FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to recap - no boundary revisions are being considered after all?

You think they're going to modify the boundary policy such that it becomes very easy for them to make changes to boundaries with a minimal amount of public notification and input, and then NOT make huge changes to boundaries?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone needs to bring this to the attention of Youngkin, Sears, and Miyares. This is a PR goldmine for Republicans wanting to highlight how out-of-touch and despotic the local Democrats have become in NoVa.

I plan to reach out to Youngkin on this soon. It really is such a boon for their party.

I suspect Youngkin will be hesitant to shout "stop the integration of Fairfax County Public Schools" from the rooftops.

Sure, he’ll let it go through and then push for vouchers, which I’ve never supported until this latest SB disaster. I also think this leaves the state ripe for a Prop 13 style limitation on property tax increases, which again, I would never have supported previously, but makes sense where you have such an utterly incompetent board screwing things up so royally.

The republicans can largely sit back and watch this intraparty conflict play out.

So, no redistricting and no tax increases to pay for capacity improvements. F them kids, am I right?

People are losing confidence in the ability of public school systems like FCPS to run themselves with anything approaching competence. They seem to be an excuse for hefty tax increases but then the money is spent in ways that provide the least return to those paying the most taxes.

McLean mommy is sad that her tax dollars are paying for schools for poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to recap - no boundary revisions are being considered after all?

You think they're going to modify the boundary policy such that it becomes very easy for them to make changes to boundaries with a minimal amount of public notification and input, and then NOT make huge changes to boundaries?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

For right NOW, but the change in criteria that surrounds boundaries leaves FCPS open to huge changes down the road and the closing of academic programs because they aren’t available to ALL. Please explain this board! I suppose I will write you all again. I feel bad for your assistants!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So goodbye TJ because it has academic programs that are not available to all? The problem with the language the board is using is that even if THIS board doesn’t mean that, the next board can use “academic access” to nix any special programs except sped which is federally mandated. This board is not thinking.

TJ is a Governor’s school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So goodbye TJ because it has academic programs that are not available to all? The problem with the language the board is using is that even if THIS board doesn’t mean that, the next board can use “academic access” to nix any special programs except sped which is federally mandated. This board is not thinking.

TJ is a Governor’s school.

Okay, but Bailey’s arts and sciences, or immersion programs, or IB are NOT sheltered by “academic programs available to all.” Academic access is usually used to describe equity in having equal technology, not programs. So I ask, what academic programs are kids not accessing that needs to be changed? Because right now, the thing that the board is working on (under the guise of academic access) is changing average test scores at schools. No one is answering this and it is a BIG loophole which could eventually undermine very wanted programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So goodbye TJ because it has academic programs that are not available to all? The problem with the language the board is using is that even if THIS board doesn’t mean that, the next board can use “academic access” to nix any special programs except sped which is federally mandated. This board is not thinking.

TJ is a Governor’s school.

DP. But they are trying to equitize access for all students and relieve bus routes and maximize sleep time for kids. TJs flies in the face of all of their criteria.

Just shows what a shame proves this is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to recap - no boundary revisions are being considered after all?

You think they're going to modify the boundary policy such that it becomes very easy for them to make changes to boundaries with a minimal amount of public notification and input, and then NOT make huge changes to boundaries?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to recap - no boundary revisions are being considered after all?

You think they're going to modify the boundary policy such that it becomes very easy for them to make changes to boundaries with a minimal amount of public notification and input, and then NOT make huge changes to boundaries?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

If they just plan on tweaking then they wouldn’t be talking about limited grandfathering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone needs to bring this to the attention of Youngkin, Sears, and Miyares. This is a PR goldmine for Republicans wanting to highlight how out-of-touch and despotic the local Democrats have become in NoVa.

I plan to reach out to Youngkin on this soon. It really is such a boon for their party.

I suspect Youngkin will be hesitant to shout "stop the integration of Fairfax County Public Schools" from the rooftops.

Sure, he’ll let it go through and then push for vouchers, which I’ve never supported until this latest SB disaster. I also think this leaves the state ripe for a Prop 13 style limitation on property tax increases, which again, I would never have supported previously, but makes sense where you have such an utterly incompetent board screwing things up so royally.

The republicans can largely sit back and watch this intraparty conflict play out.

So, no redistricting and no tax increases to pay for capacity improvements. F them kids, am I right?

People are losing confidence in the ability of public school systems like FCPS to run themselves with anything approaching competence. They seem to be an excuse for hefty tax increases but then the money is spent in ways that provide the least return to those paying the most taxes.

McLean mommy is sad that her tax dollars are paying for schools for poor kids.

They aren’t wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So goodbye TJ because it has academic programs that are not available to all? The problem with the language the board is using is that even if THIS board doesn’t mean that, the next board can use “academic access” to nix any special programs except sped which is federally mandated. This board is not thinking.

TJ is a Governor’s school.

DP. But they are trying to equitize access for all students and relieve bus routes and maximize sleep time for kids. TJs flies in the face of all of their criteria.

Just shows what a shame proves this is.

TJ gets a pass because there are now geographical quotas to go there. Can’t say that for Langley or McLean so they must be deconstructed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to recap - no boundary revisions are being considered after all?

You think they're going to modify the boundary policy such that it becomes very easy for them to make changes to boundaries with a minimal amount of public notification and input, and then NOT make huge changes to boundaries?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So goodbye TJ because it has academic programs that are not available to all? The problem with the language the board is using is that even if THIS board doesn’t mean that, the next board can use “academic access” to nix any special programs except sped which is federally mandated. This board is not thinking.

TJ is a Governor’s school.

DP. But they are trying to equitize access for all students and relieve bus routes and maximize sleep time for kids. TJs flies in the face of all of their criteria.

Just shows what a shame proves this is.

no it doesn’t. There is more than one Governor’s school in Virginia. They are not the same as FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So goodbye TJ because it has academic programs that are not available to all? The problem with the language the board is using is that even if THIS board doesn’t mean that, the next board can use “academic access” to nix any special programs except sped which is federally mandated. This board is not thinking.

TJ is a Governor’s school.

DP. But they are trying to equitize access for all students and relieve bus routes and maximize sleep time for kids. TJs flies in the face of all of their criteria.

Just shows what a shame proves this is.

no it doesn’t. There is more than one Governor’s school in Virginia. They are not the same as FCPS.

FCPS decides every year whether it wants to renew TJ as a Governor’s School. It has no obligation to do so, but it likes the prestige so is willing to run the extra busses and favor TJ kids. Of course with TJ’s ranking dropping they may reconsider at some point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to recap - no boundary revisions are being considered after all?

You think they're going to modify the boundary policy such that it becomes very easy for them to make changes to boundaries with a minimal amount of public notification and input, and then NOT make huge changes to boundaries?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to recap - no boundary revisions are being considered after all?

You think they're going to modify the boundary policy such that it becomes very easy for them to make changes to boundaries with a minimal amount of public notification and input, and then NOT make huge changes to boundaries?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

Those who expect they will be unaffected or are salivating for these changes are more than happy to minimize the likely impact on others.

The school board is already an echo chamber; they don’t need their slimy proxies working overtime for them as well.