FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

No one is saying you are lying about the existing of that Mantua document. Tons of people are aware of it

What we are saying is that the ideas in the Mantua document are fairly common sentiments and not unique to the Mantua families. No one last night was regurgitating the Mantua talking points. Everyone who spoke actually spoke off the cuff, except for one guy who read his tables top 3 items in like 10 seconds then sat down. Yes, everyone there who spoke shared very similar sentiments, because wanting stability for your kids, accurate enrollment data, school board accountability, and transparency from your local government especially when your kids lives might be turned upside down, are fairly universal sentiments.

The post has since been corrected above that seemed to question it. Maybe it was a misunderstanding re:regions.

I don’t disagree with any of the concerns raised about redistricting, but I also don’t think there’s an easy answer to the problem of overcrowding either.

My concern, whether it was last night or another meeting, is that by dominating these roles in a coordinated effort at meetings - and the assertion a poster made earlier that the same group said they are going to all regional meetings, other voices become drowned out. And my concern would be that they would make an illogical decision for boundaries based on sway from that vocal minority.

The Mantua parents might have been attending the Region 4 meeting, but they were respectful, letting Region 4 parents speak, and not drowning anyone out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

No one is saying you are lying about the existing of that Mantua document. Tons of people are aware of it

What we are saying is that the ideas in the Mantua document are fairly common sentiments and not unique to the Mantua families. No one last night was regurgitating the Mantua talking points. Everyone who spoke actually spoke off the cuff, except for one guy who read his tables top 3 items in like 10 seconds then sat down. Yes, everyone there who spoke shared very similar sentiments, because wanting stability for your kids, accurate enrollment data, school board accountability, and transparency from your local government especially when your kids lives might be turned upside down, are fairly universal sentiments.

The post has since been corrected above that seemed to question it. Maybe it was a misunderstanding re:regions.

I don’t disagree with any of the concerns raised about redistricting, but I also don’t think there’s an easy answer to the problem of overcrowding either.

My concern, whether it was last night or another meeting, is that by dominating these roles in a coordinated effort at meetings - and the assertion a poster made earlier that the same group said they are going to all regional meetings, other voices become drowned out. And my concern would be that they would make an illogical decision for boundaries based on sway from that vocal minority.

Where is the overcrowding so acute that parents at the school are lobbying for relief through a boundary change?

Parents at some schools put up with overcrowding until their schools get expanded. Where's the equity in expanding dozens of schools and then having a bunch of "concern trolls" tell parents at other schools that haven't been similarly blessed by the FCPS gods yet that they have to be rezoned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

No one is saying you are lying about the existing of that Mantua document. Tons of people are aware of it

What we are saying is that the ideas in the Mantua document are fairly common sentiments and not unique to the Mantua families. No one last night was regurgitating the Mantua talking points. Everyone who spoke actually spoke off the cuff, except for one guy who read his tables top 3 items in like 10 seconds then sat down. Yes, everyone there who spoke shared very similar sentiments, because wanting stability for your kids, accurate enrollment data, school board accountability, and transparency from your local government especially when your kids lives might be turned upside down, are fairly universal sentiments.

The post has since been corrected above that seemed to question it. Maybe it was a misunderstanding re:regions.

I don’t disagree with any of the concerns raised about redistricting, but I also don’t think there’s an easy answer to the problem of overcrowding either.

My concern, whether it was last night or another meeting, is that by dominating these roles in a coordinated effort at meetings - and the assertion a poster made earlier that the same group said they are going to all regional meetings, other voices become drowned out. And my concern would be that they would make an illogical decision for boundaries based on sway from that vocal minority.

There is your logical fallacy. It ain’t a vocal minority. They are speaking what’s on all our minds, and I’m from a different region.

Thank you Mantua mommas!

