FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanessa H last night was a real example of why this will fail or be politically disastrous. She is an extreme equity warrior, but was furious at a rumor that her school might be affected.

She came off as a real hypocrite.

Nah- she was playing the school board on itself in an attempt to hold them to higher ideals.

Basically, she was saying ‘You up there on the board have higher ideals than to just move kids around to make it look good to VDOE. In fact, you have spoken against the new VDOE standards as being too simplistic and made to forward the republican agenda. That has been your argument (St John-cunning’s sent out a newsletter saying this, IDK if others have) , so of COURSE you wouldn’t change course now and decide you need to move kids to make your schools meet these standards you have already denigrated. You KNOW the standards suck, so you aren’t going to move our kids just so you are going to meet these self-proclaimed crappy standards”

Same thing. She'd redistrict in a heartbeat if it involved someone else's school and was expressly characterized as intended to align with the equity goals of One Fairfax.

They'd never say they were redistricting to achieve greater compliance with VDOE benchmarks, precisely because they are hard-wired to object to anything Youngkin's administration comes up with.

Exactly. Feels like we’re twisting ourselves into pretzels to try to defend a hypocrite who seems fine with boundary changes as long as they aren’t her own kids.

Isn’t that our job as parents to protect our kids as best we can? I’m a teacher and in my job, I work like hell to make sure the kids I teach get the best of my teaching abilities and that I go to bat for them over bad policies etc.

I would and do still protect my personal birthed children even more becuase that is the very definition of parenting.

[Anonymous]

I will add that I don’t even consider it hypocritical at this point because it is an innate response to protect your kids.
Now, if my kids do something immoral or illegal, i wouldn’t protect them from consequences, but absolutely it is a biological imperative to not make examples out of our own kids and to protect them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanessa H last night was a real example of why this will fail or be politically disastrous. She is an extreme equity warrior, but was furious at a rumor that her school might be affected.

She came off as a real hypocrite.

Nah- she was playing the school board on itself in an attempt to hold them to higher ideals.

Basically, she was saying ‘You up there on the board have higher ideals than to just move kids around to make it look good to VDOE. In fact, you have spoken against the new VDOE standards as being too simplistic and made to forward the republican agenda. That has been your argument (St John-cunning’s sent out a newsletter saying this, IDK if others have) , so of COURSE you wouldn’t change course now and decide you need to move kids to make your schools meet these standards you have already denigrated. You KNOW the standards suck, so you aren’t going to move our kids just so you are going to meet these self-proclaimed crappy standards”

Same thing. She'd redistrict in a heartbeat if it involved someone else's school and was expressly characterized as intended to align with the equity goals of One Fairfax.

They'd never say they were redistricting to achieve greater compliance with VDOE benchmarks, precisely because they are hard-wired to object to anything Youngkin's administration comes up with.

Exactly. Feels like we’re twisting ourselves into pretzels to try to defend a hypocrite who seems fine with boundary changes as long as they aren’t her own kids.

Isn’t that our job as parents to protect our kids as best we can? I’m a teacher and in my job, I work like hell to make sure the kids I teach get the best of my teaching abilities and that I go to bat for them over bad policies etc.

I would and do still protect my personal birthed children even more becuase that is the very definition of parenting.

Absolutely. But then she shouldn’t be okay with boundary moves for other kids. I’m saying you can’t have it both ways.

I’m vehemently against the boundary review btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanessa H last night was a real example of why this will fail or be politically disastrous. She is an extreme equity warrior, but was furious at a rumor that her school might be affected.

She came off as a real hypocrite.

Nah- she was playing the school board on itself in an attempt to hold them to higher ideals.

Basically, she was saying ‘You up there on the board have higher ideals than to just move kids around to make it look good to VDOE. In fact, you have spoken against the new VDOE standards as being too simplistic and made to forward the republican agenda. That has been your argument (St John-cunning’s sent out a newsletter saying this, IDK if others have) , so of COURSE you wouldn’t change course now and decide you need to move kids to make your schools meet these standards you have already denigrated. You KNOW the standards suck, so you aren’t going to move our kids just so you are going to meet these self-proclaimed crappy standards”

+1
I thought it came across as smart lobbying. I did not read it as talking about just protecting her one specific neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a boundary review in the past, I can tell you that it is an awful experience.

It pits neighborhood against neighborhood. Hard feelings among community members result.

It divides families into different schools. This costs money to families--contributing to the events and fundraising at additional schools. Creating transportation issues for after school activities, etc. I know one family whose kids went to three different high schools without moving.

No redistricting should be considered until other options are exhausted. Begin by eliminating IB--it gives families option of pupil placing that would not exist otherwise.

Be more vigilant about residency. The Hayfield fiasco--while based on a different scheme--is a great example of abuse. But, this abuse has gone on for years. Other school has a better team? My kid needs to take "X" language. Or, He has social issues at current school. He has anxiety and all his friends go to the other high school.

High schools create communities and people don't like change.

