FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

If the school board had revised the plan 8130 to say that rezoning studies would be conducted every 10 years within 1 year following the census, to include a county wide residency check, with rezoning exclusively to balance significant overcrowding, with an emphasis on minimizing transportation challenges and maintaining neighbohood schools, i doubt the school board would have heard more than a tiny fraction of complaints.

They probably would have received wide spread county support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the school board had revised the plan 8130 to say that rezoning studies would be conducted every 10 years within 1 year following the census, to include a county wide residency check, with rezoning exclusively to balance significant overcrowding, with an emphasis on minimizing transportation challenges and maintaining neighbohood schools, i doubt the school board would have heard more than a tiny fraction of complaints.

They probably would have received wide spread county support.

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a zero sum game. Some schools are currently undesirable to UMC families for one reason or another. For that reason parents should not have significant sway in the process because things will shake out based on the loudest/most politically connected parents' interests not what's best for the county as a whole.

It is not anywhere close to a zero sum game. It is a negative sum game.

Parents/families want reliability in their schools. When you take that away, you take away a ton of demand for FCPS, and it becomes a downward spiral. Tax rolls decrease, and all of a sudden there is much more of a budget shortfall requiring more difficult decisions.

Plus, vouchers are going to devour public school funding when they pass in the wake of this equity agenda.

Anyone who says fcps should not listen to parents should go ask Terry mcauliffe how that turned out.

Are you missing the fact that Fairfax schools have been on the decline for over 20 years? The downward spiral began long ago. Maybe your school escaped it to this point, but that was never going to last forever. Perhaps importing so much poverty wasn't a good idea.

Some schools are still great. That may not be the case for much longer, though. Mediocrity for all (it’s the place where the agendas converge of the equity warriors and the grumpy right-wingers stuck in now LMC areas and wanting to burn the whole house down) is the name of the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a zero sum game. Some schools are currently undesirable to UMC families for one reason or another. For that reason parents should not have significant sway in the process because things will shake out based on the loudest/most politically connected parents' interests not what's best for the county as a whole.

It is not anywhere close to a zero sum game. It is a negative sum game.

Parents/families want reliability in their schools. When you take that away, you take away a ton of demand for FCPS, and it becomes a downward spiral. Tax rolls decrease, and all of a sudden there is much more of a budget shortfall requiring more difficult decisions.

Plus, vouchers are going to devour public school funding when they pass in the wake of this equity agenda.

Anyone who says fcps should not listen to parents should go ask Terry mcauliffe how that turned out.

Are you missing the fact that Fairfax schools have been on the decline for over 20 years? The downward spiral began long ago. Maybe your school escaped it to this point, but that was never going to last forever. Perhaps importing so much poverty wasn't a good idea.

Some schools are still great. That may not be the case for much longer, though. Mediocrity for all (it’s the place where the agendas converge of the equity warriors and the grumpy right-wingers stuck in now LMC areas and wanting to burn the whole house down) is the name of the game.

Missing from the conversation is what the centrist majority wants. The extreme school board is strangely in bed with the far right to get it’s equity agenda through. The far right applauds it because it’ll bring down the public schools.

[Anonymous]

While realizing the Hayfield football scandal is about other issues, and a more narrow focus, than everything to do with boundary reviews, the continuing fallout from that keeps making the district and Board look worse and worse, and less and less capable of being trusted about anything to do with redrawing boundaries:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/superintendent-says-buck-stops-with-me-i-m-sorry-but-parents-call-out-public-charade/article_262b4368-b43a-11ef-9a63-0bba378c1b48.html

9 of 12 SB members only just now saw the wisdom of an external investigation that could have dealt with this transparently back in August, Reid admitted at this meeting that the district has one employee checking residency -- and now the SB is going to ask the public to trust them about redrawing boundary lines based on (among other things) claims of overcrowding? And they want the public to believe there's a need to rush and get this done in less than two years?

It's hard to have any confidence in the district or the Board at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a zero sum game. Some schools are currently undesirable to UMC families for one reason or another. For that reason parents should not have significant sway in the process because things will shake out based on the loudest/most politically connected parents' interests not what's best for the county as a whole.

It is not anywhere close to a zero sum game. It is a negative sum game.

Parents/families want reliability in their schools. When you take that away, you take away a ton of demand for FCPS, and it becomes a downward spiral. Tax rolls decrease, and all of a sudden there is much more of a budget shortfall requiring more difficult decisions.

Plus, vouchers are going to devour public school funding when they pass in the wake of this equity agenda.

Anyone who says fcps should not listen to parents should go ask Terry mcauliffe how that turned out.

Are you missing the fact that Fairfax schools have been on the decline for over 20 years? The downward spiral began long ago. Maybe your school escaped it to this point, but that was never going to last forever. Perhaps importing so much poverty wasn't a good idea.

Some schools are still great. That may not be the case for much longer, though. Mediocrity for all (it’s the place where the agendas converge of the equity warriors and the grumpy right-wingers stuck in now LMC areas and wanting to burn the whole house down) is the name of the game.

Missing from the conversation is what the centrist majority wants. The extreme school board is strangely in bed with the far right to get it’s equity agenda through. The far right applauds it because it’ll bring down the public schools.