[Anonymous]

I get a kick out of the fact that Mantua is so vocal and organized against the potential boundary changes when one of the most well-known shills for the School Board is a Mantua parent. We can’t name her but many of you know who she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

No one is saying you are lying about the existing of that Mantua document. Tons of people are aware of it

What we are saying is that the ideas in the Mantua document are fairly common sentiments and not unique to the Mantua families. No one last night was regurgitating the Mantua talking points. Everyone who spoke actually spoke off the cuff, except for one guy who read his tables top 3 items in like 10 seconds then sat down. Yes, everyone there who spoke shared very similar sentiments, because wanting stability for your kids, accurate enrollment data, school board accountability, and transparency from your local government especially when your kids lives might be turned upside down, are fairly universal sentiments.

The post has since been corrected above that seemed to question it. Maybe it was a misunderstanding re:regions.

I don’t disagree with any of the concerns raised about redistricting, but I also don’t think there’s an easy answer to the problem of overcrowding either.

My concern, whether it was last night or another meeting, is that by dominating these roles in a coordinated effort at meetings - and the assertion a poster made earlier that the same group said they are going to all regional meetings, other voices become drowned out. And my concern would be that they would make an illogical decision for boundaries based on sway from that vocal minority.

An illogical decision such as promising proper research is conducted, enrollment numbers are accurate, and a major reboouondary process includes transparency and real attention to the community? Yeah, I think it wouldn't be so bad if they were "swayed" in that direction.

[Anonymous]

Never heard of mantua before

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

No one is saying you are lying about the existing of that Mantua document. Tons of people are aware of it

What we are saying is that the ideas in the Mantua document are fairly common sentiments and not unique to the Mantua families. No one last night was regurgitating the Mantua talking points. Everyone who spoke actually spoke off the cuff, except for one guy who read his tables top 3 items in like 10 seconds then sat down. Yes, everyone there who spoke shared very similar sentiments, because wanting stability for your kids, accurate enrollment data, school board accountability, and transparency from your local government especially when your kids lives might be turned upside down, are fairly universal sentiments.

The post has since been corrected above that seemed to question it. Maybe it was a misunderstanding re:regions.

I don’t disagree with any of the concerns raised about redistricting, but I also don’t think there’s an easy answer to the problem of overcrowding either.

My concern, whether it was last night or another meeting, is that by dominating these roles in a coordinated effort at meetings - and the assertion a poster made earlier that the same group said they are going to all regional meetings, other voices become drowned out. And my concern would be that they would make an illogical decision for boundaries based on sway from that vocal minority.

The Mantua parents might have been attending the Region 4 meeting, but they were respectful, letting Region 4 parents speak, and not drowning anyone out.

DP. I was there and agree. I have no idea where Mantua is but I did read their document and honestly I didn’t disagree with most of it. I’m in the WSHS area so we don’t have any attendance island issues which sounds like the Mantua issue? But the FCPS people running the meeting did say that parents can attend any of these sessions. If there were a lot of Mantua parents there last night they were pretty low key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

No one is saying you are lying about the existing of that Mantua document. Tons of people are aware of it

What we are saying is that the ideas in the Mantua document are fairly common sentiments and not unique to the Mantua families. No one last night was regurgitating the Mantua talking points. Everyone who spoke actually spoke off the cuff, except for one guy who read his tables top 3 items in like 10 seconds then sat down. Yes, everyone there who spoke shared very similar sentiments, because wanting stability for your kids, accurate enrollment data, school board accountability, and transparency from your local government especially when your kids lives might be turned upside down, are fairly universal sentiments.

The post has since been corrected above that seemed to question it. Maybe it was a misunderstanding re:regions.

I don’t disagree with any of the concerns raised about redistricting, but I also don’t think there’s an easy answer to the problem of overcrowding either.

My concern, whether it was last night or another meeting, is that by dominating these roles in a coordinated effort at meetings - and the assertion a poster made earlier that the same group said they are going to all regional meetings, other voices become drowned out. And my concern would be that they would make an illogical decision for boundaries based on sway from that vocal minority.

An illogical decision such as promising proper research is conducted, enrollment numbers are accurate, and a major reboouondary process includes transparency and real attention to the community? Yeah, I think it wouldn't be so bad if they were "swayed" in that direction.