Take IB out of South Lakes and Lewis and pupil placement into South Lakes from Herndon would go down. Pupil placement out of Lewis would also decrease. Look at the numbers. That is an easy fix. No need to move boundaries.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanessa H last night was a real example of why this will fail or be politically disastrous. She is an extreme equity warrior, but was furious at a rumor that her school might be affected.

She came off as a real hypocrite.

Nah- she was playing the school board on itself in an attempt to hold them to higher ideals.

Basically, she was saying ‘You up there on the board have higher ideals than to just move kids around to make it look good to VDOE. In fact, you have spoken against the new VDOE standards as being too simplistic and made to forward the republican agenda. That has been your argument (St John-cunning’s sent out a newsletter saying this, IDK if others have) , so of COURSE you wouldn’t change course now and decide you need to move kids to make your schools meet these standards you have already denigrated. You KNOW the standards suck, so you aren’t going to move our kids just so you are going to meet these self-proclaimed crappy standards”

+1
I thought it came across as smart lobbying. I did not read it as talking about just protecting her one specific neighborhood

Gag me. Everything that woman does is preening and self-serving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanessa H last night was a real example of why this will fail or be politically disastrous. She is an extreme equity warrior, but was furious at a rumor that her school might be affected.

She came off as a real hypocrite.

Nah- she was playing the school board on itself in an attempt to hold them to higher ideals.

Basically, she was saying ‘You up there on the board have higher ideals than to just move kids around to make it look good to VDOE. In fact, you have spoken against the new VDOE standards as being too simplistic and made to forward the republican agenda. That has been your argument (St John-cunning’s sent out a newsletter saying this, IDK if others have) , so of COURSE you wouldn’t change course now and decide you need to move kids to make your schools meet these standards you have already denigrated. You KNOW the standards suck, so you aren’t going to move our kids just so you are going to meet these self-proclaimed crappy standards”

Same thing. She'd redistrict in a heartbeat if it involved someone else's school and was expressly characterized as intended to align with the equity goals of One Fairfax.

They'd never say they were redistricting to achieve greater compliance with VDOE benchmarks, precisely because they are hard-wired to object to anything Youngkin's administration comes up with.

Exactly. Feels like we’re twisting ourselves into pretzels to try to defend a hypocrite who seems fine with boundary changes as long as they aren’t her own kids.

Isn’t that our job as parents to protect our kids as best we can? I’m a teacher and in my job, I work like hell to make sure the kids I teach get the best of my teaching abilities and that I go to bat for them over bad policies etc.

I would and do still protect my personal birthed children even more becuase that is the very definition of parenting.

Absolutely. But then she shouldn’t be okay with boundary moves for other kids. I’m saying you can’t have it both ways.

I’m vehemently against the boundary review btw.

Why are you against a review?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanessa H last night was a real example of why this will fail or be politically disastrous. She is an extreme equity warrior, but was furious at a rumor that her school might be affected.

She came off as a real hypocrite.

Nah- she was playing the school board on itself in an attempt to hold them to higher ideals.

Basically, she was saying ‘You up there on the board have higher ideals than to just move kids around to make it look good to VDOE. In fact, you have spoken against the new VDOE standards as being too simplistic and made to forward the republican agenda. That has been your argument (St John-cunning’s sent out a newsletter saying this, IDK if others have) , so of COURSE you wouldn’t change course now and decide you need to move kids to make your schools meet these standards you have already denigrated. You KNOW the standards suck, so you aren’t going to move our kids just so you are going to meet these self-proclaimed crappy standards”

Same thing. She'd redistrict in a heartbeat if it involved someone else's school and was expressly characterized as intended to align with the equity goals of One Fairfax.

They'd never say they were redistricting to achieve greater compliance with VDOE benchmarks, precisely because they are hard-wired to object to anything Youngkin's administration comes up with.

Exactly. Feels like we’re twisting ourselves into pretzels to try to defend a hypocrite who seems fine with boundary changes as long as they aren’t her own kids.

Isn’t that our job as parents to protect our kids as best we can? I’m a teacher and in my job, I work like hell to make sure the kids I teach get the best of my teaching abilities and that I go to bat for them over bad policies etc.

I would and do still protect my personal birthed children even more becuase that is the very definition of parenting.

Absolutely. But then she shouldn’t be okay with boundary moves for other kids. I’m saying you can’t have it both ways.

I’m vehemently against the boundary review btw.

Why are you against a review?

DP - are you even a parent? I haven't met anyone that thinks what the SB is doing is a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanessa H last night was a real example of why this will fail or be politically disastrous. She is an extreme equity warrior, but was furious at a rumor that her school might be affected.

She came off as a real hypocrite.

Nah- she was playing the school board on itself in an attempt to hold them to higher ideals.

