-off boundary changes have been the opposite of that. Since I’m supportive of the process and knowledgeable, why would I give up my evening? Why can’t you understand that opinions differ on this?

Great. Finally someone can explain to me how this will make FCPS run more smoothly and efficiently. Being a former teacher and a parent, I look forward to understanding how this is going to better educate our students. TIA. I look forward to having this conversation here.

Ha, exactly. The shill who claims she is well informed on the topic is so funny given she hasn’t articulated one (not one!) compelling reason for the change.

She’ll say efficiency, but it’s a vapid argument with nothing at all to back her weak a$$ claims.

Clown show.