FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[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.

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

I said stability should be a factor, just not the trump-card-way to avoid any change. You want to figure out your target state and move towards it, but review to minimize unnecessary disruption… otherwise what are you likely to gain? But I also argue that IF the SB wants to prioritize stability even higher than that, as they seem to want to if you talk to them, then it should be stated as one of the priorities for the process alongside the other factors they identify as priorities.

So I’m not arguing against stability, I”m arguing against intransigence, and if you can’t see the difference then what does that reveal about shallow thinking?

[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.

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

I said stability should be a factor, just not the trump-card-way to avoid any change. You want to figure out your target state and move towards it, but review to minimize unnecessary disruption… otherwise what are you likely to gain? But I also argue that IF the SB wants to prioritize stability even higher than that, as they seem to want to if you talk to them, then it should be stated as one of the priorities for the process alongside the other factors they identify as priorities.

So I’m not arguing against stability, I”m arguing against intransigence, and if you can’t see the difference then what does that reveal about shallow thinking?

For this school board, target state is to run all the MC and UMC families out of town. My understanding is that these families, which are a critical base for the Democratic party, have started to flee the party in droves.

I wonder why? Could it be that the school board is F’ing with their kids’ education?

Again, so thrilled to see the party relegated to the wilderness. Hopefully forever.

[Anonymous]

So, the members of the parent committee,-who appear to be on a secret list--can protect their own neighborhoods and pick and choose who gets to be moved?
Sounds like South Lakes 2008 PTSA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, the members of the parent committee,-who appear to be on a secret list--can protect their own neighborhoods and pick and choose who gets to be moved?
Sounds like South Lakes 2008 PTSA

Yes - that is exactly what they are doing. The FCPS school board has a history of dishonesty and lack of accountability to parents.

[Anonymous]

If the single-party School Board were loud about equity at the October 8 meeting, and are quiet about it now, there’s a reason for that.

So no, they haven’t moved away from equity being their number one priority (even over academics).

But now, they’re just trying to hide it because the election turned out the way it did.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know who is on the committee?

[Anonymous]

FairFacts on FB is reporting that FCPS has agreed to share the names of the people on the boundary review advisory committee and has changed the NDA to say that it will only cover “information that identifies students.”

Will be interesting to see the makeup of the BRAC. We know it’s 2 representatives from the public from each school pyramid so that would be 48. I’m not sure if TJ or alternative school parents are included separately but it could increase the number to as many as 56. Are these all parents or are they just “community members?” I was unclear on that point. And how many members of various “interest groups” did they extend an invitation to, and what groups do they represent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FairFacts on FB is reporting that FCPS has agreed to share the names of the people on the boundary review advisory committee and has changed the NDA to say that it will only cover “information that identifies students.”

Will be interesting to see the makeup of the BRAC. We know it’s 2 representatives from the public from each school pyramid so that would be 48. I’m not sure if TJ or alternative school parents are included separately but it could increase the number to as many as 56. Are these all parents or are they just “community members?” I was unclear on that point. And how many members of various “interest groups” did they extend an invitation to, and what groups do they represent?

So, two members from each pyramid means that they do not have reps from every neighborhood. This means that reps can protect their own neighborhood at the expense of those not represented. It's very easy to look at those at the other end of your boundary and say "that neighborhood can go."

I hope Fairfax Supervisors are paying attention. This could be very destructive to Fairfax County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFacts on FB is reporting that FCPS has agreed to share the names of the people on the boundary review advisory committee and has changed the NDA to say that it will only cover “information that identifies students.”

Will be interesting to see the makeup of the BRAC. We know it’s 2 representatives from the public from each school pyramid so that would be 48. I’m not sure if TJ or alternative school parents are included separately but it could increase the number to as many as 56. Are these all parents or are they just “community members?” I was unclear on that point. And how many members of various “interest groups” did they extend an invitation to, and what groups do they represent?

So, two members from each pyramid means that they do not have reps from every neighborhood. This means that reps can protect their own neighborhood at the expense of those not represented. It's very easy to look at those at the other end of your boundary and say "that neighborhood can go."

I hope Fairfax Supervisors are paying attention. This could be very destructive to Fairfax County.