Basically, she was saying ‘You up there on the board have higher ideals than to just move kids around to make it look good to VDOE. In fact, you have spoken against the new VDOE standards as being too simplistic and made to forward the republican agenda. That has been your argument (St John-cunning’s sent out a newsletter saying this, IDK if others have) , so of COURSE you wouldn’t change course now and decide you need to move kids to make your schools meet these standards you have already denigrated. You KNOW the standards suck, so you aren’t going to move our kids just so you are going to meet these self-proclaimed crappy standards”

Same thing. She'd redistrict in a heartbeat if it involved someone else's school and was expressly characterized as intended to align with the equity goals of One Fairfax.

They'd never say they were redistricting to achieve greater compliance with VDOE benchmarks, precisely because they are hard-wired to object to anything Youngkin's administration comes up with.

Exactly. Feels like we’re twisting ourselves into pretzels to try to defend a hypocrite who seems fine with boundary changes as long as they aren’t her own kids.

Isn’t that our job as parents to protect our kids as best we can? I’m a teacher and in my job, I work like hell to make sure the kids I teach get the best of my teaching abilities and that I go to bat for them over bad policies etc.

I would and do still protect my personal birthed children even more becuase that is the very definition of parenting.

Absolutely. But then she shouldn’t be okay with boundary moves for other kids. I’m saying you can’t have it both ways.

I’m vehemently against the boundary review btw.

Why are you against a review?

DP - are you even a parent? I haven't met anyone that thinks what the SB is doing is a good idea.

DP. I am a parent and I think the boundaries are a mess and deserve to be reviewed. I do NOT agree with how the board is handling it, however. They need to be more transparent. These public meetings should be their opportunity to present their plan so they can gather appropriate feedback before moving forward with the models. Right now they’re letting hysteria drive the process.

[Anonymous]

Yeah the meetings suck, but agree the boundaries should be reviewed. Ideally they'd start with a blank slate, draw out an ideal target state, and then figure out the least disruptive way to get from here to there (and make adjustments to keep things as-is in cases where it's 50/50 as to which way it could go). Unfortunately it sounds like they're starting with the status quo and then looking for adjustments, which is prioritizing stability, which is not stated as one of the priorities. Either way, there needs to be more transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the meetings suck, but agree the boundaries should be reviewed. Ideally they'd start with a blank slate, draw out an ideal target state, and then figure out the least disruptive way to get from here to there (and make adjustments to keep things as-is in cases where it's 50/50 as to which way it could go). Unfortunately it sounds like they're starting with the status quo and then looking for adjustments, which is prioritizing stability, which is not stated as one of the priorities. Either way, there needs to be more transparency.

When you argue against stability, you really reveal yourself as a shallow thinker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the meetings suck, but agree the boundaries should be reviewed. Ideally they'd start with a blank slate, draw out an ideal target state, and then figure out the least disruptive way to get from here to there (and make adjustments to keep things as-is in cases where it's 50/50 as to which way it could go). Unfortunately it sounds like they're starting with the status quo and then looking for adjustments, which is prioritizing stability, which is not stated as one of the priorities. Either way, there needs to be more transparency.

+ 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the meetings suck, but agree the boundaries should be reviewed. Ideally they'd start with a blank slate, draw out an ideal target state, and then figure out the least disruptive way to get from here to there (and make adjustments to keep things as-is in cases where it's 50/50 as to which way it could go). Unfortunately it sounds like they're starting with the status quo and then looking for adjustments, which is prioritizing stability, which is not stated as one of the priorities. Either way, there needs to be more transparency.

+ 1.

Do you even have kids in school? Do you live in a local community with ties to others? Doesn"t sound like it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the meetings suck, but agree the boundaries should be reviewed. Ideally they'd start with a blank slate, draw out an ideal target state, and then figure out the least disruptive way to get from here to there (and make adjustments to keep things as-is in cases where it's 50/50 as to which way it could go). Unfortunately it sounds like they're starting with the status quo and then looking for adjustments, which is prioritizing stability, which is not stated as one of the priorities. Either way, there needs to be more transparency.

+ 1.

Do you even have kids in school? Do you live in a local community with ties to others? Doesn"t sound like it!

DP. Again, the fundamental question that needs to be addressed is what problem are we actually trying to solve. It’s only when there’s a clear articulation of a problem that you can decide whether the proposed solution addresses it and/or creates new problems in the process.

Bland assertions that we need to take a fresh look at ALL the boundaries simply because one hasn’t occurred in 40 years tells you next to nothing about whether there is currently a problem, much less whether the proposed responses are appropriate.

This School Board is obsessed with creating and implementing a process, yet staggeringly inept when it comes to articulating the real problems, if any, it is trying to address.

[Anonymous]

This School Board is obsessed with creating and implementing a process, yet staggeringly inept when it comes to articulating the real problems, if any, it is trying to address.

It's a lot easier to shift problems than to solve them.
They should take the kids where they are and teach them. That is their job. I've taught kids in poverty. I've also taught in schools with a wide span of student economic backgrounds. Kids can learn in that environment. Get rid of AAP, too. If needed, go back to the GT program--which has nothing to do with the current AAP.

Meanwhile, the Hayfield fiasco shows what is wrong. Rules are bent and not followed on pupil placement, etc.