The school board shills are on here complaining about the process when it’s actually the public that has the legitimate beef regarding process (or really lack thereof).

Only in Fairfax do you have the school board bypassing the RFP process to rush it’s consultant then put together a boundary committee that has its hand picked lackeys on it with ndas in place and still have SJWs complain about members of the public availing themselves of the few opportunities to offer any input. It’s truly bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFACTS. A photo was posted in the comments on a post just yesterday. Search “mantua.” don’t know why I would lie about something people can go verify.

No one is saying you are lying about the existing of that Mantua document. Tons of people are aware of it

What we are saying is that the ideas in the Mantua document are fairly common sentiments and not unique to the Mantua families. No one last night was regurgitating the Mantua talking points. Everyone who spoke actually spoke off the cuff, except for one guy who read his tables top 3 items in like 10 seconds then sat down. Yes, everyone there who spoke shared very similar sentiments, because wanting stability for your kids, accurate enrollment data, school board accountability, and transparency from your local government especially when your kids lives might be turned upside down, are fairly universal sentiments.

The post has since been corrected above that seemed to question it. Maybe it was a misunderstanding re:regions.

I don’t disagree with any of the concerns raised about redistricting, but I also don’t think there’s an easy answer to the problem of overcrowding either.

My concern, whether it was last night or another meeting, is that by dominating these roles in a coordinated effort at meetings - and the assertion a poster made earlier that the same group said they are going to all regional meetings, other voices become drowned out. And my concern would be that they would make an illogical decision for boundaries based on sway from that vocal minority.

The Mantua parents might have been attending the Region 4 meeting, but they were respectful, letting Region 4 parents speak, and not drowning anyone out.

DP. I was there and agree. I have no idea where Mantua is but I did read their document and honestly I didn’t disagree with most of it. I’m in the WSHS area so we don’t have any attendance island issues which sounds like the Mantua issue? But the FCPS people running the meeting did say that parents can attend any of these sessions. If there were a lot of Mantua parents there last night they were pretty low key.

Mantua doesn't have any attendance island. They worry about getting redistricted to Falls Church.

[Anonymous]

in 2018-2019 they called the Boundary movement as the Nuclear Option and thought it was cute. it was listed in the FPAC agenda as the Nuclear Option for Boundaries. then Superintendent Brabrand said that if they wanted to get the public on their side they probably needed to call it something other than the Nuclear Option. they all thanked him for helping them rebrand their language to the Comprehensive Review of The Boundaries. Buckle up - they are blowing up the districts in fairfax Country and every pyramid will be effected

[Anonymous]

split feeders are being eliminated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:split feeders are being eliminated

They will not be able to eliminate all the split feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:split feeders are being eliminated

Some might nedd to be created to achieve equity.

Moving 6th grade to middle school will cause huge disruptions to middle school zones, as very few middle schools have space to absorb hundreds to a thousand 6th graders.

The only way to achieve this is to massively rezone neighborhoods eastward into the less desirable schools, hiving middle schoolers really long commutes.

That is probably why Reid and the school board want to change the high school schedules so the high schoolers end after 4PM, and the middle schools get the high school schedule (Ridiculous).

Reid and co really want to disrupt everything. They ruined TJ, then the sports/football programs, now they are moving on to destroying the rest of the high schools, middle schools and neighbohood communities with 6th to middle school, messing with the schedule unnecessarily, and the idiotic rezoning every 5 years.

The arrogance of this school board and superintendent.is unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

Ha you have a LOT to learn about the way school systems run
Did you WaATCH or attend any work sessions or board meetings about policy 8130?
This is definitely about equity. Both sandy anderson (whose kids go to majority white elementary schools) and st John’s Cummings have had tirades about parents who they think are racist in not wanting their kids moved. In fact Cummings said “equity is at the heart of this policy”

No one wants their kid moved in high school. No one wants their kid moved in middle school. Stability is important.

I think if you are talkin by about entitled people having a bunch of teens never ever have to wake up early with ensure these kids are late for work and never make that early college class because the logic in entitlement will spill over.

T
Yiu have some warped priorities