How can we watch these BRAC meetings? I assume it’s open to the public, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFacts on FB is reporting that FCPS has agreed to share the names of the people on the boundary review advisory committee and has changed the NDA to say that it will only cover “information that identifies students.”

Will be interesting to see the makeup of the BRAC. We know it’s 2 representatives from the public from each school pyramid so that would be 48. I’m not sure if TJ or alternative school parents are included separately but it could increase the number to as many as 56. Are these all parents or are they just “community members?” I was unclear on that point. And how many members of various “interest groups” did they extend an invitation to, and what groups do they represent?

So, two members from each pyramid means that they do not have reps from every neighborhood. This means that reps can protect their own neighborhood at the expense of those not represented. It's very easy to look at those at the other end of your boundary and say "that neighborhood can go."

I hope Fairfax Supervisors are paying attention. This could be very destructive to Fairfax County.

McLean is probably a good example. If the two BRAC members come from the four main feeders unlikely to be affected (Chesterbrook, Franklin Sherman, Haycock, and Kent Gardens), there’s a good chance they won’t lift a finger on behalf of the families from the split feeders and islands. They’ve all been browbeaten into thinking it will be decades until the school gets any real money so they’ll happily throw the other families under the bus to other schools. It’s really sad how FCPS repeatedly creates dynamics that pit neighborhoods against each other rather than make a real effort to meet their needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FairFacts on FB is reporting that FCPS has agreed to share the names of the people on the boundary review advisory committee and has changed the NDA to say that it will only cover “information that identifies students.”

Will be interesting to see the makeup of the BRAC. We know it’s 2 representatives from the public from each school pyramid so that would be 48. I’m not sure if TJ or alternative school parents are included separately but it could increase the number to as many as 56. Are these all parents or are they just “community members?” I was unclear on that point. And how many members of various “interest groups” did they extend an invitation to, and what groups do they represent?

There should be no information discussed by the committee that identifies individual students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFacts on FB is reporting that FCPS has agreed to share the names of the people on the boundary review advisory committee and has changed the NDA to say that it will only cover “information that identifies students.”

Will be interesting to see the makeup of the BRAC. We know it’s 2 representatives from the public from each school pyramid so that would be 48. I’m not sure if TJ or alternative school parents are included separately but it could increase the number to as many as 56. Are these all parents or are they just “community members?” I was unclear on that point. And how many members of various “interest groups” did they extend an invitation to, and what groups do they represent?

There should be no information discussed by the committee that identifies individual students.

Seems like a made-up issue to justify the bias against transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FairFacts on FB is reporting that FCPS has agreed to share the names of the people on the boundary review advisory committee and has changed the NDA to say that it will only cover “information that identifies students.”

Will be interesting to see the makeup of the BRAC. We know it’s 2 representatives from the public from each school pyramid so that would be 48. I’m not sure if TJ or alternative school parents are included separately but it could increase the number to as many as 56. Are these all parents or are they just “community members?” I was unclear on that point. And how many members of various “interest groups” did they extend an invitation to, and what groups do they represent?

So, two members from each pyramid means that they do not have reps from every neighborhood. This means that reps can protect their own neighborhood at the expense of those not represented. It's very easy to look at those at the other end of your boundary and say "that neighborhood can go."

I hope Fairfax Supervisors are paying attention. This could be very destructive to Fairfax County.

How can we watch these BRAC meetings? I assume it’s open to the public, right?

No.

It was all private, with undeclosed members, no posted minute meetings, political/campaign donor non parent appointees included, and NDAs required for all parents selected.

FairFacts Matters and several of the smaller neighborhood advocacy groups had a huge grassroots outcry over the sneakiness of the group structure. It appears their campaign for transparency was so overwhelming that the school board/Reid are reversing course from a hidden, non public committee process.

[Anonymous]

Parents shouldn’t be involved. That’s how you get these absurd little cutouts and gerrymanders. Let the consultants draw the maps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents shouldn’t be involved. That’s how you get these absurd little cutouts and gerrymanders. Let the consultants draw the maps.

are you kidding?

Parents and taxpayers whould definitely have a voice in the process.

The consultants are from out of state and have zero experience with traffic patterns and neighborhood dynamics.