You have thaf backwards.

The conservatives have been fighting this school board path for years, while the bulk of the dems either ignored them (centrist dems) or called them vile names and came after their kids (leadership dems and left wingers)

Conservatives are happy to finally have the centrist dems of Fairfx County to finally wake up and join us in this fight for our kids' well being. Welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a zero sum game. Some schools are currently undesirable to UMC families for one reason or another. For that reason parents should not have significant sway in the process because things will shake out based on the loudest/most politically connected parents' interests not what's best for the county as a whole.

It is not anywhere close to a zero sum game. It is a negative sum game.

Parents/families want reliability in their schools. When you take that away, you take away a ton of demand for FCPS, and it becomes a downward spiral. Tax rolls decrease, and all of a sudden there is much more of a budget shortfall requiring more difficult decisions.

Plus, vouchers are going to devour public school funding when they pass in the wake of this equity agenda.

Anyone who says fcps should not listen to parents should go ask Terry mcauliffe how that turned out.

Are you missing the fact that Fairfax schools have been on the decline for over 20 years? The downward spiral began long ago. Maybe your school escaped it to this point, but that was never going to last forever. Perhaps importing so much poverty wasn't a good idea.

Some schools are still great. That may not be the case for much longer, though. Mediocrity for all (it’s the place where the agendas converge of the equity warriors and the grumpy right-wingers stuck in now LMC areas and wanting to burn the whole house down) is the name of the game.

Missing from the conversation is what the centrist majority wants. The extreme school board is strangely in bed with the far right to get it’s equity agenda through. The far right applauds it because it’ll bring down the public schools.

You have thaf backwards.

The conservatives have been fighting this school board path for years, while the bulk of the dems either ignored them (centrist dems) or called them vile names and came after their kids (leadership dems and left wingers)

Conservatives are happy to finally have the centrist dems of Fairfx County to finally wake up and join us in this fight for our kids' well being. Welcome.

Come up with better SB candidates next time - ditch the obsession with library books and guns and focus on stability, academics, and sound management of the capital budget. It doesn’t sound sexy and it won’t get you on Fox with Laura Ingraham but it’s what we care about.

- independent voter who already stopped voting “blue no matter who”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually most of the cut-outs and islands have come from previous school board members themselves or from developers of new neighborhoods. Parents could probably do a better job!

Haha. Like the parents would ever agree with each other on this matter.

Sometimes common sense parents do a better job. That happened in one boundary process involving base schools and AAP. School board member was political and an impedimemt to the process. However common sense scope issues on other program locations and including limited specific other base schools outside the scope were not followed based on political stuff. That political residue is still there. Same names for some of it could pop up in the 2*24=48 pyramid or most likely in appointees or various groups represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually most of the cut-outs and islands have come from previous school board members themselves or from developers of new neighborhoods. Parents could probably do a better job!

Haha. Like the parents would ever agree with each other on this matter.

Sometimes common sense parents do a better job. That happened in one boundary process involving base schools and AAP. School board member was political and an impedimemt to the process. However common sense scope issues on other program locations and including limited specific other base schools outside the scope were not followed based on political stuff. That political residue is still there. Same names for some of it could pop up in the 2*24=48 pyramid or most likely in appointees or various groups represented.

No idea what you’re trying to say here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yeah, let the out of state no bid consultants who have never done anything like this before who advertised themselves as being broadband consultants do the work. They are much more qualified to determine the fate of FCPS students than parents.

In a sea of dumb SJW ideas…

The consultants are only here for cover. Reid an the school board have made their decisions. Parents are only being given lip service. How many times does this same shell game have to be played before Fairfax county voters and parents catch on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yeah, let the out of state no bid consultants who have never done anything like this before who advertised themselves as being broadband consultants do the work. They are much more qualified to determine the fate of FCPS students than parents.

In a sea of dumb SJW ideas…

The consultants are only here for cover. Reid a the school board have made their decisions. Parents are only being given lip service. How many times does this same shell game have to be played before Fairfax county voters and parents catch on?

Since you’re so omniscient, fill us in on these already-made decisions.

[Anonymous]

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

You’re making assumptions as to why schools are under-enrolled. Sometimes the neighborhoods just lose kids and need more students to shore them up. Ask Langley; its boundaries have been expanded time and time again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

At the high school level there should be zero transfer options for languages. That program/course availability should be at academies. If that decreases the enrollment in any specific language so be it. Russian for example is only offered at TJ and Langley so Langley might get AP to AP school transfers. Arabic is at 2 high school academies plus maybe 4 base schools.

Overcapacity high school sites like Chantilly and Marshall should not have languages at the academies. Those are just classrooms- no labs or stuff needed for instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

At the high school level there should be zero transfer options for languages. That program/course availability should be at academies. If that decreases the enrollment in any specific language so be it. Russian for example is only offered at TJ and Langley so Langley might get AP to AP school transfers. Arabic is at 2 high school academies plus maybe 4 base schools.

Overcapacity high school sites like Chantilly and Marshall should not have languages at the academies. Those are just classrooms- no labs or stuff needed for instruction.

You can’t allow it for some and not others. However, you could disallow for all.